2012 US Presidential Election

[Nikkoru]

Libya was closer to Kosovo than Iraq in my view, although all military interventions have a similar ethos to them.  There is definite hypocrisy -- if you accept the reasons they've given for Libya as a justification for use of force -- when dealing with Syria and Bahrain... that's endemic to American foreign policy, sadly.

Still, hypocritical or not, Libya was pretty cheap and easily achieved success in its mission -- if Iraq went down so well do you really think anyone would've cared, save some teeth-grinding leftists and libertarian intellectuals?

[5Cats]

Careful 5cats, challenge a liberal's way of thinking and you will be subject to incessant foam-at-the-mouth accusations and insults.

Oh I hear that! All one needs to do is "not agree 100%" and you're in for name-calling like it was kindergarden! One need look no further than this thread for evidence!

So in what category would you put "end the war in Iraq", Monkeyfinger?

@Burk: Considering he followed Bush's Timeline to the day? I'd call it: "Bush Ended The War In Iraq"
But, as @monkeyfinger pointed out, Obama didn't keep his promise to end it in2009, so: broken.

And I'll take diplomacy over saber-rattling...

@zherok: Invading Libya is "diplomacy" now? Interesting...
Might have been OK if BHO didn't violate the US Constitution while doing it, eh?
And criticising Romney for what he MIGHT do, while ignoreing the fact that Obama ALREADY DID DO IT is... very liberal of you!

USA didn't start the war in Libya...

@Burk: No one claims "Obama started it" that's typical misdirection/strawman!
Obama went to war, period! Invaded Libya, period! Didn't follow the CotUS, period!
Do TRY to stay on topic dear boy...

"I didn't break into that house and steal stuff, someone else broke in! (and then I stole stuff)" Ah! So innocent!

@Nikkoru: For Iraq II the Media Frenzy began even before the first shot was fired. The "protestors" were out in droves from day one. Bush could have won the war, without a single death, and had the troops home by Christmas (a famous WW1 promise!) and they STILL would have crucified him!

Obama? The media = supports! Protests = none! Funny that...

[Burkingam]

So in what category would you put "end the war in Iraq", Monkeyfinger?

@Burk: Considering he followed Bush's Timeline to the day? I'd call it: "Bush Ended The War In Iraq"
But, as @monkeyfinger pointed out, Obama didn't keep his promise to end it in2009, so: broken.

I was responding to Monkeyfinger, not you. There is a fundamental difference what he is arguing for and what you said. Monkeyfinger said that all of Obama's policies are either bad, unimportant or broken. You said they were all about bush being bad. Those are completely different statements and hence they don't warren the same rebuttals.

Here is, again, my rebuttal to YOUR statement:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

USA didn't start the war in Libya...

@Burk: No one claims "Obama started it" that's typical misdirection/strawman!
Obama went to war, period! Invaded Libya, period! Didn't follow the CotUS, period!
Do TRY to stay on topic dear boy...

Acehigh is calling Obama an hypocrite for participating to the war in Libya even though he opposed the war in Iraq and promised to end it. I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing. Do you understand what hypocrisy is? It's acting against what you profess to promote. Since the roles of USA in the wars in Libya and the wars in Iraq were fundamentally different, there is no hypocrisy in supporting one while opposing the other. There in no strawman to be found.

You you still don't understand what I'm saying maybe you should try to read me a few times to see if you manage to assimilate such complicated concepts.

[zherok]

And criticising Romney for what he MIGHT do, while ignoreing the fact that Obama ALREADY DID DO IT is... very liberal of you!

He's hardly perfect, but a better alternative than Romney by far. Conservatives are fixated on the narrative that he's the worst president ever, but it only works in their head. It's not exactly hard to think of a far worse one even in my lifetime, nevermind ever. And while we're not ignoring stuff, remember which party decided making Obama a one term president was the most pressing priority.

And I agree, we should all be wary at taking Romney at his word. Feel free to fault Obama on his record, but don't pretend Romney gets a pass on what he says he wants to do. "Anyone but Obama" is not enough.

Bush could have won the war, without a single death, and had the troops home by Christmas (a famous WW1 promise!) and they STILL would have crucified him!

Maybe because we shouldn't have been there in the first place? Bush used momentum from 9/11 to start a war with a country that had nothing to do with it. The countries with actual connections to the perpetrators were secondary priorities at best.

[5Cats]

Do you understand what hypocrisy is?

No @Burkie, and I don't know what sarcasm is either! Please, do educate me! And this thing you humans call... kissing...

Since the roles of USA in the wars in Libya and the wars in Iraq were fundamentally different, there is no hypocrisy in supporting one while opposing the other.

LOLZ! Gosh you're funny! Lets lok at all 3 wars and who supported what, shall we?

Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN,  NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.

So Nato runs the Afghan war, Bush is to blame.
Nato runs the Libya war, Obama is NOT to blame!
It must be... The Constitution's fault!

It doesn't matter WHO started it, Obama sent the missiles, bombers and troops! It's HIS responsibility ALONE because he didn't even get Congressional approval!
Srsly, you be trollin?

...remember which party decided making Obama a one term president was the most pressing priority.

That's RIGHT @zherok! Because in 2004 the Democrats wanted Bush to win! It's the opposition party's DUTY to re-elect the OTHER SIDE'S candidate!
I plumb forgot! How silly to think they'd want their candidate to win! Those stupid Republicans! The Democrats would NEVER do that!
End sarcasm...

And I agree, we should all be wary at taking Romney at his word.

Hell yes we should be wary! He's a politician! Our job is to HOLD HIM to his word.

Feel free to fault Obama on his record

That's why he's got to GO! His record is Ghod-awful. He lied, his party violated the Constitution, HE violated it! Your children have 6+ trillion MORE debt on their heads than 4 years ago: Obama promised it would be (apx) 1.2 max! That alone should boot him from office.
Obama HIMSELF said he should only be a one-term President if he failed to fix the economy in 3 years, and he has failed by ANY measure.

Maybe because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?

The reasons for "enforcing the UN articles of cease-fire" on Iraq take a looong time to explain and have NOTHING to do with 'weapons of mass destruction' being found or not.
Another time, or a PM, but this is an election thread and even I don't want to stray THAT far off topic! Lolz!

"Bad Obama Bad Obama, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they vote for Romney?"

[zherok]

That's RIGHT @zherok! Because in 2004 the Democrats wanted Bush to win! It's the opposition party's DUTY to re-elect the OTHER SIDE'S candidate!
I plumb forgot! How silly to think they'd want their candidate to win! Those stupid Republicans! The Democrats would NEVER do that!
End sarcasm...

Don't be daft. Your party put a huge effort into gridlocking the government, practicing brinkmanship, an unprecedented number of filibusters, and even stating the first day that their priority was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. If you think anything the Democrats did in comparison was equal, you weren't paying attention.

Hell yes we should be wary! He's a politician! Our job is to HOLD HIM to his word.

Romney hasn't even been able to hold the same opinion for more than a month at a time, never mind trying him out just because he's different than Obama.

That's why he's got to GO! His record is Ghod-awful. He lied, his party violated the Constitution, HE violated it! Your children have 6+ trillion MORE debt on their heads than 4 years ago: Obama promised it would be (apx) 1.2 max! That alone should boot him from office.
Obama HIMSELF said he should only be a one-term President if he failed to fix the economy in 3 years, and he has failed by ANY measure.

The economy has improved under Obama. Government has grown slower than any recent presidency. Yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT while actively obstructing him is a shit metric for Republicans to judge him on.

And here's why Romney is such a joke: cutting Obamacare at this point is reported to increase the deficit, not lower it, according to the CBO. It's pretty much a token gesture, kick the Democrat's program (modeled after his own program) aside, and then offer vague promises to do it one better. Ryan's plan doesn't even begin to par down the deficit for decades, and seems a lot like it's aimed at appeasing current seniors at the cost of the generation behind them. But that's not even it, you toss the revenue cuts and the increased military spending, and how is Romney supposed to be serious about the deficit here?

It's nothing new. Republicans turn into deficit hawks when a Democrat is in power, but it suddenly becomes unimportant when they have control. Romney can't even be bothered to wait till he's in office to tip his hand; instead opting to see if he can softsell a plan that doesn't even try to justify how it'd actually add up.

I'll take Obama's record over that. Romney would have to offer something that at least pretends it's got something more behind it than seeing income inequality rise.

The reasons for "enforcing the UN articles of cease-fire" on Iraq take a looong time to explain and have NOTHING to do with 'weapons of mass destruction' being found or not.
Another time, or a PM, but this is an election thread and even I don't want to stray THAT far off topic! Lolz!

Yeah, it was certainly a bit too time consuming for Bush too, since that definitely wasn't the pretense he went under. And he certainly tried to provide evidence of WMDs so far as I can recall....

[xfreidax]

Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN,  NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.

UN sanctioned? Care to point me to the appropriate security council resolutions?

[sdedalus83]

Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN,  NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.

UN sanctioned? Care to point me to the appropriate security council resolutions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

The invasion wasn't, but the occupation was retroactively sanctioned.

[xfreidax]

If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. 

[Nikkoru]

Libya was supported by the UN, NATO, and the Arab league. Just about the only one who didn't vote for it was Congress.

I would agree that that shouldn't be and executive power has increased dramatically as time marches on by use of sketchy legal arguments, particularly since 9/11. The fact remains Obama didn't have to seek out Congress according to an astounding amount of legal precedent -- there have been dozens of similar actions taken without Congressional approval since the Republic was formed. Notably, in Korea, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Panama, Libya (in 86), and Lebanon -- and that's just in the last 60 years or so -- all without Congressional approval. Let's face it, it's easier for a sitting President to go to war backhandedly than a woman to get an abortion legally in most Red States.

Outside of ignoring Congress, Obama carried on most of Bush's new police powers. Romney, such as he is, has approved everything of consequence Obama has done regarding this. I don't think anyone short of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich is going to permanently limit the executive branch with greater restrictions, at least intentionally.

As I've said though, it doesn't matter. Americans support war when the cost isn't prohibitive and you can give a half-assed reason why. The legal justifications are more or less white noise for Libya now, something leftists and libertarians intellectuals give a damn about while everyone else has patted themselves on the back for work well done as they did with Kosovo. Iraq would've been the same, Saddam Hussein being dead and oil for all, it was epic incompetency that makes it stick out like a sore thumb.

Libya was irrelevant to me, personally.

[sdedalus83]

If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. 

Honestly, the UN as an entity said nothing.  Individual members and Kofi Annan criticized the invasion but they never officially acted to prevent it.

What we think of as the Iraq war is everything that occurred after the invasion and the UN authorized it as a way of putting responsibility solely on the US and UK.  Had Bush not been a cunt(i.e. a front for Cheney's attempt to privatize war) and appealed to the UN for cooperative oversight of Iraq, no one would remember that the invasion took place without explicit UN authorization.  Hell, if a UN occupation had gone smoothly, people would have probably forgiven, if not forgotten, Colin Powell's little charade as an 'honest' mistake.  Unfortunately that didn't happen, Bush's attempt to transform Iraq into a "bastion of freedom" failed miserably, and we spent an extra few trillion trying to preempt an Iraqi civil war rather than just waiting to clean up the mess.

[xfreidax]

UN as an entity said and did nothing because both the UK and US have veto powers in the security council. Essentially there was no way to prevent the invasion through the UN. Sure dissenting countries could have brought it up for a vote in the council, but that would just lead to a veto.

If there was no invasion, there would've been no war and subsequent occupation. What I think of as a war is the actual fighting, not what happens afterwards when the government has already been defeated. As far as UN authorisation goes, the only one that matters is for that first act in the conflict, the actual invasion.

Otherwise I agree with most of your points.

[Burkingam]

Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN,  NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.

5Cats, perhaps you are too young to remember or perhaps your world view was filtered through foxnews or others rightwing medias but WTF are you talking about? The UN did exactly the opposite.

I'm now over 50% sure that 5Cats is just trolling.

UN as an entity said and did nothing because both the UK and US have veto powers in the security council. Essentially there was no way to prevent the invasion through the UN. Sure dissenting countries could have brought it up for a vote in the council, but that would just lead to a veto.

If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. 

Honestly, the UN as an entity said nothing.  Individual members and Kofi Annan criticized the invasion but they never officially acted to prevent it.

Which I interpreted at the time as the closest you can get to saying the war was illegal.

[Lillymon]

And here's why Romney is such a joke: cutting Obamacare at this point is reported to increase the deficit, not lower it, according to the CBO. It's pretty much a token gesture, kick the Democrat's program (modeled after his own program) aside, and then offer vague promises to do it one better. Ryan's plan doesn't even begin to par down the deficit for decades, and seems a lot like it's aimed at appeasing current seniors at the cost of the generation behind them. But that's not even it, you toss the revenue cuts and the increased military spending, and how is Romney supposed to be serious about the deficit here?

It's nothing new. Republicans turn into deficit hawks when a Democrat is in power, but it suddenly becomes unimportant when they have control. Romney can't even be bothered to wait till he's in office to tip his hand; instead opting to see if he can softsell a plan that doesn't even try to justify how it'd actually add up.

I'll take Obama's record over that. Romney would have to offer something that at least pretends it's got something more behind it than seeing income inequality rise.

It's interesting that I saw this not long after reading The Economist and seeing their endorsement of Barack Obama for a second term, with part of their reasoning going as follows:

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

That is why I've become such an avid reader, you get the impression they're actually serious about balanced budgets. A rare thing.

Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN,  NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS)

Yeah, just like the individual mandate was clearly unconstitutional. There's no way any court could... oh wait. Have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I've always thought how funny it would be if the United States did somehow end up with a brutal, Soviet-style socialist as President someday. The right-wing would call him a brutal socialist dictator 24/7 only to have everyone else go "Yeah, right, just like that nice centrist Obama you tried to destroy. Give it a rest" as the Fox News lineup all get marched off to gulags. Someone must have a comedy sketch like that already, the joke is just so obvious.

[Ixarku]

Huh, according to this, I live in one of the most important counties (Volusia) in the country, at least as as far as predicting the election's outcome is concerned:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121104/NEWS/311039968/-1/COLUMNS01?p=1&tc=pg

 
I still think Florida is going to go to Romney regardless.  Taking a few guesses, I think the election is going to go something like 274 for Obama, 264 for Romney, with states like Florida, Arizona, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin going to Romney, and Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire going for Obama.

[Nikkoru]

Obama has a substantial lead in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia -- at least in terms of 2 days before the election and general scientific polling trends go. Colorado has a more tepid lead for Obama, while Florida is leaning very slightly for Romney and could be considered a tossup.

You are living, somewhat ironically, in possibly the only State in the Union wherein your vote has any meaning whatsoever.

Although, your assumption that the aforementioned swing-states going for Obama rendering Florida far less relevant in its importance in the electoral college appears to be more or less accurate.

The concept that this election is going to be a toss-up simply doesn't track with reality, it's something some news sources are claiming in order to make the election seem like "edge of your seat" style entertainment, rather than the conclusions of a dispassionate examination of the probabilities. Pointing to the nation-wide polls as if they mean anything is my particular pet peeve.

[Ixarku]

You are living, somewhat ironically, in possibly the only State in the Union wherein your vote has any meaning whatsoever.

Although, your assumption that the aforementioned swing-states going for Obama rendering Florida far less relevant in its importance in the electoral college appears to be more or less accurate.

Which makes it even more ironic to me personally, since I've decided I don't want to vote in this election.  I admit, Iowa & Wisconsin are two states I took a guess on.  Virginia's another one I'm not real sure on.  Considering the field of Republican candidates, yeah, I agree, I don't think the election was ever a toss-up.  I think it will be fairly close, but not enough for any unusual steps to be taken to decide on who's President.

[Tiffanys]

Wasn't Paul Ryan the guy that came up with one of those SOPA/ACTA/PIPA bullshits?

[Burkingam]

Wasn't Paul Ryan the guy that came up with one of those SOPA/ACTA/PIPA bullshits?

Nope,

Edit: Let's just say he was forced to oppose the SOPA bill by the interwebs.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120110/did-the-internet-defeat-paul-ryan

[Xycolian2332]

Why is everyone talking about Obama/Romney?

I know who I'm voting for. (Victor Supreme).

This man is a major Dark Horse in this election, and his policies would be revolutionary if they were enacted.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE