|
| Who do you think will win the presidential election in the USA? |
| President Obama |
|
84% |
[ 33 ] |
| Mitt Romney |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 39 |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13174
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | The "Liberal" Romney doesn't seem very different from President Obama, depending on what we get after jiggling the etchasketch.
If Romney talks too much about his plan to destroy Social Security, then he may be in danger of losing Florida. |
I wouldn't be too concerned if the "old Romney" wins the election. But it's this new, "conservative" Romney who scares the crap out of me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | ArrantPariah wrote: | The "Liberal" Romney doesn't seem very different from President Obama, depending on what we get after jiggling the etchasketch.
If Romney talks too much about his plan to destroy Social Security, then he may be in danger of losing Florida. |
I wouldn't be too concerned if the "old Romney" wins the election. But it's this new, "conservative" Romney who scares the crap out of me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
The conservative Romney is the one I do not like I like the liberal Romeny the most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rocky
This dude is one hoopy frood!
Joined: May 02, 2008
Posts: 2096
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | ArrantPariah wrote: | It appears that most of you guys are a lot more optimistic than I am.
As I perceive things: roughly 40 percent of the nation consists of committed Evango-Fascists. All that Romney has to do is spend the billion dollars (give or take a few hundred million) at his disposal to convince another 10 percent of the population to vote for him, and the country is his.
Realistically, the Solidly Stupid South and most of the Great Plains/Desert/Rocky Mountain states will be his by default. It is just a matter of spending enormous sums of money on advertising and robo-calling in a few swing states (Florida, Ohio, a couple of others) to get enough idiots to vote for him, and sic transit natio.
Then, school children throughout the land will taught to read from the Book of Mormon.
Curse you, Abraham Lincoln!!!!! |
The problem is right-wingers are more likely "fall in line" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" while progressives become so depressed with the "options" available that they decide to stay home on election day. Thus 30% of the population who are right-wingers will keep pushing the country farther and farther to the right. When the repugs win with less than 30% eligible voters actually voting for them it's a fair sign that we don't have a functioning democracy. |
You make a very good point. Many of the people who voted President Obama into office will not be voting this time. They were first time voters who wanted to be part of history to vote in the first president of African decent. "Change" resonated because a large majority was fed up with the Bush administration. That will not be a factor this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| November's election results are a foregone conclusion. Bamitt Obamney will win against all odds, therefore ensuring a Republicrat victory in the White House. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CoMF wrote: | | November's election results are a foregone conclusion. Bamitt Obamney will win against all odds, therefore ensuring a Republicrat victory in the White House. |
How do you know it won't be the Demoblican candidate Mirack Rombama?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 5086
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In our favour, African-Americans may once again be motivated to vote in large numbers, which may tip the balance in some states. However, Repugnicans have been doing their best to prevent minorities and poor people from voting. So, we shall see what pans out.
Moreover, if Romney continues harping on his plans to impoverish the nation
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-guns-triumph-over-butter-120715130.html
...then, more people who are not idiotic right-wing nut jobs may be inclined to get out and vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It depends on which Romney ends up running in the election. Are we getting the Republican primaries Romney where he's forced to cater to the right-wing evangelicals and extreme social conservatives or will we get the Romney who in many ways is a centrist and in some cases to the left of Obama?
It also depends on what happens with the House and the Senate since a democratic controlled congress seems to be more inclined to cooperation as opposed to opposition for the sake of opposition. Romney will be more effective if the current congress stays as it is if he runs a centrist line, whereas Obama is more likely to have to "wage war". |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9445
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | In our favour, African-Americans may once again be motivated to vote in large numbers, which may tip the balance in some states. However, Repugnicans have been doing their best to prevent minorities and poor people from voting. So, we shall see what pans out.
Moreover, if Romney continues harping on his plans to impoverish the nation
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-guns-triumph-over-butter-120715130.html
...then, more people who are not idiotic right-wing nut jobs may be inclined to get out and vote. |
I say don't let Romney move back to the center. He needs to be held to his word in terms of supporting the Ryan "budget" plan. It needs to be pounded into peoples heads that the proposed tax cuts on the wealthy will have to be paid for through even deeper cuts to programs like medicare and medicaid, hurting the most vulnerable members of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 5086
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm thinking that middle-aged and older women will vote in large numbers for Romney, because they think that he is handsome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5338
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | The problem is right-wingers are more likely "fall in line" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" while progressives become so depressed with the "options" available that they decide to stay home on election day. Thus 30% of the population who are right-wingers will keep pushing the country farther and farther to the right. When the repugs win with less than 30% eligible voters actually voting for them it's a fair sign that we don't have a functioning democracy. |
I can't quite tell if you're admiring or detesting the greater party unity seen on the right; would you prefer that the left simply vote for whoever has the D after their name?
I would also contest you on the point, as the religious right is quite well known for sitting out elections entirely rather than voting for lesser evil candidates; it's the quality that's given them such power over the Republicans, as other areas of their base can be manipulated with the lesser evil play or manufactured umbrage into voting for them regardless. Part of Karl Rove's "genius" was putting things like anti-gay bills on the ballot at the same time as the presidential elections to draw the evangelical crowd out to vote, as W alone wasn't exciting enough to bring them to the polls, but while they were there voting against the gays anyway...
You see a similar dynamic on the left with with blue dogs, they wield outsized influence precisely because they're willing to walk rather than go for the lesser evil, which means they get what they want while the more "reliable" progressives and such suck hind tit.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 5086
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jojoba
Sea Gull
Joined: Feb 08, 2011
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm inclined to believe Mitt Romney will win the close election. One of the key issues in this election concerns the state of the economy. The measures that the Obama administration have taken to spur job growth - increase government's size, large stimulus spending, and historic amounts of money printing are not working. There has been no economic boom from these measures. Many people remain with out work, with little hope of finding employment. In the end all we find is ourself in greater debt.
This is forcing the President to run on a weaker platform, class warfare. I'm sure Obama would prefer to promote on his campaign the idea of a greatly improved economy from his measures. That isn't possible though.
Mitt Romney has an advantage in that he can promote the idea of greater opportunity under his contrasting economic ideas from the President of less government involvement, and more private business growth.
Thought Martin Weiss had an interesting article this morning about the lack of results seen over money printing and government stimulus.
"The Deadliest Vicious Cycle We’ve Ever Seen"
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/the-deadliest-vicious-cycle-weve-ever-seen-49489?FIELD9=RWRA
| Quote: | ...Fact #1. The world’s most powerful governments have printed more paper money in the last three years than in the prior half century!
Read that again and think about it carefully for a moment.
If just ONE government ran its money-printing presses 24/7, it would be dangerous enough.
But as I demonstrated here last week, we now have ALL FOUR of the most powerful central banks doing it all at once.
And this money printing is SO big — with the potential for such a dramatic impact on your financial life — I feel I MUST give you the details again:
It’s all summarized in this chart, showing you the size of each central bank’s balance sheet — a measure for the total money-printing operations to date.
And as you can plainly see, every major central bank in the world has joined the party …
The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) has nearly TRIPLED the size of its balance sheet — from about 6% of GDP just three years ago to almost 17% of GDP.
The Bank of England (BOE) has followed in lock step with the U.S.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has suddenly expanded its balance sheet from about 20% of GDP to close to 30% GDP. And …
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has also run up the size of its balance sheet assets to about 30% of its economy!
Total Balance Sheets of the Four
Central Banks: More Than $10 Trillion!
That’s $10 trillion in paper money that’s been pumped into the global economy!
I cannot stress enough how unprecedented this is.
Even in the early 1930s, when the nation’s entire banking system shut down … and even in the early 1980s, when hundreds of U.S. banks were failing each year, the Fed and other central banks never went this far. (The sole exception: The central bank of Germany in the 1920s.)
But here’s the greatest irony of all: It’s not working.
Or, at best, it’s running into the law of diminishing returns — more money, less results.
Shock and Awe
Think how utterly disappointing — and shocking — that must be for the masterminds behind this giant global money operation!
They had hoped that, after dumping all these trillions into their economies, they would have created a respectable boom.
But we see nothing of the kind!... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13174
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Social and financial inequality aren't a concern? The wealthy aren't waging class warfare on the rest of us?
Romney recently said such matters should be discussed in "quiet rooms." But if the matter of civil rights for blacks had been left for discussion in quiet rooms, we'd still had segregation.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9445
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | The problem is right-wingers are more likely "fall in line" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" while progressives become so depressed with the "options" available that they decide to stay home on election day. Thus 30% of the population who are right-wingers will keep pushing the country farther and farther to the right. When the repugs win with less than 30% eligible voters actually voting for them it's a fair sign that we don't have a functioning democracy. |
I can't quite tell if you're admiring or detesting the greater party unity seen on the right; |
Neither. I'm merely pointing out a fact.
| Quote: | | would you prefer that the left simply vote for whoever has the D after their name? |
In the past, no. Now, considering the direction the Republican Party wants to steer the country in, hell yes. And if the D's get pushed too far to the right maybe it's time for a political insurgency. The problem is a progressive insurgency will never get the big money astroturfing going behind it the way the Tea Party did, even if the raw numbers are there to support a movement. But in any case progressives need to be willing to get off their asses and start holding candidates feet to the fire during primaries the way the Republicans do. "protesting" by sitting out elections or voting for fringe third party candidates is not the winning way to go. Definitely not for progressives concerned about economic issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5338
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | In the past, no. Now, considering the direction the Republican Party wants to steer the country in, hell yes. And if the D's get pushed too far to the right maybe it's time for a political insurgency. The problem is a progressive insurgency will never get the big money astroturfing going behind it the way the Tea Party did, even if the raw numbers are there to support a movement. But in any case progressives need to be willing to get off their asses and start holding candidates feet to the fire during primaries the way the Republicans do. "protesting" by sitting out elections or voting for fringe third party candidates is not the winning way to go. Definitely not for progressives concerned about economic issues. |
I think you're contradicting yourself a bit Marshall; on the one hand you want to hold candidates accountable, but on the other you say they should vote a party ticket if it hurts the GOP. How do you hold them accountable if they know you'll vote for them regardless because of fear of the GOP?
Now personally I think voting reform is the necessary first step, preferably something like STV/IRV that would let you vote 3rd party without fear of handing the election to the "greater evil", but that's a whole other thread.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
