President Obama Re-Elected - Page 49

On April 22 2012 13:48 DannyJ wrote:


Short of an apocalyptic event, Romney is the candidate.

On April 22 2012 13:41 CajunMan wrote:


Most economists? Who are they? Have you seen where the money from the stimulus went to and what our debt is at? I hate spending on both sides I am a Fiscal conservative and Libertarian. The government had no right to spend our money the way they did throwing it as useless crap like Solendra cause that was a massive success half a billion dollars. You wanna stimulate jobs give me that money and I'll open something useful like anyone smart would. The government stimulus was a useless waste of money.

There is also a reason Barack Obama has had both his budgets not get a single vote in the senate NOT ONE not even the hardest democrat wants to put there name next to that (its because its useless horse shit) Don't tell me to look at both sides when there is nothing to look at. In truth where is the Truman democrat that still cares about the budget you know you can be left of the isle and not want to bury this country in debt? There is nothing wrong with that.

Wall Street Journal: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped

ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus.

NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP.

USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs."

On April 22 2012 13:23 brutality wrote:
3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere.

This sounds very similar to big media. Romney hasn't won all the delegates, and from my understanding we still have about a month before that is decided. A lot can happen in that time.

On April 22 2012 13:41 CajunMan wrote:


Most economists? Who are they? Have you seen where the money from the stimulus went to and what our debt is at? I hate spending on both sides I am a Fiscal conservative and Libertarian. The government had no right to spend our money the way they did throwing it as useless crap like Solendra cause that was a massive success half a billion dollars. You wanna stimulate jobs give me that money and I'll open something useful like anyone smart would. The government stimulus was a useless waste of money.

There is also a reason Barack Obama has had both his budgets not get a single vote in the senate NOT ONE not even the hardest democrat wants to put there name next to that (its because its useless horse shit) Don't tell me to look at both sides when there is nothing to look at. In truth where is the Truman democrat that still cares about the budget you know you can be left of the isle and not want to bury this country in debt? There is nothing wrong with that.

On April 22 2012 14:28 tdt wrote:

Because rich wont go back to 93% top marginal rates like under Truman? Today rich ppl pwn both parties so it's not like they are ever going to give up thier power like back then. My econ prof said wealth is more divided today than guilded age (thats when 6 yr old children worked to help family put food on table) and only thing stopping a total meltdown and riots is govt spending.

Republiancs in power understand this too. Why do you think they can't even present more than a 70 billion dollar cut on a 1.7 trillion deficiet? And deficiet spend everyime they get full power? They talk a good game but spend like the rest.

On April 22 2012 13:51 xDaunt wrote:


Yeah, I don't understand why so many posters think that it's still up in there and that there's going to be a brokered convention. Even before Santorum dropped, Romney was about to hit a stretch of states where he was going to clean house and be in a good position to get a majority of delegates. With Santorum gone, it's all but guaranteed.

On April 22 2012 23:37 BioNova wrote:



Some people read. A lot. X, I understand that you are Right-Leaning. It's obvious though months of watching you post. If you want to link article that say it's over, then I will read it. Chances are, I've already read it. What I have been reading lately isn't telling me it's locked up. If I knew it was in the bag, I'd argue it's in the bag. Romney is having quite a bit of difficulty, compared to what he hoped for at this point. I think buyers remorse is kicking in.

I really do think this election will lose the GOP the next election(2016) as well. The establishment half of the party, and the libertarian half of the party ARE going to have step out back and settle things...and soon. We have party GOP officials and cadidates on video subverting democracy. We have Paultards invading GOP leadership positions in multiple states. They say we're criminal, we know they're criminal.

I'm not taking anything for granted, or wishy-washing things. I'm following developments, and eyeing events. Still only two candidates with a serious grassroots backing, and Romney isn't one of them.

Romney is the best the GOP could do. Kerry, McCain, Dole. Romney could get 1000 delagates before convention and still not get it because of party confidence. Jeb Bush as VP won't save him either. He might end up being Jeb's VP.

He NEEDS those delagates locked BEFORE convention or he is going to be sweating bullets every day till then. Santorums own comments are making this even harder on Mitt. His followers not completely falling in Mitt's row is not a comforting development. The other thing is the states ahead.... IF Mitt's people get apathetic, Paul will roll him in those states.

Who won Iowa? Who got the delegates? Answers: Not Mitt, Not Mitt Almost every delegate tracker has Mitt listed as 13 from Iowa, and Paul with 0. Santorum is listed...still. As you think he's got it locked, picture the imaginary delegates they are painting the picture with. You think I'm just ranting, do your own digging. Democrats hate Republicans?

Now is that you willingly being fooled, comfortably being fooled, or gullibly being fooled? I don't know how to put it more tactfully...

Santorum dropping did not help Romney. It helped Paul.

On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,

Vote Obama.

Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world.

On April 22 2012 23:43 AcuWill wrote:

Wonder who got the delegates from Minnesota? Hint: Not Mitt Romney.

Bonus clue: Not Santorum.

Second Bonus clue: Not Newt Gingrich.

This thread is classic, lol.

On April 22 2012 23:48 Traeon wrote:
Although Obama disappointed somewhat, he is still a lot better than those backward republicans. Ron Paul also seems like he actually wants to solve problems instead of just getting elected.

On April 22 2012 23:54 AcuWill wrote:

I am curious from an outside perspective, by what metric is Obama better than Bush with regard to foreign and domestic policy? I am not trying to bait, I am geniunely curious.

Thanks.

On April 23 2012 00:07 Witten wrote:
As someone who grew up Mormon (but is no longer religious), I find many of the things stated in this topic not only detestable and insulting, but in many cases completely fabricated.

On April 22 2012 23:54 AcuWill wrote:

I am curious from an outside perspective, by what metric is Obama better than Bush with regard to foreign and domestic policy? I am not trying to bait, I am geniunely curious.

Thanks.

On April 22 2012 23:37 BioNova wrote:



Some people read. A lot. X, I understand that you are Right-Leaning. It's obvious though months of watching you post. If you want to link article that say it's over, then I will read it. Chances are, I've already read it. What I have been reading lately isn't telling me it's locked up. If I knew it was in the bag, I'd argue it's in the bag. Romney is having quite a bit of difficulty, compared to what he hoped for at this point. I think buyers remorse is kicking in.

I really do think this election will lose the GOP the next election(2016) as well. The establishment half of the party, and the libertarian half of the party ARE going to have step out back and settle things...and soon. We have party GOP officials and cadidates on video subverting democracy. We have Paultards invading GOP leadership positions in multiple states. They say we're criminal, we know they're criminal.

I'm not taking anything for granted, or wishy-washing things. I'm following developments, and eyeing events. Still only two candidates with a serious grassroots backing, and Romney isn't one of them.

Romney is the best the GOP could do. Kerry, McCain, Dole. Romney could get 1000 delagates before convention and still not get it because of party confidence. Jeb Bush as VP won't save him either. He might end up being Jeb's VP.

He NEEDS those delagates locked BEFORE convention or he is going to be sweating bullets every day till then. Santorums own comments are making this even harder on Mitt. His followers not completely falling in Mitt's row is not a comforting development. The other thing is the states ahead.... IF Mitt's people get apathetic, Paul will roll him in those states.

Who won Iowa? Who got the delegates? Answers: Not Mitt, Not Mitt Almost every delegate tracker has Mitt listed as 13 from Iowa, and Paul with 0. Santorum is listed...still. As you think he's got it locked, picture the imaginary delegates they are painting the picture with. You think I'm just ranting, do your own digging. Democrats hate Republicans? Check out the dirt.

Now is that you willingly being fooled, comfortably being fooled, or gullibly being fooled? I don't know how to put it more tactfully...

Santorum dropping did not help Romney. It helped Paul.

On April 22 2012 14:16 Josealtron wrote:
Yes, obviously the stimulus increased the debt. Most(sane) people think that reducing the rate of unemployment/increasing GDP is more important in a recession than the debt, which will fix itself once the economy is back on its feet(see-Great Depression/WW2 time period, than the decades that followed).

On April 23 2012 00:26 Flyingdutchman wrote:


The bolded part would be true if Keynes wouldn't be dusted off and taken out of the closet in recession times only to be dropped once the economy is healthy again. Somehow policymakers only like the deficit spending part of the theory and seem to ignore the 'unavoidable' budget surplus that should follow.