Group items tagged

I think it's ridiculous that Romney has "changed" his standpoint on abortion. To me it seems that changing your "pro-life/pro-choice" standpoint publicly is to win certain votes. I remember during Romney's RNC speech he brought up protecting the sanctity of life right after a huge applause and I'm sure everyone did not hear him. His wobbly shifts on his position on abortion is something that bothers me.

This was an interesting article but I feel like it simplified a lot of the issues that Obama was being criticized on. While he didn't create as many jobs as he set out to, he did create many and it seems nit picky to me to discredit him because they were "low-income" jobs.

This article isn't discrediting Obama because the jobs he created were "low-income" jobs, but because the many low-income jobs that he created replaced the middle wage jobs that were there before they were lost during the recession.

What's most interesting about this article to me is that the Huffington Post, which is very liberal, is very openly criticizing Obama. I think this says a lot for their integrity and not just reporting news that supports their opinions.

I thought this article summarized pretty much how I felt about the debate. They both did a good job and were fairly evenly matched but in my opinion, Biden may have done just a tiny bit better. That being said the poll asking people who they thought won (taken of the people who watched the debate) confirmed my suspicion that many republican viewers thought Ryan did as well, if not better than Biden.

I thought Biden and Ryan's debate was completely different from the presidential debate. I know many democrats were disappointed in Obama's lack of critical response to Romney's points, arguing that he could have shot them all down easily and logically. Biden seemed to compensate for that completely, making Ryan seem like he didn't really know what he was talking about. What I thought was interesting about this debate, though, was that who won seems completely subjective based on personality equally if not more than policy. Many might thing Ryan won because Biden was laughing in a perhaps rude way the whole time, while many might think Biden won because he deserved to laugh at Ryan for saying things that didn't entirely make sense. I think this almost has more to do with personality preference than policy preference because in our debate chat room, where most of us were democrats, there were arguments both that the laughing was rude and that the laughing was called for, passionate, and helpful in Biden's claim. Overall, Biden's casualness was a great contrast to the formal, almost scripted attitude of Ryan. This is why the debate seems to be so varied in public response, and to me, why it depends on what the individual listener wants to hear to decide who really won the debate.

In my opinion, Biden won, but it certainly wasn't a runaway like it was for Romney. I agree with you all that they were pretty evenly matched, and that a lot of who won is based on who you already like. I don't think that this debate will have a significant impact on the election.

I believe that Biden won for his ability to: connect to the viewers, shoot down all of Ryan's ideas, and emphasize all of the good things that have happened under his and Obama's office. Like Sabrina said, however, Biden did not blow away the competition like Romney did to Obama, but he did seem to do better than Ryan. Also, like Sabrina said, this debate won't mean much to the voters even though they did raise some policy issues.

Personally, this debate did mean something to me as a voter. It did not make me want to change my position or anything, but it did boost my confidence in my already-made choices. I am wondering if this has become more of the reasoning behind these debates, or if they are still created to make people decide on who they are voting for?

I agree with you Savannah on the clear liberal sway seen on the internet today, I believe this shows an interesting trend for the future of our politics. I also look forward to changing technology and seeing how politics will adapt to the new things that will come into our lives in the future.

I think you're spot on Savannah with your comment that the internet sways liberal because of the younger people. We had a speaker come into Urban this past week to talk about some campaigning strategies. In his company, they used targeted mailing to campaign but we got to a discussion about media. He made a good point that the people who are following Obama or Romney on twitter, fb etc. are likely affiliated with that party already. I have so much to do online and it's already distracting. So I know for me, I don't really seek out political "tweets" and what not so it doesn't really lure me in.

I as well am not really lured by political advertising on the internet, I may notice, but not to the extent where I would change my vote or consider a different candidate. I do agree though that the media had more of an impact in the 2008 election, but because it was such a different election from what America was use to.

This is an interesting point. When thinking of what Danielle brought up, that the internet is more a place where already-passionate liberals and conservatives express themselves (rather than a place where parties try to advertise their beliefs), I see that the question changes from "can the internet persuade an individual to like a certain party" to "what is the power of the internet in terms of political advantage". By this I mean that, if the internet does sway to the left, does this affect society? Who benefits from having a similar political view to that of the internet? Is the older generation who might be more conservative being left out in any way?

I would hate to think that Obama payed tribute to Chavez to strengthen his campaign. I think as president, it seems in his "job description" to honor the National Monument. And sure, this might have given him an opportunity to re-connect with some Hispanic voters, but I don't think it's fair to constantly scrutinize every "nice" move he or Romney does.

Of course there will be suspicion in generous actions performed by either candidate in terms of their how genuine they are, just as colleges might be suspicious about the multitudes extracurricular activities we list on our applications. I would say this move is more positive than negative, regardless of whether or not he actually felt passionate about it, one because it is better than just ignoring certain cultures that exist in America, and two because "empathy" (as we read in Obama's book) and cultural connection is something Obama emphasizes in his campaign.

I agree and I think it is impossible to say the tribute was for one specific reason or another. Avoiding the question of if it was for his campaign or not, I think it sounded like an inspirational and nice event.

I actually can't wait until thursday's debate, I think it will be just as exciting as the first one was. Ryan is extremely intelligent and a statistical slammer, so it should be interesting to see how he debates.

This article is very interesting because it shows you something you don't normally see and now that it has been revealed to you, you'll see it every time Romney or Obama give a speech. Now that I will look for these in speeches, I will hopefully be able to associate each different hand motion with a certain topic or idea given. This article will help me and those who read it to understand both candidate's speeches.

I loved this article Abby! I agree with James in that I will now be paying attention to these gestures. I found it interesting that Romney is thought to have a harder time seeming "personable" and "relatable" yet from what I saw, his gestures seem warmer than those of Obama. The article also mentioned this when they suggested Romney's gestures were "free-flowing". I wonder if Obama or Romney have any idea that they repeatedly make these motions, or if it's totally subconscious.

Wow this was super interesting, I as well noticed their gestures while the candidates debated. The gestures that stood out to me the most was the pointer because both of the candidates used this motion. Although they both use this gesture it means different for each. Obama's was more control and firm. To me it made him seem strong and confidant because it made him seem as if he was in control. Romney's movement was more relaxed which made me comfortable as well because he seemed calm and relaxed.

Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s

ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.

Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...

Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.

In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.

Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co

But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

The article says "Democrats are likely to look at the economy with rose-colored glasses because they want their candidate to win in November" which doesn't really address anything. If they believe that the economy is bad and that Obama isn't going to fix it, why are they going to vote for him? The article doesn't give any reasoning at all for why people would want to vote for Obama, just makes them seem crazy for wanting to do so. As for your questions, James, I think they did pick the best candidate at the time. I just think that Obama is a really remarkable politician and public speaker, whether you agree with him or not, and Romney can't compete with that. That, and many people really do believe that Obama is improving the economy.

I'm not seeing the true point of this article. I think the "rose-colored glasses" refer to people that will support Obama regardless of the campaign. I think that there are people who like what he has done and trust him so will vote for him regardless of the economic state right now...but is that hard to believe? Not really. He probably has some advantage from winning people's trust in the past 4 years.

Yeah I agree. I don't think the article went into enough detail with enough facts to convince me of anything. Of course people who support Obama and want him to win are going to see him in a better way then people supporting Romney. And I think depending which part of Obama you choose to focus on, there is a good and bad just like with the policies or actions of any other politician.

Sabrina, I disagree with you in just about nearly everything that you said. The economy is not getting better. He's put more long term damage on us than I thought imaginable 4 years ago. I don't think that he has helped our economy, and here is why: Yes, he did help save us from total collapse, but even then, it wasn't him, it was TARP, signed into law under Bush, which even permitted his actions as acceptable. Gas prices have raised by 1.30/gal and the amount of americans on food stamps has doubled. Sure, short-term unemployment is down from a couple of weeks ago, but the fact of the matter is that at this time in 2008 it was 13M, and it is now 22M. Yes, I understand that Obama has to deal with the Bush era's layover, but in 2016 he will have only improved this number slightly to 19M, not nearly enough to say that he is helping our economy. Under Obama, income inequality was greater than in 2008. Long term unemployment rates have doubled, which in my opinion, is a better indicater of long term well being. The big 5 made 48% of our GDP this year, compared to 32% in 2008, thanks to Dod Franklin. He's increasing middle class tax burden by about 3,000$ with the passing of Obamacare. ACA will increase our debt by 500M a year because it calls for 1T in funds, but only allows tax raises totalling half of that, causing our budget deficit to increase rapidly. At current rates, excluding the increases in deficit from ACA and others, in 2016 our spending will be 130% of our GDP, which is simply instable and can in no way be considered 'helpful' to our economy. Let's not forget the high intrest on our debt, so this number will only drastically increase in the long run. Some of you will be paying taxes by 2016, and as a taxpayer you will owe the government around 220K apeice, because at that point in time an even lower fraction of our population will be paying taxes than currently. I do not like Obama as a politician at

He can't change his policies but he can change the way he expresses his policies, and that's half the battle. Also, (unsurprisingly) Romney acts as if it was not Obama's lack of energy at the debate that made him lose his lead but his policies, but it's not like the debate was the first time the people had heard these policies.

Obama was definitely rusty compared to a fresh-out-of-the-primaries Romney and I believe that if he wants to generate the same levels of enthusiasm that he had four years ago, he has to raise his own energy levels.

I know that it may seem horrible for me to say, but I do not view Gay Rights as a "key issue." I am all for the protection of the rights of the LGBTQ community, but I would not say that it is one of the most important issues at the moment. I believe that homosexual equality is necessary in a perfect country, but I do not believe that it is more important than any of the other issues on that list. The Gay Rights movement has many supporters because there is a visible opposition, but I think that we should focus on the current state of our economy or the current state of our planet before we put a large amount of effort towards any social issue. Mind you, these are just my thoughts. I support the cause, but I would rather see Climate Change solved, first.

In this article, Romney expresses views on energy that oppose actions he made towards conserving energy in the past as state Governor. This seems to go along with a theme of wishy-washyness of beliefs that Romney displays throughout his campaigning this election season. Do you think that his lack of faith in his "beliefs" he is campaigning for will affect his presidency if he wins the election?

I feel like in a way his lack of faith in his beliefs make him seem less confident and secure. The perception he is giving to the people is confusing because relating this to Abby's article about how he and Paul Ryan feel extremely confident in winning the election. This is problematic. The way I see him at least is not confident.

What Romney's wishy-washiness says to me is that he really, really wants to be president. His own ideals matter much less to him than picking the views that will appeal to the most voters. This could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing; he's either not faithful to anything, really, or he is willing to cater to the needs of the majority.

Romney's back and forth ideals also concern me Yadira. I want a president that is totally confident in his beliefs and doesn't sway. I don't think it has to do with him not being confident necessarily but I think it makes him look less trustworthy. I think this will make voters feel uneasy...