Re: Romney is Better than Obama
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:18 am
race/gender/class
nothing else matters to them
nothing else matters to them
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180215
stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.
Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.
stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.
Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.
oVo wrote:stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.
Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.
It's the issues, the GOP needs to wake up and live in the present.
Knock Knock!
oVo wrote:Admitting that Wall Street can't monitor itself, the trickle down doesn't work and squeezing extra tax dollars from the wealthy in America is necessary...
of course gay rights, immigration and women's issues too.
thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.
Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.
I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!
If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx
If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.
I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.
In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.
50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.
stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.
Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.
AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.
Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.
I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!
If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx
If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.
I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.
In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.
50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.
I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.
Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.
So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.
thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.
Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.
I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!
If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx
If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.
I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.
In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.
50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.
I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.
Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.
So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.
Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.
In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.
And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.
thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.
I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.
AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:It is all speculation, agreed. And the Republicans could fix the two items, the candidate and the social conservatism, in the next election. And I think they should fix both of those items. But if they fix the one (candidate) and not the other (social conservatism), I think they can still win.
I'm still going to go with the main reason he didn't win was the charisma factor. He was pounded by everyone for his wealth and keeping tax cuts for the wealthy (ironically, I read on WSJ today that it is likely that the president will not get or push for tax increases on the wealthy in the next four years). He was not pounded so much on abortion or gay marriage (although I did see abortion-type ads at the end). The election and reelection of Bush showed that Americans will vote for a socially conservative president. I don't think that much has changed in eight years, although perhaps the views on gay marriage have. But again, gay marriage was not discussed at all (among other things; no one talked about the Patriot Act and no one talked about global warming). I think for most, if not all, people, it was an election based on economics and money, not on social issues. And when your candidate is a rich guy who is seen as taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to Chinese, buying up and destroying US companies, commenting on the 47%, etc., you're not going to win.
He definitely made some mistakes. In that context, its actually scary he got so many votes.
I really do hope this is a wake-up call for any republicans that haven't gone off the deep end forever though.
The extremism was kind of fun while it lasted, but it really seems to be a good time to sit down and actually get something done now. People are clearly just going to keep voting in new people until that happens.
AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.
In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.
stahrgazer wrote:AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.
In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.
This Republican will tell you why she didn't vote for Romney.
1) His views on many things swung North, South, East, West, depending on who was asking. - Agreed, but President Obama is largely similar in this respect.
2) His claim of balancing the Olympics budget, while true, was only true because he was able to borrow from the Federal government, which meant that if he'd been president when he had to balance the Olympics budget, he would not have been able to borrow from the Federal government to do so, so would have failed to balance that budget - because the Fed had to borrow the money, increasing the deficit, in order to loan him the money he needed to succeed. And he wants to deny that type of thing to anyone else.Agreed.
3) He picked an anti-choice running mate.I think you mean pro-life, but agreed.
4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.
5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.He did reveal his tax returns.
6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.Also incorrect. Despite the DCCC's rhetoric to the contrary, multiple fact-checking websites proved this is false.
7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.
In all, these things added up to He was the type who would say anything, ANYTHING, to get elected, even if it was not true.
Which leads to 9) and then he'd deny saying what he had said.
10) He and most (other) Republicans refuse to acknowledge that what worked for Reagan when Reagan lowered "wealthy tax" rates from 70% to a lower number; then realized he'd gone too far and had to raise them up a little - wouldn't work now that "wealthy tax" rates are already lower than the number Reagan had realized was "too low" for the United States' economic health.
So, the only "social issue" part of this was the anti-choice Ryan. It's important to me, as a pro-choice Republican, but it's not "the" most important thing to me. Five through Nine of my list were the main reasons I chose not to vote for him. If he'd said, "Would I lie to you?" I'd have to say, "Yes you did!"
thegreekdog wrote:I think you mean pro-life, but agreed.
thegreekdog wrote:Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.
thegreekdog wrote:He did reveal his tax returns.
thegreekdog wrote:Also incorrect. Despite the DCCC's rhetoric to the contrary, multiple fact-checking websites proved this is false.
thegreekdog wrote:Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.
stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.
stahrgazer wrote:Might be worth a read anyway, for those who'd like to know how venture capitalists often work.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z2ADyBZOv6
stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.
stahrgazer wrote:You make half my point: he didn't have numbers, which means he COULD NOT confirm that he could "create 12 million jobs" like his ads kept spouting. He also brought up numbers in the debates; it's just, he brought up several different percentages and told the audience to pick one (he used some same, some different numbers in various interviews, always telling audience to pick one but continuing to claim that the numbers meant he'd create 12 million jobs.)
Obama did have numbers and details, he's had them, it's just that to get there he wants to raise some taxes so the Republicans refuse his numbers.
stahrgazer wrote:1 year, then another year, not the ten years everyone else reveals.
stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.
stahrgazer wrote:No, Medicare is not killed by the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans must meet a maximum percent toward administration, some repayments are made less, and a panel will review things like a 96 year old smoker who needs a heart transplant.
thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.
What does that mean? I'm also pro-choice politically and I'm pro-life personally (makes a bad Catholic). But you're using the incorrect term; I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a little fallacious. And Ryan never said he would kill the mother to spare the child (at least that I heard or saw). Some congressional candidates said that, but not Ryan.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, if you voted for Obama, you voted for a president and vice-president combination who would have direct government funding for abortions. That goes a little above and beyond pro-choice.
thegreekdog wrote:
Unless and until someone produces Obama's plan, numbers, and details (i.e. you), this is incorrect. I've linked to the president's financial plan on his campaign page: no numbers, no details. If you're going to criticize Romney, at least don't be a hypocrit about it.
thegreekdog wrote:Ten years? The standard is two years.
[/quote]thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.
Yes... and? The company he worked for costing jobs and Romney directly costing jobs are vastly different. The Obama campaign lied. And when it was called out, it continued to lie. Eventually the campaign stopped, but you're bringing it up again and it's not true.
thegreekdog wrote:The Affordable Care Act partially or completely (I'm not entirely sure) defunds Medicare. I don't even understand what you're trying to explain (with the death panels and whatnot).
oVo wrote:Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to
balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world from
greedy, unethical and risky banking practices.
oVo wrote:Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.
Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to
balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world from
greedy, unethical and risky banking practices.