Predicted Romney win..

inlet13

EdsonNascimento wrote:

StillHere wrote:

sadly that's true
but the reality of it is that 1st term presidents have so many people to please that i don't see how they get ANYthing done.

too much focusing on re-election, if they don't do what "the people" meaning the people that finance his upcoming second term run, he doesn't stand a chance.

My thoughts are that it is necessary to have a 2nd term in order for him to get done what he promised to get done in the first place. In the second term, not so much about what the people with the $$ want, he's not going to run for re-election, so he can push buttons and do what needs to be done. Hopefully we will have the chance to see that in action.

Wait. Obama had BOTH houses of Congress the 1st 2 years. What exactly COULDN'T he get done if he wanted?

As a matter of fact he got a 1,000+ page bill passed without anybody reading the damn thing. So, what exactly held him up the 1st 2 years? His supporters? Wow.

This has to be the cookiest election I've ever seen.

Unemployment is up yet again. The economy is in the shitter. Foreign relations are terrible. And we're blaming someone other than him? Wow. That's all I gotta say.

Romney MAY not be the answer. But, we KNOW Obama's not unless you are being willfully ignorant. Again - he had control of EVERYTHING for 2 f'n years 2 full years before his re-election. And the only thing he could get done is handing out money and passing a bill nobody read. Yowzers. I can't wait to see what he can get done when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. :?

Whether people admit it or not, it's not that the Democratic Party leaning members don't know Obama is a lost cause. They do. They get it. They know.

But, it's a giant game. They have their side, and invested in the sweater with the big "D" on it. Their team is always the one they route for - you can't route for visiting team. The "game" is to try to make every political action or even things semi-related, no matter what the effect is, to be a good one for your team. Figure out a way to argue this policy was good or the support of that policy by the opposition was bad... all for the sake of your squad. If someone from the "R" team says negative about your captain (Obama), your job in the game is to respond back with negatives about their captain (Romney). Of course, it works the other way too. With the same idiots on the "R" team doing the same thing.

It's a fucking game to too many people. The sad part is, the longer it remains a game, the longer our economy will be in the shitter. The longer the middle class will have absolutely no increase to their real wages. That sort of thing. People need to wake up and look in the mirror and realize they are only "rooting" for a team because they have been for so long. There's other options out there.

We could add some new teams in and switch things up. Moreover, maybe we could start looking at other areas of policy that - up until now, were considered "too complicated" to understand, so up until now - we left it to a tableful of academics to do whatever the fuck they want in the back room with absolutely no checks. Yeh, maybe we could think about changing that one up a bit.

I mean it can't be that the Fed -... which since it's creation has caused two of the largest economic downturns in our nation's history - nah. Can't be them. They just control the money.

inmytree

DS1119 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

SO what you're saying is Obama isn't a strong enough leader then or the American public wasn't smart enough to vote enough Dems into power in Congress to "help him"? :corn:

:yawn: :thumbup: :thumbdown: yeah, that's what I'm saying.... :wtf: :nono: :fp:

seriously, though....I see you don't understand how gov't works.... :corn: :crazy:

I would differ on that point strongly. I guess we should all vote for Dems to take power over in Congress so we can see what Obama has right? Is that what you're saying? That seems to be what I'm reading.

I see you can't read either.... :corn:

inmytree

DS1119 wrote:

Stop with logic. It doesn't work here. Everyone is full of butterflies and unicorns.

ban those fn butterflies and unicorns... :twisted: :geek: :arrow:

Zoso

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

Zoso

this is the type of bullshit that separates Obama and the Rominee..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... lp00000009

DS1119

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

So many assumptions and implications. I love the part with (we all know he isn't)!!

DS1119

inmytree wrote:

I see you can't read either.... :corn:

I read just fine. Perhaps you should write what you mean better perhaps becasue I only commented exactly on what you wrote. :?

EdsonNascimento

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

Because Obama is not the better choice. The economy doesn't take 4 years. Reagan took over a much worse mess (despite what folks around these parts seem to think) and took 2 years with a divided Congress to get us back in the right direction. And before folks shit on Reagan, can we all please remember that his administration REDEFINED what "full employment" meant. Prior to him the thought was 7% unemployment was the best we could do. But, we got into the low 5's.

Romney has run a successful business, a successful international organization (Olympics) and a large State economy.

Obama had done none of that.

Please tell me how we KNOW Romney can't do it? I know how we KNOW Obama can't. I have 4 years of evidence. To the contrary, I have plenty of evidence that Romney know how to run a large economy, a large economic concern and an International operation. Can he run the US? I don't know.

The real question is, why would you not give this a chance?

If I didn't realize that Obama was sure to put us deeper in the depths, I'd hope for him to win, weather another 4 stormy years and hope that BOTH parties (and a 3rd) put up better candidates (not that either side would have that tough a job). But, I don't think we can afford that (literally and figuratively). Obama has failed in every way imaginable. It's time to stop rationalizing and Move On.

inmytree

DS1119 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I see you can't read either.... :corn:

I read just fine. Perhaps you should write what you mean better perhaps becasue I only commented exactly on what you wrote. :?

:nono:

inlet13

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

The guy said unemployment would never go above 8% during his term if we enacted stimulus, when he took the helm. We did enact stimulus - in a multitude of ways, he probably didn't even envision then. Now, let's say he didn't quite know the severity of the downturn at the outset. Fair enough. But, unemployment hasn't fallen below that 8% level in four years. Whether you like it or not, when looking at the economy - Obama will be considered a bad president. This is not to say - Bush is considered good, he's not at all. Both will be considered poor economic presidents. So, you got that going for your side. People will say - ok, Bush was also a poor economic President. Where's that get you?

But, I'm curious, how is the economy now "a result of The Bush years"? Further, was Bush's downturn a result of the Clinton years? Is Obama's downturn also to blame on FDR's years? When is the line drawn and you own the economy as President (responsibility-wise)?

Right or wrong, the dude at the helm gets responsibility. He's manned the helm for 4 years. You're basically saying it wasn't enough time. That was a full term. Sorry, but that's just a weak excuse and it won't fly with the voters.

I don't care if Romney gets the nod, just saying, he's probably going to get the nod. The whole "it's all Bush's fault" is so four years ago to voters.

EdsonNascimento

Zoso wrote:

this is the type of bullshit that separates Obama and the Rominee..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... lp00000009

So, it's better for a candidate to say - I'm closing Guantamo tomorrow!!! And then never doing it b/c he finds out he didn't know shit before he took office

Than a candidate saying (in effect) - we'll have to take a measured look at what makes sense once we get all the parties in a room to discuss it?

Can you please remember this is a Republican who is an ultra conservative social person that got elected in one of the most liberal states. The fact that he realizes something that works for Mass might not be the best for the country actually heartens me. He realizes everything's not so black and white.

Believe me, if it isn't clear already. I have my reservations about Romney. But, at least he's not shooting his mouth off about shit he doesn't know about like Obama did 4 years ago.

josevolution

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Zoso wrote:

this is the type of bullshit that separates Obama and the Rominee..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... lp00000009

So, it's better for a candidate to say - I'm closing Guantamo tomorrow!!! And then never doing it b/c he finds out he didn't know shit before he took office

Than a candidate saying (in effect) - we'll have to take a measured look at what makes sense once we get all the parties in a room to discuss it?

Can you please remember this is a Republican who is an ultra conservative social person that got elected in one of the most liberal states. The fact that he realizes something that works for Mass might not be the best for the country actually heartens me. He realizes everything's not so black and white.

Believe me, if it isn't clear already. I have my reservations about Romney. But, at least he's not shooting his mouth off about shit he doesn't know about like Obama did 4 years ago.

You would never know he did such a great job in Mass from this man's opinion ..
http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/micha ... tt-romney/

EdsonNascimento

josevolution wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Zoso wrote:

this is the type of bullshit that separates Obama and the Rominee..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... lp00000009

So, it's better for a candidate to say - I'm closing Guantamo tomorrow!!! And then never doing it b/c he finds out he didn't know shit before he took office

Than a candidate saying (in effect) - we'll have to take a measured look at what makes sense once we get all the parties in a room to discuss it?

Can you please remember this is a Republican who is an ultra conservative social person that got elected in one of the most liberal states. The fact that he realizes something that works for Mass might not be the best for the country actually heartens me. He realizes everything's not so black and white.

Believe me, if it isn't clear already. I have my reservations about Romney. But, at least he's not shooting his mouth off about shit he doesn't know about like Obama did 4 years ago.

You would never know he did such a great job in Mass from this man's opinion ..
http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/micha ... tt-romney/

Michael Dukakis? Where's Dan Quayle when you need him?

josevolution

It's funny everytime you ask a person from Mass they all state the same thing he left Mass a Mess

Halifax2TheMax

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

Because Obama is not the better choice. The economy doesn't take 4 years. Reagan took over a much worse mess (despite what folks around these parts seem to think) and took 2 years with a divided Congress to get us back in the right direction. And before folks shit on Reagan, can we all please remember that his administration REDEFINED what "full employment" meant. Prior to him the thought was 7% unemployment was the best we could do. But, we got into the low 5's.

Romney has run a successful business, a successful international organization (Olympics) and a large State economy.

Obama had done none of that.

Please tell me how we KNOW Romney can't do it? I know how we KNOW Obama can't. I have 4 years of evidence. To the contrary, I have plenty of evidence that Romney know how to run a large economy, a large economic concern and an International operation. Can he run the US? I don't know.

The real question is, why would you not give this a chance?

If I didn't realize that Obama was sure to put us deeper in the depths, I'd hope for him to win, weather another 4 stormy years and hope that BOTH parties (and a 3rd) put up better candidates (not that either side would have that tough a job). But, I don't think we can afford that (literally and figuratively). Obama has failed in every way imaginable. It's time to stop rationalizing and Move On.

May I suggest that you read the linked article comparing Reagan and Obama. And keep in mind that we know what works and what doesn't, Clinton's policies versus Bush's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

I hope this doesn't come true but it's a VERY scary thought. Republicans ruined the country last time what will happen this time?

There's a reason that model is saying Obama will lose. It's based on economic indicators across states. Those have clearly worsened under President Obama, or the model would say he's going to win. It's not rocket science.

That said, why exactly do you think President Obama will save us from "ruining the country"?

I don't see a huge difference between Romney and Obama, personally. In fact, I'd argue anyone that does see a stark difference has a political party pom-pom in their hand.

The differences I would be worried about are the ones related to things like the environment and abortion/women's health, religion in politics, gay rights (and a future forward progression in such issues as opposed to a backwards moving one). Social policy issues. I don't think that there would be much of a different either way economically. Social policy issues are pretty fucking important though, and often the kinds of issues that win or lose an election.

kenny olav

josevolution wrote:

It's funny everytime you ask a person from Mass they all state the same thing he left Mass a Mess

Mitt Romney had a 34% approval rating at the end of his term as Governor here - the lowest in Massachusetts history.

peacefrompaul

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

Neither are the answer.

Both enjoy war in their own ways.

Both are liars

Both support NDAA

Both support The Patriot Act

Both don't give a shit about the constitution

Both have been bought and used by corporations, banks, and special interests.

Halifax2TheMax

peacefrompaul wrote:

Zoso wrote:

as someone put Romney probably isn't the answer (well we know he isn't) so why vote against Obama who is still a better choice then any of the republican candidates over the last 5 years. The economy being shit didn't just happen overnight.. it was a result of The Bush years.. let's be honest and if we were all being realistic in 2008 no one could have changed the situation that much in relation to the economy, jobs or anything else for that matter. 4 years isn't very long time when you consider how badly the recension was at the end of 2008.

Obama isn't perfect but Romney isn't the answer.

Neither are the answer.

Both enjoy war in their own ways.

Well then, maybe you should move?

Peace.

Both are liars

Both support NDAA

Both support The Patriot Act

Both don't give a shit about the constitution

Both have been bought and used by corporations, banks, and special interests.

RFTC

DS1119 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I know, right...?

things happen yesterday and overnight all the time....I mean, WTF...it's not like congress didn't help him all the time and everyday....

jeessh...

SO what you're saying is Obama isn't a strong enough leader then or the American public wasn't smart enough to vote enough Dems into power in Congress to "help him"? :corn:

DON'T take the bait!