Printable View
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;421180]I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".[/QUOTE]Yes, Romney's deep understanding of business will help us all:
[QUOTE]If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!!!
[QUOTE=Miami Bob;421163]The actual class war fare has been the top 1% vs the other 99. The top 5% have made progress since the time of reagan, but nothing compared to the massive redistribution of wealth and income to the top one. Take a look at some of the other charts. Yes, there are individuals who have done well, but the charts and statistics deal with the nation as a whole.[/QUOTE]This is the upward wealth redistribution that Republicans are fighting to protect and expand. Scary isn't it?
[QUOTE]It is supply side economics that has done this: what is best for the most wealthy is best for the USA-the benefits will trickle-down to the middle class. Guess what, it hasn't tricked down past the top 10% at all and the top 1% have received almost all of the gain. This is factual, not ideology.[/QUOTE]Bob, I am glad you see this. Republicans defend trickle-down by arguing "I never got hired by a poor person". Just another example of simpleton right-wing messaging. They fail to realize that helping the rich get richer is no guarantee they will create more jobs. In fact as you point out, the data shows that trickle-down has been a grand ruse.
I wish these advocates of wealth distribution would spend as much time focusing on improving the economy as they do on their birdbrain obsession with wealth distribution. The greatest obstacle to improving the well being of Americans is a lousy economy, not the lack of a 95% tax bracket.
The sad fact is, these amantes of wealth distribution dream of an economy like Cuba. 99. 99% of us would live in poverty while the other 0. 01% would have access to all the country's wealth. I can imagine who our wealth distribution comrades envision as being a part of that 0. 01%. Maybe themselves.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421124]This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.
If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players. 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.[/QUOTE]I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.
Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, [u]because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success[/u]. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.
But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.
So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.
[QUOTE=Jackson;421171]In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are [u]you[/u] or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?[/QUOTE]Jackson,
It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about [u]shifting[/u] wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain [i]is[/i] another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?
[QUOTE=Esten; 421197]Jackson,
It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about [u]shifting[/u] Wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain [i]is[/i] Another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?[/QUOTE]At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;421203]At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.[/QUOTE]What you write is reasonable and is validated by history. Capitalism and free market has allow America to become the most prosperous country in the world.
But everything has a shelf life, and that includes all the "isms" There has to be some new tinkering to meet new challenges Globalization, resources, cultural and population changes within the country are some that come to mind. Dysfunctional political system? So all the shouting and name calling is just everyone looking out for themselves. It is really part of the evolution or revolution until we redefine ourselves again.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;421203]Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. [/QUOTE]Of course capitalism is a net wealth creator. Powered by the forces of innovation, competition and productivity. It is a great thing. Nobody argues that. But the same forces also result in continual shifting of wealth from one individual and group to another. Both happen. You may argue that as wealth is created and moved around, it all works out and everybody benefits. That depends. It was more true in the post-WWII economic expansion. It is less true today. While capitalism is still creating wealth, it is also shifting wealth to the top and to other countries. If capitalism is still raising the standard of living in the US, why are statistics like average hourly earnings, median household income, and poverty rate almost flat over the past three decades? Please, pull up a chart that shows how great the middle class is doing.
You guys need to study the details of how capitalism has been working in recent decades. The pie is growing, but also changing in how it gets divided.
Montana judge, Richard F Cebull and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, two of America finest.
America is alive and well. 2012.
[QUOTE=Esten; 421196]I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.
Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, [u]because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success[/u]. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.
But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.
So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.[/QUOTE]I am going to kick myself for responding to such a birdbrain analysis. Of course everyone in sports is interconnected. If they were not Michael Jordan would have no one to practice with and Michael Jordanīs abilities would go unnoticed on an empty court.
Esten, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with your razor sharp mind I think you better get used to the lower income tax brackets for the rest of your life.
It is amazing that as human beings, we can rationalize our every motivation and action. No different from Castro, Assad, Khadaffi, Mubarak and all other dictators, he comes back for another 6 year term. Of course, lest we forget, Putin will tell us Mother Russia is a democracy now and he is just a caretaker of the constitution.
Looks like Newt and Rick are assuring their own defeat by staying in the race, splitting the conservative vote. Doesn't seem like they are thinking strategically. They both say only a real conservative can offer the contrast needed to defeat Obama. That's probably also what they'll be saying if Romney loses to Obama.
223,000 jobs in December
284,000 jobs in January
227,000 jobs in February
8.3% Unemployment (down from peak of 10.2% in October 2009)
Remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka Stimulus? The package of spending and tax cuts, about 450B and 300B respectively accounted for to date. Republicans were fond of repeating their "failed stimulus" messaging, but I bet you haven't heard that for awhile. Because it flies in the face of the economic data.
There is more ground to recover, but these numbers are respectable. We probably would have got to this point sooner without last summer's debt ceiling debacle. Does Obama get all the credit? No, but he definately gets some.
With large corporations increasingly dominating market share, globalism and job automation, it's hard to see how we ever get back to 6% unemployment. Only the hand of government can offset those job-killing forces of capitalism.
There is no question the Stimulus did its job of stabilizing the economy and getting us back on a trajectory of growth. The only serious debate is whether it was worth the tradeoff of higher debt.
Sheldon Adelson is backing Newt so that the Conservative votes get split, assuring Romney the prize. He is too smart to back a loser (Newt). He is only pretending to. Shell Game.
Ken
I will say it again. The 2012 election is over. 2012 will be a mirror image of 2010.
Obama is like Tebow. Both are likeable and both have their supporters. However, Tebow cannot pass and Obama cannot govern.
[QUOTE=Esten;421318]the job-killing forces of capitalism.[/QUOTE]WHAT?
Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?
The job-killing forces of capitalism?
I guess that means that the country needs some more of the "[i]job-creating forces of liberals[/i]"?
Or perhaps the "[i]job-creating forces of socialists[/i]"?
Esten, with all due respect, you're clueless.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 421353]WHAT?
Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?
With all due respect, you're clueless.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]I suggest you go back and read Adam Smith, who authored the original capitalist manifesto. Capitalism seeks profits and tries to minimize the costs of production. Most critically, the cost of labor. Capitalists kill jobs when it helps their bottom line. Any one with half a brain gets it.
Smith also called for workers to fight for just compensation and called for the state to provide a safety net to correct for the inevitable societal dislocations that flow from capitalism. He was quite prescient.
Too bad so many self proclaimed champions of capitalism are so clueless about how it actually works and hide behind ideological nostrums to excuse the greed that really underpins their behavior and belief systems.
Yes Esten, unemployment is down but why? It has more to do with a much larger number of people dropping out of the workforce than the number of folks finding employment.
So your contention is Obama has done a great job lowering unemployment by so discouraging workers they no longer seek employment or they remove themselves from the unemployment rolls by going on disability under Social Security? You really want to make that argument?
The Stimulus is, was, and continues to be a failure. The answer to your question about if the debt increase was 'good' or 'bad' has already been answered, Obama doubled the national debt all by his little self and the country will suffer under its weight for years to come with little appreciable growth or employment. We would have been better off to have simply handed out checks to everyone making them 1%ers than what the Obamation has done!
[QUOTE=Jackson; 421353]The job-killing forces of capitalism? [/QUOTE]
Modern capitalism is more complex than just some system that creates wealth and prosperity. Both job-creating and job-killing forces are at work. I can understand how a small businessman, an entrepreneur, might not appreciate this. But small business is just one segment of capitalism. I happen to work in big business. I have extensive experience with our US and Global operations, and some insight into the operations of the numerous vendors we deal with. My opinions on capitalism are not just based on reading the news.
Look at automation. This is largely a phenomenon with big business, but we can all see some of the examples. We've heard about ATMs replacing bank tellers. Another example: self-service checkouts. Ten years ago I never bagged my own groceries. Now I often do. Why? The big supermarkets understaff the checkouts, creating line-ups and waiting which incentivize people to use self-checkout. The supermarket chain is being more efficient and productive. Hallmarks of capitalism. But jobs are lost (and / or not created). They transferred the labor from a worker to me (and the help of a computer).
BTW Jackson, there's one example right there where Bill Gates' wealth can be linked to job loss. Automation is run by software. Yes, software has enabled the success of website operators like yourself. That's why you see the rosy side. You should look more at how large corporations have used software. And guess what, the savings from automation do [i]not[/i] necessarily get distributed back into the economy. Yes in some cases new industries are created (e.g. makers of automation equipment). But often a good chunk of the savings will end up in the hands of wealthy individuals and Wall Street firms. Not all of that flows back into the economy, and what does may not necessarily flow back into the same economy from where the efficiencies were realized.
I've personally signed off on paperwork approving a wide range of automation projects where I work. It's a small piece of what I do, but I've seen plenty of it. If these projects don't eliminate jobs, they typically allow the company to grow with minimal new hires.
I know you small business guys like to think you know everything about capitalism. It just ain't true.
Fess up Esten, you are really Thomas Friedman from the NY Times just trying to give all us conseratives a hard time.
Need to check your figures, small business is the major generator of new jobs in the economy not large companies.
Yea, automation is a *itch, we need to go back to making cars by hand one at a time. Automation really killed the auto industry didn't it.
Actually I am really Gordon Hodson, I conduct research on the relationship between cognitive function and ideology. One of my studies got some buzz in the media recently, maybe you read about it. It was not too favorable for conservatives.
I've been conducting research here on AP for my latest study. It's about how conservatives have great difficulty grasping that something can be good and bad at the same time.
The data is very convincing. Sure to create another media buzz when published.
[QUOTE=Esten; 421371]Actually I am really Gordon Hodson, I conduct research on the relationship between cognitive function and ideology. One of my studies got some buzz in the media recently, maybe you read about it. It was not too favorable for conservatives.
I've been conducting research here on AP for my latest study. It's about how conservatives have great difficulty grasping that something can be good and bad at the same time.
The data is very convincing. Sure to create another media buzz when published.[/QUOTE]From the article discussing Hodson's study:
[quote]Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.[/quote]You can measure anything and arrive at a bias. Notice that the study measured intelligence juxtaposed with social conservatism and racism. Query: did they conduct a similar study on social radicalism and its impact on racism and biases? I rather doubt it.
It is a toss up whether Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. I am putting my money on Obama being a space alien closely related to ET. A long shot but more probable than Obama being born in Hawaii.
While I, as many others, considered the matter of Obama's birth place to be settled with the production of a birth certificate by the White House, I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.
Do you find it strange we know everything about the current GOP candidates including college transcripts which were freely available but it takes a court order to obtain only a small part of Obama's?
Do you find it strange Obama is spending campaign funds to cover legal costs to prevent the disclosure of personal information? Maybe Newt should have taken a cue!
[quote]AP. WASHINGTON D. C.
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled,"Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U. K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950, 000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the USA Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 421453]While I, as many others, considered the matter of Obama's birth place to be settled with the production of a birth certificate by the White House, I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.
Do you find it strange we know everything about the current GOP candidates including college transcripts which were freely available but it takes a court order to obtain only a small part of Obama's?
Do you find it strange Obama is spending campaign funds to cover legal costs to prevent the disclosure of personal information? Maybe Newt should have taken a cue![/QUOTE]Now, the United States do allow dual citizenships, and people freely used that right to legally reside and enjoy benefits of both countries. Education, pensions, tax, housing, voting, etc. That he eventually became president was something that only a dreamer can fantasize. Recently, a poll show that a majority of GOP voters in Alabama & Mississippi believe Obama is a Muslim. And some of us would like to believe George Bush, who I believe is a good man, would never have gotten into Yale & Harvard had his father owned a hamburger stand in Glendale.
Life is changing, it is not static. Some people just cannot accept it.
This is certainly good new for kenya and indonesia. We could send Obama to either country. If we play our cards right we could swap Obama for 2 or 3 camels. If they don't go for the camels we shouldn't accept anything less than a couple of palm trees.
OK, what the heck, we will send them Obama and throw in the camels and palm trees.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 421458]And some of us would like to believe George Bush, who I believe is a good man, would never have gotten into Yale & Harvard had his father owned a hamburger stand in Glendale.
And Obama would never have gotten his high school equivalency diploma/GED had he not claimed to be a foreign student born in - take your pick - Indonesia, Kenya, Outer Mongolia or Transylvania.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 421453]I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.[/QUOTE]You guys are being taken for fools by whoever is recycling this stuff. This exact, verbatim 'article' was originally distributed on April 1, 2009. It was an April Fools' Day hoax.
Check your facts:
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/[/url]
It is amusing though how you guys lap this stuff up. LOL
[QUOTE=Esten; 421461]You guys are being taken for fools by whoever is recycling this stuff. This exact, verbatim 'article' was originally distributed on April 1, 2009. It was an April Fools' Day hoax.
Check your facts:
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/[/url]
It is amusing though how you guys lap this stuff up. LOL[/QUOTE]"Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread."
Oh sorry, excuse my humming.
Black Shirt, Esten, I did not fact check it and you are right and I am wrong, the information regarding the Occidental records release was not valid.
What is true is there appears to be continued litigation regarding Obama's records and he has been using campaign funds to fight to keep his records closed.
It still seems strange; after 3 years Obama's personal history is still an enigma. I cannot remember any presidential candidate whose background was not gone over with a fine tooth comb but the anointed one is exempt.
The anointed one is shooting himself in the foot just fine all by himself. The 'energy tour' as gas prices continue to rise is an excellent example. The XL Pipeline appearance in Oklahoma was a classic on Kerry's 'I voted for it before I voted against it' just in reverse here.
I hate to say it but as gas prices continue to rise I predict the shaky 'recovery' Obama and the Democrats continue to trumpet is about to go south again. As fuel prices increase the cost of any good which is transported goes up from groceries to construction materials.
Reading this thread since its inception I finally remembered that in the mid-1970s US mental health facilities started to release mentally challenged patients considered not to be dangerous back into the general population. Now it is clear that policy has proven a boon for the AP site, as most of the post by the Obama haters who scribble their inanities here can do so from their home PCs, rather than the PCs provided in their facility's communal wards!
Maybe the Republican budget plan is the best option. With our growing debt problem, we all have to make sacrifices.
Giving another tax cut to the wealthy, while I take a cut on future Medicare benefits, seems like a fair approach.
Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed. I guess you missed the millions being cut from Medicare and shifted to Medicaid.
As ObamaCare is phased in the cuts to Medicare, which has been funded by payroll taxes, are real as funds are shifted to the Medicaid program, a totally unfunded liability. So your previous statement should read,"let the old people die so Obama and the Democrats can pander to their base while also permitting illegal aliens, who will become loyal Democrats after another blanket amnesty bill is passed, receive Medicaid benefits'.
The old saying is true:
If you are not a liberal until you are 25, you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative after 25 you don't have a brain.
Ignorance of the realities of today's perverted US health care system run through this thread as the Obama haters rant on and on. The real world of medical care is hardly mentioned, like who really pays all the unexplained billions of dollars in charges that don't exist in other countries where patients actually get better care. And why! No one, Esten least of all, maintains the new reforms are perfect. But Doppel, Alamo and others only trash the President's courageous attempt to begin to salvage the system before it self-destructs. How can anyone support a system where medical bills are cheaper if a patient claims to be uninsured and pays cash to a provider, because the institutional provider can cheat? The AP conservatives would leave untouched a system where insurance companies, hospitals and doctors play bizarre billing games that make no sense except to enrich the players and bankrupt the patients and taxpayers. The Obamacare detractors seem very comfortable with a system where parents of an 11-year-old girl with a stomachache girl can take her to an emergency room where she is given a few pills and sent home, and a few weeks later a $5000 bill arrives in the mail. Or no problem when a patient spends a total of four hours in a outpatient surgery center having a simple bone spur removed and is billed $37, 000, not counting doctor fees. On a more important note, how can fellow mongers trust the conservative monger chica reviews of when those same mongers are so patently ignorant of quality, value and inflated pricing in US health care?
Good luck arguing that the Affordable Care Act is bad for Medicare. Not only does ACA not cut basic Medicare benefits, it also closes the Part D prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. The first steps to close this gap in prescription drug coverage saved $2.1 billion for nearly 3.6 million seniors in 2011.
What tests were dropped? I can't find anything about it. You should know covered test lists get updated from time to time. Tests that get dropped are typically those that haven't demonstrated clear medical value, or have been replaced by better tests. Please post your link about the lab tests, let's see what they are.
This may come as a huge shock, but some people feel access to affordable health care is more a moral issue than a political issue. And there is the economic issue of enabling broader access to health care, spending more on preventive care vs. treating late-stage disease.
As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
It looks like the Republicans dodged a bullet. Romney is their nominee. I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President. It is crystal clear that romney is light years more competent than the current president. But then. Who isn't. I expect something similar to the Reagan / Carter election. That election was considered a dead heat up to polling day. But when the votes had to pull the lever they said enough is enough. Reagan won by one the largest landslides in history.
Here is a few funny ones for you to chew on.
[QUOTE=Esten; 421584]Maybe the Republican budget plan is the best option. With our growing debt problem, we all have to make sacrifices.
Giving another tax cut to the wealthy, while I take a cut on future Medicare benefits, seems like a fair approach.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=El Alamo;421609]I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President.[/QUOTE]If there is anything more wrong than dead wrong, you own it Alamo! A Romney victory may be obvious in Uruguay, but in the US of A voters seem poised to deliver a slam-dink for Obama. Romney is less popular than former President George W, who people still blame for the economic crisis. Voters like Obama. He is 19% up over Mitt on the guy to have a beer with measure. The Prez leads by double digits nationally and in the swing states for the final!
[QUOTE=El Alamo;421609]It looks like the Republicans dodged a bullet. Romney is their nominee. I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President. It is crystal clear that romney is light years more competent than the current president. But then. Who isn't. I expect something similar to the Reagan / Carter election. That election was considered a dead heat up to polling day. But when the votes had to pull the lever they said enough is enough. Reagan won by one the largest landslides in history.[/QUOTE]I would like to agree with you and I hope you're right, but I see two potential flaws in you prediction.
1. Romney is not a Ronald Reagan, but that could be offset somewhat by the fact that Carter was a much better president than Obama.
2. Your prediction is based on the assumption that wannabe dictator Obama is going to allow us to have a free election, I suspect it's going to be something more akin to a Hugo Chavez type election.
Punter.
You may be right. Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama
It is similar to a football game where one side plays by the rules and the other team wants 5 points for a field goal, 12 points for a touchdown and 3 points for the conversion after a touchdown.