View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 18th, 2014, 4:26 am



Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Who will you vote for? 

Who will you vote for?
Barack Obama 21%  21%  [ 4 ]
Mitt Romney 53%  53%  [ 10 ]
Some dipshit who has zero chance of winning 26%  26%  [ 5 ]
Undecided 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 19

 Who will you vote for? 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9545
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


November 7th, 2012, 7:35 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.


November 8th, 2012, 5:03 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12239
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.
You don't see it as negative because it doesn't effect you. Try looking at it from a different perspective.

Perhaps the loss can be attributed to messaging / branding?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 8th, 2012, 5:14 pm
Profile
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.
You don't see it as negative because it doesn't effect you. Try looking at it from a different perspective.

Perhaps the loss can be attributed to messaging / branding?



Wags, the point is it is a SOFTER stance than Barack Obama has taken or at least AS SOFT, yet the media repeatedly characterized as something it wasn't. How do you get the media to "brand" something on your side like they do for Obama is beyond me. Apparently it requires being a Liberal Democrat.


November 8th, 2012, 5:19 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12239
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.
You don't see it as negative because it doesn't effect you. Try looking at it from a different perspective.

Perhaps the loss can be attributed to messaging / branding?



Wags, the point is it is a SOFTER stance than Barack Obama has taken or at least AS SOFT, yet the media repeatedly characterized as something it wasn't. How do you get the media to "brand" something on your side like they do for Obama is beyond me. Apparently it requires being a Liberal Democrat.
How much money did Romney and Repub SuperPacs spend? Are you going to try to tell me they couldn't get than message out??? Seriously??? I know for certain I didn't see any commercials / ads espousing Romney's 'softer' stance on immigration. I'm in AZ, granted it was already going to Romney, but no info that I saw nonetheless.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


November 8th, 2012, 5:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.
You don't see it as negative because it doesn't effect you. Try looking at it from a different perspective.

Perhaps the loss can be attributed to messaging / branding?



Wags, the point is it is a SOFTER stance than Barack Obama has taken or at least AS SOFT, yet the media repeatedly characterized as something it wasn't. How do you get the media to "brand" something on your side like they do for Obama is beyond me. Apparently it requires being a Liberal Democrat.
How much money did Romney and Repub SuperPacs spend? Are you going to try to tell me they couldn't get than message out??? Seriously??? I know for certain I didn't see any commercials / ads espousing Romney's 'softer' stance on immigration. I'm in AZ, granted it was already going to Romney, but no info that I saw nonetheless.



I saw ads espousing Obama's HARD stance on immigration discussing that he did in fact deport more immigrants than any other president. It was also brought up in the debate, but ignored by the media. In large part people ignore campaign ads. You literally can't buy the kind of support that the media provides. If an ad says one thing but your trusted local or national media figure says another, people are going to believe their source for news over a partisan ad, period.


November 8th, 2012, 5:31 pm
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2824
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Two words "self deportation"

Two more words "election lost"



Two words "liberal media"

Two more words "election lost." Pablo, "self deportation" isn't even a policy. It's not negative and it's not a big deal. Romney was more or less harshly stating that he would do NOTHING about immigration. He wouldn't send anyone home, he wouldn't round people up, etc. Yet the media lambasted him for his words just because the word "deportation" is in there, regardless of the fact that Obama has deported more people than any other president in history. This election was simply devoid of facts, and full of journalistic malpractice regarding things that SHOULD have been covered and covered fairly, but were not.
You don't see it as negative because it doesn't effect you. Try looking at it from a different perspective.

Perhaps the loss can be attributed to messaging / branding?



Wags, the point is it is a SOFTER stance than Barack Obama has taken or at least AS SOFT, yet the media repeatedly characterized as something it wasn't. How do you get the media to "brand" something on your side like they do for Obama is beyond me. Apparently it requires being a Liberal Democrat.
How much money did Romney and Repub SuperPacs spend? Are you going to try to tell me they couldn't get than message out??? Seriously??? I know for certain I didn't see any commercials / ads espousing Romney's 'softer' stance on immigration. I'm in AZ, granted it was already going to Romney, but no info that I saw nonetheless.



I saw ads espousing Obama's HARD stance on immigration discussing that he did in fact deport more immigrants than any other president. It was also brought up in the debate, but ignored by the media. In large part people ignore campaign ads. You literally can't buy the kind of support that the media provides. If an ad says one thing but your trusted local or national media figure says another, people are going to believe their source for news over a partisan ad, period.


Because his hard stance was cooked numbers. He included those turned around at the border as deportations. The turn arounds are those that never cross and are never brought in or charged, they just make a count and some are often turned back multiple times. It's never been counted officially before.

And yes, the mainstream media that the majority watch (ABC, NBC, CBS) ignored a lot of the major issues. They refused to air anything related to Bengazi and CBS went as far as to edit the conflicting statements out of the television interview with Obama and place them on the website later. Even the local Fox Stations can't report too much on their half hour news show. Cable isn't watched by the majority.

Even the major newspapers didn't start calling out the administration on Libya until this past weekend, but the majority of the coverage was still on Sandy. They all gave him props for stopping by the NJ shore for a few minutes, but ignored the utter disgrace of response that FEMA has actually done. They ran out of water because they weren't properly stocked and didn't even setup a contract for more until a week later. The marines were on the ground, but it took them a week to show up. Remember the response when Bush didn't send water for 3 days? But we're mostly white on the shore, so it doesn't count.

As long as the media isn't doing its job, you can't expect the uninformed to really know what's going on. It's the campaign's responsibility to educate them and make sure they know. That's been the weakest aspect of the Republican ground game.


November 8th, 2012, 11:08 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Well Sly, I think the results show that you're completely wrong about the tea party. They aren't taking over anything. Look at the results for the tea party candidates:

Mourdock: lost
Cruz: won
Scott Brown: lost
Josh Mandel: lost
Walsh: lost

and so on...

In fact I'm trying to go through races to find tea party candidates who won, and it's difficult. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that nearly all of the tea party candidates lost. Am I wrong about that? Assuming I'm not, how exactly is the tea party transforming or taking over the republican party? Seems to me they're being pretty strongly rejected.

And I say all this as someone who doesn't like either the republican or democrat parties. I didn't vote for either.


I think you misunderstood what I said:

Quote:
Behind the scenes, the Tea Party is taking over the GOP. While most of the talking heads are concentrated upon the Presidential election, they fail to focus upon the lesser races. THAT'S where the fiscal conservatives are taking over. Delegates, County Party Chairs, State Reps, etc. It's only a matter of time.


Notice that I didn't say that the Tea Party was taking over the Presidential, US Senate, US House of Reps, or Governor races? We just don't have the strength or numbers to do that just yet, but we are taking the lower races away from the GOP establishment and building our numbers from the ground up. Unfortunately, this is a slow process, but it is the most effective means of taking over the GOP over the long haul. We will transform that party from within and our "bench" of lower level elected officials will climb the ladder to even bigger and better things over time.

Personally, I would prefer to establish and/or grow a third party, be it the Tea Party, Conservative Party, Constitutional Party, etc., but that just isn't feasible. The Dems and the GOP have such a monopoly on the money and political infrastructure in this country, that they would lose before they even got started. Therefore, taking over the GOP (like the socialists have done with the Dems) from within is the only realistic option.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 4:29 am
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
I think it is completely possible that the Tea Party IS doing very well at the local level - and I actually think that is fine, because that is probably the level where their focus on responsible budgeting and other libertarian stuff is best implemented, while the idiosyncracies of the candidates are muted by the local-ness.

That is the key point in this discussion, because the idiosycracies of many local TP-ers are ignored, tolerated or even agreed to by local people who share the same attitudes/preconceptions/predjudices. That's why we're always seeing quotes and stories by local authorities out there that make the rest of us wonder "what kind of place could elect a person like that?". So that local level success in no way implies that eventually that would be expanded to the larger stage where a broader audience is looking for a candidate to represent them & their values.

At the national level, things are more complicated and can't be addressed with blunt ideology. And there is no tolerance for IN-tolerance. That much should be clear, after this recent election.


November 12th, 2012, 10:30 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
IE, Suffer due to your vote. The recession is coming and you can't avoid it.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 11:07 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9545
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
slybri19 wrote:
IE, Suffer due to your vote. The recession is coming and you can't avoid it.


Still in the prediction biz Sly? Need I remind you...

slybri19 wrote:
With that said, Romney will win this election. The corrupt lamestream media polls are attempting to prop Obama up, but that isn't the case in the field. Just look at the internals to find the truth. Obama won Independents by 8 points in 2008, but is losing them by 10-15 points now, More importantly, Republican/conservative enthusiasm is through the roof, while Democratic/liberal enthusiam is down. Do the math. There will be a new President this year.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


November 12th, 2012, 11:21 am
Profile WWW
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
Pablo wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
IE, Suffer due to your vote. The recession is coming and you can't avoid it.


Still in the prediction biz Sly? Need I remind you...

slybri19 wrote:
With that said, Romney will win this election. The corrupt lamestream media polls are attempting to prop Obama up, but that isn't the case in the field. Just look at the internals to find the truth. Obama won Independents by 8 points in 2008, but is losing them by 10-15 points now, More importantly, Republican/conservative enthusiasm is through the roof, while Democratic/liberal enthusiam is down. Do the math. There will be a new President this year.


Of course there's a recession coming. We've been in an "unofficial" recession (I personally believe it is a depression) since early in GWB's admin. By unofficial, I mean the official measures have just been masked by irresponsible financial industry activities and government spending in the place of private demand. And if the Fed had not done any of the QE, it would be full-blown depression, and American business would be smashed by the strong dollar.

The only way a measured recession will be avoided will be if there is a compromise and adoption of an alterative solution to the fiscal cliff that will not implement all the tax hikes and spending cuts that are programmed to happen without intervention. I believe Obama will again continue with at least some of the previous tax cuts and allow some delay in automatic spending cuts, because above all American Presidents avoid presiding over financial downturns of any type. I personally think the cliff should probably be allowed to happen - because it would indicate true fiscal responsibility. The country would be healthier in the long term, in that case. But I doubt it will happen, because of politics. And a compromise will at least get us part-way there and keep unemployment a few points lower than it will be if we hit the cliff.

I love hearing a far-right person telling independents what independents do & think. What you can't wrap your mind around, Sly, is that I'm a moderate and independent who just happens to find the Democrats far more moderate, reasonable & responsible at this time. While the right wing stares at it's navel and repeats a mantra about a "conservative movement", the reality is that there has been a humongous "moderate movement" happening without the right even noticing - led by the Democrats and fueled by cultural change and enlightenment (less racism, homophobia) ... and the far right is either going to be marginalized or wake up and move to the center.


November 12th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
Of course there's a recession coming.

Truer words have never been spoken. You can't increase taxes and regulation upon business and not expect one. Common sense is common sense. Unfortunately, Obama voters don't live in the real world though. As a result, I WILL LAUGH AND REJOICE IN THEIR SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THEIR STUPIDITY. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 3:59 pm
Profile
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
I.E. wrote:
Of course there's a recession coming. We've been in an "unofficial" recession (I personally believe it is a depression) since early in GWB's admin. By unofficial, I mean the official measures have just been masked by irresponsible financial industry activities and government spending in the place of private demand. And if the Fed had not done any of the QE, it would be full-blown depression, and American business would be smashed by the strong dollar.

The only way a measured recession will be avoided will be if there is a compromise and adoption of an alterative solution to the fiscal cliff that will not implement all the tax hikes and spending cuts that are programmed to happen without intervention. I believe Obama will again continue with at least some of the previous tax cuts and allow some delay in automatic spending cuts, because above all American Presidents avoid presiding over financial downturns of any type. I personally think the cliff should probably be allowed to happen - because it would indicate true fiscal responsibility. The country would be healthier in the long term, in that case. But I doubt it will happen, because of politics. And a compromise will at least get us part-way there and keep unemployment a few points lower than it will be if we hit the cliff.

I love hearing a far-right person telling independents what independents do & think. What you can't wrap your mind around, Sly, is that I'm a moderate and independent who just happens to find the Democrats far more moderate, reasonable & responsible at this time. While the right wing stares at it's navel and repeats a mantra about a "conservative movement", the reality is that there has been a humongous "moderate movement" happening without the right even noticing - led by the Democrats and fueled by cultural change and enlightenment (less racism, homophobia) ... and the far right is either going to be marginalized or wake up and move to the center.


When you say "not implement all tax hikes," IMO the big one, the tax hike for the top tax bracket, is and never will be off of the table for Obama. He believes that the high Clinton tax rates were the CAUSE of prosperity of the 90's. Most don't believe the same. What's worse is, we're in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT than we were in from 1994 on (NAFTA).

What Democrats can't wrap their heads around, is that we are now part of a GLOBAL economy, like it or not, and the worse we treat our big businesses, the more likely they are to either 1) leave, or 2) earn their "earnings" elsewhere. Apple paid effectively a 1.9% tax rate, and GE paid 0.9%. That's ridiculous, but what is even more ridiculous is the amount of corporations that will do this if we RAISE the tax rates. All a company has to do is create a subsidy division, set up a corporate office somewhere else, and earn profits through that division and "shift" whatever means over to the U.S. necessary to cover their U.S. operating costs, pay effectively zero taxes, and pay the "income" tax at the more business friendly country. Belgium, the Netherlands, and even Ireland with its incentives for tech companies are reaping the benefits of our nefarious tax system for people making more than $250k.

The bottom line is we literally CAN'T punish the wealthy MORE (they already pay 85% of the tab, mind you!) and come out on top. We would already BENEFIT, MORE by lowering tax rates and bringing more of that money home.

Obama and the Democrats don't get it, and it's costing us hundreds of billions in lost revenue, and tens of thousands of jobs.


November 12th, 2012, 4:29 pm
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Who will you vote for?
I used to work for one of those companies with a Bermuda post office box HQ, wjb - I get how that works. It shouldn't be allowed... meaning those companies should penalized for doing that. I don't agree that there are no ways to control or regulate international companies... we live in the largest consumer market in the world... and accordingly I believe there are plenty of ways.

IF Obama believes that the Clinton tax rates were the cause of prosperity - he may be right, because they were basically/relatively historically low just like they are now, with a few exceptions in the late '80s and early '90s (pre-Clinton). And during those exceptions were the times when we've seen similar large % jumps in deficit/GDP ratio. And those low rates certainly did not promote growth or prevent the early '90s recession(s).

Image

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/histor ... tax-rates/


November 12th, 2012, 5:10 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.