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.
Romney has had more than a year to get his message across to the public. The primary campaign was long and how many debates occurred during that time? He's been the presumptive nomination for many months and he also had a convention. In all that time with all that attention, he couldn't inform the people on what he stands for? Come on. The fact is that the people DO know what he stands for. He puts his foot in his mouth almost daily, and he comes across exactly as he really is: an out of touch millionaire who doesn't really care about the middle/lower class. It's not that people don't know Romney or what he stands for. They do, and more people just don't like it.
I wasn't able to quote the whole thing for some reason, but I'll respond to some of the points you brought up. But first, it was nice to get a respectful opposing viewpoint rather than something like the hateful responses I've read from some people when it comes to politics in the political forum.
1) You asked what I based the 5-6 trillion debt that has been racked up during the president's term on. QE1, QE2, Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus bill (or bills?), are all things he supported, among others. I don't think anyone can deny his involvement in racking up such high debt.
2) Obstructionist Congress at fault? The way Barack acted when he took office made it clear he wasn't going to work with Republicans, except those willing to just blindly follow him and give him whatever he wanted. He had both houses, and didn't have a desire to build a relationship with the opposition. When the Dems lost the House, he made little effort to smooth things over and handle things in a bi-partisan way. As much as I hate how poorly the two sides are getting along now, I can't say I blame the Republicans. For many years I've watched the Senate on C-span, and sometimes the House of Reps, and have watched things deteriorate more and more. When the Republicans had control of the Senate, I felt they were much more accomodating to and respectful of the Democrats, than how things are now with Dems in control. And until Harry Reid is no longer Demrocratic leader in the Senate I doubt anything will change. Dick Durbin would be just as bad. I don't hold Republicans totally blameless, but believe the president should find a way to get over himself and start working with the other side. And to your point about egos, yes I agree all presidents have big egos, but that doesn't always translate to arrogance, like it does with our current president.
3) Military spending I realize is a huge issue. But I bet if you and I had access to all the spending records and programs that pertain to military spending, we could cut millions upon millions of dollars of waste. Those who work in government have a hard time comprehending what wasteful spending is, because there is so much money involved overall, that cutting out $1,000 for this, $10,000 for that, doesn't seem like a big deal to them. But all those little numbers (to them anyway) add up, and to the rest of us across the country it is a lot of money. Having said that, I do believe we have to keep our troop strength up, a strong Air Force, and enough ships in working order with trained crews, because as I mentioned to another poster, there will come a day when this nation will have to fight against a formidable foe. It may be in 20-30 years, or it could be 3-5 years, you just never know. And I also believe it's outrageous that we have military personnel that have had to serve several tours in war zones because of our lack of troop strength. I never believed we should have gone into Iraq but we did, and some of the soldiers who ended up there were National Guard troops, which never should have happened. So much for having a sleek, rapid, strike force, which the elder Bush and Clinton both used as excuses for gutting the military when they were in office.
4) Abortion. You mentioned I could never get everyone to agree on this issue, which is true. But you also said I think my opinion should supercede all others, and that I want personal morality legislated for the entire country. It's not that I think my opinion supercedes all others. What I believe is that a baby should have the right to life and not be sucked out of a uterus, or in the case of late term abortions, not have forceps crushing it's brain to kill it, and if it's still breathing as it comes out (partial birth abortion), to not be drowned in a toilet or whatever method that particular doctor uses. I honestly don't understand how anyone could argue a fetus in the womb isn't human life. I do understand why some would have a hard time deciding if human life starts at conception or at the first heartbeat, even though I believe it's at conception, but what I don't understand is how anyone could believe it's ok to kill an unborn child. If someone causes an accident that kills an unborn child they will be prosecuted in most states for killing a viable fetus, but abortion is legal. As I said in my first post, we have a holocaust going on in this country, and I'm shocked not more people are against it. Says a lot about what's happened to the morality of this country and where we are headed. And to think doctors are willing to perform abortions. It's unethical and immoral.
5) As far as oil exports/imports, you may be correct statistically, I don't know. But I do know we are importing a couple billion barrels of oil per day from the middle east presently, so we aren't energy independent at this time. A lot of people are upset with the pipeline from Canada, but that doesn't bother me much because most of that oil would be shipped to China anyways, as they have contracts for it. However, the president had a pretty harsh reaction after the oil spill in the Gulf, and though I haven't heard updates lately, I do know he stopped new drilling in the Gulf in an over reaction. Plus, he's pushed too hard, and wasted alot of taxpayer money, for green energy. Anyone who pays attention to the news knows how that's turned out. The amount of energy we get from green energy is a very tiny fraction of what we use. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, but spending a lot of taxpayer money for such terrible results, plus expecting it to be our answer anytime soon, is foolish. Both parties will have to be very careful in when it comes to allowing natural gas extraction. If they are still pouring concrete down into the holes they drill expecting it to prevent the gas from getting into water supplies they are making a mistake. As we know, concrete will crack at some point. That's why some people can light water coming out of their faucets on fire.
6) You said Obama's fighting for free trade. I really haven't seen much of an effort to be honest. After Romney mentioned he would fight for free trade, especially against China, then the president came out and did some tough talking. More than anything, I believe Mitt has a better understanding of trade than Barack does, and seems more determined to do something about the unfair policies of other countries.
7) You said the health care law needs to be tweaked. Honestly, I think it needs so much tweaking there's probably more bad than good in it. It would probably be quicker to abolish it and start over. There's no question something has to be done, but what was done with the health care bill was terrible, just terrible.
At the end you made the comment that people do know what Romney stands for and don't like it. I disagree. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who don't pay attention, even a little bit. They don't watch conventions and many don't even watch the evening news, except maybe the local news. And even if they do watch the national evening news, there's so little content in it that it doesn't give anything but a liberal bias as to who Mitt is and what he stands for. And most political ads turn people off because everyone knows they tell one side of the story, and may be a misrepresentation entirely. I'm not sure if enough people even watch debates anymore to make a difference. Truth is most people will vote having no more than an uniformed perception of the candidates. As bad of a job as many of us know the president has done, odds are that he will get re-elected. It's always been unbelieveable to me when I've seen reporters ask voters standing in line to vote during a presidential year, if they know who they are voting for, and some of them will admit they haven't made up their mind yet. And then they list reasons why they like or dislike certain candidates, and they just parrot what they've seen in campaign ads, or some uniformed perception. Those are the people I wish would stay home. If they can't take the time to get to know who the candidates are and what they stand for, I wish they just wouldn't vote. Unfortunately they do and in large numbers. That's how Barry got elected. Not that McCain was a great option, but he was a better one.
Please ignore any typos. Have to start my busy Saturday.
Location: livin' the good life on America's favorite island
2,221 posts, read 4,376,793 times
Reputation: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
Are you going to be fair and balanced and post the president's contributors as well?
Obama Top Campaign donors (OpenSecrets)
University of California $702,281Microsoft Corp $544,445Google Inc $526,009Harvard University $431,860US Government $396,350Deloitte LLP $369,201DLA Piper $367,027Stanford University $326,942Sidley Austin LLP $312,278Kaiser Permanente $302,913Time Warner $295,030Columbia University $264,588Comcast Corp $261,274University of Chicago $227,525IBM Corp $218,511Skadden, Arps et al $214,766US Dept of State $213,256Wells Fargo $202,216University of Michigan $190,862Wilmerhale Llp $188,961
Lawyers are Obamas top bundlers ($31 million)...lawyers don't like tort reform limits from GOP.
Good to see John Corzine (former MF Global crook) is one of his top bundlers. My company did millions w/MF.
Those are the people I wish would stay home. If they can't take the time to get to know who the candidates are and what they stand for, I wish they just wouldn't vote.
so you do not want people to participate in their democracy? that seems unamerican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
They don't watch conventions
you probably did not watch the democrat convention or seek out any third party conventions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
and many don't even watch the evening news, except maybe the local news. And even if they do watch the national evening news, there's so little content in it that it doesn't give anything but a liberal bias as to who Mitt is and what he stands for.
watching only conservative media is just another bubble that you are creating for yourself.
1) I don't want people to vote if they aren't willing to take the time to find out about the candidates, what they stand for, and what they say they want to accomplish. That's not unAmerican at all. It's irresponsible of citizens to vote when they haven't bothered to educate themselves.
2) Actually I did watch the Democratic convention. Wasn't impressed at all. And I've paid attention to third parties more than most people have, because for a few years I've been seeking a party that I can really identify with and feel comfortable joining. Unfortunately there isn't a viable option at the present time. After the Republican and Democratic parties, the next three are the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Party. None of those three will ever challenge the top two in my opinion. There are many other parties that are much smaller, that I don't believe will ever gain much support. Politics1.com has a list of parties and a brief description of each. Seems to me the big two wont be challenged until a new party emerges someday.
3) So you think I watch only conservative media, eh? Not even close. Matter of fact I don't care for most of the shows on Fox News, and every other news station or program is tainted by liberal bias, and I watch them more than Fox News. C-span is something I enjoy watching because I don't have a talking head spewing their biased opinions. Obviously, some of the things they broadcast is video of people who do have biased viewpoints, but I'm highly evolved and can figure that out for myself.
I wasn't able to quote the whole thing for some reason, but I'll respond to some of the points you brought up. But first, it was nice to get a respectful opposing viewpoint rather than something like the hateful responses I've read from some people when it comes to politics in the political forum.
1) You asked what I based the 5-6 trillion debt that has been racked up during the president's term on. QE1, QE2, Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus bill (or bills?), are all things he supported, among others. I don't think anyone can deny his involvement in racking up such high debt.
Sorry, but that's just a gross oversimplification and I can't understand how anyone who knows anything about economics can point fingers at the president while ignoring the giant screaming elephant in the room that was/is the recession. You really don't think the worst economic downturn since 1929 didn't have any effect on revenues, trade, a weakened dollar, etc? Obama did not spend 6 trillion dollars. That is absolutely ridiculous to suggest. And there are plenty of opinions out there that the recession would've been even worse had none of the stimulus spending that was put forth not taken place. Whether or not you believe that does not change the fact that spending was not even close to what you're suggesting.
2) Obstructionist Congress at fault? The way Barack acted when he took office made it clear he wasn't going to work with Republicans, except those willing to just blindly follow him and give him whatever he wanted. He had both houses, and didn't have a desire to build a relationship with the opposition. When the Dems lost the House, he made little effort to smooth things over and handle things in a bi-partisan way. As much as I hate how poorly the two sides are getting along now, I can't say I blame the Republicans. For many years I've watched the Senate on C-span, and sometimes the House of Reps, and have watched things deteriorate more and more. When the Republicans had control of the Senate, I felt they were much more accomodating to and respectful of the Democrats, than how things are now with Dems in control. And until Harry Reid is no longer Demrocratic leader in the Senate I doubt anything will change. Dick Durbin would be just as bad. I don't hold Republicans totally blameless, but believe the president should find a way to get over himself and start working with the other side. And to your point about egos, yes I agree all presidents have big egos, but that doesn't always translate to arrogance, like it does with our current president.
Of course you can't blame them, you seem to agree with their actions. I'm not saying that Obama was always the easiest to work with, and I actually think he wasted a lot of clout pushing through his healthcare plan, but Republicans made it their personal mission to shoot down everything he put forth from day one. Meanwhile, they didn't bother to even focus on the economy, but social issues. Where is the job creation in legislating women's body parts or gay marriage? The Republicans, from the federal to local levels, are FAR from blameless and have totally lost sight of their core values.
3) Military spending I realize is a huge issue. But I bet if you and I had access to all the spending records and programs that pertain to military spending, we could cut millions upon millions of dollars of waste. Those who work in government have a hard time comprehending what wasteful spending is, because there is so much money involved overall, that cutting out $1,000 for this, $10,000 for that, doesn't seem like a big deal to them. But all those little numbers (to them anyway) add up, and to the rest of us across the country it is a lot of money. Having said that, I do believe we have to keep our troop strength up, a strong Air Force, and enough ships in working order with trained crews, because as I mentioned to another poster, there will come a day when this nation will have to fight against a formidable foe. It may be in 20-30 years, or it could be 3-5 years, you just never know. And I also believe it's outrageous that we have military personnel that have had to serve several tours in war zones because of our lack of troop strength. I never believed we should have gone into Iraq but we did, and some of the soldiers who ended up there were National Guard troops, which never should have happened. So much for having a sleek, rapid, strike force, which the elder Bush and Clinton both used as excuses for gutting the military when they were in office.
So you agree that military spending is too high, but then agree with Romney/Ryan that military spending should increase? Again, we could easily maintain the biggest military in the world even after significant cuts. And it wasn't the lack of money that made Iraq a disaster for years. It was the lack of planning and using those resources efficiently.
4) Abortion. You mentioned I could never get everyone to agree on this issue, which is true. But you also said I think my opinion should supercede all others, and that I want personal morality legislated for the entire country. It's not that I think my opinion supercedes all others. What I believe is that a baby should have the right to life and not be sucked out of a uterus, or in the case of late term abortions, not have forceps crushing it's brain to kill it, and if it's still breathing as it comes out (partial birth abortion), to not be drowned in a toilet or whatever method that particular doctor uses. I honestly don't understand how anyone could argue a fetus in the womb isn't human life. I do understand why some would have a hard time deciding if human life starts at conception or at the first heartbeat, even though I believe it's at conception, but what I don't understand is how anyone could believe it's ok to kill an unborn child. If someone causes an accident that kills an unborn child they will be prosecuted in most states for killing a viable fetus, but abortion is legal. As I said in my first post, we have a holocaust going on in this country, and I'm shocked not more people are against it. Says a lot about what's happened to the morality of this country and where we are headed. And to think doctors are willing to perform abortions. It's unethical and immoral.
If you think that Romney would be the best candidate for abortion, then yes, you do think your opinion supercedes all others because Romney has stated he wants to overturn RvW, essentially banning it altogether. While you might think that's the morally superior position, it's not your or Romney's call to make for others. I don't believe the same thing that you do and neither do many others. In any case, abortions overall are on the decline due to better protections/procedures. In Ohio, they were at their lowest level last year since 1976. BTW, in all the pro-life talk, you never hear what people think about those babies after they're born. How many kids are you willing to adopt from the foster care system? How many of those kids will be born to unwed mothers that end up on social welfare, another thing Republicans despise and malign? It's one thing to be pro-life, it's another to give a crap about what kind of life those babies have after birth.
5) As far as oil exports/imports, you may be correct statistically, I don't know. But I do know we are importing a couple billion barrels of oil per day from the middle east presently, so we aren't energy independent at this time. A lot of people are upset with the pipeline from Canada, but that doesn't bother me much because most of that oil would be shipped to China anyways, as they have contracts for it. However, the president had a pretty harsh reaction after the oil spill in the Gulf, and though I haven't heard updates lately, I do know he stopped new drilling in the Gulf in an over reaction. Plus, he's pushed too hard, and wasted alot of taxpayer money, for green energy. Anyone who pays attention to the news knows how that's turned out. The amount of energy we get from green energy is a very tiny fraction of what we use. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, but spending a lot of taxpayer money for such terrible results, plus expecting it to be our answer anytime soon, is foolish. Both parties will have to be very careful in when it comes to allowing natural gas extraction. If they are still pouring concrete down into the holes they drill expecting it to prevent the gas from getting into water supplies they are making a mistake. As we know, concrete will crack at some point. That's why some people can light water coming out of their faucets on fire.
The importing of oil is not something Obama started, and it's actually decreased during his time in office. Drilling permits were actually at record highs as well, so I really don't understand the criticism here. And like it or not, green energy investment is part of a comprehensive plan to reduce oil use and ultimately imports. Any new technology takes significant investment, and sometimes those investments don't pan out every single time. You think the Space Program was built in a day on $1 million? How about defense technology? Weaponry? You're okay with spending trillions on defense but not a token few billion on green technology that would, long-term, help reduce the problem you're now complaining about? Come on. I really don't get this logic.
6) You said Obama's fighting for free trade. I really haven't seen much of an effort to be honest. After Romney mentioned he would fight for free trade, especially against China, then the president came out and did some tough talking. More than anything, I believe Mitt has a better understanding of trade than Barack does, and seems more determined to do something about the unfair policies of other countries.
Has Romney even given any details on how he would fight against unfair trade with China, or is it like the budget plan where we're supposed to take his word for it? You're telling me I should trust Romney over Obama giving those circumstances? And Obama has been president for almost 4 years, so I'm thinking he understands trade a bit more than Romney. Experience was earned.
7) You said the health care law needs to be tweaked. Honestly, I think it needs so much tweaking there's probably more bad than good in it. It would probably be quicker to abolish it and start over. There's no question something has to be done, but what was done with the health care bill was terrible, just terrible.
Obamacare is one of those things that people like to complain about and state they don't like it, and then when broken up into individual mandates, people really like it. It's a classic case of not knowing what they're talking about, but because it came from Obama, it must be bad. Again, there are some things that are unpopular, but others that are not. I don't see why we should abandon good ideas because there are flaws. That would be a much more significant waste of money and time, and I thought Republicans weren't about waste?
At the end you made the comment that people do know what Romney stands for and don't like it. I disagree.
You can disagree all you like, polling increasingly shows otherwise.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who don't pay attention, even a little bit. They don't watch conventions and many don't even watch the evening news, except maybe the local news. And even if they do watch the national evening news, there's so little content in it that it doesn't give anything but a liberal bias as to who Mitt is and what he stands for. And most political ads turn people off because everyone knows they tell one side of the story, and may be a misrepresentation entirely. I'm not sure if enough people even watch debates anymore to make a difference. Truth is most people will vote having no more than an uniformed perception of the candidates.
Wait, so your entire premise for Obama potentially being re-elected is that people are ignorant and aren't really paying any attention? I guess us poor dumb folk don't know what's best for us, is that it? This seems like a total cop-out for the simple fact that the GOP chose to run a terrible candidate against a beatable president. And what's worse, Romney probably was the best guy from the primaries, which says something about the state of the GOP right now.
As bad of a job as many of us know the president has done, odds are that he will get re-elected. It's always been unbelieveable to me when I've seen reporters ask voters standing in line to vote during a presidential year, if they know who they are voting for, and some of them will admit they haven't made up their mind yet. And then they list reasons why they like or dislike certain candidates, and they just parrot what they've seen in campaign ads, or some uniformed perception. Those are the people I wish would stay home. If they can't take the time to get to know who the candidates are and what they stand for, I wish they just wouldn't vote. Unfortunately they do and in large numbers. That's how Barry got elected. Not that McCain was a great option, but he was a better one.
Please ignore any typos. Have to start my busy Saturday.
I can only assume that the people you're referring to are liberals and Democrats, because only conservatives and Republicans pay any attention and know the facts. Right.
I'm watching a truly appalling number of threads in the Ohio forum which often ask straightforward questions, but they disintegrate into a political argument of some type. I admit to getting involved in my share of them but I'm getting sick and tired of my part in it. Especially since it's the same 2-3 actors on each side who are responsible for 90% of the hot air.
My suggestion: do your part to prevent global warming by recycling all that hot air.
I'm watching a truly appalling number of threads in the Ohio forum which often ask straightforward questions, but they disintegrate into a political argument of some type. I admit to getting involved in my share of them but I'm getting sick and tired of my part in it. Especially since it's the same 2-3 actors on each side who are responsible for 90% of the hot air.
My suggestion: do your part to prevent global warming by recycling all that hot air.
It's a presidential polling thread in an election year. I'm not sure what you expected.
I'm watching a truly appalling number of threads in the Ohio forum which often ask straightforward questions, but they disintegrate into a political argument of some type. I admit to getting involved in my share of them but I'm getting sick and tired of my part in it. Especially since it's the same 2-3 actors on each side who are responsible for 90% of the hot air.
My suggestion: do your part to prevent global warming by recycling all that hot air.
By even acknowledging the existence of global warming, I'm assuming you will be voting Obama (or Green Party) this year.
By even acknowledging the existence of global warming, I'm assuming you will be voting Obama (or Green Party) this year.
Hi Natural510--
Well, I stake out my own position on global warming. I care about the environment, I drive a fuel efficient car, I scrap metals such as aluminum cans to be recycled, and I generally don't want to see a brown cloud over our cities. Consequently, I'm all for policies that set us on development that's both progressive and sustainable (not 'progressive' in the academic/left-wing sense, but progressive as in making things happen.)
On the other hand, I think Al Gore, Rajenda Pachauri and a significant proportion of the scientific community have cooked up one of the world's biggest Ponzi schemes in history. Because the earth's climate changes. It changes perfectly naturally, and it's always changing. Driving a V8 or paying a carbon tax will have either zero or negligible effect on the grand scheme of things.
The only difference is, if you pay a carbon tax, these guys take 20% off the top because they help set up the company that buys and sells those carbon credits.
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.
Not that McCain was a great option, but he was a better one. 
