The 2012 Election - Does it matter who wins?

[Wiseacre]

I get a weekly free email newsletter from John Mauldin, called Thoughts From The Front Line. This week's edition talks about what might've happened if Hilary had become president, or Gore in 2000, or Bush41 in 1992. It's worth a read if you're interested, google his name and sign up for the free email newsletter.

Anyway, he goes on to talk about what the winner of the next election will face in the next 4 years, and it ain't pretty. I know lib/dems are jumping up and down right now with the current lift to the economy, modest though it is. And who knows, maybe we've hit the big turnaround at last; but also maybe not, there's really no basis or reason to think that we're really out of the woods yet. Mauldin thinks we'll run out of road to kick the can down by 2016. Most economists will tell you we're on an unsustainable path; at some point the bond market will decide the US of A is not such a good investment if our debt is out of control and our leadership cannot or will not take the necessary steps to fix the problems. Not sure I'd put the date at 2016, but sooner or later thar day will come unless we make some changes.

So, the question before the house is, how much difference will it make if Obama or the repub candidate wins? I think we can make a few reasonable assumptions, neither party will win a filibuster proof Senate, and the GOP will retain control of the Hlouse, albeit with a smaller majority. Sure, maybe the Dems'll retake the House, if you think so go write your own thread.

Personally, I'm not seeing a big difference no matter who wins. Would Obama tack back to the center like Clinton did? I don't think so, why should he? He doesn't have to worry about any more elections, and he's a man of the far left anyway, a lot further left than Clinton ever was. I think we'd see a continuation of 2011 - gridlock. That's not a bad thing when things are going good and you don't want Congress fucking things up. But the status quo is not good, if we don't make some changes then we're headed down the same road Greece is on.

Assume that Romney is the Repub nominee and he beats the big O. Even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps control of the House, they won't be filibuster proof. Why should we assume the Senate Dems will agree to work with a repub president, hell they won't work with the Dem president they got now. How much could Romney get done? I suspect he'll spend less money that did Obama, but I don't see meaningful, long-term, bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done to put ourselves on a sustainable path to fiscal sanity.

Without an agreement like I described, we're basically a rudderless ship tacking left then right, and will eventually end up beached on a deserted island with nothin'. I think Mauldin is right about one thing, if we don't arrive at bipartisan solutions PDQ then bad times are coming and the longer we screw around the worse it'll be when the shit hits the fan. And with that, I'm going to bed, sweet dreams everybody LOL.

 

[Weddell08]

It does matter who wins. If Ron Paul wins he has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget and will balance the budget in 3 years. All the other candidates including Obama all bacically say the same thing.

 

[Wiseacre]

It does matter who wins. If Ron Paul wins he has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget and will balance the budget in 3 years. All the other candidates including Obama all bacically say the same thing.

No offense, but I don't think Ron Paul has a chance in hell of getting elected president. And to be perfectly honest, I don't want to cut the budget by a trillion dollars right off the bat and balance the budget in 3 years. That would almost certainly guarantee a recession if not a depression immediately, we don't need that. And besides, there's no way he could cut spending that much, Congress would never do it. The TPers would love it, but nobody else would.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2012 Election - Does it matter who wins?

It shouldn’t, but unfortunately it does.

Ideally, per the rule of law, it should make no difference what political faction controls the government, one’s fundamental rights will be safeguarded by the Constitution.

But in order for the Federal courts to be a fair venue for citizens to seek remedy to violations of their civil rights, the law needs to be administered by jurists who act in good faith and in accordance with established case law and precedent; the track record of republican presidents is poor in this regard.

Concerning the Supreme Court alone, Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, we see republican appointees who are partisan ideologues, not objective jurists, jeopardizing our civil liberties consequently.

So, yes, it does make a difference who is president, at least from the important standpoint of judicial appointments.

 

[Sactowndog]

Assume that Romney is the Repub nominee and he beats the big O. Even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps control of the House, they won't be filibuster proof. Why should we assume the Senate Dems will agree to work with a repub president, hell they won't work with the Dem president they got now. How much could Romney get done? I suspect he'll spend less money that did Obama, but I don't see meaningful, long-term, bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done to put ourselves on a sustainable path to fiscal sanity.

Without an agreement like I described, we're basically a rudderless ship tacking left then right, and will eventually end up beached on a deserted island with nothin'. I think Mauldin is right about one thing, if we don't arrive at bipartisan solutions PDQ then bad times are coming and the longer we screw around the worse it'll be when the shit hits the fan. And with that, I'm going to bed, sweet dreams everybody LOL.

Great post. To me the problem is the US Senate. The filibuster use to be a rarely used tool to be used in times of great conscience. Now it is a political tool used regularly by whichever ideologue benefits from the status quo which currently is the democrats. No party will get a filibuster proof senate and we will continue to drift towards disaster

 

[Sactowndog]

The 2012 Election - Does it matter who wins?

It shouldn’t, but unfortunately it does.

Ideally, per the rule of law, it should make no difference what political faction controls the government, one’s fundamental rights will be safeguarded by the Constitution.

But in order for the Federal courts to be a fair venue for citizens to seek remedy to violations of their civil rights, the law needs to be administered by jurists who act in good faith and in accordance with established case law and precedent; the track record of republican presidents is poor in this regard.

Concerning the Supreme Court alone, Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, we see republican appointees who are partisan ideologues, not objective jurists, jeopardizing our civil liberties consequently.

So, yes, it does make a difference who is president, at least from the important standpoint of judicial appointments.

Quite frankly I don't see either side doing much to protect our rights. Both sides are equally certain in telling us how we ought to live. With the Christian jihadists on the right and the socialists on the left we are in trouble either way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It does matter who wins. If Ron Paul wins he has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget and will balance the budget in 3 years. All the other candidates including Obama all bacically say the same thing.

No offense, but I don't think Ron Paul has a chance in hell of getting elected president. And to be perfectly honest, I don't want to cut the budget by a trillion dollars right off the bat and balance the budget in 3 years. That would almost certainly guarantee a recession if not a depression immediately, we don't need that. And besides, there's no way he could cut spending that much, Congress would never do it. The TPers would love it, but nobody else would.

Fuck the debt, once we take control of the government once again the rest will take care of itself. We have a government that thinks it can do anything it wants to, under the guise of protecting us. I more uneasy about the government than any bogey man it can create.

No one but Ron Paul can get things back in working order, and why do I say this, because he's the only one saying it.

 

[Wiseacre]

The 2012 Election - Does it matter who wins?

It shouldn’t, but unfortunately it does.

Ideally, per the rule of law, it should make no difference what political faction controls the government, one’s fundamental rights will be safeguarded by the Constitution.

But in order for the Federal courts to be a fair venue for citizens to seek remedy to violations of their civil rights, the law needs to be administered by jurists who act in good faith and in accordance with established case law and precedent; the track record of republican presidents is poor in this regard.

Concerning the Supreme Court alone, Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, we see republican appointees who are partisan ideologues, not objective jurists, jeopardizing our civil liberties consequently.

So, yes, it does make a difference who is president, at least from the important standpoint of judicial appointments.

You don't think Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan are partisan ideologues just as much for the lib/dem point of view?

 

[editec]

The 2012 Election - Does it matter who wins?

On the margins of TODAY where most people actually live, I think it does.

In the long run?

I don't think it will

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't want to cut the budget by a trillion dollars right off the bat and balance the budget in 3 years. That would almost certainly guarantee a recession if not a depression immediately

How would it do that?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Concerning the Supreme Court alone, Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, we see republican appointees who are partisan ideologues, not objective jurists, jeopardizing our civil liberties consequently.

What makes those four partisan ideologues, but not Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomatyor, and Kagan?

 

[Full-Auto]

I get a weekly free email newsletter from John Mauldin, called Thoughts From The Front Line. This week's edition talks about what might've happened if Hilary had become president, or Gore in 2000, or Bush41 in 1992. It's worth a read if you're interested, google his name and sign up for the free email newsletter.

Anyway, he goes on to talk about what the winner of the next election will face in the next 4 years, and it ain't pretty. I know lib/dems are jumping up and down right now with the current lift to the economy, modest though it is. And who knows, maybe we've hit the big turnaround at last; but also maybe not, there's really no basis or reason to think that we're really out of the woods yet. Mauldin thinks we'll run out of road to kick the can down by 2016. Most economists will tell you we're on an unsustainable path; at some point the bond market will decide the US of A is not such a good investment if our debt is out of control and our leadership cannot or will not take the necessary steps to fix the problems. Not sure I'd put the date at 2016, but sooner or later thar day will come unless we make some changes.

So, the question before the house is, how much difference will it make if Obama or the repub candidate wins? I think we can make a few reasonable assumptions, neither party will win a filibuster proof Senate, and the GOP will retain control of the Hlouse, albeit with a smaller majority. Sure, maybe the Dems'll retake the House, if you think so go write your own thread.

Personally, I'm not seeing a big difference no matter who wins. Would Obama tack back to the center like Clinton did? I don't think so, why should he? He doesn't have to worry about any more elections, and he's a man of the far left anyway, a lot further left than Clinton ever was. I think we'd see a continuation of 2011 - gridlock. That's not a bad thing when things are going good and you don't want Congress fucking things up. But the status quo is not good, if we don't make some changes then we're headed down the same road Greece is on.

Assume that Romney is the Repub nominee and he beats the big O. Even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps control of the House, they won't be filibuster proof. Why should we assume the Senate Dems will agree to work with a repub president, hell they won't work with the Dem president they got now. How much could Romney get done? I suspect he'll spend less money that did Obama, but I don't see meaningful, long-term, bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done to put ourselves on a sustainable path to fiscal sanity.

Without an agreement like I described, we're basically a rudderless ship tacking left then right, and will eventually end up beached on a deserted island with nothin'. I think Mauldin is right about one thing, if we don't arrive at bipartisan solutions PDQ then bad times are coming and the longer we screw around the worse it'll be when the shit hits the fan. And with that, I'm going to bed, sweet dreams everybody LOL.

Does it matter.

Not really we have big government vs big government, both parties felt quite comfortable eliminating due process.

As far as debt, BY 2016 20 TRILLION VS 22 OR 23 TRILLION. What difference?

 

[initforme]

The answer to this post is NO IT DOESNT. Big money and corporate interests will control everything at the expense of the middle class. Its been happening since the 70's and got markedly worse in the 80's. Its out of control now. You'd have to be an utter flunky not to see it. There are those who will deny it, of course it's in their best monetary interest.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(Does it matter who wins? We have a sitting president who, when being interviewed by the media, bewails the fact that the American Constitution is too intransigent an instrument, preventing him from bringing about his promised "Fundamental Transformation Of America". I'm sure nominating more Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader "The American Constitution Is Too Outdated" Ginsberg will help to alleviate that vexing problem. Then there is the Contraception Mandate. No government of note in the previous century has drawn a bead on the Catholic Church as Mr Obama did, except for Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We all know what kind of human rights and liberties those two governments stood for. Mr Obama inadvertantly stripped off his mask in his overreach and showed us his real face with that maneuver, we didn't have to wait for his phrophesied journey to Jerusalem to stand in the Temple and sprout cloven hooves and horns. To ameliorate the political firestorm he created, Mr Obama threw the Bishops a Bart Stupak in hope of avoiding the derailing of his re election campaign. I wonder how Representative Stupak (D-MI) found Mr Obama's empty promises earlier as he tried to swallow them before retiring gracefully? Did they taste better than crow?)

"Day by day, measure by measure, edict by edict, directive by directive, we are losing our country. Immersed in the collectivist waters of academia, Good King Barack continues to inflict his benevolent vision upon the country regardless of the consent of the governed, the will of their elected representatives, or the Constitution he took an oath to uphold. Neither proper respect nor the rule of law constrains a man who takes it upon himself to decide when the Senate shall be in recess for purposes of unconstitutional appointments, which laws he will or will not execute, what private contracts and services he will or will not order private citizens to purchase, and what freedom of religion he will or will not allow people of faith to practice. For a guy who believes in a right to privacy, he sure meddles in our private lives a lot.

His latest mandate, forcing religious organizations to purchase health insurance plans that include contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of the central tenets of their faith, was merely the latest in a series of assaults against the moral and legal foundations of the country he seeks to “fundamentally transform.” Faced with heavy opposition from people of faith across the political spectrum, President Obama Friday announced a “compromise” wherein he will require insurance companies to pay for these “preventive health services.” Does your copy of the Constitution authorize the President to order insurance companies to provide free contraceptive and abortifacients? I can’t seem to find it in my copy. And is it really a compromise to shift an unauthorized command from one entity, such as the church, to another?

Meanwhile, Mrs. Good King Barack visited Little Rock Air Force Base, on Thursday, where she announced a revamping of the items that will be served at military dining halls. There will be whole grains, fruits, veggies, lean meats, low-fat dairy products and more in dining halls, vending machines, snack bars and, “…any other places where military families purchase food,” said the First Lady. So when the troops finish their PT in the morning, they can munch on some foliage like a rabbit.

Can someone please get the Obamas on another His and Hers Jet Flight to Martha’s Vineyard? Their vacations cost a lot less of our freedom than their time on the job."

Barack The Benevolent | The Gateway Pundit

(Voting him out come this November will be far, far cheaper than after allowing his re election followed by more egregious missteps from him and his further trampling of the Bill Of Rights. The South required nearly one hundred years to recover from the last one)

 

[The Rabbi]

Concerning the Supreme Court alone, Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, we see republican appointees who are partisan ideologues, not objective jurists, jeopardizing our civil liberties consequently.

Which group voted for the biggest affirmation of 1A rights in the last 50 years? Hint, it wasn't the wise Latina vagina.
Sotomayor basically lied her way through her confirmation hearings and should be impeached for lying under oath.
If for no other reason than Supreme Court nominations Obama needs to go in this election.

 

[Wiseacre]

Assume that Romney is the Repub nominee and he beats the big O. Even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps control of the House, they won't be filibuster proof. Why should we assume the Senate Dems will agree to work with a repub president, hell they won't work with the Dem president they got now. How much could Romney get done? I suspect he'll spend less money that did Obama, but I don't see meaningful, long-term, bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done to put ourselves on a sustainable path to fiscal sanity.

Without an agreement like I described, we're basically a rudderless ship tacking left then right, and will eventually end up beached on a deserted island with nothin'. I think Mauldin is right about one thing, if we don't arrive at bipartisan solutions PDQ then bad times are coming and the longer we screw around the worse it'll be when the shit hits the fan. And with that, I'm going to bed, sweet dreams everybody LOL.

Great post. To me the problem is the US Senate. The filibuster use to be a rarely used tool to be used in times of great conscience. Now it is a political tool used regularly by whichever ideologue benefits from the status quo which currently is the democrats. No party will get a filibuster proof senate and we will continue to drift towards disaster

I'd just like to say that the filibuster should be primarily used to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the minority. But unfortunately it's being used for individual aggrandizement rather than for the betterment of the country. And that's a big part of what I'm trying to say in this thread; no matter who wins, they'll have to deal with a divided Senate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The answer to this post is NO IT DOESNT. Big money and corporate interests will control everything at the expense of the middle class. Its been happening since the 70's and got markedly worse in the 80's. Its out of control now. You'd have to be an utter flunky not to see it. There are those who will deny it, of course it's in their best monetary interest.

YOU ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS A CORPORATION THING?
It's not, it goes further than any corporate level. Look to those who parrot for the global unification of countries. There is where the problem lies.