ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Jupiter551]

If there is a heart beating, I consider it a life.

You can make a heart beat independently of a host body just by running an electric current through it several hours after a body is considered deceased and a heart removed.

 

[Nordling]

If there is a heart beating, I consider it a life.

You can make a heart beat independently of a host body just by running an electric current through it several hours after a body is considered deceased and a heart removed.

And bacteria don't even have hearts, but they're still "life." Seriously, using the heartbeat as a yardstick is totally arbitrary.

 

[Jupiter551]

Don't forget Clinton benefited hugely from the financial blockbuster that he had absolutely nothing to do with when the dot com industry fluorished so greatly.

Don't forget Obama was burdened hugely from the 4 trillion dollar series of wars that he had absolutely nothing to do with in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the subprime mortgage crisis which was also a result of policies and actions before he was ever voted in.

I'll give Obama $1 trillion for inheriting Bush's problems, but the other $5 trillion is on him, give or take a few billion.

Woah, hold your horses the wars most of which weren't prosecuted during Obama's administration cost 4 trillion, and the subprime mortgage crisis that happened before his presidency but is STILL being felt over there cost a hell of a lot of jobs, cut your nation's home equity value by TWENTY FIVE percent, triggered stock market crashes leading to what's now called the 'Global Financial Crisis' and is basically a worldwide recession...Obama didn't do this stuff, he wasn't even in office. He's had to deal with it though.

It must be so easy to point the finger at one person and say 'it's his fault', but it's not going to be realistic, nor is it going to fix any problems. Years of banks making record profits and interest on giving out stupidly unqualified loans, inflating house prices, causing foreclosures, crashing property markets and therefore the economy at the same time as spending almost ten years in an unnecessary war is the major culprit for your current recessionary woes. Obama would have to be fucking Gandalf to have fixed that in four years.

Claiming Obama has ruined the economy and the republicans would have it fixed by now is nothing more than electioneering propaganda that (I hope) you're too intelligent to believe.

 

[Mirra]

If there is a heart beating, I consider it a life.

You can make a heart beat independently of a host body just by running an electric current through it several hours after a body is considered deceased and a heart removed.

And bacteria don't even have hearts, but they're still "life." Seriously, using the heartbeat as a yardstick is totally arbitrary.

So week 6. That's almost halfway through the first trimester. I don't think that makes it life based for much the same reason Nordling mentioned. If you're going to be extremely cut and dry about the start of life, you have to choose something better than that in my opinion. At first I was tempted to say once it could survive on its own without the mother but even a parasite is a type of life so maybe it's before that. Maybe it's once it could survive with doctor intervention without the mother. A baby developed enough to survive if premature. Even then, that number has moved back over time with developments in medicine. It's an extremely difficult subject to overly simplify and yet an overly complex answer doesn't work well for the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

I don't think the focus on when it's "life" is the best way to come to an answer. It's the pro-lifer's way of debunking any number they see as arbitrary despite any basing it may have on fetal development.

 

[spikyhaired]

It must be so easy to point the finger at one person and say 'it's his fault', but it's not going to be realistic, nor is it going to fix any problems.

This.

Trying (probably in vain) to bring the thread back around to a discussion of the Presidential candidates, I believe the only people who can truly restore financial stability are citizens. I'm no paragon of fiscal virtue, but I think we all need to save more, which includes borrowing less (or not at all). Such a solution has already begun with consumer debit slowly falling over the past few years. While painful in the short term since we are not spending as much and therefore businesses are not selling as much (so tax revenue is down), this will reach an equilibrium where we are spending within our means. That equilibrium will help businesses to become more confident, and they will increase hiring and capital expenditures to match the new demand. The pent up "piles of cash" corporations are sitting on will again be freed to work in the marketplace.

I think both Presidential candidates know this, but I don't think they want to spend much time on it during electioneering because it's not "sexy". It doesn't energize their bases like more hot-button topics.

That said, I could almost vote for Romney. If left to his own devices, I think he could care less about pushing a social agenda and would focus solely on economic issues. But, if he was elected, I think he would feel beholden to his political allies and would pass almost any Republican-sponsored bill that crossed his desk. As the current batch of Republicans seem to be more interested in forcing their own social and religious beliefs down the collective American gullet than working across the aisle, I simply cannot vote for someone who would rubber stamp such abusive, reactionary policies.

Luckily, I live in a state that is soundly in Obama's camp. While I view Obama as the lesser political evil, I don't have to strategically vote for him to ensure he wins. Instead, I can vote for a third-party candidate who more closely represents my beliefs (limited government, no governmental meddling in personal, social issues), even though he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. It's wishful thinking, but perhaps people will see the rising percentage of independent voters with such leanings and find a path away from the two-party system.

Additionally, I will vote strategically for state and federal congressional positions in hopes of ensuring my female friends and family members are not made into chattel, if only by ensuring a mixture of congressional representatives that results in political gridlock.

 

[Mirra]

This.

Trying (probably in vain) to bring the thread back around to a discussion of the Presidential candidates, I believe the only people who can truly restore financial stability are citizens. I'm no paragon of fiscal virtue, but I think we all need to save more, which includes borrowing less (or not at all). Such a solution has already begun with consumer debit slowly falling over the past few years. While painful in the short term since we are not spending as much and therefore businesses are not selling as much (so tax revenue is down), this will reach an equilibrium where we are spending within our means. That equilibrium will help businesses to become more confident, and they will increase hiring and capital expenditures to match the new demand. The pent up "piles of cash" corporations are sitting on will again be freed to work in the marketplace.

I think both Presidential candidates know this, but I don't think they want to spend much time on it during electioneering because it's not "sexy". It doesn't energize their bases like more hot-button topics.

That said, I could almost vote for Romney. If left to his own devices, I think he could care less about pushing a social agenda and would focus solely on economic issues. But, if he was elected, I think he would feel beholden to his political allies and would pass almost any Republican-sponsored bill that crossed his desk. As the current batch of Republicans seem to be more interested in forcing their own social and religious beliefs down the collective American gullet than working across the aisle, I simply cannot vote for someone who would rubber stamp such abusive, reactionary policies.

Luckily, I live in a state that is soundly in Obama's camp. While I view Obama as the lesser political evil, I don't have to strategically vote for him to ensure he wins. Instead, I can vote for a third-party candidate who more closely represents my beliefs (limited government, no governmental meddling in personal, social issues), even though he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. It's wishful thinking, but perhaps people will see the rising percentage of independent voters with such leanings and find a path away from the two-party system.

Additionally, I will vote strategically for state and federal congressional positions in hopes of ensuring my female friends and family members are not made into chattel, if only by ensuring a mixture of congressional representatives that results in political gridlock.

While on the most basic level, the economic crisis can be narrowed down to an overspending by consumers of the 1990s and early 2000s, I don't think "saving more" would have kept us out of this crisis and I don't think it is the fix for this economy. In the grand scheme of things, middle and lower class families aren't spending on many extravagances compared to 10 years ago. There's always going to be the occasional indulgence but it's largely survival mode for most of us and that is STAGNATING the recovery. The key is exactly what both candidates are saying. The economy will prosper when there is a strong middle class driving it. The only issue is who has the best plan to get there. I personally believe Romney's plan is another attempt at Trickle Down economics and I don't like it.

This narration for an Obama speech pretty much sums it up better than I ever could.

 

[Jupiter551]

While on the most basic level, the economic crisis can be narrowed down to an overspending by consumers of the 1990s and early 2000s

I think it has a lot more to do with banks handing out irresponsible loans due to greed over interest. A great many middle-class citizens bought things like investment properties expecting to make repayments with rent garnered, but when everyone wants to buy a house there's scarcity - causing unsustainable inflation in the property market. As a result of all this inflation, the reserve bank increases interest rates - now the repayments are actually considerably more than the rent income and if you raise the rent to cover it the tenants move out and you get no money at all back. People were now stuck with a house or apartment that was worth less than what they bought it for, and for which they can no longer make repayments - so the bank forecloses. The bank does this thousands of times. Oops, the property market has now crashed because it's literally flooded with properties that are struggling to find a buyer for even LESS than the bank financed it for. Snowball effect, eventually banks (which effectively also borrow money from other banks to lend to us) are now in deep shit because the money they lent out in the expectation of turning a profit is now written off, and should their creditors choose to call in their debts the bank will fold. Bank stocks fall sharply, people who own them dump them as fast as they can, and few people are willing to invest because shit's crazy and who knows what's going to collapse next. So the stock market crashed. Companies went bust, people lost their jobs, and their homes.

There's no one thing to blame any of that on, but it's not much different to the 1929 depression really - if you must blame someone blame the central banking system, the stock market, fiat currency, and greed. Wait - I pretty much just described capitalism. Oh well you gotta take the good with the bad right?

 

[Mirra]

I think it has a lot more to do with banks handing out irresponsible loans due to greed over interest. A great many middle-class citizens bought things like investment properties expecting to make repayments with rent garnered, but when everyone wants to buy a house there's scarcity - causing unsustainable inflation in the property market. As a result of all this inflation, the reserve bank increases interest rates - now the repayments are actually considerably more than the rent income and if you raise the rent to cover it the tenants move out and you get no money at all back. People were now stuck with a house or apartment that was worth less than what they bought it for, and for which they can no longer make repayments - so the bank forecloses. The bank does this thousands of times. Oops, the property market has now crashed because it's literally flooded with properties that are struggling to find a buyer for even LESS than the bank financed it for. Snowball effect, eventually banks (which effectively also borrow money from other banks to lend to us) are now in deep shit because the money they lent out in the expectation of turning a profit is now written off, and should their creditors choose to call in their debts the bank will fold. Bank stocks fall sharply, people who own them dump them as fast as they can, and few people are willing to invest because shit's crazy and who knows what's going to collapse next. So the stock market crashed. Companies went bust, people lost their jobs, and their homes.

There's no one thing to blame any of that on, but it's not much different to the 1929 depression really - if you must blame someone blame the central banking system, the stock market, fiat currency, and greed. Wait - I pretty much just described capitalism. Oh well you gotta take the good with the bad right?

What you describe is almost exactly what caused the housing bubble to balloon out of control and eventually burst. That in turn is definitely the biggest cause of the current economic downturn. However, I am big on people taking responsibility for themselves. The banks need to man up but so do many of the home owners who knew exactly what they were getting into with much of the sub-prime lending that was happening. Some people were definitely tricked. Others were simply too optimistic. They still ended up spending beyond their means overall and it bit them when the bubble burst.

The fact of the matter is while I feel you have a bigger piece of the contributory pie there, this recession hit so devastatingly because of how broad a set of factors lead us to this situation. The collapse of the housing market was the overwhelming catalyst. It was more of a ten ton hammer than a straw that broke the camels back but there was still a whole deck of cards that came tumbling down with it.

 

[Shaun__]

Excuse me for pointing out grade school mistakes. Where are these businesses with record profits and which stock market is soaring due to Obama's failures?

I had to leave in a hurry to leave and strongly suspected I should have taken a few more time to check both my socks and rain forecast. My own fault, and I accept all mockery it has caused.

Anyway I just want to say night shifts sucks and I made it back to the thread to add words and stuff.

New York: The Dow Jones industrial average climbed to its highest level in nearly 5 years on Friday after an unexpected drop in the unemployment rate pointed to an improving economy.

The S&P 500 rose for a fifth day and was also on course to close near a five-year high. The index has gained nearly 17 percent so far this year and is on track for its best yearly run since 2009 when stocks rebounded after the financial crisis. Link

 

[Jupiter551]

Not gonna lie, that was pretty inspiring

 

[Shaun__]

Even the slimy Newt seems to think Mitt is a flip flopper, but that is the problem with Mitt. He seems to be for and against everything. There is no telling what he would do if actually elected. He has been described as an Etch A Sketch, but I think he is more like one of the magic eight balls.

Newt Gingrich called out Mitt Romney on Sunday for backing off his promise to cut taxes on the wealthy after winning the Republican nomination. Link

 

[schlmoe]

If you're interested, the PBS show Frontline is having a show on the election tonight: "The Choice 2012". While I can't say they are always 100% accurate, I have more trust in Frontline than Fox/MSNBC, or even CNN.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

It should be available for online viewing in a week or so, if you are unable to watch/record today.

 

[RedHerby]

If you fucking Americans elect that fucking Romney as the next fucking president of this fucking world then I will be really fucking mad.

 

[Nordling]

What are you afraid of Mittens?

 

[Bocefish]

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1
Economy, not military issues, tops concerns
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 7, 2012 10:34:55 EDT

The professional core of the U.S. military overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over President Obama in the upcoming election — but not because of any particular military issues, according to a new poll of more than 3,100 active and reserve troops.

Respondents rated the economy and the candidates’ character as their most important considerations and all but ignored the war in Afghanistan as an issue of concern.

The Military Times Poll is a secure email survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve members who are subscribers to the Military Times newspapers (see How We Did It, below).

This population is older and more senior than the military population at large, but it is representative of the professional core of the all-volunteer force.

The 3,100 respondents — roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members — are about 80 percent white and 91 percent male. Forty percent are in paygrades E-5 through E-8, while more than 35 percent are in paygrades O-3 through O-5.

Almost 80 percent of respondents have a college degree — including 27 percent with a graduate degree and more than 11 percent with a post-graduate degree — while an additional 18.5 percent have some college under their belts.

And they are battle-hardened; almost 29 percent have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, while a similar percentage has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.

 

[Shaun__]

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1
Economy, not military issues, tops concerns
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 7, 2012 10:34:55 EDT

The professional core of the U.S. military overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over President Obama in the upcoming election — but not because of any particular military issues, according to a new poll of more than 3,100 active and reserve troops.

Respondents rated the economy and the candidates’ character as their most important considerations and all but ignored the war in Afghanistan as an issue of concern.

The Military Times Poll is a secure email survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve members who are subscribers to the Military Times newspapers (see How We Did It, below).

This population is older and more senior than the military population at large, but it is representative of the professional core of the all-volunteer force.

The 3,100 respondents — roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members — are about 80 percent white and 91 percent male. Forty percent are in paygrades E-5 through E-8, while more than 35 percent are in paygrades O-3 through O-5.

Almost 80 percent of respondents have a college degree — including 27 percent with a graduate degree and more than 11 percent with a post-graduate degree — while an additional 18.5 percent have some college under their belts.

And they are battle-hardened; almost 29 percent have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, while a similar percentage has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.

So a bunch of old white men think a pro-Vietnam war protester who hid in France during the war, mostly in a mansion that had a chef, would be a good president. Not for any military reason though, but for the economy. Must be for Romney's plan to do vague undisclosed things that will be worked out with congress after his election.

 

[Bocefish]

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1
Economy, not military issues, tops concerns
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 7, 2012 10:34:55 EDT

The professional core of the U.S. military overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over President Obama in the upcoming election — but not because of any particular military issues, according to a new poll of more than 3,100 active and reserve troops.

Respondents rated the economy and the candidates’ character as their most important considerations and all but ignored the war in Afghanistan as an issue of concern.

The Military Times Poll is a secure email survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve members who are subscribers to the Military Times newspapers (see How We Did It, below).

This population is older and more senior than the military population at large, but it is representative of the professional core of the all-volunteer force.

The 3,100 respondents — roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members — are about 80 percent white and 91 percent male. Forty percent are in paygrades E-5 through E-8, while more than 35 percent are in paygrades O-3 through O-5.

Almost 80 percent of respondents have a college degree — including 27 percent with a graduate degree and more than 11 percent with a post-graduate degree — while an additional 18.5 percent have some college under their belts.

And they are battle-hardened; almost 29 percent have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, while a similar percentage has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.

So a bunch of old white men think a pro-Vietnam war protester who hid in France during the war, mostly in a mansion that had a chef, would be a good president. Not for any military reason though, but for the economy. Must be for Romney's plan to do vague undisclosed things that will be worked out with congress after his election.

More ignorant assumptions... stick to investing in your soaring sock market with all those businesses making record profits, which you still haven't named. Oh ya, might as well look up the word reign while you're at it.

 

[Nordling]

As they say, when you don't have a real argument, attack someone's spelling.

 

[Shaun__]

More ignorant assumptions...

Do you even read what you post? It says most of the respondents are older white males. Why don't you tell me which of Romney's detailed plans you find so fucking great, and convince me he is just the bees knees.

stick to investing in your soaring sock market with all those businesses making record profits, which you still haven't named.

In 2011, the Fortune 500 generated a combined $824.5 billion in earnings -- an all-time record, and a 16 percent jump from the previous year. I have zero intentions of listing individual companies. Does it sadden your little Republican heart knowing reality once again sided with liberals?

Oh ya, might as well look up the word reign while you're at it.

Burn, that really stings. :lol:

 

[Bocefish]

Yeah, they're older and more senior in rank than the 18-22 year olds, which hardly makes them old white men. Reading comprehension.

Billionaires are dumping Stocks... despite a soaring sock market according to Shaun

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

“Companies will be spending more money on borrowing costs than business expansion costs. That means lower profit margins, lower dividends, and less hiring. Plus, more layoffs.”

No investors, let alone billionaires, will want to own stocks with falling profit margins and shrinking dividends. So if that’s why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros are dumping stocks, they have decided to cash out early and leave Main Street investors holding the bag.

 

[Nordling]

Nice cut and paste. Got a link to all that?

 

[Shaun__]

No investors, let alone billionaires, will want to own stocks with falling profit margins and shrinking dividends. So if that’s why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros are dumping stocks, they have decided to cash out early and leave Main Street investors holding the bag.

It is just business. You do not get to be a multi-billionaire by being sentimental and holding on to failing companies. I am sorry, but like I posted many companies are still posting record profits and those are the ones that will be getting investors.

 

[MrRodry]

Bocey, next time put the source at your post, man... It took Google 0.45 seconds to find that article.

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1

The professional core of the U.S. military overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over President Obama in the upcoming election — but not because of any particular military issues, according to a new poll of more than 3,100 active and reserve troops.

Respondents rated the economy and the candidates’ character as their most important considerations and all but ignored the war in Afghanistan as an issue of concern.

The Military Times Poll is a secure email survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve members who are subscribers to the Military Times newspapers (see How We Did It, below).

This population is older and more senior than the military population at large, but it is representative of the professional core of the all-volunteer force.

The 3,100 respondents — roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members — are about 80 percent white and 91 percent male. Forty percent are in paygrades E-5 through E-8, while more than 35 percent are in paygrades O-3 through O-5.

Almost 80 percent of respondents have a college degree — including 27 percent with a graduate degree and more than 11 percent with a post-graduate degree — while an additional 18.5 percent have some college under their belts.

And they are battle-hardened; almost 29 percent have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, while a similar percentage has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.

The Military Times poll shows that Republicans continue to enjoy overwhelming support among the military’s professional ranks.

“There is really an affinity for Republican candidates, even though [troops] say that what counts is character and handling the economy,” said Richard Kohn, who teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Poll results indicate that about 66 percent of those surveyed support Romney, compared with about 26 percent who say they will vote to re-elect President Obama.

When asked about the most important issue guiding their vote this year, about 66 percent of respondents cited either “the economy” or “the character of the candidate.” Less than 16 percent of troops surveyed cited “national security.”

And the war in Afghanistan is barely a blip on the radar: Just more than 1 percent put that conflict at the top of their list of concerns. That’s in stark contrast to troops’ feelings about the war in Iraq in the Military Times 2008 election poll, when 16 percent cited that conflict as their top concern.
Pocketbook issues

“When I talk to my soldiers, it’s not social issues. It’s almost not even military issues. What it comes down to is pocketbook issues,” said one 28-year-old Army captain who took the survey in late September. “They currently see Mitt Romney as being stronger for their pocketbook.

“It comes down to taxes — how much are they going to have to pay — and are they going to be able to find jobs if they leave the military,” said the captain, who, like most troops interviewed by Military Times, requested anonymity before discussing personal political views.

But some Obama supporters said they don’t believe a vote for him will necessarily hit them in the wallet.

A Navy fire controlman first class noted that Obama proposed to increase taxes on upper-income earners, specifically those making more than $200,000 a year, or $250,000 for a family.

“How many people in the military make more than $200,000 a year?” the sailor said.

Although service members have their health care needs covered by the military, the state of national health care is important to an Air Force technical sergeant at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.

“I grew up in a low-income family that never had health care,” the airman said. “You waited until you were extremely sick, and then my mother would take us to an emergency room.

“I’m in favor of everyone having health care,” he said, adding that the Obama administration’s health care plan may not be “the best one out there, but it’s better than nothing.”

The airman also is disappointed in Romney’s continued lack of details on his plans.

“He seems to tell you what you want to hear but doesn’t back it up with specifics,” he said.

Many Romney supporters cite their candidate’s business experience as an asset, especially in times of national fiscal trouble.

Capt. John Bowe, a Marine military policeman stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., said he’s voting for Romney because it’s clear Obama is doing a poor job with the nation’s finances.

“You cannot add $6 trillion to the [national] debt in 3½ years and not expect massive repercussions,” he said.

Yet some in the Obama camp say Romney’s career as a chief executive for an investment company does not necessarily prepare him well for the White House.

“The guy is all about making money, which is great, but government doesn’t work like a business,” the sailor said. “It just doesn’t work that way. It’s not a for-profit industry.”

A Navy commander and helicopter pilot who is a registered Republican said he plans to vote for Romney, but added, “I don’t have much faith in either” candidate.

Obama “has proven that he can’t fulfill his campaign promises. And I don’t have much faith in Romney to be able to fulfill his,” the commander said.

UNC Chapel Hill’s Kohn, who reviewed the poll results at the request of Military Times, said this year’s responses “really track with traditional views of the military, regardless of President Obama’s reaching out to military families.”
Obama edges upward

While Obama supporters in uniform are clearly a minority, the president’s standing among Military Times readers has improved 3 percentage points since the 2008 poll, when he was a first-term senator facing off against Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. In 2008, 23 percent of respondents supported Obama, while 68 percent backed McCain.

That may suggest that the GOP’s dominance on military issues is ebbing, if very slowly, said Peter Feaver, an expert on civil-military relations who teaches at Duke University.

“[For] several decades, the Republicans had what is known as ‘issue ownership’ on national security,” said Feaver, who served as a special adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. “The last five to six years has produced a little bit of a swing of the pendulum.”

He cited several reasons for the potential shift, including a perception that the Bush administration mishandled the Iraq War.

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. special operations troops also was a boost to Obama’s national security image, and Democrats have courted military voters by emphasizing veterans’ benefits and trying to recast the traditional view of which party supports the military.

“If the national security issue can be re-imagined as an entitlement program, then that fits the Democratic narrative pretty well,” Feaver said. “It’s clearly the way Obama most naturally feels comfortable talking about the military. He’s quite eloquent when he talks about honoring the commitments made to those who serve.”

Still, most respondents to the Military Times poll were highly critical of Obama’s performance as commander in chief, especially his handling of the defense budget and national security strategy.

Sixty-two percent rated his handling of the defense budget as only fair or poor, while 57 percent applied the same rating to his handling of the war in Afghanistan.

But troops were less critical of Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq last year, with 47 percent giving him a fair or poor rating on that issue.

Kohn said the troops’ views on Iraq are driven by firsthand experience.

“They are the ones on the ground. They are pretty well-informed people, and they see that there was not a great deal more they could do [in Iraq] … with a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable amount of resources,” Kohn said.

Bowe, the Marine military police captain, added that the Obama administration’s handling of Libya after Moammar Gadhafi was deposed amounted to “colossal mismanagement” and ultimately cost the life of a U.S. ambassador.

“If you’re not an effective manager … you can’t run anything else,” Bowe said.

The strong views expressed by Bowe and the other poll respondents were not uncommon in this year’s election survey. Although the military strives to stay apolitical as an institution, it’s clear that many troops are highly engaged in what some experts have called the most potentially significant presidential election in years.

“You kind of expect your soldiers to go home at night and play Xbox and drink beer — which they do — but I’ve heard them talk about [the election] quite a bit,” the Army captain said. “They’re more dialed in than some might think.”

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/t ... n-3231685/

Wondering why Bocey choose to edit out those valuable opinions and statements about such important topics, coming from people that put their life at risk for his safety, of his post...

 

[Nordling]

His next post was plagiarized too:

http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/b...-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=FE8A-1

 

[Bocefish]

Wondering why Bocey choose to edit out those valuable opinions and statements about such important topics, coming from people that put their life at risk for his safety, of his post...

I only included the first few paragraphs because the rest is about differing opinions and doesn't change the 2-1 ratio or who were surveyed for the TL;DR people. Normally I do add the link, but the gist of it was in the first few paragraghs. And you can save the BS about them risking their life for my post nonsense.
ETA: this was my link http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/ ... -1-100712/

 

[Shaun__]

Even I have to admit he is a good debater.

​

 

[Mirra]

Wait what? You're saying the military is supporting the candidate running as a conservative? I'm not talking just military/war stuff here either. Most people I meet with military backgrounds are quite conservative politically. Just because it's who they support doesn't convince me at all. I have a lot of respect for the military because of their commitment, the sacrifice they make, and the overall job they perform for this country. I don't consider their opinion more important than any other citizen when it comes to politics. I do not find them (as a whole) to be a model of intelligence and logic. I find them to be a model of discipline and order (when they aren't doing stupid shit that makes the news).

As for Warren Buffet and other extremely wealthy investors bailing on stocks that are driven largely by consumer purchasing habits, that part seems pretty logical to me. I don't know enough about how the markets react to things such as inflation to know the accuracy of their conclusion on the long-term effects they've outlined. I'm not sure what companies Shaun__ is referring to with soaring stocks. I do know I've seen multiple reports about the fact that many top companies have large cash reserves much like his graphic from earlier showed because they're sitting on that capital rather than using it to expand, hire, or otherwise grow. That too is to blame at least in part to the state of the economy.

 

[Bocefish]

Will Obama call Stacey Dash like he called Sandra Fluke to express his disappointment that she has been the subject of such inappropriate personal attacks and to thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen?

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/07/romney-su ... gn=twitter

 

[MrRodry]

Wondering why Bocey choose to edit out those valuable opinions and statements about such important topics, coming from people that put their life at risk for his safety, of his post...

I only included the first few paragraphs because the rest is about differing opinions and doesn't change the 2-1 ratio or who were surveyed for the TL;DR people. Normally I do add the link, but the gist of it was in the first few paragraghs. And you can save the BS about them risking their life for my post nonsense.
ETA: this was my link http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/ ... -1-100712/

And here I am thinking the "gist" of that article was to actually show the existence of this political debate and the different opinions you choose to not post, you know I mean, you read it, that part near the end that goes something like this:

“You kind of expect your soldiers to go home at night and play Xbox and drink beer — which they do — but I’ve heard them talk about [the election] quite a bit,” the Army captain said. “They’re more dialed in than some might think.”.

For me, the weird thing is that you choose to praise the result of a survey obtained through emails but the personal opinions coming from people of the same demographic are just not that important.

I don't know how far this selective reading will take you on this quest of "Opening People Eyes About Obama" but I wish you good luck with that because, and I hope you are aware of this, some people don't base their opinions on headlines or first paragraphs.

 

[Bocefish]

And here I am thinking the "gist" of that article was to actually show the existence of this political debate and the different opinions you choose to not post, you know I mean, you read it, that part near the end that goes something like this:

“You kind of expect your soldiers to go home at night and play Xbox and drink beer — which they do — but I’ve heard them talk about [the election] quite a bit,” the Army captain said. “They’re more dialed in than some might think.”.

For me, the weird thing is that you choose to praise the result of a survey obtained through emails but the personal opinions coming from people of the same demographic are just not that important.

Since you're so interested in the opinions I didn't post, might as well go back to my link http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/ ... -1-100712/ look at the graphs and read all the opinions/comments stated below the article then too.