The debates on the Debates

If a vote for Romney is a wildcard, a vote for President Obama is more of a known - so far so good, right? What we know from the past 4 years is that there is nothing to indicate President Obama can work with Republicans in Congress to get anything done. In the next 4 years it is going to be more important than ever that we have bi-partisan efforts to address major issues facing the country. Presiden Obama and the Republicans in Congress have irreconcilable differences. we can waste time trying to allocate blame for this, but blame serves no constructive purpose at this point.

I disagree. When the "old guard" is in a quagmire, a shot of idealism is often the jolt needed.
--- merged: Nov 1, 2012 3:16 PM ---

With Pailin - she did not read. With Ryan he reads the wrong stuff. O.k., I think I get it. What is on President Obama's reading list? Biden's?
--- merged: Nov 1, 2012 3:23 PM ---

How about - Romney knowing we are in-fact already in a trade war with China, and is going to do something about it. How about President Obama not knowing we are in a trade war with China and has not nor will do anything about it. Vote accordingly!

It is relatively easy for China to do business in the US, it is in some cases impossible for US to do business in China. China plays by different rules to the disadvantage of the US. We need a President that gets it, don't you agree?

 

If the founding fathers had had this in mind they would not have divided the government into three branches. Party domination for the purpose (excuse) of moving legislation forward in one direction or the other was not part of their vision nor is how things were meant to work.

The balance is about right or should be. The gridlock has nothing to do with the fact that Obama can't work with Republicans. Bipartisanship requires compromise from both sides. The Republican side has been unwilling to meet in the middle or compromise on anything the President has sought to accomplish. The President has come to the middle on issues important to Republicans and found few to no Republicans willing to meet with him there. Are you saying that Obama should allow himself to be dragged hard right in order to work with Republicans? Isn't that a bit unfair Ace? I'm sure it's not what the Constitutional framers had in mind either.

 

In some cases President Obama can not even get support from people in his own party - he did not get a single vote for his budget. He has not presented a plan to fix immigration, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the debt, the deficit, employment, income inequity, education, energy, etc, etc, etc. President Obama's rhetoric is empty.

First, a leader needs to be willing to sit down with the opposition and find common ground. Given what President Obama has been saying about Republicans he is either exaggerating his views or he does not believe them. He has never said anything positive about Ryan's budget for example - and the Ryan budget could be the starting point for compromise - all President Obama has said is basically Republicans don't give a shit about people nor has the country's best interest at heart. Belittling the opposition is not a good start to compromise. So, President Obama can go on late night talk shows and crack jokes all night long in the next 4 years if he wins, but that won't fix a thing.

 

ace, your "analysis" is entirely detached from reality, even by the low standards i typically apply to your posts in order not to just laugh at them. i'd recommend that you get a fucking grip, but i've long understood that you don't really care about reality. but jesus christ, these last posts are a joke.

 

The economy was growing faster early in President Obama's term than it is now. Vote accordingly.

 

I think both Reagan and Bush would have failed that test at the same point in their presidency.

It is not what Ryan read (or that Palin likes the National Enquirers) as much as that he apparently went from being a political disciple of Ayn Rand to a disciple of the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas as a matter of political expediency (not good to scare the religious base with any connection to A. Rand).

 

Ace - uhh, yeah. I'm not real sure how claiming that people's lives can take different trajectories really makes someone want to vote for Romney. After all, if a person has to change their trajectory in life by outright lying and not being held accountable, then is it really a trajectory that should be celebrated??

I'm actually rather disappointed you didn't take my NC bait. After all, Romney claims to have wrapped it up, and while it may turn back red, I think the republicans are worried given the numbers of new voter registrations among minorities and young voters. Guess what? They're higher than they were in '08 by almost 30%. Guess that ground game is effective to some degree after all.

Let's put some of Romney's so-called honor in perspective shall we?

The man claims to be able to "reach across the aisle and get things accomplished" It's what I did as Governor of Mass." Hmmm, I think that's interesting given the amount of veto-overrides that the state politicians performed during his tenure. They overrode him around 115 times in his first year alone. I wonder why? Maybe it had something to do with his aggressive stance on trying to cut social programs that served both parties such as veterans programs, disadvantaged children programs, and adult disability programs. I suppose he can twist that into bi-partisan politics since those cuts were never enacted thanks to the diligence of the state senators and representatives.

Now, for something new(ish) - Here we have the great and honorable Romney claiming that he "knows business", that he will use that knowledge to put us on the "right track for 'real change'". Ok. He knows how to ship jobs, I'll give him that one. What he doesn't know, apparently, is that the lies he's spreading in Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin are putting profits of his "beloved car industry" at risk. When other CEOs come out and tell you that you are blatantly wrong and that you must be in a parallel world, well, then maybe you should pull those ads or at the very least, correct or amend them. Has Romney done that? Of course not! In fact, he had his boy toy Mr. Lyin' Ryan do the dirty work for him in Wisconsin yesterday. So, not only should I take Romney at his word because he "knows business" but now Mr. Ryan is spouting the same message despite Ryan supporting and voting for the very bailout that they are now demonizing. Hmm, that doesn't sound too honorable to me. Maybe it's because he can't counter the fact that the auto industry has created over 250k jobs since the bailout. :shrug:

Even worse, is with this whole Sandy mess going on, the great and powerful (Baum would be proud) Romney sends his workers out to gather canned goods, bottled water and diapers to send over to *crickets* "I think it's New Jersey". Really??!! You don't know who is affected by this storm and where you're sending shit?? I thought Gov. Christie was one of your power surrogates? Oh, btw, the Red Cross says Thanks, but No Thanks. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they have on their website that they can't take things like that but if you want to help then donate money and/or blood. Maybe that car elevator cost a bit more than you thought eh??

Of course, this is ignoring his support of those "rape doesn't really happen" republicans, his flip-flopping on FEMA (he apparently doesn't even know anymore given his refusal to answer questions) and his apparent ignorance on things such as climate change.

*sigh*

The great and honorable Romney. Just another DRILL, BABY! DRILL republican... that is.. until the wind changes direction.


Now, I'm sure you'll come back and say that Obama's rhetoric is empty, that he had his chance yada, yada, yada. Hmm. Maybe you're right, but that means that the ultra-conservative congress members had their chance too right??? Right?

I'm guessing at the next nomination, you guys won't be picking someone who has off-shore bank accounts and dancing horses or car elevators. Just please, let's not blame Sandy for losing. That would be tacky even for fright-wingers.

P.S. It will be a close election, but the Great and Honorable Mittens is not going to come close to his 300 electoral boast.
--- merged: Nov 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM ---
Oh, and thanks Mr. Jeb Bush for reminding us just how much better Obama is than your brother. Big mistake picking you to surrogate in Fl.

 

the right would have people living in an alternate reality. the statements ace made about about the problems that obama has had getting things through congress are simply false. the republicans obviously decided on a strategy of systematic obstruction. at the end, they would try to blame the administration for that. but the facts are clear. ace's line, like so much emanating from the right these days, is simply horseshit.

 

Ace's regurgitation of the false, or at best, grossly misleading statements about Obama "not get a single vote for his budget" (I explained the Republican political gamesmanship at the time that he chose to ignore), or that Obama had not presented a plan to to deal with the debt, the deficit, employment, income inequity, education, energy, etc, etc, etc. (the details of such plans have been discussed in numerous threads that he again chose to ignore) is the conservative mantra. Repeat it often enough and they will at least convince themselves.

I think it is fair to say that in true Romney-like denial, Ace “is not going to let our campaign his posts be dictated by fact-checkers.”

 

Did you vote for either one? Why are you voting for President Obama?

What? Can you elaborate? What do you mean when you say "disciple"?
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM ---

I speak for myself and gave the reason why I voted for Romney. when people suggest he is motivated by money, I don't think that is currently correct.

NC is going to elect a Republican for Governor.

I do not think Romney is a uniquely honorable man. I think if you are on the wrong side, he will eat you alive - figuratively speaking. My point is that we know that about Romney. I think in some regards that is exactly what we need. I think in order to get bi-partisan action in D.C. we need a person who can flip and flop. for example, if Romney is President I am pretty sure abortion will remain legal in the US, I am pretty sure social security won't be privatized, I am pretty sure we won't try to deport 12 million people who may be here illegally, etc.
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM ---

And their strategy worked. President Obama either did not have a strategy or it failed. Dude, if you have a strategy to make me look like a fool, that doesn't mean I can't overcome that strategy and flip the scrip the way I normally do with you.

Like I clearly wrote, we can try to allocate blame all day long - but it is not going to change anything today - nor is there any indication anything will be different in the next 4 years if Obama wins re-election. The left needs a better or a different man for the fight - they did not select a better or different man. Congress is going to be more right leaning in the next 4 years, not less. Get a clue, please, before telling me I am in an alternate reality.

 

Ace, I am not a single issue voter.

But if I were to vote solely on economic growth, I would vote for the candidate with the greatest turn-around in a short period of time....in the case of Obama, from a GDP of -9% when he took office to three plus year of positive economic growth. I certainly wouldnt vote for a failed supply side economic policy.

When Paul Ryan said

"[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand..” and "“I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are... “It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.””​

He took his Randian devotion further, using it as the inspiration for his “Path to Prosperity,” his controversial austere budget plan....​

Does that not make him a believer in the doctrines of A. Rand, i.e. a disciple?

And then to dismiss it as "urban myth" and deny his own words and actions for political expediency.
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM ---

I would suggest it is highly unlikely that Reagan could have been the Republican nominee today if conservatives were to vote on his policies as president.....raising taxes, bailing out Chrysler and S&Ls, signing UN environmental agreements, an immigration policy that resulted in millions of illegals entering the country....

 

If this is true, if the Congress continues to radically lean further and further to the right, if a Republican President gets elected and can hold on through two terms, if the Supreme court reaches a point where a liberal opinion is a fart in a windstorm, I would view it as a good indication that the country on the whole wants to move in that direction. I personally feel that it would be the totally wrong direction for the country but the majority rules.

For now though, there is no majority. The country is evenly split. So Ace - you can't have your way just yet.

This is no longer about right vs left. It's about radical extremism vs. centralism. Liberals and moderates elected Obama to balance out what they saw as an attempt to take over the government by the neo-cons of the Bush Administration. Obama's done his job, in that respect. He's provided the balance needed when the government and it's citizens are divided on the issues. He hasn't caved to the outrageous demands of the right knowing that, by doing so, not only would he have been letting down 50% of us, he be doing his office and the entire country a grave disservice.

A better or a different man? A weaker man would have caved to the insanity that is the 2010-2012 Congress.

And yes, I think you need to get a clue as to how the government is meant to function on behalf of "all the people" - not just the richest or the loudest or the most ignorant. And definitely not on the behalf of a single, extreme ideology.

 

Ace: you may be right about NC electing McCrory, but I hope you are wrong to say the least.

Back to Mr. Flip Flop, Reid has already stated they won't work with Romney & since Romney is in violation of the Ethics in Government Act, I can't blame him

Fl is gonna go blue btw

 

A large number of people agree with you - that lead to the Tea Party movement. President Bush failed in terms of domestic economic policy - so has President Obama. I have written many times that President Obama should have had a primary challenger from his party - a legitimate challenger. The Democrat Party agenda has never been fleshed out - all we have is how evil Republicans are. We needed better choices. I have never held the position that I could only vote for a Republican. I think President Obama has failed and I see no reason for him to get 4 more years - I will take my chances with Romney.
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM ---

Good for you.

If President Obama took office in January 2009 and the recession ended in June 2009, is the implication of your post that President Obama's policies are the reason the recession ended?

And since the end of the recession has economic growth been strong or weak? If it has been weak by your definition, is the implication of President's Obama's rhetoric that it has been the fault of President Bush's policies?

You folks have me confused.

I would say no. But I do not know what you mean when you use the term disciple.

Gayle Sayers is by and large the reason I got involved with playing football. I grew up watching Brian's Song (still makes me cry), it inspired me in so many ways both on and off the football field. I recommend everyone watch the movie - am I a disciple of Gayle Sayers and Brian Piccolo? Of course not!

Did you actually read the article Romney wrote regarding GM and bankruptcy? Don't think you did.

I would vote for Reagan, can't speak for others because I have never discussed the question with anyone.
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 6:03 PM ---

The analysis is contingent on the accuracy of the polls, the modeling of most polls use 2008 turnout ratios. We know this will be a turnout election. Romney is going to get his base to the polls. The real uncertain is, will President Obama get his base to the polls. We already know President Obama has taken a hit in many categories, i.e. white males, elderly, married women - can his other strong demographics make up for the loss. I am betting males under 25 will turnout in less numbers (thanks Halo). President Obama won a close election in 2008 and had everything working perfectly based on his strategy, I would say the odds of "perfection" in 2012 is 0%. I would bet Romney. I love this stuff, one side makes a calculation, the other side makes a calculation and one will be correct, the other won't be - kinda like a mini-form of capitalism at work.
--- merged: Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM ---

My expectation for Romeny if he is elected is to persuade Reid to cooperate. If Romney can not get Reid and a few other Democrats to work with Republicans to solve some of our big problems Romney will be a failure, not worthy of re-election in 2016. Having opposition is not an excuse.