PDA

View Full Version : Elections Why I'm Struggling with the Idea of Voting for Romney


Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:22 AM
I'll say it -- I like him personally and I like him politically. I think he's smart and can be an effective leader. There are things I like about Obama, but things I dislike. As our deficit/debt balloons, I put increasing importance in reining it in.

But when the test comes, Republicans CONSISTENTLY ignore the deficit and instead focus their attention on social issues -- which are diametrically opposed to my positions on such issues.

This article well summarizes why I find it hard to vote for Romney. I'm still undecided, FWIW.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/opinion/avlon-social-issues-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:23 AM
Note, btw, that Romney is also the greatest flip-flopper in political history. In my book Republicans can't accuse any other candidate for being a flip-flopper for the next 2 or 3 elections, at least. It's a joke for them to do otherwise given their selection of Romney.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 08:26 AM
Note, btw, that Romney is also the greatest flip-flopper in political history. In my book Republicans can't accuse any other candidate for being a flip-flopper for the next 2 or 3 elections, at least. It's a joke for them to do otherwise given their selection of Romney.

I can, i've stated emphatically he was a major flip flopper from the beginning. He would have been better served in the other party.

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 08:31 AM
I'll agree about liking the guy personally.

But even if I weren't unabashedly liberal, it's hard to like a guy's politics when, as you've said, he's clearly disingenuous and the major knock you've cited on Obama, the deficit, Romney has unclear plans towards and a party with a less than stellar track record on it.

The major reason I can think of clearly endorsing Romney over Obama if I were an independent, and again I'm definitely not, is that the Republican Party would bring the ball back under a Republican President. Under Obama, we're likely facing another four years of them taking it home.

Donger
09-27-2012, 08:39 AM
If fiscal considerations are your primary concern, Amno, which candidate do you think will do a better job in that regard?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 08:40 AM
Republicans rarely do anything but give lip service to social issues. I don't know how that can be a serious concern for you in a POTUS election. Let's look at a few of them:

1. Abortion - The only impact Romney would have on abortion is that he might get the chance to appoint a SCOTUS Justice or two who might tip the balance of the court and lead to a reversal of Roe v Wade. You have to be pretty pro-abortion to be concerned about letting the issue of abortion being returned to the states. There's not a chance that Massachusetts is going to ban abortions and it's pretty unlikely that more than a handful of states would ban them completely (although several would probably impose restrictions like parental notification or limits on how late in the term an abortion can take place).

2. Gays in the military - Romney could re-impose DADT, but I seriously doubt that he'd do it. By all accounts, repeal of DADT hasn't led to any significant problems.

3. Gay marriage - Romney will have no impact on this. We are not going to have a federal amendment banning it.

4. Marijuana - Obama hasn't been much of a states' rights advocate on this issue. Romney won't be any worse and conceivably could be better (but I doubt it).

5. General - Romney might cut government funding for things like abortions in the third world and fetal stem cell research, but given the need to trim/slash the budget anyway, shouldn't these things be among the first to go anyway?

I'm not on board with most of the social conservatism of the GOP, but that's never a consideration for me because the degree to which they do anything along these lines, it's pretty inconsequential anyway.

Your more legitimate concern is that the GOP won't really address the deficit as aggressively as they should. But given that taking a gamble on Romney is a far better bet than jumping back in bed with the Deficit-Exploder-in-Chief, I don't see why this fear should stand in your way.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 08:42 AM
Note, btw, that Romney is also the greatest flip-flopper in political history. In my book Republicans can't accuse any other candidate for being a flip-flopper for the next 2 or 3 elections, at least. It's a joke for them to do otherwise given their selection of Romney.

Again, we should compare the two candidates. I won't deny that Romney's positions have changed over time, but the same is true of Obama. And I'd argue that Obama's flip flops are at least as egregious and plentiful as Romney's.

Chiefshrink
09-27-2012, 08:43 AM
I'll say it -- I like him personally and I like him politically. I think he's smart and can be an effective leader. There are things I like about Obama, but things I dislike. As our deficit/debt balloons, I put increasing importance in reining it in.

But when the test comes, Republicans CONSISTENTLY ignore the deficit and instead focus their attention on social issues -- which are diametrically opposed to my positions on such issues.

This article well summarizes why I find it hard to vote for Romney. I'm still undecided, FWIW.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/opinion/avlon-social-issues-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Churchhill stated, "If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the time your 40's hit you have no brain.

Amnorix my man you are in the stages of grief about Barry and liberalism in general and I would diagnose you at the end of the 'bargaining' stage beginning to enter the 'depression' stage(REALITY !) and hopefully your depressive stage will be a short stint and you will enter the 'acceptance' stage sooner than later.:thumb:

And trust me you are not the only LIB in this forum going through these 'political stages of grief';)

KC native
09-27-2012, 08:45 AM
If fiscal considerations are your primary concern, Amno, which candidate do you think will do a better job in that regard?

Definitely not the one who is insisting on more give aways to the top earners.

SNR
09-27-2012, 08:46 AM
Churchhill stated, "If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the time your 40's hit you have no brain.

Amnorix my man you are in the stages of grief about Barry and liberalism in general and I would diagnose you at the end of the 'bargaining' stage beginning to enter the 'depression' stage(REALITY !) and hopefully your depressive stage will be a short stint and you will enter the 'acceptance' stage sooner than later.:thumb:

And trust me you are not the only LIB in this forum going through these 'political stages of grief';)

Great. Now Amnorix will vote Obama for sure.

Thanks, shrink.

KC native
09-27-2012, 08:46 AM
Again, we should compare the two candidates. I won't deny that Romney's positions have changed over time, but the same is true of Obama. And I'd argue that Obama's flip flops are at least as egregious and plentiful as Romney's.

You are approaching pseudoshrink levels of dumbassery.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:55 AM
Churchhill stated, "If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the time your 40's hit you have no brain.

Amnorix my man you are in the stages of grief about Barry and liberalism in general and I would diagnose you at the end of the 'bargaining' stage beginning to enter the 'depression' stage(REALITY !) and hopefully your depressive stage will be a short stint and you will enter the 'acceptance' stage sooner than later.:thumb:

And trust me you are not the only LIB in this forum going through these 'political stages of grief';)



Don't take it personal, but the idea of voting the same guy you vote for doesn't exactly persuade me. Sorry.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:55 AM
Great. Now Amnorix will vote Obama for sure.

Thanks, shrink.


ROFL ROFL ROFL

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:59 AM
Again, we should compare the two candidates. I won't deny that Romney's positions have changed over time, but the same is true of Obama. And I'd argue that Obama's flip flops are at least as egregious and plentiful as Romney's.


You can argue Obama's "flip flops" on things like Guantanamo Bay, but I'd suggest it's more idealism colliding with reality once additional facts are discovered.

Romney has taken 180 degree turns for simple political expediencies sake. MULTIPLE times. Going from pro choice to anti abortion, going from RomneyCare to bucking ObamaCare to waffling on ObamaCare, the list is pretty endless. Seriously, there's no comparison.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 09:01 AM
If fiscal considerations are your primary concern, Amno, which candidate do you think will do a better job in that regard?


It would help if Romney actually SAID something about deficits and the economy that was remotely realistic. So far I'm hearing absurd bullshit like cut taxes, reduce the deficit, don't touch military spending.

That's fundamentally impossible. It just is.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 09:09 AM
You can argue Obama's "flip flops" on things like Guantanamo Bay, but I'd suggest it's more idealism colliding with reality once additional facts are discovered.

Romney has taken 180 degree turns for simple political expediencies sake. MULTIPLE times. Going from pro choice to anti abortion, going from RomneyCare to bucking ObamaCare to waffling on ObamaCare, the list is pretty endless. Seriously, there's no comparison.

This isn't really true. Romney went from pro-choice to anti-abortion when he was still a Massachusetts politician and that can't be politically expedient. Romney's position on Obamacare hasn't changed from "bucking" to "waffling". He's been opposed to Obamacare but in favor of some of the reforms in Obamacare all along.

On the other hand, you can't tell me that closing Gitmo (and the headaches that would have created) or holding high profile terror trials in the heart of NYC would have ended up being popular for Obama.

J Diddy
09-27-2012, 09:39 AM
Republicans rarely do anything but give lip service to social issues. I don't know how that can be a serious concern for you in a POTUS election. Let's look at a few of them:

1. Abortion - The only impact Romney would have on abortion is that he might get the chance to appoint a SCOTUS Justice or two who might tip the balance of the court and lead to a reversal of Roe v Wade. You have to be pretty pro-abortion to be concerned about letting the issue of abortion being returned to the states. There's not a chance that Massachusetts is going to ban abortions and it's pretty unlikely that more than a handful of states would ban them completely (although several would probably impose restrictions like parental notification or limits on how late in the term an abortion can take place).

2. Gays in the military - Romney could re-impose DADT, but I seriously doubt that he'd do it. By all accounts, repeal of DADT hasn't led to any significant problems.

3. Gay marriage - Romney will have no impact on this. We are not going to have a federal amendment banning it.

4. Marijuana - Obama hasn't been much of a states' rights advocate on this issue. Romney won't be any worse and conceivably could be better (but I doubt it).

5. General - Romney might cut government funding for things like abortions in the third world and fetal stem cell research, but given the need to trim/slash the budget anyway, shouldn't these things be among the first to go anyway?

I'm not on board with most of the social conservatism of the GOP, but that's never a consideration for me because the degree to which they do anything along these lines, it's pretty inconsequential anyway.

Your more legitimate concern is that the GOP won't really address the deficit as aggressively as they should. But given that taking a gamble on Romney is a far better bet than jumping back in bed with the Deficit-Exploder-in-Chief, I don't see why this fear should stand in your way.

1. Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two separate things. Despite the quick lip service you gave to it, it is a big issue. Not something that you make sound like is highly unlikely.

2. He could but he might not.--Great argument

3. Despite whether or not it happens is not the point. He supports a ban on gay marriage--that's his position. You vote for people on where their position is not on probability of outcome to spite that position.

4. I would agree with you there.

5. Stem cell research is a big thing. It needs to be advanced not cut.

I love how you say that his more legitimate concern is the deficit. Like you have any kind of authority on the matter to tell him what his concerns are.

The Rick
09-27-2012, 09:51 AM
Definitely not the one who is insisting on more give aways to the top earners.
Who told you that? Obama? ROFL

patteeu
09-27-2012, 09:53 AM
1. Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two separate things. Despite the quick lip service you gave to it, it is a big issue. Not something that you make sound like is highly unlikely.

I used "pro-abortion" intentionally. A person from Massachusetts would have to be more than just pro-choice to worry about the impact of a Roe v Wade reversal. They'd have to be a crusading pro-abortionist.

2. He could but he might not.--Great argument

As CiC, he has more power to make a change like this than on an issue like abortion, but I doubt that he'd do it. --Great reading comprehension.

3. Despite whether or not it happens is not the point. He supports a ban on gay marriage--that's his position. You vote for people on where their position is not on probability of outcome to spite that position.

That was Obama's position in 2008 (speaking of flip flops). You might vote based on obviously empty rhetoric, but I vote on probability of outcome. You can be tediously thoughtless sometimes.

4. I would agree with you there.

You win me back just a little at moments like this.

5. Stem cell research is a big thing. It needs to be advanced not cut.

Stem cell research isn't in any jeopardy, just federal funding for it. It's certainly not a big thing compared to our economy or the government's out-of-control fiscal house. You're welcome to your own opinion on this, but I'm confident that a deficit-hawk like Amnorix would agree with me on this point.

KC native
09-27-2012, 10:08 AM
Who told you that? Obama? ROFL

No, that comes from the few details that Mittens has released on his tax policy.

blaise
09-27-2012, 10:23 AM
I hope Romney wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board.

La literatura
09-27-2012, 10:25 AM
I hope Romney wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board.

Like what?

La literatura
09-27-2012, 10:27 AM
If you think Romney is going to be better for the economy, I don't think you should allow your concerns about social conservatism to get in the way. Romney is not quite a social conservative. He's what was formerly called a Rockefeller Republican. If you think the economy will get better under Romney than Obama, you should vote for Romney. That's just my opinion.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:32 AM
Like what?

I think it will be best if you wait and see. Surprises are wonderful.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 10:34 AM
If you think Romney is going to be better for the economy, I don't think you should allow your concerns about social conservatism to get in the way. Romney is not quite a social conservative. He's what was formerly called a Rockefeller Republican. If you think the economy will get better under Romney than Obama, you should vote for Romney. That's just my opinion.


That is quite likely what I would do IF I was more certain that Romney would be better for the economy.

Just to be clear, I think there is a VERY high percentage that the economy recovers in the '13'16 timeframe no matter who we elect. Sure, there's plenty that could screw that up -- Europe's woes worsening or, JFC, a dirty bomb in NYC -- but just based on things that are mostly under our control, the economy should improve.

How much more under one versus the other becomes the real question. Is deregulation really a great idea given how badly the banks screwed up so recently? Are the Republicans going to once again "charge" economic growth on the nation's credit card, ignoring the deficit, as they have done in the past?

Frankly, I don't love or hate either candidate, really, so it's a pretty close call for me. Lots of plusses and minuses for both in my book.

Most here view one or the other as the Anti-Christ, but I don't. Claims that Obama is some kind of Anti-American Islamic Socialist are just lunacy.

La literatura
09-27-2012, 10:35 AM
I think it will be best if you wait and see. Surprises are wonderful.

Do you also tend to think blaise is talking about all the awkward moments of President Romney attempting to relate to the American working class?

La literatura
09-27-2012, 10:40 AM
That is quite likely what I would do IF I was more certain that Romney would be better for the economy.

Just to be clear, I think there is a VERY high percentage that the economy recovers in the '13'16 timeframe no matter who we elect. Sure, there's plenty that could screw that up -- Europe's woes worsening or, JFC, a dirty bomb in NYC -- but just based on things that are mostly under our control, the economy should improve.

How much more under one versus the other becomes the real question. Is deregulation really a great idea given how badly the banks screwed up so recently? Are the Republicans going to once again "charge" economic growth on the nation's credit card, ignoring the deficit, as they have done in the past?

Frankly, I don't love or hate either candidate, really, so it's a pretty close call for me. Lots of plusses and minuses for both in my book.

Most here view one or the other as the Anti-Christ, but I don't. Claims that Obama is some kind of Anti-American Islamic Socialist are just lunacy.

I'm completely in agreement with you, by the way. I think both candidates are good candidates, and the U.S. economy will continue to improve under either, for the short term. I do tend to think that more regulation is vitally necessary for our economy's long-term stability, that austerity is unnecessary at this moment, and that stimulus remains helpful at this point in a small dosages.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 10:45 AM
I think it will be best if you wait and see. Surprises are wonderful.

You said the same thing in 2008. You are good with predictions.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:45 AM
Do you also tend to think blaise is talking about all the awkward moments of President Romney attempting to relate to the American working class?

No

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 10:46 AM
Oh and Amnorix I wouldn't try to struggle to much Romney is going to lose your state (his home state) by 20-30%.

The more important issue is who are you going to vote for in the Senate, Brown or Warren?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:47 AM
That is quite likely what I would do IF I was more certain that Romney would be better for the economy.

Just to be clear, I think there is a VERY high percentage that the economy recovers in the '13'16 timeframe no matter who we elect. Sure, there's plenty that could screw that up -- Europe's woes worsening or, JFC, a dirty bomb in NYC -- but just based on things that are mostly under our control, the economy should improve.

How much more under one versus the other becomes the real question. Is deregulation really a great idea given how badly the banks screwed up so recently? Are the Republicans going to once again "charge" economic growth on the nation's credit card, ignoring the deficit, as they have done in the past?

Frankly, I don't love or hate either candidate, really, so it's a pretty close call for me. Lots of plusses and minuses for both in my book.

Most here view one or the other as the Anti-Christ, but I don't. Claims that Obama is some kind of Anti-American Islamic Socialist are just lunacy.

You should just vote for Obama since deficits bother you so much.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 10:47 AM
I hope Romney wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board.

No more porn for joo!

The Rick
09-27-2012, 11:01 AM
No, that comes from the few details that Mittens has released on his tax policy.
And what are those details? Link?

bandwagonjumper
09-27-2012, 03:07 PM
I hope Romney wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board.

I hope Obama wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board. Honestly this board is probably 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 republican. I expect mass suicides if Obama wins. LMAO

fan4ever
09-27-2012, 03:21 PM
I hope Obama wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board. Honestly this board is probably 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 republican. I expect mass suicides if Obama wins. LMAO

Imagine how many Republicans will dominate this board after another four years of historical ineptness...of course we may be posting from another country.

CoMoChief
09-27-2012, 03:21 PM
I have a hard time voting for Romney because he's a god damn RINO.

He's not a true conservative.....not even close.

blaise
09-27-2012, 03:44 PM
I hope Obama wins mostly because of the comedic effect it will have on the board. Honestly this board is probably 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 republican. I expect mass suicides if Obama wins. LMAO

People always say that but I don't know if that's true. I think there's almost as many liberals in DC as conservatives. As long as we dispense with the absurd claims of cosmo and suzzer that they're not liberals.

ChiTown
09-27-2012, 03:55 PM
People always say that but I don't know if that's true. I think there's almost as many liberals in DC as conservatives. As long as we dispense with the absurd claims of cosmo and suzzer that they're not liberals.

Well, that, and I have already conceded the fact that O'DeficitAndTax is going to beat Romney. I think I have a better shot at being The King of England than Romney does of becoming POTUS.

tiptap
09-27-2012, 03:56 PM
I look at this as every administration has run on deficit spending. The Clinton administration did change the direction of that. But the question on any deficit spending is how well that deficit money is spent. Things like infrastructure and education has potential for long term payoffs. So does support of research (for example Fracking for Natural Gas was early on Government sponsored). If you make good choices you see return in the long run. The Bush administration chose to invest in military action to put Middle East oil back in play in Iraq. They would have liked to have US industries to work on those fields. None of that happened. (We did get rid of Saddam Hussein which has little return.) Whose is more likely to meet those more ideas and investments that stand to make the better return.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 03:59 PM
Churchhill stated, "If you are not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the time your 40's hit you have no brain.



Actually, Churchill never said any such thing

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 04:02 PM
That is quite likely what I would do IF I was more certain that Romney would be better for the economy.

Just to be clear, I think there is a VERY high percentage that the economy recovers in the '13'16 timeframe no matter who we elect. Sure, there's plenty that could screw that up -- Europe's woes worsening or, JFC, a dirty bomb in NYC -- but just based on things that are mostly under our control, the economy should improve.

How much more under one versus the other becomes the real question. Is deregulation really a great idea given how badly the banks screwed up so recently? Are the Republicans going to once again "charge" economic growth on the nation's credit card, ignoring the deficit, as they have done in the past?

Frankly, I don't love or hate either candidate, really, so it's a pretty close call for me. Lots of plusses and minuses for both in my book.

Most here view one or the other as the Anti-Christ, but I don't. Claims that Obama is some kind of Anti-American Islamic Socialist are just lunacy.

This is pretty much my view as well. I don't trust Romney on the economy and pretty much think it's on the road to solid recovery, anyway.

I don't have words to describe just how much I dislike the current Republican views on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc.) so Obama gets my vote this time around.

DementedLogic
09-27-2012, 04:08 PM
I'll say it -- I like him personally and I like him politically. I think he's smart and can be an effective leader. There are things I like about Obama, but things I dislike. As our deficit/debt balloons, I put increasing importance in reining it in.

But when the test comes, Republicans CONSISTENTLY ignore the deficit and instead focus their attention on social issues -- which are diametrically opposed to my positions on such issues.

This article well summarizes why I find it hard to vote for Romney. I'm still undecided, FWIW.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/opinion/avlon-social-issues-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

My issue isn't that Republicans ignore the deficit, they increase it. Romney still hasn't proven that he has any plan for attacking the deficit, which is the number 1 thing hindering economic growth. He has yet to explain how he is going to implement his 5-Point plan, which makes his plan useless. I just hope that if Obama wins reelection, Scalia and Kennedy wait to retire. I hate Obamacare, but I am 90% confident that whatever Romney came up with would be just as bad. If Romney weren't saying Repeal and Replace, I'd like him a lot more.

BWillie
09-27-2012, 04:09 PM
Note, btw, that Romney is also the greatest flip-flopper in political history. In my book Republicans can't accuse any other candidate for being a flip-flopper for the next 2 or 3 elections, at least. It's a joke for them to do otherwise given their selection of Romney.

If the President of the United States is a representative of the people, why shouldn't he be able to change his mind on key issues? He should represent the peoples wishes, not his own ideals. (Not saying Romney believes this, because his 47% statement may indicate that he's not trying to appease that group, just sayin')

BWillie
09-27-2012, 04:10 PM
This is pretty much my view as well. I don't trust Romney on the economy and pretty much think it's on the road to solid recovery, anyway.

I don't have words to describe just how much I dislike the current Republican views on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc.) so Obama gets my vote this time around.

I'm with you on social issues, that is why I'm independent/libertarian. But all else aside, and focusing just on the economy, you would rather have it in the hands of a community manager, and not a high profile businessman?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 04:15 PM
Well, that, and I have already conceded the fact that O'DeficitAndTax is going to beat Romney. I think I have a better shot at being The King of England than Romney does of becoming POTUS.

Be honest. Did your wife, Kate, know she was being photographed on that balcony. BTW, I hope you don't mind me saying that you've got a hot piece there, Bill.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 04:16 PM
I'm with you on social issues, that is why I'm independent/libertarian. But all else aside, and focusing just on the economy, you would rather have it in the hands of a community manager, and not a high profile businessman?

I'm an independent as well.

First off, it wouldn't be in the "hands" of Romney, it's in the "hands" of the Congress. The POTUS plays a role in the laws but he's not a dictator.

Furthermore, I don't see how a "businessman" makes any difference, whatsoever. He can't hire and fire the Congress. He can't hire and fire Americans. It's not the type of "business" than can be run like a CEO runs a corporation.

Romney "might" have ideas as how to streamline government spending and run the country in a more efficient manner but if he does, we sure as hell haven't heard about it.

Now, contrast Romney with Ross Perot. Perot had a vision for streamlining government and a plan. He even bought network airtime to present his plan to the American people. He may have been a little "wacky" but one thing's for sure, he put his money where his mouth was.

Romney, despite enormous wealth, hasn't done anything even close. Furthermore, I don't think he has any passion to be POTUS (unlike the aforementioned Perot). He just sees it as another notch in his belt, at least from my POV.

qabbaan
09-27-2012, 04:25 PM
This election is about one thing and one thing only: who is most likely to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff... Nothing else.

Nobody is going to be arguing about forcing Catholic charities to buy birth control if we pass the fiscal event horizon like Greece has.

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 04:37 PM
Romney "might" have ideas as how to streamline government spending and run the country in a more efficient manner but if he does, we sure as hell haven't heard about it.

We haven't seen it, either.

Obama has raised less money, yet has swamped Romney in ads. Obama's been far more efficient with his campaign cash than Romney has, it's not even close. I think Romney pays his staffers twice as much, also.

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 05:26 PM
Note, btw, that Romney is also the greatest flip-flopper in political history. In my book Republicans can't accuse any other candidate for being a flip-flopper for the next 2 or 3 elections, at least. It's a joke for them to do otherwise given their selection of Romney.Thats how you say him talk about the 47% to the rich, talk about Romney care in from of mine workers. Says a blind trust is just a bookeeping ruse, then later I didnt know about that.

For abortion, gay rights and now zilch etc.etc.

Romeny seems like a boring but good guy, he does walk the walk with his religion. But being a nice guy doesnt make you a good president.

I was less worried about a Romeny presidency cause I knew he would flip flop and compromise with the Dems and fight the tea party but he gave me nothing to work with against Obama. A $5 trillion tax cut weighted towards the rich. $2 trillion in increased military spending with no details on how he's going to pay for it?

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 05:32 PM
would rather have it in the hands of a community manager, and not a high profile businessman?See my thread on Oboma facts of record for that community manager.

As far as the high profile business manager......that experience is not germane to being President. We don;t need "businessman" to harvest companies and sell off the parts.

Hit the news cycle today:

Mitt Romney said that one of the goals of his private equity firm, Bain Capital, was to acquire companies and “harvest them at a significant profit,” according to a video from 1985 uncovered by Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/1985-romney-bain-harvest-firms-profits-video) magazine.
The video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EsxNYXW5i8&feature=player_embedded#%21) was part of a CD-ROM from 1998 that Bain used to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the firm.

chiefzilla1501
09-27-2012, 05:48 PM
I'm an independent as well.

First off, it wouldn't be in the "hands" of Romney, it's in the "hands" of the Congress. The POTUS plays a role in the laws but he's not a dictator.

Furthermore, I don't see how a "businessman" makes any difference, whatsoever. He can't hire and fire the Congress. He can't hire and fire Americans. It's not the type of "business" than can be run like a CEO runs a corporation.

Romney "might" have ideas as how to streamline government spending and run the country in a more efficient manner but if he does, we sure as hell haven't heard about it.

Now, contrast Romney with Ross Perot. Perot had a vision for streamlining government and a plan. He even bought network airtime to present his plan to the American people. He may have been a little "wacky" but one thing's for sure, he put his money where his mouth was.

Romney, despite enormous wealth, hasn't done anything even close. Furthermore, I don't think he has any passion to be POTUS (unlike the aforementioned Perot). He just sees it as another notch in his belt, at least from my POV.

I'm an independent too. I like Romney. I've never really liked any candidate before, Republican or Democrat. I think he'll be an effective leader. He's just not a good politician.

I don't think he's a flip flopper. Frankly, I think as a business guy, he knows that it's more important to have a flexible stance than to bully your opposition into taking your position. That's the leadership that drove me crazy about Bush and drives me crazy about Obama.

I disagree that this is a notch in the belt for Romney. What I like about him is that I think he's a really super competitive guy, and his motivation is actually to stroke his ego by proving he can do this job well. Whether you disagree with him or not, it's hard to deny that he's an extremely driven guy.

It does drive me crazy that he keeps shooting himself in the foot. I don't think he's nearly as dumb as people think he is. I just think he's a bad politician and I sense that he despises that he has to pander the way he does to win elections.

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 05:51 PM
I don't think the line on Romney, at least from the liberal camp I swim in, is that he's dumb.

It's that he's a disingenuous elitist, who's given his campaign and rhetoric away to regressive reactionaries.

Most liberals understand and appreciate his intelligence.

And I think a lot of liberals believe him to be a good person, just with shit political views. Not most, but many.

Mr. Kotter
09-27-2012, 06:14 PM
I don't think the line on Romney, at least from the liberal camp I swim in, is that he's dumb.

It's that he's a disingenuous elitist, who's given his campaign and rhetoric away to regressive reactionaries.

Most liberals understand and appreciate his intelligence.

And I think a lot of liberals believe him to be a good person, just with shit political views. Not most, but many.

A charlatan with no political compass whatsoever, which is odd given that I suspect from what I know....that he does possess intellect and a good moral compass. Honestly, I just think he thinks he SHOULD be President--so if selling out and pandering are the price for getting elected--so be it.

KC native
09-27-2012, 06:40 PM
My issue isn't that Republicans ignore the deficit, they increase it. Romney still hasn't proven that he has any plan for attacking the deficit, which is the number 1 thing hindering economic growth. He has yet to explain how he is going to implement his 5-Point plan, which makes his plan useless. I just hope that if Obama wins reelection, Scalia and Kennedy wait to retire. I hate Obamacare, but I am 90% confident that whatever Romney came up with would be just as bad. If Romney weren't saying Repeal and Replace, I'd like him a lot more.

You're a fucking moron. How is the deficit hindering economic growth?

htismaqe
09-27-2012, 07:12 PM
I don't think the line on Romney, at least from the liberal camp I swim in, is that he's dumb.

It's that he's a disingenuous elitist, who's given his campaign and rhetoric away to regressive reactionaries.

Most liberals understand and appreciate his intelligence.

And I think a lot of liberals believe him to be a good person, just with shit political views. Not most, but many.

They're all disingenuous elitists.

petegz28
09-27-2012, 07:13 PM
They're all disingenuous elitists.

Oh come on now, I heard Michelle Obama say Barry was struggling with us.

htismaqe
09-27-2012, 07:14 PM
Oh come on now, I heard Michelle Obama say Barry was struggling with us.

Did she put her sammich down first or did she just talk with her mouth full?

petegz28
09-27-2012, 07:15 PM
Did she put her sammich down first or did she just talk with her mouth full?

Is there a way to tell?

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 07:16 PM
They're all disingenuous elitists.

Fair point.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 07:22 PM
Is there a way to tell?

:shake:

LOCOChief
09-27-2012, 08:06 PM
Is there a way to tell?

My wife says Michelle looks as if she has a mouthfull.

Passepartout
09-27-2012, 08:07 PM
Really this year's election does not appeal to me. No offense. I will leave it at that!

FD
09-28-2012, 08:25 AM
This election is about one thing and one thing only: who is most likely to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff... Nothing else.

Nobody is going to be arguing about forcing Catholic charities to buy birth control if we pass the fiscal event horizon like Greece has.

I don't think you understand what "fiscal cliff" refers to.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2012, 08:36 AM
...and it has nothing to do with a fiscal cliff.

It's because Mitt is seen as a stand-in for Netanyahu. That may help with the Christian Right, even if they don't like anything else about Mitt—but it does not help with most Americans.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-28-2012, 08:39 AM
...and it has nothing to do with a fiscal cliff.

It's because Mitt is seen as a stand-in for Netanyahu. That may help with the Christian Right, even if they don't like anything else about Mitt—but it does not help with most Americans.

It doesn't help with THIS Christian Rightie, he's a fake and a phoney with leftmost tendencies.

vailpass
09-28-2012, 10:39 AM
When the alternative is obama the decision crystallizes.

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 11:09 AM
I'm an independent too. I like Romney. I've never really liked any candidate before, Republican or Democrat. I think he'll be an effective leader. He's just not a good politician.

I don't think he's a flip flopper. Frankly, I think as a business guy, he knows that it's more important to have a flexible stance than to bully your opposition into taking your position. That's the leadership that drove me crazy about Bush and drives me crazy about Obama.

I disagree that this is a notch in the belt for Romney. What I like about him is that I think he's a really super competitive guy, and his motivation is actually to stroke his ego by proving he can do this job well. Whether you disagree with him or not, it's hard to deny that he's an extremely driven guy.

It does drive me crazy that he keeps shooting himself in the foot. I don't think he's nearly as dumb as people think he is. I just think he's a bad politician and I sense that he despises that he has to pander the way he does to win elections.

I don't see him being an effective leader. Politician or not you have to be able to get others to follow you and your message.

He's a proven flip flopper which is why you can barely get him to say anything concrete now. Because he's afraid of it coming back and biting him in the ass.

I would agree that he's an extremely driven guy. It's what drives him that bothers me.

mlyonsd
09-28-2012, 11:11 AM
I'll say it -- I like him personally and I like him politically. I think he's smart and can be an effective leader. There are things I like about Obama, but things I dislike. As our deficit/debt balloons, I put increasing importance in reining it in.

But when the test comes, Republicans CONSISTENTLY ignore the deficit and instead focus their attention on social issues -- which are diametrically opposed to my positions on such issues.

This article well summarizes why I find it hard to vote for Romney. I'm still undecided, FWIW.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/opinion/avlon-social-issues-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2Just quit the fucking charade.

You've posted here for years complaining about our deficits and debt. You've watched Obama ignore his own debt commission. You've watched dems in control not able to even pass their own budget. You've argued we need to face the impending entitlement cliff. You know what Obama's policies do.

If after all that you're still not sure who you're going to vote for all the above was just BS. Just stop.

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 11:14 AM
I would agree that he's an extremely driven guy. It's what drives him that bothers me.

Pretty good way of saying it.

He's not a true moderate. He's not a principled conservative.

He's just ambition, personified.

Inspector
09-28-2012, 11:14 AM
I don't think you understand what "fiscal cliff" refers to.

Simple.

It's that rocky ledge along the top of mount Fiscal.

Doh!

patteeu
09-28-2012, 11:33 AM
Just quit the ****ing charade.

You've posted here for years complaining about our deficits and debt. You've watched Obama ignore his own debt commission. You've watched dems in control not able to even pass their own budget. You've argued we need to face the impending entitlement cliff. You know what Obama's policies do.

If after all that you're still not sure who you're going to vote for all the above was just BS. Just stop.

I have to agree.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 11:35 AM
Pretty good way of saying it.

He's not a true moderate. He's not a principled conservative.

He's just ambition, personified.

What's a true moderate? Someone who hems and haws for a while before settling for the liberal option in most cases like suzzer and cosmo?

blaise
09-28-2012, 11:37 AM
What's a true moderate? Someone who hems and haws for a while before settling for the liberal option in most cases like suzzer and cosmo?

I just wonder who those two will be voting for.

vailpass
09-28-2012, 12:04 PM
I just wonder who those two will be voting for.

I wonder if those two will be able to buy their own bus tokens to get to the polling place or if they'll need it subsidized.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 12:11 PM
I just wonder who those two will be voting for.

I'd imagine they'll be voting for the middle-of-the-road candidate, Barack Obama.

blaise
09-28-2012, 12:21 PM
I'd imagine they'll be voting for the middle-of-the-road candidate, Barack Obama.

He's a great pragmatist of our time. Direckshun already has him rated one of the 5 best presidents ever.

mnchiefsguy
09-28-2012, 02:27 PM
I'd imagine they'll be voting for the middle-of-the-road candidate, Barack Obama.

Now, now, you know Barack Obama is not truly middle of the road...but center-right. Direckshun has told us so repeatedly.