Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Moonlight Graham

Obama vs Romney - POTUS 2012

Recommended Posts

Romney had a huge rally in Philadelphia last night. Over 30,000 people attended. Obama's rally in Cleveland was pretty good too. Inside of a highschool gym, for 4,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final probability forecast from Nate Silver gives Obama an 88% chance at re-election. It makes sense that Romney's supporters would want to say goodbye to him.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I will have ten choices for U.S. Prez & VP, plus a write in vote for "Micky Mouse", a traditional favorite:

U.S. President & Vice President MITT ROMNEY AND PAUL RYAN REPUBLICAN
U.S. President & Vice President BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN DEMOCRATIC-FARMER-LABOR
U.S. President & Vice President GARY JOHNSON AND JIM GRAY LIBERTARIAN PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President JAMES HARRIS AND MAURA DELUCA SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President VIRGIL GOODE AND JIM CLYMER CONSTITUTION PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President DEAN MORSTAD AND JOSH FRANKE-HYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. President & Vice President JILL STEIN AND CHERI HONKALA GREEN PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President JIM CARLSON AND GEORGE MCMAHON GRASSROOTS PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President PETA LINDSAY AND YARI OSORIO SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION
U.S. President & Vice President ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON AND LUIS J. RODRIGUEZ JUSTICE PARTY
U.S. President & Vice President WRITE-IN** WRITE-IN

How many are on the ballot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rublicans should have rallied behind Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul over that guy and the two other clowns running for the top spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rublicans should have rallied behind Gary Johnson.

I think the libertarian party should replaced the republican party.

The modern republican party is equivalent to Canada's CHP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the libertarian party should replaced the republican party.

The modern republican party is equivalent to Canada's CHP.

There is no American political party equivalence in Canada. Different spectrum and scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens tomorrow, I think we can at least all be grateful to Romney for making sure that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain didn't get to be the Republican nominee. What a bunch of jerk-wads those guys were.

-k

Edited by kimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens tomorrow, I think we can at least all be grateful to Romney for making sure that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain didn't get to be the Republican nominee. What a bunch of jerk-wads those guys were.

-k

Is Romney, the one-term Governor of Massechussets (which he will lose by a landslide today) really a secret moderate, or was Bishop Romney a worse social conservative than Rick Santorum Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry? Evidence: an interesting little blurb buried near the end of this long, boring article in the N.Y. Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/politics/for-romney-a-role-of-faith-and-authority.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=politics

In 1990, Exponent II, a Mormon feminist magazine that Ms. Dushku, the Suffolk University professor, helped found, published an article by a married mother of four who recounted her own experience after doctors advised her to terminate her pregnancy when she was being treated for a potentially dangerous blood clot.

Her bishop got wind of the situation, she wrote, and showed up unannounced at the hospital, warning her sternly not to go forward. The article did not identify Mr. Romney as the bishop, but Ms. Dushku later did.

Now the woman has come forward, identifying herself in Mr. Scott’s book as Carrel Hilton Sheldon. (Through Ms. Dushku, she declined to be interviewed.) “Mitt has many, many winning qualities,” she is quoted as saying, “but at the time he was blind to me as a human being.”

Ms. Dushku sees hypocrisy and callousness; Mr. Scott sees inexperience.

One crucial little factoid omitted from the Times article which I heard in a radio interview with Judy Dushku, was that the woman seeking the abortion, who later came forward to reveal her identity, also claimed that she had authority from LDS church leadership in Salt Lake City to have the abortion prior to Bishop Romney's attempted intervention demanding that she roll the dice and continue the pregnancy!

This story should also serve as a word of warning to all of the American women in the anti-abortion fundagelical movements, who think that they, or any woman would really have access to that life-saving abortion if a pregnancy went seriously bad.

But, who is the real Mitt? Who will show up at the swearing in ceremony in January...if the Republicans are successful in their efforts today to steal the election through denying the vote to black Americans today? Will it be Moderate Mitt, who only pretended to be a conservative, but is really a mere socially liberal libertarian, who just wants gangster capitalism and to change a few laws to bring his hundreds of millions in offshore accounts back home? Or was "moderate Mitt" the real illusion, and he turns out to be more intrusive on social issues than any previous Republican? I don't think he's pretended on any of his economic goals, except for claiming that the results will improve the lives of average Americans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if Romney loses tonight then Ryan will be the republican nominee in four years time. Or perhaps even if Romney wins tonight Ryan could still be the republican nominee in four years time as it is easy to imagine Romney as a voluntary one-term President. Who was the last voluntary one-term President? LBJ in some way but not even him in the strict sense but he decided not to run for another term in 1968 even though he could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in his campaign wrap-up conference call with his donors and fund-raisers, Willard basically confirmed what most of us suspected all along: "100% Mitt" was an act, and "47% Mitt" was the real Romney.

Now that he no longer needs anybody's vote, he drops the charade and let everyone know what an ass he really is. Later, Willard. So glad you lost.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said is true and exactly how I characterized the results of the election. Romney attempted to appeal to all Americans with one message. Obama just told everyone that he'd give them what they want and make the richers pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, sure.

Maintaining low-interest student loans is a gift and Obamacare is a gift and the DREAM act is a gift.

But eliminating the estate tax isn't a gift. Cutting capital gains taxes isn't a gift. Trillions of dollars of new military spending isn't a gift. Eliminating bank regulations isn't a gift. Promising everybody over 55 that they won't share the costs of reducing the deficit isn't a gift.

If Obama's campaign was about gifts for young people and women and minorities, then Romney's campaign was about seniors and the banks and the wealthy and navy shipbuilders.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama's campaign was about gifts for young people and women and minorities,

Previously taxed wealth does not belong to the government. It is not a gift to let someone keep that which is already theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He went around the country promising policies that benefit certain groups of people, same thing he accuses Obama of doing. If Obama is "Santa Claus", then Romney is Kris Kringle.

The current panic over demographics in the Republican party is merely the realization that the groups that have traditionally benefited from their largess are no longer sufficient to win the election on their own.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He went around the country promising policies that benefit certain groups of people, same thing he accuses Obama of doing. If Obama is "Santa Claus", then Romney is Kris Kringle.

No surprise there, but you were conflating different things all as "gifts". Reducing taxes is not a gift from government, regardless of the politician playing "Santa Claus".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise there, but you were conflating different things all as "gifts". Reducing taxes is not a gift from government, regardless of the politician playing "Santa Claus".

That's getting pretty semantic. Being a member of a functioning society is being part of a club that has an annual membership fee. Offering discounted memberships to certain groups can certainly be argued to be a gift to them. And it all misses the point anyway. The point is that this whole premise that Obama won by promising gifts to targeted demographics and Romney lost by promising to treat everybody equal is a load of crap.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that this whole premise that Obama won by promising gifts to targeted demographics and Romney lost by promising to treat everybody equal is a load of crap.

Or not....Obama certainly played Robin Hood with health care. Accepting all such promises as "political gifts" is not just semantics for those paying a far larger membership fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or not....Obama certainly played Robin Hood with health care. Accepting all such promises as "political gifts" is not just semantics for those paying a far larger membership fee.

And Willard was playing Romney Hood.

Even leaving aside the debatable premise that cutting or eliminating taxes isn't a "gift", some of his other plans certainly were. But people on Elephant Team don't recognize it as such... because when policies benefit other people it's "buying votes" but when policies benefit them, it's "Smart Policy".

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Willard was playing Romney Hood.

Either way, it is still just politics. I learned a long time ago that government can only get revenue from those who have income and/or wealth. Taxes are going up, that is no longer a question. The question is for whom and how much.

Romney may have hurt his cause by blatantly crowing about the 47% who do not pay income taxes, but it was not a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...