[LottiFurmann]

I am quite lost in the convoluted arguments in this thread about Indians being emotional and vote by caste and color. Now AFAIK, Obama is neither the caste nor the color of any Indian (he is a hybrid of African/Black and Euro/Amer/White races, none of which is present in India).

I had also raised this question before, in addition to pointing out that issues concerning immigration policies and tax breaks are 'rational' issues and not 'emotional' at all.

Jaykay has formed an opinion on Obama's performance and has concluded that he does not deserve to be re-elected. He has arrived at these conclusions rationally, of which there can hardly be any doubt. Where he seems to err is he believes that because his conclusion is arrived at rationally, coming to a contrarian conclusion is irrational. It is a fallacy.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, butis also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem

..................................
so what is the rational behind the 85 % support by Indian americans ? - Norational analysis - becos if he has failed, why should so many support him ?

Like they elect based on Caste in India - they are rooting for Obama forreasons other than merit & competence !!

I think JayKay is having fun in this thread. His logic astounds me.

He oversimplifies the problem of explaining behaviors of populations and groups. I suggest reading Mancur Olsen's works to gain better understanding on this subject:
Mancur Olson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To gain an understanding on game theory, the basis on which group behavior is explained in modern times, please read
Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also an interesting read for people with interest in mathematical concepts:
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LottiFurmann]

I had also raised this question before, in addition to pointing out that issues concerning immigration policies and tax breaks are 'rational' issues and not 'emotional' at all.

Jaykay has formed an opinion on Obama's performance and has concluded that he does not deserve to be re-elected. He has arrived at these conclusions rationally, of which there can hardly be any doubt. Where he seems to err is he believes that because his conclusion is arrived at rationally, coming to a contrarian conclusion is irrational. It is a fallacy.

Sir, Let me clarify.

On the question of whether Obama has delivered or not. There can only be 1 answer, YES or NO.

so if you "rationally" analyse the "most important issues" - debt situation, economy, jobs - he has NOT delivered.

Debt moved from 5 to 10 Trillion to 15 Trillion. As a president, one should first solve this problem first. Also Prasad said you have to tax the rich - this will further take the economy into deep recession. However even if the buffet rule is passed, it will only raise 30 billion in 10 yrs?. so is it even worth fighting on this issue ?

economy & Jobs: Housing crisis continues, defaults continuing every month, number of new business ventures are going down, millions & millions are out of work & more getting laid off. Most people out of work for 2 yrs have stopped looking for Jobs.

By spending that additional 5 Trillion, the economy has NOT improved an inch. It is sliding down on all parameters !!
if someone can show facts contrary to the above then I will rest my case.

if people are saying I did not arrive at this conclusion rationally based on hard facts, then they need to show facts to contrary.

[Peptobismol]

Reposting here from the other thread

In the case of Obama v/s Romney, the reason why I say people to choose Romneyis becos he is a "financial genius". He created super sucessfulcompanies, made a hell a lot of money, his VC firm was/is even more successful.His "super intelligent" investments are making huge amounts of moneyeven when he is spending a lot of time on the Campaign. & by all accountshas been a a very successful governor, balanced the budget, delievered on hispromises.

Now if he comes the president, then he will lead US back to a economicsuperpower & a great nation ! this is what "super IQ" folks doalways

if on the other hand they re-elect Obama, he will take the economy to deeprecession & depression. Millions will lose jobs & they will learn oneof the most expensive lessons ever to 'always elect the best of the best"

Infact it is better for Obama to be re-elected & make a total mess of theeconomy. then people will learn & this will be taught in all history books,will be a lesson for all other countries & generations to come so itwill do more good in the long term.

History always teachs us the best lessons. Genius Kings & commanders willlead their people to safety & these kings are celebrated. rest of themediocre kings & commanders fall on the wayside, but with millions losetheir lives in the process.

PS: I know Obama supporters will be all over on this, but welcome any rationalobjections, analysis as always

Cheers,
JK

[S.T.D.]

In general Democrats though appealing to be good have always have caused problems here whereas the Republicans have been good to India outwardly. America has often said that it has no friends nor enemies; it has only permanent interests. There is no problem for the localized Indians. But for those who have one leg here and one there (and I believe there are substantial numbers in the second category), their thoughts will be influenced by their interest and current state of affairs. And the resultant predicament will be awkward for all.

[Slonopotam845]

Mr. JK,
Benjamin Wallace-Wells, and other apologists for Mitt Romney's Mormon version of Ayn Rand's glorification of undiluted selfishness and greed, may try painting Romney's life at Bain Capital as some kind of technocratic whiz kid act, but there are thousands of employees at dozens of companies that fell prey to Romney's brand of vulture capitalism that can tell a very different story. Romney had already receded into the Bain background before his company, using his formula, had taken over, pillaged and destroyed Warner Bros Records.
DownWithTyranny!: Mitt Romney And The Devastation Of Vulture Capitalism


If Mitt becomes president and runs the country like Bain capital, the shareholders will (inner circle of Republican party) will be rich and rest of the country will be fired. His intelligence was in firing employees, bankrupting the company, reengaging on all loan commitments. That only helped his investment buddies and off shore banks. He has hid his money in Tax havens.

[Drugmachine]

Hi Prasad,

As I said in my other post, I am not a supporter of republican or tea party. My view is only restricted to Obama & Romney as a candidate & which of them is better.

I agree with the people who say the republicans are deliberating trying to stall business becos of their anti-obama obsession.

However having said this, Obama did miss many opportunities particularly in the first 2 yrs when he had super majority in both the house & senate. & more importantly his policies/views in many areas are wrong.

and in a direct head to head contest, Romney has a better track record compared to Obama.

Cheers,
JK

[doctorzlo]

Mr. JK,
I am not going to question your credential or your preference. This is democracy.
But just a clarification of Romney "success":

Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt. To critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts. At the same time, the deals sometimes introduce discipline to firms and even whole industries that need it.


Either way, Bain investors typically profited.


That was true in the case of GS Industries, the 10th-biggest Bain investment in the Romney years. Bain formed GSI in the early 1990s by spending $24 million to acquire and merge steel companies with plants in Missouri, South Carolina and other states.


Company managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately. Meanwhile, Bain and other investors received management fees from GSI and a $65-million dividend in the first years after the acquisition, according to interviews with company employees.


In 1999, as economic challenges mounted, GSI sought a federal loan guarantee intended to help steel companies compete internationally. The loan deal was approved, but in 2001, before it could be used, the company went bankrupt, two years after Romney left Bain.


More than 700 workers were fired, losing not only their jobs but health insurance, severance and a chunk of their pension benefits. GSI retirees also lost their health insurance and other benefits. Bain partners received about $50 million on their initial investment, a 100% gain.


"It makes me sick," said Steve Morrow, a retired GSI steelworker, recalling what happened to his fellow workers after the Kansas City shutdown. Some top managers received bonuses from Bain, he said. "But the salaried and hourly people ended up with the shaft."

[Ifroham4]

In general Democrats though appealing to be good have always have caused problems here whereas the Republicans have been good to India outwardly. America has often said that it has no friends nor enemies; it has only permanent interests. There is no problem for the localized Indians. But for those who have one leg here and one there (and I believe there are substantial numbers in the second category), their thoughts will be influenced by their interest and current state of affairs. And the resultant predicament will be awkward for all.

Iyya,
American elections have different meaning for American PIO's and Indian nationals.
American foreign policy is to protect the American interest.
For eight years, from 1953 to 1961, Dwight David Eisenhower a republican America was Anti-India and that still lingers. Subsequent Democrats,Kennedy had a personal connection to India and changed the policy, Carter, and Clinton were friends of India.
Nixon a Republican was anti-India to please China.
Bush was not a friend of India or Indians. He refused to Honer Divali, ware as Id, and other religious festival were observed in the white house.
Obama was the first President to celebrate Divali in the white-house.

Obama has been very friendly, and State office headed by Mrs. Clinton has been very friendly to India.
More so as friend of Afganistan they have tamed Pakistan which helps India.

[tgs]

Dear Prasadji
American elections have different meaning for American PIO's and Indian nationals.
American foreign policy is to protect the American interest.
For eight years, from 1953 to 1961, Dwight David Eisenhower a republican America was Anti-India and that still lingers. Subsequent Democrats,Kennedy had a personal connection to India and changed the policy, Carter, and Clinton were friends of India.

The world was adjusting itself and polarization was taking place (which subsequently disappeared, thanks mainly to the fall of Berlin wall and the USSR) Then non-alignment movement was very powerful and was a tool for the power blocs. India was just developing but had a posture of socialism.

Nixon a Republican was anti-India to please China.

China was still an enigma and the cine actor president had to do a theatrical act.


Bush was not a friend of India or Indians. He refused to Honer Divali, ware as Id, and other religious festival were observed in the white house.
Obama was the first President to celebrate Divali in the white-house.

The less said about the Bush the better. He is the most ridiculed and was good neither to his people nor to others. But whatever semblance of power India got, financial or otherwise, was in this period. You must understand the slide of things here notwithstanding the Diwali celebrations.

Obama has been very friendly, and State office headed by Mrs. Clinton has been very friendly to India.
More so as friend of Afganistan they have tamed Pakistan which helps India.

Obama and Ms Hillary Clinton are a queer mix and it is difficult to say even now who derives strength from whom. Above all I am afraid Obama has the compulsion to do tight rope walking. Bush killed Hussein and Obama killed Bin Laden. It appears Pakistan has been tamed. But I strongly believe that Pakistan will ever correct itself.

[LottiFurmann]

Mr. JK,
Running a Vulture Capital firm to enrich yourself is very different than running a country. When you running a Vulture capital firm your goal is to enrich yourself at all cost, without consideration of wealth creation, or hardship on workers, or even on the bond holders.
RomneyEconomics.com
Kansas City’s GST Steel was a successful company that had been making steel rods for 103 years when Mitt Romney and his partners took control in 1993. They cut corners and extracted profit from the business at every turn, placing it deeply in debt. When the company eventually declared bankruptcy, workers were denied their full pensions and health insurance, and the federal government was forced to step in and bail out the pension fund. Is this the type of person you want to run the country?
The famous Hindi song said it right
chigaari koi bhadake, to saavan use bujhaaye
saavan jo agan lagaaye, use kaun bujhaaye,
o use kaun bujhaaye


patajhad jo baag ujaade, vo baag bahaar khilaaye
jo baag bahaar me ujade, use kaun khilaaye
o use kaun khilaaye
Lyrics / Video of Song : Chingari Koi Bhadke

A leader of the country has to be a leader of all its citizen, has to have empathy, and a long term vision for the country.
Character matters, Mr. Romney has admitted to being cruel and a bully in his younger days, and now he has hidden that part of his personality, that does not mean that he is not a bully now.

He does not understand the plight of common man.

[Big A]

Hi Prasad,

Agree that Romney comes across/has been pretty ruthless in his actions.

However I have to differ on your view that a leader has to have empathy to his people. - foremost he has to be a brilliant administrator & get the job done. ie, Implement his stated policies (not change them once elected) effectively & deliver results. thats the "most important" qualification. Apart from this, if he is connects with people, shows empathy, good person/likeable, then it is great !.

The issue with Obama is he has everything except for qualification & track record for this job.

so it is like choosing fire or frying pan

Cheers,
JK

[brraverishhh]

Hi Prasad,

Agree that Romney comes across/has been pretty ruthless in his actions.

However I have to differ on your view that a leader has to have empathy to his people. - foremost he has to be a brilliant administrator & get the job done. ie, Implement his stated policies (not change them once elected) effectively & deliver results. thats the "most important" qualification. Apart from this, if he is connects with people, shows empathy, good person/likeable, then it is great !.

The issue with Obama is he has everything except for qualification & track record for this job.

so it is like choosing fire or frying pan

Cheers,
JK

No the choice is between the flip-flopping Devil and a resolute steadfast Human being. So it is lot more easier.

[tgs]

Well there is just one solution: lower the tax rates at the top, and it will all trickle down. People can be so naive.