The Great Debate:Romney vs Obama [Archive]

View Full Version : The Great Debate:Romney vs Obama

Specops03SS

10-03-2012, 22:47

All right... I dont want this to turn into some irate battle. I figured I could talk about this here, with people who are mature adults....until its super hero vs super hero lol
So what are your thoughts? Romney vs Obama? Im by no means asking who you are voting for...Just where you stand on each party and their platforms.READY GO!

SAPPER USMG

10-04-2012, 00:07

Loaded topic! Ha, in Utah, we vote for gun toting republican Mormons...

KaNtSt0PMeH

10-04-2012, 02:01

RP2K12 is all I am gonna say.

Bull3tBait

10-04-2012, 05:46

toby2533

10-04-2012, 06:10

My view is this Mitt says a lot with out backing it with facts the 5 trillion tax cut is what the CBO figured a 20% tax cut would take off the table fact. How do you pay for that? He also wants to add 2 trillion to the defense budget something they cut on programs that were not needed or going anywhere. Obama is trying to stay the course that Clinton did and wants to return back to Clinton era taxes. All I know that from all the TV coverage from Romney campaign he has said he would close loop holes in the tax code like get ride of the home interest write off(if this goes through beach house would be on the market cheap), that would kill the housing just as there are signs it is gaining some life. My main view is Obama was cautious and Romney coming off a very bad month which I don't see how he can get rid of that 47% comment really hit with most Americans attacked since he has nothing to lose now.

Rickety Rob

10-04-2012, 06:28

No offense to whoever started this thread but you just stirred up the hornets nest within USMG. It's one thing to talk about games but politics is where you can really offend someone. I'm all about Romney and that's all i'm going to say, but for those who express their views on this subject. Please consider those who are amongst you in this community. Say the wrong thing and you'll have a predicament on your hands

SAPPER USMG

10-04-2012, 06:35

Rickety Rob

10-04-2012, 06:37

Lmfao Bretado for Prez.

This I can agree on

toby2533

10-04-2012, 07:05

My previous comment was an attempt at sarcasm(need that font)... the Buideburg group or wtf ever they call themselves, run the show, not the pres...Anarchy! A fresh start! Viva la revolution! Shenanigans! I DON'T TRUST EITHER CANDIDATE/party, and never will. Ron Paul always gets my support. Or Ross Perot! Lmfao Bretado for Prez.

Actually you are right but the American public does not have the balls to start anything, with 24 hr new media the last several elections have not been about any issues just blue vs red. We need a FDR type that going to get in front of the people and say hey were in the shit financially and we are going to have another 3 tough years with budget cuts and tax increase to get us out of where we are. But there is not one of any party that will do that since they a both funded by the same people companies are not stupid they send cash both ways, now Ron has good ideas but he does not have a big enough support base to take on the big 2 parties.

ApollosArrow89

10-04-2012, 07:25

I want Romeny/Ryan to win the election but i know our current leader will get elected. No matter what is said and done, we are in for a long hurt if Obama gets re-elected. The unemployment will continue to rise and the deficit with it. So i know my choice but he wont win becuz of diehards. I loved the fact that i heard alot of soldiers saying after the debate that Bush is to blame for the current term. Hmm heard that before.

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 07:38

I don't like smug smirks and comments about how 47% of the population is a bunch of freeloaders (I know it wasn't in the debate but he had already made his thoughts clear). His foot needs to be shoved up his ass. Honestly both are bad choices but which is the lesser evil? The devil we know or the smirking one we don't?

I did very much like Obamas stand that the rich need to be taxed more and the middle class given a break. That's something that should have been happening all along.

The actual quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ...

To a degree this is accurate. It probably wasn't the best way to say it. The statement that 47% pay no income tax - that's true. Not all are freeloaders, but a pretty significant portion are. Most would be hard-pressed to vote for someone who might raise their taxes. And why would you vote for someone who was going to pay more? (Disclaimer: I currently am in that "47% who pay no income tax") I would, and here's why (answering your second point). Why should the rich be taxed more? For the most part, they worked for that money. Why would you take away that incentive to rise? Likewise, to the many who do not work and will not work, why should they have no liability? The most fair plan for taxation is the FairTax plan, and for any who have not heard of it, I encourage you to take a look: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Benjamin Franklin said:

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic
This is what is happening today. We are the cusp of the end if something does not change.

We need a FDR type that going to get in front of the people and say hey were in the shit financially and we are going to have another 3 tough years with budget cuts and tax increase to get us out of where we are.

FDR? He was one of the 2 worst presidents of the 20th Century! He expanded government more than any President before him, lengthened the depression, and the only reason he got out of it was World War II.

RP2K12 is all I am gonna say.

This.

toby2533

10-04-2012, 07:45

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55354.html

This shows how we went from a surplus to a deficit, this is what people key on.

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 07:51

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55354.html

This shows how we went from a surplus to a deficit, this is what people key on.

While President Obama has allowed reckless fiscal behavior, I honestly don't believe Gov Romney will do much better. People resist giving up any of the entitlement programs, and don't want to raise taxes. Without a change in either (probably both, honestly), we cannot reduce the deficit and will continue spiraling into debt.

toby2533

10-04-2012, 08:05

I was not saying FDR was great I was referring to the fact that we have not had a president that has told the American people that they will have to suck it up to fix the country when FDR did it, it was WWII. We need someone not owned by big business and special interest who is centered to do that, until that happens we will be stuck in this blue vs red. Think about it we have been fighting war for 10 years now and since we don't have a draft most people don't care other then we kicking ass, the American public even got 2 tax cuts during these wars, most people have not had any hardship in there life for years, the last I remember was the energy crisis in the 80's waiting in line for gas even -odd lic numbers, waiting in the long line for government cheese and bread after the old man lost his job in western PA when all the mills shut down and going with him to complete job applications since he could not read and write to good after school. I can't even think how my dad felt having to have his son do these things just to get unemployment and shame to stand in those lines to get free food.

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 08:59

RogueScot

10-04-2012, 09:28

KopfeJager

10-04-2012, 09:34

I've been a card carrying Independent for 18 years, back when it was called (Independent-Fusion), but I would be what's called a "Blue Dog Democrat" anyway, living in NY I get the pleasure of seeing many utterly useless programs that are money pits with ZERO progress....google it....way too many to post here. The point is that social programs are great...but eventually you run out of peoples money....and I don't know about you all, but when I spend money...I never get more back.....I usually have to work my ass off to recover....and save...etc etc. I don't see how PotUS can say..."SPEND" but then expect that to kick start an economy. Obama-care will BURY us....absolutely BURY us! 26 years old and 'covered' by parents....WTF is that? Hey, your 18 GTFO! Ok...now I am ranting....but what I see here is a current PoTUS who wipes his ass with the Constitution and has done more damage to us then the previous guy. He has been Prez for almost 4 years and STILL blames the previous guy!!!!! When it was CLEAR that the housing collapse root cause was from CLINTON!!!! "Hey can't afford a house....who cares! The Gubment will back ya! go for it!!!".....to "ops...shit.......blame BUSH!!!" The democrats have lost their minds in the last 15 years.....completely overrun by Liberals and "Progressives" which is code for "Amer-ka hatin', commie fuck bag." I love the "They do it in Europe comments they make...LOOK AT EUROPE!!! ITS IN ECONOMIC and POLITICAL TURMOIL!!!!!" And furthermore, I don't give a shit what Europe says...if they hate us because of Bush...then fuck them...if Bush is the worst we have done to them....then they need to get over their pompous selves...I think Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, WW1, WW2, all the incest sister fucking royal houses, entitlement-wanting-but-no-money prissies, Bosnia, kosovo...I could go on an on.....if all we have to match for that is Bush...then Europe can suck my balls. Ok...rant off on that too......

I am a Union Worker, Mitt is no friend to labor...but neither is BHO. The PotUS has zero impact on a local union.
I am a Vet, not a political pawn....I was a political pawn when I was active....now I want what I earned....and they better pay up...if some stairwell pissing, project livin', never had a job, school drop out is getting "assistance"...then they had BEST pay up to us who went forth and did our duty. And when we get KIA....we are NOT A BUMP IN THE FUCKIN ROAD!
I pay a shit ton of tax already
I am a home owner
I am angry my country is no longer recognizable
I want my constitution back.....let me say that again....I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK!!!!!!
I want the people I elect to work for me.....
I believe merit matters....work hard and be rewarded
I don't want a PotUS who BOWS to our enemies
STOP APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA!!!! Every other shithole on earth has done WAY more bad then we have in 200 years. If you want me to elaborate...I will.....
NO MORE FUCKIN HAND OUTS to fucks who don't progress society and have the means to do so!

BHO has to go

As for the debates....BHO got his ass handed to him....lawyers can not argue business with a business man. BHO was a bumbling, looking at the floor, mess....his speech writer couldn't help him on this on.....BTW...he had 30 seconds to defend Obamacare....he couldn't...despite working on it for over 2 years.....wasn't prep'd for 30 seconds of defense.....give me a break!!!

As for tax the "rich"....My joint income with wifey will put me in with rich guys.....I live in NY...I work in NYC....I own a 750sq foot condo in the burbs.....I get raped on property and schools tax, I can only afford a Hyundai, and use austerity budget practices ...I already only take home 40% of what I make....60% of my income goes to "taxes".....I get taxed by NYC...and I can't vote for Mayor....WTF!!!!!!!! I barely scrap by but according to BHO I am "wealthy." He can take that wealth distribution as shove it up his commie ass.

BHO has to go
Hillary has to go
Barney Frank has to go

I can go on and on......

BilgeRatBilly

10-04-2012, 09:52

So obviously I won't quote him because its long but I'm with the Kopfe on this. I'm not a fan of either candidate but Barack Hussain Obama has to go. 4 years of failure doesn't warrant 4 more to "try harder". Mitt may not give a crap about you or I, but I honestly feel Obama doesn't give a crap about America. He has his agenda and that's all he cares about.

Sent from my new (and better protected) phone, from my van down by the river.

Ragingclue

10-04-2012, 10:09

Let's not pretend that Clinton wasn't the distinct beneficiary of a booms that would have made any President look like an Economic genius. Just a point to ponder if you support the return to Clintonesque policy.

toby2533

10-04-2012, 10:32

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 10:40

Really broke my ties to the right wing when Carl Rove brought religion back as a major factor in elections when Bush junior stood and said that people without faith can be patriotic too, that was the end for me (an atheist).

I would have to agree with you here, even though I come from a completely opposite religious background (Presbyterian). One thing I loved about Ron Paul is how he carried himself. He was a deeply committed Christian - but he didn't go around parading it. He was a former military man - but he didn't parade that, either. He let his actions speak for themselves, and I think that in itself speaks volumes about how a man leads. Whenever religion or the military gets used as something "just to score points", they become devalued by that action.

BilgeRatBilly

10-04-2012, 10:57

I would have to agree with you here, even though I come from a completely opposite religious background (Presbyterian). One thing I loved about Ron Paul is how he carried himself. He was a deeply committed Christian - but he didn't go around parading it. He was a former military man - but he didn't parade that, either. He let his actions speak for themselves, and I think that in itself speaks volumes about how a man leads. Whenever religion or the military gets used as something "just to score points", they become devalued by that action.

Word! Man I wish Ron Paul was actually in this race.

Sent from my new (and better protected) phone, from my van down by the river.

toby2533

10-04-2012, 11:41

can't wait for this Saturday debate, will have a case of good beer to watch this.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jon-stewart-more-romney-obama-rumble-against-oreilly-144259612--abc-news-tv.html

GriffinSentinel

10-04-2012, 11:43

I'm not fond of either. So Chuck Norris for President and Ben Stein for VP.
Sorry Bretado. lol

sirjohnathon

10-04-2012, 11:46

Vote for Pedro

...this message has been approved by the Napoleon Dynamite Political Action Committee

The final thing I will say is......"I see landmines".

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 12:27

Miguel Cabrera for President since he just won the Triple Crown!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Rickety Rob

10-04-2012, 12:45

Miguel Cabrera for President since he just won the Triple Crown!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Biggest question is...will he win MVP? But that's a whole different topic

MikaelTyson

10-04-2012, 12:53

I got absolutely shit faced during this haha.

RogueScot

10-04-2012, 16:41

never voted for Clinton but during his time in office I got set for life via the tech bubble. Also never voted for Bush but will say this he would have been a 4 year press if it was not for 9/11, which was the last time the country stood together. Voted for Reagan and Bush senior twice. Really broke my ties to the right wing when Carl Rove brought religion back as a major factor in elections when Bush junior stood and said that people without faith can be patriotic too, that was the end for me (an atheist).

I am a Republican. I miss the Republican Party. The "Religious Right" used to be a fringe group the party tolerated. Now they run the party. I don't believe Reagan could get anywhere in the current GOP. I don't think he would get any backing. As a moderate, I am not wanted either.

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 17:10

I am a Republican. I miss the Republican Party. The "Religious Right" used to be a fringe group the party tolerated. Now they run the party. I don't believe Reagan could get anywhere in the current GOP. I don't think he would get any backing. As a moderate, I am not wanted either.

The problem is their views on government. Many of them have the same view of government as the liberals, that of a state that manages your lives, but they just hold different social views. I align myself with many of the personal views of the so-called 'religious right', but politically I lean libertarian/Constitutionalist. You can have good intentions, but put into practice laws that are terrible. That's why people who stick to the Constitution are so important.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

jxspyder

10-04-2012, 17:34

While President Obama has allowed reckless fiscal behavior, I honestly don't believe Gov Romney will do much better. People resist giving up any of the entitlement programs, and don't want to raise taxes. Without a change in either (probably both, honestly), we cannot reduce the deficit and will continue spiraling into debt.

It's really simple. Do you vote for the guy who might fail, or the guy who has failed?

Sent from the muddy banks of the Wishkaw

jxspyder

10-04-2012, 17:39

I say if you are wealthy, you should vote for Romney. He's your man and has your best interests at heart.

Top down/Trickle Down economics don't work. If you give the wealthy more tax breaks, they won't create jobs with it. They will store it away in some sort of off-shore account. Just like Romney does.

I don't believe Romney cares one whit about you and I.

As opposed to increasing their taxes, which pushes more money offshore, and moves jobs out of country as well? Also, last I checked, Texas disagrees with your sentiment.

Romney may not care one whit about you and I, which I disagree with personally, but Obama doesn't care about either of us, nor our constitution to boot. His crowning achievement of his presidency is a healthcare program that is going to break "us."

Sent from the muddy banks of the Wishkaw

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 17:44

It's really simple. Do you vote for the guy who might fail, or the guy who has failed?

Oh, the guy who might fail, of course. I am a pessimist at heart, but I am not enthusiastic about Romney. Don't get me wrong-I'm not saying it makes no difference-but I think that people looking for another Reagan are going to be sorely disappointed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

RogueScot

10-04-2012, 18:19

Man, some of you need to quit watching Fox "News" and listening to Rush Limbaugh. :)

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 18:27

Man, some of you need to quit watching Fox "News" and listening to Rush Limbaugh. :)

Lol. Haven't listened to Rush in years and don't watch much news. Most of my news comes from reading.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

toby2533

10-04-2012, 18:42

what we need to do is sit around do some bong hits and then talk about this shit.

Bull3tBait

10-04-2012, 18:52

I'll take my political news from Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert lol. That's the only way I can stomach politics.

There Ain't no Rest for the Wicked.....

BilgeRatBilly

10-04-2012, 19:02

Biggest question is...will he win MVP? But that's a whole different topic

Absolutely no question! There is no way you can't give it to him.

Sent from my new (and better protected) phone, from my van down by the river.

Bull3tBait

10-04-2012, 19:29

what we need to do is sit around do some bong hits and then talk about this shit.

Hahahahaha. I think if we do bong hits we'll have better things to talk about.

There Ain't no Rest for the Wicked.....

iamthesgt

10-04-2012, 21:18

Absolutely no question! There is no way you can't give it to him.

I don't know. Based on Mike Trout's season, if he had not won the T.C., there's no way you could give it to him. Across the board, Trout has provided better value to his team. I think it's going to be close, and you can't say who is going to definitively win either way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

SAPPER USMG

10-04-2012, 22:02

what we need to do is sit around do some bong hits and then talk about this shit.

I'll pack first...

SAPPER USMG

10-04-2012, 22:36

4156

Hmmm...

ZuluNiner

10-05-2012, 01:14

RP2K12 is all I am gonna say.

Ru Paul?

Ragingclue

10-05-2012, 07:38

I don't know. Based on Mike Trout's season, if he had not won the T.C., there's no way you could give it to him. Across the board, Trout has provided better value to his team. I think it's going to be close, and you can't say who is going to definitively win either way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Even if Cabrera hadn't won the triple crown, he'd still have won the MVP.

Here's why: The last two months of the season, Cabrera's stats were off the hook while Trout was mediocre. One team made a push in the last two months to win the division, the other did not. Every other point or statistic from either side of the debate can be countered by the other side. That one can't, and that's the kind of intangible that makes an MVP, an MVP.

And don't use the WAR stat as too heavy a weight in your argument. It's not ready to be used how it is.... Two different ways of calculating it, there are arbitrary factors, and the Angels have a higher WAR than the Rangers (pretty much stomping on the stat as the better team should have a higher WAR; if not, that means the individuals on the lesser team (Angels) have an unfair advantage because it means their replacements just suck more).

EDIT: And to close it out:
From Elias: Miguel Cabrera knocked in 139 of the 726 runs the Tigers scored during the 2012 season (19.1 percent). That is the highest percentage of a team's total runs driven in by a single player from a team that appeared in the postseason since RBI became an official statistic in 1920. Prior to Cabrera, that marked was held by Johnny Bench, who drove in 148 of the N.L. Western Division Champion Reds' 775 total runs during the 1970 season (19.10 percent to Cabrera's 19.15 percent).

iamthesgt

10-05-2012, 12:20

Even if Cabrera hadn't won the triple crown, he'd still have won the MVP.

Here's why: The last two months of the season, Cabrera's stats were off the hook while Trout was mediocre. One team made a push in the last two months to win the division, the other did not. Every other point or statistic from either side of the debate can be countered by the other side. That one can't, and that's the kind of intangible that makes an MVP, an MVP.

And don't use the WAR stat as too heavy a weight in your argument. It's not ready to be used how it is.... Two different ways of calculating it, there are arbitrary factors, and the Angels have a higher WAR than the Rangers (pretty much stomping on the stat as the better team should have a higher WAR; if not, that means the individuals on the lesser team (Angels) have an unfair advantage because it means their replacements just suck more).

EDIT: And to close it out:
From Elias: Miguel Cabrera knocked in 139 of the 726 runs the Tigers scored during the 2012 season (19.1 percent). That is the highest percentage of a team's total runs driven in by a single player from a team that appeared in the postseason since RBI became an official statistic in 1920. Prior to Cabrera, that marked was held by Johnny Bench, who drove in 148 of the N.L. Western Division Champion Reds' 775 total runs during the 1970 season (19.10 percent to Cabrera's 19.15 percent).

WAR is calculated based to league replacement level, not team. And according to baseball-reference, he has the 20th-best all-time mark, and only 3 seasons since 1975 have better numbers (2 of them being Bonds). RBI is a highly misleading stat - Cabrera had 444 people on base for him, while Trout had only 304. Cabrera also had 60 more PA's, and Trout is a leadoff hitter, not hitting in the prime RBI area of the 3-hole. Trout also plays in a slightly less offensive-friendly park, thus giving him an edge in OPS+. The rest of the sabermetric stats are split between them, but one key one I note is Offensive Winning % - the % of games a team with 9 players like him would win, assuming average pitching & defense. Trout sits at 0.786, with Cabrera at 0.745, and that brings me to another point - Trout is an incredible defensive player. Cabrera is not bad, but he's not gold-glove caliber. Also, on the base paths Trout is one of the best in the majors, both in stealing bases and in taking the extra base. It's close, but I think Trout has the edge for being all-around sensational.

Ragingclue

10-05-2012, 13:02

WAR is calculated based to league replacement level, not team. And according to baseball-reference, he has the 20th-best all-time mark, and only 3 seasons since 1975 have better numbers (2 of them being Bonds). RBI is a highly misleading stat - Cabrera had 444 people on base for him, while Trout had only 304. Cabrera also had 60 more PA's, and Trout is a leadoff hitter, not hitting in the prime RBI area of the 3-hole. Trout also plays in a slightly less offensive-friendly park, thus giving him an edge in OPS+. The rest of the sabermetric stats are split between them, but one key one I note is Offensive Winning % - the % of games a team with 9 players like him would win, assuming average pitching & defense. Trout sits at 0.786, with Cabrera at 0.745, and that brings me to another point - Trout is an incredible defensive player. Cabrera is not bad, but he's not gold-glove caliber. Also, on the base paths Trout is one of the best in the majors, both in stealing bases and in taking the extra base. It's close, but I think Trout has the edge for being all-around sensational.

Yeah sorry, that stat keeps confusing me. Thanks for rectifying that. So how do the Angels have a higher WAR than the Rangers again?

But, like I said before, one guy was hot for the last two months, and he carried his team to the playoffs. The other guy slumped a bit and his team missed the playoffs by a narrow margin. Also, the guy going to the playoffs happened to win the first Triple Crown since 1967....

And I know Trout makes some great defensive plays, but everyone is saying his defense is so incredible, stellar, etc.... Yet he had what? Eight errors this year? That is not incredible, not even great.... Cabrera was third in fielding percentage IIRC at his position in MLB (but let's not forget he's got limited range), while Trout is nowhere on the radar for that stat (and he could work on his arm too). Keep in mind he also struck out ~40 more times than Cabrera in (I think) 22 less games.... So there's a lot of stats we can sit here an compare. That's why I said for every stat, there's a counter to it. However, there's no counter to the fact that one player carried his team to the playoffs and the other slumped at the most critical time.

But I think it's pretty pointless to debate because in the end, it's going to have to be subjectivity that decides, and in this case we both have different ideas. That's cool too.

iamthesgt

10-05-2012, 13:20

Yeah sorry, that stat keeps confusing me. Thanks for rectifying that. So how do the Angels have a higher WAR than the Rangers again?

But, like I said before, one guy was hot for the last two months, and he carried his team to the playoffs. The other guy slumped a bit and his team missed the playoffs by a narrow margin. Also, the guy going to the playoffs happened to win the first Triple Crown since 1967....

And I know Trout makes some great defensive plays, but everyone is saying his defense is so incredible, stellar, etc.... Yet he had what? Eight errors this year? That is not incredible, not even great.... Cabrera was third in fielding percentage IIRC at his position in MLB (but let's not forget he's got limited range), while Trout is nowhere on the radar for that stat. Keep in mind he also struck out ~40 more times than Cabrera in (I think) 22 less games.... So there's a lot of stats we can sit here an compare. That's why I said for every stat, there's a counter to it. However, there's no counter to the fact that one player carried his team to the playoffs and the other slumped at the most critical time.

Overall, as a team, the Angels produced more WAR than the Rangers (team WAR is simply additive - add up all the players). It's not unusual for situations like this to arise - The Orioles nearly made the playoffs by allowing more runs than they scored (they played 11 games over their "expected" record). I had not been aware that the Angels had slumped - I thought they were one of the Wild-Card teams. Been so busy I hadn't been paying much attention to the AL. That does change things.

As far as errors and fielding percentage, those are also misleading. Some fielders have vastly superior range, but just miss/drop an extremely tough ball that most players at their position couldn't have even reached (e.g. Derek Jeter vs. Rafael Furcal: over their career, Jeter has a higher FPct (.976 to .966, but Furcal has...errr...had incredible range and a canon arm that gave him a Range Factor above-average almost every season, while Jeter had a significantly below-average one. Additionally, Jeter has been noted as a historically bad fielding shortstop (defensive runs "saved" above average of -142), while Furcal was above average (+51). Cabrera grounded into a league-leading 28 double plays, while Trout had only 7, which negates the additional strikeouts. Trout didn't really "slump" over the last two months - hit hit .289/.400/.500 with 5 homers and 7 steals. Not as good as he was doing, but not really a slump. But looking at the fact the Angels did not make the playoffs, that does change things some.

Ragingclue

10-05-2012, 13:34

Yeah I know "slumped" is a strong term when you look at his stats over that time. Hardly terrible by any stretch of the imagination. I hope the kid goes on to compete for the MVP in future years.

That being said, I'd probably vote for either of those two for POTUS over the chumps that this shoddy two-party system has put forward....

iamthesgt

10-05-2012, 14:01

Ragingclue

10-05-2012, 14:04

Lol...I don't know about Cabrera - he's kind of a punk. And Trout's too young to be Constitutionally eligible...but I know what you mean...

Well it was a bit of a hyperbole injected to put some glue between the topic of the thread and the topic we were on.

iamthesgt

10-05-2012, 14:11

Well it was a bit of a hyperbole injected to put some glue between the topic of the thread and the topic we were on.

Yeah I know...somehow justifying the random rabbit trail was a good idea...if anything, it gave some people time to cool down before anything got out of hand.

Specops03SS

10-05-2012, 17:41

I dont think it was ever going to get out of hand. We all respect each other and their opinions to much for that. That is why I came here with this. I started this thread to get insight...and I found it. In My opinion like most of yours...neither man is worthy of any of our votes. We are screwed either way. Both men will put us somewhere we dont want to be and cannot get out of. What has america come to(rhetorical question)? Why vote for crooks and liars...So far this is all I have seen for years. I am going to be 25 years old, so to most I am still a young dumb kid, but even this young dumb kid sees that things have been going downhill for years even before my time. Its not the fault of anyone president, but the result of many failures on all of the presidents who have "served". Im at a loss...I can vote for one of two men who will fail us regardless, or throw away my vote on a third party that has not got a shot in the world to win. They wonder why so many people don't vote. They say if I don't vote, then I shouldn't have an opinion about how this country is ran.....
How about this...I vote that they drug test people who live off the system. That will take care of about 70% of the free loaders. I vote that anybody has the right to marry anyone they want. If you dont like gay marriage, then dont marry a gay and mind your own fucking business. I vote that we keep our military running strong, so that we dont get over run by fucking terrorists, and end up being another third world country. I vote that people stop bitching about paying taxes, and just pay them. I vote that the presidents stop spending so much money on vacations, and modifications to the whitehouse to please themselves.I vote that instead of spending that money uselessly they put it into something that will lower unemployment rates, and help the people who really need it. I vote that elections stop being popularity contests. I vote for new candidates...ones that care about OUR country...care about US. Ones that want to make a diffrence, and not a name for themselves. I am one of many in this country who actually want to work, and take care of myself,but can't because of the job situations. One of the many americans, who is eager to learn and can't afford the opportunity.One individuals who believes in my self and in my country, while they sit there and dictate to us, and have little or no faith. Give to those who want and NEED it, and those are the people who will give back to their towns, their communities, their states, and their country. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, One....but I see None...not one man who wants to do what needs to be done properly.Not one man who is right for the job...no not just a job,but also a Privilege of being a True American President. We were lost, found, and lost again.

:closed_2::closed_2::closed_2::closed_2::closed_2::lock1::lock1::lock1::loc k1::lock1::lock1::lock1::lock1::lock1:

iamthesgt

10-05-2012, 22:43

I agree with most of this. :lock: sounds good to me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ragingclue

10-06-2012, 11:01

C. R. E. A. M.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

David_3033

10-06-2012, 15:09

Romney / Ryan 2012!!

clarkness7112100

10-06-2012, 16:49

Sad to say, but I am going to have to go with Obama still. If the republicans would have put forth Ron Paul, they would have gotten my vote. I have been keeping a close eye on the elections all the way back to the primaries. I am not in love with Obama and some of his policies I disagree with, but I am impressed with some of the stuff he has done. I do not trust the Republicans any more because they have been hi-jacked by the religious right and I truly believe that if they got a true foothold in our government then we could have the start of a Christian Taliban. I agree more with the democratic base than I do with the Republican base.

I am for Planned Parenthood because it has been a valuable service to myself and others I have known. I once partook in an std test (which I would always recommend rubbers you are single, I did not have that knowledge explained to because I was Catholic at the time.) when I was 16. It was great because I did get to protect my privacy even from my parents who were in the middle of a decade long divorce proceeding which would have added fuel to the fire. A female friend of mine also was able to receive free std testing and receive free education and information on how to cope with it. Now before you jump to conclusions, she was married before she even had sex to a marine who decided that the two months of training in between his home visits was too long to wait for his next bout and decided to contract HPV from a barfly. I have had two female friends get full checkups there because they didn't have insurance. They were both in college without insurance because at the time they could not be on their parents insurance. They both found out they had breast cancer early were able to treat it early and beat it. Free birth control and condoms are nice to give out because let's face it, teens regardless of religious position are going to have sex. I would much rather have my daughter get birth control from them than be too afraid to ask my wife and go without. Like it or not, I would only rather see wanted babies born rather than the mix we have at days. I would rather pay $30 of tax money for some birth control every month rather than welfare and food stamps for an unwanted or surprise pregnancy.

People can say what they want about Obama, but I haven't seen him trying to take away any of my rights or trying to make decisions for my family like the Republican God machine has. I do believe in abortion for cases of rape, incest and medical reasons. The majority of Republicans would love to end abortion in any case. I don't believe in it as a form of birth control but its funny how Republicans would do anything to make you have that baby but would rather see it starve afterwards.

When it comes to the economy, the President doesn't have much to do with it. They both promise to create jobs, but they can only truly guarantee jobs in the public sector.. Obama didn't crash the economy any more than Bush did. If you want to point to a single instance, check out the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, which was a combined efforts of both sides and the bankers. The GS Act kept commercial banks and investment banking separate, which basically meant that investment banks couldn't use the common man's money to gamble with. It also put huge restrictions on speculation, the same area of the economy that influences prices of commodities such as oil. It was repealed in 1998 and within 3 years, gasoline was already up by 50% and we experienced a small economical crash with the dot com businesses.

Its funny watching the debate the other night because Romney did a huge 180 on a lot of things. If I were Obama and my opponent just flip-flopped on what he has campaigned on over the previous year, I would probably look dumb-founded too. When it comes to getting the economy rolling again, the power is in the corporations and other business owners hands. Whoever is President will both have to bribe the "job creators" with tax cuts and incentives because we have been fooled to think that those corporations could just go anywhere. Its a huge lie, most other civilized countries tax their businesses way more than we do. Hell most businesses overseas have way more rules to govern and a higher level of resistance to to corporate greed. Romney can promise all of the tax cuts he wants but the Bush tax cuts were pretty steep and they didn't lead to any more job growth than what was normal before. If Romney gets into back into power and repeals what little regulation Obama has gotten in place on the Wall Street, it won;t be long before the next bubble bursts.

I don't agree with all of the Obamacare thing, I like all of the provisions other than the mandated health care. In the grand scheme of things, I could think of worse things to see my tax money spent on. I am sure for every one person that it covers that is a piece of shit drug user, it will probably help another hard working family who couldn't afford insurance before stay afloat during a rough time.

Romney and the whole Mormon thing creeps me out too. The Mormon Church is just as intruding as the Catholic Church except that its members actually perform their duties with zealotry. The Mormon church holds a lot of money and therefore influence. Women are regarded as second class and it was only until recently that blacks could even become part of the clergy and still are not allowed into the higher circles. One of the few mainstream churches who have more secrets, only bested by Scientology. Then again, all monotheistic religions freak me out so therefore I may be a bit biased.

If you look at who is supporting Romney, the big banks, the religious zealots, big oil, Monsanto, Wal-mart, and the military industrial complex, these are groups who would throw each and every one of us under the bus for a buck. I am not voting for Obama really, I am voting against Romney.

I am more likely to vote for a third party candidate just to possibly give more validity to a 3rd party candidate next election cycle, but definitely not Romney.

Specops03SS

10-06-2012, 18:00

:lock1::lock1::lock1::lock1::lock1:
Thank you guys for a civil, and passionate debate. Im glad we all respect each other enough to do this maturely.
I would like to lock this though, that way it doesn't reach a point where it does.

David_3033

10-06-2012, 19:32

These are the disscussions that we usually try to shy away from on the forums. These discussions about politics can get very heated because most people have diehard opinions and everyone always thinks theirs is right. I definitely disagree with many that have posted so far on this thread, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest with anyone here about it. Me trying to argue differently isn't going to change anyones opinion nor are they going to change mine. That's the beautiful thing about this country we can have our own beliefs and that's ok.

HAVOK

10-07-2012, 02:29

I'm all for freedom of opinion, but I generally feel like discussing Politics is a bad idea. That's just me....

Ragingclue

10-07-2012, 08:52

I agree with Havok. People don't really often discuss politics, as their minds are already made up as far as what they believe, and those beliefs are usually rooted in personal experience, making it a passionate subject.

That said, I'm writing myself in. Again.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

River_Rat_459

10-07-2012, 09:54

Politics and religion are polarizing subjects. I've always considered discussing them on forums like this a bad idea, but that's just my opinion. I'm not going to stop anyone from saying what they feel, regardless of whether or not others agree or disagree.

That being said, I'm going to follow-through with the request and lock this thread. If it needs to be reopened, just let me, Spyder, or Smoke know.

I'm all for freedom of opinion, but I generally feel like discussing Politics is a bad idea. That's just me....