CreateDebate


Debate Info

51
62
Obama Romney
Debate Score:113
Arguments:77
Total Votes:134
Ended:12/01/12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Obama (33)
 
 Romney (44)

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe(4334) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Obama vs Romney

For President in 2012

Obama

Side Score: 51
VS.

Romney

Side Score: 62
Winning Side!
3 points

Who would I vote for? Neither. I dislike Obama immensely, and Romney is an imbecile. That said, I can't see Romney defeating Obama unless Obama does some really stupid things in the next year.

Side: Obama
3 points

In the Miss America Pageant, we get to choose from 50+ and for the president, we get a few idiots. More disturbing is that there is no "none of the above" columns so that we can tell them, "This is not working for us so try again" Obama is obviously really bad for our country and Romney is just as bad and a few cookies short.

Side: Obama

You can vote a ballot with no selection for President - or even write in someone else or write in "none of the above" if you want.

Side: Obama
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

He is an idiot......and been doing dumb, stupid stuff ever since he took office.

He has proven that he is incapable of guiding this country.

Not a fan of Romney...or any politician for that matter......thats why I am going with Cain.

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: "Romney is an imbecile".

Liber. You say Romney is an imbecile. Romney gave the valedictorian speech when he graduated with an English Degree, then he graduated at the top of both his Harvard MBA program, and at the top of his Harvard Law Class...

So what do you mean when you say he is "an imbecile". Are you saying that compared to you, he is stupid? What makes you smarter than him? Have you risen to the top of 2 corporations? Become a governor? Turned around the Olympics? Are these small accomplishments compared to you?

You must be pretty impressive, for him to be an "imbecile" compared to you.

Side: Romney
Liber(1730) Disputed
2 points

I couldn't care less if he gave a speech or not. His critical thinking skills are poor and his line of reasoning is flawed; ergo, he is - so far as I am concerned - an imbecile.

Are you saying that compared to you, he is stupid?

Yes I am.

What makes you smarter than him?

I've a purer level of reasoning. I have transcended the petty levels of philosophical thought which he has reached.

Have you risen to the top of 2 corporations? Become a governor?

I have never tried; nor have I ever wanted to do so.

Are these small accomplishments compared to you?

Accomplishments do not equal genius.

Side: Obama
1 point

dats so factual!!!! i agree with u dude!!... but i think Obama certainly is merely Oppurtunist, and a Low quality Leader to have!!!

Side: Romney
1 point

Well, If anything Obama is the imbecile, and Romney is just misinformed or misguided.

Side: Romney
2 points

Obama. Romney is, in my opinion, is one of the worst things that could happen to the country. Everything he stands for regarding social programs is wrong, he has proven himself to be a cutthroat capitalist who cares nothing for the worker, his religious zealousness can do nothing but harm the country since he obviously cannot separate himself from it enough to be able to lead from a position of law vs. theology.

Obama has made many, many errors the largest of which is being unable to contend with the republican senate, but of the two he is obviously the least harmful choice.

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: "he has proven himself to be a cutthroat capitalist who cares nothing for the worker"

From his website: "http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration"

Make The Temporary WORKER Visa System Functional:

As president, Mitt Romney will make the system for bringing in temporary agricultural WORKERS and other seasonal workers functional for both employers and immigrants. We should get rid of unnecessary requirements that delay issuance of a visa, and we should speed the processing of applications.

Mitt Romney will work with Congress, states, and employers to properly set the cap on non-agricultural temporary worker visas. Many tourist-oriented businesses in the United States rely on these WORKERS and would have to cut back or cease operations if there are not enough visas.

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Has capitalism or communism done more for the worker? Did China have more success when it was Communist or Capitalist? Is North Korea (Communist) or South Korea (Capitalist) more successful?

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

A cutthroat capitalist is better than a closet socialist

In a free society, even cutthroat capitalist have to provide goods or services that people want. If people don't want the product of a capitalist, they will go out of business. However socialist take taxes at the point of a gun (If you don't want to "pay your fair share", an amount of money that a bureaucrat decides, then you will go to jail. If you use violence to escape jail, you will be shot). In a bureaucracy a government agency doesn't have to provide its intended purpose with any measurable. It takes on a life of its own. It can exist just so people feel good about themselves, independent of any actual good that it does. It can exist so that people have careers, and move up the lader, without proving its worth to society. Even a cutthroat capitalist has to prove their worth every day, by continuing to make products or services that people want.

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Supporting extreme public sector unions isn't the only way of showing that you "care" about the worker.

Romney does care about "the worker". The unemployment rate is one of the main reasons Romney decided to run for office.

Obama "caring" about the worker has not "helped" the worker...

"Caring" is less important than "helping".

Cutting red tape is a way of helping the worker.

Supporting small businesses is a way of helping the worker.

Standing up to China, when they steal our copyrights, is a way of helping the American worker.

Romney acknowledges the need for regulation in protecting people from bad aspects of the free market.

Obama is the one who showed that he doesn't care about "the worker" when he stopped the excel pipeline.

Obama is the one who showed the he doesn't care about "the worker" when the EPA enacts extreme job killing regulations.

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Over the years, unions have made extraordinarily important contributions to American society. Many of the protections and benefits enjoyed by workers in the 21st century are the result of sacrifices and struggles and hard-won battles fought by unions in an earlier era. But today, the effects of unionization have changed in ways that need to be recognized. Too often, unions drive up costs and introduce rigidities that harm competitiveness and frustrate innovation.

The statistics tell an unkind story. Studies conducted by non-partisan scholars have shown that labor unions reduce investment and slow job growth. Right-to-Work states have added millions of jobs over the past decade while states with pro-union policies have shed nearly a million jobs. In a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans said that labor unions “mostly hurt” the American economy.

Yet as unionization becomes less and less popular—union membership in the private sector has declined from 36 percent in the 1950s to less than 7 percent today—Big Labor is fighting harder and harder to maintain its power. The question is: whose interests should come first, those of workers and businesses or those of organized labor?

OBAMA'S FAILURE

In the midst of an economic crisis, with 24 million people needing work, policies that strengthen the hand of labor unions at the expense of both businesses and workers are probably the last thing the country has needed. But President Obama, in political debt to labor leaders who have funneled union funds to the coffers of the Democratic Party and who are vital to his reelection bid, is willing and eager to press forward with Big Labor’s agenda.

He pursued “Card Check” legislation that would have stripped workers of the right to vote by secret ballot on whether to unionize. He issued an order requiring workers on stimulus projects to become union members. He appointed Big Labor cronies to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) where they have wreaked havoc on the law. Perhaps the best known example is the agency’s decision to bring charges against Boeing—the nation’s largest exporter—for opening a billion-dollar manufacturing facility and hiring over 1,000 new workers in a Right-to-Work state.

Far from contributing to economic recovery, the Obama administration’s highly politicized labor policies have instead dampened business investment and made the employment climate worse. Overall, it is a familiar story from the annals of American politics: favors were given and favors were repaid, and the American people lost out in the transaction.

MITT'S PLAN

Mitt Romney, with his extensive experience in both business and government, has a keen understanding of labor relations. He recognizes, as he himself has written, that “[a]t their best, labor unions have always fought for the rights of workers, and generations of Americans have been better off for it.” But he also recognizes that the interests of union management can diverge from those of the very workers they purport to serve.

Free Enterprise

As president, Mitt Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. As they hire, businesses should not have to worry that a politicized federal agency will rewrite the rules of the employment game without warning and without regard for the law.

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law

Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

Free Choice

Mitt Romney believes in the right of workers to join a union or to not join a union. To exercise that right freely, workers must have access to all the relevant facts they need to make an informed decision. This means hearing from both the union about the potential benefits and from management about potential costs. This also means being able to act on that decision in the privacy of the ballot booth.

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Free Speech

As matters currently stand, unions can take money directly from the paychecks of American workers and spend it on politicking—each election cycle, unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars. In non-Right-to-Work states, employees have little choice but to watch their money go toward such expenditures, even if they do not support the union and its political agenda. The result is the creation of an enormously powerful interest group whose influence is disproportionate to its actual support and whose priorities are fundamentally misaligned with those of businesses and workers—and thus with the needs of the economy.

Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: Romney "cares nothing for the worker". Edmund Burke said: "it is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare".

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

"Romney's religious zealousness can do nothing but harm the country since he obviously cannot separate himself from it enough to be able to lead from a position of law vs theology"

Romney has argued forcefully for the separation of church and state

August 5th, 2007 Romney got in an argument with a radio DJ. He said; "My church says I can't drink alcohol, right? OK, should I say, as governor of Massachusetts, we are stopping alcohol sales? No. My religion is for me and how I live my life. So don't confuse what I do, as a member of my faith, with what I think ought to be done by government."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3449308&page;=1#.UCCIBE2PXpc

In his Religion in America speech he said: "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion".

For a video of the debate, and transcript go here:

http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21958216/Jan%20Mickelson

Romney said: "But your not giving me the opportunity to explain to you that my faith has very strong beliefs that if I commit an abortion, encourage an abortion… I was beaten up in Boston because I pointed out time and again that I encouraged girls not to get abortions. That I told them to have adoptions. I have never done anything that violates the principles of my Church, in that regards, I’ve made other mistakes, but in that regards. But the Church does not say that a member of our Church has to be apposed to allowing choice in society. Therefore there are Mormon democrats. There is a democratic party in Massa… in Utah, filled with Mormons, and the Church doesn’t say their wrong, their being excommunicated, no because it says we are vehemently apposed to abortion, ourselves, and for ourselves but we allow other people to make their own choice. Politically, I disagree with that view. I looked at it and said, you know what, that’s wrong, and its not a Mormon thing, it’s a secular position to say you know what, I was wrong, we should have in society a prohibition on abortion in the following circumstances. But its not violating my faith let me assure you."

Romney graduated at the top of his law school. You honestly think he doesn't understand the difference between the things that his church teaches, and what the requirements of the constitution are, or are you so desperate to oversimplify everyone who disagrees with you, that you will totally ignore any evidence that doesn't already support your predetermined beliefs?

Romney said; "As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Dec 6, 2007

Romney said; "As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Dec 6, 2007

Romney said; "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin." Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Dec 6, 2007

Side: Romney
1 point

Obama because Romney is kind of a nutcase. He makes promises that could never be completed in a 4-year term, such as completing a border that goes along the entire Southern border of the United States.

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Mitt praises a fence, but says he doesn't care if it's a physical fence or a virtual one

Side: Romney
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, don't vote for the guy that breaks his promises:

HEALTH-CARE MANDATES

STATEMENT: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.

HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN

STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health-care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”

RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is ‘agnostic’ about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENT: Then-senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”

BORDER SECURITY

STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” Then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

GUANTANAMO BAY

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

EXPIRATION DATE: November 19, 2009: “Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed.”

MILITARY TRIBUNALS

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”

RECOVERY.GOV

STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009

EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going . . . The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn’t have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009

Side: Romney

Obama has done good work. He may not have stuck with some of the things he said, but this was mainly due to crises. He is the better option.

Side: Obama

Romney is a supporter of robber-baron capitalism at the expense of the poorer majority, having gained his huge amount of wealth outsourcing US jobs to China, where businesses have more freedom, and predictably use that freedom to utilise child labour and wage slavery. He would love nothing better than to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. Also, he's a fucking Moron, I mean, Mormon for Joseph Smith's sake, do you really want a president who believes he has magic underwear?

As for Obama, he is just the lesser of two evils.

But I don't live, in America, so i suppose it's no business of mine, as long as Republicans don't decide to declare war on Britain for it's tyrannical policies of allowing everybody to have healthcare.

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: Also, he's a fucking Moron, I mean, Mormon for Joseph Smith's sake, do you really want a president who believes he has magic underwear?

Romney tells a story when Americans were fighting your ancestors in the revolutionary war. He says:

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

In America we don't judge people solely by their religion. You can be better than that.

Side: Romney
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

In America we don't judge people solely by their religion. You can be better than that.

Yeah, that's why atheists are one of the most distrusted groups in the USA, next to rapists. Don't pretend your country is a haven for freedom of religion, it isn't. It's almost a theocracy, which saddens me as you were one of the first secular nations. In England, you have more religious freedom, which is strange, because we still have a fucking state religion for some reason.

Oh and I couldn't give less of a shit about Christians having little tiffs about who speaks to which god, because as far as I'm concerned, they all believe basically the same thing anyway.

And please stop perpetuating the idea that religious beliefs aren't allowed to be questioned or ridiculed. You'd laugh at a guy who thinks he is a vampire and can turn into a bat at night because his beliefs are quite frankly, ridiculous. I laugh at a man who thinks the almighty creator of the universe not only cares about him, but that he can also send messages to the creator telepathically, and thinks that his underwear is magical and protects him from harm.

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: gained his huge amount of wealth outsourcing US jobs to China, where businesses have more freedom, and predictably use that freedom to utilise child labour and wage slavery

Your talking about Romney's work at Bain? Obama has got a lot of money from people who work in Bain and other companies that do similar work (the Boston Consulting group, etc). So if Romney's work at Bain was really bad, then Obama should give that dirty money back, and stop appointing people who worked at Bain or in private equity to his administration...

Romney did not make his money "exporting jobs to china". Dominoes, Staples, and Sports Authority were all started with help from Romney. Romney created thousands of net USA jobs.

Side: Romney
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

As I also stated, Obama is just the lesser of two evils. If I was American, I'd vote third party for a more bottom left (on the political compass) candidate.

I'm aware Romney has been involved in several businesses, however he has still outsourced thousands of US jobs to China, because apparently that also creates jobs in America. I get a rather blurry view of American politics, living across the pond, so the information I read about Romney's exploits may be distorted.

Side: Obama
1 point

I was actually skeptical at first, but I feel like Obama did a good job of fixing the economical mess left by Bush. More importantly, I think Romney is a complete moron. Possibly dumber than Bush.

Side: Obama
1 point

Well Obama takes in a lot of blame that he doesn't have any control over. Obama cannot control the economy!!! Also many of the bad things that happen in the federal government come from this branch of government known as the legislative branch. Mitt Romney would be a bad choice for our country because he is so out of touch with the majority of the population and cannot run a successful ship that makes for happy passengers. He would be a high disgrace for the United States and we should keep him out of office.

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

re: "Obama cannot control the economy!!!"

Reasons to disagree:

Obama gave millions of dollars to his friends and campaign donors at Solyndra.

Obama stopped the Excel pipeline.

Obama's EPA has drastically hurt the economy.

Obama's added more debt than all the previous presidents put together. The amount of debt has hurt our kid's future for years to come. It is immoral to spend more than we take in.

If Clinton was right to say that George HW Bush was to blame for the economy (remember "its the economy stupid?") than Obama is to blame for this economy. This recovery is taking longer than any other. You can't say that when the country stays in prolonged economic hardships, it is the presidents fault, if an only if it happens to be a republican in office.

Obama spent trillions of dollars on Tarp, Tarp 2, QED1, and QUED2. We still don't know what was in Tarp 1, or Tarp 2, but we do know that good portions of it went to help banks over seas.

Obama controls regulation

President Obama’s expansive agenda has brought the costs of excessive regulation into high-resolution focus. A number of his major initiatives like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare represent a quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden on the American economy. Bizarrely, in the face of our economic travails, the most active regulator is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Obama administration’s war on carbon dioxide—what Time magazine has called “the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history”—is the highest-profile EPA effort. But the EPA also continues to issue endless new regulations touching on countless other forms of economic activity—regulations that drive up costs, hinder investment, and destroy jobs.

In late August of 2011, Cass Sunstein, the White House’s regulatory czar, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal proudly announcing the results of an “unprecedentedly ambitious government-wide review” of regulations. The total annual savings? Approximately $2 billion. To put in context just how small this savings is, compare it to the more than $9 billion in new regulatory costs proposed or implemented by the Obama administration in just the prior month. Even worse, compare it to the estimated $1.75 trillion in regulatory costs that the federal government itself estimates are borne by the American economy each year. If the Obama administration can do no better than a one-tenth-of-one-percent reduction in regulation, it is past time to give up hope that they will ever understand the severity of our economic crisis and the need for fundamental reform.

Side: Romney
1 point

Solyndra

Solyndra was supported by (and benefited) Democrats and Republicans

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

Obama stopped the Excel pipeline.

Incorrect. Parts of the pipeline have proceeded and the rest have been delayed to study the best route and the environmental impact.

EPA has drastically hurt the economy

The EPAs job (and the nation's) is to balance the economy with protection of the commons - which are externalities that many businesses do not factor in without regulation.

Obama's added more debt than all the previous presidents put together.

Incorrect. See my post on the other side for specifics.

It is immoral to spend more than we take in.

Is it immoral to go to war in two countries and give ourselves two tax cuts at the same time then?

Obama spent trillions of dollars on Tarp, Tarp 2, QED1 [sic], and QUED2 [sic]

Tarp - check again at who signed that one… http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h40yrrEcqeJEeVRgcrDXB7egDo2A

Also: "less than $300 billion of that amount went out the door by the time TARP expired; that not a penny went to big banks during the Obama administration; and that those banks repaid taxpayers with interest. "

-ref

Tarp 2 - ?? Not sure what you mean here - nothing that passed was really called TARP 2

Do you mean the bank bailout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 - notice the year

Or the takeover of Fannie and Freddie - also 2008

Or the first auto bailout http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html - same (done with TARP funds)

Or ?)

Quantitative easing was done by the Fed - not the Obama administration

The stimulus that Obama signed was called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

He also modified bailouts to cap executive salaries (with unlimited stock options to encourage companies to recover) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123375514020647787.html

This page says that GOP Congressmen have dubbed the Small Business Lending Fund as TARP 2.0 - the program seems to have been largely successful (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/sblf_additionalcap_sbo.aspx ) - maybe you disagree?

Side: Obama
1 point

What I really don't understand is that most people on here have said "I dislike Obama" or "Obama has been bad for our economy" and haven't really justified themselves. I think Obama has done pretty well considering he had clean up the mess left by the Bush administration.

Side: Obama

Well, if I were going to base this entire election on one political test, I'd vote for Obama. Apparently I agree with 86% of Obama's policies. Which is more than any other candidate I agree with, which I find strange lol. I'll do more research though.

Side: Obama
5 points

If it comes down to this, I'll probably just vote 3rd Party. I don't really see Romney as a candidate who will do anything different from Obama (he'll just spin it to say that it was Republican all along... just like what Obama did).

Side: Romney
3 points

Just look at how the economy has struggled ever since Obama became president! I am no fan of a president whose biggest concern is putting his own face on the dollar bill!

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!

Side: Romney
2 points

I still say abama sucks, I favor romney over most canadates

Side: Romney
1 point

I'm guessing he isn't counting on the support of people who can't even spell his name

 

Romney 2012 - whichever side you're on, so is he...

Side: Obama
2 points

Romney is more likely to balance the budget than Obama

Reasons to agree:

1. Romney has seriously addressed entitlement spending. Obama hasn't. Romney has a plan that balances the budget. Obama doesn't.

2. Romney balanced the budget in 2003, as Governor Massachusetts.

3. Romney balanced the budget in 2004, as Governor Massachusetts.

4. Romney balanced the budget in 2005, as Governor Massachusetts.

5. Romney balanced the budget in 2006, as Governor Massachusetts.

6. Romney was able to leave money in the rainy day fund, even though he faced a 3 billion dollar budget deficit when he came into office.

7. Romney turned around budget problems at the Winter Olympics, which was $239 million dollars short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal)

8. Romney has promised to only spend money on things that we can justify borrowing money from China for to pay for.

9. Romney balanced the budget for many companies. Romney was willing to make tough choices in his business life that resulted in balanced budgets for the organizations that he ran, including Bain consulting, Bain Capital, and the many companies that he bought, and ran.

10. Romney supports the line item veto, and used it hundreds of times in Massachusetts. (Romney said, “Mayor Giuliani took the line item veto that the president had all the way to the Supreme Court and took it away from the president. I’m in favor of the line-item veto. I exercised it 844 times.” Giuliani did challenge President Bill Clinton on the line-item veto after he used it to cut a provision that could have helped NYC’s bottom line. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. Romney is also correct to say that he exercised his state-level line-item veto power 844 times. But Romney doesn’t note that more than 700 of those vetoes were overridden by the overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Legislature. Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn MI , Oct 9, 2007)

11. Obama has done a very bad job with balancing the budget

Side: Romney
2 points

Obama has done a very bad job with balancing the budget

Reasons to agree:

1. Under Obama the federal government borrows 36 cents for every dollar that it spends.

2. Obama more than doubled the national debt.

3. The first 43 presidents accumulated $6.3 trillion dollars of debt. In one term Obama accumulated $6.5 trillion dollars of debt.

Rant worth listening
Side: Romney
1 point

Obama more than doubled the national debt

That is not true. The debt in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion and the debt at the end of August 2012 (3 weeks ago) was $16.01 trillion - a 51% increase not 100%.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds012009.pdf

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2012/opds082012.pdf

Additionally

"The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House." - the Cato Institute

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

(and the recession reduces tax revenue and increases the welfare burden)

(and Republican obstruction of passing bills that would reduce unemployment)

PS - the video shows as private and unviewable to me.

Side: Obama
2 points

Romney is more likely than Obama to Protect the secret ballot

Background and Context

We should protect the secret ballot. Union bosses want to remove the secret ballot so they can intimidate and threaten those who don't vote to support the union. Removing the secret ballot is un-american. We all have the right to vote how we want without fear of intimidation. Even Russia has the secret ballet. Even Iraq has the secret ballot. It would be sad if we send our solders over seas to start democracy in the desert, and we let Obama remove the secret ballot here at home.

Reasons to agree:

1. President Obama Supports The Employee Free Choice Act, Which Would Eliminate Secret-Ballot Elections That Shield Workers From Privacy Concerns And Intimidation. “President Barack Obama told AFL-CIO union leaders Tuesday in a videotaped address that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will pass, signaling his full backing for legislation that makes union organizing easier. … The bill would make it easier for unions to recruit workers because it would let them join unions simply by signing cards rather than through secret-ballot elections in which companies can campaign against the union.” (Kris Maher, “President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/4/09)

2. "I will protect the right of American workers to vote by secret ballot. And I will fight to stop union bosses from using the dues of their union members to support those bosses' favorite campaigns." (Mitt Romney Delivers Remarks at Values Voter Summit, October 8, 2011)

Side: Romney
1 point

More of just a clarification on this one - the EFCA would not completely get rid of the secret ballot. If a union had support of between 30 and 50% of workers sign cards that they want union representation the union could still call for a secret ballot election.

Additionally, while I believe the threshold should be much higher than a simple majority, I think there are other problems that EFCA would have addressed that were worthwhile (many companies where unions have been voted for still prevent unions

"Only 56 percent of units in which a majority of employees voted for a union and were certified for bargaining by the NLRB were successful in reaching a first contract."

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/sequential_failures_in_workers_right_to_ organize_3_25_2008.pdf) )

Side: Obama
2 points

Romney is less likely than Obama to make backroom deals with Russia

Background and Context

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

YouTube Video

Reasons to agree:

This can only mean that Obama wants to make backroom deals with Russia, without the American people being able to hold him accountable. Obama does not like Democracy. This is why he has no problem with removing the secret ballot for union elections, and he opposes voter ID laws. Respecting the will of the people doesn't matter to him. All that matters is that he gets his way. If he has to make backroom deals with Russia, after the election so that it won't hurt him, he will. If he has to remove the secret ballot in order to reward his special interest, he will. If he has to use fraud to get more democrats, by protesting voter ID laws, he will.

This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
Side: Romney
1 point

Romney is less likely than Obama to make backroom deals with Russia

because Romney still thinks Russia is "our number 1 geopolitical foe"

Side: Obama
myclob(406) Disputed
1 point

Who would you say is our number one geopolitical foe? Russia blocks our every move, still threatens eastern Europe, FREAKING invaded Georgia with Tanks.... Who do you think is our number one geopolitical foe? Who has the 2nd most nukes? Don't tell me why my answer is wrong, tell me what your answer is. China? Australia? Canada?

Side: Romney
2 points

Romney will properly balance environmental and business needs. Obama won't

1. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment

2. We have to balance environmental needs with business needs

3. If we don't care about how much our environmental decisions cost, we will go bankrupt. Money not made by the government is money wasted. The government would make money from the pipeline. We are going broke. We can care about the environment more when we have the money, but we can't continue spending $0.30 of ever dollar on debt.

4. Romney has said: we should provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations. This shows he is OK with non onerous regulations, and that he accepts that we need some onerous ones, but he understands that businesses need time to plan, jobs are lost, dreams are broken, if businesses suffer.

5. The Keystone XL pipeline is tolerable for the environment

6. The XL pipeline is economically vital

7. Keystone XL will not appreciably add to global emissions. If we don't build it China will get the oil, get the money, and they will be less careful with it...

8. We should treat the earth like a garden, not an untouched forest reserve

9. The XL pipeline will help with jobs.

2003

01-22-2003, ROMNEY TIES JOB GROWTH TO CLEANER ENVIRONMENT

02-06-2003, ROMNEY, HEALEY ENFORCE POWER PLANT REGULATIONS

03-25-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES OCEAN MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE

05-20-2003, ROMNEY PROPOSES TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR OIL SPILLS

06-13-2003, ROMNEY TEAMS UP WITH EPA TO PROTECT MASS COASTLINE

09-19-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES NEW MERCURY EMISSION REGULATIONS

10-31-2003, ROMNEY SIGNS BILL TO RESTORE INLAND FISH AND GAME FUND

2004

05-06-2004, ROMNEY UNVEILS CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS

08-04-2004, ROMNEY SIGNS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT OIL SPILLS

08-20-2004, ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION SIGNS ANIMAL CRUELTY LEGISLATION

09-27-2004, COSTS ARE DOWN, BUT ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT IS UP

12-20-2004, ROMNEY REACHES AGREEMENT TO CLEAN UP CAPE COD POWER PLANT

2005

02-10-2005, ROMNEY AWARDS SMART GROWTH ASSISTANCE GRANTS TO 12 CITIES

03-18-2005, ROMNEY FILES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT STATE'S OCEAN WATERS

03-16-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $516.5 MILLION TO SUPPORT SMART GROWTH IN MASSACHUSETTS

07-07-2005, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES MASSACHUSETTS GREEN COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

10-07-2005, ROMNEY AND U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY BODMAN JOIN TO PRESENT EASY WAYS TO SAVE ENERGY THIS WINTER

11-04-2005, ROMNEY DELIVERS OIL SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAILERS TO BUZZARDS BAY COMMUNITIES

11-04-2005-, ROMNEY SIGNS NICOLE'S LAW

12-07-2005, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES STRICT NEW CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1

2006

08-16-2006; Governor Mitt Romney appoints new Environmental affairs secretary

Supporting Evidence: Video (thehill.com)
Side: Romney
2 points

Romney will Prevent voter fraud. Obama will not.

In order to protect voter rights we must prevent voter fraud.

If some people are able to vote twice, than harms law abiding people's rights.

It is not discrimination to require a photo ID in order to vote.

If we have to have a photo ID to drive, you should have to have one to vote.

If we don't require photo IDs the vote will become more corrupt.

The only way to prevent voter fraud is to require a photo ID. If you disagree, give us some other way prevent fraud, and explain how it is discriminatory to require a photo ID?

Obama's Justice Department announced that it was prohibiting the implementation of a Texas law requiring voters to present photo identification, claiming that it violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act (the DOJ had taken similar action against South Carolina in December). Both cases are based on tortured rationales that requiring photo identification — which both states will provide to voters for free — discriminates against minority voters.

Side: Romney
2 points

Romney is more likely than Obama to prevent voter intimidation

Obama is encouraging voter intimidation by trying to remove the secret ballot in union elections.

Obama refused to prosecute people who were clearly trying to intimidate voters. The first sign of his lack of caring about the democratic process came in the earliest days of Obama's tenure, when his Justice Department refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 wearing paramilitary outfits and shouting racial slurs at white voters while one of them brandished a billy club. While video of the incident left the public aghast, the DOJ dropped nearly all of the charges and dramatically narrowed the others, claiming the press had overblown the entire affair. Here is the video:

Video
Side: Romney
2 points

Unlike Obama, Romney understands that countries shouldn't subsidize their private businesses

Background, Context, and assumptions

1. Countries shouldn't subsidize their private businesses

Reasons to agree:

1. Obama gave $535 Million Loan his friends at Solyndra, Which he claimed would “Put Americans back to work”. They went bankrupt, kept the cash, and their executives got big bonuses. It is crony capitalism to give government money to your buddies and political campaign contributors. It distorts the market, and makes it unfair to other competitors who were doing the same thing, but don't have powerful friends. The government can invest in basic research, but shouldn't drive truck loads of money, and put it into the hands of private companies.

2. Of The First Twelve Obama Administration Loans To Clean Energy Companies, “Two Firms Filed For Bankruptcy, A Third Has Faced Layoffs And A Fourth Deal Never Closed.” “The bonuses and bankruptcies come against a growing wave of trouble for companies financed with Energy Department dollars. Of the first 12 loan guarantees the department announced, for instance, two firms filed for bankruptcy, a third has faced layoffs and a fourth deal never closed.”

Side: Romney
1 point

President Barack Obama is going back to the ways on what McCain had tried to use to gain presidency, a "personal assault," on Mitt Romney. President Barack Obama had made some changes here and there, but in reality, it didn't do a whole lot. He depended on "Hope" in 2008, and it did not get him very far. President Barack Obama has also studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 take down of Sen. John Kerry. Although a Prominent Democratic Strategist had stated, "Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney," I find it unlikely for that to happen due to what's happening at the moment.

I would question about the chances of President Obama losing his Presidency because of false truth as what McCain did or Romney being prepared and countering what Obama had dissed out at him. Either way, you can't judge from the cover of a book, and so I would assume that Romney probably have a solid chance of winning.

There had been rumors of the Republicans masking President Obama actual great achievements in changing this economy, but i'm going to not follow through with those rumors; supporting for Mitt Romney in the mean time.

Supporting Evidence: Reference (www.politico.com)
Side: Romney
mcmurr(15) Disputed
2 points

Could you please point out to me what good "changes here and there,"Obama did? I am still waiting for him to fullfill just one of his campaign promises. I have had the unfortunte experience of being exposed to Romney and McCain politics here in Arizona and know them both. We need an independent or someone else to vote for because our choices are not appealing, or just not vote.

Side: Obama
3 points

I am still waiting for him to fullfill just one of his campaign promises.

Here's more than 150:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Side: Obama
0 points

Hey I am from Arizona too.

Sick of the heat how about you?

He campaigned to end the war......and now its 2011 and its not ended. He lied. Where are the war protestors who called Bush Hitler?

Like you can't stand McCain.

I would however vote for any Republican to take out Obama. He stays in office 4 more years....... we are even more doomed.

Side: Obama
1 point

Romney is more likely than Obama to keep our trade laws from being burdensome

Background, Context, and assumptions

1. If trade laws are burdensome and antiquated, enterprise will stall

2. If trade laws are modern and dynamic, enterprise can thrive

Reasons to agree:

1. As a business consultant, and investment company CEO Romney understand that trade laws can become burdensome. As a law professor Obama does not understand that.

Side: Romney
1 point

Romney is more likely than Obama to help our economy by decreasing debt, stabilizing our currency and preventing inflation

Background, context, and assumptions:

1. If we don't fix our debt, we will have to print more money which will result in inflation. The spending and debt is so big that the amount of money needed to print will likely result in massive hyperinflation.

Reasons to agree:

1. Obama is to afraid to cut spending, because he derives his popularity by purchasing people's love by being generous with other people's money. Obama will loose all purpose in life if he can't pat himself on his back for being generous with other people's money. He doesn't care if there is no money left, and his advisers tell him that increasing taxes will hurt the economy. His world view tells him that there is no limit to amount of money that the government can spend, no matter what reality tells him. He can't increase taxes, but he refuses to be called "mean" by cutting spending.. so he continues driving the country forward into the iceberg because he can't let himself turn, stop, or slow down... He can't make any tough choices, he can only criticize Romney's tough choices. Romney has spent his life the sort of tough choices that Obama has proven over and over again that he is too afraid of making.

Romney is more experienced at cutting inefficiencies than Obama.

Romney is more experienced at balancing budgets than Obama.

Romney is more experienced promoting international business than Obama.

Romney has advocated using a balanced budget amendment, which would help prevent disaster.

Side: Romney

Neither are a good choice.

http://youtu.be/oeJ9FJs7Z8k

Side: Romney

Obama = Romney

Romney = Obama

There both the same, stop being ignorant.

Side: Romney
1 point

They may be similar on many issues, but they are certainly not the same on everything - as a review of the posts on this page should illustrate.

Side: Obama
1 point

First came Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used To Know” ( official music video ). It is the best break up song of all time. Speaking of relationships turning sower, and dreams being broken:

Obama I used to know.
Side: Romney
0 points

o!BAN!a ooops Obana oh!! its oobama!!! gosh!!! watever, who cares

Side: Romney