Jump to content


Presidential Politics

Off Topic No holds barred politics

  • Please log in to reply
8063 replies to this topic

#41 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:02 AM

View Postwaldo, on 12 August 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Who would have guessed you would let him teach your children! :rolleyes:  

He just composed a four paragraph recitation of every White House talking point  used in the last four months replete with their inaccuracies ,lies,  distortions, and erroenous assumptions. An interesting insight into the ability of the people we put in our classrooms,  to teach our children how to digest factual information, objectively and draw their own conclusions. For the record, there probably should have been some quotes in his statement.
I love how when one side says something, they are just talking points, but when the other side says something they are hard cold facts.  (I find it humorous in either direction, not just this convo).  Both side are sleazy.  Always have been.  Always will be.

Most people aren't swayed by this type of stuff anyway.  They know it's just for the hard core politicos and all it does is shore up the bases.  Most people just care about the issues that they care about.


And remember who attacked whom first.  You didn't have any rebutal so you attacked him for being a teacher.  You're not going change any minds that way.

#42 nobody

nobody

    Title? Someday...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nowhere

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:50 AM

One other thing to take into account is the reapportionment / redistricting that occurred due to the 2010 Census.  That should assist the republican camp a bit.

http://www.electionp...president12.php

#43 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 12 August 2012 - 12:31 PM

View PostBuffaloSoldier2010, on 12 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

The problem with todays political landscape:

The two party system has been taken to the extreme.  Regardless of which one you affiliate yourself with, they've been type cast into good and evil.  if your a conservative, the Democrats are the bad guys, if your more liberal, the GOP is the evil group.  The opposing side never has any good ideas (that seems to be the new general perception anyway) and as a result, nothing gets done.  The problem here is that mudslinging has been taken to such an extreme that its now virtually impossible for the parties to work together now.  Instead of coming to comprimises on legislation each side just blocks eachother whenever they get the chance.

The system is so far gone that i wonder if it will ever return to any kind of equilibrium.

I'm not here to debate, just thought i'd give my 2 cents.

I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry.  I'm not going to sit here and debate.

#44 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 12 August 2012 - 12:37 PM

Maybe I am too liberal but I refuse to vote for a ticket that has a guy on it that wants to severely limit contraceptives for women, believes in "trickle down" economics, and thinks that the state of the country is Obama's fault even though the deregulations he wants for banks was a direct cause of the economic crash in the first place.  DO I think Government is to big and needs to but out of some things? Yes. Do I think making abortion illegal and having voter id laws and giving more tax breaks to multimillionaires will make this country better... no.  So basically it is a lesser of 2 craptastic parties that we have to choose.

#45 ubkev

ubkev

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsyltucky via Upstate NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:49 PM

View PostLGR4GM, on 12 August 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Maybe I am too liberal but I refuse to vote for a ticket that has a guy on it that wants to severely limit contraceptives for women, believes in "trickle down" economics, and thinks that the state of the country is Obama's fault even though the deregulations he wants for banks was a direct cause of the economic crash in the first place.  DO I think Government is to big and needs to but out of some things? Yes. Do I think making abortion illegal and having voter id laws and giving more tax breaks to multimillionaires will make this country better... no.  So basically it is a lesser of 2 craptastic parties that we have to choose.

Oops, misread it at first, little dyslexia acting up. Sorry if you caught my initial response/question.

#46 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 02:07 PM

View PostBullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

In the past several decades, the guy who won the presidency was the guy people could best relate to.  While this contest may be close now, I think come debate time, Obama's lead will just grow.

Unless Romney/Ryan seriously botch things, I doubt Obama's current lead is going to get any larger--if anything, it will shrink.  The economy simply isn't in good enough shape for Obama to expand upon his existing lead (I suppose if 250k jobs get churned out each month until the election, then sure...but raise your hand if you see that happening).  Races tend to get tighter as election day nears, and barring something major and unforeseen, I expect the same this year.

#47 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 12 August 2012 - 02:21 PM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 12 August 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:



Unless Romney/Ryan seriously botch things, I doubt Obama's current lead is going to get any larger--if anything, it will shrink.  The economy simply isn't in good enough shape for Obama to expand upon his existing lead (I suppose if 250k jobs get churned out each month until the election, then sure...but raise your hand if you see that happening).  Races tend to get tighter as election day nears, and barring something major and unforeseen, I expect the same this year.

That's what I think too  Add to that the cost of basic goods.  This country is in for some price jolts as the drought in the farm belt has all but destroyed this year's crops.  The cost of grain-based products is about to skyrocket.   If we get a hurricane or two in the gulf, the price of oil will rise too.  At the end of the day, what did, did not happen with Bain will pale in comparison to $4 gas and $4 bread and 8.3% unemployment.

Edited by wjag, 12 August 2012 - 02:23 PM.


#48 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 12 August 2012 - 03:21 PM

Not quite off the rails yet, but we're getting there.

Here's some fuel for the fire:  for those who want Romney's tax returns released -- do you feel the same way about Obama's academic records?  If he's so cerebral, why doesn't he release these?  And did you feel the same way about John Kerry's military records?  If he was such a brave war hero, why didn't he release those records?

Pls continue.

#49 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 12 August 2012 - 03:31 PM

Tax returns, academic records, birth certificates are all distractions.

When two products are nearly identical, distractions like the above  are created to give the illusion of differences.

#50 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,224 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2012 - 03:49 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 12 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not quite off the rails yet, but we're getting there.

Here's some fuel for the fire:  for those who want Romney's tax returns released -- do you feel the same way about Obama's academic records?  If he's so cerebral, why doesn't he release these?  And did you feel the same way about John Kerry's military records?  If he was such a brave war hero, why didn't he release those records?

Pls continue.
Screw tax returns, academic records and military records. All I want to know is Ruff/Regier yeah or nay. That is what I'll base my vote on.

#51 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 12 August 2012 - 03:51 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 12 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not quite off the rails yet, but we're getting there.

Here's some fuel for the fire:  for those who want Romney's tax returns released -- do you feel the same way about Obama's academic records?  If he's so cerebral, why doesn't he release these?  And did you feel the same way about John Kerry's military records?  If he was such a brave war hero, why didn't he release those records?

Pls continue.

None of this stuff ever matters to me.  It's exactly this din around modern political campaigns that prevents real issues from being discussed.   Romney is a multi-millionaire. Obama is a millionaire.   They've both probably paid an effective tax rate less than what I pay..  Lol..  I don't think I've ever thought of Obama as a cerebral President.  Kerry was just one candidate I couldn't vote for.

#52 nobody

nobody

    Title? Someday...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nowhere

Posted 12 August 2012 - 04:47 PM

You're running for President?  Open the books baby!

#53 Claude_Verret

Claude_Verret

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holly Springs, NC via Hamburg, NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostBuffaloSoldier2010, on 12 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

The problem with todays political landscape:

The two party system has been taken to the extreme.  Regardless of which one you affiliate yourself with, they've been type cast into good and evil.  if your a conservative, the Democrats are the bad guys, if your more liberal, the GOP is the evil group.  The opposing side never has any good ideas (that seems to be the new general perception anyway) and as a result, nothing gets done.  The problem here is that mudslinging has been taken to such an extreme that its now virtually impossible for the parties to work together now.  Instead of coming to comprimises on legislation each side just blocks eachother whenever they get the chance.

The system is so far gone that i wonder if it will ever return to any kind of equilibrium.

I'm not here to debate, just thought i'd give my 2 cents.

Of course you're absolutely correct.  The  partisan lemming electorate has been reduced to ' it's only bad when the other side does it' mentality.  And we merrily continue to bicker down the road to oblivion.

#54 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:28 PM

View PostClaude_Verret, on 12 August 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Of course you're absolutely correct.  The  partisan lemming electorate has been reduced to ' it's only bad when the other side does it' mentality.  And we merrily continue to bicker down the road to oblivion vote for the party we've always voted for.

Fixed for me.

#55 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:45 PM

abortions for some; miniature American flags for others...

#56 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:25 PM

View Postd4rksabre, on 11 August 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'll be perfectly honest and say that my leanings in this election are half idealistic, and half selfish.

At 59 years old, my father just started a new career in the solar energy industry. The success of the company he works for, and the future of all types of alternative energy in this country, rely on the federal funding that has been implemented in the Obama administration.

I have no doubt that if Romney is elected, conservative financial tactics will see the elimination of federal alternative energy funding. I cannot and will not abide that.

I'll be happy that the funding would be stopped in such a situation, because every "energy investment" made via stimulus funds from the Obama administration has been an unmitigated disaster.

Not sure how people aren't impressed by Ryan. Hes been the only person to consistently sound the alarms for long-term fiscal health AND offered SPECIFICS on how to work towards edging back to sanity. Been doing it for years and years now. Though, I'm not sure how anything works anymore. I also can't take anyone seriously when they say there's no difference between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan. That's just insanity and ridiculous. That's saying "contrarian" stuff just to say it. No basis in reality. The difference is monumental and plainly clear when watching them speak and act. Romney wasn't my main choice, but Ryan pretty much was, and I'm glad he's found himself on the ticket.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 12 August 2012 - 09:29 PM.


#57 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:38 PM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 12 August 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'll be happy that the funding would be stopped in such a situation, because every "energy investment" made via stimulus funds from the Obama administration has been an unmitigated disaster.

Not sure how people aren't impressed by Ryan. Hes been the only person to consistently sound the alarms for long-term fiscal health AND offered SPECIFICS on how to work towards edging back to sanity. Been doing it for years and years now. Though, I'm not sure how anything works anymore. I also can't take anyone seriously when they say there's no difference between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan. That's just insanity and ridiculous. That's saying "contrarian" stuff just to say it. No basis in reality. The difference is monumental and plainly clear when watching them speak and act. Romney wasn't my main choice, but Ryan pretty much was, and I'm glad he's found himself on the ticket.

I think you just answered your own question.  Ryan is very, very conservative and his solutions to the issues are anathema to anybody on the left.  This isn't complicated stuff.  Whereas the right sees him as a brave fiscal crusader, the left sees him as a conservative hack pandering to his base, which is exactly why they wouldn't be impressed with him.

#58 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:48 PM

The left isn't gonna vote for Romney anyway, so I couldn't care less if THEY'RE not impressed.

Those who are somehow-undecided should not have any problem being impressed with him considering he is the only person that is able to articulate conservatism in a plain-spoken, relatable manner. It's about time an adult comes in to have an adult conversation. We're not doing well as a country and people need to hear it. When it comes to elections, people vote with their wallets. Only obstacle is trying to fight the idiocy trying to tear him down. A big task but readily combatable considering all those who try to do such things read from the same manual.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 12 August 2012 - 09:52 PM.


#59 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:54 PM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 12 August 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

The left isn't gonna vote for Romney anyway, so I couldn't care less if THEY'RE not impressed.

Those who are somehow-undecided should not have any problem being impressed with him.

Undecided voters are those in the middle, so there's two things at work here.  1)  They don't know nor understand nor care about the long-term debt of the country.  Undecideds are by and large moderates, who are by and large the most uncaring and apathetic portion of the electorate, save only for those who are totally apolitical.  2)  To the extent that they are interested, candidates at the far end of the ideological spectrum (be it left or right) make those near the middle feel "left out" and not represented, and helps to exacerbate their political apathy.  Those in the middle want the parties to come together, that's what would impress them.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 12 August 2012 - 09:56 PM.


#60 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:07 PM

Ryan's plan was written with very "progressive" Ron Wyden from Oregon. He's made tons of compromise over the years, actually pointing fingers at both sides for being so crappy on this issue. Always talks about how this is an issue that effects all of us and that we need to work together. He's demonstrated it often. Aside from your unhinged far-left Obama/Pelosi types, he's pretty well regarded.

That's the good thing about Ryan. You said that they don't know, understand, or care about long-term fiscal health but like I said, his ability to communicate those problems AND solutions for them will end up being a positive. He keeps it simple and easy for the unitiated to understand.

If it comes across as me being a homer, please don't take it as such. I've just followed his career for quite a while now BECAUSE of these reasons.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 12 August 2012 - 10:11 PM.


#61 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:18 PM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 12 August 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Ryan's plan was written with very "progressive" Ron Wyden from Oregon. He's made tons of compromise over the years, actually pointing fingers at both sides for being so crappy on this issue. Always talks about how this is an issue that effects all of us and that we need to work together. He's demonstrated it often. Aside from your unhinged far-left Obama/Pelosi types, he's pretty well regarded.

That's the good thing about Ryan. You said that they don't know, understand, or care about long-term fiscal health but like I said, his ability to communicate those problems AND solutions for them will end up being a positive. He keeps it simple.

If it comes across as me being a homer, please don't take it as such. I've just followed his career for quite a while now BECAUSE of these reasons.

Ryan is one of the most conservative members of Congress, there's really no getting around that--he may scold both sides, but his voting record is about as conservative as it gets (it's more conservative than Biden's was liberal).  If moderates end up having a net positive impression of him (which we honestly won't know for about a month--early polls will be meaningless and don't let anybody tell you differently), it's going to be because he's well-spoken, handsome, and connects well with his audience, not because of his stance on the issues.

#62 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:35 PM

Well, that ends up being what matters anyway. The aesthetic stuff is what got Barack in office to begin with. Certainly not on issues or background. He had the words crafted well-enough and was able to deliver it well enough to get people charged up. Maybe this time people want some substance too. Ryan's got the well-spoken, handsome, and connecting thing down AND an actual message to go with it.

We'll see what happens. Should be interesting. I think the message will resonate because of the way he is. Mild-mannered yet charismatic. His (and Romney's) speech/rally today in Wisconsin was REALLY good. Haven't seen anything like that from him or Romney thus far (meaning over the years, not since the announcement).

#63 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:44 PM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 12 August 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'll be happy that the funding would be stopped in such a situation, because every "energy investment" made via stimulus funds from the Obama administration has been an unmitigated disaster.

Not sure how people aren't impressed by Ryan. Hes been the only person to consistently sound the alarms for long-term fiscal health AND offered SPECIFICS on how to work towards edging back to sanity. Been doing it for years and years now. Though, I'm not sure how anything works anymore. I also can't take anyone seriously when they say there's no difference between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan. That's just insanity and ridiculous. That's saying "contrarian" stuff just to say it. No basis in reality. The difference is monumental and plainly clear when watching them speak and act. Romney wasn't my main choice, but Ryan pretty much was, and I'm glad he's found himself on the ticket.
1) Fossil fuels including coal, oil, and wood are killing the planet and more importantly killing this country and its economy.  Green energy such as bio fuels and more importantly sustainable nuclear fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell) are the only things that will keep this country from grinding to a halt.  There is not only a finacial crisis but an energy crisis.  They are correaltions of one another.

2) Ryan is "impressive".  He is young, well spoken, intelligent, and a true republican.  He also allows his religious philosophy to shape his political beliefs on issues such as women's health care.  Other candidates do this as well but when you start discussing things like removing contraceptive coverage because your religion, then you no longer represent the good of the ppl and you fail the fundamental test that this entire country was founded on, Religious Freedom and as Thomas Jefferson said "there should be a wall of seperation between church and state".  Now that may be open to interpretation but it can not be denied that one of our core founding fathers believed that government should act independently of the church and its beliefs for good reason.

3) Obama has not done all that he has promised.  The country has struggled to pull itself out from this great recession.  It should be noted that Bush caused this.  That being said it has been Obama's job to fix it and he has at least moved the country along and kept it running.  I don't think some of his policies have worked and I think he could have done things differently.  Someone needs to step up and fix medicaid/social security.  Obama has not been able to but at the same time I do not believe Rommney will be able to either.  However and I know many will disagree and thats fine, Obama has at least kept the big picture in mind.  I only hope whomever wins will be able to keep the big picture in mind.  What is that?  Balancing the federal budget, cutting spending on overseas wars that we do not need, adjusting taxes to help stimulate the middle class which powers this country, and seeking a way to create sustainable energy.

I am not trying to tarnish religion as I believe each person should be allowed to believe what they will, but when religion is used as a shield to take away fundamental rights my apathy is surpressed by the outrage which comes from the fact this country was not founded on the princples of surpression but on the principles of freedom. It deeply saddens me that neither party has the courage to stop waging a political civil war and start waging a war for a better future.  The only people who will suffer from the fallout of this long ongoing conflict are posterity and only the blind refuse to see that the first casualties of this conflict, the thousands of college grads failing to find employment, will be the ones forced to cower in fear of the unknown.  A house divded can not stand and the house we all live in is crumbling around us.

"good night, and good luck"

#64 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:59 AM

There is so much wrong with your statement, I'll attempt to cover as much of it as I can in as organized a fashion.

1) I do agree there's an energy crisis in this country. Pumping stimulus money into green energy companies that are disasters waiting to happen doesn't help one bit. Not ONE supposed "green energy" stimulus recipient has succeeded. Solyndra, A123 Systems, Solar Trust, Abound Solar, Nevada Geothermal, and on and on and on. All these companies are propped up on a house of cards and greased with taxpayer money and what happens when they fail? Nothing. Where does the money go? Where does OUR money go? What's it DOING for us? Greasing the pockets of Obama-backers? Speaking of stimulus, a general point----the Obama administration said that by July 2012, unemployment would be 5.6% if Stimulus was passed, and 6.0% if it WASN'T. It's 8.3%, and if the labor force was the same size as it was in January 2009 when Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate would be 11.0%!

If Obama and the left truly cared about the energy problems we face, then everything truly WOULD be on the table. But it's not. Massive regulations intended to bankrupt the coal industry (Obama stated this was a goal and that prices would "necessarily skyrocket" back in his 08 campaign----go check it, this quote is readily available), increase difficulty for overall energy production and drive up costs are a FEATURE, not a bug. I don't know about you but European levels for gas and energy (again, a DIRECTLY stated goal of Steven Chu, Energy Secretary) are disastrous for the economy.

I don't care about these systems that may or may not work over the next 70 years and suffering massive economic impact because of it. We can't afford it. It would stifle economic growth in unimaginable ways. Of course, for those who want to chase this greentopia, that's what they want. The EPA needs to get scrapped. I want cheap oil and gas. I want shale deposits. I want to crack open the reservoirs of all of this so we don't have to deal with the tyranny of other nations having us by the balls on this front. I want to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the one from Canada through the continential US because I don't want Canada to just turn around and sell it to China instead, thereby defeating any "environmental" purpose we have for not doing such a thing AND helping our biggest economic rival at the same time.


2) Nobody cares about contraception at a time when people are having the most difficult time making sure food is on the table, a roof is over their childrens' heads and clothes are on their backs. Seriously. This whole "war on women" crap has GOT to stop. You want to talk about detrimental to women? How about 1.5% GDP growth in Q2 2012? How about nearly 16 TRILLION dollars in debt with many more TRILLION in unfunded liabilities? How about 42 STRAIGHT months of 8%+ unemployment where the 60 years PRIOR only experiened 8%+ for 39 months TOTAL? How about the fact that women in the Obama White House get paid significantly less than the men? How about the fact that women are losing jobs at a higher clip under the Obama economy? How about insulting them by acting like they need to have condoms and birth control pills paid for by someone else? Contraception is not a "fundamental right", lol. And you can go to any clinic and get condoms or whatever for free if you need to.

Like this idiot Sandra Fluke, who came out as some "innocent Georgetown student", later we find out is an official operative for radical feminist groups and the Obama campaign. You can get birth control from Target for like 9 bucks a month. Is that what we want women to do? Create a culture of dependancy? I thought those on the left were about freedom. What says freedom like having to depend on the government and other people to pay for stuff? Are women only uteruses and vaginas? How offensive is THAT.

And you wanna talk about religious freedom? The whole contraception thing would force religious institutions (Catholic schools like Georgetown, for example) to cover contraceptives and such under their insurance plans. As you may or may not know, Catholics are against those things. What kind of religious freedom is it to FORCE religious institutions to pay for and provide things they don't believe in? And why is it bad that Paul Ryan, a devout Catholic, stands by his beliefs? Does THAT make him a religious extremist? A shitload of people are Catholic, dude.

Besides. Paul Ryan is running for VP. He doesn't have the ability to ban abortions. He doesn't have the ability to do ANYTHING on that front. He can't sign things into law. He can't veto things. And besides, his main talk about abortion as it pertains to things that are actual and tangible and not just "beliefs and values" is making sure there's no public funding for it. Your concerns on this front are THOROUGHLY unfounded. Anyone who thinks primarily about "women's rights" as a reason to hate Paul Ryan where the country is literally headed to hell in a handbasket in every way imaginable is selfish, delusional, and downright misguided.

3) I'm not sure where you get the idea that the economic disaster was Bush's fault. Seriously. If that's the idea you have, you're under a COMPLETE misapprehension. Bush (and McCain, interestingly enough) called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae MULTIPLE times throughout both terms of his administration, only to be met with cries by people like Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, Barney Frank, etc that nothing was wrong. Well, something WAS wrong. Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, tweaks by Clinton, etc led to this bubble and it burst. To blame it on Bush is seriously downright unfathomable and its a myth that HAS to be shot down. Oh by the way, a bubble to keep an eye on? Student loans. Surely this will be met by denials from the usual suspects as well.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama HAS fulfilled many of his promises, and has fulfilled his main one---to fundamentally transform this country. If you think his policies have "kept the country running", I'm not sure what to say to that. As I said before, record unemployment numbers at this point. Record debts. Record deficits. Sooner or later, it's not "Bush's fault" anymore. Reagan's recovery in the early 80s DEMOLISHED this supposed recovery, providing an average of 6.7% GDP growth per quarter in the first nine quarters of his recovery. Obama's? Only FOUR quarters of growth at or above 3%!  And Obama has absolutely nothing but shallow rhetoric and more "ism" politics garbage. Gender, class, race, sexual orientation, etc. Only distractionary crap.

I'm not sure what you mean that "Obama has kept the big picture in mind". What picture is this? His vision of America no longer being exceptional and of America being a European-style failure? If that's the big picture, then I agree, he's kept it in mind. I guess I'm just confused as to how you can talk about the house of cards, prosperity for college graduates, fiscal health long term, taxes, balancing budgets, etc and talk about Obama positively and Ryan and Romney negatively. I just don't get it. With CONSTANT Obama's demonization of business, it's no surprise that businesses are scared to develop, invest, and grow demand so that hiring can happen, and the economy remains awful as a result.

Did you know that the Senate under Barack Obama's tenure as President has not passed or even proposed their own budget,  even though they're obligated to? That's Harry Reid for ya, who hasn't done anything on a budget OR job/growth proposals that have started in the House. Did you realize that Obama's "budget" has not received ONE VOTE OF SUPPORT from EITHER SIDE in the House OR Senate? How can you talk about all of these things and not see this? Ryan is the only one who HAS a plan. When Ryan and Treasury Sec Geithner were talking a few months back, Geithner literally said that they don't have a plan and all they know is that they don't like Ryan's.

All these points aren't even TOUCHING on disastrous scandals like Fast and Furious, horrendous foreign policy, etc. I DO wish Ryan had more foreign policy experience, but I guess if Romney gets elected, I'll have to trust he'll appoint the right guys as Secretary of State and Defense. Romney's foreign tour a couple weeks ago was pretty good, IMO.


A house is divided. You're right. There's one side constantly pushing to divide us into groups and there's another side constantly talking about all of us as Americans. I guess it's up to you to figure out which side is which.

Feel free to ask me for links if you're unclear on something. Left them out to keep it simple, if not long still haha.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 13 August 2012 - 04:02 AM.


#65 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 04:13 AM

Love the quality of the debate in here.  Matrix, you do have many good points, but wholly neglect the obstructionist path Senate Republicans have had in opposing ALL Obama policies.  The problem to governance in this country as presently constituted is the arcane rules of the Senate. And before Dems jump to this defense, they did the same thing to Bush when Cheney was running things.

I think the pick of Ryan is really bold.  The rule is you don't let the VP upstage the top of the ticket.  McCain made this mistake by picking Palin.  While he hoped he'd peel away some of the women vote, he ended up with a SNL nightmare every time she opened her mouth.  His judgement in that decision more than any other reason sent me toward Obama.  Romney seriously risks losing his voice to Ryan as this campaign goes on.  The story will be about Ryan's budget and Ryan' s Medicare proposal.  Obama has Biden, a pick polar opposite to Romney's.. Biden was/is an inconsequential VP pick.  Ryan will have an effect for the balance of the campaign.

Who would believe a ticket of a Mormon and a Catholic would ever try to obtain the Presidency of this country?  Pass the popcorn.

#66 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 13 August 2012 - 04:33 AM

View Postwjag, on 13 August 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Love the quality of the debate in here.  Matrix, you do have many good points, but wholly neglect the obstructionist path Senate Republicans have had in opposing ALL Obama policies.  The problem to governance in this country as presently constituted is the arcane rules of the Senate. And before Dems jump to this defense, they did the same thing to Bush when Cheney was running things.

I think the pick of Ryan is really bold.  The rule is you don't let the VP upstage the top of the ticket.  McCain made this mistake by picking Palin.  While he hoped he'd peel away some of the women vote, he ended up with a SNL nightmare every time she opened her mouth.  His judgement in that decision more than any other reason sent me toward Obama.  Romney seriously risks losing his voice to Ryan as this campaign goes on.  The story will be about Ryan's budget and Ryan' s Medicare proposal.  Obama has Biden, a pick polar opposite to Romney's.. Biden was/is an inconsequential VP pick.  Ryan will have an effect for the balance of the campaign.

Who would believe a ticket of a Mormon and a Catholic would ever try to obtain the Presidency of this country?  Pass the popcorn.

I don't put much water in the obstructionist Senate argument, to be honest. They have and have HAD a majority in there for so long. When the Democrats controlled the House too, they could have done anything they wanted, and they pretty much followed their agenda. Instead of doing things to actually get out of the way of job creation and such, they pushed stimulus bills, and most importantly Obamacare through. When tons of productive bills from the House are sitting there being ignored by Reid to put them up for vote or discussion, I just don't see how they're obstructing things.

To address your second point, it's interesting how people see the Palin pick differently. I used to be a huge Palin fan. I still like her some, but not nearly as much as I did. I followed her for about a year before she was "shockingly" named McCain's VP. Whereas people think Palin sunk McCain's chances I think McCain was (and continues to be) worthless and impotent in general, and Palin actually gave some help and energy. They handled her poorly by muzzling her, and she was and continues to be run through the ringer even worse than Bush was. Hurt among independents or whatever. Oh well, water under the bridge at this point.

Ryan pick IS bold. And a stroke of genius. He's a champion of a cause, can articulate things very simply for those who are generally uninitiated, is good looking, young, and fresh. He appeals to both establishment types and tea party types. He fights with a calm, confidence, and optimism that is really refreshing, honestly. Above all, picking Ryan means that Romney is going all-in and is actually SERIOUS about fixing things. One of the main criticisms (true or not) by so many was that Romney "wasn't offering specifics" and that he wasn't showing balls. Well, now he's got specifics, and apparently he's got the balls. Shows in how fired up he's been since the announcement. Romney wasn't my first choice to be the nominee, and as many questions as I've had about him, things like picking Ryan help assuage those fears immensely.

Frankly, I'm shocked that they actually went with the guy who can articulate conservatism and the American ideal better than pretty much any other elected official in the country. They complement each other VERY well, and you can see it. Chemistry is off the charts, which is something that was non-existent between McCain and Palin, between Barack and Biden, Kerry and Edwards, and quite a few other Prez/VP candidate over the years. The rally in Wisconsin was something to behold. You can tell that both these people believe in and love America above all else.

I don't think Ryan will overshadow Romney. I mean, we're all energized for Ryan and for good reason, but I think he knows his role. I don't think it'll just be about entitlement reform either. I think it's about the economy and economic future of the country as it relates to issues such AS entitlements and such.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 13 August 2012 - 04:41 AM.


#67 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 05:43 AM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 13 August 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

I don't think Ryan will overshadow Romney. I mean, we're all energized for Ryan and for good reason, but I think he knows his role. I don't think it'll just be about entitlement reform either. I think it's about the economy and economic future of the country as it relates to issues such AS entitlements and such.

I do.  I was thinking about this this morning.  My guess is the Romney camp acknowledged that he needed some help.  Whether Ryan wants to act in his role or not, his policies are now out front and center in the Romney ticket.  Even if they wanted to de-emphasize them, the Democrats and press won't let them.  That is why I see it as a bold move.  Romney, by picking Ryan, shifted the focus to budgets and medicare with a voice he just didn't seem to be able to carry on his own.  These are waters full of rapids...

#68 TheMatrix31

TheMatrix31

    30

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:00 AM

I think it's all connected, anyway. Can't talk about economic health without talking about what is severely threatening our long-term viability as well. The vast failure of an economic record is a RESULT of Obama/Jarrett/Pelosi/Reid/etc vision, and the Romney/Ryan camp is now offering a different vision now and for the future.

But yeah, definitely ballsy. Apparently the pick came around 10 days ago. I don't think Romney "needed help" exactly. I'm of the thought that the campaign doesn't TRULY start until the VPs are named and the conventions are held, and the general public only really starts paying attention around then and even a couple weeks AFTER conventions. Always believed Romney was pacing himself. That upset me, because there's so much to hammer Obama about that he needs all the time he has, but if this weekend's vigor by him is any indication, I think he viewed this as the jumpoff point for the rest of the campaign.

Edited by TheMatrix31, 13 August 2012 - 06:03 AM.


#69 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:11 AM

View Postd4rksabre, on 11 August 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'll be perfectly honest and say that my leanings in this election are half idealistic, and half selfish.

At 59 years old, my father just started a new career in the solar energy industry. The success of the company he works for, and the future of all types of alternative energy in this country, rely on the federal funding that has been implemented in the Obama administration.

I have no doubt that if Romney is elected, conservative financial tactics will see the elimination of federal alternative energy funding. I cannot and will not abide that.

I wanted to respond to this yesterday but forgot....

Republicans do fund alternative energy programs.  My work project is about 15 years old now.  It is an alternative energy project with pretty grand ambitions as far as its overall effect on the economy should we succeed.  During the Bush administration our project was about 30% funded by DOE dollars.  When Obama came into office our DOE funding was eliminated.  Completely.  I say this only to make the point that each administration generally ends up funding alternative energy programs.  Just because an "R" comes into office doesn't mean alternative energy research goes away.  The candidates may not agree on which projects to fund, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there will be alt energy programs funded if R's end up in power.  Pay attention to the talking points of each candidate when alternative energy is discussed.  They will communicate which programs they prefer, especially during the debates.

#70 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:40 AM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 13 August 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

There is so much wrong with your statement, I'll attempt to cover as much of it as I can in as organized a fashion.

1) I do agree there's an energy crisis in this country. Pumping stimulus money into green energy companies that are disasters waiting to happen doesn't help one bit. Not ONE supposed "green energy" stimulus recipient has succeeded. Solyndra, A123 Systems, Solar Trust, Abound Solar, Nevada Geothermal, and on and on and on. All these companies are propped up on a house of cards and greased with taxpayer money and what happens when they fail? Nothing. Where does the money go? Where does OUR money go? What's it DOING for us? Greasing the pockets of Obama-backers? Speaking of stimulus, a general point----the Obama administration said that by July 2012, unemployment would be 5.6% if Stimulus was passed, and 6.0% if it WASN'T. It's 8.3%, and if the labor force was the same size as it was in January 2009 when Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate would be 11.0%!

If Obama and the left truly cared about the energy problems we face, then everything truly WOULD be on the table. But it's not. Massive regulations intended to bankrupt the coal industry (Obama stated this was a goal and that prices would "necessarily skyrocket" back in his 08 campaign----go check it, this quote is readily available), increase difficulty for overall energy production and drive up costs are a FEATURE, not a bug. I don't know about you but European levels for gas and energy (again, a DIRECTLY stated goal of Steven Chu, Energy Secretary) are disastrous for the economy.

I don't care about these systems that may or may not work over the next 70 years and suffering massive economic impact because of it. We can't afford it. It would stifle economic growth in unimaginable ways. Of course, for those who want to chase this greentopia, that's what they want. The EPA needs to get scrapped. I want cheap oil and gas. I want shale deposits. I want to crack open the reservoirs of all of this so we don't have to deal with the tyranny of other nations having us by the balls on this front. I want to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the one from Canada through the continential US because I don't want Canada to just turn around and sell it to China instead, thereby defeating any "environmental" purpose we have for not doing such a thing AND helping our biggest economic rival at the same time.


2) Nobody cares about contraception at a time when people are having the most difficult time making sure food is on the table, a roof is over their childrens' heads and clothes are on their backs. Seriously. This whole "war on women" crap has GOT to stop. You want to talk about detrimental to women? How about 1.5% GDP growth in Q2 2012? How about nearly 16 TRILLION dollars in debt with many more TRILLION in unfunded liabilities? How about 42 STRAIGHT months of 8%+ unemployment where the 60 years PRIOR only experiened 8%+ for 39 months TOTAL? How about the fact that women in the Obama White House get paid significantly less than the men? How about the fact that women are losing jobs at a higher clip under the Obama economy? How about insulting them by acting like they need to have condoms and birth control pills paid for by someone else? Contraception is not a "fundamental right", lol. And you can go to any clinic and get condoms or whatever for free if you need to.

Like this idiot Sandra Fluke, who came out as some "innocent Georgetown student", later we find out is an official operative for radical feminist groups and the Obama campaign. You can get birth control from Target for like 9 bucks a month. Is that what we want women to do? Create a culture of dependancy? I thought those on the left were about freedom. What says freedom like having to depend on the government and other people to pay for stuff? Are women only uteruses and vaginas? How offensive is THAT.

And you wanna talk about religious freedom? The whole contraception thing would force religious institutions (Catholic schools like Georgetown, for example) to cover contraceptives and such under their insurance plans. As you may or may not know, Catholics are against those things. What kind of religious freedom is it to FORCE religious institutions to pay for and provide things they don't believe in? And why is it bad that Paul Ryan, a devout Catholic, stands by his beliefs? Does THAT make him a religious extremist? A shitload of people are Catholic, dude.

Besides. Paul Ryan is running for VP. He doesn't have the ability to ban abortions. He doesn't have the ability to do ANYTHING on that front. He can't sign things into law. He can't veto things. And besides, his main talk about abortion as it pertains to things that are actual and tangible and not just "beliefs and values" is making sure there's no public funding for it. Your concerns on this front are THOROUGHLY unfounded. Anyone who thinks primarily about "women's rights" as a reason to hate Paul Ryan where the country is literally headed to hell in a handbasket in every way imaginable is selfish, delusional, and downright misguided.

3) I'm not sure where you get the idea that the economic disaster was Bush's fault. Seriously. If that's the idea you have, you're under a COMPLETE misapprehension. Bush (and McCain, interestingly enough) called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae MULTIPLE times throughout both terms of his administration, only to be met with cries by people like Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, Barney Frank, etc that nothing was wrong. Well, something WAS wrong. Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, tweaks by Clinton, etc led to this bubble and it burst. To blame it on Bush is seriously downright unfathomable and its a myth that HAS to be shot down. Oh by the way, a bubble to keep an eye on? Student loans. Surely this will be met by denials from the usual suspects as well.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama HAS fulfilled many of his promises, and has fulfilled his main one---to fundamentally transform this country. If you think his policies have "kept the country running", I'm not sure what to say to that. As I said before, record unemployment numbers at this point. Record debts. Record deficits. Sooner or later, it's not "Bush's fault" anymore. Reagan's recovery in the early 80s DEMOLISHED this supposed recovery, providing an average of 6.7% GDP growth per quarter in the first nine quarters of his recovery. Obama's? Only FOUR quarters of growth at or above 3%!  And Obama has absolutely nothing but shallow rhetoric and more "ism" politics garbage. Gender, class, race, sexual orientation, etc. Only distractionary crap.

I'm not sure what you mean that "Obama has kept the big picture in mind". What picture is this? His vision of America no longer being exceptional and of America being a European-style failure? If that's the big picture, then I agree, he's kept it in mind. I guess I'm just confused as to how you can talk about the house of cards, prosperity for college graduates, fiscal health long term, taxes, balancing budgets, etc and talk about Obama positively and Ryan and Romney negatively. I just don't get it. With CONSTANT Obama's demonization of business, it's no surprise that businesses are scared to develop, invest, and grow demand so that hiring can happen, and the economy remains awful as a result.

Did you know that the Senate under Barack Obama's tenure as President has not passed or even proposed their own budget,  even though they're obligated to? That's Harry Reid for ya, who hasn't done anything on a budget OR job/growth proposals that have started in the House. Did you realize that Obama's "budget" has not received ONE VOTE OF SUPPORT from EITHER SIDE in the House OR Senate? How can you talk about all of these things and not see this? Ryan is the only one who HAS a plan. When Ryan and Treasury Sec Geithner were talking a few months back, Geithner literally said that they don't have a plan and all they know is that they don't like Ryan's.

All these points aren't even TOUCHING on disastrous scandals like Fast and Furious, horrendous foreign policy, etc. I DO wish Ryan had more foreign policy experience, but I guess if Romney gets elected, I'll have to trust he'll appoint the right guys as Secretary of State and Defense. Romney's foreign tour a couple weeks ago was pretty good, IMO.


A house is divided. You're right. There's one side constantly pushing to divide us into groups and there's another side constantly talking about all of us as Americans. I guess it's up to you to figure out which side is which.

Feel free to ask me for links if you're unclear on something. Left them out to keep it simple, if not long still haha.
I thought about how to respond to this for the last hour.  You immediately jumped on me the second I said anything positive abou Obama and anything Negative about Romney/Ryan.  There is a lot of good points with what you say but also somethings wrong.  I don't disagree with you but find it amusing you say one party wants us to be Americans while the other is playing games.  I am sorry but the far rights idea of "americans" is something I refuse to embrace.  Also with the economy in the toilet and if you want to blame the Dems go for it but I think they are all at fault and Bush helped us get there more than some want to believe, the Student Loan crisis which I am extremely familiar with will just get worse and worse and worse.

What really makes me said it you echo the Republicans mind set in the way some others have the Democratic mind set.  Basically you just told me "I'm right about x,y,z and your wrong".  Blame the recession on Obama and Clinton and whoever else you want.  It doesn't matter at this point.  What matters is this country is so devided that almost every major issue in this country when voted on by the senate/ house is 95% of the republicans vote against what 95% of the Dems vote for and vice versus and everything gets decided by that 10% in between.

Either way its a cluster-f$$k and that is what this will turn into.  The right will say its the left and the left the right with the result that nothing will get done.

You wanna know why I wont vote for Romney/Ryan?  For the simple fact that I think they are too Right, its as simple as that.

#71 DHawerchuk10

DHawerchuk10

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 121 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:48 AM

Well said Matrix, well said!

#72 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:13 AM

View PostDHawerchuk10, on 13 August 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Well said Matrix, well said!
Yes.  I miss the days when Lake Erie was a dead lake and you couldn't swim in most rivers.  Get rid of the EPA,.. really?  That's pretty much where I stopped reading.

Edited by SwampD, 13 August 2012 - 08:23 AM.


#73 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,248 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

View Postweave, on 13 August 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:



I wanted to respond to this yesterday but forgot....

Republicans do fund alternative energy programs.  My work project is about 15 years old now.  It is an alternative energy project with pretty grand ambitions as far as its overall effect on the economy should we succeed.  During the Bush administration our project was about 30% funded by DOE dollars.  When Obama came into office our DOE funding was eliminated.  Completely.  I say this only to make the point that each administration generally ends up funding alternative energy programs.  Just because an "R" comes into office doesn't mean alternative energy research goes away.  The candidates may not agree on which projects to fund, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there will be alt energy programs funded if R's end up in power.  Pay attention to the talking points of each candidate when alternative energy is discussed.  They will communicate which programs they prefer, especially during the debates.

I guess my contention is to leave well enough alone. The funding (for solar) is happening under Obama and I'd expect it to continue under him. There's no way I will vote to disrupt that.

Romney has done and said enough things to convince me that he's slimy and can't be trusted. Even if he makes commitments to solar energy, I don't expect him to follow through when he sees dollar bills flowing out of the govt's pocket.

View PostSwampD, on 13 August 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:


Yes.  I miss the days when Lake Erie was a dead lake and you couldn't swim in most rivers.  Get rid of the EPA,.. really?  That's pretty much where I stopped reading.

I stopped reading at the part where he told Liger his opinions were wrong and then proceeded to post a bunch of narrow minded BS.

#74 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

View PostTheMatrix31, on 13 August 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

2) Nobody cares about contraception at a time when people are having the most difficult time making sure food is on the table, a roof is over their childrens' heads and clothes are on their backs. Seriously.

This is probably going to depress you, but that's not true at all.  Not everybody has the same ordering of preferences--some care most about abortion, some about womens' rights, some about the economy, some even care most about foreign policy, and so on.  The point is, it's different for each person.  Generally speaking, yes, this election is about the economy--but there's absolutely a non-trivial amount of people who care more about other things.

#75 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,248 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:29 AM

I'll raise my hand as one of those people. I don't even think contraception should be something the government should have any say in, but as long as some ass is vehemently in favor of taking it away, then I have to vote against him out of principle. My conscience wont allow me to do otherwise.

Edited by d4rksabre, 13 August 2012 - 09:29 AM.


#76 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,424 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:39 AM

Thank god NY, the most expensive and regulated state in the nation,  will not play a pivotal role in the outcome of this election (or any other  presidential election for that matter)  No mistery here. Our electoral votes are already counted . On the positive side none of us will have to watch the vast majority of the campaign adds.

I am, however, shocked by the number of people who just absorb the rhetoric on each side and then repeat  it as the truth. The old W.C addage remains as true as the day he said it.

Edited by waldo, 13 August 2012 - 12:24 PM.


#77 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,133 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:55 AM

Here's a good link to bookmark. A "poll of polls" from RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads today by about four points. It's interesting that the trend has been Obama up and Romney down the last three weeks. We'll see if Romney gets a Ryan "bump." It's pretty clear Romney just is not connecting with a lot of voters.

http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

(Of course the one you really want to watch is their rundown of electoral votes based on state by state polling.)

#78 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostPASabreFan, on 13 August 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Here's a good link to bookmark. A "poll of polls" from RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads today by about four points. It's interesting that the trend has been Obama up and Romney down the last three weeks. We'll see if Romney gets a Ryan "bump." It's pretty clear Romney just is not connecting with a lot of voters.

http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

(Of course the one you really want to watch is their rundown of electoral votes based on state by state polling.)

RCP is an excellent resource to track these things.  My only quibble is with their electoral map, they're too lenient in labeling something as a "toss up"...states which clearly lean one way or another are classified as a toss up, which isn't really accurate.  In my view, anything outside the margin of error is leaning one way.  Nate Silver's 538 is another great place to track the election:http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/

#79 Potato

Potato

    Take Off

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:09 AM

I don't mind Ryan as a person, he has "the look" and is a good family man and everything... and I like that he is a Catholic given all the evangelical types that have been paraded through the Republican party lately... but the theme of his very conservative economic plan will scare a lot of people, especially seniors: cut the hell out of all programs except defense and lower taxes.  It's like deja vu all over again - the standard far-right economic mantra that has been a tough sell over the past 30 years and still is.  Hard for me to believe this move does much to convince those in the center and/or those undecided to move toward Romney.  Although I personally believe we need to mess with Medicare/Medicaid, about 100 million people rely on these programs.  Very dangerous to propose massive changes when seniors vote in a larger % than younger folks.  And, I always laugh at the "rallying the base" argument.  As if any conservative was going to vote for Obama (and any leftie was going to vote for Romney).  The base knew who they were going to vote for long ago.

My personal issue is his budget plan would cut spending on programs that support academic research, such as the National Institutes of Health, and would make several changes to the federal student-aid programs. It also calls for a complete spending cut for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I'll bow out now because politics/religion and message boards are generally a bad mix (although the conversation on this board is always unusually civil - one reason why I love SabreSpace).

#80 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:10 AM

View PostPASabreFan, on 13 August 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Here's a good link to bookmark. A "poll of polls" from RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads today by about four points. It's interesting that the trend has been Obama up and Romney down the last three weeks. We'll see if Romney gets a Ryan "bump." It's pretty clear Romney just is not connecting with a lot of voters.

http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

(Of course the one you really want to watch is their rundown of electoral votes based on state by state polling.)

This is one of the sites I monitor.  I'm all over the numbers from here on in to the election.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Off Topic, No holds barred politics