Printable View
He exudes intelligence, he looks good, but is that going to increase Romney's base?
Now that Sarah Palin has lost her defenders, even Cheney said that she was a poor choice, it seems Ryan's pick was to conolidate the right wing base. Of course, it is a moot point since Romney is going to win by a landslide, right?
The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.
Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7%. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425289]Esten you seem to have left out this one critical fact:
"The White House faced harsh criticism from conservatives and liberals after the vote on the budget, which was put forth by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and used spending targets from Obama's budget proposal offered earlier this year. A similar bill by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) failed 414-0 in the House."
[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-budget-jeff-sessions-mick-mulvaney.php[/url][/QUOTE]And you have omitted a critical fact.
The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."
Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/[/url]
[QUOTE]For a vote like this to happen, each political party must believe they can gain from it. If BO didn't want this vote to happen, Harry Reid would not have allowed the budget up for a vote. Either that or BO has lost control of his party.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.
When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.
[QUOTE=Esten; 425310]And you have omitted a critical fact.
The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."
Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/[/url]
Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.
When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.[/QUOTE]When do the Democrats plan to submit a balanced budget, same for Republicans, when does the Ryan budget balance? I think both plans continue pouring on the red ink for a long time to come, making it much harder to dig out of the hole. Better to bite the bullet and balance the budget now, not in 10 years, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) plans to submit a balanced budget in year one. Democrats and Republicans in power means perpetual, endless debt that will eventually lead to a major financial crisis. Barak Obama ran on fiscal responsibilty in 08 and then did the opposite by making the enormous Bush deficits look pale in comparison. Democrats and Republicans alike spend our hard earned money like drunken sailors. It's time for change and that change is Libertarian.
[QUOTE=Esten;425310]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.[/QUOTE]Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?
[QUOTE=Tequila Tim;425313]Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?[/QUOTE]Harry Reid also wants the brothels to be shut down in his home state of Nevada (how idoitic is that!) , that's something I'd expect from social conservatives like Mitt Romney, not a Democrat, go figure. Of course, Libertarians want prostitution to be legal.
Conclusion: Harry Reid wants to cut jobs in his home state and impose his morals on others. Isn't is time go Libertarian and choose freedom vs government control?
The reason that Obama, Reid, Pelsosi etc were never worried about a budget is because Obama, Reid, Pelosi were spending somebody elses money. The idea that we would eventually have to repay every cent of their spending sprees never crossed the peabrain minds of Obama, Reid or Pelosi. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with liberals is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to spend.
Starting Jan 20 or 21 of next year with the new Romney / Ryan administration we will have something we have not had for a long time. A budget. And a team that will be good stewards of the money we send them.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425315]The reason that Obama, Reid, Pelsosi etc were never worried about a budget is because Obama, Reid, Pelosi were spending somebody elses money. The idea that we would eventually have to pay every cent of their spending sprees never crossed the peabrain minds of Obama, Reid or Pelosi. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with liberals is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to spend.
Starting Jan 20 or 21 of next year with the new Romeny / Ryan administration we have something we have not had for a long time. A budget. And a team that will be good stewards of the money we send them.[/QUOTE]My understanding of the Ryan budget is that it doesn't balance for years to come, help me out, WHEN does the Ryan budget balance, or was Dick Cheney right when he said that deficits don't matter? Libertarian Gary Johnson's budget will balance in year one, like it is supposed to, not years down the road when they are out of office anyway.
Silver star.
The answer to that is easy. The romney / Ryan administration will balance the budget a lot sooner than an Obama / Biden administration. Which is not saying much considering that Obama / biden have no idea what a budget is.
The reason Romney was asked to salvage the 1998 Winter Olympics was not only because corruption and kickbacks were rampant but because cost overruns in Salt Lake city were reaching federal deficit levels. Something similiar to what we have in Washingdon DC today. Romney stopped the corruption and kickbacks and brought the games in on schedule - no deficits.
I have nothing against Gary johnson. But at this junction in our history we are fortunate to have someone as capable and intelligent as Romney to get us back on track.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425317]Silver star.
The answer to that is easy. The romney / Ryan administration will balance the budget a lot sooner than an Obama / Biden administration. Which is not saying much considering that Obama / biden have no idea what a budget is.
The reason Romney was asked to salvage the 1998 Winter Olympics was not only because corruption was rampant. The cost overruns in Salt Lake city were reaching federal deficit levels. Romney stopped the corruption and brought the games in on schedule. No deficits.
I have nothing against Gary johnson. But at this junction in our history we are fortunate to have someone as capable and intelligent as Romney to get us back on track.[/QUOTE]I pulled up this article on Ryan's budget and his past votes in Congress to expand government and the socialistic welfare state in big ways. (see below) Looks like the Ryan budget balances in the year 2040, so I'll probably be dead before we see a balanced budget! Romney did a great job in the Olympics, thumbs up, but his record and past policy statements in the 90's lead me to believe he is a believer in big government, especially since he fathered RomneyCare, essentially a carbon copy and a blueprint for Obamacare. If that isn't a warning sign of what is to come, then I don't know what is.
Governor Gary Johnson got his state what was run by Democrats in a mess, amd left it with a surplus, by getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work its wonders, that's why he was reelected by a bigger majority than what he was elected with to start in an overwhelingly Democratic state. He also balanced the budget by not raising taxes. (The correct way) Mitt Romney was too chicken to face the voters again in MASS and was not reelected.
Mitt Romney has also flipped flopped on way to many issues to have credibility, and his "get tough" policy with China risks a very dangerous trade war. Free trade and markets work better, Gary Johnson understands that.
Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan.
Gene Healy | August 14, 2012 |* Reason Magazine.
*
[url]http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/14/dont-believe-the-hype-about-paul-ryan[/url]
*
Paul Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, and a big government conservative under Obama.
*
If nothing else, Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-Wis.) , as his running mate has made a dull and joyless campaign a little more interesting.
*
When I heard the news, my internal monologue went something like this:
*
"Are wonks suddenly cool?"
*
"Why is a guy my age potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
*
"Does that he really only have 6 to 8 percent body fat?"
*
"Why do I know that?"
*
"Will someone please buy Ryan a suit that fits?"
*
Some conservatives are considerably more exuberant, viewing Ryan as the budget-slashing paladin we've long been waiting for. As a curmudgeonly libertarian, it's my job to pour cold water on the flames of political passion. So—hey girl: If you're over the moon about the Ryan pick, let me confess: I'm not so excited. And I just can't hide it.
*
Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, voting for No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other debacles. At the dawn of the Tea Party, Ryan lent his support to the auto and bank bailouts. He voted for TARP and gave "one of the most hysterical speeches" demanding others do the same, as Michelle Malkin observed in 2009.
*
In a newly popular YouTube video, the articulate congressman lambastes Barack Obama for creating, in Obamacare, yet another entitlement we can't afford. *It's an impressive performance, but in 2003, Ryan voted for Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, adding over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab.
*
Ryan's much-hyped budget plan would eliminate the deficit,"but not until 2040 or so," my colleague Mike Tanner explains, and his cuts in domestic discretionary spending amount to an average of just $35. 2 billion per year below what Obama himself has proposed.
*
In May, FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy usefully compared Ryan's budget to the much bolder plan introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky). *Paul Ryan's budget "would achieve balance in 26 years;" *Rand Paul's,"in five." *Paul Ryan's plan is short on specific cuts, whereas "Mr. Paul eliminates four Cabinet agencies—Commerce, HUD, Energy and Education." *Tellingly,"Mr. Ryan increases defense spending. Mr. Paul does not spare the Pentagon from scrutiny."
*
As Newsweek's Eli Lake explains, Ryan "tilts the ticket closer to the neoconservatives" on defense policy. *Indeed, Ryan voted for the Iraq War in 2002—and against winding down the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2011.
*
Last summer, he gave a foreign policy speech suggesting that the most pressing reason we need to solve our budget problems is so we can continue being the world's policeman."We can and we must remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan insisted. It seems he's learned absolutely nothing from a decade spent wasting American blood and treasure making the world safe for democracy abroad.
*
Wars aren't free: We've spent over $1. 3 trillion in direct outlays on the War on Terror abroad, with the true cost much higher. The Pentagon makes up about 19 percent of the federal budget. If you leave it off the table, as Ryan does, you're just not serious about staving off fiscal Armageddon.
*
I've been in D. C. Nearly as long as Ryan has. And since this is a town where Bethesda's Tom Friedman passes for a deep thinker, I probably shouldn't be surprised that Ryan has developed a reputation as a serious fiscal conservative.
*
He's not. But there's a silver lining here: his selection means that the 2012 campaign just might bring us a serious discussion of these issues.
==========
[QUOTE=Esten;425310]Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.[/QUOTE]So were the Democrats arrogantly stupid in their interpretation of the rules or were they simply outsmarted by the Republicans?
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425307]The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.
Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.[/QUOTE]Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.
Dccpa.
The rasmussen poll is a daily poll. The daily average for the last month is 4% for Romney. There are daily fluctutations but the daily average is a 4% edge to romney. I think Obama has been ahead of romney for about 2 days in the last month which is just statistical variance.
Check it out daily and the trend will be obvious. But, who knows, maybe things will change. This poll taken over a period of time is pretty accurate.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425321]Dccpa.
The rasmussen poll is a daily poll. The daily average for the last month is 4% for Romney. There are daily fluctutations but the daily average is a 4% edge to romney. I think Obama has been ahead of romney for about 2 days in the last month which is just statistical variance.
Check it out daily and the trend will be obvious. But, who knows, maybe things will change. This poll taken over a period of time is pretty accurate.[/QUOTE]The Rasmussen poll excludes Gary Johnson, even though he's going to be on close to 50 ballots.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;425320]Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.[/QUOTE]El Alamo was perusing some internet porno sites and forgot to change his glasses. I recommend a glass of carrot juice every morning, things will become more vivid, and less confusing.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;425319]So were the Democrats arrogantly stupid in their interpretation of the rules or were they simply outsmarted by the Republicans?[/QUOTE]After passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, I am sure Democrats anticipated Republicans would make political hay if a budget was not also passed. Nevermind that the BCA is basically a budget. Democrats probably thought Republicans would introduce their own bills and then say look we have a budget, Dems don't.
What Democrats probably didn't anticipate is that Republicans would write a bill that nobody would ever vote for, and call it "Obama's budget". And then perpetuate a massive lie that there was a vote on Obama's budget. Nobody expected Republicans would actually stoop this low.
Dccpa, aren't you skeeved out by supporting a group that engages in such mass deception?
Silver Star, The New Yorker profiled Ryan in its August 6 edition, before he became a Vice Presidential candidate. The New Yorker, which is to the left of the New York Times, would dispute your characterization of Ryan. He's always been a Libertarian thinker as far as economic issues go. He makes Ayn Rand mandatory reading for his staff, and is a big admirer of Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises. The federal handouts he's gotten for his congressional district have been small, and since 2008 he's rejected earmarks entirely.
Prior to 2008, he did indeed "go along to get along". The result was that he became chairman of the House Budget Committee. If he hadn't voted the party line, in accordance with Bush's arm-twisting, he probably wouldn't have gotten there. But since 2008 he's been a thorn in the side of some Republican leaders and has been instrumental in shifting the House in the direction of the tea party.
I do not like the statements that Ryan has come out with though on Medicare recently and view them as deceptive. But the problem isn't what Ryan believes, the problem is the American public. They spend more than they make and expect their government to do the same. They expect handouts. The majority of the public wants to screw minorities, like the wealthy, pot smokers, and prostitutes and their customers. Gary Johnson would be by far my favorite candidate, if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He combines what Ryan believes regarding economic policies with what you and I and most of the other people on this board believe about social policies. Before Romney picked Ryan, I was leaning towards voting for Johnson, for reasons I explained to you before. Now though I'll probably vote for Romney / Ryan.
My question for you, there are two ways that Libertarians can have more influence. The first way would be if we can elect people like Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. The chances of success are virtually "0". The second way is if we can infiltrate the Republican party, like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jeff Flake did in Congress and like Gary Johnson did in New Mexico. Why do you prefer the first way?
An interesting statistic I ran across today. During his time as governor of New Mexico, Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors put together. I'd like to see that in a U.S. president. But it's not going to happen if people like Johnson run on third party tickets.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425328]Silver Star, The New Yorker profiled Ryan in its August 6 edition, before he became a Vice Presidential candidate. The New Yorker, which is to the left of the New York Times, would dispute your characterization of Ryan. He's always been a Libertarian thinker as far as economic issues go. He makes Ayn Rand mandatory reading for his staff, and is a big admirer of Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises. The federal handouts he's gotten for his congressional district have been small, and since 2008 he's rejected earmarks entirely.
Prior to 2008, he did indeed "go along to get along". The result was that he became chairman of the House Budget Committee. If he hadn't voted the party line, in accordance with Bush's arm-twisting, he probably wouldn't have gotten there. But since 2008 he's been a thorn in the side of some Republican leaders and has been instrumental in shifting the House in the direction of the tea party.
I do not like the statements that Ryan has come out with though on Medicare recently and view them as deceptive. But the problem isn't what Ryan believes, the problem is the American public. They spend more than they make and expect their government to do the same. They expect handouts. The majority of the public wants to screw minorities, like the wealthy, pot smokers, and prostitutes and their customers. Gary Johnson would be by far my favorite candidate, if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He combines what Ryan believes regarding economic policies with what you and I and most of the other people on this board believe about social policies. Before Romney picked Ryan, I was leaning towards voting for Johnson, for reasons I explained to you before. Now though I'll probably vote for Romney / Ryan.
My question for you, there are two ways that Libertarians can have more influence. The first way would be if we can elect people like Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. The chances of success are virtually "0". The second way is if we can infiltrate the Republican party, like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jeff Flake did in Congress and like Gary Johnson did in New Mexico. Why do you prefer the first way?
An interesting statistic I ran across today. During his time as governor of New Mexico, Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors put together. I'd like to see that in a USA president. But it's not going to happen if people like Johnson run on third party tickets.[/QUOTE]Great points Tiny12.
I guess the best outcome would have been GJ winning the Republican nomination, but he was excluded by the big media in the debates and wasn't the best campaigner. I don't expect the American public to elect GJ (which sucks) but Paul Ryan is not even close to Libertarian. He voted to ban online poker (strike one) he voted for No Child left behind (strike 2) he voted for Medicare part D (a huge expansion of Govt with no way to pay for it) (strike 3) and his so called budget reform won't balance the budget for years to come. So I'm going to vote for the ticket I think will be best for America and closest to my views, Romney / Ryan are wrong on too many issues for me to give them my vote. I can understand completely why you want something other than BO, but I see Romney / Ryan as going back to the same thing as Bush, who couldn't balance the budget, and were social conservatives also who want to impose their moral fantasies upon the rest of us. Romney / Ryan? Wrong on way too many issues to be supported. I think the lions share of the Romney supporters are biting their teeth and just will take anything but Obama, even though there are better choices on the ballot. There are more anti Obama than pro Romney. Don't be fooled by all the Ryan hype, he is more neocon than Libertarian, oh yeah Ryan also supported extending the intrusive Patriot Act, and the latest defense bill that gives government new powers that surpass the constitution. Another kicker is Romney supported 100% and was proud of RomneyCare, which his is now running against. Oh yeah, Ryan also supported TARP too! (just like Romney)
[QUOTE=Esten;425327]Dccpa, aren't you skeeved out by supporting a group that engages in such mass deception?[/QUOTE]And Democrats don't participate in mass deception? Besides, what makes you think I support any group? I have stated multiple times that I dislike both parties. I supported Ron Paul, but the Republicans screwed him over in Iowa and he had to win Iowa to have any chance. My position is that Wall Street is more dangerous than Al Queda and that a monkey with a hat will do less damage to the economy than BO. MR knows where the bodies are buried on Wall Street and if he decides to do so, he can take out the Wall Street Mafia. Considering how Wall Street is contributing to his campgaign, they don't expect MR to go after them. But BO has proven he will protect Wall Street, so the 10% chance with MR is better than the. 0% chance with BO.
The vote is already decided in my state, so I probably won't vote. If I did vote, it would be for MR. While my philosophy is Libertarian, a vote for the Libertarian candidate helps BO. I believe Ron Paul recognized years ago that he would have to effect change from within a mainstream political party. The Republican convention will showcase whether Ron Paul has been successful. Edit, I just noticed Tiny posted something very similar. Great minds think alike.
Unless MR wins and turns the economy, the next election may see a third party president.
Ok, here it is.
" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 44% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Today's update matches the president's lowest level of support since May. Yesterday was the lowest level of support for Romney since March. On a combined basis, today shows the lowest level of combined support for the two major party candidates since January 27. See daily tracking history.
Sometimes it is helpful to look at the numbers on a full-week basis rather than day-to-day basis. This eliminates some statistical noise and gives a broader perspective on the race. Doing so gives a sense of how little the race has changed over the past two months. In six of the past eight weeks, Romney has been ahead by one or two points. Once he had a larger lead, and once the candidates were tied." end of quote
What I find interesting is that Rasmussen, at this time in 2008, had Obama ahead by 5. Obama won by about 5. However, Obama should have won by 15% considering Obama outspent McCain 10:1 and the country went through a stock market crash and a liquidity crisis days or weeks prior to the election.
What people do not realize is that Obama is and always has been an election day disaster. Clinton regularly put a pitchfork up Obama ass in the final primaries of 2008. This year a convicted incarcerated felon beat Obama in the primaries.
My prediction is that Obama will be increasingly ostracized by the mainstream and as the election nears Obama will draw closer to his base. Look for Obama going trailer to trailer offering twinkies and oreo cookies.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425336]And Democrats don't participate in mass deception? Besides, what makes you think I support any group? I have stated multiple times that I dislike both parties. I supported Ron Paul, but the Republicans screwed him over in Iowa and he had to win Iowa to have any chance. My position is that Wall Street is more dangerous than Al Queda and that a monkey with a hat will do less damage to the economy than BO. MR knows where the bodies are buried on Wall Street and if he decides to do so, he can take out the Wall Street Mafia. Considering how Wall Street is contributing to his campgaign, they don't expect MR to go after them. But BO has proven he will protect Wall Street, so the 10% chance with MR is better than the. 0% chance with BO.
The vote is already decided in my state, so I probably won't vote. If I did vote, it would be for MR. While my philosophy is Libertarian, a vote for the Libertarian candidate helps BO. I believe Ron Paul recognized years ago that he would have to effect change from within a mainstream political party. The Republican convention will showcase whether Ron Paul has been successful. Edit, I just noticed Tiny posted something very similar. Great minds think alike.
Unless MR wins and turns the economy, the next election may see a third party president.[/QUOTE]DCCPA if you are Libertarian, then why not vote that way? It will hurt BO, who never had your vote in the 1st place. (Cuts down their percentages and sends a strong and clear message) Also, there are probably good Libertarian candidates down ballot that could use your vote. Gary Johnson is counting on the Ron Paul folks like you for your support, and remember this is all much bigger than Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, it is a movement and a set of principles and core values that America should revert back to. The only wasted vote is a vote not cast.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425348]Ok, here it is.
" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 44% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Today's update matches the president's lowest level of support since May. Yesterday was the lowest level of support for Romney since March. On a combined basis, today shows the lowest level of combined support for the two major party candidates since January 27. See daily tracking history.
Sometimes it is helpful to look at the numbers on a full-week basis rather than day-to-day basis. This eliminates some statistical noise and gives a broader perspective on the race. Doing so gives a sense of how little the race has changed over the past two months. In six of the past eight weeks, Romney has been ahead by one or two points. Once he had a larger lead, and once the candidates were tied." end of quote.
What I find interesting is that Rasmussen, at this time in 2008, had Obama ahead by 5. Obama won by about 5. However, Obama should have won by 15% considering Obama outspent McCain 10:1 and the country went through a stock market crash and a liquidity crash days or weeks prior to the election.
What people do not realize is that Obama is and always has been an election day disaster. Clinton regularly put a pitchfork up Obama ass in the final primaries of 2008. This year a convicted incarcerated felon beat Obama in the primaries.
My prediction is that Obama will be increasingly ostracized by the mainstream and as the election nears Obama will draw closer to his base. Look for Obama going trailer to trailer offering twinkies and oreo cookies.[/QUOTE]The Oreo cookie strategy will work on my nephew, although he is Libertarian on many issues, he is addicted to food stamps and doesn't want his gravy train to end, so he is voting BO. I'm sure many others that are in a similar situation are going to vote Obama to keep the goodies they are getting now. ¨Those that rob Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.
Hate to bring up a sore a sore subject, but, where is biden? Probably squirming in a straight jacket with duct tape over his mouth. Obama has a tar baby and Obama may not be able to extradite himself from that tar baby. hillary probably does not want her reputation ruined by joining slime-ball Obama.
Anyway, Obama does not need biden to lose this election. Obama is a chicago slime-ball and Obama is the reason the Obama / Biden ticket is doomed.
BBC's Historical story about the U.S. in the late 1880's.
This is about Politics and Cops.
They were up front sort of.
They Cheated. This story is about an honest cop, an American citizen and corrupt Politicians.
Not You, that only want your truths to only make you Money..
They just LIED! then and Now!
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2006374/[/url]
As the Republicans Do.
Vote for dumb fucks like AKINS.
Rape, Rape in Certain times are Bad.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425371]BBC's Historical story about the USA in the late 1880's.
This is about Politics and Cops.
They were up front sort of.
They Cheated. This story is about an honest cop, an American citizen and corrupt Politicians.
Not You, that only want your truths to only make you Money.
They just LIED! Then and Now!
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2006374/[/url]
As the Republicans Do.
Vote for dumb fucks like AKINS.
Rape, Rape in Certain times are Bad.[/QUOTE]Hey WorldTravel,
So now your're going back to issues in the 1880's to support your hatred for today's conservatives?
And what does this have to do with the title of this thread "[i]2012 Elections in the USA[/i]"?
But let's look at the good side, at least you're not quoting some fantasy TV drama to make your points.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson:
You can't see it. That's too bad.
It is the same Old shit as today.
Greed and corruption.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 425376]Hey WorldTravel,
So now your're going back to issues in the 1880's to support your hatred for today's conservatives?
And what does this have to do with the title of this thread "[i]2012 Elections in the USA[/i]"?
But let's look at the good side, at least you're not quoting some fantasy TV drama to make your points.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425377]Jackson:
You can't see it. That's too bad.
It is the same Old shit as today.
Greed and corruption.[/QUOTE]WT, you write a great travel report, but your are missing the most important thing about this election. Both sides are corrupt and they are controlled by the bankers.
BTW. USD took a hit today and broke below a support level. The way the grains, oil, gold and silver are acting, this could be the start of a another downward leg in the dollar.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425383]WT, you write a great travel report, but your are missing the most important thing about this election. Both sides are corrupt and they are controlled by the bankers.
BTW. USD took a hit today and broke below a support level. The way the grains, oil, gold and silver are acting, this could be the start of a another downward leg in the dollar.[/QUOTE]If the D'the are R's are both corrupt, why reward them with our votes? (or by not voting) instead punish them by voting Libertarian, and watch how fast things will change for the better.
I really do not know what he meant to say. My guess, he was articulating about the sanctity of life. Instead of further explanation and discussion, he succumb to the survival of his political life. He apologizes.
We are taught by the highest order,"to love our enemies as ourselves", and "to turn the other cheek","to forgive is to be divine". Right, such stupid and impossible aspirations! On occasions, we read about instances of women deciding to continue pregnacies of rape. In cases like these, the perpetrator of rape could be someone that is known to the victim. Where rapes occured most randomly and violently is during wars and conquests. It is very inspiring to read stories about women who were able to love and raise their babies of rape in these instances. Sometimes, they had a choice to continue the pregnacy, most times, they probably did not. I read such a story based on the ethnic cleasing war in Bosnia. Personally, I have a blond friend from Romania who I teased about the origin of his forefathers.
As far as I know, the US is the leading advocate of disabled people in terms of laws and benefits. It is amazing to me to see how some parents can take up the challenge of their burden of having disabled children. Abortion is a convenient solution to people who cannot cope with such a inconvenience. On a transatlanctic cruise, I saw a Brazilian family with a Down's Syndrome son. He was very happy and normal among his loving brothers and parents. I learned alot about patience and kindness just observing the interaction among them.
So with all this furor among the idealogues, they are forgetting just one thing. As Rodney King, like everyone of us, an imperfect man said,"why can't we just get along". And perhaps, getting a few things done at the same time.
[QUOTE=Silver Star;425385]If the D'the are R's are both corrupt, why reward them with our votes? (or by not voting) instead punish them by voting Libertarian, and watch how fast things will change for the better.[/QUOTE]SS, My state will vote for MR whether or not I vote. If I was in a swing state, I would vote Libertarian if either major party candidate had a large lead or if the Libertarian candidate had a chance. But this election is close and there is a huge difference between the capabilities of BO & MR. Although I have doubts that he will do the right thing, at least MR has the capability of fixing things. BO has no clue or desire on how to fix things.
My personal opinion is that things are too far down the road to be fixed. But a MR Presidency would buy me more time to get all my assets properly positioned. And with MR, I would only have to worry about my 401k being stolen through inflation and not through outright confiscation of assets.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425389]SS, My state will vote for MR whether or not I vote. If I was in a swing state, I would vote Libertarian if either major party candidate had a large lead or if the Libertarian candidate had a chance. But this election is close and there is a huge difference between the capabilities of BO & MR. Although I have doubts that he will do the right thing, at least MR has the capability of fixing things. BO has no clue or desire on how to fix things.
My personal opinion is that things are too far down the road to be fixed. But a MR Presidency would buy me more time to get all my assets properly positioned. And with MR, I would only have to worry about my 401k being stolen through inflation and not through outright confiscation of assets.[/QUOTE]DCCPA.
I see how things are going just like you, but I'm going to actually vote Libertarian instead of wasting it by staying home, D's and R's love that the most, having a demoralized opposition that won't even vote for candidates they believe in. Also, voting Libertarian helps for ballot status. (The big parties don't like competition and make it very hard for small parties to get on the ballot) But I can totally understand where you are coming from. Libertarians need critical mass, and it looks like that is not going to happen, especially if those that support the principles won't even bother going to the polls.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;425388]I really do not know what he meant to say.[/QUOTE]Actually I think Akins said exactly what he meant the first time. I think the apology is BS. I think abortion should be legal. I think the people of my generation used abortion as birth control when there were better methods available. I think the use of abortion as birth control has ended for the most part.
Akins is against gambling also. There are just too many people like him in the Conservative movement that I do not want to be identified with them.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425399]There are just too many people like him in the Conservative movement that I do not want to be identified with them.[/QUOTE]That's kind of the way I feel about [strike]communist [/strike], [strike]socialist[/strike],[i] 'strong government' [/i]supporters like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I do not want to be identified with them.
[QUOTE=Punter 127;425403]That's kind of the way I feel about [strike]communist [/strike], [strike]socialist[/strike],[i] 'strong government' [/i]supporters like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I do not want to be identified with them.[/QUOTE]I said on Facebook the other day that I think I am really the reactionary because I want the Republican party of Eisenhower, Kuchel, Warren and Dirksen to name a few. The Conservatives basically pushed all the people with these views out of the Party. In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority. Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world. Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425404]I said on Facebook the other day that I think I am really the reactionary because I want the Republican party of Eisenhower, Kuchel, Warren and Dirksen to name a few. The Conservatives basically pushed all the people with these views out of the Party. In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority. Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world. Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?[/QUOTE]Have you checked out Gary Johnson's record, he is good on pocketbook issues, but without the social conservative stuff we hate so much. I think if you are an issues voter, Gary Johnson is clearly the best choice this election season. [url]www.garyjohnson2012.com[/url] Live Free
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425404]In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority.[/quote]You need to define 'socially liberal' before I can agree or disagree.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425404]Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world.[/quote]This is a little off topic because it's really a states issue, but what's your solution, allow repeat violent criminals to walk the street?
California has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, laws that encumber your citizenry from owning guns, yet you apparently don't support penalizing criminals for using a gun in a crime!
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425404]Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?[/QUOTE]I don't think we have to worry about Romney adding 5 trillion to the national debt like Obama has.
Defense is one area that the federal government is required to be involved in and considering the current world condition I would prefer to deal with over spending on the military than face the potential consequences of under spending.
If you and your ilk don't think we're under any kind of threat than why hasn't Obama set the detainees at Guantanamo Bay free and shut the facility down?
Why haven't they even tried to repealed the patriot act?
Why hasn't he put a stop to the TSA shenanigans?
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 425411]You need to define 'socially liberal' before I can agree or disagree.
This is a little off topic because it's really a states issue, but what's your solution, allow repeat violent criminals to walk the street? [/QUOTE]
The Fed corollary is determinate sentencing which has lengthened prison terms.
[QUOTE] California has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, laws that encumber your citizenry from owning guns, yet you apparently don't support penalizing criminals for using a gun in a crime! [/QUOTE]
I think sentences are too long. I sat on a jury and convicted a guy for a $50 stickup. I thought five years was good. He got 15 because it was his second offense and used a gun. Never heard of person in California who could not buy a gun they wanted. Gun laws here do not violate the Second Amendment.
[QUOTE] I don't think we have to worry about Romney adding 5 trillion to the national debt like Obama has.
Defense is one area that the federal government is required to be involved in and considering the current world condition I would prefer to deal with over spending on the military than face the potential consequences of under spending. [/QUOTE]
I think that a healthy economy defeats all forms of terrorism.
[QUOTE] If you and your ilk don't think we're under any kind of threat than why hasn't Obama set the detainees at Guantanamo Bay free and shut the facility down?
Why haven't they even tried to repealed the patriot act?
Why hasn't he put a stop to the TSA shenanigans?[/QUOTE]My biggest surprise is that Patriot Act has not been repealed and the TSA disbanded.
"How did we get here? If you're under 40, you may not know that the Republican Party wasn't always like this. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed California's liberal abortion law in 1967; George H. W. Bush was a Planned Parenthood supporter, as was his father, Prescott, and his wife, Barbara, was regularly described as pro-choice. But when the culture wars began to rage in the 1970s, Republicans saw political gains in playing up the anxieties of a lot of people that society was changing too fast, and not in a good way."
I definitely believe that the Republican party has been hijacked. I have friends that have turned into walking Christian zombies."Praise the Lord." or something similar comes out every third sentence.
Too bad that some of you can not see what is going on in the USA IN the news of each day.
Maddow and Letterman.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 425443]"How did we get here? If you're under 40, you may not know that the Republican Party wasn't always like this. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed California's liberal abortion law in 1967; George H. W. Bush was a Planned Parenthood supporter, as was his father, Prescott, and his wife, Barbara, was regularly described as pro-choice. But when the culture wars began to rage in the 1970s, Republicans saw political gains in playing up the anxieties of a lot of people that society was changing too fast, and not in a good way."
I definitely believe that the Republican party has been hijacked. I have friends that have turned into walking Christian zombies."Praise the Lord." or something similar comes out every third sentence.[/QUOTE]The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "
Both Republicans and Democrats have changed. In the 1960's we had JFK, who today would be more comfortable as a Republican. Barry Goldwater was considered to be a fringe Republican candidate. Today, Barry goldwater would be mainstream Republican.
Our parties may have changed but I am convinced of one thing. Obama occasionally shows his true colors with 'redistribute the wealth' comments to Joe the plumber and his ridicule of entrapreneurs with 'you didn't build that'. I believe Obama is so far out of the mainstream that in another time Obama would be comfortable joining forces with Karl Marx or the Bolsheviks in russia. Obama should write a book entitled 'My life as an anti-freemarket Marxist'. However, as with everyone that has tried Marxist policies, Obama's policies have failed miserably and hopefully we will get back on track by throwing Obama under the bus in November.