A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
Congratulations, here's your new base!
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
On October 19 2012 09:22 oneofthem wrote: what did obama do that made you hate him lol
Nothing. That's what.
Nah, that's only part of it. Other reasons include disagreement with the policies he supports and, personally, what I see as a weak foreign policy: always rather vague, changed his mind on condemning Predator drone strikes, constantly blaming Bush. + Show Spoiler +
Can we please not use individual supporters as reasons not to vote for candidates? If we do that I would not be able to vote for any candidate , even third party candidates.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans.
I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad.
It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement.
On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him.
Actually, the context is important. I love how the same people bitch about the "You didn't build that" being taken out of context and then use that quote over and over again (and the other way around).
McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.
NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
Clinton would roll over if you compared him to Romney... What makes everything think Romney is so fucking good? The only money he made was either from his dad, from moving companies over seas or by crashing the company and taking a profit... His state? He was a liberal... He approved gun bans, he approved coal ban, he approved a healthcare policy that shaped what obamacare is... The "successful" romney who made his state something to look at from shit did it by implementing policies that Obama already has... The "5 Trillion gangho crazy motherfucker abortion baning" Romney has no relation to himself even 10 years ago and flipped on many issues so if anything he will only bring the reverse effect.
Anyway to bridge back, Clinton would be very pissed to be compared with Romney.
On October 19 2012 09:22 oneofthem wrote: what did obama do that made you hate him lol
Wasted an opportunity to be an amazing President leaving him with only the following ammunition to get re-elected:
Convince people that everything bad was Bush's fault Convince people that the rich man is out to get them Convince people that the white man is out to get them Convince people that his opponent hates women Convince people that Big Bird is getting fired
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
Hmmm... I've never really thought of it that way, but it's a very interesting analysis. I normally favor idealists, simply because so often "compromise" ends up screwing the American people instead of actually improving things. I don't like the phrase "get things done," because it really depends on WHAT is getting done. But I think the priority at this point is dealing with the massive deficit, and I do think Romney could be much more effective for the reasons you stated, he's more willing to compromise to get it done.
On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans.
I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad.
It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement.
On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him.
Actually, the context is important. I love how the same people bitch about the "You didn't build that" being taken out of context and then use that quote over and over again (and the other way around).
The Facts
McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.
NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.
Wow, thanks for posting this. Pretty much undermines the entire argument.
I think there's an argument to be had about whether or not the Republican controlled house has been too obstructionist, but that quote is a bad example of it.
Of course, I think the biggest failure of the Bush era was that while the Republicans controlled congress they stopped doing their job of proper oversight and to some extent rubber-stamped some very dangerous things. Therefore, I'm pretty pleased with Republicans standing their ground and insisting that the President come to them.
Now, if they stop doing their job when/if Romney gets sworn in I'm going to be angry and probably campaigning for a moderate democrat to replace my representative.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree with you. I still wouldn't have voted for Clinton, but he was forced to be moderate at the end of the day so that people would elect him again because he wanted another four years, and by golly it worked, lol.
For that same reason, even though Romney's platform sounds 90% good to me, I'll probably only agree with 50% of what he actually does, should he be elected. Because of that, I'm afraid he'll sell conservatives out, which inclines me towards a third party, but THEY doesn't stand a chance in this election. So I'm stuck with this awful quandary.
Which really makes me hate this election.... >_<'
@ey215: I saw your post; I'll come back to it in a minute. To be honest, I just wanted to make sure McConnell had actually said that, so I YouTubed it to hear it from his own mouth, but if you say context genuinely affects this situation, I'll look more into it.
On October 19 2012 09:22 oneofthem wrote: what did obama do that made you hate him lol
Wasted an opportunity to be an amazing President leaving him with only the following ammunition to get re-elected:
Convince people that everything bad was Bush's fault Convince people that the rich man is out to get them Convince people that the white man is out to get them Convince people that his opponent hates women Convince people that Big Bird is getting fired
Am I missing anything?
Well Bush administration did smash America into the stone age
Rich people are always looking to keep the poor man in their place, that's the idea of being rich... Everyone can't be rich. Also the trickle down economic system that Romney keeps saying Obama is following is wrong, Trickle down system is when you cut taxes on the rich and corporations and the money "trickles down" to the mid/poor class which is exactly what Romney is doing... I don't see why this isn't being debated, his terminology is completely wrong.
White man is out to what? Where did this come from?
Hates women, no... Wants to remove womens right to control their own body, wants to make it the choice of an employer whether or not a woman gets contraception... Wants to make it so planned parenthood is abolished... No he doesn't hate women, he just wants to make sure to fuck them back to 1950.
The "big bird" line is a joke, it's a joke making fun of Romney... A presidential candidate makes a joke about a PBS channel being cut off ? It's nothing but a joke, and since this is around the only deduction we know about from Romney's plan, it wouldn't be far off to assume he's a joke.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
Clinton would roll over if you compared him to Romney... What makes everything think Romney is so fucking good? The only money he made was either from his dad, from moving companies over seas or by crashing the company and taking a profit... His state? He was a liberal... He approved gun bans, he approved coal ban, he approved a healthcare policy that shaped what obamacare is... The "successful" romney who made his state something to look at from shit did it by implementing policies that Obama already has... The "5 Trillion gangho crazy motherfucker abortion baning" Romney has no relation to himself even 10 years ago and flipped on many issues so if anything he will only bring the reverse effect.
Anyway to bridge back, Clinton would be very pissed to be compared with Romney.
that massive deficit is there because tax collection is fucked. romney isn't going to fix that. you guys do realize the severity of the tax "expenditures" situation right.
and tackling baby boomer entitlements is just lol. nobody will do that shit so let's just collect the proper taxes. it's sitting in assets and shelters anyway.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree with you. I still wouldn't have voted for Clinton, but he was forced to be moderate at the end of the day so that people would elect him again because he wanted another four years, and by golly it worked, lol.
For that same reason, even though Romney's platform sounds 90% good to me, I'll probably only agree with 50% of what he actually does, should he be elected. Because of that, I'm afraid he'll sell conservatives out, which inclines me towards a third party, but THEY doesn't stand a chance in this election. So I'm stuck with this awful quandary.
Which really makes me hate this election.... >_<'
@ey215: I saw your post; I'll come back to it in a minute. To be honest, I just wanted to make sure McConnell had actually said that, so I YouTubed it to hear it from his own mouth, but if you say context genuinely affects this situation, I'll look more into it.
Your decision is actually very simple. Are you in a state that matters or not? If you are in a state that matters, vote Romney, if not, vote third party. I'm in a state that doesn't matter.
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point.
On October 19 2012 09:22 oneofthem wrote: what did obama do that made you hate him lol
Wasted an opportunity to be an amazing President leaving him with only the following ammunition to get re-elected:
Convince people that everything bad was Bush's fault Convince people that the rich man is out to get them Convince people that the white man is out to get them Convince people that his opponent hates women Convince people that Big Bird is getting fired
Am I missing anything?
Well Bush administration did smash America into the stone age
Rich people are always looking to keep the poor man in their place, that's the idea of being rich... Everyone can't be rich. Also the trickle down economic system that Romney keeps saying Obama is following is wrong, Trickle down system is when you cut taxes on the rich and corporations and the money "trickles down" to the mid/poor class which is exactly what Romney is doing... I don't see why this isn't being debated, his terminology is completely wrong.
White man is out to what? Where did this come from?
Hates women, no... Wants to remove womens right to control their own body, wants to make it the choice of an employer whether or not a woman gets contraception... Wants to make it so planned parenthood is abolished... No he doesn't hate women, he just wants to make sure to fuck them back to 1950.
The "big bird" line is a joke, it's a joke making fun of Romney... A presidential candidate makes a joke about a PBS channel being cut off ? It's nothing but a joke, and since this is around the only deduction we know about from Romney's plan, it wouldn't be far off to assume he's a joke.
He's using their language against them. He doesn't call it trickle down system, he calls it trickle down government. Liberals straw man tax cuts as being "trickle down economics," implying the money is supposed to trickle down from the rich to the poor. Trickle down government is when you suggest that if you just tax the rich people more, the wealth will trickle down through government to poor people. It's actually a clever argument, which is why you aren't hearing the terminology debated.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I've argued earlier in this thread that Romney has more in common with Clinton than any other recent president. My theory is that neither Clinton nor Romney is an idealist. Both are problem solvers who will take a "whatever works" attitude to fixing they problems that confront them. Whereas both Obama and Bush are idealists who had policies that they carried out for ideological reasons, Clinton was prepared to do whatever he thought would get the job done. Romney is the same. He's conservative but he had no problem passing Romneycare in Mass. Unfortunately he's not as "slick" as Clinton but he's just as smart.
The Obama campaign has tried to make Romney out as some kind of extremist. Unfortunately he's given them lots of ammunition to do this because he's zigged and zagged a lot on his way through the primaries. But the attacks haven't really stuck, imho, because the truth is that he's a moderate republican who just had to say some extreme shit to get the nomination. People can call him a flip-flopper, but I actually think Romney will provide the kind of problem-solving "just get the job done" management that American really needs right now.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree with you. I still wouldn't have voted for Clinton, but he was forced to be moderate at the end of the day so that people would elect him again because he wanted another four years, and by golly it worked, lol.
For that same reason, even though Romney's platform sounds 90% good to me, I'll probably only agree with 50% of what he actually does, should he be elected. Because of that, I'm afraid he'll sell conservatives out, which inclines me towards a third party, but THEY doesn't stand a chance in this election. So I'm stuck with this awful quandary.
Which really makes me hate this election.... >_<'
@ey215: I saw your post; I'll come back to it in a minute. To be honest, I just wanted to make sure McConnell had actually said that, so I YouTubed it to hear it from his own mouth, but if you say context genuinely affects this situation, I'll look more into it.
You decision is actually very simple. Are you in a state that matters or not? If you are in a state that matters, vote Romney, if not, vote third party. I'm in a state that doesn't matter.
Yes. I'm in a swing state. *sigh* Darn it, haha....
@ey215: Read the interview you posted. That was great, thanks for sharing it.
On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point.
On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point.
nah man you just don't know how it is, economy still sucks so it is all obama's fault. Need a vague/incoherent/inconsistent republican to turn it around 180
EPT![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
)
![[image loading]](http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/picture-637.png)
