PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Romney has slight edge over Obama



BAMAPHIN 22
05-15-2012, 09:31 AM
Read report: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama/?tag=pop;stories

Tetragrammaton
05-15-2012, 01:51 PM
The last week has seen a big Romney swing nationally, but it is trickling in more slowly in state-by-state results.

Dolphins9954
05-15-2012, 04:48 PM
New poll shows what's really in the lead........



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/Corporatism-1.jpg

jared81
05-15-2012, 06:09 PM
Big f'in deal. Next week Obama's team will come out with a new strategy to scare women and minorities and the polls will change. The week after the Romney campaign will call Obama a socialist and we will be all tied up again.

GoonBoss
05-15-2012, 08:41 PM
I'd have a slight edge over Obama.

The white guilt vote is going back the other way now that guilt is washed, and Obama
will not have a second term.

The right will get behind Romney, because there's nobody else. The left will fragment, and
that's that.

Tetragrammaton
05-15-2012, 09:01 PM
The white guilt vote is going back the other way now that guilt is washed, and Obama will not have a second term.

Obama's race cost him between three and five percentage points in 2008.

Locke
05-15-2012, 09:04 PM
I'd have a slight edge over Obama.

The white guilt vote is going back the other way now that guilt is washed, and Obama
will not have a second term.

The right will get behind Romney, because there's nobody else. The left will fragment, and
that's that.

The right will have it's base, as it always does, as will the left. I don't see how the left will fragment; that's just as likely as the right fragmenting. The question is the Independents. Right now, I'd be feeling pretty rosy if I were Obama. We have a long time to go before the election though, so a lot can happen...

Tetragrammaton
05-15-2012, 09:37 PM
Some of this can be attributed to the Republicans coalescing around Romney after Santorum and Gingrich dropped out. Santorum and Gingrich backers that my firm polled often said they would vote third party if it came to Romney vs. Obama. Of course, this happens often in heated primaries; Clinton supporters threatened to either not vote or vote for McCain, but they all come around eventually.

Dolphins9954
05-15-2012, 10:12 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/military_industrial_complex_2012_bumper_-1.jpg

Dolphins9954
05-15-2012, 10:23 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/voting-1.png

rob19
05-15-2012, 10:27 PM
I'm writing in Ron Paul

Dolphins9954
05-16-2012, 09:08 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/thetruthdemocratsrepublicanstwopartysyst-1.jpg

jared81
05-16-2012, 09:17 AM
The right will have it's base, as it always does, as will the left. I don't see how the left will fragment; that's just as likely as the right fragmenting. The question is the Independents. Right now, I'd be feeling pretty rosy if I were Obama. We have a long time to go before the election though, so a lot can happen...

just asking, but why should Obama be excited about the polls? He is down in the polls with the economy only expected to get worse in the next few months. Also, the conventional wisdom would assume that the undecided vote would go to the challenger, since they aren't convinced of Obama's handling of the issues after 3 years.

Vaark
05-16-2012, 09:45 AM
As typical of our flawed political system where money, pandering and special interests conspire to eliminate the best, most qualified challengers along the way, and any serious challenges to the incumbents, no matter how little they instill confidence, we're stuck with selecting between 2 options - neither of which, in a wider selection universe, would likely be even the 5th tier choice on either side of the aisle!

Given that, these initial polls have much more to do with Obama dissatisfaction than confidence in Romney. Between creative painting of his religious beliefs, trail of corporate bloodletting profiteering at the expense of US jobs, swiss bank accounts, scorched earth philosophy at Bain, extreme, and seemingly bi-polar flip flopping to pander for votes depending on the nature of the constituency, by the time the head-2-head campaign is in full swing the confidence level in him effectively will be more damaged than a Quinceañera backyard party piñata.

These early polls are meaningless. It'll be on and may the least worst choice win!!

Spesh
05-16-2012, 12:28 PM
As typical of our flawed political system where money, pandering and special interests conspire to eliminate the best, most qualified challengers along the way, and any serious challenges to the incumbents, no matter how little they instill confidence, we're stuck with selecting between 2 options - neither of which, in a wider selection universe, would likely be even the 5th tier choice on either side of the aisle!

Given that, these initial polls have much more to do with Obama dissatisfaction than confidence in Romney. Between creative painting of his religious beliefs, trail of corporate bloodletting profiteering at the expense of US jobs, swiss bank accounts, scorched earth philosophy at Bain, extreme, and seemingly bi-polar flip flopping to pander for votes depending on the nature of the constituency, by the time the head-2-head campaign is in full swing the confidence level in him effectively will be more damaged than a Quinceañera backyard party piñata.

These early polls are meaningless.It'll be on and may the least worst choice win!!

If thats not a tattoo voters should get on their forehead, i dont know what is.

Locke
05-16-2012, 03:18 PM
just asking, but why should Obama be excited about the polls? He is down in the polls with the economy only expected to get worse in the next few months. Also, the conventional wisdom would assume that the undecided vote would go to the challenger, since they aren't convinced of Obama's handling of the issues after 3 years.

Zest made a post a few weeks ago that ran down the electoral map. Go back a few pages and you'll find it. I found it to be a pretty accurate assessment of where we stand as of right now. These polls can be misleading, and are subject to significant change depending on what events are fresh in memory. They are interesting, but difficult to trust this far from election time. And before our resident partisans come in trying to be all "LOLZ PARTIZAN HACKZZZZZ", I've maintained that position about all polls showing Obama in the lead as well...

jared81
05-16-2012, 03:33 PM
Zest made a post a few weeks ago that ran down the electoral map. Go back a few pages and you'll find it. I found it to be a pretty accurate assessment of where we stand as of right now. These polls can be misleading, and are subject to significant change depending on what events are fresh in memory. They are interesting, but difficult to trust this far from election time. And before our resident partisans come in trying to be all "LOLZ PARTIZAN HACKZZZZZ", I've maintained that position about all polls showing Obama in the lead as well...


ok. i dont think either canidate should be happy with where they stand right now. people dont trust obama and my daughter has stuffed animals in which i connect better with than romney. the biggest states in play are, OH, Fl, NV, NC, VA, IA, WI, PA, NH, just off the top of my head. if romney can win FL, OH, NV, IA and NC that i think will win him the election. that is a big if, just as big as obama hoping the economy is in a good enough state to have independents vote for him. either way, i dont think anyone can accurately predict what will happen, its so fluid and both canidates are pieces of ****.

Locke
05-16-2012, 03:50 PM
ok. i dont think either canidate should be happy with where they stand right now. people dont trust obama and my daughter has stuffed animals in which i connect better with than romney. the biggest states in play are, OH, Fl, NV, NC, VA, IA, WI, PA, NH, just off the top of my head. if romney can win FL, OH, NV, IA and NC that i think will win him the election. that is a big if, just as big as obama hoping the economy is in a good enough state to have independents vote for him. either way, i dont think anyone can accurately predict what will happen, its so fluid and both canidates are pieces of ****.


I can agree with this post...

Dogbone34
05-16-2012, 04:04 PM
Given the mainstreams love affair with the incumbent, he should have a 10 point lead

Independents are starting to tune him out. His message sucks.

Locke
05-16-2012, 04:32 PM
Given the mainstreams love affair with the incumbent, he should have a 10 point lead

Independents are starting to tune him out. His message sucks.

What makes you say that? If Independents were tuning him out, Romney would be wiping the floor with him in the polls...

ROADRUNNER
05-16-2012, 05:17 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/americaforbarackobamabuntingbutton2012-1.png

LANGER72
05-16-2012, 08:00 PM
All of the deserved negativity about the deficit, blatant last minute pandering, wasteful spending and corruption surrounding the Obama administration is starting to sink in with middle America.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 08:29 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/americaforbarackobamabuntingbutton2012-1.png

**** that.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 08:34 PM
zest made a post a few weeks ago that ran down the electoral map. Go back a few pages and you'll find it. I found it to be a pretty accurate assessment of where we stand as of right now. These polls can be misleading, and are subject to significant change depending on what events are fresh in memory. They are interesting, but difficult to trust this far from election time. And before our resident partisans come in trying to be all "lolz partizan hackzzzzz", i've maintained that position about all polls showing obama in the lead as well...

lolz partizan hackzzzzz

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------


What makes you say that? If Independents were tuning him out, Romney would be wiping the floor with him in the polls...

I think they're tuning him out too. I think there's only one guy who excites them and he's "unelectable".

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 08:53 PM
I'm writing in Ron Paul

This is Texas. We don't matter one **** when it comes to who is running the country because we
are last in the primaries.

We also are a lock red state (btw..."red" state always bothered me. The Dems are farther left, by their own admission. Why do we have to be "red"? That pisses me off.)
So, I could vote for Godzilla and it wouldn't matter.

I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords.

Tetragrammaton
05-16-2012, 09:01 PM
I think they're tuning him out too. I think there's only one guy who excites them and he's "unelectable".

Are we starting this again? The Ron Paul acolytes tried to trick everyone into thinking he was a viable candidate when the primaries were in their infancy. No one likes him or his politics.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 09:02 PM
This is Texas. We don't matter one **** when it comes to who is running the country because we
are last in the primaries.

We also are a lock red state (btw..."red" state always bothered me. The Dems are farther left, by their own admission. Why do we have to be "red"? That pisses me off.)
So, I could vote for Godzilla and it wouldn't matter.

I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords.

I've always wondered the same thing. Although, to be fair, there's little to no difference between the two parties anymore.

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 09:07 PM
I've always wondered the same thing. Although, to be fair, there's little to no difference between the two parties anymore.

Less so when you get to Texas, even. Some Democrats are better Texans than the opposition, and will stick to the core issues they understand they need to stick to.

Chet Edwards is one of the best examples.

He's a Democrat, but he held to his constituant's wishes.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 09:08 PM
Are we starting this again? The Ron Paul acolytes tried to trick everyone into thinking he was a viable candidate when the primaries were in their infancy. No one likes him or his politics.

The average Republican primary voter doesn't. Of course, the average Republican primary voter is typically only interested in someone who can beat the Democrat, not really what their positions are. I've spoken to many people who like him and his politics the best out of all of the candidates but don't think he can win. Basically, no one wants to be caught voting for the loser.

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 09:10 PM
Are we starting this again? The Ron Paul acolytes tried to trick everyone into thinking he was a viable candidate when the primaries were in their infancy. No one likes him or his politics.

Ron Paul is enjoying his cult.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------


The average Republican primary voter doesn't. Of course, the average Republican primary voter is typically only interested in someone who can beat the Democrat, not really what their positions are. I've spoken to many people who like him and his politics the best out of all of the candidates but don't think he can win. Basically, no one wants to be caught voting for the loser.

Ron Paul is not going to beat Obama.

He could barely beat himself.

It's not that nobody wants to be caught voting for the loser...It's that nobody wants the mild
shift one way or the other that takes place with a power shift in DC

Tetragrammaton
05-16-2012, 09:22 PM
The average Republican primary voter doesn't. Of course, the average Republican primary voter is typically only interested in someone who can beat the Democrat, not really what their positions are. I've spoken to many people who like him and his politics the best out of all of the candidates but don't think he can win. Basically, no one wants to be caught voting for the loser.

And in the open primaries, where turnout is low and Independent Ron Paul fans could flock to the polls, how did he do?

Ron Paul has a big Internet following (why him and not any other libertarians over the years, I don't know), but that is it. He doesn't have the state party structure or donor funding and never will.

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 09:25 PM
And in the open primaries, where turnout is low and Independent Ron Paul fans could flock to the polls, how did he do?

Ron Paul has a big Internet following (why him and not any other libertarians over the years, I don't know), but that is it. He doesn't have the state party structure or donor funding and never will.

He says stuff that we feel. He's alright on lots of issues that involve freedom and choice. What he got my wife on? Home schooling. She's a big proponent of it. I like the idea of it, but, meh, whatever. I like lots of what he says, but, he's also for chopping down the military.....Which I'm sure is someone elses orgasm...And that's why I can't vote for him.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 09:31 PM
Ron Paul is enjoying his cult.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------



Ron Paul is not going to beat Obama.

He could barely beat himself.

It's not that nobody wants to be caught voting for the loser...It's that nobody wants the mild
shift one way or the other that takes place with a power shift in DC

That's true, but I was more referring to the fact that in politics, as with most everything else, perception is reality. When the media constantly tells you someone is unelectable, it sticks in people's minds. That's how these things operate. Stuff gets pounded into your head repeatedly to the point that you end up believing it and not even realizing it. It's kind of like when the recession started. The media started telling everyone that we were in a recession. After hearing that we were in a recession enough times, people stopped spending money and , lo and behold, we were in a recession. The reason Romney has the "best chance" of beating Obama is due to the fact that they are the same candidate. The powers that be like this because nothing changes and it gives Americans the illusion that they're exercising their free choice. Of course, the media has a vested interest in this as well. Anyone who challenges the status quo naturally has to be portrayed as unelectable.

In terms of the average voter, I think it really is that simple. No one wants to vote for the loser so they vote for the person they think has the best shot of winning instead of voting their conscience. Of course, this is definitely influenced by the media, but it definitely boils down to this. I used to do a lot of campaigning for Republican candidates and this is something I constantly ran into.

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 09:41 PM
That's true, but I was more referring to the fact that in politics, as with most everything else, perception is reality. When the media constantly tells you someone is unelectable, it sticks in people's minds. That's how these things operate. Stuff gets pounded into your head repeatedly to the point that you end up believing it and not even realizing it. It's kind of like when the recession started. The media started telling everyone that we were in a recession. After hearing that we were in a recession enough times, people stopped spending money and , lo and behold, we were in a recession. The reason Romney has the "best chance" of beating Obama is due to the fact that they are the same candidate. The powers that be like this because nothing changes and it gives Americans the illusion that they're exercising their free choice. Of course, the media has a vested interest in this as well. Anyone who challenges the status quo naturally has to be portrayed as unelectable.

In terms of the average voter, I think it really is that simple. No one wants to vote for the loser so they vote for the person they think has the best shot of winning instead of voting their conscience. Of course, this is definitely influenced by the media, but it definitely boils down to this. I used to do a lot of campaigning for Republican candidates and this is something I constantly ran into.

Fair enough...But I think Romney can beat Obama now. I hang out on very right wing boards, and nobody, nobody likes it, but the focus is on
getting Obama out. If it has to be a guy that we don't like vs a guy that we hate? Well..so be it.

Dolphins9954
05-16-2012, 09:49 PM
Fair enough...But I think Romney can beat Obama now. I hang out on very right wing boards, and nobody, nobody likes it, but the focus is on
getting Obama out. If it has to be a guy that we don't like vs a guy that we hate? Well..so be it.

That's how we got Obama to begin with.

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 09:52 PM
That's how we got Obama to begin with.
Indeed.

Now were in the same position.

The candidate choices do seem to be swirling the bowl as we go over the last two decades or so, though,
I admit.

Valandui
05-16-2012, 09:52 PM
Fair enough...But I think Romney can beat Obama now. I hang out on very right wing boards, and nobody, nobody likes it, but the focus is on
getting Obama out. If it has to be a guy that we don't like vs a guy that we hate? Well..so be it.

To be honest, I think the Mormon thing is going to bite him in the ass in the general election. Whether or not it's fair, I don't know that America will vote in a Mormon president. It wouldn't surprise me if someone (probably not officially tied to the Obama campaign) tried to use the Mormon Church's past to paint Romney as a racist.

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to make any negative assertions against the LDS church. I am only discussing possible electoral strategy and political science.

Dogbone34
05-16-2012, 09:59 PM
if you can't pass a budget, ever, what's the point

in the real world, you would have no choice but to let him go

GoonBoss
05-16-2012, 10:00 PM
To be honest, I think the Mormon thing is going to bite him in the ass in the general election. Whether or not it's fair, I don't know that America will vote in a Mormon president. It wouldn't surprise me if someone (probably not officially tied to the Obama campaign) tried to use the Mormon Church's past to paint Romney as a racist.

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to make any negative assertions against the LDS church. I am only discussing possible electoral strategy and political science.
That's going to be tops on the hate machine from the left, when they feel it will do the most damage.

rob19
05-17-2012, 09:27 AM
I don't know how anyone can vote for this soulless robot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ9g7_6sdlE

Romeny is bought and paid for by wallstreet just as much as Obama is. He doesn't have your best interest in mind. The only 2 candidates in the race in my opinion that had a soul were Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson out of New Mexico.

Goon, you said you didn't like Ron Paul because he wants to cut back on the Army and end the Wars, well do you know who does like him? The actual Army! In fact, Ron Paul's top 3 campaign contributors were The Army, Airforce, & Navy in that order. U.S Dept. of Defense was 5th. Do you know who Romney's top 5 campaign contributors are? Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, & Credit Suisse Group. Obama and Romney are no different, Wallstreet hedged their bets and propped up both these guy's, so no matter who wins, they do.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 09:32 AM
That's going to be tops on the hate machine from the left, when they feel it will do the most damage.


The thing about Romney is that he has been under public scrutiny now for many years with campaigns in 2008 and now 2012. He is pretty clean. All the liberal PAC's negative sound bites and propaganda have been a real turnoff recently. The comment about Romney's wife, and now the childhood prank report.. I think the voters that might have had a problem with his religion have became more accepting. I think Romney's momentum will continue.

Vaark
05-17-2012, 09:35 AM
That's going to be tops on the hate machine from the left, when they feel it will do the most damage.

It'll be from independent concerned citizen groups - at least allegedly, just like the Obama being a terrorist sympathizer, socialist, closeted Moslem and the unrelenting Birther movement were introduced from the right.

But watch the hypocritical butt hurt "do as I say, not as I do" side immediately begin crying "foul". As someone who has little emotional or vested interest in either of these untalented steel cage wrestlers, I got my popcorn ready for the fur to fly. Gotta admit, I'm loving when the hypocrites get smacked back in their faces as if they they weren't above using the most scurrilous smears themselves.

What's the over/under date on the grandpa's polygamist and the magic underwear belief cards being played?

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 09:37 AM
I don't know how anyone can vote for this soulless robot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ9g7_6sdlE

Romeny is bought and paid for by wallstreet just as much as Obama is. He doesn't have your best interest in mind. The only 2 candidates in the race in my opinion that had a soul were Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson out of New Mexico.

Goon, you said you didn't like Ron Paul because he wants to cut back on the Army and end the Wars, well do you know who does like him? The actual Army! In fact, Ron Paul's top 3 campaign contributors were The Army, Airforce, & Navy in that order. U.S Dept. of Defense was 5th. Do you know who Romney's top 5 campaign contributors are? Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, & Credit Suisse Group. Obama and Romney are no different, Wallstreet hedged their bets and propped up both these guy's, so no matter who wins, they do.


The only way the country will get turned around is when the president starts acting on behalf of the voters and citizens of the USA.
Sure, the business and corporations are important, but main street is more important. Once that happens, the decline of this country will reverse IMHO.

rob19
05-17-2012, 09:38 AM
The only way the country will get turned around is when the president starts acting on behalf of the voters and citizens of the USA.
Sure, the business and corporations are important, but main street is more important. Once that happens, the decline of this country will reverse IMHO.

I agree, but that ain't Romney or Obama

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 09:42 AM
It'll be from independent concerned citizen groups - at least allegedly, just like the Obama being a terrorist sympathizer, socialist, closeted Moslem and the unrelenting Birther movement were introduced from the right.

But watch the hypocritical butt hurt "do as I say, not as I do" side immediately begin crying "foul". As someone who has little emotional or vested interest in either of these untalented steel cage wrestlers, I got my popcorn ready for the fur to fly. Gotta admit, I'm loving when the hypocrites get smacked back in their faces as if they they weren't above using the most scurrilous smears themselves.

What's the over/under date on the grandpa's polygamist and the magic underwear belief cards being played?

The media is starting to turn on Obama a little bit. It will be fun watching the libs taste their own smegma.

Vaark
05-17-2012, 09:49 AM
The media is starting to turn on Obama a little bit. It will be fun watching the libs taste their own smegma.

That's only because it's too early/unofficial to begin systematically destroying the Romney pinata. I guarantee you by the time election day rolls around, no one aside from the extreme ideologues are gonna be happy about whom they vote for.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 10:47 AM
I don't know how anyone can vote for this soulless robot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ9g7_6sdlE

Romeny is bought and paid for by wallstreet just as much as Obama is. He doesn't have your best interest in mind. The only 2 candidates in the race in my opinion that had a soul were Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson out of New Mexico.

Goon, you said you didn't like Ron Paul because he wants to cut back on the Army and end the Wars, well do you know who does like him? The actual Army! In fact, Ron Paul's top 3 campaign contributors were The Army, Airforce, & Navy in that order. U.S Dept. of Defense was 5th. Do you know who Romney's top 5 campaign contributors are? Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, & Credit Suisse Group. Obama and Romney are no different, Wallstreet hedged their bets and propped up both these guy's, so no matter who wins, they do.
I don't think that's true.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 10:53 AM
I agree, but that ain't Romney or Obama


Unfortunately for us, those are the choices. The country is so divided, and screwed up every way possible, that we are living in a house of cards. No one man can do it by himself. If Romney wins, the people will have to get on board. It is going to be a tough sell to the butt hurt liberals.

Vaark
05-17-2012, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately for us, those are the choices. The country is so divided, and screwed up every way possible, that we are living in a house of cards. No one man can do it by himself. If Romney wins, the people will have to get on board. It is going to be a tough sell to the butt hurt liberals.

Don't know why you think that will happen, especially after the equally fractured and economically devastated country finally ridding themselves of the Cheney Cabal sure didn't make any efforts to come together, and that includes congress. :idk:

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 11:03 AM
That's only because it's too early/unofficial to begin systematically destroying the Romney pinata. I guarantee you by the time election day rolls around, no one aside from the extreme ideologues are gonna be happy about whom they vote for.



What are they going to destroy him(Romney) with?

I think the media love affair with Obama is over. His record in office, associations, political decisions and positions will be put on trial in the court of public perception.

I agree that no one will be passionate or happy about either candidate, but there will be some relief if Romney wins and that the Obama administration is over.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 11:31 AM
Don't know why you think that will happen, especially after the equally fractured and economically devastated country finally ridding themselves of the Cheney Cabal sure didn't make any efforts to come together, and that includes congress. :idk:

I don't know if it will happen or not. Probably not. No one knows. Obama did not make it a priority, he had other plans. The liberal democratic party had a liberal agenda to push through, and he had to deal with the economic downturn..not exactly a recipe to pull both sides together.
I guess my point was that we, as a nation, have to accept the reality that we are in a rebuilding phase economically. We have some nation building to do right here. The president will have to go before the people, lay out his plans, and explain the course of action. Exhibiting leadership.
Unfortunately, for the nation to get back on it's feet, it will take substantial cost cutting and increased taxes. Both of those notions will not go over very well, especially with the track record of government waste, entitlements, and scandal. Cost cutting in expensive military stealth programs, foreign aid, and to a lesser degree social programs. The economy is in too bad of shape to beat down the poor, retired, and unemployed. Faith the government will have to be restored. That is the biggest task...ridding the people of all the thieves..double dippers (collecting retirement benefits while still working for the government), business as usual corruption and conflict of interest at every level of government. It will have to very systematic. That alone could take all four years.

Vaark
05-17-2012, 11:36 AM
What are they going to destroy him(Romney) with?

I think the media love affair with Obama is over. His record in office, associations, political decisions and positions will be put on trial in the court of public perception.

I agree that no one will be passionate or happy about either candidate, but there will be some relief if Romney wins and that the Obama administration is over.

Lots: from some of the more questionable, untraditional and past bigoted fundamental beliefs of his religion that might paint him as the boogyman, to the perception that his philosophical convictions are paper-thin and have a history of blowing with the prevailing ideological winds to which he's pandering, his take no prisoners approach blood letting history of acquiring companies to flip for profit by breaking down and firing rather than building up. That's for starters, aside from the perception that he's unlikeable, smarmy and comes off as condescending and patronizing. And I'm just presenting an off the cuff pedestrian perspective, not one that will be researched and spun to death.

Now I'm not saying Obama is any better, but to think that Romney doesn't also have a bunch of fatal flaws including questions of sincerity and trustworthiness would be inaccurate.

rob19
05-17-2012, 11:39 AM
I don't know if it will happen or not. Probably not. No one knows. Obama did not make it a priority, he had other plans. The liberal democratic party had a liberal agenda to push through, and he had to deal with the economic downturn..not exactly a recipe to pull both sides together.
I guess my point was that we, as a nation, have to accept the reality that we are in a rebuilding phase economically. We have some nation building to do right here. The president will have to go before the people, lay out his plans, and explain the course of action. Exhibiting leadership.
Unfortunately, for the nation to get back on it's feet, it will take substantial cost cutting and increased taxes. Both of those notions will not go over very well, especially with the track record of government waste, entitlements, and scandal. Cost cutting in expensive military stealth programs, foreign aid, and to a lesser degree social programs. The economy is in too bad of shape to beat down the poor, retired, and unemployed. Faith the government will have to be restored. That is the biggest task...ridding the people of all the thieves..double dippers (collecting retirement benefits while still working for the government), business as usual corruption and conflict of interest at every level of government. It will have to very systematic. That alone could take all four years.

You make a lot of very salient points, but I don't see Romney as the guy to do it. You talk about raising taxes, well for who does he mean? I've read that he plans on extending the Bush Tax cuts.

Assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, the Romney plan would give the top 1% of earners an average tax cut of $150,000, a 7.8% reduction in their average federal tax rate, according to the Tax Policy Center.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 11:56 AM
You make a lot of very salient points, but I don't see Romney as the guy to do it. You talk about raising taxes, well for who does he mean? I've read that he plans on extending the Bush Tax cuts.

I think the rationale is that the economy can be stimulated by the investors and wealthy once they feel a little bit more secure the money they will be investing going forward. IMHO, there are billions of dollars just sitting on the sidelines.
Cutting regulations and red tape will get the economy started...improving confidence and increasing positive speculation. Eventually, once there is some signs of sustained growth in a robust economy, the taxes will be increased, and possibly restructuring the IRS to begin addressing the deficits.
I am no expert, just an example of how I can see it turning around.

rob19
05-17-2012, 12:13 PM
I think the rationale is that the economy can be stimulated by the investors and wealthy once they feel a little bit more secure the money they will be investing going forward. IMHO, there are billions of dollars just sitting on the sidelines.
Cutting regulations and red tape will get the economy started...improving confidence and increasing positive speculation. Eventually, once there is some signs of sustained growth in a robust economy, the taxes will be increased, and possibly restructuring the IRS to begin addressing the deficits.
I am no expert, just an example of how I can see it turning around.

I don't buy that Reaganomics mess.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 12:31 PM
I don't buy that Reaganomics mess.

Were you alive when Regan was President?

rob19
05-17-2012, 12:57 PM
Were you alive when Regan was President?

Is that a requirement for understanding the concept?

I don't buy that an extra 150k in tax breaks for the 1%ers is going to make them any more willing to do anything other than continuing to accrue a disproportionate amount of the wealth.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 12:58 PM
Is that a requirement for understanding the concept?

I don't buy that an extra 150k in tax breaks for the 1%ers is going to make them any more willing to do anything other than continuing to accruing a disproportionate amount of the wealth.
I was just asking a question sonny jim. Calm down.

Were you, or were you not?

rob19
05-17-2012, 01:00 PM
I was just asking a question sonny jim. Calm down.

Were you, or were you not?

I was born in 1991, so no.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 01:04 PM
I was born in 1991, so no.

Fair enough.

You didn't have to be under Carter either. You understand statistics that have been told to you. You were not actually there.

I don't really understand anything Reganomics did, other than build the country.

And give Americans the faith in the country again. Not all Americans. Some people
aren't really down with America, but live here because they have a better life here....

.... Because they have a better life here......

I wonder why that is.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 01:28 PM
Unfortunately for us, those are the choices. The country is so divided, and screwed up every way possible, that we are living in a house of cards. No one man can do it by himself. If Romney wins, the people will have to get on board. It is going to be a tough sell to the butt hurt liberals.
That's exactly my point. They weren't the only two choices, but no one wants to get caught voting for the loser.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 01:32 PM
That's exactly my point. They weren't the only two choices, but no one wants to get caught voting for the loser.


It'll be from independent concerned citizen groups - at least allegedly, just like the Obama being a terrorist sympathizer, socialist, closeted Moslem and the unrelenting Birther movement were introduced from the right.

But watch the hypocritical butt hurt "do as I say, not as I do" side immediately begin crying "foul". As someone who has little emotional or vested interest in either of these untalented steel cage wrestlers, I got my popcorn ready for the fur to fly. Gotta admit, I'm loving when the hypocrites get smacked back in their faces as if they they weren't above using the most scurrilous smears themselves.

What's the over/under date on the grandpa's polygamist and the magic underwear belief cards being played?

I'm not 100% on it, but I don't think his family was Mormon. I think he converted. It seems like I read something once about his father not being too happy about it as well. I could definitely be wrong on this, though.

Vaark
05-17-2012, 01:37 PM
I'm not 100% on it, but I don't think his family was Mormon. I think he converted. It seems like I read something once about his father not being too happy about it as well. I could definitely be wrong on this, though.

Actually his grandfather was a polygamist and his father was Detroit capitalist George Romney (yes Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, like the Bushes) who made an abortive run for the presidency many years back.. with the taint of Mormonism hanging over his head back then in that unenlightened era.

rob19
05-17-2012, 01:48 PM
Fair enough.

You didn't have to be under Carter either. You understand statistics that have been told to you. You were not actually there.

I don't really understand anything Reganomics did, other than build the country.

And give Americans the faith in the country again. Not all Americans. Some people
aren't really down with America, but live here because they have a better life here....

.... Because they have a better life here......

I wonder why that is.

There might have been some other peripheral factors that contributed to that, it doesn't all necessarily have to do with Raegan. These however are different times with different circumstances. For example CEO's used to make 19X the amount of their average employee, today's CEO gets paid on average 431X more than their average employee salary. There's a vast disparity betwixt the 1% and the 99% and it continues to grow, throwing the Stephen Ross's of the world an extra 150k isn't going to make them any more or less likely to invest in industry. All you're doing is appeasing the elite while you lean even harder on the rest of the people. I consider myself Patriotic, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize as I see fit.

Btw, no hard feelings to any of my pofo brethren, you're all interesting cats to debate with.

Dolphins9954
05-17-2012, 01:58 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/obamaprefersgw-1.jpg (http://s302.photobucket.com/albums/nn109/morning40oz/?action=view&current=obamaprefersgw.jpg)

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 02:06 PM
There might have been some other peripheral factors that contributed to that, it doesn't all necessarily have to do with Raegan. These however are different times with different circumstances. For example CEO's used to make 19X the amount of their average employee, today's CEO gets paid on average 431X more than their average employee salary. There's a vast disparity betwixt the 1% and the 99% and it continues to grow, throwing the Stephen Ross's of the world an extra 150k isn't going to make them any more or less likely to invest in industry. All you're doing is appeasing the elite while you lean even harder on the rest of the people. I consider myself Patriotic, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize as I see fit.

Btw, no hard feelings to any of my pofo brethren, you're all interesting cats to debate with.

I don't think you consider yourself Patriotic. I think you're using that as a cloak, actually. Not that it's good or
bad, that just struck a nerve, so, I'm going to say that.

Here's a quick way to stop the disparity, if there is any;

-Repeal all gasoline taxes. That would put large ammount of money in all the pockets
of Americans.

Rich people dont' hurt my feelings. I wish I could be rich, and that's what I'm working on.

If they make money, I don't see the need for government to tax it.

In terms you might understand......You have lots of weed. Other stoners come over to your
pad and smoke up all your weed on the basis of "Fairness". It's not fair you have more weed than them.
SO, They take your weed (You are not asked to pass it..Rather, just, give up your weed that you paid for)
and smoke it.

That's not right.

rob19
05-17-2012, 02:26 PM
I don't think you consider yourself Patriotic. I think you're using that as a cloak, actually. Not that it's good or
bad, that just struck a nerve, so, I'm going to say that.

Here's a quick way to stop the disparity, if there is any;

-Repeal all gasoline taxes. That would put large ammount of money in all the pockets
of Americans.

Rich people dont' hurt my feelings. I wish I could be rich, and that's what I'm working on.

If they make money, I don't see the need for government to tax it.

In terms you might understand......You have lots of weed. Other stoners come over to your
pad and smoke up all your weed on the basis of "Fairness". It's not fair you have more weed than them.
SO, They take your weed (You are not asked to pass it..Rather, just, give up your weed that you paid for)
and smoke it.

That's not right.

I'm definitely patriotic, but that doesn't mean I can't notice or point out all the bull**** laws, archaic policies, corrupt officials, obvious injustices, unjustified wars, and so forth and so on. Unquestioning faith in the powers that be doesn't necessarily equate to Patriotism.

Second, please don't patronize me, that's an awful example & premise. Mitt Romney paid 15% in federal taxes last year.

The average effective rate for federal taxes these days is around 20%, about five points higher than Mitt’s. Basically, he’s paying what a middle class family—average income, around $65K, pays in federal taxes.

Tell me how that's fair.

ROADRUNNER
05-17-2012, 02:41 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/obamanaturalborn-1.jpg

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 02:58 PM
I don't buy that Reaganomics mess.


So what is the alternative? Just take the money from the 1% and give it to the other 99%?
I do not buy that socialist mess either. If I feel charitable, I give to charity. The government has no right to grow itself into a monster and expect me or anyone else to feed it.
I read an article today complaining about a local municipality police dept. and police union complaining about negotiations. One point was made about if they reached a certain threshold, "free" state money would kick in. "Free" I thought to myself? This is what is wrong with our country. The Unions and city play the state, the state plays the Feds, the Feds play the state, the state plays the cities. Bottom line is that someone is paying with their taxes.
People have to be willing to invest their money. Whether they inherited it, or made it themselves.
By the way, the Clinton years, when everything was clicking, was in part because of the Reagan years.
When Reagan took office, the economy was scorched earth. Carter was not entirely to blame, but he had the wrong solutions.
Reagan deserves some credit.
We have came full cycle.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 03:09 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/obamanaturalborn-1.jpg

**Natural Born Citizen**

He had the right idea to give the orders. He should be commended for that action. He definitely has taken the credit.

The rest of his presidency has been an epic disaster.

I don't hate him, but he has turned out to be a lousy president IMHO.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 03:13 PM
I'm definitely patriotic, but that doesn't mean I can't notice or point out all the bull**** laws, archaic policies, corrupt officials, obvious injustices, unjustified wars, and so forth and so on. Unquestioning faith in the powers that be doesn't necessarily equate to Patriotism.

Second, please don't patronize me, that's an awful example & premise. Mitt Romney paid 15% in federal taxes last year.


Tell me how that's fair.

You should not be blaming him, you should be critical if the tax code. He is paying exactly what he should be paying. He is not cheating..right? Why should he pay more...just to please some who hate his politics or religion?
The only way to have true equality in taxation is with a fair consumption tax. No other taxes. That way everyone pays the same percentage.

ROADRUNNER
05-17-2012, 03:15 PM
**Natural Born Citizen**

He had the right idea to give the orders. He should be commended for that action. He definitely has taken the credit.

The rest of his presidency has been an epic disaster.

I don't hate him, but he has turned out to be a lousy president IMHO.

Let's see what he does with the next 4yr's...............:lol:

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 03:21 PM
I'm definitely patriotic, but that doesn't mean I can't notice or point out all the bull**** laws, archaic policies, corrupt officials, obvious injustices, unjustified wars, and so forth and so on. Unquestioning faith in the powers that be doesn't necessarily equate to Patriotism.

Second, please don't patronize me, that's an awful example & premise. Mitt Romney paid 15% in federal taxes last year.


Tell me how that's fair.

Who told you life is, or should be fair?

rob19
05-17-2012, 03:27 PM
Who told you life is, or should be fair?

You're okay with paying a higher percentage of you're earnings to the Govt. than the 1%? That doesn't seem like something a sensible man like you would be okay with.


You should not be blaming him, you should be critical if the tax code. He is paying exactly what he should be paying. He is not cheating..right? Why should he pay more...just to please some who hate his politics or religion?
The only way to have true equality in taxation is with a fair consumption tax. No other taxes. That way everyone pays the same percentage.

I'm not 'blaming' him, I'm using him as an example to point out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal taxes than the rest of us. Which apparently all of you think is groovy.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 03:46 PM
Actually his grandfather was a polygamist and his father was Detroit capitalist George Romney (yes Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, like the Bushes) who made an abortive run for the presidency many years back.. with the taint of Mormonism hanging over his head back then in that unenlightened era.


Thanks. I wasn't really sure on that, although I was aware of his family's political history.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 04:06 PM
You're okay with paying a higher percentage of you're earnings to the Govt. than the 1%? That doesn't seem like something a sensible man like you would be okay with.



I'm not 'blaming' him, I'm using him as an example to point out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal taxes than the rest of us. Which apparently all of you think is groovy.

Life isn't fair.

I'm surprised nobody has apprised you of the situation.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 05:13 PM
You're okay with paying a higher percentage of you're earnings to the Govt. than the 1%? That doesn't seem like something a sensible man like you would be okay with.



I'm not 'blaming' him, I'm using him as an example to point out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal taxes than the rest of us. Which apparently all of you think is groovy.
Problem is that the real 1% doesn't pay taxes unless they're running for office. Most of these tax increases are aimed at the upper middle class.

rob19
05-17-2012, 05:30 PM
Problem is that the real 1% doesn't pay taxes unless they're running for office. Most of these tax increases are aimed at the upper middle class.

I don't get how everyone is just okay with that and is willing to perpetuate a flawed system.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 06:45 PM
I don't get how everyone is just okay with that and is willing to perpetuate a flawed system.

Because there is nothing but a flawed system.

We don't live in gumdrop land.

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 06:49 PM
The tax system is broken and bloated. The IRS should be eliminated and replaced with a fair consumption tax. The poor and rich will pay the same %.
No more issues.

rob19
05-18-2012, 01:49 PM
I don't think that's true.

Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/RonPaulmilitarycampaigncontributions-1.jpg
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/RepFieldpiechart1sm-1.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/militarydonationscandidate500px-1.png
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/03/militarydonationsbranch500px-1.png
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/militarydonations2011q31-1.jpg
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/191011fecdata-1.jpg
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/2012_military_presidential_donations2-1.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/262lac5-1.jpg

Eshlemon
05-18-2012, 03:16 PM
There might have been some other peripheral factors that contributed to that, it doesn't all necessarily have to do with Raegan. These however are different times with different circumstances. For example CEO's used to make 19X the amount of their average employee, today's CEO gets paid on average 431X more than their average employee salary. There's a vast disparity betwixt the 1% and the 99% and it continues to grow, throwing the Stephen Ross's of the world an extra 150k isn't going to make them any more or less likely to invest in industry. All you're doing is appeasing the elite while you lean even harder on the rest of the people. I consider myself Patriotic, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize as I see fit.

Btw, no hard feelings to any of my pofo brethren, you're all interesting cats to debate with.

True the explosion in CEO pay had nothing to do with Reagan and people should be blaming Clinton and 90's globilization and now Obama if its now reached 431x...

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/CEO_pay_v_average_slub-1.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png

Edit: maybe its only on my screen...but only half the graph above shows so here's a better one
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/20111109snapshotpngw608-1.jpg