Mitt Happens

A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Mitt Happens

Will anyone be voting for him or will it all be against Obama?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Will

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Will anyone be voting for him or will it all be against Obama?

 

Most right leaning  will be voting against Obama. But the best part that most don't like him like they would Reagan, who ironically if Reagan ran today, could not pass the litmus test of the people who are settling for Romney.

Even Sanatorum after he dropped out a couple of days ago when asked by a reporter "That sounds like an endorsement" Santorum responded something to the affect "don't put words in my mouth, call it what you will". 

If the democrats pull out all the stops attacking Romney it should, SHOULD be easy, Kerry was Swift boated with far less flip flops. The issue is, will the DNC pull out all the stops?

To me it is Obama's to lose. But after the re-election of Bush the second time I won't put anything past the right wing.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Most right

Brian37 wrote:

Most right leaning  will be voting against Obama. But the best part that most don't like him like they would Reagan, who ironically if Reagan ran today, could not pass the litmus test of the people who are settling for Romney.

Even Sanatorum after he dropped out a couple of days ago when asked by a reporter "That sounds like an endorsement" Santorum responded something to the affect "don't put words in my mouth, call it what you will". 

If the democrats pull out all the stops attacking Romney it should, SHOULD be easy, Kerry was Swift boated with far less flip flops. The issue is, will the DNC pull out all the stops?

To me it is Obama's to lose. But after the re-election of Bush the second time I won't put anything past the right wing.

Really? Our economy is in the tank and there is virtually no chance of it significantly recovering before election day, Obama's fundraising has been poorer than expected and the polls haven't been friendly to him. On top of that, the major legislation Obama pushed remains unpopular with 56% of people favoring repeal of Bamacare and the stimulus and bailouts remain unpopular. Given that I hardly think it is Obama's to lose, his campaign team has really good reasons to be concerned about his presidency.

 

Whether fair or not, voters often vote based on their personal financial situation and this election, few people are going to be better off than they were four years ago.  

 

I will be voting against both Obama and Romney. I will be voting for Gary Johnson so I  am 99.99% certain that my candidate won't win, but at least I can vote without feeling like killing myself. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Most right leaning  will be voting against Obama. But the best part that most don't like him like they would Reagan, who ironically if Reagan ran today, could not pass the litmus test of the people who are settling for Romney.

Even Sanatorum after he dropped out a couple of days ago when asked by a reporter "That sounds like an endorsement" Santorum responded something to the affect "don't put words in my mouth, call it what you will". 

If the democrats pull out all the stops attacking Romney it should, SHOULD be easy, Kerry was Swift boated with far less flip flops. The issue is, will the DNC pull out all the stops?

To me it is Obama's to lose. But after the re-election of Bush the second time I won't put anything past the right wing.

Really? Our economy is in the tank and there is virtually no chance of it significantly recovering before election day, Obama's fundraising has been poorer than expected and the polls haven't been friendly to him. On top of that, the major legislation Obama pushed remains unpopular with 56% of people favoring repeal of Bamacare and the stimulus and bailouts remain unpopular. Given that I hardly think it is Obama's to lose, his campaign team has really good reasons to be concerned about his presidency.

 

Whether fair or not, voters often vote based on their personal financial situation and this election, few people are going to be better off than they were four years ago.  

 

I will be voting against both Obama and Romney. I will be voting for Gary Johnson so I  am 99.99% certain that my candidate won't win, but at least I can vote without feeling like killing myself. 

Blame the plumber for the crap that stuck up the toilet.

You are voting for a stupid fucking utopia that does not exist. You want "every man for themselves" which is the same economic bullshit that got us into the great depression.

Glad you are wasting your vote. One less minion to stupidly attempt the utopia of anarchy which will never exist.

"I'm not for either", no, you are for right of right wing, economically speacking which is far worst than Romney and Romney is bat shit insane. Romney is for at least crumbs, well ruffie poison crumbs. You are for "die quickly if you don't have money".

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Blame the

Brian37 wrote:
Blame the plumber for the crap that stuck up the toilet.

You are voting for a stupid fucking utopia that does not exist.

 

Yeah, you don't like him for his ideology*, boo fucking hoo. I'm guessing the board's seen at least 250 posts from each of you all strictly dealing with 'irreconcilable differences' in politics. Which is to say... this is like watching a turbulent marriage without any 'ring' involved.

Here's the thing: regardless of how you feel, Brian, you (or Bob for that matter) aren't any less of an ideologue than he is. You're also a partisan voter. Depending on how you look at it, you don't have much room to gripe about his political viewpoints, because doing means it could be shoved right back in your face.

*some of which I share, some of which I don't

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Most right leaning  will be voting against Obama. But the best part that most don't like him like they would Reagan, who ironically if Reagan ran today, could not pass the litmus test of the people who are settling for Romney.

Even Sanatorum after he dropped out a couple of days ago when asked by a reporter "That sounds like an endorsement" Santorum responded something to the affect "don't put words in my mouth, call it what you will". 

If the democrats pull out all the stops attacking Romney it should, SHOULD be easy, Kerry was Swift boated with far less flip flops. The issue is, will the DNC pull out all the stops?

To me it is Obama's to lose. But after the re-election of Bush the second time I won't put anything past the right wing.

Really? Our economy is in the tank and there is virtually no chance of it significantly recovering before election day, Obama's fundraising has been poorer than expected and the polls haven't been friendly to him. On top of that, the major legislation Obama pushed remains unpopular with 56% of people favoring repeal of Bamacare and the stimulus and bailouts remain unpopular. Given that I hardly think it is Obama's to lose, his campaign team has really good reasons to be concerned about his presidency.

 

Whether fair or not, voters often vote based on their personal financial situation and this election, few people are going to be better off than they were four years ago.  

 

I will be voting against both Obama and Romney. I will be voting for Gary Johnson so I  am 99.99% certain that my candidate won't win, but at least I can vote without feeling like killing myself. 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Please do, because every vote you take away from Mitt is going to help out that evil commie black guy whom I will be voting for.

Poor daddy warbucks, my heart bleeds for you. You don't have to kill yourself, you just need to get your head out of your ass.

Mitt will simply implement the same Bush economics on steroids. So if you think things are bad now, if he wins say bye bye to your business as well. I think the only way you will pull your head out of your ass is if you lose everything yourself.

"Every man for themselves" "Let them eat cake". Yep, keep it up, maybe we can end up with the same slave wages and sweat shops as India and China.

Please vote for that third party, you'll be helping out Obama.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Blame the plumber for the crap that stuck up the toilet.

You are voting for a stupid fucking utopia that does not exist.

 

Yeah, you don't like him for his ideology*, boo fucking hoo. I'm guessing the board's seen at least 250 posts from each of you all strictly dealing with 'irreconcilable differences' in politics. Which is to say... this is like watching a turbulent marriage without any 'ring' involved.

Here's the thing: regardless of how you feel, Brian, you (or Bob for that matter) aren't any less of an ideologue than he is. You're also a partisan voter. Depending on how you look at it, you don't have much room to gripe about his political viewpoints, because doing means it could be shoved right back in your face.

*some of which I share, some of which I don't

He is for whatever reason ignorant or unwittingly supporting the policies over the past 30 years that has stagnated our economy. "Less government" doesn't mean shit if it is still corrupt.

How much of a sample rate do you need before you stop banging your head against the wall?

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME how the gap between the top and the bottom which is exploding will benefit society long term?

Selfishness and greed caused this. A healthy "supply and demand" economy is fine. What we have globally is a slash and burn extraction rigged market.

You want a cure?

1. TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THE UBER RICH

2. Invest that money into new technology, higher education.

3. Create a public option to health care

4. Invest in modernizing our highways, bridges and travel industry

5. Pay those in the middle and bottom livable wages. Get back to 40 hours and families being able to live off one income. More time for family time creates more involvement with kids. Less crime, more stable communities.

 

I agree that the above cant work right now, not because it cant, but because of the poor me rich who confuse "cant" with the reality of "I don't want to".

He is the problem, not the middle or poor. He's just being a selfish crybaby because he thinks the rich are the center of the universe.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Johnson's got some

 Johnson's got some interesting ideas. I agree with his position of not spending money in other countries to rebuild their infrastructure. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of his not wanting to spend any money to rebuild ours. I'm also not thrilled about his reticence on taxing the unproductive rich and putting it on the poor and working class by "reforming" Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and taxing marijuana (don't know that many rich folk who smoke weed). 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:He is for

Brian37 wrote:

He is for whatever reason ignorant or unwittingly supporting the policies over the past 30 years that has stagnated our economy. "Less government" doesn't mean shit if it is still corrupt.

Exactly which significant policy implemented in the past 30 years do you think I supported? In what ways did that/those policies that I supported stagnate our economy? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

He is for whatever reason ignorant or unwittingly supporting the policies over the past 30 years that has stagnated our economy. "Less government" doesn't mean shit if it is still corrupt.

Exactly which significant policy implemented in the past 30 years do you think I supported? In what ways did that/those policies that I supported stagnate our economy? 

I said "unwittingly" and "ignorantly".

You again, claim to hate both parties, but consistently said "I don't want the government to take my money", and "smaller government".

But when you complain about corruption nothing you have said or put forth would solve a damned thing even if you maximized your tax returns and government became smaller, it would still be corrupt and would still favor the money monopoly. You simply have a utopia mindset which is nothing more than the anarchist version of the republican party on steroids.

"SMALLER GOVERNMENT" depends on self introspection other than "getting rich is my only goal and fuck everyone else".

You support the republican party by proxy of the same mantras of "smaller government" less taxes". So if your version of "smaller government" and "less taxes" is not the same as what you claim BOTH parties have been using to fuck up the economy, then you have been nothing but an unwitting pawn convinced that if you go beyond the republican party to Libertarian corporate anarchy, things will get better.

MONEY has corrupted our political process and it is not the middle class and poor that have done it. You want government to protect your money, not the rights of those with less. Your cherry picking is the problem, not inequity, and not a free market. You simply bitch when you don't get what you want.

You want less people on the government dime? I gave you the solution. Cant and dont want to are two differnt things.

GIVE DIRECTLY in the form of better pay, lower prices, health care, income that can support a person on ONE job. Now, at your level not being a big business, I agree this CANNOT happen right now, because of MINDSET of the big corporate businesses. Pay gap dumping the tax burden on the middle class and poor AND YOU is what has caused this mess.

The same mindset caused the great depression. What got us out of it was INVESTMENT and lower pay gap AND higher taxes. And the building we did WENT TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

You support the IDEA, the MOTIF which allows those at the top to fuck even you over. You are not in the same weight class as Wal Mart or GE. You keep siding with the likes of them you'll be lucky to keep your business. It is the climate, the motif, the idea I object to.

YOUR IDEAS of "smaller government" and "lower taxes" can only work when the private sector behaves itself which at the top HAS NOT. All you advocate is money equals power and might makes right. It is screwing you over and pushing you down and you are too stupid to realize it.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I said

Brian37 wrote:

I said "unwittingly" and "ignorantly".

You again, claim to hate both parties, but consistently said "I don't want the government to take my money", and "smaller government".

But when you complain about corruption nothing you have said or put forth would solve a damned thing even if you maximized your tax returns and government became smaller, it would still be corrupt and would still favor the money monopoly. You simply have a utopia mindset which is nothing more than the anarchist version of the republican party on steroids.

How can corruption cause damage without money and without power? Exactly which republican in the last 30 years did anything to make government smaller? A small handful attempted to slow the growth of government, not one has actually made it smaller (at the national level). 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

MONEY has corrupted our political process and it is not the middle class and poor that have done it. You want government to protect your money, not the rights of those with less. Your cherry picking is the problem, not inequity, and not a free market. You simply bitch when you don't get what you want.

I want the government to protect everyone's rights which is why in addition to bitching about my pet issues that affect me directly like labor laws, poker laws, alcohol laws and taxes I also bitch about things that don't affect me at all but harm someone else's freedom like laws against raw milk, peer to peer lending, meth (the drug war in general), anti-immigrant laws, free speech etc. I think I have been extremely consistent in supporting freedom from government for everyone. I welcome you showing me any comment I might have made against freedom for anyone. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The same mindset caused the great depression. What got us out of it was INVESTMENT and lower pay gap AND higher taxes. And the building we did WENT TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

You have said that multiple times which simply points out you are either ignorant of what I believe, or you are ignorant of the events leading up to the great depression. Perhaps we should start a new thread analyzing the laws and fiscal policy of our country from 1916-1945 I daresay that if I simply listed them and told you they were being proposed today you would support every one of them. There is a reason why the great depression lasted extraordinarily long compared to every other depression and a reason why our current depression is lasting longer than the great depression. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Blame the plumber for the crap that stuck up the toilet.

You are voting for a stupid fucking utopia that does not exist.

 

Yeah, you don't like him for his ideology*, boo fucking hoo. I'm guessing the board's seen at least 250 posts from each of you all strictly dealing with 'irreconcilable differences' in politics. Which is to say... this is like watching a turbulent marriage without any 'ring' involved.

Here's the thing: regardless of how you feel, Brian, you (or Bob for that matter) aren't any less of an ideologue than he is. You're also a partisan voter. Depending on how you look at it, you don't have much room to gripe about his political viewpoints, because doing means it could be shoved right back in your face.

*some of which I share, some of which I don't

He is for whatever reason ignorant or unwittingly supporting the policies over the past 30 years that has stagnated our economy. "Less government" doesn't mean shit if it is still corrupt.

 

Oh, ok... now we're starting to see eye-to-eye. That's fine: I don't think minarchy is meaningful if it continues the habits of the older system of government.

Quote:
Selfishness and greed caused this.

You're right; people buying homes/shit they could barely afford on a really good day did cause this.

Quote:
A healthy "supply and demand" economy is fine. What we have globally is a slash and burn extraction rigged market.

And... what, inherently, is wrong with that?

Quote:
You want a cure?

[...]

 

Nothing like what you advocate, but consumers and laborers have viable options to deal with the economic problems they face, currently. They just haven't exercised their basic right to it, yet: collective bargaining. Consumers can do it (boycotting, consumer advocacy groups) and laborers can do it (unions).

Quote:
2. Invest that money into [...] higher education.

Brian... lotsa a people say that while having almost NO idea whatsoever is involved with the developed world's education expenses (namely the education budgets of the US, which are laughably bloated and *COUGH* a tremendous financial strain in most civic regards.)

Here's an alternative until leftists arguing for the world to "throw more money at the problem" educate themselves on the actual numbers involved; educate your own fucking children instead of having the state pay for it. It can be done in a secular context, and it can EASILY outclass a public education any day of the week. The fact that so many secularists lean towards "OMFG PUBLIC SCHOOLZ!!1" demonstrates a rather fucked up (and tautological) ideological bias on behalf of numerous atheists, here.

In a nation as fucked up as ours, I think it's very much safe to say that public school is no longer the automatic answer for educating teens and kids in an unbiased and secular environment.

 

 

Quote:
5. Pay those in the middle and bottom livable wages.

People are already being paid livable wages; otherwise they would be living in their cars and starving. You want to get paid moar?! (queue Oscar-esque "MMMMOOOAARRR?!" from the speakers)

Look for a job from someone else, then.

Quote:
I agree that the above cant work right now, not because it cant

Paradox/nonintelligible

Quote:
, but because of the poor me rich who confuse "cant" with the reality of "I don't want to".

I think you like making false and distorted claims about people on this site just for shits and giggles, personally.

Quote:
He is the problem, not the middle or poor.

Someone probably said the same thing about pagan witches, once.

There's always a useful scapegoat, right?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)