Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

Not really related to the Presidential Election, but California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown makes racially charged statement, stating that those who donate to anti-tax campaigns are members of the KKK…

Gov. Jerry Brown appeared to make a racially charged reference to the Ku Klux Klan during a speech to the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People on Friday, comparing the secretive Arizona nonprofit trying to defeat his tax-hike measure to people ?who liked to run around in hoods.?

According to the Sacramento Bee, Brown used part of his speech to criticize the Arizona group, which has pumped $11 million into California campaigns while refusing to disclose its donors.

?I don’t know where these people are from, because they’re hiding, they’re wearing masks," Brown said. “Remember the people who liked to run around in hoods because they didn’t want people to see who the hell they are?”

642

A vandal keys “Obama” on the cars of Romney supporters, one of which is an Iraq war veteran…

643

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What interest me is how close the Polls will be to the actual outcomes.

Mufasa[/quote]

I am now just as interested in this as I am in who is actually going to win.

644

Off topic, but I am really curious as to how a guy like Romney actually got elected to be governor of Mass.?

645

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Off topic, but I am really curious as to how a guy like Romney actually got elected to be governor of Mass.?[/quote]

Don’t get the question. How does anyone get elected?

646

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Off topic, but I am really curious as to how a guy like Romney actually got elected to be governor of Mass.?[/quote]

He is a contortionist and at the time he was MUCH more liberal. He spent basically the entire primary season trying to undo the damage he’d done to himself in Mass.

Anyway, Mass voters are willing to give moderate Republicans–and that’s what he was–a fair shot.

647

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Off topic, but I am really curious as to how a guy like Romney actually got elected to be governor of Mass.?[/quote]

He is a contortionist and at the time he was MUCH more liberal. He spent basically the entire primary season trying to undo the damage he’d done to himself in Mass.

Anyway, Mass voters are willing to give moderate Republicans–and that’s what he was–a fair shot.[/quote]

Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :slight_smile:

648

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :-)[/quote]

I can get behind that statement. Strict adherence to party platforms gets us (society) nowhere.

james

649

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :-)[/quote]

I can get behind that statement. Strict adherence to party platforms gets us (society) nowhere.

james
[/quote]

There’s a balance. Ability to compromise (Romney scored high on this one as Governor) but also at least some backbone to speak of (in my humble opinion, Romney has none).

650

Sure, you can’t bend on everything and especially if you think it’s immoral. But as of late people have become more and more entrenched instead of being open to coming to a mutually acceptable solution.

james

651

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :-)[/quote]

I can get behind that statement. Strict adherence to party platforms gets us (society) nowhere.

james
[/quote]

There’s a balance. Ability to compromise (Romney scored high on this one as Governor) but also at least some backbone to speak of (in my humble opinion, Romney has none).[/quote]

And Obama’s rigid backbone indicated by his lack of ability to compromise with Congressional republicans made him look like the novice that he is.

Just compare Obama of 2010-2012 to Bill Clinton 1994-1996.

Romney is more like Clinton in terms of compromise. He’d rather get something done than sit there and say my way or the highway like Obama.

Where did that get him? Right now he could be cruising to an easy win if he’d only had reached across the isle. Instead he’s fighting for his political life. Sure he may win but what does that really mean as long as the republicans keep the House there will be gridlock until he leaves office.

654

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :-)[/quote]

I can get behind that statement. Strict adherence to party platforms gets us (society) nowhere.

james
[/quote]

There’s a balance. Ability to compromise (Romney scored high on this one as Governor) but also at least some backbone to speak of (in my humble opinion, Romney has none).[/quote]

And Obama’s rigid backbone indicated by his lack of ability to compromise with Congressional republicans made him look like the novice that he is.

Just compare Obama of 2010-2012 to Bill Clinton 1994-1996.

Romney is more like Clinton in terms of compromise. He’d rather get something done than sit there and say my way or the highway like Obama.

Where did that get him? Right now he could be cruising to an easy win if he’d only had reached across the isle. Instead he’s fighting for his political life. Sure he may win but what does that really mean as long as the republicans keep the House there will be gridlock until he leaves office.[/quote]

Well, I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying, but it doesn’t change my view of Romney as an exceptionally gifted spineless contortionist in a profession overrun with spineless contortionists. You may see a great compromiser (though I’d argue that your distaste for Obama has distorted your view of the Republican candidate), I see laughable weakness.

I still don’t think he’ll be a terrible president. In fact he might be just what this country needs. But he is truly a coward in my view, and I’ll never respect him, not even in the jaded way I begrudgingly respect the best politicians.

655

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I still don’t think he’ll be a terrible president. In fact he might be just what this country needs. But he is truly a coward in my view, and I’ll never respect him, not even in the jaded way I begrudgingly respect the best politicians.[/quote]

I respect your opinion on this, but I can’t possibly fathom how - under your standard of opportunism, spinelessness, etc. - an Obama would have gotten your vote, but Romney be damned for it.

For example, I can’t think of anything Romney has done that tops the cynical opportunism of Obama’s stance on gay marriage (for it in the 1990s, but then against it for a number of elections, and now he is for it when he needs his base to turn out and vote). That’s just one example.

Nearly all national candidates throw some red meat in a primary, but veer back to center in the national election. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

656

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I still don’t think he’ll be a terrible president. In fact he might be just what this country needs. But he is truly a coward in my view, and I’ll never respect him, not even in the jaded way I begrudgingly respect the best politicians.[/quote]

I respect your opinion on this, but I can’t possibly fathom how - under your standard of opportunism, spinelessness, etc. - an Obama would have gotten your vote, but Romney be damned for it.

For example, I can’t think of anything Romney has done that tops the cynical opportunism of Obama’s stance on gay marriage (for it in the 1990s, but then against it for a number of elections, and now he is for it when he needs his base to turn out and vote). That’s just one example.

Nearly all national candidates throw some red meat in a primary, but veer back to center in the national election. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.[/quote]

Obama’s maneuvering on gay marriage has been shameful. Blatant opportunism and cowardice. You’ll get no argument from me there.

Of course, as you’ve alluded to, all politicians do some of this kind of thing. It’s the nature of the system, the primaries, the necessity of wooing disparate interest groups. To some extent it can consequently be forgiven. Or not really forgiven, but given a bit less weight in our appraisal of a candidate.

But I do believe that Mitt Romney has done this far more egregiously and far more often than is usual (or, in my belief, acceptable). Gay marriage is one thing–and not terribly important in the grand scheme of things–but abortion and gun control are another. No one on these boards believes that Mitt Romney really wanted abortion to be legal back then and now really wants it to be illegal. That kind of transformation doesn’t happen unless to the human equivalent of an opportunistic infection. You’re talking about a serious issue here–life is on the line–and he’s going to play politics?

Furthermore, there is a shift in demeanor and overall tone/theme that is less quantifiable but just as irksome to me. I believe in strong leaders, and Mitt Romney simply isn’t going to be one. I don’t really think anyone on these boards, even his biggest and most vocal supporter, disagrees with that in his heart.

Again, this isn’t an endorsement of Obama. I’m interested to see if Romney really can spur some growth. But as I said, I can’t respect him.

657

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Makes sense. As a moderate, I find that encouraging to be honest. The “he will say anything to get elected” charges are amusing to me when they are levied against politicians. Personally, I want the guy who makes adjustments to get things done. It’s politics -I expect political promises to be kept at about the same percentage as the “'til death do us part” thing. Cynical, but I’m old, or is that wise… :-)[/quote]

I can get behind that statement. Strict adherence to party platforms gets us (society) nowhere.

james
[/quote]

There’s a balance. Ability to compromise (Romney scored high on this one as Governor) but also at least some backbone to speak of (in my humble opinion, Romney has none).[/quote]

And Obama’s rigid backbone indicated by his lack of ability to compromise with Congressional republicans made him look like the novice that he is.

Just compare Obama of 2010-2012 to Bill Clinton 1994-1996.

Romney is more like Clinton in terms of compromise. He’d rather get something done than sit there and say my way or the highway like Obama.

Where did that get him? Right now he could be cruising to an easy win if he’d only had reached across the isle. Instead he’s fighting for his political life. Sure he may win but what does that really mean as long as the republicans keep the House there will be gridlock until he leaves office.[/quote]

Well, I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying, but it doesn’t change my view of Romney as an exceptionally gifted spineless contortionist in a profession overrun with spineless contortionists. You may see a great compromiser (though I’d argue that your distaste for Obama has distorted your view of the Republican candidate), I see laughable weakness.

I still don’t think he’ll be a terrible president. In fact he might be just what this country needs. But he is truly a coward in my view, and I’ll never respect him, not even in the jaded way I begrudgingly respect the best politicians.[/quote]

Ha ha you don’t like him because he could quite possibly beat Obama.

Fess up come on you’ll feel better.

There is no other reason for you to call him names.

658

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Ha ha you don’t like him because he could quite possibly beat Obama.

Fess up come on you’ll feel better.

There is no other reason for you to call him names. [/quote]

You’re usually much fairer and smarter than this, which is frankly bullshit.

You don’t think there are good reasons to dislike Romney? Not Romney vs. Obama, just Romney. You think he just exudes strength of conviction? That I would somehow be impressed by him if he weren’t standing in the way of the reelection of the Chosen One?

No. He is somewhat qualified, inarguably successful, obviously intelligent. He’s also a pandering, limp-wristed coward.

Or does that hurt your feelings?

Head on back to the primary season and look at what your fellow partisans were saying about Mitt Romney. I’d bet I could find a lot of criticism right here on this board. And I bet a lot of it would be worded a lot more strongly than this.

659

There’s no good reason to dislike Romney, Zeb? There are all from these boards, from its most reliable and sharpest conservatives posters:

“Romney is a liar. I can’t stand wathing him.”

“With Romney only getting 41% of the Republican vote so far - having to buy it with unprecedented attack ads - still unable to rally the base - record low turn outs. It is becomming increasingly clear that Romney is a bad choice for the Republican Party and they’re not buying it.”

“Yeesh, nobody [in the primaries] actually excites me.”

"Romney is going to win [the primary]. I know some of you guys dislike him so much that you are desperate to imagine a scenario where he isn’t the Republican candidate in November. But Romney has the most delegates, the most primary wins, the most votes, and the most money. Santorum doesn’t even have a national campaign office, and couldn’t get on the ballot in 2 states. Romney is also perceived to be the only candidate with a remote chance of winning against Obama.

Frankly, I am amazed that Romney will win, since Republicans spent the last 2 - 3 years campaigning on a platform of overturning Obamacare. Nominating Romney takes Obamacare off the table. Romney can explain until he’s blue in the face, all the ways that Obamacare and Romneycare are different. It won’t work."

My personal favorite:

“I think [Obama] could be caught red handed sodomizing a goat with the constitution itself and still win. No GOP candidates have that WOW factor and to win, they need it.”

Say hello to your standard-bearer Zeb. What an obviously admirable guy.

But when I say that I don’t like the guy, I must be bullshitting, right?

660

The primaries were dirty with Romney using attack ads to decimate his opponents. Some things were said in the heat of the moment that were perhaps unfortunate. That’s politics. And the purpose of primaries is to vet the candidates, not to cheerlead.