Politics

[phgreek]

I voted for Obama in 2008. And I'm not really sold on him again for 2012. However, I don't trust Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him (and I have no upper body strength so that would be NOT FAR). Let's take a look at this venn diagram, shall we?

Mitt Romney will say anything to get himself into the current office he's going for. When it was governor of the Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, he was pro-choice, pro-assaults weapons bans, and pro-gay marriage. Then, when he wanted to run as a Republican for POTUS, suddenly he was anti all of those things. So where does he really stand? I can't take anything he says seriously. And that's why I will, most certainly, NOT be voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. And please, before you say, "That's just the liberal media twisting his words and mis-quoting him", spend a little time looking into those reference links.

Quinntastic OUT.

I think thats fine...you think he's a flopper...and that issue makes you say HELL NO.

I think He gets the issues most critical to the most critical situation in this nation...economy, jobs, trade. I don't think Romney will need a presidential "red shirt" term to figure out how to negotiate a budget. I think he'd employ policies which grow the economy, and jobs faster than the rate of population growth...my opinion..appreciate yours.

 

[Redbar]

Quinn you don't understand Mitt is a business genius that saved the Olympics.

 

[RDU Irish]

I voted for Obama in 2008. And I'm not really sold on him again for 2012. However, I don't trust Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him (and I have no upper body strength so that would be NOT FAR). Let's take a look at this venn diagram, shall we?

Mitt Romney will say anything to get himself into the current office he's going for. When it was governor of the Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, he was pro-choice, pro-assaults weapons bans, and pro-gay marriage. Then, when he wanted to run as a Republican for POTUS, suddenly he was anti all of those things. So where does he really stand? I can't take anything he says seriously. And that's why I will, most certainly, NOT be voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. And please, before you say, "That's just the liberal media twisting his words and mis-quoting him", spend a little time looking into those reference links.

Quinntastic OUT.

Sounds like you can't vote for Obama OR Romney. Maybe Gary Johnson is your guy? I am curious if you see yourself even voting this year. You seem like you may be a good example of the change in the "enthusiasm gap" that some bring up in opposition to poll numbers.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The flip-flop issues dont bother me one bit for a number of reasons.

1) Romney isn't the first politician to jump ship on issues, and he wont be the last. Obama is certainly not immune to this (or is he allowed to evolve?). Thus, I look at policy ans actions when in office and not words and speeches. As I've stated before, the GOP primary has become a Who's Who of Xenophobia and Homophobia. The person who proclaims most effectively their hate for abortion, gay marriage, and liberals usually wins these days. LOSERS DONT MAKE POLICY, so yiu bite the bullet and tell Christians what they want to here. His policies as governor aren't so flip-floppy.

2) You are allowed to change your mind from time to time.

3) It makes sense to be for something on a state level and completely opposed to it on a national level.

 

[Quinntastic]

Hell, I've certainly changed my mind on a LOT of things over the course of my life. Big, important, changes that have completely changed the course of how my life has gone. However, the flip flops that Romney has employed have been so numerous and so obviously along party lines that it is obvious to me he is just pandering and telling the GOP what they want to hear. And, at least to me, I think it's foolish to believe anything he says when he is a proven panderer. How do I know he's not just telling us what we want to hear re: fixing the economy and gaining jobs, but when he gets in office he doesn't employ a single tactic? Or fixes the economy and gains jobs but does it in a way that ruins another facet of the government? For the record, I'm all for governmental reform. I think there are huge changes that need to take place for this government to be fixed (take money out of the lobbying equation, employ a huge pay and benefit cut to senators/congress people to reduce the idea of being a "career" politician, and so forth). And I'm all for spending cuts (in the "right" places).

As for Gary Johnson, I have thought about it. I wouldn't even mind voting Ron Paul. And I always vote - even in primaries. I take my voting privilege very seriously!

 

[connor_in]

I think it explains a lot that you would base your judgment on something so arbitrary. Did the President fail to acknowledge 9/11 today, or does only the first tweet of the day mean anything? I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence concerning the character of the two men in this election, and any comparison between the two dramatically favors the President.

You can favor Romney's policies over Obama's, but you cannot make an honest case that Mitt Romney is, in any respect, a better person that the President. If that were the only criteria in the election, the election would be over already.

Wow...just....Wow!

I personally do not like Obama's policies/views, but I have no judgement on him as a person. I don't like like the fact that he was into drugs, but that apparently was many years ago and many people dabble in them. More power to him that he was able to kick whatever weed/coke issues he had. I did not like Clinton or Kennedy on a personal level because of certain issues in their lives and the legal/moral aspects of those issues. What I know about Romney outside of politics I don't see anything all that bad that would lead me to the kind of statement you made. He seems like a decent, caring, family man. A statement I consider to be true about Obama as well.

I am curious to know what is it about Mitt as a person that you seem to detest quite so much?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hell, I've certainly changed my mind on a LOT of things over the course of my life. Big, important, changes that have completely changed the course of how my life has gone. However, the flip flops that Romney has employed have been so numerous and so obviously along party lines that it is obvious to me he is just pandering and telling the GOP what they want to hear. And, at least to me, I think it's foolish to believe anything he says when he is a proven panderer. How do I know he's not just telling us what we want to hear re: fixing the economy and gaining jobs, but when he gets in office he doesn't employ a single tactic? Or fixes the economy and gains jobs but does it in a way that ruins another facet of the government? For the record, I'm all for governmental reform. I think there are huge changes that need to take place for this government to be fixed (take money out of the lobbying equation, employ a huge pay and benefit cut to senators/congress people to reduce the idea of being a "career" politician, and so forth). And I'm all for spending cuts (in the "right" places).

Ummm, yeah. That is exactly what it is. What's so wrong with that? Obama did the same exact thing (e.g. "we will close guantanamo!" "i will pull the troops out within one year!" "i am not for gay marriage" etc etc etc). Again, losers don't make policy.

What do you want out of the 2013-2017 term? Job creation? Romney trumps Obama 100x over. Some bipartisanship? Romney worked with an 86% Democratic state legislature to get laws and budgets approved that everyone could live with. Tax reform? Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget in part by bringing in closing corporate loopholes.

In my opinion, for those reasons and more, he's the better bet.

I won't hate you if you write in Ron Paul though.

 

[Quinntastic]

Well, this is the beauty of our system. Everyone gets to make up their own mind about who they best feel will lead the country.

 

[Redbar]

Ummm, yeah. That is exactly what it is. What's so wrong with that? Obama did the same exact thing (e.g. "we will close guantanamo!" "i will pull the troops out within one year!" "i am not for gay marriage" etc etc etc). Again, losers don't make policy.

What do you want out of the 2013-2017 term? Job creation? Romney trumps Obama 100x over. Some bipartisanship? Romney worked with an 86% Democratic state legislature to get laws and budgets approved that everyone could live with. Tax reform? Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget in part by bringing in closing corporate loopholes.

In my opinion, for those reasons and more, he's the better bet.

I won't hate you if you write in Ron Paul though.

Couple things...

1. So now its ok to be a flip flopper...good thing that changed because Mr. Romney is the genuine article there.

2. Job Creation? For who? Mexico? India?

3. Everything I heard is that Romney would not have won re-election in Mass. so lets not overstate his successes.

4. I know I know he is a genius and saved the Olympics.

5. It's ok to vote for anybody but Obama, right?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Couple things...

1. So now its ok to be a flip flopper...good thing that changed because Mr. Romney is the genuine article there.

Is that what I fcking said?

2. Job Creation? For who? Mexico? India?

You're not one of those idiots to refuses to accept that we live in a global economy are you? If you are then I have no words for you because you live in an outdated fantasy land.

Mitt Romney's experience in the global economy would be a huge advantage for this country. He turned around and advised companies how to best compete and grow on a global scale. You do know that a lot of American companies lose money here in the US but make up for it via growth in the rest of the world, right? He has first-hand experience in what we're doing wrong and why other places are kicking our *** in competitiveness. (and you should also probably recognize that the movement of some industries to other countries has nothing to do with the 1%, Romney, Wall Street etc but simple capitalism).

And his biggest advantage in job creation is for small business. It's nearly impossible to outsource small businesses, but they need a more sensible tax code and streamlined regulation and Obama--a son of academia--has shown little ability or initiative on this front. Romney's business and law background, and his history of bringing in specialists to reform tax codes and close loop holes, make him the clear choice on this matter if no other issue.

3. Everything I heard is that Romney would not have won re-election in Mass. so lets not overstate his successes.

Then feel free to refute what I have stated. I'm sure there are 10000 articles from angry liberals in Massachusetts you could look up. You really think it's that odd that Mitt Romney was begged to come to Massachusetts to save their crumbling financial situation (and help guide Obamacare and reform the tax code) but not particularly care for his policies after that was done? It's not like those reforms/successes aren't still popular. Romneycare is favorable there today, and he took the state's budget from billions in the red to hundreds of millions in the black. I'm sorry liberals, in 2008 of all years, didn't care for that?

Seriously, looking at MA opinion polls is just plain stupid.

4. I know I know he is a genius and saved the Olympics.

He certainly played a huge role in it, and if nothing else demonstrated very effective management once again.

5. It's ok to vote for anybody but Obama, right?

Basically. Obama is just the worst. I wish Hilary would have won.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Quinn you don't understand Mitt is a business genius that saved the Olympics.

With $490 million of the Federal Gov'ts revenue.

This thread is conflation central.

Keep going it is really entertaining. And I am laughing my @ss off at some of the inpassioned arguments! I can almost remember the fifties. It wasn't Happy Days.

I remember when a migrant caravan stopped to ask my grandpa if they could pick for him. He had several pick a bushell of this, or a peck of that. And then he set up folding tables outside and put some stew on. We fed over thirty. I was to young to help much, I just played with the children. He had them keep the fruit they picked. Children like that died in the fifties, from migrant hispanics to Navaho children, infant and childhood mortality due to starvation and medical inattention were real issues. But white people did fine. They rode the tip of the surfboard on the post Depression / WWII prosperity wave. Plenty got pulled out in the undertow. I am surprised so many of you are still bitching about lending a hand. Most of you wouldn't have a home or a college degree if colleges weren't built for the masses in response to the GI Bill, or a home if they and the mortgages to let you finance them to infinity, cheaply were not subsidized by federal policy.

As to the hispanics when neighbors told my Grandpa to look at them and admitt how much better off they had it here than in the country they were from, he would just thoughtfully not his head, and say, "Yes, and that doesn't make it right."

 

[Buster Bluth]

With $490 million of the Federal Gov'ts revenue.

I have already explained this in detail.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I have already explained this in detail.

Yeah, so?

 

[Redbar]

Is that what I fcking said?



You're not one of those idiots to refuses to accept that we live in a global economy are you? If you are then I have no words for you because you live in an outdated fantasy land.

Mitt Romney's experience in the global economy would be a huge advantage for this country. He turned around and advised companies how to best compete and grow on a global scale. You do know that a lot of American companies lose money here in the US but make up for it via growth in the rest of the world, right? He has first-hand experience in what we're doing wrong and why other places are kicking our *** in competitiveness. (and you should also probably recognize that the movement of some industries to other countries has nothing to do with the 1%, Romney, Wall Street etc but simple capitalism).

And his biggest advantage in job creation is for small business. It's nearly impossible to outsource small businesses, but they need a more sensible tax code and streamlined regulation and Obama--a son of academia--has shown little ability or initiative on this front. Romney's business and law background, and his history of bringing in specialists to reform tax codes and close loop holes, make him the clear choice on this matter if no other issue.



Then feel free to refute what I have stated. I'm sure there are 10000 articles from angry liberals in Massachusetts you could look up. You really think it's that odd that Mitt Romney was begged to come to Massachusetts to save their crumbling financial situation (and help guide Obamacare and reform the tax code) but not particularly care for his policies after that was done? It's not like those reforms/successes aren't still popular. Romneycare is favorable there today, and he took the state's budget from billions in the red to hundreds of millions in the black. I'm sorry liberals, in 2008 of all years, didn't care for that?

Seriously, looking at MA opinion polls is just plain stupid.



He certainly played a huge role in it, and if nothing else demonstrated very effective management once again.



Basically. Obama is just the worst. I wish Hilary would have won.

1 No. What you f'ing said was "What's so wrong with that, Obama did the exact same thing, losers don't make policy. Sounds to me like you are f'ing saying it is ok, if not, what are you f'ing saying? Also you saying, "Obama did it" comes off as if Obama is your moral gauge.

2 I'll leave it for you to call me an idiot if that makes you feel smart, but I will say that if we agree we live in a global economy, then maybe even an idiot could deduce that some of these issues are bigger and more profound than U.S. presidential power (even bigger than Mitt Romney) and have been a long time brewing and will probably take a long time to fix, even more than three and a half whole years. Especially when all Mitt wants to do is welcome the same neo-cons who should be in jail right now back to the table.

3 So we should value the Mass. voters opinion when they invited Mitt, but disregard it when they ultimately didn't like what they got? I'm sure many still like the reforms they are hugely popular nationally as well they are called Obamacare now, too bad Mitt is scared sh!tless to mention his Mass record. "Looking at Mass opinion polls is just stupid?" The majority apparently think entertaining Mitt Romney was also.

Buster you are young. Your tone and argument betray that fact.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Well, this is the beauty of our system. Everyone gets to make up their own mind about who they best feel will lead the country.

True...

But you should know, Obama is a racist dragon who lives in a cave with a badly burned Albanian boy.

(only his tears don't turn into jellybeans, they turn into unemployment explosions and worthless dollars)

 

[Buster Bluth]

1 No. What you f'ing said was "What's so wrong with that, Obama did the exact same thing, losers don't make policy. Sounds to me like you are f'ing saying it is ok, if not what are you f'ing saying? Also you saying, "Obama did it" comes off as if Obama is your moral gauge.

I said much more than that. Using Obama merely shows the hypocrisy in the complaints.

2 I'll leave it for you to call me an idiot if that makes you feel smart, but I will say that if we agree we live in a global economy, then maybe even an idiot could deduce that some of these issues are bigger and more profound than U.S. presidential power (even bigger than Mitt Romney) and have been a long time brewing and will probably take a long time to fix even more than three and a half whole years. Especially when all Mitt wants to do is welcome the same neo-cons who should be in jail right now back to the table.

I never called you an idiot, I asked you a question. Do I need to get elborica in here with his presentation on reading comprehension?

I agree with your point about it being a bigger issue (although that issue is often just capitalism and irreversible), but the "more than 3.5 years" sounds like an admission that Obama's system isn't working. I don't even know what to look at to judge what is working and what isn't. All I see is QE1, QE2, government spending, etc etc and see NOTHING in regards to making American more competitive. That's because Obama isn't in this to grow the businesses (small or corporate) and economy, he's there to serve the unions and environmentalists and hasn't done nearly enough for actual small businesses.

Mitt Romney is not of the same ilk as the "neo-cons" you fear. If you had generally done your research, you'd know that. Those guys threw their support behind Perry and Santorum or are still on the sidelines because of the Bush shame (rightfully so). Romney has had nothing to do with those guys; he isn't a member of the old boys club.

3 So we should value the Mass. voters opinion when they invited Mitt, but disregard it when they ultimately didn't like what they got.

No, actually his accomplishments remain pretty popular. The major road construction failure (started and planned before him) was disastrous, as was Romney's politics and being a Republican in 2006-2008.

Are you surprised Democratic voters gave a Republican a very short leash? I'm not saying Romney was a great governor, by most accounts he learned on the job politically and his political strategy was amateur. But his business-attitude towards government operations were successful. He's just not a politician--is that bad thing? He did more in one unpopular term for Massachusetts' well-being financially and socially than the previous governors who dug the huge hole.

I'm sure many still like the reforms they are hugely popular nationally as well they are called Obamacare now, too bad Mitt is scared sh!tless to mention his Mass record. "Looking at Mass opinion polls is just stupid?" The majority apparently think entertaining Mitt Romney was also.

He's talked about his MA tenure more than you'd think. But he hasn't discussed it in detail because it doesn't make sense to 1) take time away from hammering away at Obama's economic amateurism, 2) bring up something that is unpopular, 2) look like a liberal when the general election is about getting voters to the polls.

"Hey guys, you know I used to be the governor of Massachusetts, and we accomplished a lot there. You know we even let gays marry while I was governor and the sky didn't fall. And, we created a successful state-level healthcare system that actually works."

Republican reaction: "WHAT?!!?! YOU DON'T HATE GUYS?!?!?! HOLY BEN FRANKLIN YOU COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!"

...or..

"Health care??!?!?! OMGZZZZ YOU'RE THE SAME AS OBAMA!! I'M NOT VOTING FOR ANYONE THIS YEAR YOU BOTH SUCK!!"

Buster you are young. Your tone and argument betray that fact.

Sweet. Age discrimination. Love it.

 

[jason_h537]

You're not one of those idiots to refuses to accept that we live in a global economy are you? If you are then I have no words for you because you live in an outdated fantasy land.

Mitt Romney's experience in the global economy would be a huge advantage for this country. He turned around and advised companies how to best compete and grow on a global scale. You do know that a lot of American companies lose money here in the US but make up for it via growth in the rest of the world, right? He has first-hand experience in what we're doing wrong and why other places are kicking our *** in competitiveness. (and you should also probably recognize that the movement of some industries to other countries has nothing to do with the 1%, Romney, Wall Street etc but simple capitalism).

And his biggest advantage in job creation is for small business. It's nearly impossible to outsource small businesses, but they need a more sensible tax code and streamlined regulation and Obama--a son of academia--has shown little ability or initiative on this front. Romney's business and law background, and his history of bringing in specialists to reform tax codes and close loop holes, make him the clear choice on this matter if no other issue.

You can not run a country like a corporation. You can not pick winners and losers, because a country is only as strong as its weakest citizens. You say Obama has shown little ability but he has been blocked every chance he has gotten to try and grow the economy (I know more blaming).

Romney's job as a businessman was to create profits for his investors. Not create jobs. That is why Bain is such a hot button issue because he grew as many companies as he shut down. That does not work for a country. Wisconsin takes more federal money than it pays in taxes, you can't shut the state down. Not to mention his policies require 80% of the country to pay more taxes, that includes small businesses.

Then feel free to refute what I have stated. I'm sure there are 10000 articles from angry liberals in Massachusetts you could look up. You really think it's that odd that Mitt Romney was begged to come to Massachusetts to save their crumbling financial situation (and help guide Obamacare and reform the tax code) but not particularly care for his policies after that was done? It's not like those reforms/successes aren't still popular. Romneycare is favorable there today, and he took the state's budget from billions in the red to hundreds of millions in the black. I'm sorry liberals, in 2008 of all years, didn't care for that?

Seriously, looking at MA opinion polls is just plain stupid.

So the people with first hand experience under Romney mean nothing? Why is Christie so popular is NJ? That is a blue state that supports it's red governor. How about Jack Merkell in Delaware, he has almost 70% approval rating in a very red state. If a state's politics were suich a determining factor in popularity than Romney would never have won office.

He certainly played a huge role in it, and if nothing else demonstrated very effective management once again.

He did play a huge role because he was a registered lobbyist at the time and received $1.5 Billion is federal to pay for it.


Also I know that someone will harp in on the winners and losers line. Tax breaks for the rich, deregulation, cutting loopholes, etc, those are government handouts for the Rich. What Republicans are saying is everyone has to work harder to make it but we have to make it easier for the "job creators".

 

[jason_h537]

Based on Romney's Libya speech. It appears he is entering desperation mode, and he made a huge mistake. The polls are sliding in the opposite direction. Romney's goal from the outset has been focus on the economy, Obama is weak in the economy. That didn't work, so he started talking sensationalism, that hurt him. Now he is trying to go for the deep ball and he whiffed bad.

The election is far from over but he has yet to talk policy specifics, his ticket has a credibility issues, and he has dropped the ball twice on foreign policy. He is limping into the debates.

 

[ND NYC]

im not in favor of a single payer system but was talking to a friend of mine today on economics, state of our country etc (same stuff as in this thread) he said something i thought was interesting and it was this:
many of the countries we compete against have universal/single payer health insurance:
Canada, Germany, France, S Korea, UK...you get the point. anyway he says our manufacturers have a real disadvantage for the simple fact that the US mfg have to pay their employees health insurance and the mfg in these other countries do not.
forget about labor costs, tariffs, taxes etc...other than payroll health care HAS to be the second biggest cost on a business. his question to me was: why dont more us mfg's push for and try and get single payer in the US...so they can get out of the healthcare business altogether (lowers their CODB big time).
just something to consider.

 

[GoIrish41]

One of Romney's top advisers said this today:

“It doesn’t surprise me that they’re raising foreign policy because it’s another distraction from the Administration’s terrible economic record,” O’Brien told BuzzFeed. “They’re going from one shiny object to the next.”

Wow, that is a profoundly stupid thing to say. The old guard republicans' heads have to be spinning when the modern party's nominee refers to foreign policy as a distraction.

Thanks for sharing JayHawk.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Wow, that is a profoundly stupid thing to say. The old guard republicans' heads have to be spinning when the modern party's nominee refers to foreign policy as a distraction.

Thanks for sharing JayHawk.

To be fair, that statement was made before the events last night.

 

[Quinntastic]

True...

But you should know, Obama is a racist dragon who lives in a cave with a badly burned Albanian boy.

(only his tears don't turn into jellybeans, they turn into unemployment explosions and worthless dollars)

Get your hand off my tail, you'll make it dirty...

 

[connor_in]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[jason_h537]

Wow, that is a profoundly stupid thing to say. The old guard republicans' heads have to be spinning when the modern party's nominee refers to foreign policy as a distraction.

Thanks for sharing JayHawk.

That statement is in regard to this election, not that foreign policy doesn't matter in terms of presidency. At the outset the goal of Romney's campaign was to focus entirely on the economy because that is where Obama seemed the most vulnerable. Anything else would favor Obama.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Nothing arbitrary there ...

It isn't arbitrary at all. It is my studied opinion. Character judgments are, ultimately, subjective assessments based on the totality of what we know and how we weigh it. It is arbitrary to assess someone's character based on the first tweet of a particular day. It isn't arbitrary to assess someone's character.

 

[Rizzophil]

This thread took a major turn and went straight liberal.

 

[dshans]

This thread took a major turn and went straight liberal.

HUZZAH! HIP, HIP HOORAY!

 

[connor_in]

It isn't arbitrary at all. It is my studied opinion. Character judgments are, ultimately, subjective assessments based on the totality of what we know and how we weigh it. It is arbitrary to assess someone's character based on the first tweet of a particular day. It isn't arbitrary to assess someone's character.

It isn't arbitrary to do it but the assessment itself is strictly opinion and like a$$h0les every one has one.

Which brings me back to my Q for RI from earlier...what exactly makes Romney such a bad "person" as compared to Obama?

 

[Rhode Irish]

It isn't arbitrary to do it but the assessment itself is strictly opinion and like a$$h0les every one has one.

Which brings me back to my Q for RI from earlier...what exactly makes Romney such a bad "person" as compared to Obama?

That is kind of a hard question to answer in this format. Its more of a general opinion than it is one specific thing that he's done. If I were to lay out the case, it would be an amalgamation of hundreds or thousands of things. I don't really have the time or the interest in doing something like that because its just my opinion and ultimately it doesn't matter.

If I had to put my opinion in the simplest terms, I would say that I view him to be a hollow, shallow person who will say anything in order to get elected, because to him this is all about his legacy and his ego. He doesn't have any convictions. He doesn't have any empathy. He is not genuine. This may be a weird example, but I feel the same way about him as I do about Lebron James: its all synthetic packaging based on what they think people want from them; there is no "real" Mitt Romney just like there isn't a "real" Lebron James. Their entire beings are corporatized constructions, straight out of their handlers' focus groups. That is a particular type of person that I find intolerable.

 

[4irishnation]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p7w64fbqYQY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>