DVD Talk
The 2012 Presidential Election [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The 2012 Presidential Election


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

clappj
05-11-12, 02:19 PM
Romney Is a Big, Mean Bully!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/11/paul-begala-on-romney-once-a-bully-always-a-bully.html

classicman2
05-11-12, 06:22 PM
To classicman2, I'm pretty sure it looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Highway_412_In_The_Oklahoma_Panhandle.JPG/400px-Highway_412_In_The_Oklahoma_Panhandle.JPG



Wait, wait. Please enlighten the forum on how the President is weaker on national security than Romney? Romney has done absolutely nothing on a national level. He has done absolutely nothing but run for President for 6 years.

I haven't said anthing about Romney being strong or weak on national security. Try to stick to what I said in my posts.

PopcornTreeCt
05-11-12, 07:34 PM
Romney Is a Big, Mean Bully!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/11/paul-begala-on-romney-once-a-bully-always-a-bully.html

"On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.

George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

George Bush, not a bully. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/20/opinion/oe-davis20)

Tracer Bullet
05-11-12, 07:46 PM
"On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.

George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

George Bush, not a bully. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/20/opinion/oe-davis20)

And this is relevant to the 2012 presidential election how, exactly?

PopcornTreeCt
05-11-12, 08:40 PM
Mitt Romney is worse than Bush. Duh...

Tracer Bullet
05-11-12, 11:25 PM
Mitt Romney is worse than Bush. Duh...

Okay. Thanks for contributing that?

Artman
05-11-12, 11:31 PM
Okay. Thanks for contributing that?

Hey, compared to other "contributions"? I'll take it.

wmansir
05-14-12, 05:12 PM
Ron Paul semi-suspended his campaign today. He announced he would no longer spend campaign funds in states that haven't had primaries yet, but will still be organizing to pickup delegates at state conventions.

Regarding the Romney bully story. ABC News had a headline "Romney Campaign Struggles to Get Past Bullying Issue" less than 24 hours after the original WaPo story was published.

classicman2
05-14-12, 06:43 PM
Ron Paul is becoming more & more of a pest rather than a candidate. Very few ever took him seriously. Now even less people take him seriously.

kvrdave
05-14-12, 07:49 PM
I can't believe this Romney "bully" story and how anyone pays attention. We looked past Obama (rightly) and his cocaine use because it was most definitely in his youth. How is 15 years old for Romney something that anyone gives a shit about? :lol:

Tracer Bullet
05-14-12, 07:53 PM
I can't believe this Romney "bully" story and how anyone pays attention. We looked past Obama (rightly) and his cocaine use because it was most definitely in his youth. How is 15 years old for Romney something that anyone gives a shit about? :lol:

I dunno, I care about a person committing an anti-gay assault (a violent crime) a hell of a lot more than I do a person doing drugs (a non-violent crime.)

kvrdave
05-14-12, 08:07 PM
I care about neither (given the circumstances we have heard) when it is suppose to have taken place around 50 years ago.

TheMovieman
05-14-12, 08:12 PM
I dunno, I care about a person committing an anti-gay assault (a violent crime) a hell of a lot more than I do a person doing drugs (a non-violent crime.)

With the inaccuracies that have come out of that story, and the fact that John Lauber isn't even around to confirm or deny it (he died in 2004 of liver cancer), I question the validity of the story. Is there some truth to it? I believe so, but not as it was presented.

creekdipper
05-14-12, 08:15 PM
Sort of funny when I think about how many times I've heard the staunchest Democratic voters among my colleagues say things such as how they'd vote for Hitler before they'd vote for a Republican.

It's similar to the Hannity discussion about Obama shoving a girl and shouting at her (an incident supposedly cited in one of his books) when he was a young man, along with the recent accounts from one of his past lovers who gave her account of how cold & aloof he could be (making him sound like a cad who simply used people, although she still had great affection for him).

If that would cause anybody to vote against either man, they're idiots. Who didn't do stupid, hurtful things when they were young that they'd like to take back?

No wonder we have such a sorry crop of candidates for high office. If you did a #2 in the bathtub when you were three, you can be sure somebody will drag that story out to try to denigrate your character.

creekdipper
05-14-12, 08:17 PM
With the inaccuracies that have come out of that story, and the fact that John Lauber isn't even around to confirm or deny it (he died in 2004 of liver cancer), I question the validity of the story. Is there some truth to it? I believe so, but not as it was presented.

Now I'm not so sure about Washington and the cherry tree story (nor the silver dollar). Although if either have any hint of credibility, I'd never vote for someone who so callously disregards the environment by clear-cutting and polluting our rivers.

Supermallet
05-14-12, 08:19 PM
The only two options now are for candidates who have never made a single mistake in their lives, or candidates who have done so much wrong that the population just says screw it and votes for them anyway. If it's the former, I got nothing. If it's the latter, I nominate mhg83.

TheMovieman
05-14-12, 08:23 PM
Now I'm not so sure about Washington and the cherry tree story (nor the silver dollar). Although if either have any hint of credibility, I'd never vote for someone who so callously disregards the environment by clear-cutting and polluting our rivers.

If anyone running for President goes out and on camera chops down a tree, I'd consider voting for them just for the hell of it; just as good of a reason as any other...

creekdipper
05-14-12, 08:31 PM
If anyone running for President goes out and on camera chops down a tree, I'd consider voting for them just for the hell of it; just as good of a reason as any other...

However, if they strapped the tree onto their car roof, that's a different matter entirely.

Tracer Bullet
05-14-12, 08:32 PM
I care about neither (given the circumstances we have heard) when it is suppose to have taken place around 50 years ago.

I actually don't care about the alleged incident as much as I care about Romney's weird response to it. Although if the incident in question involved, say, Romney chasing a black student and shaving his head, I believe we'd all be having a different conversation.

kvrdave
05-14-12, 09:32 PM
I expect that type of story to surface soon. The race card must be played and played often.

JasonF
05-14-12, 09:40 PM
I expect that type of story to surface soon. The race card must be played and played often.

Yes, but by which candidate's supporters and proxies?

Tracer Bullet
05-14-12, 09:43 PM
I expect that type of story to surface soon. The race card must be played and played often.

Yet the gay card doesn't get any love?

YES I KNOW HOW THAT SOUNDS OKAY

Supermallet
05-14-12, 09:58 PM
:lol:

kvrdave
05-15-12, 12:28 AM
Yes, but by which candidate's supporters and proxies?

:lol: Yeah, that's a tough one to answer.

DeputyDave
05-15-12, 03:17 PM
I actually don't care about the alleged incident as much as I care about Romney's weird response to it. Although if the incident in question involved, say, Romney chasing a black student and shaving his head, I believe we'd all be having a different conversation.

So you would have voted for Romney otherwise? Seriously, the only people we should be listening to are people who this story has changed their mind on who they will vote for. I'd say none.

What I want to hear about are people who either voted for the GOP or for Obama in 2008 and are now changing their vote (or not voting at all). I'm betting the same people who voted for McCain are willing to pony up for Romney, Obama, I think, will not get the same support.

I actually feel more confident of a Romney win than before. I'm not saying it will be a landslide but a victory none the less.

kvrdave
05-15-12, 03:21 PM
I did hear that Romney is ahead of Obama with the women vote right now. I think it was within the margin of error, but still surprising.

Shannon Nutt
05-15-12, 03:25 PM
I actually feel more confident of a Romney win than before. I'm not saying it will be a landslide but a victory none the less.

Romney has about as much shot of beating Obama as Dole had of beating Clinton. I'll be surprised if Romney can muster 200 electorial votes when all is said and done. Yes, it's not going to be a landslide for either side, but the media is making this contest sound a lot closer than it actually is (to their credit - they need to make money).

creekdipper
05-15-12, 03:57 PM
If Romney DIDN'T play pranks on black kids as well as whites, he'd be accused of racism.

Somehow, I doubt Bopper & Mark are disturbed by all this.

creekdipper
05-15-12, 03:58 PM
I did hear that Romney is ahead of Obama with the women vote right now. I think it was within the margin of error, but still surprising.

Just think if he added that woman-charmer Chris Christie to the ticket!

DeputyDave
05-15-12, 04:35 PM
Romney has about as much shot of beating Obama as Dole had of beating Clinton. I'll be surprised if Romney can muster 200 electorial votes when all is said and done. Yes, it's not going to be a landslide for either side, but the media is making this contest sound a lot closer than it actually is (to their credit - they need to make money).

The great thing is that in a few months we'll find out who is right.

Tracer Bullet
05-15-12, 04:40 PM
Romney has about as much shot of beating Obama as Dole had of beating Clinton. I'll be surprised if Romney can muster 200 electorial votes when all is said and done. Yes, it's not going to be a landslide for either side, but the media is making this contest sound a lot closer than it actually is (to their credit - they need to make money).

The economy was good in 1996. Is the economy good now?

TheMovieman
05-15-12, 06:00 PM
The economy was good in 1996. Is the economy good now?

Not only that, but at around this point in 1996, Clinton had a 55%-39% approve/disapprove rating while Obama is at 45%-48% (both polls from Gallup).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Also, before the November elections, Clinton had a 59% approval rating and I don't see Obama getting anywhere near that unless the economy makes a drastic turnaround...

X
05-15-12, 06:09 PM
Also, before the November elections, Clinton had a 59% approval rating and I don't see Obama getting anywhere near that unless the economy makes a drastic turnaround...I think he's going to need an intern.

kvrdave
05-15-12, 06:11 PM
Just think if he added that woman-charmer Chris Christie to the ticket!

:lol:

TheMovieman
05-15-12, 06:11 PM
I think he's going to need an intern.

Perhaps so (Sandra Fluke?), though to be fair that came after Clinton got re-elected (IIRC) and he needed the obligatory second term controversy/scandal (which makes me wonder what would come out in an Obama second term).

kvrdave
05-15-12, 06:43 PM
Well, he is the first gay president.

DeputyDave
05-15-12, 06:50 PM
Well, he is the first gay president.

As much as I agree with the president and applaud his statement (regardless of the pussy way he went about it) I think people are losing focus on exactly how unpopular same sex marriage is in America. Considering more than 50% of the US voted for him and more than 50% disapprove of same sex marriage it stands to reason this will cost him votes. I can't see Romney losing any votes just because some of his supporters were surprised by his announcement he's against it.

Tracer Bullet
05-15-12, 11:18 PM
Considering more than 50% of the US voted for him and more than 50% disapprove of same sex marriage it stands to reason this will cost him votes.

What polls are you looking at?

Artman
05-15-12, 11:37 PM
Romney has about as much shot of beating Obama as Dole had of beating Clinton.

You're right that it is uncommon for a sitting president to be voted out. But I really think you have to be fooling yourself into thinking this election is comparable to that one. Really, the best confidence I could give you is that there's still five months to go. Things could turn around, but historically, the numbers as of now are not looking good for the chosen one...

TheBigDave
05-15-12, 11:41 PM
After that embarrassing primary in West Virginia, Obama's now having trouble in Arkansas.

OBAMA - 45%
WOLFE - 38%
UNDECIDED - 17%

Obama Leads by Only 7 in Arkansas's Democratic Primary

A new poll of Arkansas Democrats shows Barack Obama receiving support from only 45 percent of Democratic primary voters in Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District, while 38 percent support his underfunded and relatively unknown primary challenger, Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe, Jr. Seventeen percent are undecided in the district poll.

In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Wolfe said the poll results were “unbelievable” and said a defeat for Obama in the Arkansas primary would be “politically cataclysmic.”

“It says the momentum is good,” Wolfe said about the poll. “This is democracy in action."

Wolfe predicted that the voters would move his way in the final days before the May 22 primary, despite his shoestring campaign budget. “There’s not been a single TV ad. There’s not been a single radio ad,” he said.

Wolfe is also competing against Obama in Texas’s May 29 primary.

Wolfe has criticized Obama for being too close to Wall Street and its interests (for example, Obama’s latest fundraiser with private equity lenders last night in New York City) and seeks to be a more principled Democrat than the 44th president.

Wolfe also said he supports repealing the president's signature legislation, Obamacare, which he says doesn’t lower health care costs even if the White House claims otherwise.

“I don’t think it’s right in principle to force people to buy from monopolies,” Wolfe said. “The thing about Obamacare is it’s the best thing for the stock prices of insurance companies.” Wolfe added that he supports a single-payer health care system because it will be more cost effective.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-primary-challenger-down-7-obama-arkansas_645010.html

I wonder how he'll do in Texas if there's a bunch of publicity after a strong turnout in Arkansas.

DeputyDave
05-16-12, 01:14 AM
What polls are you looking at?

I'm not looking at polls I looking at the real thing, actual votes. Even my state couldn't muster enough to pass it.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-12, 09:32 AM
I'm not looking at polls I looking at the real thing, actual votes. Even my state couldn't muster enough to pass it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-does-gay-marriage-keep-losing-at-the-ballot-box/2012/05/09/gIQAzhlNDU_blog.html

CRM114
05-16-12, 10:04 AM
I actually don't care about the alleged incident as much as I care about Romney's weird response to it. Although if the incident in question involved, say, Romney chasing a black student and shaving his head, I believe we'd all be having a different conversation.

A black student? At Romney's school? :lol:

Romney has about as much shot of beating Obama as Dole had of beating Clinton. I'll be surprised if Romney can muster 200 electorial votes when all is said and done. Yes, it's not going to be a landslide for either side, but the media is making this contest sound a lot closer than it actually is (to their credit - they need to make money).

I heard that Obama is leading in 3/4 of the "battleground" states. That's the only polling that matters. Electoral votes.

As much as I agree with the president and applaud his statement (regardless of the pussy way he went about it) I think people are losing focus on exactly how unpopular same sex marriage is in America. Considering more than 50% of the US voted for him and more than 50% disapprove of same sex marriage it stands to reason this will cost him votes. I can't see Romney losing any votes just because some of his supporters were surprised by his announcement he's against it.

I agree it may hurt the President. That realization makes me both sad for the country and people like you that find comfort in that and happy that a President did something based not solely on politics for once.

You're right that it is uncommon for a sitting president to be voted out. But I really think you have to be fooling yourself into thinking this election is comparable to that one. Really, the best confidence I could give you is that there's still five months to go. Things could turn around, but historically, the numbers as of now are not looking good for the chosen one...

Right. It's more comparable to 2004 where Bush=Obama.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-12, 01:52 PM
I heard that Obama is leading in 3/4 of the "battleground" states. That's the only polling that matters. Electoral votes.

Polling in May really doesn't mean much.

CRM114
05-16-12, 02:29 PM
Yeah, I know, but to Shannon Nutt's point, the media is making it sound closer than it is right now using national polling.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-12, 02:36 PM
Yeah, I know, but to Shannon Nutt's point, the media is making it sound closer than it is right now using national polling.

Well that is true.

wishbone
05-16-12, 02:53 PM
A black student? At Romney's school? :lol:http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1402/sidneybarthwelljr4x3thu.jpg

CRM114
05-16-12, 04:00 PM
That was a joke.

DeputyDave
05-16-12, 06:46 PM
I agree it may hurt the President. That realization makes me both sad for the country and people like you that find comfort in that and happy that a President did something based not solely on politics for once.

No, what I find comfort and happiness in is the fact he did something that damages his chances of re-election, regardless of whether I agree with him (a little) on that issue. I don't want the man re-elected and will be happy if he loses for whatever reason. I love dogs but I would be happy if him petting one lost him the dog killer vote.

As far as the Washington Post article it goes too far out in order to explain why people (47% according to the article) seem to approve of gay marriage in polls but not when it comes to the 32 times it has been up for vote.

No matter what reason you attribute it to votes are all that counts and this will lose him some in a race he can ill afford any loss.

Shannon Nutt
05-16-12, 06:47 PM
You're right that it is uncommon for a sitting president to be voted out. But I really think you have to be fooling yourself into thinking this election is comparable to that one. Really, the best confidence I could give you is that there's still five months to go. Things could turn around, but historically, the numbers as of now are not looking good for the chosen one...

I would agree with you if the GOP had a decent nominee...but they have a very poor one. If McCain was the nominee again, Obama would lose. But he's not...it's a guy with about as much charisma as a garden vegetable...and we all know Obama has charisma coming out the wazoo. I think Romney is going to have a very hard time getting voters angry/energized enough to win the election. And national polls mean nothing...it's about winning states, and Obama already has a comfortable lead in the electorial count (about 240 to 170 right now...meaning most of the "toss ups" need to go Romney's way).

Of course, it's a long way to November...but I think that may benefit the President more than hurt him (it's more likely than not we'll see more positive economic numbers than negative ones over the summer).

Tracer Bullet
05-16-12, 06:57 PM
Of course, it's a long way to November...but I think that may benefit the President more than hurt him (it's more likely than not we'll see more positive economic numbers than negative ones over the summer).

Unless Europe shits the bed, which is looking increasingly likely.

classicman2
05-16-12, 07:24 PM
I would agree with you if the GOP had a decent nominee...but they have a very poor one. If McCain was the nominee again, Obama would lose. But he's not...it's a guy with about as much charisma as a garden vegetable...and we all know Obama has charisma coming out the wazoo. I think Romney is going to have a very hard time getting voters angry/energized enough to win the election. And national polls mean nothing...it's about winning states, and Obama already has a comfortable lead in the electorial count (about 240 to 170 right now...meaning most of the "toss ups" need to go Romney's way).

Of course, it's a long way to November...but I think that may benefit the President more than hurt him (it's more likely than not we'll see more positive economic numbers than negative ones over the summer).

McCain would be defeated by Obama by an even larger margin than last time.

McCain wasn't noted for being Mr. Charisma.

Dr Mabuse
05-16-12, 07:30 PM
Unless Europe shits the bed, which is looking increasingly likely.

http://i.imgur.com/D2Car.jpg

Tracer Bullet
05-16-12, 07:51 PM
Why would the Guardian use dollars in a headline?

DeputyDave
05-17-12, 06:15 PM
This is an interesting column at The Atlantic by senior editor (and Obama supporter) Clive Crook: Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-i-think-obama-is-losing/257285/)

Why I Think Obama Is Losing

By Clive Crook


As always Bill Galston and John Cassidy are well worth reading. In interesting new commentaries on the election, both think Obama has the edge, while emphasizing that it might be a close thing and warning Democrats against complacency. I hesitate to put my instincts up against their careful analyses, but if the election were tomorrow and I was forced to put money on one of the candidates, I'd say Romney. I also feel that unless something new and dramatic happens--as it usually does, admittedly--Romney's advantage is more likely to grow than diminish.

Why do I say this?

It's not because the country is sick of Obama. He's still pretty well-liked personally (more so than his policies). Among those who aren't committed to support or oppose him regardless, my feeling is, the country still wants him to succeed. If voters do reject him in November, for many people it will be with regret. It's striking to me that while Obama has approval ratings in the upper 40s, not bad under the circumstances, Congress is viewed by the electorate with naked contempt.

It's not because the opposition to Obama is strong. Romney is a weak candidate. Yes, he was much the most electable of the serious Republican contenders, but that's saying so little. The Congressional GOP, meanwhile, is a national disgrace, and one of the reasons Congress gets such pitifully low approval ratings.

Is it the economy, then? Does that settle it? I don't really buy the view that the current state of the economy will be decisive in this election, one way or the other. This was a very unusual recession and the tepid recovery is correspondingly strange. This time, the mechanical connection between growth and votes needs to be questioned, at least. The country knows that Obama inherited the recession. It also knows that his efforts to arrest it--for which, to be sure, he gets less credit than he deserves--had to contend with fierce GOP resistance. The economy is a negative for the incumbent, but I suspect less so than the raw numbers would lead you to think. Equally, if the pace of recovery improves, that will help Obama but again, I'm guessing, less than the historical correlations would suggest.

So what's the answer? Obama's big problem, I think, is that he is no longer the president he said he would be. Above all, he's stopped trying to be that president.

The astonishing enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 rested heavily on his promise to change Washington and unify the country. You can argue about whose fault it is that Washington is even more paralyzed by tribal fighting than before--in my view, it's mostly (though not entirely) the GOP's fault. For whatever reason, Obama failed to bring the change he promised. That would be forgivable, so long as he was determined to keep trying. But he isn't determined to keep trying. His campaign message so far boils down to this: You just can't work with these people. I tried, they're not interested, so it's war. If they want bitter partisan politics, they can have it.

My instinct tells me this is a losing strategy.

To me it seems so obviously the wrong strategy, in fact, that I struggle to understand what Obama's people can be thinking. The fact that Republicans refuse to compromise is not, tactically speaking, a problem for the Democrats, but a wonderful opportunity. Offer centrist compromise proposals on the issues that confront the country--Bowles-Simpson on fiscal policy, to cite the most obvious instance--and let the Republicans reject them. Keep offering, keep being rejected. Don't stop coming back with appeals for moderation and common sense, and let the GOP respond with promises to eliminate the federal government. See where that gets them.

In the end, remember, Bill Clinton defeated Newt Gingrich. He had to stare down the base of his own party to do it--but he won.

What you recommend is exactly what we have been doing, say many Democrats. No. The administration has accepted compromise in some areas, but always reluctantly, never at its own initiative. The advice from the base, which the White House now appears to be heeding, is that compromise gets you nowhere. As a result, Obama's ownership of his own policies is cast into doubt. The outcomes in many cases may be Clintonian or "moderate conservative" (on health care, for example), but they weren't celebrated by the administration as examples of the virtues of compromise. They were accepted grudgingly. We made concessions: this far and no further. And now the tacit message of the campaign is veering towards saying that traditional Old Democratic policies are the way to go. UAW, I love you. Just give us the votes, and the era of big government is back.

That's crazy. The middle of the country doesn't want grinding paralysis, and it also doesn't want a pre-Clinton Democratic program. The middle of America is center-right, not center-left. How many times do Democrats need to be told this? Swing voters want Obama to keep trying to do what he said he would do--not reluctantly, but with limitless patience and because he believes it's the principled approach leading to the right policies. Then if compromise fails, there'd be no doubt whatever who was to blame.

So that's why today I'd put my money on Romney to win, even though he doesn't deserve to. He's unfrightening and he looks like a pragmatist. Little as that is, it might be enough. His etch-a-sketch personality is a strength, not a weakness: The country doesn't want a right-wing true believer. Whether he could make the compromises happen, of course, is doubtful. I'm not saying that he could. Only that, as the election comes round, he'll be able to say that he'd try with more conviction than Obama, apparently, can any longer muster.

Tracer Bullet
05-17-12, 06:19 PM
Nobody cares about any of that shit.

DeputyDave
05-17-12, 07:31 PM
Nobody cares about any of that shit.

Which shit to you refer to?

Tracer Bullet
05-17-12, 07:43 PM
Which shit to you refer to?

The entire article. People care about the economy. And most voters don't start paying attention to a presidential election until like October.

X
05-17-12, 09:05 PM
The entire article. People care about the economy. And most voters don't start paying attention to a presidential election until like October.The "read my lips" promise that was broken sure got a lot of people unmotivated to vote for another president's second term.

Tracer Bullet
05-17-12, 09:24 PM
The "read my lips" promise that was broken sure got a lot of people unmotivated to vote for another president's second term.

That's not why Bush lost in 1992.

classicman2
05-17-12, 09:48 PM
That's not why Bush lost in 1992.

I believe it was a signficant factor in his loss. It's ironic because that was later proven to be the best thing he did in 4 years.

CRM114
05-18-12, 09:13 AM
He lost because Bill Clinton was a better candidate and the economy was awful.

Tracer Bullet
05-18-12, 09:15 AM
He lost because Bill Clinton was a better candidate and the economy was awful.

Yeeeep. Also we're forgetting about a certain big-eared gentleman.

Groucho
05-18-12, 09:38 AM
Yeeeep. Also we're forgetting about a certain big-eared gentleman.I'm fairly certain that Obama wasn't old enough to run in 1992.

Tracer Bullet
05-18-12, 09:41 AM
I'm fairly certain that Obama wasn't old enough to run in 1992.

I dunno, the "6" in his birth year looks an awful lot like a "2"

chowderhead
05-18-12, 10:40 AM
Yeeeep. Also we're forgetting about a certain big-eared gentleman.

Clinton would have won regardless of Perot. George HW Bush was just an awful candidate with a terrible economy.

coli
05-18-12, 11:07 AM
The "read my lips" promise that was broken sure got a lot of people unmotivated to vote for another president's second term.

I disagree with this as Bush had a 91% approval ratings right after the Gulf War. He lost because the Economy went into a recession 1990-1991, and job growth never recovered while it stayed stagnant throughout 1992. The 4th quarter GDP was around 4% and it did show that the economy was finally on the right track, but Bush had lost the election in November.

The same thing will happen to Obama, as whatever the perception of the economy come Sept/Oct will determine whether he wins or loses. The election is ruled by independents, and those 10-15% sway every election.

CRM114
05-18-12, 11:33 AM
The election is ruled by independents (the unwashed masses) in swing states.

classicman2
05-18-12, 12:47 PM
He lost because Bill Clinton was a better candidate and the economy was awful.

The last two quarters of economic growth during G.H.W. Bush's term exceeded the first two quarters of economic growth of Clinton's first term.

There were 8 recessions after The Great Depression - including the Bush recession. Six of those were deeper recessions than the H.W. Bush recession of which you speak.

Tracer Bullet
05-18-12, 01:00 PM
The last two quarters of economic growth during G.H.W. Bush's term exceeded the first two quarters of economic growth of Clinton's first term.

It is really too bad that voters in that election couldn't see into the future the way we can now!

dork
05-18-12, 01:05 PM
It is really too bad that voters in that election couldn't see into the future the way we can now!
Let us again praise Vice President Rubio, who will give his life to bring us that ability. :up:

kvrdave
05-18-12, 01:17 PM
Like anyone could be better than Biden.

Shannon Nutt
05-18-12, 03:17 PM
I believe it was a signficant factor in his loss. It's ironic because that was later proven to be the best thing he did in 4 years.

Bush looking at his watch in a debate was a bigger factor than the "read my lips" broken promise.

classicman2
05-18-12, 03:47 PM
Bush looking at his watch in a debate was a bigger factor than the "read my lips" broken promise.

I don't agree with that - but you're entitled to your opinion - however wrong it might be. :)

Yeti4623
05-18-12, 03:56 PM
The economy is far from booming right now, but it's much better than I thought it going to be, back around august/september of last year. It's also a lot better than it was the past 2-3 years. If it picks up a little speed throughout the year, Obama may get re-elected. Plus, the fact that Romney is not the greatest candidate in the world. That gives Obama even more of a chance.

classicman2
05-18-12, 04:04 PM
The economy is far from booming right now, but it's much better than I thought it going to be, back around august/september of last year. It's also a lot better than it was the past 2-3 years. If it picks up a little speed throughout the year, Obama may get re-elected. Plus, the fact that Romney is not the greatest candidate in the world. That gives Obama even more of a chance.

Do you believe the national debt is part of the economy?

Has that improved over the past 2-3 years?

Yeti4623
05-18-12, 04:14 PM
I think Bush lost for a few reasons in 1992:

He seemed out of touch, and was not that great of a campaigner.

The recession was still pretty fresh.

Despite the character issues, Clinton was a fantastic candidate.

DeputyDave
05-18-12, 04:49 PM
I think Bush lost for a few reasons in 1992:

He seemed out of touch, and was not that great of a campaigner.

The recession was still pretty fresh.

Despite the character issues, Clinton was a fantastic candidate.

Yeah, I fell for his spell.

Groucho
05-18-12, 05:21 PM
Yeah, I fell for his spell.Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

dork
05-18-12, 05:21 PM
Do you believe the national debt is part of the economy?

The national debt is part of the economy. It also has fuck all to do with our current problems.

DeputyDave
05-18-12, 05:36 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

God, would I love to abuse your constitutional rights under color of authority.

Navinabob
05-18-12, 05:43 PM
God, would I love to abuse your constitutional rights under color of authority.

Hey, if you added a :eyebrow: this would have been perfect for our gay marriage thread.

Michael T Hudson
05-18-12, 09:11 PM
I think Bush lost for a few reasons in 1992:

He seemed out of touch, and was not that great of a campaigner.

The recession was still pretty fresh.

Despite the character issues, Clinton was a fantastic candidate.


Perot as well.

Tracer Bullet
05-18-12, 11:32 PM
God, would I love to abuse your constitutional rights under color of authority.

Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

DeputyDave
05-19-12, 02:43 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

You too, hippy!

creekdipper
05-19-12, 03:59 AM
It is fairly uncommon for a sitting President to be defeated, although Ford (unelected), Carter, and Bush I were all one-termers.

If Clinton hadn't shifted to the middle & if he had faced a better candidate, he would have been in trouble. He had to abandon Hilarycare, go along with welfare reform, & rely upon the dot.com boom. Clinton is a brilliant politician.

Obama's chances would be worse if gas prices hadn't eased & if the Republicans were smarter. When you field a candidate that even your own people don't like, that's not very encouraging. A politician who had strong conservative principles yet offered solutions for social AND economic problems and a willingness to compromise on some shared sacrifice issues...even for the sake of appearance to undercut the 'they only care about rich people...would have a good chance against Obama.

The current Newsweek (The "First Gay President" issue) has an article mentioning the female, Hispanic GOP governor of New Mexico as a prospective Vice-President. (One of her problems is lack of name recognition...to wit, I can't remember her name even now).** If someone like that were offered as the Presidential nominee (not likely), it would shake up a lot of things. For those who want to record their votes for 'history', imagine having the first FEMALE LATINO POTUS.

It's an interesting article. She looks & sounds (from the article) like a spunky little thing, and she seems as personable and real as Romney appears disconnected and stiff. She has a 60% approval rating in her state, so she must be a decent politician.

I still like the idea of people with executive experience such as governorships being in charge, although I realize that argument doesn't sway many when comparing G.W. Bush to B.H. Obama.

**Edit: Her name is Susana Martinez.

Tracer Bullet
05-19-12, 10:07 AM
You too, hippy!

Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

DeputyDave
05-19-12, 04:48 PM
It is fairly uncommon for a sitting President to be defeated, although Ford (unelected), Carter, and Bush I were all one-termers.

If Clinton hadn't shifted to the middle & if he had faced a better candidate, he would have been in trouble. He had to abandon Hilarycare, go along with welfare reform, & rely upon the dot.com boom. Clinton is a brilliant politician.

Obama's chances would be worse if gas prices hadn't eased & if the Republicans were smarter. When you field a candidate that even your own people don't like, that's not very encouraging. A politician who had strong conservative principles yet offered solutions for social AND economic problems and a willingness to compromise on some shared sacrifice issues...even for the sake of appearance to undercut the 'they only care about rich people...would have a good chance against Obama.

The current Newsweek (The "First Gay President" issue) has an article mentioning the female, Hispanic GOP governor of New Mexico as a prospective Vice-President. (One of her problems is lack of name recognition...to wit, I can't remember her name even now).** If someone like that were offered as the Presidential nominee (not likely), it would shake up a lot of things. For those who want to record their votes for 'history', imagine having the first FEMALE LATINO POTUS.

It's an interesting article. She looks & sounds (from the article) like a spunky little thing, and she seems as personable and real as Romney appears disconnected and stiff. She has a 60% approval rating in her state, so she must be a decent politician.

I still like the idea of people with executive experience such as governorships being in charge, although I realize that argument doesn't sway many when comparing G.W. Bush to B.H. Obama.

**Edit: Her name is Susana Martinez.

That same argument was used for Palin (and she had a much higher approval rating). Unfortunately due to what has been now dubbed as "the Palin effect" (unfairly, of course) I think Romney may listen to his advisors and pick old, boring , and white to the detriment of his campaign. I don't care what the libs and experts say, I still feel that Palin energized and helped McCain's campaign. Despite the media,false books, and the movie she was a smart and fantastic governor of my home state. I actually became excited by McCain after she joined and would most likely not have made it out to vote without her. I completely agree that she was not ready to be president just yet, but what VP has been? Certainly the last 4 would have made bad presidents (including the sitting one).

Tracer Bullet
05-19-12, 05:05 PM
That same argument was used for Palin (and she had a much higher approval rating). Unfortunately due to what has been now dubbed as "the Palin effect" (unfairly, of course) I think Romney may listen to his advisors and pick old, boring , and white to the detriment of his campaign. I don't care what the libs and experts say, I still feel that Palin energized and helped McCain's campaign. Despite the media,false books, and the movie she was a smart and fantastic governor of my home state. I actually became excited by McCain after she joined and would most likely not have made it out to vote without her. I completely agree that she was not ready to be president just yet, but what VP has been? Certainly the last 4 would have made bad presidents (including the sitting one).

Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

DeputyDave
05-19-12, 06:01 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, our police force.

That's kind of getting old. No other comments about what I had to say?

Tracer Bullet
05-19-12, 06:47 PM
That's kind of getting old. No other comments about what I had to say?

Sure, Palin is an idiot.

DeputyDave
05-19-12, 08:46 PM
I understand that is the popular perception as it was with Bush and I don't agree. She was an extremely competent governor (of the greatest state in this fine union) dropped unprepared into the shark tank. Regardless my post had nothing to do with her IQ but her effect on the McCain campaign and whether Romney should go safe and boring or try to buck his advisors and make an exciting VP pick.

Artman
05-19-12, 08:49 PM
Unfortunately due to what has been now dubbed as "the Palin effect" (unfairly, of course) I think Romney may listen to his advisors and pick old, boring , and white to the detriment of his campaign.

Well, the only folks I know who actually use race as a deciding factor are never going to vote for Romney anyways. Palin won me over at first, and than lost me a few months later... I say go with "old fashioned."

DeputyDave
05-19-12, 09:12 PM
Well, the only folks I know who actually use race as a deciding factor are never going to vote for Romney anyways. Palin won me over at first, and than lost me a few months later... I say go with "old fashioned."

it could be argued that some of the so called independents may feel better about voting against a black man by justifying they are voting for a woman or latino.

JasonF
05-19-12, 11:37 PM
She was an extremely competent governor

Link?

DeputyDave
05-20-12, 01:04 AM
Hey, I've followed her since she was mayor, I was born and raised in that area and my dad and sister still live there. You're welcome to believe the false hype about her like the rest of the sheeple, I couldn't care less. I've posted many, many times about her here. This is not the thread for that.

JumpCutz
05-20-12, 01:39 AM
Sure, Palin is an idiot.

:lol:

JasonF
05-20-12, 01:46 AM
sheeple

Oh come on.

DeputyDave
05-20-12, 01:57 AM
Oh come on.

She was destroyed unfairly by the media, that is my opinion. She was unprepared for the bright lights after dealing (well) with only local politics. It's wrongly considered common knowledge that she was and is a stupid person, much like Bush, Quayle or Reagan. People believe the broad brush that is used to paint conservatives. Either boring or stupid. It happens every time.

I spent my first 18 years in Alaska and return frequently, I still consider myself an Alaskan. I'm proud of Palin. I may disagree with her often but I respect her and how she has handled the constant hate.

JasonF
05-20-12, 03:00 AM
She was destroyed unfairly by the media, that is my opinion. She was unprepared for the bright lights after dealing (well) with only local politics. It's wrongly considered common knowledge that she was and is a stupid person, much like Bush, Quayle or Reagan. People believe the broad brush that is used to paint conservatives. Either boring or stupid. It happens every time.

I spent my first 18 years in Alaska and return frequently, I still consider myself an Alaskan. I'm proud of Palin. I may disagree with her often but I respect her and how she has handled the constant hate.

None of what you've said justifies the use of "sheeple." It's not a word.

Superboy
05-20-12, 03:05 AM
She was destroyed unfairly by the media, that is my opinion. She was unprepared for the bright lights after dealing (well) with only local politics. It's wrongly considered common knowledge that she was and is a stupid person, much like Bush, Quayle or Reagan. People believe the broad brush that is used to paint conservatives. Either boring or stupid. It happens every time.

I spent my first 18 years in Alaska and return frequently, I still consider myself an Alaskan. I'm proud of Palin. I may disagree with her often but I respect her and how she has handled the constant hate.

It's not like the media forced her into the campaign.

DeputyDave
05-20-12, 03:41 AM
It's not like the media forced her into the campaign.

No, of course not. She was completely unprepared and naive as to how bad it would get. That was her fault, underestimating how viscous the media could be. Alaska is a very different place.

And "sheeple" is someone who follows the herd, whether they are wrong or not. Conservatives can be sheeple too.

I think we've spent enough time on Palin, unless it relates to picking Romney's VP (which is how I brought her up). I'm pretty sure there is a Sarah Palin thread somewhere.

Dr Mabuse
05-20-12, 10:16 AM
The media has a sticky, thick consistency?

I did not know that.

Tracer Bullet
05-20-12, 11:42 AM
She was destroyed unfairly by the media, that is my opinion. She was unprepared for the bright lights after dealing (well) with only local politics. It's wrongly considered common knowledge that she was and is a stupid person, much like Bush, Quayle or Reagan. People believe the broad brush that is used to paint conservatives. Either boring or stupid. It happens every time.

I spent my first 18 years in Alaska and return frequently, I still consider myself an Alaskan. I'm proud of Palin. I may disagree with her often but I respect her and how she has handled the constant hate.

Okay, let's accept this assertion as true, for the time being.

That leaves us with:

If she wasn't ready for the national spotlight, then a) she was a fool for agreeing to the VP spot and b) McCain's campaign showed an incredible lack of judgement in offering her the VP spot. That's better, I guess?

Supermallet
05-20-12, 02:15 PM
Romney's in a tough spot because as a candidate he's not attractive to conservatives or independents. His VP choice can't be too out of left field, lest he alienate the few conservatives still supporting him. But by playing to the base he'll almost certainly lose the independents who were still on the fence.

DeputyDave
05-20-12, 08:38 PM
Okay, let's accept this assertion as true, for the time being.

That leaves us with:

If she wasn't ready for the national spotlight, then a) she was a fool for agreeing to the VP spot and b) McCain's campaign showed an incredible lack of judgement in offering her the VP spot. That's better, I guess?

I think that is a very fair assessment. I think being naive and unprepared is far better than being an idiot and moron, don't you think?

Superboy
05-21-12, 02:31 AM
I think that is a very fair assessment. I think being naive and unprepared is far better than being an idiot and moron, don't you think?

No, she's an idiot and a moron.

It's been several years since she entered the major political arena, and her gaffs have only gotten worse.

At this point, she can't use the excuse that she's naive and unprepared.

To be fair, I think that almost every politician is an idiot and a moron, I just think that she's the funniest.

The Bus
05-21-12, 04:40 AM
The media has a sticky, thick consistency?

I did not know that.

This is not the Craigslist NSA thread. -ohbfrank-

Nick Danger
05-21-12, 08:30 AM
It is fairly uncommon for a sitting President to be defeated, although Ford (unelected), Carter, and Bush I were all one-termers.

If Clinton hadn't shifted to the middle & if he had faced a better candidate, he would have been in trouble. He had to abandon Hilarycare, go along with welfare reform, & rely upon the dot.com boom. Clinton is a brilliant politician.

Obama's chances would be worse if gas prices hadn't eased & if the Republicans were smarter. When you field a candidate that even your own people don't like, that's not very encouraging. A politician who had strong conservative principles yet offered solutions for social AND economic problems and a willingness to compromise on some shared sacrifice issues...even for the sake of appearance to undercut the 'they only care about rich people...would have a good chance against Obama.

The current Newsweek (The "First Gay President" issue) has an article mentioning the female, Hispanic GOP governor of New Mexico as a prospective Vice-President. (One of her problems is lack of name recognition...to wit, I can't remember her name even now).** If someone like that were offered as the Presidential nominee (not likely), it would shake up a lot of things. For those who want to record their votes for 'history', imagine having the first FEMALE LATINO POTUS.

It's an interesting article. She looks & sounds (from the article) like a spunky little thing, and she seems as personable and real as Romney appears disconnected and stiff. She has a 60% approval rating in her state, so she must be a decent politician.

I still like the idea of people with executive experience such as governorships being in charge, although I realize that argument doesn't sway many when comparing G.W. Bush to B.H. Obama.

**Edit: Her name is Susana Martinez.

Our previous governor was Bill Richardson. He was ready for a national campaign. Martinez is not. I think that she's well aware of what happened to Palin, because she's made it clear that she's not available for the VP position.

Also, Bill Richardson and Gary Johnson were pretty good at getting what they wanted through the legislature. Martinez isn't doing as well. I think that this is as high as she will go.

CRM114
05-21-12, 09:31 AM
That's kind of getting old. No other comments about what I had to say?

You said Palin was smart. :lol:

CRM114
05-21-12, 09:32 AM
Hey, I've followed her since she was mayor, I was born and raised in that area and my dad and sister still live there. You're welcome to believe the false hype about her like the rest of the sheeple, I couldn't care less. I've posted many, many times about her here. This is not the thread for that.

Dude, she quit after two years. To do nothing.

classicman2
05-21-12, 09:59 AM
Dude, she quit after two years. To do nothing.

If you call making a bunch of money doing nothing - well.......

CRM114
05-21-12, 10:00 AM
That's even more deplorable.

classicman2
05-21-12, 10:07 AM
You've gotta be kidding!

CRM114
05-21-12, 10:24 AM
Resigning your elected office after a half term to go on a road show selling books isn't deplorable? I suppose assuming office meant nothing to her after she started wearing good clothes.

You still have a thing for her, don't you classicman2?

DeputyDave
05-21-12, 10:30 AM
Dude, she quit after two years. To do nothing.

Again an example of believing the hype. This is the same as idiots repeating the, "I can see Russia from my house." BS. Her reasons for leaving have been explained by her and others and posted here many, many times.

Why don't we stick to the 2012 campaign and leave 2008 in the past. I understand with the good possibility of Obama losing you'd want to live in the past though.

CRM114
05-21-12, 10:39 AM
That has nothing to do with it. I think people were frankly surprised to see anyone defend Palin's competence.

And believing what hype? I said she quit her term as Governor. That's not true?

DeputyDave
05-21-12, 11:04 AM
That has nothing to do with it. I think people were frankly surprised to see anyone defend Palin's competence.

And believing what hype? I said she quit her term as Governor. That's not true?

The reasons why she quit are what I was talking about, whether you agree with them or believe them.

Draven
05-21-12, 11:11 AM
I understand with the good possibility of Obama losing you'd want to live in the past though.

Losing to whom? I'll grant a possibility. Not a good possibility.

DeputyDave
05-21-12, 12:09 PM
Losing to whom? I'll grant a possibility. Not a good possibility.

I disagree. I'm not saying its even close to 100% but all of the signs out there are not good for Obama. Right now I feel it is Romney's to lose. I know I am in the minority (right now) but remember later where you heard it first.

Tracer Bullet
05-21-12, 12:35 PM
I disagree. I'm not saying its even close to 100% but all of the signs out there are not good for Obama. Right now I feel it is Romney's to lose. I know I am in the minority (right now) but remember later where you heard it first.

I feel like it could go either way, but it's only May, so we're really all just talking out of our asses.

CRM114
05-21-12, 12:44 PM
I think it could go either way too. Unfortunately, the Romney supporters I know all base their choice on something completely irrational. (Like the infamous "Obama is going to take my guns away.")

Tommy Ceez
05-21-12, 01:37 PM
Can I have the Cliff Notes on the good reason why she quit?

CharlieK
05-21-12, 02:02 PM
Troopergate expenses & other legal worries, a dwindling savings account, and the chance to strike while the iron was hot.

DeputyDave
05-21-12, 03:11 PM
I think it could go either way too. Unfortunately, the Romney supporters I know all base their choice on something completely irrational. (Like the infamous "Obama is going to take my guns away.")

Both sides always have a few like that (such as the "Bush will force us into a Theocracy" crowd) but I don't see either the GOP or the DNC turning away their vote.

kvrdave
05-21-12, 03:21 PM
Both sides always have a few like that (such as the "Bush will force us into a Theocracy" crowd) but I don't see either the GOP or the DNC turning away their vote.

No way. Everyone who votes for liberals considers all the options and doesn't just go with something like "Anyone But Bush." That's a media lie from Faux News.

PenguinJoe
05-22-12, 03:49 AM
GOP's problem their voters are white old and dying off.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/politics/gop-census-latino/index.html

CRM114
05-22-12, 11:06 AM
Both sides always have a few like that (such as the "Bush will force us into a Theocracy" crowd) but I don't see either the GOP or the DNC turning away their vote.

There are certainly more than a few Pennsylvanians who vote primarily how the NRA tells them.

classicman2
05-22-12, 02:38 PM
there are certainly more than a few pennsylvanians who vote primarily how the nra tells them.

o.k. 2,000

CRM114
05-22-12, 02:49 PM
2000 per county.

BTW, I donated to the Obama campaign today to be entered into a drawing to have dinner with Obama and Bill Clinton. I feel lucky today.

DeputyDave
05-22-12, 02:54 PM
2000 per county.

BTW, I donated to the Obama campaign today to be entered into a drawing to have dinner with Obama and Bill Clinton. I feel lucky today.

:up: Good luck.

wishbone
05-22-12, 02:58 PM
That would make for an interesting post. Good luck. :up:

classicman2
05-22-12, 03:05 PM
That would make for an interesting post. Good luck. :up:

What would be much more interesting would be if one of our 'we hate Obama & WJC member - instead of one of our 'we love 'em'. :)

The absolute best thing would be if I would invited. The the forum would get a true picture. ;)

Supermallet
05-22-12, 04:26 PM
What would be much more interesting would be if one of our 'we hate Obama & WJC member - instead of one of our 'we love 'em'. :)

The absolute best thing would be if I would invited. The the forum would get a true picture. ;)

I can see the front page of the Washington Post now: "Civil War Vet Accosts Obama."

2000 per county.

BTW, I donated to the Obama campaign today to be entered into a drawing to have dinner with Obama and Bill Clinton. I feel lucky today.

I donated to the Obama campaign to be entered into a drawing to pick the next target of a drone strike. I'm waiting to hear if I can pick a US citizen or if that's an executive privilege.

Groucho
05-22-12, 04:32 PM
BTW, I donated to the Obama campaign today to be entered into a drawing to have dinner with Obama and Bill Clinton.That's actually second prize. First prize is dinner with Obama.

Navinabob
05-22-12, 04:40 PM
Fuck... all I got for donating to the Bush campaign was a fake-signed photo with him posing on a jet.

And yes, this was a looooong time ago.

Tracer Bullet
05-22-12, 04:43 PM
Fuck... all I got for donating to the Bush campaign was a fake-signed photo with him posing on a jet.

And yes, this was a looooong time ago.

Well, it would have to be, wouldn't it?

classicman2
05-25-12, 10:35 AM
Michael Muskal (LA Times)


The percentage of Americans who say they are “pro-choice” reached a record low, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, but the political impact of the new data remain unclear given the volatile nature of the abortion issue.

According to Gallup, 41% identified themselves as “pro-choice,” while 50% said they were “pro-life.” The poll, conducted May 3 to May 6, was based on a sample of 1,024 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Both results are records. The “pro-choice” position is down from 47% last July and 1 percentage point lower than the previous record. In 2006, 51% of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice.”

The latest results show a shift among people when asked about their label on the issue. But views of the legality of abortion have remained constant over the years.

“Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s to a generally narrower lead for pro-choice -- from 1998 through 2008 -- to a close division between the two positions since 2009,” the polling firm said.

“However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period,” Gallup noted.

The latest results come as abortion rights have been in the news, hence in the American public’s mind. In recent months, lawmakers have battled over congressional funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services among other health services. And the Obama administration and the Roman Catholic Church have been engaged in an ongoing dispute over funding for health insurance that includes contraception services at church-related institutions.

Not surprisingly, the latest Gallup poll shows that 72% of those calling themselves Republican said they were “pro-life,” up from 68% last year. Democrats have run around 60% in the “pro-choice” category.

Those calling themselves independents were at 41% supporting the “pro-choice” position -- 10 points lower than in May 2011. On the flip side, those calling themselves “pro-life” were at 47%, up 6 percentage points since May 2011. “Pro-lifers” now outnumber “pro-choicers” for the second time since 2001.

A slight majority of Americans, 51%, said they consider abortion morally wrong, while 38% said it was morally acceptable, according to the poll.

Despite that split, a majority of Americans (52% in the latest poll) have repeatedly said since 1975 that abortion should be legal under some circumstances, while roughly a quarter over the same period have said it should be legal under all circumstances. Opposition to legality has been around 20%.



Will this apparent change in the minds of folks have any effect on the 2012 presidential & congressional elections?

btw: I'm not advocating either position - just asking the question.

The Bus
05-25-12, 10:49 AM
Personal views are different than what you believe would work as legislation. I wonder how the question is phrased.

classicman2
05-25-12, 10:55 AM
Do you wonder how all controversial poll questions are phrased? ;)

PopcornTreeCt
05-26-12, 02:25 PM
http://i.imgur.com/KARzr.jpg

Obama spending binge never happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular)

Thoughts?

kvrdave
05-26-12, 02:57 PM
:lol: You have to really look at those closely. He hasn't had big growth year over year in what he is spending because he had such a huge freaking jump in spending in the first year. It's a clever way to spin it, though. And it makes it sound like spending is actually down, but here is spending, etc.

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png>

TheBigDave
05-26-12, 03:19 PM
Obama spending binge never happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular)

Thoughts?

WaPo's Fact Checker gave it 3 Pinocchios:

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker)

AP's fact check also tore it apart:

FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim (http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CbkUcBPaDsADQ7QtDMD)

Dr Mabuse
05-26-12, 04:49 PM
http://i.imgur.com/KARzr.jpg

Obama spending binge never happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular)

Thoughts?

It's nonsense.

wmansir
05-26-12, 05:53 PM
Politifact.com actually rated a meme based on the Nutting piece as mostly true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/), seeming to knock it only because it doesn't give any credit to the GOP takeover of the house. They got a lot of negative feedback on that rating, but are sticking by it (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/25/lots-heat-and-some-light-obamas-spending/) although they don't seem to address any of the major flaws critics have pointed out.

There are several instances of Nutter twisting the facts in the original article, but the most absurd one is that he counts all of TARP's lending against Bush's final year yet give's Obama credit for TARP repayments in subsequent years.

Psi
05-26-12, 07:15 PM
<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png>

I want Clinton back. Why did some people hate him so much during those years?

Troy Stiffler
05-26-12, 10:58 PM
I want Clinton back. Why did some people hate him so much during those years?

I think he sucked someone's dick or something.

kvrdave
05-26-12, 11:23 PM
I want Clinton back. Why did some people hate him so much during those years?

I miss him (for certain things) as well, but if Bush had the same types of stats, we would have said it was because of the housing bubble. In the same way, Clinton got a lot of help from the tech bubble. Bush was mainly saved from blame from the tech bubble because of 9/11 which happened as the market was just starting to wake up.

On the other hand, he was pretty pathetic wrt taking terrorists seriously. I don't know that anyone would have been better as any real action without 9/11 would have likely been seen in a negative light.

Psi
05-26-12, 11:59 PM
I don't think we can attribute all of Clinton's success to "timing" or the Tech Bubble. His expenses % went down year after year, and revenues % went up year after year, for 8 straight years. And he did that despite all the distractions. Surely it can't be just luck.

X
05-27-12, 12:42 AM
I don't think we can attribute all of Clinton's success to "timing" or the Tech Bubble. His expenses % went down year after year, and revenues % went up year after year, for 8 straight years. And he did that despite all the distractions. Surely it can't be just luck.There was a little thing called the "peace dividend" that helped substantially.

http://www.davemanuel.com/images/graphs/us_military_spending_1962-2015.gif

Nausicaa
05-27-12, 10:31 AM
There was a little thing called the "peace dividend" that helped substantially.

http://www.davemanuel.com/images/graphs/us_military_spending_1962-2015.gif

Not like we needed to invade Iraq or anything.

Psi
05-27-12, 10:53 AM
That peace dividend must be because Clinton was weak on national defense.

classicman2
05-27-12, 10:55 AM
Clinton may have been weak on national defense but he wasn't weak on committing American forces to places that we had no business being in.

K&AJones
05-27-12, 11:03 AM
http://i.imgur.com/KARzr.jpg

Obama spending binge never happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular)

Thoughts?


I don't know what's worse...the laughable math behind this or the fact the idiot that wrote his works for Marketwatch as it's Global Commentary Editor. This is the same clown who wrote a piece first of May called....
One Last thing To Worry About: Gasoline Prices

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-less-thing-to-worry-about-gasoline-prices-2012-05-11

....people like him live in Cluelessville.

RagingBull80
05-27-12, 04:44 PM
:lol:

Every time a graph is brought out there's someone else who has another graph that proves the previous graph wrong.

Has there ever been a graph that everyone has unanimously agreed with? Or is it that each side will argue and come up with some questionable statistics that will disprove any graph that someone on the other side posts?

Superboy
05-27-12, 07:33 PM
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

koops
05-27-12, 10:21 PM
Damn you global warming!

PopcornTreeCt
05-27-12, 10:28 PM
But I like graphs!

Supermallet
05-28-12, 05:55 PM
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

I didn't realize Superboy was a Pastafarian.

Artman
05-28-12, 07:53 PM
That has nothing to do with it. I think people were frankly surprised to see anyone defend Palin's competence.


Someone doesn't make 20+mill without being competent. She may not be a good leader or politician, but she's competent. Maybe 'honorable' or 'integrity' might be the words you're looking for?

PopcornTreeCt
05-28-12, 11:07 PM
She's made $20 million+ ? Holy sheet.

kvrdave
05-29-12, 12:45 AM
:lol:

Every time a graph is brought out there's someone else who has another graph that proves the previous graph wrong.


Science!

PopcornTreeCt
05-29-12, 01:00 AM
Science!

Religion!

Supermallet
05-29-12, 01:52 AM
Science!

Religion!

Bears, oh my!

Superboy
05-29-12, 02:33 AM
She's made $20 million+ ? Holy sheet.

Yes. It's unbelievable how lucrative running for political office is.

grundle
05-29-12, 09:25 PM
I really like this ad:

OQUyS9H6ioI

grundle
05-29-12, 09:29 PM
:lol: You have to really look at those closely. He hasn't had big growth year over year in what he is spending because he had such a huge freaking jump in spending in the first year. It's a clever way to spin it, though. And it makes it sound like spending is actually down, but here is spending, etc.

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png>

http://i.imgur.com/KARzr.jpg

Obama spending binge never happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular)

Thoughts?


Those two graphs do not contradict each other, because they measure separate things - spending on the first, and the growth of spending on the second. To say that the second graph proves that the Obama spending binge never happened is not true.

JasonF
05-29-12, 10:11 PM
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
http://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/02/drudge-siren.gifhttp://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/02/drudge-siren.gifhttp://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/02/drudge-siren.gifhttp://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/02/drudge-siren.gif

Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination. There will not be a brokered convention.

Supermallet
05-29-12, 10:40 PM
Noooooooooo

The race will be so much more boring now.

JasonF
05-29-12, 11:39 PM
Face it, Supermallet -- Mitt is well on his way to becoming President of Amercia.

http://distilleryimage0.instagram.com/6b889b5ea9f811e188131231381b5c25_7.jpg

Superboy
05-30-12, 09:07 AM
Noooooooooo

The race will be so much more boring now.

Oh, it's only begun. We can only wait to see how nasty this political campaign can get.

classicman2
05-30-12, 09:09 AM
Which side has been the more nastiest? ;)

Venusian
05-30-12, 09:57 AM
The other side! My side is bringing up legitimate issues. The other side is just trying to detract from those issues with irrelevant stuff.

clappj
05-30-12, 10:04 AM
The other side! My side is bringing up legitimate issues. The other side is just trying to detract from those issues with irrelevant stuff.

:lol:

I just wish the Dems had a better idea than Obama.

Groucho
05-30-12, 10:25 AM
Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination. There will not be a brokered convention.Wrong. Why do you blindly believe the Rothschilds on everything they tell you? Ron Paul's secret delegates will come through in the end, you'll see.

Dr Mabuse
05-30-12, 11:20 AM
Groucho you used the whole 'Rothschilds' thing in the wrong context there.

Navinabob
05-30-12, 01:16 PM
Groucho you used the whole 'Rothschilds' thing in the wrong context there.

This forum has taught me that there is no wrong context to use the Rothschilds in. If you don't believe me, I'll gladly supply you with proof in the form of youtube videos.

Isn't funny that this cabal of evil Jews secretly controls our government, our world banks, and our entertainment industry, and yet doesn't have the pull to get rid of youtube videos?

RoboDad
05-30-12, 01:44 PM
Face it, Supermallet -- Mitt is well on his way to becoming President of Amercia.

http://distilleryimage0.instagram.com/6b889b5ea9f811e188131231381b5c25_7.jpg

Yep, of all 57 states (or is it 58?).

JasonF
05-30-12, 04:54 PM
It was 57, not 58. If you're still holding on to it after all these years, you ought to get it right.

(I think there's a difference between an app and a verbal mis-statement. On the one hand, I would have hoped the app got proofread a few times while when Obama misspoke, it was off the cuff with no opportunity for review or revision before it went live. On the other hand, Obama's misstatement was his own while I doubt Romney ever saw the app, let alone had responsibility for proofreading it. Either way, if Mitt Romney wins in November and in 2016 I'm still making a big deal about the fact that four years prior, his iPhone app had a typo in it, somebody shoot me.)

RoboDad
05-30-12, 06:42 PM
Actually, what he said was that he had visited 57 states, with one more to go, hence my joke about "or is it 58". In case you missed it, I did use the "57" reference in my post, so I don't quite understand your silly attempt to insult me. You failed miserably.

As for the relevance of his misstatement, you are correct that it was four years ago. However, you are also correct that it was his gaffe, not that of someone who was likely hired to create some artwork for an app. The fact that you (and others from your side of the aisle) continue to attempt to paint this as somehow being proof of Mitt Romney's stupidity is reason enough to dredge up every gaffe Obama has made (and there are many) in response.

So, either deal with the 57 states references, or else stop with the "Amercia" jokes. Neither are funny, but trying to say that one is relevant while the other is not is merely hypocritical.

JasonF
05-30-12, 06:58 PM
The fact that you (and others from your side of the aisle) continue to attempt to paint this as somehow being proof of Mitt Romney's stupidity is reason enough to dredge up every gaffe Obama has made (and there are many) in response.

So, either deal with the 57 states references, or else stop with the "Amercia" jokes. Neither are funny, but trying to say that one is relevant while the other is not is merely hypocritical.

Chill out. It happened yesterday. I made one post pointing it out because it was funny. I've moved on. But cling tight to your 57/58 -- it's a great universal response to any criticism of Mr. Romney!

RoboDad
05-30-12, 08:28 PM
It's not fitting for every criticism, just for those that carry the intellectual depth and substance of the Amercia "jokes".

Jason
05-30-12, 10:50 PM
So, either deal with the 57 states references, or else stop with the "Amercia" jokes. Neither are funny, but trying to say that one is relevant while the other is not is merely hypocritical.

Wow, you guys really don't have any thing else, do you?

Tracer Bullet
05-31-12, 09:27 AM
Amercia got robbed last year. She should have won American Idol, goddammit.

clappj
05-31-12, 10:03 AM
Wow, you guys really don't have any thing else, do you?

Well there's that, and four years of failed promises.

arminius
05-31-12, 10:18 AM
Well there's that, and four years of failed promises.

But everyone knows politicians never keep their promises. So is that really a negative or bau?

wmansir
06-01-12, 02:44 PM
Bill Clinton defended Romney's "sterling business career" and criticized the Obama's campaign's strategy of attacking his work at Bain on CNN last night.

I recall Obama campaigners saying it would be a central issue that they will continue pressing until election day, but if they can't even keep prominent Dem's on message then I don't know how effective it can be. Maybe it's worth it just so they have an excuse to run commercials with steel workers laid off 20 years ago claiming Romney burned and pillaged their town.

DeputyDave
06-01-12, 03:06 PM
The Bain issue was supposed to be a campaign killer and it has backfired. Romney's staff is more on the ball than I would have thought (I am still stuck in McCain mode, I guess). I'm betting you won't hear much more about it. Next up: RomneyCare and his record as governor (it will be funny having the Democrats painting him as "too liberal").

X
06-01-12, 03:18 PM
The Bain issue was supposed to be a campaign killer and it has backfired. Romney's staff is more on the ball than I would have thought (I am still stuck in McCain mode, I guess). I'm betting you won't hear much more about it.I'll take that bet.

DeputyDave
06-01-12, 03:44 PM
I'll take that bet.

Deal. Loser buys the first round at Steamworks?

Jason
06-01-12, 05:00 PM
I'll take that bet.

Agreed. I doubt even Romney will be able to keep quiet about it.

DeputyDave
06-01-12, 05:12 PM
Agreed. I doubt even Romney will be able to keep quiet about it.

I say it's a loser for Obama and they now know it. By bringing up Bain and his "record of losses" they open themselves up to Obama's far worse record (well, at least his administration's). Hence the reason for the Solyndra photo shoot.

X
06-01-12, 05:34 PM
Deal. Loser buys the first round at Steamworks?And the winner doesn't have to go?

DeputyDave
06-01-12, 05:44 PM
And the winner doesn't have to go?

C'mon, we're all just looking for an excuse to go.

PopcornTreeCt
06-03-12, 12:42 PM
What does Mitt have to run on besides Bain? A bunch of stuff he plans to do?

Dr Mabuse
06-03-12, 01:39 PM
Shitloads of money is what he has to run on.

:lol:

Money he personally made by fucking over the working class, and many of them will vote for him!

rotfl

DeputyDave
06-03-12, 03:13 PM
What does Mitt have to run on besides Bain? A bunch of stuff he plans to do?

What did Obama have? Hell, what does he have now? At least Mitt has executive office and real world experience outside of politics and the classroom.

Groucho
06-03-12, 03:36 PM
Yeah, if only Obama had some executive office experience. :(

Troy Stiffler
06-03-12, 03:39 PM
What does Mitt have to run on besides Bain? A bunch of stuff he plans to do?

He's not Obama.

Obama ruined the country and during his second term, income tax will go to 75% and we'll start executing those who don't share his views.

Win!

DeputyDave
06-05-12, 07:52 PM
What the hell is up with Bill Clinton?

MoviePage
06-05-12, 09:09 PM
Are you sure you want to know the answer to that?

Sean O'Hara
06-05-12, 09:28 PM
What the hell is up with Bill Clinton?

He's not getting enough blowjobs and is trying to attract attention.

DeputyDave
06-06-12, 02:01 AM
The only thing I can think of is he thinks Hillary stands a better chance agaist Mitt in 2016 than whomever the GOP puts up next if Obama wins. If she decides to run again, that is.

Tracer Bullet
06-06-12, 10:43 AM
What the hell is up with Bill Clinton?

His dick? I mean duh.

wm lopez
06-06-12, 10:58 AM
But everyone knows politicians never keep their promises. So is that really a negative or bau?
That Governor in Wisconsin has and they tried to vote him out.
But he won Tuesday's re-call election which is a sign Obama is gonna lose in November.

Dr Mabuse
06-06-12, 11:08 AM
Hey! WM is back in action.

CRM114
06-06-12, 12:03 PM
Meaningless poll but WTH. Keep grasping for PA, Romney. Spend your money.

Obama holds steady lead over Romney among Pennsylvania voters

Has the Mitt Romney campaign not invested resources in Pennsylvania because he's trailing in the polls or is he trailing in the polls because he hasn't spent money in Pennsylvania?

It's a chicken and the egg type query that's difficult to answer, but one thing is certain: In poll after poll, President Barack Obama consistently holds a sizable lead in Pennsylvania over his Republican foe.

The most recent survey released Wednesday morning by Franklin & Marshall College has Obama up over Romney by double digits, 48 percent to 36 percent.
More (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/blog_pennsylvania_ave/mc-obama-leads-romney-in-pennsylvania-20120606,0,7804670.story)

CRM114
06-06-12, 12:10 PM
Chill out. It happened yesterday. I made one post pointing it out because it was funny. I've moved on. But cling tight to your 57/58 -- it's a great universal response to any criticism of Mr. Romney!

I can't believe these Repubs are still grasping at the 57 states thing. What a maroon, that Obama!

wendersfan
06-06-12, 12:13 PM
That Governor in Wisconsin has and they tried to vote him out.
But he won Tuesday's re-call election which is a sign Obama is gonna lose in November.
Or maybe it was simply a 'pro-incumbent' vote, which is a sign Obama is going to win in November? You can spin things anyway you want, you know (especially since Democrats took the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday...)

CRM114
06-06-12, 12:17 PM
I say it's a loser for Obama and they now know it. By bringing up Bain and his "record of losses" they open themselves up to Obama's far worse record (well, at least his administration's). Hence the reason for the Solyndra photo shoot.

Yes, Solyndra. Lets talk more about Solyndra!

Romney-backed Konarka solar panel firm files for bankruptcy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-backed-konarka-solar-panel-firm-files-for-bankruptcy/2012/06/05/gJQArJbxFV_blog.html)

A solar-panel manufacturer that received $1.5 million in state loans during Mitt Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor has filed for bankruptcy.

Dr Mabuse
06-06-12, 12:23 PM
Or maybe it was simply a 'pro-incumbent' vote, which is a sign Obama is going to win in November? You can spin things anyway you want, you know (especially since Democrats took the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday...)

I think one conclusion that can be drawn from all the cheesiness in WI, is that Obama being too cowardly to support the unions and Dems in that situation was not a smart movie, and will cost him down the line.

CRM114
06-06-12, 12:34 PM
Or maybe it was simply a 'pro-incumbent' vote, which is a sign Obama is going to win in November? You can spin things anyway you want, you know (especially since Democrats took the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday...)

I'm thinking it was more of an anti-recall vote myself. It's ridiculous that a governor can be recalled just for doing stuff (legal stuff) that some constituency doesn't like. I think a lot of people in Wisconsin simply voted to shut down the recall because it's premise was stupid and wasteful.

I think one conclusion that can be drawn from all the cheesiness in WI, is that Obama being too cowardly to support the unions and Dems in that situation was not a smart movie, and will cost him down the line.

Perhaps the President believes elected officials should be able to move their agenda for their entire term? Elections have consequences.

clappj
06-06-12, 01:08 PM
Elections have consequences.

As Obama's past four years have so clearly shown. :lol:

X
06-06-12, 01:14 PM
I think the Wisconsin recall election (not to mention the 2010 U.S. Senate election there) showed that Republicans now have a decent ground operation (which will now be converted to Romney) and Wisconsin can't be taken for granted by Obama. Just trying to hold Wisconsin is going to soak up a lot of previously unexpected Obama re-election resources.

classicman2
06-06-12, 01:23 PM
Exit polls don't mean a great deal in predicting the election at hand. They mean even less in predicting the election 5 months down the road. Too many things can occur.

Navinabob
06-06-12, 02:02 PM
I think one conclusion that can be drawn from all the cheesiness in WI, is that Obama being too cowardly to support the unions and Dems in that situation was not a smart movie, and will cost him down the line.

Does this guy look cowardly to you? -rolleyes-

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e158/mcnail/OMG7/IMG_0152Medium.jpg

wishbone
06-06-12, 02:23 PM
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4531/hulkchange.jpg

logrus9
06-06-12, 02:33 PM
Yes, Solyndra. Lets talk more about Solyndra!

Obama + $535 million = bankruptcy in 2 years
Romney + $1.5 million = bankruptcy in 9 years

Do you really want to go there?

Dr Mabuse
06-06-12, 02:36 PM
Since it's so directly relevant and comparable, yeah I would say a lot of people are going to 'go there'.

:lol:

CRM114
06-06-12, 03:11 PM
As Obama's past four years have so clearly shown. :lol:

If by consequences you mean getting out of Iraq, killing bin Laden, and giving gays equal rights in the military, yes.

CRM114
06-06-12, 03:12 PM
Obama + $535 million = bankruptcy in 2 years
Romney + $1.5 million = bankruptcy in 9 years

Do you really want to go there?

Yes because the principal is the same. The difference is one is the federal government and one is a state government.

DeputyDave
06-06-12, 04:25 PM
Yes because the principal is the same. The difference is one is the federal government and one is a state government.

Whu...?

That rationalization hurt my brain.

The thing is the Democrats who voted for Obama last time will vote for him again. He also has ass loads of money (I'm hearing about the billion dollar war chest). His problem this time is even though he has their votes I don't think many are as excited about him like they were last time. There are just too many ways he has let his base down for them to really move "boots on the ground". He may have the money to overwhelm the airwaves with ads but that is mostly just preaching to the choir, this election (I feel) will be won door to door. I just don't think his base will muster the energy to do that for him. Obama not seeming to give a damn about the locals in Wisconsin will come back to bite him leading up to November.

logrus9
06-06-12, 07:01 PM
Yes because the principal is the same. The difference is one is the federal government and one is a state government.

Or that Obama can waste 350x more money in 1/4 of the time.

birdseye
06-06-12, 07:20 PM
Obama + $535 million = bankruptcy in 2 years
Romney + $1.5 million = bankruptcy in 9 years

Do you really want to go there?

Not to mention the Konarka loan was approved 2 months before Romney became Governor and he later tried to defund the state's green energy program that gave the loan. The company also paid back the loan long ago so taxpayers weren't out anything. The comparison to Solyndra is laughable.

JasonF
06-06-12, 08:09 PM
It's funny -- when the Solyndra thing first came out, everyone was howling that the government shouldn't be "picking winners and losers" because they're so terrible at it (unlike the private sector, which has never made a bad investment). Or that taxpayer money shouldn't be going to private companies. But when it comes out that Romney's administration did the same thing, suddenly it's not the fact of the subsidy -- it's the size of it, or how long it took the company to fail. Or something.

DeputyDave
06-06-12, 08:31 PM
It's funny -- when the Solyndra thing first came out, everyone was howling that the government shouldn't be "picking winners and losers" because they're so terrible at it (unlike the private sector, which has never made a bad investment). Or that taxpayer money shouldn't be going to private companies. But when it comes out that Romney's administration did the same thing, suddenly it's not the fact of the subsidy -- it's the size of it, or how long it took the company to fail. Or something.

I don't think you understand things. IF Romeney actually had something to do with Konarka it is bad in my mind but to a much, much lesser degree. Also the Obama WH has funded multiple green companies with the same results.

It's a poor comparison, like a bushel of apples to a drop of apple juice.

PopcornTreeCt
06-06-12, 11:52 PM
The Walker recall election is scary and hopefully not foretelling.

crazyronin
06-07-12, 06:37 AM
Yes, Solyndra. Lets talk more about Solyndra!

Konarka repaid the 1.5 million dollars from the 2002 loan. Governor Deval Patrick tripled down with a 5 million dollar loan, so this is a Romney failing how?

Should we hold our breath until Solyndra repays their 535 million dollar loan.


magic eight ball says, "no."

wm lopez
06-07-12, 12:01 PM
Or maybe it was simply a 'pro-incumbent' vote, which is a sign Obama is going to win in November? You can spin things anyway you want, you know (especially since Democrats took the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday...)

You need to watch Wed. Jon Stewert's THE DAILY SHOW.
He showed clips of MSNBC news anchors and how they reacted to the loss.
So I know how you feel.:lol:

wendersfan
06-07-12, 08:00 PM
You need to watch Wed. Jon Stewert's THE DAILY SHOW.No, not really. I don't have cable and didn't watch The Daily Show when I did.So I know how you feel.I'm quite sure you have no idea how I feel.

Tommy Ceez
06-07-12, 10:26 PM
Recalls are Sour Grapes that turns moderates and independents off. When someone wins, deal with their shit and be the wiser.

crazyronin
06-07-12, 10:27 PM
I'm quite sure you have no idea how I feel.

I have it on good authority that wendersfan feels soft and supple, like fine Corinthian leather.

wm lopez
06-08-12, 11:52 AM
No, not really. I don't have cable and didn't watch The Daily Show when I did.I'm quite sure you have no idea how I feel.

If somebody could post the clips of that day's show.

clappj
06-08-12, 12:00 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-6-2012/madison-men---scott-walker-prevails-in-wisconsin-recall

wishbone
06-08-12, 03:14 PM
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4079/obamas.jpg

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7666/prodbarryon.png

X
06-08-12, 03:18 PM
Funny, I didn't think state and local government were listed on NYSE or NASDAQ, but evidently that's why those indices are having so much trouble.

JasonF
06-08-12, 03:58 PM
Funny, I didn't think state and local government were listed on NYSE or NASDAQ, but evidently that's why those indices are having so much trouble.

Your talking point is a couple of days out of date -- the Dow and the NASDAQ have regained everything they lost since the jobs report.

Since inauguration day, the Dow is up roughly 50% and the NASDAQ is up roughly 80%.

X
06-08-12, 04:08 PM
Your talking point is a couple of days out of date -- the Dow and the NASDAQ have regained everything they lost since the jobs report.

Since inauguration day, the Dow is up roughly 50% and the NASDAQ is up roughly 80%.Thanks! It's good to know that the markets aren't depressed and bond prices are reflecting interest rates indicative of a healthy market (except for state and local governments, that is).

Guess there isn't much upside to look forward to anymore, until all those state and local governments bring unemployment back down to around 4%. That sure is a lot of hiring, but I'm certain having so many people work for the government is the current administration's goal.

JasonF
06-08-12, 04:24 PM
Don't run your mouth about the Dow and NASDAQ having toruble if that's not what you meant.

X
06-08-12, 04:30 PM
Don't run your mouth about the Dow and NASDAQ having toruble if that's not what you meant.If you think they're healthy you might actually believe what Obama said, "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government."

Just wait until the state and local governments start spending again (and it's kind of hard to see where they aren't), the markets are going to go wild! Oh, I forgot, they're already great.

DeputyDave
06-08-12, 04:33 PM
The GOP ad based on "The private sector is doing fine..." statement by Obama. They are quick.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/241jxCN1AfQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

birdseye
06-08-12, 04:56 PM
Obama saying "the private sector is doing fine" reminds me of McCain saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in the fall of 2008, something Obama hammered him on over and over. I would expect Romney to get a lot of mileage out of this one.

wmansir
06-08-12, 06:35 PM
The AP is suggesting Obama's comment was taken out of context even though it was clearly not.

"Obama's original six-word sentence, even if taken out of context, amounted to an unforced political error."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018385894_apuspresidentialcampaign.html

Michael T Hudson
06-08-12, 08:10 PM
Obama saying "the private sector is doing fine" reminds me of McCain saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in the fall of 2008, something Obama hammered him on over and over. I would expect Romney to get a lot of mileage out of this one.



That was the first thing that came to my mind as well.

PenguinJoe
06-10-12, 06:36 PM
This site is going viral on facebook.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Tracer Bullet
06-10-12, 07:02 PM
Obama saying "the private sector is doing fine" reminds me of McCain saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in the fall of 2008, something Obama hammered him on over and over. I would expect Romney to get a lot of mileage out of this one.

Well, corporate profits are at an all-time high, so...

DeputyDave
06-10-12, 09:39 PM
This site is going viral on facebook.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

I can't wait for the counter site.

Groucho
06-10-12, 09:48 PM
I can't wait for the counter site.Here you go:

http://www.countertopvalet.com/

Sean O'Hara
06-10-12, 10:24 PM
This site is going viral on facebook.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Fascinating.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Nwlz4jEji7I/T9VWe5qG87I/AAAAAAAABy8/HQsQCTPKpd0/s800/screen.jpg

Groucho
06-10-12, 10:26 PM
Are we not worth the effort required to put a "funny" tab at the bottom there?