[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]
Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]
Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.[/quote]
Most actually have Obama winning. Not that polls really mean shit except for the confused, er I mean undecided voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many of the Obama voters are voting for Obama because they want the government to either give them something, or keep giving them something. I am supporting Mitt Romney because I want less from government. And I want to be able to keep more of my hard earned money.
Please take less from me federal government.[/quote]
ZEB, you know I respect you, and your posts are typically on the money.
And I’m not defending this mindset, but it seems only reasonable to me that the “haves” would want to keep what they have, and the “have nots” would like to get more any way they can.
I’m not necessarily saying that your view would be different if you were a “have not,” but your wish for “less from government” would be more persuasive if that were the case.
Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]
Here’s what I would expect,
A President who does not cater to the very base instincts of those who “do not have”. But one who would create opportunities for those less fortunate. And at the same time stop blaming those of us who have succeeded for the problems of those less fortunate. If opportunities can be created both people like me and those who are less fortunate can achieve even more. No one has to be punished everyone can win!
In other words, stop handing those who have not yet succeeded an excuse not to succeed by claiming it’s the fault of those who have succeeded. It might make good political theater but it’s a detestable way to attract votes for a President of the United States, and in fact doesn’t even make sense!
[/quote]
No disagreement whatsoever with this.
But your comments that I quoted were in reference to voters, not the POTUS. It was that that I was addressing.[/quote]
You said “the have not’s would like to get more any way they can.”
I fundamentally disagree with that. Only the lowest of low really want to hit someone over the head and take their money. And that is what you suggest by that statement. Most people understand that working hard and smart is the way to get ahead.
I spoke directly to your point in my prior post.
We have a President who fosters a belief in his followers that the reason you don’t have more is because these other folks have so much. It’s not true, and it’s not even logical. Instead of offering opportunity he offers excuses and charity. Two things that actually stand in the way of personal achievement. Instead of saying “come on you can do it” he says “you don’t have enough because we have not taken enough from those who have worked for it.”
It IS human nature to want more. It is not necessarily human nature for most of those with less to want to take it away from those who have it.
As I said he appeals to their most base instincts.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]
Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]
Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.[/quote]
Most actually have Obama winning. Not that polls really mean shit except for the confused, er I mean undecided voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
[/quote]
The link you posted doesn’t have obama winning “most” national polls. The average of them on the main poll page has them tied.
Next debate will be very interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/cia-found-militant-links-day-libya-attack-072734613--politics.html
CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Romney represents an individual out of touch with middle America because of his father’s success. He went to prep schools and good universities such as Stanford, Brigham Young, and Harvard most likely on his father’s dime. While Obama represents another part of America which is absentee father, and did not finish paying off his student loans from Harvard law until '07 or something.[/quote]
That is the narrative that the liberal media and the Obama campaign want you to believe. But is mostly untrue. In fact, an argument could be made for the reverse.
Romney represents someone who began a start up company. Do you know how difficult that is to do? Bain Capital was begun by Romney and others with money scraped together and borrowed. and of course because of Bain Capital hundreds of thousands of jobs were created. Some losers for sure but mostly winners.
SURPRISE!
You swallowed the liberal media line that his father handed him a check for millions didn’t you? His father gave him nothing! And in fact when his father died the money that he and his brothers and sisters split up was not all that much. And Mitt Romney donated his share–ALL OF IT–to his alma mater. Now who does that? Would you?
Mitt Romney is an American success story! A success in the private sector- ON HIS OWN. A successful Governor, one who saved the Olympics. And most importantly a great husband and father.
That’s just not what the media wants you to swallow. But sometimes…sadly…you have to think for yourself.
Obama on the other hand had doors opened for him because of his skin color. How did he get into Harvard do you know? Does anyone? What business dealings was he involved in that included Tony Resko? What else did he do while in Chicago…what other friends did he make?
Instead of opening your mouth and allowing people like Chris Matthews to spit in it you should do some research.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]
Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]
Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.[/quote]
Most actually have Obama winning. Not that polls really mean shit except for the confused, er I mean undecided voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
[/quote]
The link you posted doesn’t have obama winning “most” national polls. The average of them on the main poll page has them tied.[/quote]
When I posted it they didn’t todays numbers up and it was showing obama ahead on ten out 0f thirteen.
They are only showing three polls for today.
Gallup has historically been vulnerable to wild swings. It swung 26 points in a month and a half in 2000, showing at first a dubious Bush lead and then an a dubious Gore lead (no other firm came close to this kind of dramatic shift). It had Obama 11 points over McCain on the eve of the 2008 election while other firms hovered around the 7-point average (the margin on election day was about 7). When Gallup is an outlier it usually performs poorly.
But: perhaps we’re seeing Romney pull away here. Maybe the first debate was the hinge moment of this election, and now very little will come in the way of the Romney’s ineluctable rise.
Time will tell.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Gallup has historically been vulnerable to wild swings. It swung 26 points in a month and a half in 2000, showing at first a dubious Bush lead and then an a dubious Gore lead (no other firm came close to this kind of dramatic shift). It had Obama 11 points over McCain on the eve of the 2008 election while other firms hovered around the 7-point average (the margin on election day was about 7). When Gallup is an outlier it usually performs poorly.
But: perhaps we’re seeing Romney pull away here. Maybe the first debate was the hinge moment of this election, and now very little will come in the way of the Romney’s ineluctable rise.
Time will tell.[/quote]
I wouldn’t be so fast to criticize Gallup. If you compare them to other polling companies that have been around as long you’ll find…OOPS can’t compare them to others in that category as no one has been around as long! And no one has as good a track record over the past 76 years or so than Gallup.
If you want to see their record on calling Presidential elections you can take a look here:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115543.0
I think they have an incredible record and I would match their results against any of the other polling companies.
I am not at all claiming that Romney is going to run away with this election and neither is Gallup. But as a rolling average he is currently on fire!
Can Obama come back…he sure can. And anyone who thinks he cannot has not been through enough Presidential elections.
An incumbent does have an advantage. An incumbent that the press lusts after has another huge advantage. An incumbent that would say and do anything to win or start a war to win a second term also has a huge advantage.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]
Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]
Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.[/quote]
Most actually have Obama winning. Not that polls really mean shit except for the confused, er I mean undecided voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
[/quote]
The link you posted doesn’t have obama winning “most” national polls. The average of them on the main poll page has them tied.[/quote]
When I posted it they didn’t todays numbers up and it was showing obama ahead on ten out 0f thirteen.
They are only showing three polls for today.
[/quote]
Are you talking about national or state polls here?
I’m still missing what you are seeing.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/10089/one-obamas-earmark-requests-was-hospital-employs-michelle-obama
Thanks. I’ll have to look at them later after work.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]
Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]
Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.[/quote]
Most actually have Obama winning. Not that polls really mean shit except for the confused, er I mean undecided voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
[/quote]
The link you posted doesn’t have obama winning “most” national polls. The average of them on the main poll page has them tied.[/quote]
When I posted it they didn’t todays numbers up and it was showing obama ahead on ten out 0f thirteen.
They are only showing three polls for today.
[/quote]
Are you talking about national or state polls here?
I’m still missing what you are seeing.[/quote]
National though I may have been confusing it with state earlier.
Current national has Romney +1 with all polls combined.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many of the Obama voters are voting for Obama because they want the government to either give them something, or keep giving them something. I am supporting Mitt Romney because I want less from government. And I want to be able to keep more of my hard earned money.
Please take less from me federal government.[/quote]
ZEB, you know I respect you, and your posts are typically on the money.
And I’m not defending this mindset, but it seems only reasonable to me that the “haves” would want to keep what they have, and the “have nots” would like to get more any way they can.
I’m not necessarily saying that your view would be different if you were a “have not,” but your wish for “less from government” would be more persuasive if that were the case.
Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]
Here’s what I would expect,
A President who does not cater to the very base instincts of those who “do not have”. But one who would create opportunities for those less fortunate. And at the same time stop blaming those of us who have succeeded for the problems of those less fortunate. If opportunities can be created both people like me and those who are less fortunate can achieve even more. No one has to be punished everyone can win!
In other words, stop handing those who have not yet succeeded an excuse not to succeed by claiming it’s the fault of those who have succeeded. It might make good political theater but it’s a detestable way to attract votes for a President of the United States, and in fact doesn’t even make sense!
[/quote]
I thoroughly agree. The economy–and opportunity in general–is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. And that is the rough implication many people seem to believe when this class warfare nonsense gets propagated.
I thought we grew out of the idea that the economy was a zero sum game for nations and people a couple hundred years ago after mercantilism.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]
I would expect people to let go of this false notion that life is “fair”. I would also expect grown people in 2012 to come to grips with the fact life isn’t, never was and never will be easy.
I expect people to look at those with more than they do, and challenge themselves to get to that point and beyond. Not tear down others to their level to feel better about themselves.
You can accomplish anything in America. No one ever said you weren’t going to have to work for it. [/quote]
QFFT. Amen brother.
You know, I often wonder when we lost the “you can accomplish anything in America” idea. I think it left with the work ethic unfortunately.
I also thoroughly wonder where in the hell this idea that life is “fair” came from!! I know my parents hammered it into my skull that life wasn’t fair and I had to work hard. And how can we possibly forget that for…say…the last 10,000 years or so of civilization the FACT that life wasn’t fair was so abundantly ever present in daily life that nobody whined. We’ve gotten soft here in America.
This is a particularly sore subject for me and you hit the nail on the head. I want people to grow the fuck up. I’m poor. I work to try to build something that will get ahead. I don’t whine and bitch for people to hand me shit. There’s no dignity in a life of servile begging. There can still be dignity in life, rich or poor, if you put your fucking nose to the grindstone and work at something.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I also love what countingbeans said about your raise going to the IRS lol. It amazes me how many people don’t realize that.[/quote]
Yup.
Look I’ll be the first to admit the “job creators” talking point goes too far as it is generally spoken.
But the talking point is the only part of the ideal that isn’t sound. The general notion is 100% correct.
No we shouldn’t just funnel money to the top 1% of income earners, but we don’t as it is, and never, ever have. The only people that believe that are people that don’t understand the IRC, or haven’t looked at the data.
The whole notion of “fair share” and all that non-sense, and where many liberals miss the forest for the trees is the idiotic idea that the pie is only ever going to be as big as it is now. This is dumb beyond reason and shows a lack of historical knowledge. The pie can be grown.[/quote]
Fuck beans, you’re on a roll. You’re reading my mind.
ZEB:Can you honestly say with a straight face you think that Romney, coming from a successful and connected family had less of an advantage than Obama because Obama is black?
Not to derail or hijack, but an interesting story coming out here…
Democratic National Convention organizers used money from a committee financed by Bank of America and other companies to rent the venue, filings show.
WASHINGTON ? Democratic convention organizers broke their pledge to put on their quadrennial gathering in Charlotte, N.C., this year without corporate donations, using $5 million from a committee financed by companies such as Bank of America, Duke Energy and AT&T to rent the Time Warner Arena for the three-day event.
Hypocritical like a mo-fo.
@ ZEB completely uncalled for and useless point you made. I did not just adopt an opinion I referred to what the belief out there was regarding the both of them. I never said I believe Romney to be this or Obama that. Yes the media is making or portraying two people in unflattering/flattering true/untrue lights and thats what my point was. But Yes I believe George Romney taught Mitt to be his own man. Do I believe his father paid his time at prep schools, Stanford, BYU and Harvard (JD MBA) ? Yes I do as parents want the best for their children. Do I believe Obama may have been aided by affirmative action policies? Of course that is likely.
I spoke about the useless rhetoric and the emotional and irrational dialogue regarding both. You piecemealed by argument and attacked me for no reason. The truth is neither candidate is good. Romney is a win at all costs individual who believes one’s values can change (flip flop) and that market research should be used to win an election. If the voters like it then I like it mentality. Does Obama neglect that individual intitiave matters most in a market economy ? Yes.
My point was that voting is emotional at the expense of rational thought and that the rhetoric on who they potray and who they are is widely out of whack. But thanks for seeing one point taking it way out of context and miles from what I meant and belittling me for no reason. I am not a sheep but you portrayed me for one wrongly.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
ZEB:Can you honestly say with a straight face you think that Romney, coming from a successful and connected family had less of an advantage than Obama because Obama is black?[/quote]
I never said anything about that. Reread my post it’s far less about connections and far more about personal drive and intelligence regarding Romney’s success story. Plenty of people are actually born into money and end up spending what they have. Some even become derelicts because they don’t know the meaning of the word “work”. This man gave his inheritance to his alma mater got a bank loan began a start up company and made it big! Did he have some connections, sure probably but so what? Look what he did with them.
I respect the heck out of that and you should too!
Enough of this “hate on the rich guy” nonsense. It takes smarts and tenacity to do what he did. Bain is one of the best companies in the US and has created thousands of jobs. Romney is a bright guy with a whole lot of experience in business, government and running organizations as a chief executive. And he deserves a chance at being President of the United States. Obama had his opportunity.
By the way every President among the first 10 (or more) were wealthy successful people BEFORE they became President.
Why would you want anyone else to lead the nation?
We need really smart people who have succeeded in many other things as our leaders.
This country is on the wrong track my friend.
@ ZEB I respect your ability to own a small business and be successful but before you continue to keep threatening your employees with salary cuts or job cuts read this. You Can Prevent Layoffs
You may need to cut costs to stay afloat and increase prices to cover the new tax rate but you risk losing customers and killing employee morale both of which could hurt future company growth projections. Your family is courageous for starting a business but good employees are hired for a reason and no one intentionally hires incompetent people. If you cut their income then your employees have less to take home to their families and then their performance could diminish (decreased morale and poorer/work home life). I understand a business is not a charity but it is hard to replace good employees especially since there could be eager shittier ones who work for less coming up the pipeline.