Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what historical reference, has any president been worse for our economy then 0bama? Try not to imagine someone worse then the most, historically speaking, worst president for our economy in 70 years. we have a historically bad economy, right here and now. And to justify voting for him, you are trying to imagine someone worse? As i said earlier:
Nothing in Romney's past indicates the level of failure that we have seen with 0bama. Nothing in Romney's personal life, his professional, or public life suggest that he is unable to deliver on what people have asked of him. So why do people imagine the worst from Romney?
i said not the same not worse but better in other words i have to think he won't even just be same ol' same ol' i'm not convinced of that even the most hard core republicans don't like him there's a reason for that i know i'm supposed to pick team blue or team red but here's the thing i'm a moderate and i go across the board voted for both parties before and will again voted for third parties and will again right now i'm strongly considering johnson over both loons i don't want someone that will be just as bad as obama i want someone i know will do better and not more same ol' same ol' pass the can down to the next president and it's not just this one statement it's many gaffes if it were almost any other candidate that the two-party crooked system had let through it would have been at least a 20 point lead...it's not it's because he's freakin' as bad as obama and yes i do think he'd hurt the economy but in different ways neither party tightens spending they just spend on different things...to keep the wing nuts that think we should be bigger than the next 40 countries combined he'll increase military spending by the same amount or greater as the amount he cuts welfare programs that's not cutting spending that's just changing where you spend...the reason why i think that is he's not said otherwise and that's what the last 4 republican presidents have done and had a cow when clinton lowered it...we already outspend like the next 20+ countries combined
From what historical reference, has any president been worse for our economy then 0bama? Try not to imagine someone worse then the most, historically speaking, worst president for our economy in 70 years. we have a historically bad economy, right here and now. And to justify voting for him, you are trying to imagine someone worse? As i said earlier:
Nothing in Romney's past indicates the level of failure that we have seen with 0bama. Nothing in Romney's personal life, his professional, or public life suggest that he is unable to deliver on what people have asked of him. So why do people imagine the worst from Romney?
and again i said i'm leaning towards 1) johnson if some reason i wind up not liking him by election day 2)obama 3) Romney unless he makes me like him more which there's still debates and stuff...again he doesn't have to be worse than obama just not better than...like if they'll both be mediocre why would i want them...and i'm no big fan of his professional record...i don't know a lot about his public life other than he's lied and changed his mind every 2 mins. on certain issues...just like every other politician again i like johnson right now the best but there's still like 5 weeks let your guy romney do something profound and i'll vote for him
I don't think Romney can afford to kick the can down the road, I don't think it's in his character to do so. He is basically a very sharp CEO, and he knows what is expected of him, and he is aware of the terrible path before us if he does not do what is expected of him. We are on the knife's edge right now.
$16 trillion is nothing to be cavalier with, as 0bama did when he referred to it as "short term debt" on Letterman; $10 trillion of that $16 was on our balance sheet four years ago. 0bama's budget proposals have it turning into $23 trillion in very short order.
The financial mess we are in is right up Romney's alley, he took financially troubled companies and turned them around. He has a lot more tools at his finger tips as president, to fix our financial mess, and i think he is up to the task, whereas 0bama has showed us that he most definitely is not.
That is some good stuff there, and I am not being sarcastic.
Anyway, I have a problem with campaign Romney, who seems quite a bit different from CEO Romney and Governor Romney. If Romney had stayed the pragmatic Massachusetts moderate I could have gotten on board with that. My problem is I don't know what he will be like in the White House. My fear is that he will still be intimidated by the base and not do what he has to do.
It just feels like Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.
i said not the same not worse but better in other words i have to think he won't even just be same ol' same ol' i'm not convinced of that even the most hard core republicans don't like him there's a reason for that i know i'm supposed to pick team blue or team red but here's the thing i'm a moderate and i go across the board voted for both parties before and will again voted for third parties and will again right now i'm strongly considering johnson over both loons i don't want someone that will be just as bad as obama i want someone i know will do better and not more same ol' same ol' pass the can down to the next president and it's not just this one statement it's many gaffes if it were almost any other candidate that the two-party crooked system had let through it would have been at least a 20 point lead...it's not it's because he's freakin' as bad as obama and yes i do think he'd hurt the economy but in different ways neither party tightens spending they just spend on different things...to keep the wing nuts that think we should be bigger than the next 40 countries combined he'll increase military spending by the same amount or greater as the amount he cuts welfare programs that's not cutting spending that's just changing where you spend...the reason why i think that is he's not said otherwise and that's what the last 4 republican presidents have done and had a cow when clinton lowered it...we already outspend like the next 20+ countries combined
Well, 0bama promised us a mansion on the hill with a view, and four years later we have an outhouse, in the creek, surrounded by old kitchen appliances, and we are deeper in debt then any of us would ever have imagined.
There is no realistic way that I can see Romney being as bad as what we have now. I do not see anything in 0bama's past to suggest he knows what to do, but Romney has been a proven winner in the past.
Untrue! From looking at your link, assuming these people were telling the truth about their income, the vote was evenly split among voters making >$50K, even when those making >$100K were looked at separately.
That is some good stuff there, and I am not being sarcastic.
Anyway, I have a problem with campaign Romney, who seems quite a bit different from CEO Romney and Governor Romney. If Romney had stayed the pragmatic Massachusetts moderate I could have gotten on board with that. My problem is I don't know what he will be like in the White House. My fear is that he will still be intimidated by the base and not do what he has to do.
It just feels like Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.
i f he played the fuzzy moderate in the middle, and 0bama played the fuzzy moderate in the middle, what difference between them would the average voter see? that's the problem with trying to look like democrat-light, you look like a lesser version of the democratic candidate.
I think Romney is refusing to play that game, and is illustrating the sharp differences between a big government spending lib, and a no nonsense economic conservative, who knows the business and international finances.
That is some good stuff there, and I am not being sarcastic.
Anyway, I have a problem with campaign Romney, who seems quite a bit different from CEO Romney and Governor Romney. If Romney had stayed the pragmatic Massachusetts moderate I could have gotten on board with that. My problem is I don't know what he will be like in the White House. My fear is that he will still be intimidated by the base and not do what he has to do.
It just feels like Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.
sadly that's how i and a lot of others feel the feeling of voter satisfaction for the presidential choices are lowest since 1992, it doesn't help that i'm not a vote against someone kind of person and no one has convinced me i should vote romney which is another reason why i'm leaning 3rd party presently...i'm afraid both parties have been run over with extremists and it's hard to be a moderate with either party anymore at least imo
Didn't feel like reading all the comments, but here is my opinion. I'm a community volunteer in my state (I talk to independent folks and democrats, and republicans here and there and try to talk to these people about voting, and registering to vote, donating, etc) I'm also a moderate democrat(bordering independent) and I'm going to be 100% honest(seeing as I got home a little while ago from volunteering). Most independents were not necessarily swayed by the 47% comment. What bothers them is the Mitt Romney campaign as a whole--it's filled with incompetency, flip-flopping, and disorganization. To top it off there seems to be question about Mitt's sincerity in being president--is he running for president because he really wants to turn the economy around OR because he wants to put this on a plaque on his wall of yet another accomplishment he's made within the list of the accomplishments he's made as a business man, son, and as a governor. If the 47% comment was the only "negative" thing that happened in his campaign many independent voters, that I've talked to, would still be inclined to vote for Mitt because they aren't satisfied with Obama.
However the statements Mitt and Ryan have made, the flip-flopping on issues, the refusal to show more than 2 years of taxes, the fact that Mitt barely pays taxes, the blatant lies that Mitt has told in some of his ads(that his audience know of), the vagueness of Mitt's plans and Mitt's refusal to talk about his plans for virtually everything, and the 47% comment on top of it, make Mitt an unattractive candidate for president. That is the general consensus amongst the independent voters I've talked to. That being said, some of these independents still haven't decided if they will vote for him or Obama and are waiting for the debates to happen and to see how the rest of his campaign goes(which thus far seems to not be going well). Republicans who heard the 47% comment, that I've talked to within my state, are not happy with the campaign either, but are still voting for Mitt because A) He's the republican candidate(for better or worse) B) They hate Obama. So to answer the question, was Romney's comment that bad? No. It was bad in that it did taint his image even amongst his fan base, but is it causing masses of people to decide not to vote for him? No. MOST Republicans that were going to vote for him still will, only a very tiny amount won't and if they don't it's because of his whole campaign and the lack of satisfaction with the republican party. MOST independent voters are still undecided, however some of them are looking at Romney with doubt because of his campaign as well.
In terms of my feelings on the comment? I think it was tasteless, tacky and not smart. He doesn't seem to understand that his base happens to be a part of this 47% of government dependent folk. He doesn't know all of his base. I think that's a problem. Other than that, he is right on some levels--there is a party of people dependent on the government that will vote for someone that is offering to continue giving that "help", because it is in their "interest" (this dependent group) to do so. But doesn't that go for everyone? Won't the rich vote for the candidate that will keep the most money in their pockets? Won't the business owners vote for the person that they feel will best support small businesses? Most people will vote in their interest and vote for the candidate that has the platform that matches their interests. It's been proven time and time again, that the republicans don't think highly of those that receive government assistance(even though there are TONS of republicans on government assistance) and lately it's being proven that the republican is the party for the "rich" so why would the poor or government dependent folk vote for someone that doesn't have their interest? Why is it wrong for these dependent voters to vote for the candidate that will support their needs? Meanwhile its okay for the rich to want Romney because he'll keep money in their pockets.
If Mitt was surprised to learn that there are groups of people that will NEVER vote for him, he needs to examine WHY that it is--it's all in his platform, which is 100% for the rich and corporate folk, and is DEFINITELY against poor people or people receiving government aid. I'd even venture to say it's harmful for the middle class too, but obviously there are some that believe Obama is bad for the middle class too, so go figure...
Last edited by sunkisses87; 09-27-2012 at 08:50 PM..
You're right to ignore this website. Its no credible news source, founded by a known scammer who has had legal proceedings against him by ASIC (Australian Securities Investments Commission).
I just spent 10 minutes Googling Mr. McIntyre. It seems he does indeed have all sorts of problems with the ASIC. In fact, he's got all sorts of problems with people calling his get-rich-quick investment schemes a scam.
Nice catch artemis! (I wouldn't have bothered to look up McIntyre but, mercy, I'm glad you clued us in. He's got all kinds of people unhappy with him. So much for listening to him as any kind of an expert.)
Here is an opportunity to read some thoughts from an Aussie who claims to have been an Obama supporter up to now. I don't know how he feels about The One now but it seems he disagrees with the Obama campaign a lot. He talks about a real Romney's words about bludges holding a lot of truth.
***Now I’ve always been an Obama fan (except his economic track record) and had little to go on whether I like Mitt Romney or not.
But these comments instil a much higher level of respect for Mr Romney and his bold honesty even if they were politically incorrect.
The critics (largely leftist journalists) in the US and Australia harshly target him for speaking the truth. Nevertheless, isn’t it true that people should be responsible and care for their lives?***
If you don't know what a bludge is do as I did and go to our friend, Google.
In fact Romney did not say he did not care about the 47%. He said the 47% that pay no taxes will not be turned away from Obama's give aways by promising lower taxes. It's one thing to say he does not care about people and another thing to say he is not going to worry about not getting votes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
