sharkman Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 When those with feelings of inferiority get contradicted, they often lash out with insults and such. It becomes rather obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I agree. If Romney gets the nomination, which looks all but certain barring catastrophe, it will be a very close election. Both are closer to the center and both are decent candidates, and so swing-voters will have an interesting time deciding.I wonder how close it will be. I happen to think that it's not so close and Obama will win. But what do I know?I agree that both Romney and Obama are decent, honest men who respect rules. No one knows now who will be President in 2013 but everyone knows that the US will inaugurate a president in January 2013. Compare this situation with Russia, China, Europe, Africa or South America. The US presidency is uncertain but it is stable. Other States aspire to stability hoping to control uncertainty. They attempt to be certain but are unstable. America, what a country! It is stable but uncertain. ---- For those who believe that the "fix is in", in Russia, China and too often in South America, leaders pick their successor. Is there any evidence that Obama and Romney have colluded? Informed people around the world marvel at America's stability, and its uncertainty. For over 200 years, this mathematical marvel is truly a shining light. Edited January 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 I too was surprised that he didn't mention this.Anyone writing for the N.Y. Times assumes a casual reader who does not have the time or experience to refute little details like that. In his usual publication, Commentary, he'd never omit discussion of that kind of issue. But the most recent one-termers - Bush I and Carter - were felled by recession. Ford was too, I guess, but he was a no-termer never having been elected to Vice President or President. In the case of Carter the economy was perceived to be in an inflation more than recession at election time; the recession came later. And Bush I's recession was very mild. In Bush I's case, I think it was due more to the fact that Clinton was a very good candidate and "Republican fatigue" had set in. We usually switch parties after 8 or the most 12 years. The 20 year Democratic run from 1932 to 1952 was fueled by Depression and war and was extraordinary. Same with the 1861 to 1881 Republican run. That was fueled by the Civil War and the resulting exclusion of then usually Democratic states from voting. Carter was also felled by a combination of a good candidate and overall chaos; economic and foreign. I think Obama faces a slightly less-good candidate, but similar chaos. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan87 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Good thing for the Republican party that it is going to be Romney. If you take a look at the campaign finances up to this point he is the only canidate who could actually keep up with Obama on the money trail. The other would have no chance winning against Obamas billion dollar campaign machine, despite his debate skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 I agree that both Romney and Obama are decent, honest men who respect rules. Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahhahahha ... no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 big deal: Ron Paul Receives Pivotal Endorsement of South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis COLUMBIA, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul received today the key endorsement of tea party favorite and South Carolina political heavyweight, state Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort). His endorsement also is viewed as a political game-changer by many in South Carolina Republican Party circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 big deal: Ron Paul Receives Pivotal Endorsement of South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis COLUMBIA, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul received today the key endorsement of tea party favorite and South Carolina political heavyweight, state Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort). His endorsement also is viewed as a political game-changer by many in South Carolina Republican Party circles. Like I've already said in another thread you've posted this in. Senator who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Politics is such a joke that Huntsman went from saying Romney is unelectable yesterday to dropping out of the race and saying Romney is the only potential candidate that can beat Obama. No wonder people don't go to the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Like I've already said in another thread you've posted this in. Senator who? i thought you followed politics beyond the foxnews headlines. if you did, you'd know tom davis to have been one of the most sought after politicians in south carolina by the gop candidates. davis is quite popular with the tea party. santorum also acknowledges davis' importance and that's why he called his endorsement a 'big deal'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Newt Gingrich had a fantastic debate. I figured Romney had South Carolina locked up. I'm thinking now that Newt could actually win it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Newt Gingrich had a fantastic debate. I figured Romney had South Carolina locked up. I'm thinking now that Newt could actually win it. Yes, but there's Thursday. And this go-round the voters are focusing on electability. Mitt is electable; not so much Newt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Newt is nothing but a pompous ass. Who's going to vote for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yes, but there's Thursday. And this go-round the voters are focusing on electability. Mitt is electable; not so much Newt. Could you please define "electability"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Newt is nothing but a pompous ass. Who's going to vote for him? Well, he's a smart pompous ass. A lot smarter than the current pompous ass in the White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Romney is a psychopath that will say anything that is needed to get elected. How many times has he flip flopped on issues already? People actually want this lying clown as President? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Romney is a psychopath that will say anything that is needed to get elected. How many times has he flip flopped on issues already? People actually want this lying clown as President? I may be out on a limb here, but Romney may not be the first politician who has told lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I may be out on a limb here, but Romney may not be the first politician who has told lies. True, and that's almost being apologetic to the current culture within politics. There is another politician on that stage who is consistent in his speech and says the same things now as 30-40 years ago. The other clowns on stage have not been consistent from week to week. Anyone who has payed the slightest attention to these debates know and understand that. If you want integrity and consistency, there is only one reasonable choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Romney is a psychopath that will say anything that is needed to get elected. How many times has he flip flopped on issues already? People actually want this lying clown as President? A politician who will say anything to get elected, this isn't exactly a news flash, all politicians will say anything to get elected. Calling him a psychopath is a bit of a stretch though. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is the only reasonable choice? Hasn't he said some pretty off-the-wall statements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 A politician who will say anything to get elected, this isn't exactly a news flash, all politicians will say anything to get elected. Calling him a psychopath is a bit of a stretch though. He will say things to get the cheers of the current crowd in the local he is in. Maybe more sociopath than anything, which is another form of psychopath. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is the only reasonable choice? Hasn't he said some pretty off-the-wall statements? Name one candidate who has not said some off the wall things. Pay attention to how they are speaking as well. If they sound like they are giving a speech, they are doing nothing but spewing off talking points. If they are talking like you and me while stating their views, chances are they really believe in what they are saying. Bachmann was a perfect example of a talking point robot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Romney is a psychopath that will say anything that is needed to get elected. And Ron Paul is a kook. Now that that's out of our system, how about real discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Bachmann was a perfect example of a talking point robot. Yep, and Ron Paul is another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I may be out on a limb here, but Romney may not be the first politician who has told lies. I hear rumors, for one, that Brian Mulroney had the nickname "lyin' Brian". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 He will say things to get the cheers of the current crowd in the local he is in. Maybe more sociopath than anything, which is another form of psychopath. Name one candidate who has not said some off the wall things. Pay attention to how they are speaking as well. If they sound like they are giving a speech, they are doing nothing but spewing off talking points. If they are talking like you and me while stating their views, chances are they really believe in what they are saying. Bachmann was a perfect example of a talking point robot. So if they are giving a speech they are allowed to say off the wall things? But if it turns out that they are saying lies, then that's crossing the line? I do agree that they all say off the wall sounding things, but some more than others. Perhaps the media, always looking to report something eye catching, has turned us into a bunch of 'gotcha' fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yep, and Ron Paul is another one. Wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 So if they are giving a speech they are allowed to say off the wall things? But if it turns out that they are saying lies, then that's crossing the line? I do agree that they all say off the wall sounding things, but some more than others. Perhaps the media, always looking to report something eye catching, has turned us into a bunch of 'gotcha' fans. Exactly. To me, actions speak much louder than words as a politician. So when I look at what Romney's done as a governor, as a business leader, as a manager, and in the Olympics, it gives us a good body of work. It shows us how he would manage and govern as a president and as a leader. Soundbites from speeches or debates from things said now, or 15 years ago aren't that relevant in my mind. A resume matters more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.