For those of you who are just not understanding how this game is played. The Main Stream Liberal media has attacked Romney more than any other candidate. Sure Santorum and Gingrich have taken their shots, but Romney is the guy that the media, and Obama DO NOT want to run against.
Why? Because they know something that those on the right don’t quite understand.
Romney is the only republican candidate who can pull independents, women and senior citizens at a large enough margin to actually win. AND, he is the only republican candidate who can win Massachusetts, New Hampshire and possibly New Jersey with Christie’s help.
Sure Romney is not conservative enough for any of us…But he is the one, the only one, who is running that can beat Obama!
I don’t think you’ve posted what you think will happen if Santorum takes Michigan and has solid wins on Super Tuesday. (I posted my views earlier).
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s pretty clear that given the scenario that you describe Santorum becomes the republican nominee. And we go on to have four more years of Obama…BUT we sure did show those panty waste liberals that we republicans are CONSERVATIVE!
And in the end (given your scenario) that apparently counts for more with republican primary voters than actually taking back the White House. Either that or they don’t quite realize Santorum hasn’t got a snow balls chance in hell.
I assure you, (and I will stand behind these words in any reasonable fashion my opponents desire), Rick Santorum cannot defeat Barack Obama!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neither can Romney, so one might as well vote one’s conscience.[/quote]
I made a very brief but significant argument why Romney could possibly beat Obama:
So, I believe that he does have at least a chance. Now please explain how Santorum or Gingrich have that same chance.
Trust me when I say I would love to believe the other two candidates have an opportunity to win. However, everything that I’ve learned through the years regarding politics says Romney is the only one who has a chance.
But I’d love to hear your argument so make me a believer Sloth.
It’s not me who likes the idea of charisma playing a role, it’s the general electorate who likes charisma. I only note it and point it out to those who live in dream land and think that the masses actually vote mostly on the issues. Everyone loses (or wins) for a reason. If you have a middle of the road candidate who has the charisma of Micheal Dukakis that candidate is going to lose. But, we have seen what a candidate with lots of charisma, like Ronald Reagan, can do even though he was the most conservative nominee.
Far lefty’s usually don’t win either Obama being the exception and I think it’s obvious why. A 10 on the charisma scale, 8 years of Bush being bashed by the MSLM, and a charismaless candidate named John McCain.
Middle of the road candidates win, at least those who have charisma and are able to communicate in a pleasant comfortable manner. History doesn’t lie you only need to read more of it to understand who wins and who loses. Romney/Obama would be a close race, I’m not sure who would win but Obama has the advantage for certain.
[/quote]
This has to be one of the best statements I have read on the topic of any election. Electability is an important thing to look at when choosing a candidate, and charisma is a very important factor in that. It is great to find a candidate that has all the same views that you do, but does that matter if that candidate cannot get elected. Take Santorum for example. He would be an excellent candidate for a lot of reasons, but his religious views make him a very poor presidential candidate. It would be a very simple matter for the Obama team to launch a smear campaign that paints him as a Christian extremist who wants to force his religious views on the general population, and they wouldn’t really be all that wrong. He has made many public statements on that would back up that claim. This would alienate many more moderate and independent voters, as well as those who subscribe to the separation of church and state and younger voters who generally don’t tend to view Christianity very favorably. When it comes down to it, I tend to agree that Romney is the only candidate who has a chance to beat Obama, whom I also think will win the nomination, so it would be better to think about who better would serve your interests: Romney or Obama. There is a lot of money and effort being spent this election cycle on candidates that really have no chance of being elected that would be better spent on beating Obama. Obama has enough advantages going into this race that any conservative candidate, even Romney, has little chance of winning, but with Romney there is at least some small chance.
The only debate between now and Super Tuesday will be held tomorrow. I fully expect Santorum to appeal strongly to the conservative base, distance himself from the RINO Romney and propel himself to victory next Tuesday in AZ and MI. Newt may drop out at this time or hang on until Super Tuesday but it will be apparently clear that it will be a Romney / Santorum race at which time Santorum will pull 60% of the remaining primary votes. Romney may even drop out himself after Super Tuesday.
Santorum is a polarizing presence and will energize both the conservative base as well as the opposition. It will be a close race with high voter tunrout but I predict that that the lure of taking at least 22 of the contested 33 Senate seats will energize the Republicans more and give Santorum a close but decisive victory by winning most of the battleground states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Car, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia) and taking slightly over 300 Electoral votes.
Ultimately rising gasoline prices, Trillion dollar annual deficits, and a historically high “real” unemployment rates will be Obamas downfall
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neither can Romney, so one might as well vote one’s conscience.[/quote]
I made a very brief but significant argument why Romney could possibly beat Obama:
So, I believe that he does have at least a chance. Now please explain how Santorum or Gingrich have that same chance.
Trust me when I say I would love to believe the other two candidates have an opportunity to win. However, everything that I’ve learned through the years regarding politics says Romney is the only one who has a chance.
But I’d love to hear your argument so make me a believer Sloth.
[/quote]
Don’t you often claim that most Americans are conservative? In the “Free Market” of a presidential election, if most Americans are conservative, why wouldn’t a conservative beat a liberal every time, with the strength of their superior ideas?
I suspect that conservatives know Obama will win again in another landslide. So they would rather lose with a moderate Republican candidate like Romney, than have the additional embarrassment of losing with a “real conservative”. Because if Obama steamrolled a “real conservative”, that would undercut their fantasies about what Americans really want, how conservatism is on the rise, and so on. I also suspect that’s why the primary field is so pathetically weak. Nobody on the Right wants to lose to Obama.
We saw the “he’s not a real conservative!” desperate rationalizing over Dubya’s failed presidency (but only after he left office – how convenient). I think Republicans will opt for the easy way out in the next election too, rather than face up to some difficult truths about the continuing decline of American conservatism, and the failure of conservative principles to actually solve problems that aren’t purely hypothetical.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neither can Romney, so one might as well vote one’s conscience.[/quote]
I made a very brief but significant argument why Romney could possibly beat Obama:
So, I believe that he does have at least a chance. Now please explain how Santorum or Gingrich have that same chance.
Trust me when I say I would love to believe the other two candidates have an opportunity to win. However, everything that I’ve learned through the years regarding politics says Romney is the only one who has a chance.
But I’d love to hear your argument so make me a believer Sloth.
[/quote]
Don’t you often claim that most Americans are conservative? In the “Free Market” of a presidential election, if most Americans are conservative, why wouldn’t a conservative beat a liberal every time, with the strength of their superior ideas?
I suspect that conservatives know Obama will win again in another landslide. So they would rather lose with a moderate Republican candidate like Romney, than have the additional embarrassment of losing with a “real conservative”. Because if Obama steamrolled a “real conservative”, that would undercut their fantasies about what Americans really want, how conservatism is on the rise, and so on. I also suspect that’s why the primary field is so pathetically weak. Nobody on the Right wants to lose to Obama.
We saw the “he’s not a real conservative!” desperate rationalizing over Dubya’s failed presidency (but only after he left office – how convenient). I think Republicans will opt for the easy way out in the next election too, rather than face up to some difficult truths about the continuing decline of American conservatism, and the failure of conservative principles to actually solve problems that aren’t purely hypothetical.[/quote]
In recent polls most describe themselves as leaning center right. I wouldn’t call that conservative, but it is center right, not center left. The key point to walk away with is the word “center” and that’s why when someone is labelled as a “Conservative” or a “liberal” he stands a far worse chance of winning the Presidency. In 1988 George Bush (41) ran dozens of ads labelling his opponent Michael Dukakis as “liberal” it worked well. Bush won by almost 8pts and took all but 8 states.
As to those not running to whom are you referring? Chris Christie perhaps? As he said himself he is too fat to run. He needs to work on some health issues first. Jeb Bush? Can anyone named Bush win the Presidency after the press did a tap dance on GW’s head for the last four years of his Presidency? (note that when gas prices were running high during Bush’s term it was his fault. Currently with gas prices ramping up to record levels for this time of year the MSLM has yet to blame saint Obama). Who else do you think is avoiding Obama? Marco Rubio? He’s young and has not been around long enough to launch a nation wide campaign. But he is looking good for the VP slot with Romney. And if that is the case Obama might pick up a pink slip in November.
As for conservative principals not solving problems. Why don’t you take a look at all of the states that have elected mostly democrat Governors and see what kind of shape they’re in. Begin with California and New York. Whereas the states that have been ruled by mostly republican conservative Governors are in good fiscal shape.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As to those not running to whom are you referring? Chris Christie perhaps? As he said himself he is too fat to run. He needs to work on some health issues first. Jeb Bush? Can anyone named Bush win the Presidency after the press did a tap dance on GW’s head for the last four years of his Presidency? (note that when gas prices were running high during Bush’s term it was his fault. Currently with gas prices ramping up to record levels for this time of year the MSLM has yet to blame saint Obama). Who else do you think is avoiding Obama? Marco Rubio? He’s young and has not been around long enough to launch a nation wide campaign.
[/quote]
Who else is there? You tell me. The future prognosis for the GOP looks bleak to me, I don’t see anybody on the horizon except Rubio. Christie has health problems, and worked for the law firm that represented Bernie Madoff – not a good thing, in the era of bailouts and bipartisan outrage at Wall Street.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for conservative principals not solving problems. Why don’t you take a look at all of the states that have elected mostly democrat Governors and see what kind of shape they’re in. Begin with California and New York. Whereas the states that have been ruled by mostly republican conservative Governors are in good fiscal shape.[/quote]
Lets see, George Pataki in NY and Ahhhnold in California, they really accomplished a lot, LOL. What was your point again? That Republican governors are getting things done? Rick Scott in Florida, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, John Kasich in Ohio, Paul LePage in Maine, Rick Snyder in Michigan, are all remarkably unpopular. Some of these are swing states, and these unpopular Republican governors will help Obama win in November. Meanwhile, New York democratic governor Mario Cuomo is the most popular governor in America. So whatever point you’re trying to make is pretty flimsy.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As to those not running to whom are you referring? Chris Christie perhaps? As he said himself he is too fat to run. He needs to work on some health issues first. Jeb Bush? Can anyone named Bush win the Presidency after the press did a tap dance on GW’s head for the last four years of his Presidency? (note that when gas prices were running high during Bush’s term it was his fault. Currently with gas prices ramping up to record levels for this time of year the MSLM has yet to blame saint Obama). Who else do you think is avoiding Obama? Marco Rubio? He’s young and has not been around long enough to launch a nation wide campaign.
Who else is there? You tell me. The future prognosis for the GOP looks bleak to me, I don’t see anybody on the horizon except Rubio. Christie has health problems, and worked for the law firm that represented Bernie Madoff – not a good thing, in the era of bailouts and bipartisan outrage at Wall Street.[/quote]
Looking past Obama is a mistake. There are a number of young republican Governors, one of which might just be the next Ronald Reagan. For now as a republican I have to deal with the fact that we have a charismatic democrat in the White House who is a weak leader but still gets his ass kissed by the main stream liberal media on a daily basis. And he will be reelected unless there is a perfect storm. That storm is Romney/Rubio and near perfect campaign in the midst of a failing economy. If any one of those is missing we have Obama for another four years. And I assure you that if that is the case the economy will get much worse than it is now. Enough said on that?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for conservative principals not solving problems. Why don’t you take a look at all of the states that have elected mostly democrat Governors and see what kind of shape they’re in. Begin with California and New York. Whereas the states that have been ruled by mostly republican conservative Governors are in good fiscal shape.
Lets see, George Pataki in NY and Ahhhnold in California, they really accomplished a lot, LOL.
What was your point again? [/quote]
You just proved my point. Pataki was (is) a liberal as was Arnold. And before they took office we had decades of democrats leading both states.
Your straying off course. My point was that republican leadership in these states through the years has produces fiscal responsibility via balanced budgets and lower taxes–That is a fact!
[quote]Meanwhile, New York democratic governor Mario Cuomo is the most popular governor in America. So whatever point you’re trying to make is pretty flimsy.
[/quote]
Cuomo just enacted a “millionaire’s tax” which when it hits will devastate the NY economy. But that is what democrats do, they raise taxes on people who promote the economy. They then give that money to people who did not earn it and do not deserve it which makes them dependent on the government. Thus hurting both the people they take the money from and the people that they give it to.
But they continue to get reelected in many places by the very people that they spoon feed money to. As of today almost 50% of the population do not pay any federal income tax! That means that Obama has a built in constituency. But it also means that the US in deep trouble economically since we now have half the people pulling the wagon and the other half riding in the wagon. And at the same time a movement of the lazy and pampered called Occupy Wall street is screaming for even more freebies. While the top 1% of the income earners currently pay about 35% of all taxes! Where is the fairness? It certainly is NOT directed toward the wealthy as they are overtaxed and at the same time attacked by the left wing lunatics. How long can this continue? Obama should hang his head he is a true disgrace as President!
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
CS[/quote]
Actually I did mention that statistic in my post above.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
CS[/quote]
Actually I did mention that statistic in my post above. [/quote]
People who don’t pay federal income tax didn’t earn enough money to qualify for taxation. They are considered too poor to pay federal income tax. However, they do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes and sales tax (so conservatives – please stop saying they “don’t pay anything in taxes” because they most certainly do pay taxes). You should be more concerned with multimillionaires like Mitt Romney who only paid 15% in taxes last year, and highly profitable corporations like Exxon and G.E. who used loopholes to pay 0% federal taxes last year, in fact some of these corporation actually received additional federal payments in tax rebates.
There’s the Republican platform in a nutshell: The poorest people in America need to pay more in taxes, while the richest people in America should pay less.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
CS[/quote]
Actually I did mention that statistic in my post above. [/quote]
People who don’t pay federal income tax didn’t earn enough money to qualify for taxation. They are considered too poor to pay federal income tax. However, they do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes and sales tax (so conservatives – please stop saying they “don’t pay anything in taxes” because they most certainly do pay taxes). You should be more concerned with multimillionaires like Mitt Romney who only paid 15% in taxes last year, and highly profitable corporations like Exxon and G.E. who used loopholes to pay 0% federal taxes last year, in fact some of these corporation actually received additional federal payments in tax rebates.
There’s the Republican platform in a nutshell: The poorest people in America need to pay more in taxes, while the richest people in America should pay less.
[/quote]
Romney will pay $3.2 million in federal income taxes for his 2011 tax return while a family of 4 making $100k with a mortgage will pay about $7000 in federal income taxes. WHO pays more taxes???
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
CS[/quote]
Actually I did mention that statistic in my post above. [/quote]
People who don’t pay federal income tax didn’t earn enough money to qualify for taxation. They are considered too poor to pay federal income tax. However, they do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes and sales tax (so conservatives – please stop saying they “don’t pay anything in taxes” because they most certainly do pay taxes). You should be more concerned with multimillionaires like Mitt Romney who only paid 15% in taxes last year, and highly profitable corporations like Exxon and G.E. who used loopholes to pay 0% federal taxes last year, in fact some of these corporation actually received additional federal payments in tax rebates.
There’s the Republican platform in a nutshell: The poorest people in America need to pay more in taxes, while the richest people in America should pay less.
[/quote]
Let’s begin with Romney:
Romney paid the full shot on his taxes at the very top rate! Didn’t know that did you buster? When his money was originally earned he was taxed at the top rate. And now that he’s being double taxed, like every other American who has an investment. And that second rate is called a “capital gains tax” which is lower than what he originally paid but nonetheless another tax.
As for people paying taxes based on a payroll tax you are correct. However, if they are not making enough to pay income tax the paltry sum that is taken out of their meager wages does not amount to enough to call it them giving an honest contribution. Maybe a couple of grand a year at best, maybe less.
And finally as to the rest of your nonsense, the top 1% income earners in America pay almost 37% of all income taxes paid! The top 10% richest people in America pay over 70% of all taxes paid. Now just exactly how much do you want them to pay? Taking over half their income between state and federal tax is not quite enough for you?
Pull your head out of your liberal ass and stop gulping down the crap that Obama is spoon feeding you! He’s tryig to win reelection with class warfare and it’s people like you the spell bound lock step leftists no minds that gobble that shit up!
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
ZEB, not to mention almost 50% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. It’s not fair when someone makes more money than most, but when half of America doesn’t pay anything, that is? It’s a backwards economy we’re in right now.
CS[/quote]
Actually I did mention that statistic in my post above. [/quote]
People who don’t pay federal income tax didn’t earn enough money to qualify for taxation. They are considered too poor to pay federal income tax. However, they do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes and sales tax (so conservatives – please stop saying they “don’t pay anything in taxes” because they most certainly do pay taxes). You should be more concerned with multimillionaires like Mitt Romney who only paid 15% in taxes last year, and highly profitable corporations like Exxon and G.E. who used loopholes to pay 0% federal taxes last year, in fact some of these corporation actually received additional federal payments in tax rebates.
There’s the Republican platform in a nutshell: The poorest people in America need to pay more in taxes, while the richest people in America should pay less.
[/quote]
Romney will pay $3.2 million in federal income taxes for his 2011 tax return while a family of 4 making $100k with a mortgage will pay about $7000 in federal income taxes. WHO pays more taxes???
[/quote]
Very true and not only that as I pointed out to the liberal genius in my previous post, Romney already paid the top rate when he first earned the money. Now he’s paying taxes a second time on his investments.
The liberal masses have been fed crap by Obama and the Main stream liberal media and most are either too dumb or lazy to investigate it themselves.
Romney’s total tax rate was 15%, that’s for everything, not just the tax rate on his investments. Total tax rate.
The reason that the wealthy pay the largest percentage of our tax revenue is because (wait for it… ) they also have the largest percentage of money, assets, income etc. We have a progressive system of taxation, so the more money you have, generally, the more taxes you pay. The vast majority of Americans find this to be the fairest way to tax people.
You have to make less than 15,000 per year to be exempt from Federal income taxes (or be able to make the appropriate level of legitimate deductions, if you make more than 15K). It’s absolutely hilarious and appalling when conservatives complain that millionaires and billionaires pay too much, while people below the poverty line pay too little. It’s really weird, I always hear Republicans saying that Americans are taxed too much… but they’re only specifically complaining about taxes on the very wealthy, and not taxes on the working poor.
Q: Who will stand up and defend America’s persecuted millionaires and billionaires?
The reason people have to pay taxes on investments is because investments generate additional new revenue.
It’s sad that I would have to type that out
Speaking of taxes, Romney has been hiding some of his money in Swiss bank accounts. While that may be perfectly legal, I don’t think that information will impress the average American voter who pays the full tax rate. Romney will have an uphill climb in November as a Wall Street fat cat, given the current economic climate.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Romney’s total tax rate was 15%, that’s for everything, not just the tax rate on his investments. Total tax rate.[/quote]
You are a true blue liberal knuckle head. The only money that he made was from INVESTMENTS in the recent tax year (eye roll). Hence, he paid a capital gains tax of 15%. However, as I said earlier the money that he earned in business was taxed at the maximum rate.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. However, that does not make it fair does it? And moreover why are all the liberal pea brains running around the country claiming the rich are not paying their fair share when the top 1% pay about 36%? …Oh wait I forgot it’s the class warfare thing…Right they have to get reelected and the only way they can is to cause the middle class and poor to resent the wealthy. What a kind strategy.
Not at all appalling and in fact the TRUTH!
Every American should pay something. And why is it again that the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of all taxes? Oh yeah it’s called a progressive tax system. But it just isn’t quite enough for knot headed liberals is it?
Do you realize that if the country broke off into two pieces red states and blue states that the blue states could not survive alone? Your entire take on government is ass backwards! The lower class feeds off those who are productive. And worse than that the government tells them that they deserve free money! NOW THAT IS APPALLING! But then again it’s the only way that democrats get elected, create a permanent under class that is beholding to you. You guys make me sick to my stomach!!
What about the Bush tax cuts? Are you walking around in a liberal fog thinking that they were only for the rich? Yeah…you are until you goggle it in a couple of minutes and find that it was a straight 5% tax cut for every American that pays taxes. Just the wealthy> Noooooo every American. Honestly, go read a book or something you posting on political issues makes no sense.
[quote]Q: Who will stand up and defend America’s persecuted millionaires and billionaires?
A: Republicans will do it!!![/quote]
They’ve lowered taxes on every working American. But as a liberal I know that you will NEVER EVER allow the truth to stand in the way of your demagoguery. Your leaders must all get in a room together and start saying nonsense until one of them says “yeah that sounds like it will stick.”
Divide and conquer class warfare will get Obama reelected! Hope and change has been turned in for lies and more lies.
