Romney vs. Obama

[Positivist]

Whom do you despise more? Both are pretty far to the right, but I still dislike Romney more. Obama is bad because he gives off the illusion of being a friend to workers and minorities, but I cant stand the republican insistence that capitalists are hard working, and responsible for advancing the country, and that workers are lazy and don't deserve the scraps flung at them by the government.

[RedHammer]

What can I say?

What do you expect us to say?

I hate both of them. I suppose Obama is more handsome, and probably has a better personality...and likes long walks on the beach...

We need to resurrect the dead and get this guy into office:
http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/enver_hoxha_poster_1968.jpg?w=300&h=398

In all seriousness, though, here's my take on the elections: it goes without saying that both candidates are bourgeois and will protect bourgeois interests. That being said, if Paul Ryan's "budget plans" are realized, the masses in this country will be hurting and hurting badly. I suppose that makes Obama marginally better, but hardly. Then again, that may be just what is needed to provoke widespread activism and class war.

[Positivist]

Yea I'm totally against voting this is only meant to be a half serious discussion.

[Drosophila]

Romney reminds me of a Mafia boss or something. At least Obama doesn't appear shady.

[cynicles]

They both suck to high heaven, atleast if Bachman had got in we could nickname her old crazy eyes. Although Santorum would have been even better, he could invite his communist family over from Italy and they stage a coup taking over the country. Who doesn't want Italian communists running the US.

[Ostrinski]

I like Obama because his mannerisms (such as when he connects his index finger and thumb, and then shakes his fist gently up and down, and then makes the face of Mohammad Ahmadinnerjacket's avatar but with a more focused gaze) while giving speeches make me crack a half smile.

[pluckedflowers]

I think Obama had a soul once, back in college or something, and sold it. Romney just never had one, as far as I can tell. Also, I know this is an unpopular position, but I do think there is a difference politically between the two. Romney's new running mate says he got into public service because of Ayn Rand, for fuck's sake. I'm not saying we all need to run out and vote, but pretending like they are exactly the same is pretty foolish, imho.

[~Spectre]

They're both assholes.

Having gotten that out of the way, Obama was born to a single mother who wasn't that well off and then later died of cancer. He seems like he was once not an asshole back then, and proceeded to overachieve despite racial and economic barriers.

Romney, on the other hand, was born to a multi millionaire governor, in a family that basically runs the Mormon Church and Utah, and seems to have always been an asshole.

That's of course just personality stuff. Both will represent the capital that backs them.

[tbasherizer]

I think Obama had a soul once, back in college or something, and sold it. Romney just never had one, as far as I can tell. Also, I know this is an unpopular position, but I do think there is a difference politically between the two. Romney's new running mate says he got into public service because of Ayn Rand, for fuck's sake. I'm not saying we all need to run out and vote, but pretending like they are exactly the same is pretty foolish, imho.

I don't think anyone means to say that they are subjectively the same kind of person- the point is that they both represent bourgeois politics and that more or less the same stuff would happen under them.

I'm glad that Romney won the Republican nomination, because his competition were absolutely insane. It seems that Romney wants what's best for business in the country, which is at least better than wanting whatever it is say, Santorum thought was better for Jesus.

Romney's and Obama's shared stances on business plants them both in an easy place for agitators. The election has been framed in the bourgeois press as one of economic issues, which us radicals are all over! Had this been a Santorum-Obama race, there'd be idealist BS everywhere about abortion and the like, which doesn't give us as easy a handle to grab as "Your boss is fucking you over- we can change things and they don't want to!"

I, as probably most of you do as well, think the CPUSA seriously misplayed their hand in their advocacy for the Obama campaign of '08- it leaves them in a serious corner.

This election, I'd probably vote for Roseanne or something- it doesn't really matter, as I'm up in the Great White North, trying to get people dissatisfied with Mulcair and pissed at Harper.

[Positivist]

I think Obama had a soul once, back in college or something, and sold it. Romney just never had one, as far as I can tell. Also, I know this is an unpopular position, but I do think there is a difference politically between the two. Romney's new running mate says he got into public service because of Ayn Rand, for fuck's sake. I'm not saying we all need to run out and vote, but pretending like they are exactly the same is pretty foolish, imho.

Yea Paul Ryan as a running mate has inspired a srronger opposition to Romney in me.

[Igor]

Obama seems like a cooler guy overall, so I like him more. This has jack shit to do with politics, I'd never vote for somebody on that basis, and it honestly doesn't take that much to be a more decent human being than Willard.

[Comrade Samuel]

C'mon guys we have heard them both sing

Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9v0Yf9wHlQ

Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6uHR90Sq6k

When it comes down to it shouldn't this be how every country in the world picks a new head of state?

All jokes aside Obama and Romney are equally terrible for the working class, the only difference between them being that Obama is a wolf wearing sheep skin wheras Romney is just a wolf.

[Lynx]

They're just figureheads, dedicated to preserving the status quo. I direct my disdain elsewhere...

[Ocean Seal]

It doesn't matter, we're fucked. And we're fucked because pretty much all of our movements went to shit because of the fucking election. I wish it wouldn't be so damn long and painful.

[zimmerwald1915]

C'mon guys we have heard them both sing

Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9v0Yf9wHlQ

Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6uHR90Sq6k

When it comes down to it shouldn't this be how every country in the world picks a new head of state?
Romney sings from the nose and Obama sings from the forehead. What the working class needs is someone who sings from the diaphragm.

[Igor]

Romney singing literally hurts. The guy can't really do anything without being super awkward.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Obama's interception policies are abhorrent. Thou shalt not break rotation!!! Puff puff pass!!

Really, though, they're both assholes.

[Art Vandelay]

In the immortal words of dead prez:

"do you want coke, crack, pepsi or doctor pepper?
there all fucked up and neither one of them is better
crack is like a democrat, cocaine republican
marijuana? independent party, same governemt
you really think your vote counts?
ask my folks down in florida, didn't they straight throw they shit out."

[ed miliband]

Obama seems like a cooler guy overall, so I like him more. This has jack shit to do with politics, I'd never vote for somebody on that basis, and it honestly doesn't take that much to be a more decent human being than Willard.

i'm not saying you are making it, but the "decent human being" argument has always annoyed me. it's used a lot by labour voters in britain i've found; around the last election whenever i'd point out brown's record and that of the labour party in general i'd be told that that was all well and good, but that brown was at least probably - if only in the past - a "decent human being", or possibly just a "more decent human being" than cameron.

[X5N]

I'd honestly rather have Obama than Romney. Though of course, both of them suck.

[L.A.P.]

i'm not saying you are making it, but the "decent human being" argument has always annoyed me. it's used a lot by labour voters in britain i've found; around the last election whenever i'd point out brown's record and that of the labour party in general i'd be told that that was all well and good, but that brown was at least probably - if only in the past - a "decent human being", or possibly just a "more decent human being" than cameron.

My history teacher once met the last Shah of Iran. Turns he was actaully a really gentle, polite, respectful, and even generous guy in person. Doesn't change the fact that he's a piece of shit.

[ed miliband]

My history teacher once met the last Shah of Iran. Turns he was actaully a really gentle, polite, respectful, and even generous guy in person. Doesn't change the fact that he's a piece of shit.

yup, for sure.

plus - and this is harder to argue without seeming moralistic - i don't think you get to be president of the united states, or prime minister of the uk, or whatever, without behaving in a manner that would contradict many people's understanding of what constitutes "decent" behaviour. politics is a dirty game at all levels, and i doubt you get to the top without being a clever fucker willing to fuck over a few friends, or exploit fears and prejudices, and so on.

[Igor]

i'm not saying you are making it, but the "decent human being" argument has always annoyed me. it's used a lot by labour voters in britain i've found; around the last election whenever i'd point out brown's record and that of the labour party in general i'd be told that that was all well and good, but that brown was at least probably - if only in the past - a "decent human being", or possibly just a "more decent human being" than cameron.

Maybe "decent human being" is a bit wrong term, but my point was that Obama and Romney do come from very different backgrounds and Obama, even though politically is a huge piece of shit, is probably a guy I'd like more than Romney. Obama is rich and privileged motherfucker, but that's not what he always was, and the same is pretty much true in the UK case: there's really not much common ground between me and some Eton guy like Johnson and Cameron who actually spent time in Bullingdon's and say, Ed Miliband, whose parents were Polish immigrants and dad was a prominent Marxist. Politically, these guys might all represent the bourgie class and fuck over the working class despite their background, but that background does have an effect on what kind of a person you are. When you're a top politician, of course you have to fuck people over all the time, so idk if decency is the right term here but there's definitely differences in who I like more, even if it didn't affect my electoral behaviour. Yeah, the "politican I'd have a beer with" is kind of a dumb cliche but for me it'd definitely be Obama instead of Romney. And probably most people ever over Gordon Brown.

[piet11111]

If there is one president i would have a beer with it would probably be dubya but that's because i am curious who could drink more beer.

Clinton to me seems like a jerk and a pervert while Obama is such a hypocrite i would want to kick his teeth in.

[cynicles]

I don't think anyone means to say that they are subjectively the same kind of person- the point is that they both represent bourgeois politics and that more or less the same stuff would happen under them.

I'm glad that Romney won the Republican nomination, because his competition were absolutely insane. It seems that Romney wants what's best for business in the country, which is at least better than wanting whatever it is say, Santorum thought was better for Jesus.

Romney's and Obama's shared stances on business plants them both in an easy place for agitators. The election has been framed in the bourgeois press as one of economic issues, which us radicals are all over! Had this been a Santorum-Obama race, there'd be idealist BS everywhere about abortion and the like, which doesn't give us as easy a handle to grab as "Your boss is fucking you over- we can change things and they don't want to!"

I, as probably most of you do as well, think the CPUSA seriously misplayed their hand in their advocacy for the Obama campaign of '08- it leaves them in a serious corner.

This election, I'd probably vote for Roseanne or something- it doesn't really matter, as I'm up in the Great White North, trying to get people dissatisfied with Mulcair and pissed at Harper.
Oh my gawd! Don't even get me started on mulclair, I was hoping we could force squeeze a change in drug policy out of the NDP atleast in the next couple years. Decriminalize maybe but that's gone, I have no expectations of anything else from elections but I figure their government would have atleast allowed the judiciary to strike down prohibition.

[JPSartre12]

I, as probably most of you do as well, think the CPUSA seriously misplayed their hand in their advocacy for the Obama campaign of '08- it leaves them in a serious corner.

Absolutely. Thoughts of Romney and Obama aside, I was pretty neutral on the CPUSA until the 08 election rolled around. Once they all became super Obama fans, they lost a bit of respect in my eyes :blink:

They shouldn't have supported Obama - they should have pushed for grassroots activism and actually capitalized on the anti-Bush economics sentiment at the time to build some sort of class consciousness.

That being said, if they're going to play their hand in electoral politics, at least pick a progressive candidate or something. Geesh.

[Raúl Duke]

As a general rule of thumb, I dislike politicians in a dispassionate way; I usually really don't give much of a damn about the puppets of the elite and the spectacle of "democratic" elections.

But ever since Romney picked this randroid Paul Ryan dude, which had a budget plan that would cut/eliminate the already low capital gains tax (this is how the financial elites make their money, via profits from stocks, bonds, etc that constitutes 'capital gains'), raise taxes on the bottom 30% of the tax bracket, and cut social spending (particularly worried about any cuts to federal financial aid for college students since I depend on that)...this may be the first time where I really hope strongly that the GOP doesn't win and make no gains or lose seats in Congress and/or are unable to pursue any cuts that would be detrimental to people like me. Although I have a feeling that Romney may not win at all since everyone, even Republican voters/sympathizers, know that he's a filthy rich asshole.

[L.A.P.]

yup, for sure.

plus - and this is harder to argue without seeming moralistic - i don't think you get to be president of the united states, or prime minister of the uk, or whatever, without behaving in a manner that would contradict many people's understanding of what constitutes "decent" behaviour. politics is a dirty game at all levels, and i doubt you get to the top without being a clever fucker willing to fuck over a few friends, or exploit fears and prejudices, and so on.

I also have a deep-seeded belief that Obama is probably snorting coke off of the ass of a hooker as I type this. I truly think Clinton/Lewinsky is just the tip of the iceberge of what US presidents (and all politicians for that matter) do during their personal free-time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the stuff said in National Enquirer about the Obama family being in turmoil and Oprah having a fall out with Michelle turns out to be true. Hell, the Enquirer has been saying for ten years that John Travolta is gay and now he's in court for trying to yank on his male massage therapist. We don't know what kind of lives these people are leading and I'm sure if we were to, we would find out they have really bizarre and fucked up lives.

[Ostrinski]

As a general rule of thumb, I dislike politicians in a dispassionate way; I usually really don't give much of a damn about the puppets of the elite and the spectacle of "democratic" elections.

But ever since Romney picked this randroid Paul Ryan dude, which had a budget plan that would cut/eliminate the already low capital gains tax (this is how the financial elites make their money, via profits from stocks, bonds, etc that constitutes 'capital gains'), raise taxes on the bottom 30% of the tax bracket, and cut social spending (particularly worried about any cuts to federal financial aid for college students since I depend on that)...this may be the first time where I really hope strongly that the GOP doesn't win and make no gains or lose seats in Congress and/or are unable to pursue any cuts that would be detrimental to people like me. Although I have a feeling that Romney may not win at all since everyone, even Republican voters/sympathizers, know that he's a filthy rich asshole.Has there been any mention of cuts to financial aid to college students? This would affect me too.

[Raúl Duke]

Not sure if it's written into their presidential platform, etc...however the actions of Congressional Republicans show a distaste for federal subsidies of college education. In fact, already some actions have occurred that has limited federal aid on college education (i.e. I didn't qualify last academic year for a pell grant while before I had a partial grant, grad schools can't get subsidized Stafford student loans anymore, etc); besides the raising tuition (or attempts to increase tuition) across the world. Recently, I looked into a website for a law school I was considering and they've doubled their tuition rate (!). It's beginning to look like my degree is worthless and further education is unaffordable... (unless I get more aid because next year I can claim independent status on the FAFSA and I make no money).

But ,on topic ,Paul Ryan personally isn't friendly to the idea of affordable education. Instead he wants you to dig yourself further into debt and work your ass off (that's IF you can even get a damn job). At least according to this...

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/education/2011/10/20/349627/paul-ryan-three-jobs-pell-grants/?libertarianlol

[Positivist]

I also have a deep-seeded belief that Obama is probably snorting coke off of the ass of a hooker as I type this. I truly think Clinton/Lewinsky is just the tip of the iceberge of what US presidents (and all politicians for that matter) do during their personal free-time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the stuff said in National Enquirer about the Obama family being in turmoil and Oprah having a fall out with Michelle turns out to be true. Hell, the Enquirer has been saying for ten years that John Travolta is gay and now he's in court for trying to yank on his male massage therapist. We don't know what kind of lives these people are leading and I'm sure if we were to, we would find out they have really bizarre and fucked up lives.

What is this bigotrous bullshit? The national fucking enquirer? And your proof of their legitimacy is that John travolta allegedly tried to pull one over on his massage therapist? You do realize that these allegations of sexual harassment are most likely the result of those reports not verification of them right? I mean I don't give a shit about travolta or obama for that matter but I wouldn't take the national enquirer as a very valuable source.

[Zeus the Moose]

Absolutely. Thoughts of Romney and Obama aside, I was pretty neutral on the CPUSA until the 08 election rolled around. Once they all became super Obama fans, they lost a bit of respect in my eyes :blink:

They shouldn't have supported Obama - they should have pushed for grassroots activism and actually capitalized on the anti-Bush economics sentiment at the time to build some sort of class consciousness.

That being said, if they're going to play their hand in electoral politics, at least pick a progressive candidate or something. Geesh.

Had you not been paying attention to them before then? Because it's not like supporting Obama came out of nowhere for them.

[Ostrinski]

Not sure if it's written into their presidential platform, etc...however the actions of Congressional Republicans show a distaste for federal subsidies of college education. In fact, already some actions have occurred that has limited federal aid on college education (i.e. I didn't qualify last academic year for a pell grant while before I had a partial grant, grad schools can't get subsidized Stafford student loans anymore, etc); besides the raising tuition (or attempts to increase tuition) across the world. Recently, I looked into a website for a law school I was considering and they've doubled their tuition rate (!). It's beginning to look like my degree is worthless and further education is unaffordable... (unless I get more aid because next year I can claim independent status on the FAFSA and I make no money).

But ,on topic ,Paul Ryan personally isn't friendly to the idea of affordable education. Instead he wants you to dig yourself further into debt and work your ass off (that's IF you can even get a damn job). At least according to this...

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/education/2011/10/20/349627/paul-ryan-three-jobs-pell-grants/?libertarianloldammit, I'm going to school through pell grants. Start school on wednesday actually. In the past we've always been like right on the verge of not qualifying for certain programs for low income people, but if I can't continue to use pell grants, we're not gonna afford school.

[L.A.P.]

What is this bigotrous bullshit? The national fucking enquirer? And your proof of their legitimacy is that John travolta allegedly tried to pull one over on his massage therapist? You do realize that these allegations of sexual harassment are most likely the result of those reports not verification of them right? I mean I don't give a shit about travolta or obama for that matter but I wouldn't take the national enquirer as a very valuable source.

Dude, shut the fuck up and calm the fuck down. I never used national enquirer as a source, I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if enquirer type of shit is actaully going on in the personal lives of these people. There have been cases where the tabloid did publish things that turned out to actually be true (affairs of Tiger Woods and John Edwards, OJ Simpson writing that ridiculous book, etc.), it's just that PR-people try really hard to cover it up and most magazines will comply. And I still think all US Presidents are coke heads.

Oh, and 'bigotrous shit'? Get the fuck outta here

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Obviously Obama. Even if just for the fact it would piss of Tea Partiers. Plus, I like to think of him being really cool.

http://theshnozzberriestastelikeshnozzberries.files.wordp ress.com/2010/02/7dc868388c55b3cdf048797de4b555a8225c17c1_m.jpg?w=5 00

[Positivist]

Dude, shut the fuck up and calm the fuck down. I never used national enquirer as a source, I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if enquirer type of shit is actaully going on in the personal lives of these people. There have been cases where the tabloid did publish things that turned out to actually be true (affairs of Tiger Woods and John Edwards, OJ Simpson writing that ridiculous book, etc.), it's just that PR-people try really hard to cover it up and most magazines will comply. And I still think all US Presidents are coke heads.

Oh, and 'bigotrous shit'? Get the fuck outta here

You know what I just typed up a big response but I've read posts from you that are quite good so I'd rather not antagonize any further and just keep us on good footing. This isn't a really valuable argument anyway. My main objections were to citing the national enquirer (which I despise) as a credible source, and then going into Travoltas potential homosexuality. Nevertheless, I overreacted so there's no reason to continue this argument.

[JPSartre12]

Had you not been paying attention to them before then? Because it's not like supporting Obama came out of nowhere for them.

Oh I know, I'm just saying that they're awfully lacking for a "communist" party :crying:

[Il Medico]

Obama and Willard are two sides of the the same shit sandwich politically speaking. Granted Romney's side seems to have a bit more partially digested corn with the inclusion of his Ayn Rand fan boy of a running mate.

Personally though, Obama seems like he'd be a decent guy while Romney comes off as a stuck up douche muffin.