Post: #51

(09-27-2011 07:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Curious... If you were the emperor of the US, how would you fight obesity?

I'd probably tax sugar. In basically everything, besides fruits. And end crop subsidies. Maybe tax vegetable oils.

Can't think of anything else.

I'd start controlling food stamps a lot better. There's enough people on them to make a difference. The folks I see using them tend to be a bit on the heavy side.

Control where they are allowed to be used. Then start tighter regulation of what the people using these benefits can buy.

Where I live I see people in the line at 7-11 using the EBT cards like crazy. They're buying big two liter bottles of soda, fried noodle bentos, pork rinds and all kinds of other bad shit. Granted I'm buying cigarettes, beer and zig zags, but I'm paying with cash. I also only weigh 200 pounds and swim my ass off every day.

I understand the need to feed those who can't feed themselves, but do it with a heart. If you care enough about people to feed them, do it right. Someone who is on unemployment has no job. They can spend an extra 20 minutes to cook a chicken instead of buying four hotdogs.

On top of that, 7-11 charges more because of the convenience factor. People on welfare don't necessarily need that do they?

(09-27-2011 07:03 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  If Christie goes with a "I am fat. You the American People are fat. Let's all be fat together!!!" campaign slogan, I think he would win by a landslide (so to speak).

That's a funny idea for a slogan, and funny to read. Think about how true that might be though. I don't see a state on the list with less than 20% obesity. I know when I go to vote, I see a shit load of those folks at the polls. The rest of them get absentee ballots.

Do you know a lot of black guys that didn't vote for Barack Obama?

I don't know a single Hawaiian that didn't. I also don't know a single one that won't do it again, just because of the green birth certificate, myself included.

If you ask me, poor health is the number one problem with America right now. I've never been fat, but I have been seriously injured. When my body wasn't healthy, my brain wasn't healthy. I would never have trusted my own decisions. During some of those injuries, I was a high-paid mainland government employee. They knew to take me out of the serious decision making situations, and I agreed.

I just watched that poor guy on some Cspan thing at the Reagan Library. He has some serious health issues, and any idea of him being involved in a Presidential capacity better be nipped in the bud real quickly. Here he's got asthma: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/...y-20110728. If you can't breathe properly, you shouldn't be anywhere near the nuke codes.

I'm not deep like you guys, just sharing my opinion.

Aloha!

Post: #52

(09-28-2011 12:17 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-27-2011 05:04 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Left and Right doesn't matter anymore (if it ever did).

There are a number of substantial issues where left and right make a serious difference. For example, tax cuts/hikes. A liberal will want to raise taxes(at least on the rich), and the right will want to slash taxes. Both policies have major implications for the economy, our productivity and deficit. You can't say that just doesn't matter. And then there are a host of other things left and right disagree on such as what to do about climate change, whether we should be trading carbon credits, whether we legalize gay marriage, what is the role of government in health care, do we extend unemployment benefits, do we increase school spending, etc etc. These are very real issues where there is a dividing line.

Obama is very much a liberal.

"There are a number of substantial issues where left and right make a serious difference. For example, tax cuts/hikes. A liberal will want to raise taxes(at least on the rich)"

Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

He has only extended Bush tax cuts.

He is not a liberal. He is a shill for the rich.

"and the right will want to slash taxes"

You should add: "only for the rich".

"And then there are a host of other things left and right disagree on such as what to do about climate change, whether we should be trading carbon credits, whether we legalize gay marriage, what is the role of government in health care, do we extend unemployment benefits, do we increase school spending, etc etc."

These issues are great to distract everyone while the elites get richer.

Bush and Obama are more or less the exact same.

Bush is a phony conservative and Obama is a phony liberal.

Post: #53

(09-28-2011 02:55 AM)Kona Wrote:  

(09-27-2011 07:03 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  If Christie goes with a "I am fat. You the American People are fat. Let's all be fat together!!!" campaign slogan, I think he would win by a landslide (so to speak).

That's a funny idea for a slogan, and funny to read. Think about how true that might be though. I don't see a state on the list with less than 20% obesity. I know when I go to vote, I see a shit load of those folks at the polls. The rest of them get absentee ballots.

Do you know a lot of black guys that didn't vote for Barack Obama?

I don't know a single Hawaiian that didn't. I also don't know a single one that won't do it again, just because of the green birth certificate, myself included.

If you ask me, poor health is the number one problem with America right now. I've never been fat, but I have been seriously injured. When my body wasn't healthy, my brain wasn't healthy. I would never have trusted my own decisions. During some of those injuries, I was a high-paid mainland government employee. They knew to take me out of the serious decision making situations, and I agreed.

I just watched that poor guy on some Cspan thing at the Reagan Library. He has some serious health issues, and any idea of him being involved in a Presidential capacity better be nipped in the bud real quickly. Here he's got asthma: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/...y-20110728. If you can't breathe properly, you shouldn't be anywhere near the nuke codes.

I'm not deep like you guys, just sharing my opinion.

Aloha!

Yeah, honestly I didn't know too much about that Chirstie guy, so last night I watched his speech on tv.

He isn't really an inspirational speaker.

And after reading stuff about how "tough talking" he was, I was expecting something different, maybe more of a "tough guy".

However, he reminds me more of the fat kid at school people used to give wedgies to, and the fat kid that got knocked down and kicked because he couldn't get up. Kind of like a turtle on his back.

He needs to switch up his image a little; maybe have a cigar in mouth at all times. And lose the slight lisp.

That all being said, I think if the goes with the "Pro-FAT" campaign, he is a lock to win the election. Maybe have a cheeseburger in his hand at all times. Maybe some mustard stains on his shirt. Possibly do interviews from his couch while wearing a Snuggie and popcorn all over himself. Or take breaks while he is giving a speech to dip a Dorito in some Nacho Cheese.

Having this guy as president however would make our country the laughing stock of the world.

Way too much of a slob.

Post: #54

There are reforms available that are essentially beneficial and non-partisan. Off the top of my head:

Revenue neutral tax reform: Scrap loopholes, lower tax rates, same net revenue. Less money is wasted on tax professionals lowering one's tax liability, work that creates no wealth.
Why it isn't happening: Entrenched interests guard their precious benefits, like mortgage deductions.

Elimination of crop and ethanol subsidies: ethanol subsidies have led to a run up in the price of corn and thus meat, while crop subsidies go to already wealthy farmers.

Immigration enforcement: Secure the border with a fence.
The left has managed to make the goal of securing the border a conservative position, when it isn't. It's a matter of national security and dignity. I'd go so far as to say that deportation of illegals is not conservative, but merely enforcement of the law. Eisenhower, a moderate Republican president, did it 50 years ago.

Legal Immigration: Change immigration to focus on those who will create jobs, and not merely fill them. Entrepreneurs, top researchers and very wealthy retirees are good targets. Not low level programmers and menial workers.

Withdraw from the Middle East: Enough said.

Quote:You can't have a left-wing president in America. For that to happen in a democracy you need a left-wing population.

If you divide the population into two halves of right and left, and see the right half winning, your point is correct. But if you compare the right and left of today with the right and left of 20, 50, 100 years ago, the country has clearly shifted to the left. To steal one man's analogy, conservatives are marching eastward on a westward ship. Policies on gay marriage, abortion, gays and women in the military, immigration laws, government spending levels, foreign aid and policy, supreme court decisions, states' rights, the content of public schooling, preferential treatment of certain races/sexes/homosexuals all evidence a shift to the left. On the whole, America is still very much left of where it was.

Absent radical changes in policy, demographic patterns alone ensure America will trend leftwards over time no matter who is elected. To be sure, there's been some conservative success on a few issues, such as with gun control and the lengthening of criminal sentences. Even those, however, are probably only taking us to pre-1960's policies.

The left is very successful in framing this issue. The moment the country pauses its leftward march, leftists protest that the country is entering the very depths of fascism/patriarchy/theocracy/jingoism... Of course, the leftward march resumes shortly after. It's like locking in a new lower interest rate on a loan - any time the country moves left, it's the new normal, and the left can start advocating something even more outre.

As for Bobby Jindal, he looks like a pathetic excuse for a man. When he first spoke in front of a national audience, everyone laughed at him.

Quote:Having this guy as president however would make our country the laughing stock of the world.

Way too much of a slob.

Exactly. It's not because they would laugh... but the reason they would laugh is the reason why he shouldn't be elected. Because he's a fat slob.

Post: #55

(09-28-2011 10:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

He can't raise anything without getting it through congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19...69403.html

thegmanifesto Wrote:He has only extended Bush tax cuts.

If the Bush tax cuts expired, everybody's taxes would've gone up, including the middle class. The average person's increase would be $3000 a year, which would be a major hit to a middle income family during a brutal recession. To raise taxes ONLY on the rich while not raising them on the middle class would require a new bill and that damn sure wasn't getting passed the Republicans in congress. Obama was forced to make a compromise to extend the cuts in order to not have taxes raised on middle class families and to get Republicans to agree to extend unemployment benefits. Not everyone is happy with it, but we don't live under an autocrat and that's just the way the world works.

basilransom Wrote:Immigration enforcement: Secure the border with a fence.
The left has managed to make the goal of securing the border a conservative position, when it isn't. It's a matter of national security and dignity. I'd go so far as to say that deportation of illegals is not conservative, but merely enforcement of the law. Eisenhower, a moderate Republican president, did it 50 years ago.

Legal Immigration: Change immigration to focus on those who will create jobs, and not merely fill them. Entrepreneurs, top researchers and very wealthy retirees are good targets. Not low level programmers and menial workers.

I agree here 100% and I like the way you framed this matter. It is ridiculous that it makes you "right wing" if you don't believe people should be allowed to come to America illegally. The left has controlled the rhetorical frame on the immigration debate for too long. They even conflate the language in such a way that any legislation that enforces the law on *illegal*immigration is tantamount to being anti-immigrant. Even though it has nothing to do with legal immigrants. It's sickening.

Post: #56

(09-28-2011 01:20 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 10:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

He can't raise anything without getting it through congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19...69403.html

Dude, Obama had full control of the House and Senate for 2 years...

He could have fulfilled any of his campaign promises if he so wished.

Post: #57

(09-28-2011 01:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Dude, Obama had full control of the House and Senate for 2 years...

He could have fulfilled any of his campaign promises if he so wished.

Most the first year was spent trying to deal with an economic meltdown. Say what you will about the guy, but he has had a hell of a full plate on his hands for the past 3 years. He took office during the worst situation of any President in modern times. That's why I seem to be cutting him some slack where others aren't.

Post: #58

I feel bad for him as well, but it is what is . If the economy doesn't do a 180 damn near , it's over.

Granted, his predecessor left him a nice little gift-box with wonderful gifts of shit, like, 2 wars that were not paid for, medicaid drug prescription bill that was fucked, and an economic crisis that was only rivaled by the depression of 1929. That would have been a lot for any President to deal with. I am sure once he understood the facts, he didn't fuck Michelle for a month.

Now where he fucked himself was in trying to shake up time tested institutions(banks,insurance companies,oil/gas companies, wall street, etc.) very early on, and did not understand( nor was taught) that you can't just force feed your shit down the throats of people who move the economy along. His intentions were honorable but , that's not how the game is played. Spoon feeding these ideas to those that manipulate your economy was his best bet. I think he got some bad advice on what was priority. WHy would you tackle health care, burn up all that damn valuable time, and the economy is tanking? Why would you focus on EPA regulations that would drive up the cost of energy and goods and services when the economy is tanking? Why would you focus on "don't ask don't tell", when the economy is tanking? WHy would you focus on "green jobs" and renewable energy when the economy is tanking? Again, all these things( and many more) are honorable, but the timing was completely fucked I believe. "It's the economy stupid".

I don't see this as being any kind of referendum based on his race, or his personality. If race was the issue , Herman "monkey face" Cain wouldn't stand a chance with the tea party. They love him. This is about food, rent, mortgage, and every day living. If he could get that turned around, he would be in good shape. I was looking @ the real clear politics polling data and he's holding steady @ an approval rating of around 43%, but that's with all the shit he's been thru ,so , I think if he got that monkey off his back he would win easily.

My pick: Romney ( if the economy stays exactly the way it is come election time)

Post: #59

Right.

So the record book shows that the only thing Obama has done in regards to taxes is extend tax cuts.

Doesn't sound like too much of a "liberal" to me.

The similarities to Bush are stronger than the differences.

Post: #60

(09-28-2011 01:53 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Right.

So the record book shows that the only thing Obama has done in regards to taxes is extend tax cuts.

Doesn't sound like too much of a "liberal" to me.

The similarities to Bush are stronger than the differences.

That's exactly right.

Look at this: In the nearly 3 years he's been in office , look what he has spent more time on, yet the "political yield" from these programs is quite low :

Health care referendum : when you're out of a job, or a home, who cares?
EPA regulations: when you're out of a job, or a home , who cares?

Don't ask don't tell: When you"re out of a job, or a home, who cares?

"green jobs/renewable energy source:(solar panels ,wind energy, coal,
blah blah blah) , When you're out of a job, or a home, who cares?

Wall street/banking regulations: WHen you're out of a job, or a home, who cares?
All these ideas that were pushed ,was merely the liberal end of his party manipulating him to his own undoing. It was if they conceded on the economy and just had to get these "pressing " matters done immediately. What a disaster.

Again, great ideas, but tell that to a starving bastard.

*Amount of time spent with a concentrated laser beam on the economy, probably 6 months.

Post: #61

(09-28-2011 01:52 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  I feel bad for him as well, but it is what is . If the economy doesn't do a 180 damn near , it's over.

Granted, his predecessor left him a nice little gift-box with wonderful gifts of shit, like, 2 wars that were not paid for, medicaid drug prescription bill that was fucked, and an economic crisis that was only rivaled by the depression of 1929. That would have been a lot for any President to deal with. I am sure once he understood the facts, he didn't fuck Michelle for a month.

Now where he fucked himself was in trying to shake up time tested institutions(banks,insurance companies,oil/gas companies, wall street, etc.) very early on, and did not understand( nor was taught) that you can't just force feed your shit down the throats of people who move the economy along. His intentions were honorable but , that's not how the game is played. Spoon feeding these ideas to those that manipulate your economy was his best bet. I think he got some bad advice on what was priority. WHy would you tackle health care, burn up all that damn valuable time, and the economy is tanking? Why would you focus on EPA regulations that would drive up the cost of energy and goods and services when the economy is tanking? Why would you focus on "don't ask don't tell", when the economy is tanking? WHy would you focus on "green jobs" and renewable energy when the economy is tanking? Again, all these things( and many more) are honorable, but the timing was completely fucked I believe. "It's the economy stupid".

I don't see this as being any kind of referendum based on his race, or his personality. If race was the issue , Herman "monkey face" Cain wouldn't stand a chance with the tea party. They love him. This is about food, rent, mortgage, and every day living. If he could get that turned around, he would be in good shape. I was looking @ the real clear politics polling data and he's holding steady @ an approval rating of around 43%, but that's with all the shit he's been thru ,so , I think if he got that monkey off his back he would win easily.

My pick: Romney ( if the economy stays exactly the way it is come election time)

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Obama himself admits that he made a mistake in tackling health care so early. He spent a lot of political capital on that and has yet to get it back.

I do think Obama was focused primarily on the economy, but people will disagree with what he did. Some people say TARP stopped us from going into the second Great Depression, some say it was just a massive waste of tax dollars and the banks should've been allowed to fail at the whim of the free market(the Ron Paul position). Honestly, I really don't know. I was always torn on that issue. But it does look as though his bailout of the auto-industry was a success. My dad is a retired auto-worker on pension and was scared shitless that GM was going to go under and he'd lose his pension. So Obama earned my dad's vote for 2012. The money was paid back and the big three are now making money again.

I think the lack of jobs is due to the lack of demand in the economy. The globalized economy, the rise of Asia, the free flow of industry to markets with cheaper labor and the downward pressure on wages that places on the middle class, and low interest rates for too long. This was bound to blow up in our face. We masked it over for many years by making the average guy feel wealthy with a stock bubble in the 90s and then the housing bubble in the Bush years. But now that these things are popped, we see the emperor has no clothes. This is the real economy we've had all along that the bullshit and funny money were masking. This is the dead mouse that the cat delivered to Obama's door in '08. I think his role the past few years hasn't been so much creating jobs(which is totally unrealistic given prevailing conditions), but trying to stop us from losing them at an even higher rate than we otherwise would be by using stimulus programs. Even upon his taking of office, when you looked at the population growth, the number of new college grads coming into the workforce, you could clearly see that even if Obama did a DECENT job, there's just no fucking way in hell he could've created enough jobs to deal with the growth as well as the backlog of people who feel off the stats because they gave up looking. The true unemployment rate is likely about double the official number. Even if not a single job was lost, we'd still be going backward because you need to add something like 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth alone.

I realize that ultimately people will blame the president if things are going bad, but I think we need to realize that this problem is far bigger than any one man and in a globalized economy, what China does to their yuan has a direct impact on some factory guy in Ohio, and we can't exactly tell China what to do. It took us decades of bad policies to get to this position and it might take just as long to get out. Or perhaps we simply won't get out, period. Maybe this shitty economy is just the new normal. In places like Spain, France and Italy, having 10%+ unemployment is pretty much the norm. They're used to it. If they have 9% unemployment they're doing good. Maybe that's finally caught up to us as we lose our sole financial superpower status and have to compete with Asia. It was a good run for the last 50 years and the party may now be over.

Post: #62

I am impressed this thread has turned into a great discussion.

Post: #63

(09-28-2011 02:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 01:52 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

I think the lack of jobs is due to the lack of demand in the economy. The globalized economy, the rise of Asia, the free flow of industry to markets with cheaper labor and the downward pressure on wages that places on the middle class, and low interest rates for too long. This was bound to blow up in our face. We masked it over for many years by making the average guy feel wealthy with a stock bubble in the 90s and then the housing bubble in the Bush years. But now that these things are popped, we see the emperor has no clothes. This is the real economy we've had all along that the bullshit and funny money were masking. This is the dead mouse that the cat delivered to Obama's door in '08. I think his role the past few years hasn't been so much creating jobs(which is totally unrealistic given prevailing conditions), but trying to stop us from losing them at an even higher rate than we otherwise would be by using stimulus programs. Even upon his taking of office, when you looked at the population growth, the number of new college grads coming into the workforce, you could clearly see that even if Obama did a DECENT job, there's just no fucking way in hell he could've created enough jobs to deal with the growth as well as the backlog of people who feel off the stats because they gave up looking. The true unemployment rate is likely about double the official number. Even if not a single job was lost, we'd still be going backward because you need to add something like 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth alone.

I realize that ultimately people will blame the president if things are going bad, but I think we need to realize that this problem is far bigger than any one man and in a globalized economy, what China does to their yuan has a direct impact on some factory guy in Ohio, and we can't exactly tell China what to do. It took us decades of bad policies to get to this position and it might take just as long to get out. Or perhaps we simply won't get out, period. Maybe this shitty economy is just the new normal. In places like Spain, France and Italy, having 10%+ unemployment is pretty much the norm. They're used to it. If they have 9% unemployment they're doing good. Maybe that's finally caught up to us as we lose our sole financial superpower status and have to compete with Asia. It was a good run for the last 50 years and the party may now be over.

Speak,

Those are some great points and probably even more important points than the ones I mentioned because the reality is , the shit has hit the fan everywhere. I often tell people, if you don't travel, stop fucking complaining. Some of these spoiled bastards need to go and see how it is in Europe since they think he is the sole person that is responsible for this entire crisis. Europe has been dragging this country into a deeper shit hole and couple with those wars this is not an easy fix. When they securitized all of those portfolios that had so much "c-d" paper, b.o.f.a. lehman, country wide, all of them knew what they were doing. People really don't understand why the crisis took place, and so it's quite easy to make one person a scapegoat. This was so systemic and far reaching that it wold have probably taken an act of God to convince people that it could cause so much damage. These motherfuckers knew fully well that most of these first time buyers had no idea what a "baloon " payment, or and adjustable arm or any other term for that matter, meant. You throw billions and billions of dollars worth of trash into the market, batch it up with a fair amount of good a paper, securitize it and wala, every living institution thought it was hotcakes. Now your fucking balance sheet is upside down ,because the default rate on that kind of paper was/is out of control. Now you cant lend, because you have nothing to lend, so the tax payer bails you out, burdening the system even more(tarp). I can't imagine what George Bush was thinking when he heard that. Actually, I can, it was nothing, he was thinking nothing, because he is fucking dumb, just fucking dumb, dumb , dumb. Perry might be dumber , but that's another story..lol. When Cheney wasn't leading Bush around on foreign policy, it was because Paulson was picking him clean on any financial matter. I think he was semi-retarded to be honest.

Anyway, Obama just came in at the wrong time, had the wrong mentality ( I will organize everyone like I did as a community organizer back in the day") and lastly, had the wrong birds whistling dixie in his ears. I do have to say though, with all the shit that he has been beaten up about, (which is probably more than any other President has had to deal with) he is still trying.

* Can you imagine where we would be if Sarah Palin and John McCain were elected? Between his dementia , and her low level intellect, We would've had civil war by now! I give Obama some credit for holding this shit together with very little experience.

Post: #64

(09-28-2011 10:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  "There are a number of substantial issues where left and right make a serious difference. For example, tax cuts/hikes. A liberal will want to raise taxes(at least on the rich)"
Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

Yes, but this was tough. His agenda was to raise taxes on "rich", and he meant every couple making over $250K a year. Unfortunately for him, this makes half of Bay Area (and probably LA) "rich" - and those people are the base who is not only voting for Dems, but also make the largest donations. If he did that, this may have been his political suicide. Especially considering that the motto here is that we don't need more taxes, we need to stop wars and trim down military budget so we're not spending more on defense than the rest of the world together.

Post: #65

(09-28-2011 04:28 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 10:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  "There are a number of substantial issues where left and right make a serious difference. For example, tax cuts/hikes. A liberal will want to raise taxes(at least on the rich)"
Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

Yes, but this was tough. His agenda was to raise taxes on "rich", and he meant every couple making over $250K a year. Unfortunately for him, this makes half of Bay Area (and probably LA) "rich" - and those people are the base who is not only voting for Dems, but also make the largest donations. If he did that, this may have been his political suicide. Especially considering that the motto here is that we don't need more taxes, we need to stop wars and trim down military budget so we're not spending more on defense than the rest of the world together.

These rich people are exactly the ones who want more taxes. In 2008, Obama got more votes from the richest households than McCain did.

Post: #66

Obama will be in the White House for awhile longer, elections or not. Until we see the pale horse. And Hades right behind it.

Post: #67

I pretty sure the Republicans learned from their mistake in 2008. Picking someone that divides the base (McCain) was utterly stupid.

Look for a Republican pres in 2012.

Economy is just too bad, Obama hasnt delivered on half the things he said he would for him to win another election.

I would be shocked it Barrack won with his only claim to fame was being the pres when Bin Laden was killed....

Post: #68

"Look for a Republican pres in 2012. "

Which one?

Post: #69

(09-28-2011 09:02 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  "Look for a Republican pres in 2012. "

Which one?

I think the Republican powers that be wanna "push" Roomney.

Problem with that is alot of Republicans dont like him. (Morman ect)

Maybe they havent learned mistakes..... lol

With the timing and economy maybe it wont matter and people will look past Roomneys discretion's.

Although I think they are looking for someone that will unite the base, and satisfy the powers that be. clock is ticking.....

Post: #70

(09-28-2011 08:51 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  I would be shocked it Barrack won with his only claim to fame was being the pres when Bin Laden was killed....

Ya, because Bin Laden was able to evade the most powerful military in the world for nearly a decade while hooked up to a dialysis machine.

Post: #71

(09-28-2011 09:02 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  "Look for a Republican pres in 2012. "

Which one?

Look no further, since last month, Romney is up 1 point (currently @ 23%, Perry down 10 points (currently @ 19%,) Cain up 6 points (currently @ 17%). Since most Republican voters are familiar with Romney (Mass. Health care law, Mormonism, flip-flop on abortion) , there is not much Perry or Cain can do to sabotage his campaign with "new" information. He caught and passed Perry in a little over a month . I remember Romney being down by 13 points when Perry announced he was running, so that should tell you that Perry's campaign tactics will have no effect on what voters already think/know of Romney. My suspicion is that Perry's only shot will be to turn up the heat with nasty negative ads, because his performance at the debate almost made him look like a monkey that was trying to figure out a locked suitcase.

Post: #72

A Cain/Romney or Romney/Cain ticket would be a damn strong one.

Obama's biggest flaw is how much of a joke Joe Biden is.

Post: #73

I think Romney would probably be a fairly reasonable president. He has to pander to the extreme right wing, but he doesn't really believe half the crap he says. I don't think he's actually that much more conservative than Obama, who despite the shrill accusations of socialism (hurled at all Democratic presidents), is not that liberal in my opinion.

I don't think VP's are really that much of a plus or minus, generally. Look at Dan Quayle. Bush I still got elected with that dolt.

Some great points made in this thread, and amazingly civil.

Post: #74

(09-28-2011 10:55 PM)Menace Wrote:  I think Romney would probably be a fairly reasonable president. He has to pander to the extreme right wing, but he doesn't really believe half the crap he says. I don't think he's actually that much more conservative than Obama, who despite the shrill accusations of socialism (hurled at all Democratic presidents), is not that liberal in my opinion.

I don't think VP's are really that much of a plus or minus, generally. Look at Dan Quayle. Bush I still got elected with that dolt.

Some great points made in this thread, and amazingly civil.

The thing is, after Dick Cheney, the VP spot became very much talked about. Before Dick, no one gave a shit.

That's why there was such an uproar when Palin was put in the VP spot in 08'.

And as far as Obama's team goes, Biden is dead weight. He'd be better off picking up a stronger candidate for 12'.

Post: #75

"My dad is a retired auto-worker on pension and was scared shitless that GM was going to go under and he'd lose his pension. So Obama earned my dad's vote for 2012"

thats not earning a vote, thats buying a vote. unfortunately buying the votes of union idiots whose companies make promises they cant financially keep and government workers who dont do dick all day has bankrupted the country. the guy who is ultimately stuck paying the tab was never at the table for the negotiations.

and G - as far as Christie not being a tough talker - he wasnt last night, but go to youtube and put in 'Chris Christie teachers union' and sit back and enjoy