Predicted Romney win..

brianlux

josevolution wrote:

Why even vote :P

I've asked that question before. After seeing "The Ides of March" again recently it's very, very tempting to think, "Why bother- the whole thing is a big game. It's always a matter of lesser of two evils. Your vote doesn't count. It's a rigged game."

I suppose all of that is true but then I remember that I'm lucky I can vote and that I rest my hope is doing what makes sense regardless the outcome. So, yeah, I'll go out and vote for the one I think is the better choice, hope for the best and try to do something useful regardless.

Oh, yeah, and not to mention-- enjoy the trip whenever possible.

inlet13

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

Social issues won't win this election. Mind you - I ask - what actually has been done by either of the last Presidents in those issues over the course of the last decade? I can think of Partial Birth abortion ban. I can think of the Green Jobs debacle and I can think of the health care law's impact on the Catholic Church. Not much else. To me those issues are simply set up to polarize.

Regardless, those issues won't really matter to the majority - the economy will, and majority will decide the election. You don't have to like that, but it's true. The election will be decided on the economy.

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Social issues won't win this election. Mind you - I ask - what actually has been done by either of the last Presidents in those issues over the course of the last decade? I can think of Partial Birth abortion ban. I can think of the Green Jobs debacle and I can think of the health care law's impact on the Catholic Church. Not much else. To me those issues are simply set up to polarize.

Regardless, those issues won't really matter to the majority - the economy will, and majority will decide the election. You don't have to like that, but it's true. The election will be decided on the economy.

The issue is if a Republican gets into the White House right now issues like that WILL be pushed and things WILL happen (bad things as far as I'm concerned) ... America will fall back decades as far as those issues go. At least with Dems in there, the mindset is forward thinking and things don't tend to regress.

Jason P

In case anyone is really worried with all the changes that Romney will make if he is elected, here is a list of what will change:

1)

PJ_Soul

Jason P wrote:

In case anyone is really worried with all the changes that Romney will make if he is elected, here is a list of what will change:

1)

He said he'd make American totally energy independent by 2020 though.

Go Beavers

Jason P wrote:

In case anyone is really worried with all the changes that Romney will make if he is elected, here is a list of what will change:

1)

2) War in Iran

inlet13

PJ_Soul wrote:

[
The issue is if a Republican gets into the White House right now issues like that WILL be pushed and things WILL happen (bad things as far as I'm concerned) ... America will fall back decades as far as those issues go. At least with Dems in there, the mindset is forward thinking and things don't tend to regress.

How? I mean once again - what exactly did Bush, who was probably more socially conservative than Romney, do? I can only think of Partial Birth Abortion ban.

So, what WILL happen?

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

[
The issue is if a Republican gets into the White House right now issues like that WILL be pushed and things WILL happen (bad things as far as I'm concerned) ... America will fall back decades as far as those issues go. At least with Dems in there, the mindset is forward thinking and things don't tend to regress.

How? I mean once again - what exactly did Bush, who was probably more socially conservative than Romney, do? I can only think of Partial Birth Abortion ban.

So, what WILL happen?

All the crap about women's health and abortion. There is already a ground swell in red states about all that shit. I would also fully expect that environmental restrictions will slacken. And that pipeline will definitely go through (thought that might happen with either one).

inlet13

PJ_Soul wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

[
The issue is if a Republican gets into the White House right now issues like that WILL be pushed and things WILL happen (bad things as far as I'm concerned) ... America will fall back decades as far as those issues go. At least with Dems in there, the mindset is forward thinking and things don't tend to regress.

How? I mean once again - what exactly did Bush, who was probably more socially conservative than Romney, do? I can only think of Partial Birth Abortion ban.

So, what WILL happen?

All the crap about women's health and abortion. There is already a ground swell in red states about all that shit. I would also fully expect that environmental restrictions will slacken. And that pipeline will definitely go through (thought that might happen with either one).

I agree there won't be the green jobs push. Otherwise, I don't see anything really happening either way. I totally disagree. To me - it's just a way to get people fired up on either side.

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

How? I mean once again - what exactly did Bush, who was probably more socially conservative than Romney, do? I can only think of Partial Birth Abortion ban.

So, what WILL happen?

All the crap about women's health and abortion. There is already a ground swell in red states about all that shit. I would also fully expect that environmental restrictions will slacken. And that pipeline will definitely go through (thought that might happen with either one).

I agree there won't be the green jobs push. Otherwise, I don't see anything really happening either way. I totally disagree. To me - it's just a way to get people fired up on either side.

I might think the same thing, except the the fact the people really ARE doing things on the state level lately, and I think it's a sign of more to come on a larger level.
(and the environmental thing is pretty major, I think).
And as someone else mentioned, a war with Iran seems pretty plausible.

inlet13

PJ_Soul wrote:

I might think the same thing, except the the fact the people really ARE doing things on the state level lately, and I think it's a sign of more to come on a larger level.
(and the environmental thing is pretty major, I think).
And as someone else mentioned, a war with Iran seems pretty plausible.

I think a war in the middle east will occur with either of these knuckle-heads.

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I might think the same thing, except the the fact the people really ARE doing things on the state level lately, and I think it's a sign of more to come on a larger level.
(and the environmental thing is pretty major, I think).
And as someone else mentioned, a war with Iran seems pretty plausible.

I think a war in the middle east will occur with either of these knuckle-heads.

Maybe... scary. They are cuckoo-bananas over there in the President's Palace in Iran. They could press the big red button in the name of Allah and not even care about the consequences.

peacefrompaul

PJ_Soul wrote:

Maybe... scary. They are cuckoo-bananas over there in the President's Palace in Iran. They could press the big red button in the name of Allah and not even care about the consequences.

I don't think Khamenei is that foolish. I could be wrong.

PJ_Soul

peacefrompaul wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Maybe... scary. They are cuckoo-bananas over there in the President's Palace in Iran. They could press the big red button in the name of Allah and not even care about the consequences.

I don't think Khamenei is that foolish. I could be wrong.

People who don't care if they die in the name of God do all kinds of nutty things.

peacefrompaul

PJ_Soul wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Maybe... scary. They are cuckoo-bananas over there in the President's Palace in Iran. They could press the big red button in the name of Allah and not even care about the consequences.

I don't think Khamenei is that foolish. I could be wrong.

People who don't care if they die in the name of God do all kinds of nutty things.

This can make you nutty

PJ_Soul

peacefrompaul wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

I don't think Khamenei is that foolish. I could be wrong.

People who don't care if they die in the name of God do all kinds of nutty things.

This can make you nutty

I think it's their blood-hate for Jews that makes them even more nutty than that.
I'm think the US and everyone else should just butt the fuck out and leave the Middle East to deal with its own shit, but I don't choose sides over there either. EVERYONE is wrong! Israel, Palestine, Iran, the Taliban, Pakistan ... they're all fucked and they're all wrong and they will never budge. I don't support the US's support of Israel, but I don't support the Palestinians an ounce more - it's not like their stance is admirable - and certainly not Iran, who, like the Palestinians, simply wants to wipe Jews off the face of the planet, and some of them wouldn't mind taking out America while they're at it; Jihad is about religious fanaticism, and some of those Iranian politicians are pretty gung ho about Jihad ... Can't really blame Israel for being just a tad defensive, and I was never clear on why people pick a side in that conflict. I mean, I understand the anger at Israel (and the US); I have it too. But I don't get why people think that means they have to side with the Palestinians (or Iran or whoever). I think they're all equally wrong (speaking of the politicians and other involved obviously - not each individual citizen).

unsung

If either of these two idiots wins this election we are screwed.
Neither wants to do ANYTHING about monetary policy.
Both are bought off by big banks.
Both support Rights destroying legislation like NDAA.

Start buying silver. Silver and brass filled with lead. Those will be the currencies of the future. The dollar (Federal Reserve Note) is near worthless and has lost over 90% of its value since 1913.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

If either of these two idiots wins this election we are screwed.
Neither wants to do ANYTHING about monetary policy.
Both are bought off by big banks.
Both support Rights destroying legislation like NDAA.

Start buying silver. Silver and brass filled with lead. Those will be the currencies of the future. The dollar (Federal Reserve Note) is near worthless and has lost over 90% of its value since 1913.

I think that's overstating it probably.

peacefrompaul

PJ_Soul wrote:

I think it's their blood-hate for Jews that makes them even more nutty than that.
I'm think the US and everyone else should just butt the fuck out and leave the Middle East to deal with its own shit, but I don't choose sides over there either. EVERYONE is wrong! Israel, Palestine, Iran, the Taliban, Pakistan ... they're all fucked and they're all wrong and they will never budge. I don't support the US's support of Israel, but I don't support the Palestinians an ounce more - it's not like their stance is admirable - and certainly not Iran, who, like the Palestinians, simply wants to wipe Jews off the face of the planet, and some of them wouldn't mind taking out America while they're at it; Jihad is about religious fanaticism, and some of those Iranian politicians are pretty gung ho about Jihad ... Can't really blame Israel for being just a tad defensive, and I was never clear on why people pick a side in that conflict. I mean, I understand the anger at Israel (and the US); I have it too. But I don't get why people think that means they have to side with the Palestinians (or Iran or whoever). I think they're all equally wrong (speaking of the politicians and other involved obviously - not each individual citizen).

It's not terribly hard to see why Palestinians are mad...

And Iran has every right to build whatever they want. If they want to protect themselves, so be it. If I was the leader of Iran I would certainly be a little on the edge if I had that many bases surrounding me from a foreign country that has not been entirely friendly in the past.

Jihad is not supposed to be as crazy as it has gotten... in fact it's incredibly important to Muslims from what I have read and studied in the past.

It's the nuts that turn Jihad into something else, something it shouldn't be... extremely violent. Not every Muslim is this way, obviously.

If Iran sends a missile this way, we'll be ready. Until then, not my problem. Leave them be.

EdsonNascimento

peacefrompaul wrote:

If Iran sends a missile this way, we'll be ready. Until then, not my problem. Leave them be.

Ok, JFK.

Any other good advice?

EDIT: I could also say FDR - but that's a less direct missle reference. As in, ignoring the Holocaust until Pearl Harbor. Kind of funny that it's the Democrats that have to have the gun pointed at their heads before they get Theodore Roosevelt's sound advice. Speak Softly. Carry a Big Stick.