Romney CRUSHES Obama

[Feanor]

Whereas I figured that Mitt the Chameleon would do better that hold his own, I was surprised at how totally he dominated last night's domestic issues debate. Romney kept the President continually on the defensive and unable to get across coherent rebuttals or counter ideas.

Looks like Romney's "zinger" practice paid off. He was able to ream off endless specious statistics and the usual appeals to "liberty", the infallibility of private enterprise, incompetence of government, etc., and Obama might as well have remained mute.

[Hyfi]

not gonna change the outcome much. There are still less Haves than Have Nots

[dean_martin]

I couldn't watch it. My mind's made up already. I was afraid my guy would flop or blunder. To see something like that would've been too depressing. But I kind of expected a tie or at least an argument over who won. If the next debate is on foreign policy, then there won't be much chance of a rebound on domestic issues until the last debate. Meanwhile, fact-checkers and real journalists may expose that Romney's debate win wasn't a win at all. Who are these undecideds anyway?

[Feanor]

I couldn't watch it. My mind's made up already. I was afraid my guy would flop or blunder. To see something like that would've been too depressing. But I kind of expected a tie or at least an argument over who won. If the next debate is on foreign policy, then there won't be much chance of a rebound on domestic issues until the last debate. Meanwhile, fact-checkers and real journalists may expose that Romney's debate win wasn't a win at all. Who are these undecideds anyway?
I wonder what the fact checkers will find that mine Romney? My bet his that most of facts & stats last night were well research and defensible -- which doesn't mean they're pertinent or that they can't be differently interpreted,of course.

PolitiFact has made some calls: see HERE (http://www.politifact.com/).

[Feanor]

not gonna change the outcome much. There are still less Haves than Have Nots
Well I guess a lot of people have made up their minds long since and won't change them.

You can quibble about the details all you like, but the basic Romney (+ Ryan) plan is still (1) "trickle down" from the rich to the middle clas which has been proven not work over the last 30 years, and (2) austerity (spending cuts) that was proven not to during the Great Depression and is currently being proven not to work everyday in European countries such as Greece, Spain, Britain, and Portugal.

No amount of fast talking is going to make these ill-conceived policies work.

[dean_martin]

I wonder what the fact checkers will find that mine Romney? My bet his that most of facts & stats last night were well research and defensible -- which doesn't mean they're pertinent or that they can't be differently interpreted,of course.

PolitiFact has made some calls: see HERE (http://www.politifact.com/).

Let me try this again. I hate posting from my phone. I was thinking along the lines of Romney's inconsistencies. You don't have to dig too deep to find those. What he's saying now is not that different from what the president is saying. The bottom line is who do you believe.

[GMichael]

Let me try this again. I hate posting from my phone. I was thinking along the lines of Romney's inconsistencies. You don't have to dig too deep to find those. What he's saying now is not that different from what the president is saying. The bottom line is who do you believe.

Neither. Can we wipe the slate clean and start over?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obama style makes him a lousy debater. However if one remembers, Clinton was a better debater than Obama, and that did not help her win the nomination.

Most people have already made up their minds. The small amount of people that are left are not going to make a decision based on a single debate.

I will say this to Romney. You beat Obama this time, but be careful about a wounded animal - they can be lethal when surviving for their life.

[dean_martin]

Neither. Can we wipe the slate clean and start over?

Hey, GM. Did Romney lay out his plans on immigration reform during the debate? Like I said, I didn't watch it, but the few reports I've read and heard either didn't mention immigration or said that immigration was not discussed. I know this issue is important to your family. Whether you're for strict enforcement of immigration laws or some other plan, it's hard to tell where Romney is today as opposed to where he stood during the nomination process.

Likewise, I have no idea where he stands on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I hear what he's saying now, which is that he's going to save Medicare and Social Security and block grant Medicaid, but I don't trust him or his running mate on Medicare and Social Security (based on their own proposals in the very recent past) and I know too many families with kids on Medicaid and parents and grandparents in nursing homes to trust any kind of block grant to MY state (AL). The idiots in my state legislature talk about turning down federal monies in the name of states' rights, but if they got federal monies with no strings attached, they'd blow it trying to lure auto and airplane manufacturers to the state while sickly kids spread germs all over schools and die and nursing homes shut down and turn the elderly and infirmed into the streets. Besides, they wouldn't put any money into educating the local work force (and the up and coming work force) to prepare for the jobs such manufacturers would bring. They'd continue their war on teachers and the public schools.

The Romney ticket has already told us that Social Security is not going to be the same for my generation under their plan. I'm 44. Except for my first year in college and my first semester in law school, I've worked continuously since I was 16. That's almost 28 years. But I'll have to wait longer to retire than my dad did to get my maximum benefits. (It's really an entitlement rather than a benefit because I've paid into it and I've relied on a promise.) That's going backwards. I expect my kids to have it easier than I did. It doesn't have anything to do with whether they're lazier. It's my duty to make it easier for them than it was for me. Of course if I'm a financial burden on them when I'm an old geezer, I've failed. If they have to work longer and harder than I did, then my generation has failed their generation. "Hard work" shouldn't mean people have to run themselves into the ground until their 70 or dead. Oh, and Wall Street cannot wait to get its hands on the Social Security Trust Fund. It will mean more money to play with and big bonuses even if the stock market crashes and the fund goes bust. If the White House and the right number of Congressional seats align, privatization of Social Security could happen.

And this outrage over the numbers on food stamps? Give me a break. What do you expect in a recession - number of people on food stamps remains constant or goes down? Please don't insult my intelligence. My family was on WIC when we were just starting out and I was working as a file clerk for the FBI. We needed it to survive. Baby stuff is expensive. I don't regret it and I'm not embarassed about it. Heck, now I think it's kind of funny (ironic, maybe?) that I was working for the government and getting government assistance at the same time.

And politicians telling us companies aren't hiring because of "economic uncertainty" while the largest companies are holding onto more accumulated capital than ever before? Who's creating the uncertainty, if that's true? The government or the companies holding onto capital which they once invested back into their businesses?

When you're sitting at the table trying to get the upper hand in a business deal, profit is the ultimate goal and the ends jusitfy the means. For that, Romney may be the man. But in that scenario, the playing field is level. The person across the table can hire the best lawyers, consultants, etc. if they want to. But according to Romney, 47% of the American people will be sitting across the table from him if he's president and they don't stand a chance.

[RoyY51]

I'm going with Ron Paul...I know he doesn't stand a Snowball's Chance, but at least I won't feel compelled to take a couple of showers when I come home from my polling place.

[RGA]

If the same people vote the democrats will win even if Romney is the better showman - con-men usually are good showmen.

[Feanor]

If the same people vote the democrats will win even if Romney is the better showman - con-men usually are good showmen.
http://forums.audioreview.com/attachments/off-topic-non-audio/8859d1349430110-romney-crushes-obama-225905_10151045637150493_905709988_n.jpg

Yes, Romney spoke may half-truths and non-truths. Sadly, Obama didn't call him on very many. But the really interesting thing is how Romney backed away from major Right-wing doctrines.

E.g., to paraphrase:

Obama: Your tax plan will cut tax revenues buy $4 Trillion. [Which is the math based on what Romney had disclosed.]

Romney: No! My plan is revenue neutral! I'm going to eliminate loopholes.

Obama: Well ... err, uhmm ... which loopholes?

Romney: I'm for jobs, jobs, jobs!

[bobsticks]

I thought the President made some excellent comments about healthcare and the need to curb healthcare costs.

Other than that, it was pretty one-sided.


Lol, "Mr. President, you can have your own house and you can have your own plane but you can't have your own facts..."

[Feanor]

I thought the President made some excellent comments about healthcare and the need to curb healthcare costs.

Other than that, it was pretty one-sided.


Lol, "Mr. President, you can have your own house and you can have your own plane but you can't have your own facts..."
I still don't know whether it's clear to many Americans that the Medicare funding predicament is caused by two factors:

* Ageing populations -- though this is much less a problem in the USA than Japan or Europe
* Overall healthcare costs that are rising at multiples of inflation in the USA.

The first problem is unavoidable. The second is largely avoidable given the political will.

Various other countries have controlled cost much better by determining which procedures, drugs, etc., are cost effective and limiting those which are relatively less so. This is what the board of experts, so criticized by Romney, would do; (note that the board wouldn't make individual treatment decisions).

By contrast ,the USA's system is a largely for-profit system. In the case of healthcare, neither the patient nor the health provider are incented to control costs which born instead, given most people have some insurance, by the insurance provider. Expensive and/or relatively cost ineffective procedures are of then demanded because they are new or trendy.

Insurance providers in some instances try to control cost using HMOs and the like, but more generally just raise premiums to cover the services demanded. The healthcare "consumer choice" in healthcare, so vaunted by the for-profit healthcare industry, (insurers & providers), is the direct cause of soaring healthcare costs in the US.

BTW, voucherize Medicare would turn much decision making over to for-profit insurance company -- a further retreat from rational, cost-effective healthcare.

[dingus]

I'm going with Ron Paul...I know he doesn't stand a Snowball's Chance, but at least I won't feel compelled to take a couple of showers when I come home from my polling place.

i dont believe that the political differences between Obama and Romney are significant, and even though Ron Paul is different, i dont think he's a better choice.

regardless, the election for the presidency is just a glorified popularity contest and is less important than who we elect to the Congress. Congress can control the Executive Branch, and if we (as in we the people) elected the right people to Congress, we would control both.

[dean_martin]

How about that Biden? I thought he did what he needed to do to expose the fallacies and injustices in the Romney-Ryan economic plan.

I can't believe Ryan sat there and said he wants to lower Social Security benefits for his own generation when we reach retirement (which will be 70 instead of 67). I'm practically the same age as he is. I do not understand why he wouldn't work to preserve equal benefits for all rather than stealing from a generation that's been paying into the system for 25 to 35 years already. In fact, it's our duty to make things better for future generations, not worse. But let me rephrase. I DO believe HE said that. It's obvious that the hardline Republican agenda is to end government benefits of all kinds. When the Repubs pretend to be concerned about leaving debt to our kids and grandkids what they are really saying is they will not be paying for social security or any other government benefit for our kids and grandkids. They don't give a crap about future generations of Americans. I cannot remember such an attack on the most vulnerable in my lifetime. The current Republican leadership is determined to step on the necks of the poor and middle class to increase the number of have-nots in this country and further centralize control of money. Let's apply free market concepts to not just goods and services but also to the human condition. Consider this when you're trying to convince yourself that there's no real difference between the parties. Why isn't the 35-55 year old demographic which has been paying into the social security retirement system for years speaking out against this republican philosophy? Are they too obsessed over a couple hundred dollars in food stamps going to a single mother, or a couple extra weeks of unemployment benefits going to an out-of-work construction worker? Or maybe they're concerned about abortion on demand, contraception and same sex marriage? Illegal immigrants? Sometimes I just wanna yell, "Wake up dumbasses!" This is gonna be a miserable place if we fall for all the bull****, or what Biden called "mularkey".

[Feanor]

I couldn't bring myself to what the Biden-Ryan debate. I'm sick of the continual spin from both sides but especially from the Republicans. Most egregious are the "statistics" and supposed historical examples that are, in the first place, dubious, and after that, disingenuous or irrelevant misrepresentations.

I've been an observer of US politics for ~45 years. Going back to Reagan, and maybe Goldwater, the only real agenda of the Republican insiders has been to lower taxes and create other breaks for the rich -- even if they are to run deficits to do it, and that has been the continual record.

[Hyfi]

I watched bits and pieces but each time I flipped to it, Ryan was avoiding details as to how the math could possibly add up. Although Biden can be a total ass at times, he ate Ryan up without a problem.

[Worf101]

I had to talk a LOT of my prgoressive and Democratic friends in off ledges after the first debate. I'm a registered Independent. I think neither party has a monopoly on whats "right" for the the country. I've voted for Republicans in the past and voted for Democrats in the past. I'da voted for McCain in 2000 but Rove and Company had other ideas and soo... fast forward to this political season. These are my observations.

1. In our quest for all entertainment all the time... our debates are now allegories for bloodsport. You can't make a point or have a civil discourse now it's winner take all, zingers and alike. It's devolved into a gian dick-measuring contest and that's sad... sad to see.

2. Fightin is in rounds. I'd rather lose early like O'bama did than late.. The average American attention span is that of a knat. I predict less permanent damage in the long run.

3. Incumbents always do poorly in the debates in that they've acutally had to govern for the last 4 years and their opponents can pick apart every move with 20/20 hindsight.

4. Obama does NOT have a combative nature. He can pull on the mantle but it is not "in-him". He quite simply would rather talk than fight. Romney is not a fighter either, in the traditional sense of the word, but he does have the inate ruthlessness of the modern brand of predator capitalist this nation breeds by the millions.

5. Obama was trying to avoid the stigma of the "angry black male" and he took it tooooo far. Simple I had to explain this in detail to my white friends... I don't think they quite got it. But hey.... a grin and a smile... grin and a smile...

Well enough of this... Be good everyone and GO RAIDERS!!!!

Worf

[Hyfi]

Well, the first thing I want to say is..."Mandate my ass!"
Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate – or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running.

But, oh yeah, I remember. In this year that we have now declared the year from Shogun to Reagan, I remember what I said about Reagan...meant it. Acted like an actor...Hollyweird. Acted like a liberal. Acted like General Franco when he acted like governor of California, then he acted like a republican. Then he acted like somebody was going to vote for him for president. And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate. We're all actors in this I suppose.

What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune...the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer – very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources will control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now.

The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can – even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment – someone always came to save America at the last moment – especially in "B" movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan – and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at – like a "B" movie.

Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous "B" movie. The producer underwritten by all the millionaires necessary will be Casper "The Defensive" Weinberger – no more animated choice is available. The director will be Attila the Haig, running around frantically declaring himself in control and in charge. The ultimate realization of the inmates taking over at the asylum. The screenplay will be adapted from the book called "Voodoo Economics" by George "Papa Doc" Bush. Music by the "Village People" the very military "Macho Man."

"Company!!!"
"Macho, macho man!"
"Two-three-four."
"He likes to be – well, you get the point."
"Huuut! Your left! Your left! Your left...right, left, right, left, right...!"

A theme song for saber-rallying and selling wars door-to-door. Remember, we're looking for the closest thing we can find to John Wayne. Cliches abound like kangaroos – courtesy of some spaced out Marlin Perkins, a Reagan contemporary. Cliches like, "itchy trigger finger" and "tall in the saddle" and "riding off or on into the sunset." Cliches like, "Get off of my planet by sundown!" More so than cliches like, "he died with his boots on." Marine tough the man is. Bogart tough the man is. Cagney tough the man is. Hollywood tough the man is. Cheap steak tough. And Bonzo's substantial. The ultimate in synthetic selling: A Madison Avenue masterpiece – a miracle – a cotton-candy politician...Presto! Macho!

"Macho, macho man!"

Put your orders in America. And quick as Kodak your leaders duplicate with the accent being on the dupe - cause all of a sudden we have fallen prey to selective amnesia - remembering what we want to remember and forgetting what we choose to forget. All of a sudden, the man who called for a blood bath on our college campuses is supposed to be Dudley "God-damn" Do-Right?

"You go give them liberals hell Ronnie." That was the mandate. To the new "Captain Bly" on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat – as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy – Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from "Bonzo" to Birch idol...born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights...it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it...first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom.

Nostalgia, that's what we want...the good ol' days...when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white – and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was – Crow.

Lon Chaney, our man of a thousand faces - no match for Ron. Doug Henning does the make-up - special effects from Grecian Formula 16 and Crazy Glue. Transportation furnished by the David Rockefeller of Remote Control Company. Their slogan is, "Why wait for 1984? You can panic now...and avoid the rush."

So much for the good news...

As Wall Street goes, so goes the nation. And here's a look at the closing numbers – racism's up, human rights are down, peace is shaky, war items are hot - the House claims all ties. Jobs are down, money is scarce – and common sense is at an all-time low with heavy trading. Movies were looking better than ever and now no one is looking because, we're starring in a "B" movie. And we would rather have John Wayne...we would rather have John Wayne.

"You don't need to be in no hurry.
You ain't never really got to worry.
And you don't need to check on how you feel.
Just keep repeating that none of this is real.
And if you're sensing, that something's wrong,
Well just remember, that it won't be too long
Before the director cuts the scene...yea."

"This ain't really your life,
Ain't really your life,
Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie."

[Refrain repeated about 25 times or more in an apocalyptic crescendo with a military cadence.]

"This ain't really your life,
Ain't really your life,
Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie."

-Gil Scott Heron

The names have changed but the movie is the same

[Feanor]

After the debate #2, some poll according to CNN still had 65% of people (voters?) preferring Romney for JOBS. This is astonishing considering the core of Republican policy. How come Obama is unable to nail Romney by pointing out these simple facts. :idea:


The same old Trickle Down economics that has been Republican policy for 30+ years that has resulted in decling median incomes & increasing poverty, and
Large spending cuts with no tax increases, i.e. big austerity, which is right now strinking European economies at an unprecedented rate.

[RGA]

Romney says - government doesn't create jobs then blames the current government for not creating enough jobs.

65% of people are stuuuuuupid. Republicans sell fear - they sell it very very well.

On the lighter side Mitt Romney Style (Gangnam Style Parody) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns)

[Smokey]

65% of people are stuuuuuupid.

No, most people are not stupid. It is just they are not getting the right information, or getting biased news. Foxnews is good example :)

[RGA]

No, most people are not stupid. It is just they are not getting the right information, or getting biased news. Foxnews is good example :)

I think we're being too PC in this day and age. I think anyone who watches 10 minutes of FOX News should be able to tell they're being fed complete and utter BS. The first time I saw Fox News was vacationing in Hong Kong in 2008 when the Palin/Biden debate was on. I watched the commentary afterwards and I first thought it was a Stephen Colbert skit it was so comically one sided and wink wink nudge nudge laughable. But it wasn't satire - these reporters and commentators were being completely serious.

Since Fox News has the highest ratings I can only assume that "most" viewers believe what the have to say.

The anti-Obama vote has nothing to do with jobs or finances but over religious based moral issues (and arguably that he's not the right colour).

Watching the second debate (I missed the first) it was pretty clear to me Romney is a sleazy used car dealer who will say anything without any evidence to get the win. Women who vote for him must want to be on par with cattle.

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22)

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#)

[Feanor]

No, most people are not stupid. It is just they are not getting the right information, or getting biased news. Foxnews is good example :)
True, only 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.

But you have to take the ignorant and irrational people into account because the three groups aren't congruent.

http://clients.teksavvy.com/~wdbailey/StupidWorld.jpg

[RGA]

The Hong Kong press the other day noted that Romney has a fairly big lead over Obama in the polls after the three debates - it seems we'll soon see a new president. Interestingly the U.S. polls seem to say Obama is in the lead but I suspect that is to lead to a false sense of security and to have Obama voters stay home. I will be surprised if Obama wins.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The Hong Kong press the other day noted that Romney has a fairly big lead over Obama in the polls after the three debates - it seems we'll soon see a new president. Interestingly the U.S. polls seem to say Obama is in the lead but I suspect that is to lead to a false sense of security and to have Obama voters stay home. I will be surprised if Obama wins.

Romney has never of error - which makes them statistically tied. They have been statistically tied for weeks now, so the Hong Kong press is inaccurate.

[Feanor]

Romney has never had a big lead over Obama. He has never led by more than 2 percentage points which is within the margin over error - which makes them statistically tied. They have been statistically tied for weeks now, so the Hong Kong press is inaccurate.
Obama would be 'way out in front if people understood the economics of the Republican/Romney/Ryan position(s).

According to CNN a week or so ago fully 65% of people thing Romney would be better the economy: this is monstrous nonsense. Basically Republican policy consists of (1) lower taxes on the rich that will quickly "trickle down" to the rest of us, and (2) deep cuts to government spending (except military) that will "end waste" and "restore confidence" among investors. This crap could be dispelled by a few 30 second media bites:

First 30 second bite:

Republican policy advocated and enacted tax cut for the rich for over 30 years; during this interval median incomes ceased to grow and, under George W., declined. Yet this is still the policy of Romney and the Republicans.

Second 30 second bite:

Republicans promised "fiscal responsibility" for decades, almost entirely through cuts to government spending. This policy, if actually enacted, would be austerity which failed in American during the Great Depression and is presently crushing European economies. Further, Republicans have consistently increased deficits. Yet Republicans expect Americans to buy spending cuts as the solution for the economy.

Third 30 second bite:

Ronald Reagan's tax reductions are credited with resorting the US economy in the early '80s but it was actually the massive military spending, as deficit-funded stimulus, ("star wars" and the "600 ship navy"), that did it.
Similarly it wasn't the George W. Bush tax cuts that eased the economy in the mid '00s, it was the Afgan, Iraqi wars and "War on Terror" and military/security deficit-funded stimulus that did it. Romney opposes government stimulus but wants more military spending -- is this déjà vu all over again.

[RGA]

I am surprised that this is even close a percent or two off - really? All the intelligent folks seem to live on the west coast or north east. Although to be fair like Canada it isn't a popular vote (which it should be for leader). Obama probably CRUSHES Romney if it went by popular vote.

This is the most recent one which has Obama back on top.

Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am surprised that this is even close a percent or two off - really? All the intelligent folks seem to live on the west coast or north east. Although to be fair like Canada it isn't a popular vote (which it should be for leader). Obama probably CRUSHES Romney if it went by popular vote.

This is the most recent one which has Obama back on top.

Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map)

Richard, you are so behind the curve it is pitiful. When it comes to the electoral college votes, Obama has always been ahead. For months now he has bounced between 250-280 electoral college votes, to Romney's 190-210.

[RGA]

ROOT: Mitt Romney heading for a landslide win - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/12/mitt-romney-heading-for-a-landslide-win/?page=all)

Poll of Polls Obama vs Romney show Mitt Romney will win the 2012 election - New York economy and politics | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of-polls-obama-vs-romney-show-mitt-romney-will-win-the-2012-election)

We have to give Romney lovers something to hope for.

[RGA]

Romney LOL

The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829)

[RGA]

Obama

[Feanor]

Obama
The day of reckoning draw nigh. :7:

[RGA]

some fun facts

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He actually created taxes that didn't exist before. He was a taxing maniac. The only good things Reagan ever did is vehemently opposed to by today's Republican Party.

[Hyfi]

some fun facts

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He actually created taxes that didn't exist before. He was a taxing maniac. The only good things Reagan ever did is vehemently opposed to by today's Republican Party.

The other good thing he did was inspire the song I posted above called B-Movie

[RGA]

I doubt Romney wins but ...

Why a Romney Presidency May Be Worse Than You Think | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/why-romney-presidency-may-be-worse-you-think?page=0%2C0)

[Hyfi]

not gonna change the outcome much. There are still less Haves than Have Nots

Like I said 1 month ago. This was an easy prediction and it's a shame we had to waste a whole year of our government doing any real work besides wasting time campaigning.

I am also glad that all the negative commercials are done for 4 years, they are more disheartening than the candidates themselves.

Now, I am on the No Call list for phone solicitation. Why does that not apply to the 35 or so Romney recordings I got over the last couple weeks? I got zero from the Obama side.

A coworker said that was because Romney valued my vote more, but I replied that he was just more desperate.

I am also glad that a hard line Mormon will not be making moral and medical decisions for me and my family. On the other hand, I am not real happy that my tax money will continue to fund social programs that I don't agree with.

I have no issue with birth control, but buy it yourself. I have no problem with abortions, but if you F'ed up, pay for it yourself. (other circumstances may not apply)

So either way, people in my income bracket lose. I don't make enough to take advantage of all the Republican Loopholes, but I make just enough that they will take it and give it to many undeserving morons.

Oh well, this is Democracy at work where you can actually win the Popular vote but lose the race and that makes absolutely no sense if everyone's vote actually is supposed to count.

[Feanor]

...
So either way, people in my income bracket lose. I don't make enough to take advantage of all the Republican Loopholes, but I make just enough that they will take it and give it to many undeserving morons. ...
I don't think people in the middle class -- including the upper middle class -- loose. Remember, if you're a small business person for example, you'd like lower taxes and fewer regulations, but you need customers. Growing inequality is not only bad for the "loosers", it's also bad for the economy in general. Read Joseph Stiglitz' book, The Price of Inequality, for a better understanding ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mZrTe1oeL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


...
Oh well, this is Democracy at work where you can actually win the Popular vote but lose the race and that makes absolutely no sense if everyone's vote actually is supposed to count.
Looks like Obama won both the College and the popular vote.

[Hyfi]

Looks like Obama won both the College and the popular vote.

Yeah, that's this time but many other races went the other way in the past.

[3LB]

I have no issue with birth control, but buy it yourself. I have no problem with abortions, but if you F'ed up, pay for it yourself
I tend to be pragmatic about such things - birth control and abortions to anyone who wants them, on the state, especially if they can't afford it. Yeah, "they" may have ****ed up, but I don't wanna raise their kids, which will be way more expensive than birth control.

[ForeverAutumn]

I tend to be pragmatic about such things - birth control and abortions to anyone who wants them, on the state, especially if they can't afford it. Yeah, "they" may have ****ed up, but I don't wanna raise their kids, which will be way more expensive than birth control.

I LOVE this post. Just sayin...

[Hyfi]

I tend to be pragmatic about such things - birth control and abortions to anyone who wants them, on the state, especially if they can't afford it. Yeah, "they" may have ****ed up, but I don't wanna raise their kids, which will be way more expensive than birth control.

I do see it your way too.

I have a huge issue with my current health plan. Year after year, the plans try to eliminate Chiropractic services because the Pharma companies dont want you to be healthy and not take drugs. It has been proven that people who do use Chiro's use regular doctors less often. I rarely use a regular doctor.

In the last plan we got, they grouped Chiro into ALL outpatient Therapies and a limit of 20 visits per year for Physical, Occupational, Speech, or any other you can think of.

On the flip side, they will pay for unlimited family planning and after one gets pregnant and decides they don't want the child, the plan will pay for unlimited abortions.

Do you see the disconnect there?

[Worf101]

I you read my previous post, particularly what I said about "the fightin' is in rounds", you'll see why I'm smiling. I'd rather lose Round 1 than Round 10, simple as that.

Things I learned from this election;

1. The nation is nearing a demographic tipping point. Those that want to turn back the clock to Mayberry and "Happy Days" must come to realize that THAT fantasy is over. It's a Brown, Yellow, young, beige and gay reality in this country and they can either realize this or continue to get run over by reality.

2. Republicans must learn from this and STOP nominating people, particularly for the Senate, that are just plain bat-chit nuts. The Tea Party may be part of your base, but it's not the part that wins election to high office, just the part that pisses everyone else off.

3. Donal Trump needs to get that alien thingy off his head and let some air and reality seep in.

4. Nice watching Carl Rove lose it national T.V.

5. In the words of Rober Nester Marley; "you can fool some people sometime... but you can't fool all de people all de time. Now we see the light... Stand up for your rights!"

6. I'm so glad this is over and lets stop paying lip service to working together to solve problems. Lets do what Christie and Obama did in Jersey, get something DONE!

That's how I see's it.

Worf

[Hyfi]

I actually want Christie to run and win a Presidential Election regardless of party.

What I don't understand is why the Republican Party cannot find people better than Romney or Palin to run. If they are the best they have, they are in big trouble for a long time to come.

And Worf, the word you were looking for was Nostalgia. That is exactly why I posted the words to Gil Scot Heron's B-Movie which was from the Reagan era but still rings true today.

[JohnMichael]

I tend to be pragmatic about such things - birth control and abortions to anyone who wants them, on the state, especially if they can't afford it. Yeah, "they" may have ****ed up, but I don't wanna raise their kids, which will be way more expensive than birth control.

I also like your post.

Much as I said to a friend who did not want to pay for someone's birth control and I said "fine pay for the kids for 18 years".

[noddin0ff]

Riffing off of the great Gil Scott-Heron...

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
BY Brian Agler
- - - -

The revolution will not be televised due to our blackout policy. Because the revolution is taking place in your market, you will be unable to watch the revolution. Instead of the revolution, the classic Billy Bob Thornton/John Cusack film, Pushing Tin, will be televised. If you’d like to see the revolution, it is advised that you purchase tickets and attend the revolution. The revolution is not sold out. In fact, season tickets are still available...

read more via McSweeney's Internet Tendency (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-revolution-will-not-be-televised)

somewhere inside must lie a clue to the problems with our electoral process...

[Hyfi]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
BY Brian Agler
- - - -

The revolution will not be televised due to our blackout policy. Because the revolution is taking place in your market, you will be unable to watch the revolution. Instead of the revolution, the classic Billy Bob Thornton/John Cusack film, Pushing Tin, will be televised. If you’d like to see the revolution, it is advised that you purchase tickets and attend the revolution. The revolution is not sold out. In fact, season tickets are still available...



It's going to come to that soon

[RGA]

Strangely a large group of Republicans are mad and want to move to Canada or Australia. Which is odd to me since both are places well left of Obama.

Here is Australia

[Worf101]

Strangely a large group of Republicans are mad and want to move to Canada or Australia. Which is odd to me since both are places well left of Obama.

Here is Australia

Lots of progressives felt the same after 2004 and W's re-election. The whole craze will die down in a few weeks then they'll go back to doing what do best, obstructing progress of any sort and longing for the simpler days of 1953 when they unquestioned masters of the world.

Worf

[Feanor]

Lots of progressives felt the same after 2004 and W's re-election. The whole craze will die down in a few weeks then they'll go back to doing what do best, obstructing progress of any sort and longing for the simpler days of 1953 when they unquestioned masters of the world.

Worf
Allegedly Rush Limbaugh vowed to move to Costa Rica if the AFA was pasted -- until somebody pointed out the Costa Rica has universal healthcare. :D

[RGA]

I've often wondered if the vast majority of Republicans were ignorant, homophobic, racists and now I think I have my answer.

[ForeverAutumn]

Implying that people are ignorant, racist, or homophobic based on where they live or who they voted for delegates you to the Steel Cage.

[JohnMichael]

I've often wondered if the vast majority of Republicans were ignorant, homophobic, racists and now I think I have my answer.



I can understand fiscal conservatives but I do not understand social conservatives. I do not think you can lump Republicans into that group. Not all Republicans are racists but all racists are Republicans. I have a few friends that are gay and Republican. Of course due to their being fiscal conservatives and not social conservatives. I think the problem began when involving the evangelicals and fundamentalists in the Republican Party. Let us worry about the running of the country and not trying to legislate morality. Equality for all.

[RGA]

Like I said majority which doesn't mean all. The current Republican party is nothing like the Eisenhower Republican party - which Obama is far closer to than current Republicans.

PS: I'm not implying it - I'm outright stating it.

Fiscal conservatives fall into the ignorant camp because they all believe in Reaganomics which has proven to not work over and over and over and over again. Renaming a failed abysmal policy something else doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. Indeed, it is even less likely to work in a country that has less manufacturing jobs. North America is no longer in the Industrial Revolution where giving a company owner more money (through less taxes) would have him increase production (workforce, plant size etc). In the info-tech age they spend it on a better computer to get rid of the workforce, reduce their office space, and buy $1,000 bottles of wines for themselves and buddies, private jets because Joe the competitor has a private jet etc.

And before someone gets on me for anti-Americanism - Canada has a prime minister who has a guy in charge of science education in Canada who believes the earth is 6000 years old, is trying to implement numerous failed U.S. policies on criminalizing drugs, and takes credit for a stronger banking system (through strong regulation) that Harper actually voted against and tried to abolish. I wish in one way he had been successful because Canada's economy would have fallen into the toilet bowl and he would have been booted out. But because certain government agencies in place can stop PMs from doing totally idiotic things they can re-write history and spin themselves to look good.

You'd think after Bush put the country in a near depression - attacked an "innocent" country for no good reason thus giving the rest of the "free" and "not free" world a view of America as an imperialistic nation of aggressors and basically ruing the entire world economy that some of these Republicans would clue in that their slack jawed party voters come from the movie "Deliverance."

The history map is pretty clear - the education map is pretty clear - the states that are the least knowledgeable, the least tolerant (and I dare say the most religious) are the ones who vote Republican - which means most of the ignorant homophobic racists.

If someone of "reasonable" intelligence who claims he/she is a fiscal conservative looked at the "typical" voter and said to themselves "gee if all the intolerant racists KKK whackadoodle crazies are voting Republican then maybe I should take a look at the SOCIAL PLATFORM! The social ideology affects people at least as much as fiscal policy. I don't see how anyone of good conscience can turn a blind eye to the social intolerance of the party in the name of fiscal conservation when the last 4 Republican presidents have done a terrible job with the economy. And then further dismiss Romney in 2 sentences who blames Obama for not creating jobs and in the next breath says three times "government doesn't create jobs" - whaaat?

[Feanor]

Quite right, JM. People support or potentially support Republicans for a variety of reasons. The most obvious division is economic vs. social.

This election, unforunately (maybe), place too much emphasis on the social conservative aspect: this was the fault of the Republican Party and it's Tea Party-biased "base". It is quite likely that Romney would have won if that had not been the case.

The bad news for social conservatives is that they can no longer win based on the historically racist, anti-femininist, homophobic biases.

The good news for economic conservatives that pure, right-wing economic positions have absolutely nothing inherent in common with the above social biases. I will go further: I believe the financial funders of the Republican Party are NOT (for the most part) themselves racists, etc., but they cynically forged an implicit coalition with social conservatives in the belief that would get their political surrogates elected.

The real problem for economic conservatives, (more accurately Right-wingers), is that there more poor and middle class voters than rich voters. So: what's to be done about that now that the social conservative gambit has been played and lost? They will have to fall back on the "trickle down" theory of economics and the "makers vs. takers" line of argument.

[Feanor]

As for results by location, I was struck election night by the general tendency for urban areas to vote Democrat and rural areas to vote Republican, (according to county results). This was true everywhere in the US, though this is not to say that there aren't regional differences too.

Check it out HERE (http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2012electionresultsweb1200q.jpg) or HERE (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/121101001).

Empirically, rural areas world-wide tend to vote more conservatively the urban areas. As you're aware this is the case in Ontario too. You are correct, of course, that conservatism doesn't necessarily imply ignorance, etc..