Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[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]

I can’t disagree with this.

As a staunch conservative with a strong libertarian bias this is why Romney doesn’t get my vote. Maybe in the next four years he will undo his liberal/moderate past and thus cause me to vote for him in '16. We’ll see.

My bet is he drifts back to what his political record shows himself to be. I would be flabbergasted to discover him actually delivering smaller, fundamentally constitutional government. My bet is he mirrors GW Bush and GHW Bush but stays just a bit to the left of them.

We’ll get more Patriot Act/No Child Left Behind/Medicare Part D - ism, essentially the federalism of the past 80 years.

I’ll still be tickled to see him send Bam off to build his presidential library (with Bam touting his failed socialist agenda as “great achievements”).[/quote]

Push, I doubt it he needs the support of conservatives in 2016. They will not stand behind him again unless he governs center right.

662

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Now you’ve got it right. And by the way lately you’re “I’m a open minded fair liberal” is wearing pretty damn thin."

Finish it…“because he’s running against my hero Obama!”

As soon as you went off the deep end with the Silver nonsense over and over and over again. And questioned why I would ever listen to such foolish polls from established pollsters I sort of realized where you were coming from.

Not in the least try again. Even if he was a limp wristed skirt wearing coward, which he’s not, I’d vote for him over the socialist and chief. Obama is absolutely the second worst modern day President behind the worst democrat disaster LBJ and slightly ahead of the 3rd worst Jimmy Carter.

By the way why don’t you go tell the father of the Navy seal who died and the family of the Libyan Ambassador who was raped murdered and dragged through the streets how weak you think Romney is. I bet they have another view of who the weak one is!

No one is sure if Obama screwed up the Libyan debacle because he was naive, a coward or just plain inexperienced in calling the shots. But either way his foreign policy skills are no better than his economic ones.

In short your hero SUCKS!

Okay, as long as you head on back to the democrat primaries of 08’ and see what Hillary Clinton said about Obama. No wait I’ll paraphrase it for you:

Obama is too inexperienced to become President…

And what do you know?

SHE WAS RIGHT!

663

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.[/quote]

Vet the candidates? You mean like the press is supposed to do but forgot to do it with Obama? That sort of “Vet”?

664

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.[/quote]

Vet the candidates? You mean like the press is supposed to do but forgot to do it with Obama? That sort of “Vet”?[/quote]

Vetting Obama is racist.

665

[quote]smh23 wrote:
He’s also a pandering, limp-wristed coward.

[/quote]

Obama no longer disguised the prejudices, inflections, outlook, and approach of the progressive movement. A confessed reader of Andrew Sullivanâ??s hysterical web site, the president has taken on the maximalist characteristics of the liberal blogosphere. He is scornful and contemptuous of Romney, as could be seen in his patronizing lecture on aircraft carriers and submarines during the third debate. His campaign seizes on the most trivial commentsâ??â??I like Big Birdâ??; â??Binders full of womenâ??â??to engage in juvenile jibes that would not make the first cut at the Late Show writersâ?? meeting. His rallies have become self-congratulatory comedy hours in which the assembled Democrats laugh heartily at the insults and zingers the president throws Romneyâ??s way. Obama has been on a seemingly nonstop tour of television shows hosted by late-night comics. His new attack line that the Republican nominee has â??Romnesiaâ?? was, as the vice president might say, literally taken from liberal blogs. The vice president even asked his audience at a recent rally whether it had watched The Daily Show the night before. The men who hold the highest offices in the most powerful country in the history of the world have been debased to the point where they look like fill-in guests on Up with Chris Hayes.

lol. Nothing says powerful and respect like The Daily Show and “romnesia”

Jesus

666

Russell Crowe tweet: “Obama is the light & the future. Keep going towards the light.”

Have you ever heard anything so sickening your life? Yes Obama is the way, the truth and the light.

“America needs to continue the Global awareness that Obama has set.”

What global awareness? What is it with these clowns?

667

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What global awareness? [/quote]

That the POTUS will leave his own out to die. You’d better bring 150 for 3 SEALS, but their won’t be air support if your a sensitive Muslim.

Nothing says backbone and bravery like blaming the murder of 4 American’s on a youtube video that had been up for months.

668

[quote]pushharder wrote:

As a staunch conservative with a strong libertarian bias this is why Romney doesn’t get my vote. Maybe in the next four years he will undo his liberal/moderate past and thus cause me to vote for him in '16. We’ll see.

.[/quote]

Here is the thing. As a fairly young convert from the other side. The republican party needs a serious, and I mean serious fucking once over.

These people have allowed people that feel the way you do to be labeled as “extremist” when, particularly fiscally, a vast majority of people would without question agree with you.

Not only does the republican party need some lessons in branding, but they could use some patience and a little long game.

We have to bring center back to the actual center before we can even begin to think about getting someone elected that governs center-right. What is center today would be liberal democrat when I was a kid…

669

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Russell Crowe tweet: “Obama is the light & the future. Keep going towards the light.”

Have you ever heard anything so sickening your life? Yes Obama is the way, the truth and the light.

“America needs to continue the Global awareness that Obama has set.”

What global awareness? What is it with these clowns?[/quote]

From what I’m reading he wasn’t too “aware” regarding the Libya situation, or was he?

670

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

As a staunch conservative with a strong libertarian bias this is why Romney doesn’t get my vote. Maybe in the next four years he will undo his liberal/moderate past and thus cause me to vote for him in '16. We’ll see.

.[/quote]

Here is the thing. As a fairly young convert from the other side. The republican party needs a serious, and I mean serious fucking once over.

These people have allowed people that feel the way you do to be labeled as “extremist” when, particularly fiscally, a vast majority of people would without question agree with you.

Not only does the republican party need some lessons in branding, but they could use some patience and a little long game.

We have to bring center back to the actual center before we can even begin to think about getting someone elected that governs center-right. What is center today would be liberal democrat when I was a kid…

[/quote]

I have always disliked Lee Atwater and he deserves blame for the the vitriol and garbage the Republican party spews at times. Even though George H. Bush Sr. won the first election a war hero like him with good fiscal policies and a good CV should have never been forced to ally himself with Atwater.

What happened to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Romney, Bush Sr. and Eisenhower?

The Republican party is not about no government policies it is about keeping the effective ones that work. It is about the value of free markets and market efficiency. It is about national security. It is about pragmastism. Its about the constitution and fiscal responsibility.

The Republican party really pissed me off when they played the cat and mouse game over the debt ceiling. The Tea Party removed perfectly qualified Republicans because they weren’t uber right wing and were not pushing for the abolishment of government.

671

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

The Republican party really pissed me off when they played the cat and mouse game over the debt ceiling. The Tea Party removed perfectly qualified Republicans because they weren’t uber right wing and were not pushing for the abolishment of government.[/quote]

So, your contention is that the debt ceiling issues were the sole fault of republicans and the Tea Party in-particular?

672

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

The Republican party really pissed me off when they played the cat and mouse game over the debt ceiling. The Tea Party removed perfectly qualified Republicans because they weren’t uber right wing and were not pushing for the abolishment of government.[/quote]

So, your contention is that the debt ceiling issues were the sole fault of republicans and the Tea Party in-particular?

[/quote]

No I do not but I do give a fair share to them. The president did not do enough to meet halfway. But the Tea Party pushed the Republicans to a place were consensus was not an option at all. Any compromising with Obama and the Democrats was seen as Republicans turning their back on the Republican party. You can disagree with Obama but hating him gets the country nowhere and it makes governing damn near impossible so everyone loses (this works with both parties) because of stalwarts that lead situations such as the debt ceiling.

673

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

The Republican party really pissed me off when they played the cat and mouse game over the debt ceiling. The Tea Party removed perfectly qualified Republicans because they weren’t uber right wing and were not pushing for the abolishment of government.[/quote]

So, your contention is that the debt ceiling issues were the sole fault of republicans and the Tea Party in-particular?

[/quote]

No I do not but I do give a fair share to them. The president did not do enough to meet halfway. But the Tea Party pushed the Republicans to a place were consensus was not an option at all. Any compromising with Obama and the Democrats was seen as Republicans turning their back on the Republican party. You can disagree with Obama but hating him gets the country nowhere and it makes governing damn near impossible so everyone loses (this works with both parties) because of stalwarts that lead situations such as the debt ceiling.[/quote]

So… When there is trillion dollar deficits, no budget, and the only serious attention in Washington was paid to 1) a health care bill we can’t afford and 2) a stimulus we can’t afford, didn’t work, and was money shoveled to campaign contributors, you want the republicans to do all the ‘giving in’?

You’re mad at a group of people looking out for your best interests, awesome.

This is the branding issues I spoke about. A republican could cure cancer and the left, the media and lap dog citizens would all agree they were bastards for putting oncologists out of work.

674

[quote]smh23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

You have your basis for your opinion, and that is fine, of course, but there remains a disconnect (generally) on this charge that Romney has no real position and is spineless and Obama (see positions on gay marriage, executive signing statements, terror protocols, the individual mandate, etc.).

In addition, Romney has been the executive of a populous state, a private company and the Olympics - quite a few people seem to think his leadership qualities are not as dismal as you suggest. Should he win, time will tell exactly what kinds of a leader he will be, but I’d view it this way: in the next 4 to 8 years, there will have to be large, bi-partisan legislation to address enormous problems. The chance of Obama leading the charge on that is zero. The chance of Romney leading the charge on that is somewhere north of zero. From a leadership perspective, that is a no-brainer.

675

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

No I do not but I do give a fair share to them. The president did not do enough to meet halfway. But the Tea Party pushed the Republicans to a place were consensus was not an option at all. Any compromising with Obama and the Democrats was seen as Republicans turning their back on the Republican party. You can disagree with Obama but hating him gets the country nowhere and it makes governing damn near impossible so everyone loses (this works with both parties) because of stalwarts that lead situations such as the debt ceiling.[/quote]

Actually, the deal could have gotten done with Tea Party support had Obama not suddenly decided to ask for an additional 50% of revenue (from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion). The reason Obama did this, of course, was because the Senate’s Gang of Six came out with their own plan and the Republican Senators had agreed to $1.2 trillion in revenues as part of that plan.

Obama - for purely political reasons - couldn’t stand the idea that he would have to accept $800 billion when someone else independent of him had gotten to $1.2 trillion…in other words, he would have gotten “out-progressive’d” on the Grand Bargain, and so he blew up the deal.

$800 billion in revenue would have gotten done. But Obama was thinking of himself and decided that that compromise wasn’t good enough.

676

Does anyone ever think the US will have a 3rd party in the near future? Is it realistic?

677

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Does anyone ever think the US will have a 3rd party in the near future? Is it realistic?[/quote]

I began this thread to ask other members who they thought would win the Presidential election and why.

If you want to talk about third parties I suggest that you begin your own thread with such a title.

678

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

No I do not but I do give a fair share to them. The president did not do enough to meet halfway. But the Tea Party pushed the Republicans to a place were consensus was not an option at all. Any compromising with Obama and the Democrats was seen as Republicans turning their back on the Republican party. You can disagree with Obama but hating him gets the country nowhere and it makes governing damn near impossible so everyone loses (this works with both parties) because of stalwarts that lead situations such as the debt ceiling.[/quote]

Actually, the deal could have gotten done with Tea Party support had Obama not suddenly decided to ask for an additional 50% of revenue (from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion). The reason Obama did this, of course, was because the Senate’s Gang of Six came out with their own plan and the Republican Senators had agreed to $1.2 trillion in revenues as part of that plan.

Obama - for purely political reasons - couldn’t stand the idea that he would have to accept $800 billion when someone else independent of him had gotten to $1.2 trillion…in other words, he would have gotten “out-progressive’d” on the Grand Bargain, and so he blew up the deal.

$800 billion in revenue would have gotten done. But Obama was thinking of himself and decided that that compromise wasn’t good enough.[/quote]

Do you have a link for this? I could use the fodder for when my liberal friends continue to talk about an obstructionist congress.

679

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

Do you have a link for this? I could use the fodder for when my liberal friends continue to talk about an obstructionist congress.[/quote]

The Washington Post ran a big, detailed story outlining this:

It’s not that recalcitrant Tea Partiers weren’t part of the problem - they were - but the ultimate problem was Obama’s ego: he couldn’t stand the thought that the Gang of Six would trump him in the historical Grand Bargain scenario on the debt, especially with respect to a bargain that included higher revenues than his deal with Boehner.

Obama could have let the Gang of Six try and lead the way out with their bigger, bolder deal, and maybe it would have worked, and maybe it wouldn’t have. But Obama - insecure about the fact that bolder work was getting done by someone else - decided to bigfoot the situation because he couldn’t let someone else get the deal done in bolder strokes.

Also, read Woodward’s new(ish) book, which dives into this as well.

EDIT: cited to WP.

680

Karl Rove is not spending $5.9 million to psyche out a Team Obama buried in their own internal polls or a CorruptMedia that will protect Obama by burying this news like the corrupt Politico just did. Moreover, this is not a move made by a super PAC (that does its own polling) worried that we need a massive push in a state like Ohio.

I know I link Breitbart a lot, but I am in love with their layout, and I like the way they write as a whole. Very much including the fact they are quick reads and very often sourced if I want to go further.

But anyway, you guys buying the above? I mean I get that you don’t ever, ever end a campaign with cash in the bank, but 6 million on a bluff, 6 million to give the appearance of winning?

Wisconsin, sure. But is he buying in PA & MI to keep the presidents men in those states while Romney is in Ohio?