| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 23 2012 00:43 Papulatus wrote: From reading Europeans posts about "omg elected obama you stupid rednecks." I think I can confirm that Europeans are the most ignorant and closed minded people in this thread. No, you can't. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8708 Posts
Of course he can, that does not mean any reasonable person can  Also welcome to the interwebz, where people may or may not say untrue/stupid stuff from time to time - just like in real life. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On April 23 2012 01:19 Doublemint wrote: Of course he can, that does not mean any reasonable person can Also welcome to the interwebz, where people may or may not say untrue/stupid stuff from time to time - just like in real life. The net is waaay worse than real life in that regard | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On April 23 2012 00:18 xDaunt wrote: I understand what you are saying and get that many delegates that the press have awarded as "estimates" are not yet officially bound or pledged to particular candidates. However, I think you are just fooling yourself if you think that Ron Paul has a legitimate shot at forcing a brokered convention, much less making a serious run for the nomination. Just look at some of the upcoming primaries. There are some big winner take all states that Romney is going to easily take like California, New Jersey, Delaware, and Utah. Even assuming that none of Santorum's bound candidates go to Romney, Romney can still gather a majority of delegates in the remaining primaries. Lest you forget, let me remind you that I voted for Ron Paul and gave a speech on his behalf. I am just being a realist. If you supported him, then how can you not be aware that the delagate totals that you just mentioned, are not reality. Reality is following State and Local conventions to see who's supporters are winning those. Politico Delegate Tracker Politico says Romney 685. In the details section. It says 13 from Iowa. Now if that is not true, his totals could be, from 7-13 lower, and that is just one disputed state. The delagates from Iowa in the CNN article I linked before refused to pledge to him, and we barred entry to a GOP affair in Arizona. One State. Add up the multiple cases we could argue. Minn, Maine, ALaska, N.D. Missouri. Each state I mentioned, in his delegate details, is a place where I know from following state to state, every day, his totals are 'overreported and slipping' as well as being disputed legally in court cases. Now, if he reallly doesn't have 685? How far is 1144 now? Imaginary lock bar is still imaginary. Total sweeps still don't lock it simply because Yes, he is gaining delagates, but not enough. Now Santorums and Gingrich people may still decide this by either supporting Romney and locking it, or they may go spoiler and then we dance at the convention with the establishment versus the delegates. I'm following results whether I visit these threads or not. I'm just relaying to you why you are putting the cart before the horse. I've been reading oddball sites like denverpost.com and stlouis.com and everywhere the news is because I can no longer rely on what I'm being told is factual. So I dig. Then I think. Then I post. Adds like the following make Romney less likely to offer up a Cabinet appt. So i expect some ugly, that however is just a hunch, based on what I see. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
| ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 23 2012 01:19 Doublemint wrote: Of course he can, that does not mean any reasonable person can He can't since that would be an assertion of fact and not an opinion. On April 23 2012 01:19 Doublemint wrote: Also welcome to the interwebz, where people may or may not say untrue/stupid stuff from time to time - just like in real life. You don't say? | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
Here is my one contribution, prolly been posted here before. Now, if Bush was caught saying this, the liberal media would play this 24/7 ahah. Another reason to just 100 percent ignore presidential politics. Such a joke everywhere. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 23 2012 03:11 Pufftrees wrote: Honestly, is there any chance in hell that Obama won't win? I mean seriously... all the people that dedicate themselves to US presidential politics lol. Just a way for news stations to make money and a way for people to "think they are involved" in the process. Countless millions will be spent, countless hours will be wasted, and at the end... Obama will win without a doubt. Current poll numbers disagree. Either way it's most certainly not going to be a landslide, whatever the outcome it's going to be close. And both sides are going to be spending massive amounts of money, I wouldn't be shocked if this was a record year in terms of dollars spent. | ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
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. I feel like you didnt read my post. I didnt say I was on the left. I said nothing about my political opinion. I said that the reason we were in debt is not spending, or low taxes alone. Its when both parties get what they want. To make it even more simple, I was trying to say spending+low taxes=debt. Spending does not equal debt. Low taxes do not equal debt. Here is a article about the stimulus http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html. Basically every article about the stimulus says that we would be far further off if the stimulus never happened. (When you say stimulus I assume your talking about the big trillion dollar stimulus that was passed early on in Obama`s presidency.) | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 23 2012 02:55 tdt wrote: ^^^ mitt will say anything but one flip you never hear him flip on is low taxes, "trickle down" or total deregulation on industry. In short, the dude will say and do anything to make sure rich people stay rich. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Reducing government deficits Mitt Romney's way would mean less money for health care for the poor and disabled and big cuts to nuts-and-bolts functions such as food inspection, border security and education. Romney also promises budget increases for the Pentagon, above those sought by some GOP defense hawks, meaning that the rest of the government would have to shrink even more. Nonmilitary programs would incur still larger cuts than those called for in the tightfisted GOP budget that the House passed last month. Differences over the government's budget and spiraling deficits are among the starkest that separate Republican Romney and Democratic President Barack Obama. Obama's budget generally avoids risk, with minimal cuts to rapidly growing health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid while socking wealthier people with tax increases. It's all part of an effort to close trillion-dollar-plus deficits. At issue are these programs, just to name a few: health research; NASA; transportation; homeland security; education; food inspection; housing and heating subsidies for the poor; food aid for pregnant women; the FBI; grants to local governments; national parks; and veterans' health care. Romney promises to immediately cut them by 5 percent. But they would have to be cut more than 20 percent to meet his overall budget goals, assuming veterans' health care is exempted. It's almost unthinkable that lawmakers would go along with cuts of such magnitude for air traffic control and food inspection or to agencies like NASA, the FBI, Border Patrol and the Centers for Disease Control. "It's just not sustainable," said GOP lobbyist Jim Dyer, a former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee. "What do you want to do with the national parks? Which ones do you want to close? ...The only way it adds up is if you go after the big, popular stuff, and nobody talks about that now." Source | ||
|
Black and Proud
49 Posts
On April 21 2012 08:38 liberal wrote: Yes, I've known for a long time that people have terrible reasons for the votes they make. That doesn't mean we should have terrible arguments on this site. I think it is entirely relevant to bring up Romney's Moronism because even for those people who say: "It won't affect his judgment as President" - at the end of the day, IF he is intelligent enough to know it is fake but is simply carrying the title in order to not look like he's a flip flopper or because he doesn't want to offend the Mormon vote, then it shows that he is a politician who is willing to hide his true feelings for public appeal. It shows that he will not say what he thinks in order to win approval. It shows that when deep down in his heart he knows something to be true or false, he will put his image and interests first instead of doing the right thing. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3FbbK.jpg) Edit: For the record, if I was a US citizen, I'd vote for Romney over Obama simply because I believe in right wing economics more than I do left. | ||
|
Xayvier
United States387 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
On April 23 2012 10:54 mrKamiya wrote: Romney's money will roll in during the general election from wall street, he's just getting started in collecting money. To be fair I feel this is true for both candidates... although it seems Obama is worse off when collecting due to how many interest groups he shrugged off during his presidency, meaning it will be much harder for him to win most of the big name donors. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-21/politics/30650015_1_mitt-romney-anti-mormonism-newt-gingrich http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/mormonisms-modern-day-problem/2012/01/22/gIQApCeiJQ_blog.html | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8708 Posts
On April 23 2012 02:02 darthfoley wrote: man that video basically takes a dump in mitt romney's face Well the real problem for Romney is that it´s true... Also I think not even Democrats could have made a better anti Romney ad themselves ^^ | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On April 23 2012 11:23 Doublemint wrote: Well the real problem for Romney is that it´s true... Also I think not even Democrats could have made a better anti Romney ad themselves ^^ Indeed, he's so wishywashy | ||
|
Black and Proud
49 Posts
I think the problem with Romney is the internet and the immense speed that information can now be shared. Back in the 90s or even the 80s he could say anything he liked to anyone to make them like him. It's like being a smooth motherfucker when picking up girls - she's a feminist? Talk about how you support womens' rights bullshit. She's a Christian? Tell her about how you love God and He is number one in your life. She's a rich bitch? Tell her how you think poor people are a scum on society and don't take responsibility. That's how he became so popular. But the problem is now everything he says is recorded and easily accessible and researchable. As a result he now has to become more accountable than ever. Because he's so used to saying whatever it takes to make someone like him, he can't hold back anymore. We all do it. How many times do we act like complete morons when we're around our parents, or around our girlfriends' parents, just because you want them to like you? You don't tell them you do their daughter up the ass. You tell them you got a high earning job and then they're impressed by you. Or when you go for a job interview. Hey, what do you think about our company? Ohh, I think McDonalds is so clean and I respect your management style and I believe in starting from the bottom! Bullshit. You're only going out with their daughter 'cos she's hot as fuck. You're only pretending to like greasy burgers 'cos you can't pay your rent. It's just something people do to make others like them, and Romney is better than most people at it. Obama isn't as good at it because he lets his ideals direct what he says - which shows he's actually spent too much time in academia and less time trying to relate to the people. | ||
|
Man with a Plan
United States401 Posts
but really, seriously  | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
OSC
SC Evo Complete
DaveTesta Events
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gLVMj.jpg)
