Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[Geoforce]

So now that it's Romney (c'mon he's a lock) vs. Obama what does everyone think? Not in the policies or blah, blah, blah government, but the actual race. Who wins and why? I was just reading how Obama had a lot more money but Romney is closing the gap because of huge donors and the Supreme court decision to allow them so the money thing might not be much of an advantage.

 

[EasyEJL]

I wonder how much $866 billion would really be worth in 2020?

enough for a tank of gas in a Suburban

 

[EasyEJL]

So now that it's Romney (c'mon he's a lock) vs. Obama what does everyone think? Not in the policies or blah, blah, blah government, but the actual race. Who wins and why? I was just reading how Obama had a lot more money but Romney is closing the gap because of huge donors and the Supreme court decision to allow them so the money thing might not be much of an advantage.

its going to be another squeaker the whole time unless a few things happen. Basically there is fairly little Romney can do to make his chances worse unless he really goes out of his way. Obama on the other hand is at the mercy of the economy. $5.50 a gallon gas in november? No way he's reelected. Unemployment starts going back up again to 8.4 or 8.5 percent and his odds go down significantly. Plenty of other things not entirely in his control that can capsize him.

 

[Geoforce]

its going to be another squeaker the whole time unless a few things happen. Basically there is fairly little Romney can do to make his chances worse unless he really goes out of his way. Obama on the other hand is at the mercy of the economy. $5.50 a gallon gas in november? No way he's reelected. Unemployment starts going back up again to 8.4 or 8.5 percent and his odds go down significantly. Plenty of other things not entirely in his control that can capsize him.

Agree with the squeaker. If you had to place a 10,000 dollar bet right now (yes I picked that on purpose ) who do you think takes it in November?

 

[ax1]

Agree with the squeaker. If you had to place a 10,000 dollar bet right now (yes I picked that on purpose ) who do you think takes it in November?

Considering its another monopoly of the republicrats, Goldman Sacchs, Chase, Federal Reserve, and the rest of the corporate/banking elite already won. The election ended as soon as it started.

 

[EasyEJL]

Agree with the squeaker. If you had to place a 10,000 dollar bet right now (yes I picked that on purpose ) who do you think takes it in November?

Romney. Better odds some crap will go wrong for Obama than for him

 

[carpee]

unless we are conveniently at war with Iran...

the war drums are obviously beating. Iran is building missile sites in venezuela and possibly Cuba.

also the peacetime Marshall law thing comes to mind.
if this guy is the power hungry person he's shown to be, it's not in the realm of impossibility.

 

[Whacked]

In addition to what EasyEJL stated........If Obamacare gets repealed, I think Obama is TOAST as well as that is his prized legacy and what his administration stands on. It's not just the health care piece but the fact that this "idea" was the first important step and at the epicenter of a broader socialistic agenda. Throw it out and his foundation takes a hit.

Obama on the other hand is at the mercy of the economy. $5.50 a gallon gas in november? No way he's reelected. Unemployment starts going back up again to 8.4 or 8.5 percent and his odds go down significantly. Plenty of other things not entirely in his control that can capsize him.

 

[Whacked]

Only reason I diagree is that the media favor Obama and given the SHEER INFLUENCE AND POWER of the media, all pimping Obama - he STILL might win. Remember, 95% of the people that vote don't have a clue and SIMPLY ONLY vote on the "like-ability factor".

Romney. Better odds some crap will go wrong for Obama than for him

 

[EasyEJL]

from a statement today



$210-220 billion just in interest this year....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/14/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-interest-load-will-hit-nearly/

could be 1 trillion in interest by the end of this decade

CBO says that during 2019, net interest costs will reach $794 billion. By 2020, the number reaches $866 billion.

keep in mind, in 2010 the IRS only collected $2.3 trillion. By 2020 more than 40% of that will be eaten up by interest payments alone. 8 years away....

 

[carpee]

Only reason I diagree is that the media favor Obama and given the SHEER INFLUENCE AND POWER of the media, all pimping Obama - he STILL might win. Remember, 95% of the people that vote don't have a clue and SIMPLY ONLY vote on the "like-ability factor".

exactly why we will never have a discussion on socialism/marxism vs. a free market.

they are going to use media, education, whatever other institutions they have to to influence culture to their agenda.

the moves they are making (/have made, this is over 100 years in) are right in the communist manifesto. it's a free e book anyone can read.

it's all very Alinsky.

 

[Geoforce]

Romney. Better odds some crap will go wrong for Obama than for him

What's interesting to me is I haven't ever legitimately heard someone say they were a Mitt Romney fan (and I live in a state of almost nothing but conservatives). It seems as if no one really likes him in terms of Mitt Romney the man is a great guy who strongly believes in X, X, X, and will make our country better because he strongly believes in X, X, X. Of course I've heard tons of "I hate Obama so I'm voting for Romney who isn't Obama."

So it's an interesting breakdown....can Romney win on just anti-Obama votes while being a guy that seemingly no one really "likes." I think he can and maybe will, but it's odd to me that no one seems to like him.

I don't know that I've read one article lately that talked about Romney's ideas, beliefs, convictions, but about how he will win because he isn't Obama.

 

[fueledpassion]

exactly why we will never have a discussion on socialism/marxism vs. a free market.

they are going to use media, education, whatever other institutions they have to to influence culture to their agenda.

the moves they are making (/have made, this is over 100 years in) are right in the communist manifesto. it's a free e book anyone can read.

it's all very Alinsky.

And the evidence for such a claim is astoundingly abundant if one would dig into history a bit...

 

[Geoforce]

Considering its another monopoly of the republicrats, Goldman Sacchs, Chase, Federal Reserve, and the rest of the corporate/banking elite already won. The election ended as soon as it started.

Undoubtedly true. My sadness with our voting process started in 2004 when I realized the dumbest door knob in the world was going to get a second term (this was when I was young and hadn't quite put together the lack of differences between the two parties).

In a sense Obama has been good because he has been so similar to W. I think it's opened a lot of people's eyes that the two parties are basically one and the same. Both for big government, with the main difference being the flavor of big government you prefer. Republicans pushing a theocracy down our throats and legislating morality with big government while Democrats try to push social programs down our throat. And neither side has proven a shred of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Rahl]

Undoubtedly true. My sadness with our voting process started in 2004 when I realized the dumbest door knob in the world was going to get a second term (this was when I was young and hadn't quite put together the lack of differences between the two parties).

In a sense Obama has been good because he has been so similar to W. I think it's opened a lot of people's eyes that the two parties are basically one and the same. Both for big government, with the main difference being the flavor of big government you prefer. Republicans pushing a theocracy down our throats and legislating morality with big government while Democrats try to push social programs down our throat. And neither side has proven a shred of fiscal responsibility.

Very well stated. The big winner may be libertarianism. It appeals to moderates who believe in civil liberties and free markets.

As to this election it's entirely possible that Romney wins on "he's not Obama".

 

[Geoforce]

Very well stated. The big winner may be libertarianism. It appeals to moderates who believe in civil liberties and free markets.

I would love for this to be the case. Seems as if a moderate doesn't exist anymore in either party. Maybe with both sides appealing so much to the fringe the center will emerge. I can only hope you're correct!

 

[carpee]

And the evidence for such a claim is astoundingly abundant if one would dig into history a bit...

people are too busy with their lives...no one cares.

and people calling out the Marxists are just demonized....Allen West.

 

[Rahl]

I would love for this to be the case. Seems as if a moderate doesn't exist anymore in either party. Maybe with both sides appealing so much to the fringe the center will emerge. I can only hope you're correct!

Both parties have been purging their ranks of moderates for years. Lately the GOP more so. Increasingly disenfranchising many of their own voters.

I think it will probably swing bag to status quo anyway though.

 

[Whacked]

Nice point....but MANY voted for Obama instead of McCain as the anti-BUSH pick (McCain was purported to be "more of the same" and Bush was the most loathed president of all time........undeservingly)

What's interesting to me is I haven't ever legitimately heard someone say they were a Mitt Romney fan (and I live in a state of almost nothing but conservatives). It seems as if no one really likes him in terms of Mitt Romney the man is a great guy who strongly believes in X, X, X, and will make our country better because he strongly believes in X, X, X. Of course I've heard tons of "I hate Obama so I'm voting for Romney who isn't Obama."

So it's an interesting breakdown....can Romney win on just anti-Obama votes while being a guy that seemingly no one really "likes." I think he can and maybe will, but it's odd to me that no one seems to like him.

I don't know that I've read one article lately that talked about Romney's ideas, beliefs, convictions, but about how he will win because he isn't Obama.

 

[StangBanger]

undeservingly

deservedly.... we as Americans lost more freedoms under Bush than all presidents combined in history. Think about that (and look it up if you dont believe me)... and no, i am not a democrat.

 

[ax1]

deservedly.... we as Americans lost more freedoms under Bush than all presidents combined in history. Think about that (and look it up if you dont believe me)... and no, i am not a democrat.

Bush = Patriot Act

Obama = Patriot Act extension + National Defense Authorization Act act + National Defense Resources Preparedness

Obama by far, and I mean by far has outdone what Bush did to strip all of us of our freedoms. Obama is Bush on Steroids. Just wanna add, if Bush had a 3rd term it would be all the same anyways.

 

[StangBanger]

well as of right now, Bush holds the record... Obama is killing our freedom too no doubt but has yet to remove as many actual rights then his predecessor has.... YET.

 

[Geoforce]

well as of right now, Bush holds the record... Obama is killing our freedom too no doubt but has yet to remove as many actual rights then his predecessor has.... YET.

Not to mention Bush was the one that put them into play. It's tough to take that stuff away once enacted. I'm sure Obama would receive flak from many security lunatics if he diminished a lot of the Patriot Acts aspects. Obama doesn't deserve credit for continuing these policies, but just like social programs the military has a hard time when you say you want to take away their goodies as well.

Either way it's a bit like arguing if you'd rather die in a pit by being eaten by a pack of lions or a pack of tigers.

 

[ax1]

well as of right now, Bush holds the record... Obama is killing our freedom too no doubt but has yet to remove as many actual rights then his predecessor has.... YET.

Well, if you looked up those act's I posted that Obama approve you will understand.

NDAA act, basically they can take any american without due process, no right to lawyer, they can make you disappear indefinitely and even legally kill you without a court hearing. Allows military to roam our streets.

National Defense Resources Preparedness allows military to take our property and all of our natural resources (solar, farm/garden, well water, etc), and also has re-instituted the draft allowing the military to forcibly take american citizens to do labor for them.

And much more (including extending bush's patriot act),

Are you really saying Obama has taken less of our freedoms away than Bush did?

 

[ax1]

Not to mention Bush was the one that put them into play. It's tough to take that stuff away once enacted. I'm sure Obama would receive flak from many security lunatics if he diminished a lot of the Patriot Acts aspects. Obama doesn't deserve credit for continuing these policies, but just like social programs the military has a hard time when you say you want to take away their goodies as well.

Either way it's a bit like arguing if you'd rather die in a pit by being eaten by a pack of lions or a pack of tigers.

Right, he didnt take it away he was born into it, but instead of stalling he added unconstitutional police state policies on steroids. Again, National Defense Authorization Act act + National Defense Resources Preparedness is Obama's policies.

 

[Rahl]

Nice point....but MANY voted for Obama instead of McCain as the anti-BUSH pick (McCain was purported to be "more of the same" and Bush was the most loathed president of all time........undeservingly)

Undeservedly? Really? No I'd say he pretty much deserves that. I voted for the fool the first time in full disclosure but after 4 years I'd seen enough.

McCain had a chance if he hadn't sold his soul to the RNC and let them stuff Palin on the ballot because they felt they needed a woman.

AX is right though. If Ndaa is not struck down Obama will take the helm as the worst. Bush AND McCain would have done the same and quite possibly worse. DHS is taking over law enforcement. Last week DHS was searching people at bus stops in Texas. Last summer I took the ferry to Cape May from DE. DHS was all over that boat. Not coast guard. Not local enforcement. DHS. DHS with dogs at the beach. Fun times.

 

[EasyEJL]

deservedly.... we as Americans lost more freedoms under Bush than all presidents combined in history. Think about that (and look it up if you dont believe me)... and no, i am not a democrat.

Obama has been pretty competitive with that

 

[Rahl]

Obama has been pretty competitive with that

That he has. Romney shows no sign of being any different.

 

[ax1]

 

[Rahl]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-errBnoxvkX8/T5im82wV8KI/AAAAAAAABa4/OAxQQuh9h7g/s1600/BushEqualsObamaEqualsRomney.jpg

Haha. That's awesome. Saving that.

 

[Whacked]

=

=

 

[ax1]

[h=1]Actually, Ron Paul Is Secretly Winning A Lot More Delegates Than You Think [/h]http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winning-delegates-missouri-minnesota-colorado-washington-2012-4#ixzz1tMDgquQJ

 

[Geoforce]

[h=1]Actually, Ron Paul Is Secretly Winning A Lot More Delegates Than You Think [/h]http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winning-delegates-missouri-minnesota-colorado-washington-2012-4#ixzz1tMDgquQJ

Does he run third party or not? I'm leaning towards no because of his kid but I'll admit I'm not really basing that on anything. Clearly I believe if he runs Obama wins...but he would be who I voted for without hesitation and I could feel good about voting for President for once.

 

[ax1]

Does he run third party or not? I'm leaning towards no because of his kid but I'll admit I'm not really basing that on anything. Clearly I believe if he runs Obama wins...but he would be who I voted for without hesitation and I could feel good about voting for President for once.

We will have to wait and find out. Have your popcorn ready.

 

[Geoforce]

We will have to wait and find out. Have your popcorn ready.

Yeah but I'm sure they will screw him out of most of the debates! Hell he got ignored in the Republican ones!

 

[ax1]

Yeah but I'm sure they will screw him out of most of the debates! Hell he got ignored in the Republican ones!

Of course...its like when Ralph Nader was left out of the debates some student gave him his ticket. When he showed up to attend the debate the police kicked Ralphy off the property and said they will arrest him if he stays. So not only will they not you get on the debates, they dont even let you listen to them either if you run for president, or even let you hang out in the parking lot.

They dont give a crap if your running for president and your not a globalist new world order barbaric monster.

 

[ax1]

Of course...its like when Ralph Nader was left out of the debates some student gave him his ticket. When he showed up to attend the debate the police kicked Ralphy off the property and said they will arrest him if he stays. So not only will they not you get on the debates, they dont even let you listen to them either if you run for president, or even let you hang out in the parking lot.

They dont give a crap if your running for president and your not a globalist new world order barbaric monster.

Oh, here it is. Start at minute 4:00 if you dont have time.

 

[AE14]

[h=1]Actually, Ron Paul Is Secretly Winning A Lot More Delegates Than You Think [/h]http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winning-delegates-missouri-minnesota-colorado-washington-2012-4#ixzz1tMDgquQJ

Oy. Get your tinfoil ready.

 

[Whacked]

Is t just me or is Ron Paul a very poor speaker. He cannot convey/articulate points well at all (even when I agree with his positions)

Let's face it, having the gift of oration fools the masses into thinking you know what you're talking about.

He would be a decent choice (it'll NEVER happen) but his delivery and presence is brutal.

Yeah but I'm sure they will screw him out of most of the debates! Hell he got ignored in the Republican ones!

Of course...its like when Ralph Nader was left out of the debates some student gave him his ticket. When he showed up to attend the debate the police kicked Ralphy off the property and said they will arrest him if he stays. So not only will they not you get on the debates, they dont even let you listen to them either if you run for president, or even let you hang out in the parking lot.

They dont give a crap if your running for president and your not a globalist new world order barbaric monster.

 

[ax1]

Is t just me or is Ron Paul a very poor speaker. He cannot convey/articulate points well at all (even when I agree with his positions)

Let's face it, having the gift of oration fools the masses into thinking you know what you're talking about.

He would be a decent choice (it'll NEVER happen) but his delivery and presence is brutal.

I dont judge by acting skills but rather content for starters. Looking "Presidential" is 100% meaningless.

I feel Ron Paul is extremely articulate, but these debates are staged with such dumb questions that I feel that Ron Paul has trouble articulating with stupidity.

 

[Whacked]

I hear ya for the most part and similarly, I do not label/or put too much stock in candidates based on peripherals either BUT being confident/exuding confidence and conveying leadership is "one" important quality as he represents us in world affairs. George Bush was embarrassing.

The bigger point and context I failed to convey earlier and should have included was that the masses will not vote for Ron Paul and this is one big reason why (along with several others). Sarah Palin is another somewhat poor orator (she has confidence but comes off silly/goofy some times) and didnt look/sound Presidential (since the Vice Pres is judged accordingly) and similarly, she is very unliked.

Sadly, likeability factor, confidence, appearance are all attributes that matter to many people and with the same 'value' as the candidates' positions. Don't shoot the messenger but I think this is the sad reality

I dont judge by acting skills but rather content for starters. Looking "Presidential" is 100% meaningless.

I feel Ron Paul is extremely articulate, but these debates are staged with such dumb questions that I feel that Ron Paul has trouble articulating with stupidity.

 

[D3Baseball]

As for the Bush v Obama civil rights discussion.

There is a difference between pushing the Patriot Act onto the legislative agenda and signing the NDAA.

The NDAA is an appropriations bill, necessary to fund (you guessed it) national defense. When Obama threatened to veto, Congress held the bill till the last minute. Had Obama vetoed it, he'd have been crucified for denying money to the military. It was a power play by Congress, plain and simple.

Lincoln (the only president that seems to be universally liked by both regular people and political scholars) enacted martial law and received very little criticism then or later for it. Why not? He hardly used it. Obama may have decided he would sign the appropriations bill, not abuse his power, and remedy the situation later when the military wouldnt pay the price.

Just some food for thought.

 

[ax1]

As for the Bush v Obama civil rights discussion.

There is a difference between pushing the Patriot Act onto the legislative agenda and signing the NDAA.

The NDAA is an appropriations bill, necessary to fund (you guessed it) national defense. When Obama threatened to veto, Congress held the bill till the last minute. Had Obama vetoed it, he'd have been crucified for denying money to the military. It was a power play by Congress, plain and simple.

Lincoln (the only president that seems to be universally liked by both regular people and political scholars) enacted martial law and received very little criticism then or later for it. Why not? He hardly used it. Obama may have decided he would sign the appropriations bill, not abuse his power, and remedy the situation later when the military wouldnt pay the price.

Just some food for thought.

Its all Art of War tactics. Back off when there is public resistance, and move ahead when people back down.

Congress doesnt have any real power, look how Obama and the Military totally bypass congress and seek the UN/NATO for approval to go to war.

The only remedy has been to sign another bill, National Defense Resources Preparedness act, lets see whats next as they finalize the police state.

 

[EasyEJL]

As for the Bush v Obama civil rights discussion.

There is a difference between pushing the Patriot Act onto the legislative agenda and signing the NDAA.

The NDAA is an appropriations bill, necessary to fund (you guessed it) national defense. When Obama threatened to veto, Congress held the bill till the last minute. Had Obama vetoed it, he'd have been crucified for denying money to the military. It was a power play by Congress, plain and simple.

Lincoln (the only president that seems to be universally liked by both regular people and political scholars) enacted martial law and received very little criticism then or later for it. Why not? He hardly used it. Obama may have decided he would sign the appropriations bill, not abuse his power, and remedy the situation later when the military wouldnt pay the price.

Just some food for thought.

That might be relevant if the NDAA was the only abrogation of our rights that Obama was involved in, but it is not by any stretch.

 

[Geoforce]

That might be relevant if the NDAA was the only abrogation of our rights that Obama was involved in, but it is not by any stretch.

True, but it's not like Bush doesn't have his fair share of things on his hands. Not to mention the worst war in American history (my opinion--Iraq). Still a stupid argument, both have been awful for our civil liberties that is undeniable! I give Bush less points though for starting the stuff. It is much easier to just keep a gov't program going than to stop one so all the crap he started (Patriot Act) counts off big time. Because now that it's in place we all know it probably isn't going anywhere ever.

 

[ax1]

True, but it's not like Bush doesn't have his fair share of things on his hands. Not to mention the worst war in American history (my opinion--Iraq). Still a stupid argument, both have been awful for our civil liberties that is undeniable! I give Bush less points though for starting the stuff. It is much easier to just keep a gov't program going than to stop one so all the crap he started (Patriot Act) counts off big time. Because now that it's in place we all know it probably isn't going anywhere ever.

I dont think anybody (well, I can only speak for myself) is defending Bush in any way. Obama is really just George Bush's 3rd term.

Bush did start the Iraq war, Obama has not only expanded it (and I dont go along with "pulled out" hoax) but he has gone to war with a dictatorial executive order under the authority of foreign powers (NATO/UN).

Nothing is going anywhere thats for sure. We can see that although all Bush's police state policy was campaigned against as part of Obama's promises, he has extended and also quadrupled+ it by signing even more radical police state policies. I smell a filthy rat.

 

[Geoforce]

I dont think anybody (well, I can only speak for myself) is defending Bush in any way. Obama is really just George Bush's 3rd term.

Bush did start the Iraq war, Obama has not only expanded it (and I dont go along with "pulled out" hoax) but he has gone to war with a dictatorial executive order under the authority of foreign powers (NATO/UN).

Nothing is going anywhere thats for sure. We can see that although all Bush's police state policy was campaigned against as part of Obama's promises, he has extended and also quadrupled+ it by signing even more radical police state policies. I smell a filthy rat.

Campaigning against something and doing something about it are two completely different things. We know Republicans will campaign on keeping government out of our lives, but will govern by legislating morality under the guise of religion. They will claim they care about the deficit while doing the irresponsible thing of cutting taxes while increasing spending. In a way I respect some Democrats more cause they pretty much tell you they are for spending and gov't programs. A lot of Republicans just say gov't's the problem because that's fun to campaign on and then get in and force it right down our throats.

Both sides want to control your lives, just in slightly different ways. And as far as I can tell they probably always will so I guess get used to it.

 

[ax1]

Both sides want to control your lives, just in slightly different ways. And as far as I can tell they probably always will so I guess get used to it.

Its a choice between coke and pepsi, reasoning I have boycotted both parties.

 

[EasyEJL]

 

[Rahl]

Campaigning against something and doing something about it are two completely different things. We know Republicans will campaign on keeping government out of our lives, but will govern by legislating morality under the guise of religion. They will claim they care about the deficit while doing the irresponsible thing of cutting taxes while increasing spending. In a way I respect some Democrats more cause they pretty much tell you they are for spending and gov't programs. A lot of Republicans just say gov't's the problem because that's fun to campaign on and then get in and force it right down our throats.

Both sides want to control your lives, just in slightly different ways. And as far as I can tell they probably always will so I guess get used to it.

Decent point. I can appreciate the honesty of telling me your going to rob me up front instead if lying about it and hiding it.

The civil liberties losses are the most important issue to me and unfortunately neither party is going to fix that and it's looking like the supreme court is going to let them stand also.