TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 117
   
Posts: 3249/3428
EXP: 17755734
For next: 92214
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 3221 days
Last activity: 3221 days
|  #21 Posted on 7.11.12 1654.17
Reposted on: 7.11.19 1659.01 | | Puerto Rico also yesterday replaced a pro-statehood governor with a pro-status quo candidate, so there's that. Action would be required on both ends (the Puerto Rican government and the federal government), and there's no guarantee of either. | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple
Level: 118
Posts: 3256/3466
EXP: 18051670
For next: 331298
Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 1530 days
Last activity: 75 days
| #22 Posted on 7.11.12 1733.45
Reposted on: 7.11.19 1739.51 | Originally posted by Guru Zim
I thought Romney had a chance. I wanted Obama. I am pleased with the outcome.
Agreed. beginning of the day, I thought it would be a blow-out for Obama. Middle of the day, I thought it would be a close, tight election with Obama winning by a slim margin. End of the day, I was worried Romney might pull it off.
I read a couple "Here's what went wrong for Romney" articles today, but who knows for sure. For months I've compared this election to the 2004 Bush/Kerry campaigns. Lots of folks hated Bush at the time but I'm not sure anybody really *LIKED* Kerry, and Bush-hate alone wasnt enough to get Kerry elected then. I felt the same way about Obama/Romney. Lots of Obama haters out there, but I dont know how many genuine fans Romney had and I didnt think Obama-hate was enough to get Romney in.
That's my official uneducated opinion.
Also, this forum aint the same without Pool-Boy & Grimis around. Did those dudes go out and get lives/wives or something? Whatevs. | Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 123
Posts: 3758/3844
EXP: 20973932
For next: 257394
Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI
Since last post: 3601 days
Last activity: 3561 days
| #23 Posted on 7.11.12 1957.44
Reposted on: 7.11.19 1957.55 | Originally posted by samoflange
As a scientist/engineer (or perhaps just because ) I have difficulty strongly supporting things I don't totally understand. The arguments between supply-side and demand-side economic policy certainly qualify for that. It seems the more I read the more conflicted I become. Thus, I tend to stay out of most economic arguments and focus on social issues. The Democrats were the clear choice and for that reason I'm glad Obama won.
I talk to a friend of mine about politics, and while we have some areas of agreement, he can't understand how I can choose to vote Democrat. I told him reasoning rather similar to this. I don't know if the stimulus actually helped, I don't know about whether cutting taxes to the wealthy will help the economy, I don't know if what the governor of my state did to the public employee unions was right or not, but I am sure of my opinion about abortion, birth control, and gay marriage, so I tend to choose people that match me in those areas. | Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 151
Posts: 5821/6196
EXP: 43211498
For next: 85078
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 7 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #24 Posted on 7.11.12 1959.19
Reposted on: 7.11.19 1959.23 | Wow, that was a bad comment by me.
Sorry for painting all Republicans with that brush. I meant to say it in a way that all people should realize that rape isn't a divine blessing. I worded that poorly.
I will go sit in my corner now.
Also, according to my twitter feed, I need to eat a hat made out of licorice. | KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 3138/4713
EXP: 28665413
For next: 669668
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 17 days
|  #25 Posted on 7.11.12 2047.59
Reposted on: 7.11.19 2048.03 | Originally posted by Guru Zim
Sorry for painting all Republicans with that brush. I meant to say it in a way that all people should realize that rape isn't a divine blessing. I worded that poorly.
I certainly don't think all Republicans think that way. But if I say "hey, the rape guy lost," the correct response - regardless of your party affiliation - should be "good!" When you have to ask "which one?" it's symptomatic of a larger problem. | Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6337/7062
EXP: 52495490
For next: 457624
Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1632 days
Last activity: 1201 days
| #26 Posted on 7.11.12 2258.13
Reposted on: 7.11.19 2258.22 | I think the only thing that kept this election even kind of in question was the fact that Obama just totally blew the first debate. If he performs as he usually does in that first debate, the lead widens and this election turns into an even bigger landslide.
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreeze
For months I've compared this election to the 2004 Bush/Kerry campaigns. Lots of folks hated Bush at the time but I'm not sure anybody really *LIKED* Kerry, and Bush-hate alone wasnt enough to get Kerry elected then. I felt the same way about Obama/Romney.
Which is ironic since Romney *was* the John Kerry caricature created by the right-wing media. Kerry got ripped for being an "out of touch rich guy from Massachusetts" and then eight years later, the GOP actually did nominate an out-of-touch rich guy from Massachusetts. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1464/1777
EXP: 6453237
For next: 197453
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #27 Posted on 8.11.12 0005.28
Reposted on: 8.11.19 0005.32 | Originally posted by Big Bad
Which is ironic since Romney *was* the John Kerry caricature created by the right-wing media. Kerry got ripped for being an "out of touch rich guy from Massachusetts" and then eight years later, the GOP actually did nominate an out-of-touch rich guy from Massachusetts.
Man, that's amazingly true. Especially when you add in that Kerry was endlessly mocked for his "I voted for it before I voted against it" statement, which actually was a valid reference to two versions of a bill with different amendments and such, while Romney changed his opinion on almost everything. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 5895/7105
EXP: 52044564
For next: 908550
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 643 days
Last activity: 643 days
| #28 Posted on 8.11.12 1802.39
Reposted on: 8.11.19 1805.38 | Its no secret that I am a fiscal conservative and pretty much libertarian on everything else (with a few exceptions).
The GOP's problem wasn't that Romney couldn't separate himself from the GOP. Romney's problem was, no matter how hard he tried, and no matter how much all his operatives tried, he DIDN'T resonate with people like me. The staunch right wingers were upset about his flip flopping on just about every issue, the middle was too concerned that he would just flip flop again to the more Neocon side of the party. Neither side really trusted him, and the turnout of 2 million less voters showed that. I believe I read (and it may have been inaccurate) that Obama recieved up to 10Million less votes. If you have that big of a swing, but don't pick up ANY of them, you're not going to beat Obama.
Plus the rape thing..................... If the GOP had any sense whatsoever, they'd just leave the abortion angle alone for the next two or three Presidential elections.
We all know, or at least we all SHOULD know that the abortion 'right' will never be taken away. To do so would eliminate a rallying point for both sides. We'll never have a constitutional amendment to approve or outlaw it. Both sides use it, wisely I may add, to keep their core supporters happy. If the GOP leaves it off of every state and national platform, the Democrats can't even really talk about it. And, if the GOP is indeed going to keep that item in it's platform, they damn sure better be coaching their candidates on how to respond without looking like a douchebag. I would NEVER vote for Claire McCaskill, but I sure as hell wasn't voting for a moron like Akin either. The Libertarian candidate was a felon and couldn't serve ever if he WAS elected (which is a whole other soap box to climb on) so in the end, I cast my vote in that race to one Stagger Lee.
From what I've heard from some usually accurate radio people, is that there was a lot of Conservative Celebrities that wanted to do help Romney get elected, yet the think tanks in Washington poo-pooed it because "what do celebrities know".
The GOP had a marketing problem, pure and simple. They don't need to reform the party, they need to get better at explaining, to the dumbest voter, why their brand is better than the Democrats. Until that happens, they'll only keep the house and local elections, and lose the Senate and POTUS races.
| lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 2975/4785
EXP: 24295712
For next: 86054
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #29 Posted on 8.11.12 1830.26
Reposted on: 8.11.19 1830.26 | I have to somewhat disagree with, StaggerLee. Yes, the GOP needs to lay off abortion, but the problem steams from electing extreme candidates in the primaries who are idiots. You would not see Bob Dole, Arlen Specter or even John McCain say or do anything that stupid. I understand that the extreme elements tend to take over when things are bad, but this is sad. Yes, the GOP can probably keep the House for awhile mainly due to redistricting and those ideas appeal in a regional basis, but on a state or nation level it doesn't work. You have to find a right center middle.
The GOP's problem is not PR, lord knows they have enough money to change that. The problem is they are on the wrong side of history. Immigration reform, gay rights and to some degree economics. Hispanics are going to keep coming to America and nothing is going to stop that. Especially with the very real drug war going on in Mexico. Everyone is going to know a gay person that is either a co-worker, friend or even family member. Its become personal when you see people you know treated badly. We are going to view gay rights the same way we view Civil Rights, its just going to be more embarrassing when the church is shouting them down. Yet, that is the church's problem.
The economy issues, the GOP is just wrong. Independent data over and over again has shown tax cuts for the rich don't equal jobs. You can't cut spending and not be shocked when the unemployment rate soars. Breaking the unions has lead to less pay for employees overall. All this is factual data. Until they come to terms with a good chunk of these then they will continue to lose in Presidential years where a ton of the electorate comes out to vote and where the issues are better defined than in the mid-terms. Eventually, the flip flopping of mid-terms for parties will end and I don't see the GOP without major changes being made surviving.
(edited by lotjx on 8.11.12 1831) | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 5896/7105
EXP: 52044564
For next: 908550
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 643 days
Last activity: 643 days
| #30 Posted on 8.11.12 1927.01
Reposted on: 8.11.19 1927.06 | I agree that tax cuts for the super wealthy do not work to fix the deficit/budget problem. However, even if you took ALL their money and ALL their property and gave it to the Treasury, it wouldn't run the country for a year.
Instead of falling into the "this guy hides his money overseas" game, if a candidate is wealthy, his simple message should be "if that bothers you, then you'll welcome change to the tax codes". Playing by the rules, even if it's seen as being shady, isn't the rich's fault. To quote Booker T, don't hate the player, hate the game.
I don't think that moving to center will help that much, because when your hardcore base thinks you aren't addressing their views, Rick Santorums of the world come out.
You grow the economy by making it more attractive for employers to add workforce and be more productive. Boeing and Pepsi both announced huge layoffs this week. Do you sincerely think that's not related to the promised tax hikes?
The GOP needs to make people see why their brand of economics and tax fixes can work. People with more money in their pocket put that money into the economy. Remember a few years ago when people were getting $300-500 checks from the treasury? That was to make the economy a bit stronger. Same would happen if the tax codes were eased just a bit, with CAREFUL reform of entitlements.
Personally, I don't see borrowing money from countries that don't like us, wasting it and passing the bill to the future workers helps anybody out either. Somewhere in between has to be a balance. If only Clinton and Gingrich were still in power, this would be settled in a years time.
| StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 5897/7105
EXP: 52044564
For next: 908550
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 643 days
Last activity: 643 days
| #31 Posted on 8.11.12 1931.23
Reposted on: 8.11.19 1934.07 | OR, eliminate the IRS and go to a flat tax/fair tax model. Even illegals and tourists would be helping out our country that way.
| Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 99
Posts: 2089/2335
EXP: 9958720
For next: 41315
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 1428 days
Last activity: 1423 days
| #32 Posted on 8.11.12 2206.31
Reposted on: 8.11.19 2209.26 | Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
Man, that's amazingly true. Especially when you add in that Kerry was endlessly mocked for his "I voted for it before I voted against it" statement, which actually was a valid reference to two versions of a bill with different amendments and such, while Romney changed his opinion on almost everything.
Kerry was just a bad candidate (I remember being very... annoyed that I had to vote for him), and he seemed totally lost in the campaign. I think Romney was more a victim of a vicious primary in which every reactionary candidate made a run at him, and he was forced to take some far right positions that he likely wouldn't have taken (nor would he have picked Paul Ryan). I believe that was really counter to the candidate he was hoping to portray. He might have gotten away with some of the flip-flopping if his primary foes were more moderate.
There was also a lot of rope-a-doping in the Obama strategy. He really seemed to be waiting until the last minute to start swinging.
| Gidge Plect Nyaper
Chaurice
Level: 7
Posts: 4/6
EXP: 913
For next: 535
Since: 8.11.12
From: Selberdvoy
Since last post: 3862 days
Last activity: 3862 days
|  #33 Posted on 9.11.12 0221.36
Reposted on: 9.11.19 0226.09 | I can only imagine if Ron Paul ACTUALLY got the number of delegates needed to become the golden boy for the Repubs.
Needless to say, I think it would have been media hawk murder tactics trying to get the guy on every possible angle, whether it be the auditing of the Fed, the complete removal of many federal welfare programs, or the cutting back on military spending that would "vitally protect us from an assured terrorist threat in the near future".
I'm glad I figured out the charade 6-7 years ago and wouldn't have voted for either one of these guys who essentially are like two roads that lead to the same place.
Ron Paul was like an impossibility that was like fantasizing that this type of guy could be our President when in point of fact, anyone remotely resembling a candidate like him has no chance with the amount of money the banker boys and think tank puppets are given and the media looking for any tiny shred of evidence to discredit him (like his marginal at best association with a radical "newsletter" that supposedly was given to espouse racist and/or sexist remarks).
Oh well, time for us all to bend over a little more, this time to the left (pun intended). | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 2977/4785
EXP: 24295712
For next: 86054
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #34 Posted on 9.11.12 0712.04
Reposted on: 9.11.19 0713.30 | Originally posted by Gidge Plect Nyaper
I can only imagine if Ron Paul ACTUALLY got the number of delegates needed to become the golden boy for the Repubs.
Needless to say, I think it would have been media hawk murder tactics trying to get the guy on every possible angle, whether it be the auditing of the Fed, the complete removal of many federal welfare programs, or the cutting back on military spending that would "vitally protect us from an assured terrorist threat in the near future".
I'm glad I figured out the charade 6-7 years ago and wouldn't have voted for either one of these guys who essentially are like two roads that lead to the same place.
Ron Paul was like an impossibility that was like fantasizing that this type of guy could be our President when in point of fact, anyone remotely resembling a candidate like him has no chance with the amount of money the banker boys and think tank puppets are given and the media looking for any tiny shred of evidence to discredit him (like his marginal at best association with a radical "newsletter" that supposedly was given to espouse racist and/or sexist remarks).
Oh well, time for us all to bend over a little more, this time to the left (pun intended).
Also the fact Ron Paul's policies are stuck in the 19th century. Ron Paul is an internet meme where people shove what they want into a president in. Gary Johnson will soon become that guy.
I also reject this notion that both guys are the same, so why bother voting. That is childish thinking. Would Gore done the same thing Bush II did after 9-11 or Katrina or the economic collapse? No. Would Bush I keep the internet open for everyone and lower the interest rates that Clinton did or appoint the same Supreme Court justices? No. The only wild card was Mitt changing is tactics so many times, we have no idea what he would have done in office, but I doubt keeping Health Care reform, the Wall Street bill or allowing gays to serve openly would be on his agenda. Obama is also going to handle Iran, the economy and taxes a lot differently than Mitt. So, no, they are not the same guy and people need to stop using that has the blanket they hide under when they don't want to admit we have complex and vast opinions on what governing is and it requires more thought than that person wants to give. Apathy is the real threat to the country more than random terrorist bomb.
(edited by lotjx on 9.11.12 0714) | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1465/1777
EXP: 6453237
For next: 197453
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #35 Posted on 9.11.12 1941.44
Reposted on: 9.11.19 1950.54 | Originally posted by Gidge Plect Nyaper
Ron Paul was like an impossibility that was like fantasizing that this type of guy could be our President when in point of fact, anyone remotely resembling a candidate like him has no chance with the amount of money the banker boys and think tank puppets are given and the media looking for any tiny shred of evidence to discredit him (like his marginal at best association with a radical "newsletter" that supposedly was given to espouse racist and/or sexist remarks).
Ron Paul only had a marginal association with the newsletters he published? The ones that were named "Ron Paul's Political Report" and "Ron Paul's Freedom Report"? | MoeGates
Boudin blanc
Level: 100
Posts: 2068/2345
EXP: 10043087
For next: 311345
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 9 days
| #36 Posted on 9.11.12 2333.32
Reposted on: 9.11.19 2352.10 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
The GOP needs to make people see why their brand of economics and tax fixes can work. People with more money in their pocket put that money into the economy. Remember a few years ago when people were getting $300-500 checks from the treasury? That was to make the economy a bit stronger. Same would happen if the tax codes were eased just a bit, with CAREFUL reform of entitlements.
That you think this is the GOP's brand of economics is a testament to their PR. 2% payroll deduction? Democrat idea. $400 refundable tax credit? Part of the stimulus package. This is putting a few hundred (or more) bucks more into people's pockets to put into the economy. The fact that the GOP cut people an actual check when they were doing the tax credit, and the Dems lowered payroll deductions instead is a testament to GOP marketing. Extending tax cuts for everyone making under $250,000? Dem idea. Why it doesn't happen? Republicans won't do it without keeping tax cuts for the rich, special breaks for hedge fund managers, and making sure you can inherit millions of dollars tax-free.
The GOP's problem is not in the salesman. It's in the product. Their message is irrelevant to a lot of people. It's a small miracle they can focus their economic policies on protecting the interests of 2% of the population and still get 48% to vote for them.
The GOP even lost the popular vote for the House overall, which means they only hold the majority because of gerrymandering.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/08/americans_actually_voted_for_a_democratic_house.html | StingArmy
Andouille
Level: 94
Posts: 2046/2118
EXP: 8351093
For next: 5595
Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey
Since last post: 2662 days
Last activity: 255 days
| #37 Posted on 10.11.12 1547.26
Reposted on: 10.11.19 1555.22 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
Instead of falling into the "this guy hides his money overseas" game, if a candidate is wealthy, his simple message should be "if that bothers you, then you'll welcome change to the tax codes". Playing by the rules, even if it's seen as being shady, isn't the rich's fault. To quote Booker T, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Good luck to ANY candidate who has the temerity to run the "don't hate the player, hate the game" campaign. What Romney does with his money is seemingly 100% legal by the letter of the law but is morally repugnant to more than enough people to matter. Shrugging your shoulders will win that guy zero votes. ZERO.
- StingArmy
(edited by StingArmy on 10.11.12 1648) | RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 69
Posts: 950/991
EXP: 2750938
For next: 118820
Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO
Since last post: 1145 days
Last activity: 929 days
| #38 Posted on 10.11.12 1911.46
Reposted on: 10.11.19 1913.49 | | (deleted by RYDER FAKIN on 10.11.12 2105) | RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 69
Posts: 951/991
EXP: 2750938
For next: 118820
Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO
Since last post: 1145 days
Last activity: 929 days
| #39 Posted on 10.11.12 2004.42
Reposted on: 10.11.19 2008.05 | Here is the dems economix plan. Make 10k and spend 100k. There is no way around that.
Romney's answers were right, but to execute is another story. Obama already has this built in and he's going to try and break the fucking country
Or to put it this way - if you invested in gold above $700 you are a catfish. Always trust the dollar, despite what they will do to it
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash
FLEA
| lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 2983/4785
EXP: 24295712
For next: 86054
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #40 Posted on 10.11.12 2042.53
Reposted on: 10.11.19 2045.05 | Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
Here is the dems economix plan. Make 10k and spend 100k. There is no way around that.
Romney's answers were right, but to execute is another story. Obama already has this built in and he's going to try and break the fucking country
Or to put it this way - if you invested in gold above $700 you are a catfish. Always trust the dollar, despite what they will do to it
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash
FLEA
Which of the 100 different answers were right? Get rid of PBS, but keep the bloated military flushed with cash or the no taxes for the rich followed by oh yeah we could tax the rich? Obama is not going to break the country, we are moving improvements on all fronts. Are they quick and fast? No, but we are on the right track. We could be Greece or England or anyone not named China right now. We are in a better spot than a lot of other countries. I am sick to death of this doom and gloom shit when we are making progress even if its small progress.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
