Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
principessa
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:12:42 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,868
Location: Canada
NightFox wrote:




Just so you know, I am registering to vote this year. I have my vote and I'm entitled to my hopes, it lifts my spirits.


Oh. please hope as well. I just want everyone to vote, too.

naughtynurse
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:16:39 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,425
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
So, I am one of those independent voters. I had truly hoped Obama could help things, but the truth is he has failed. However, I don't think Romney would make anything better. So my dilemma is this: do I vote with my head, against Obama? Or with my heart in support of a 3rd party candidate, knowing that it amounts to a vote for Obama? Knowing that he has attempted to push through some pretty anti farming pieces of legislature?

I honestly don't know. I'll update you when I make up my mind.



A special thank you to all who read and voted on my competition Quickie, a Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:19:56 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,567
Location: My Tower, United States
naughtynurse wrote:
So, I am one of those independent voters. I had truly hoped Obama could help things, but the truth is he has failed. However, I don't think Romney would make anything better. So my dilemma is this: do I vote with my head, against Obama? Or with my heart in support of a 3rd party candidate, knowing that it amounts to a vote for Obama? Knowing that he has attempted to push through some pretty anti farming pieces of legislature?

I honestly don't know. I'll update you when I make up my mind.


vote who YOU want to win. that's what i do - if enough people vote independent, maybe next time, others will take heart and do it and maybe not soon, but eventrually, we'll have a viable third or fourth or even fifth party - change happens slowly, but it does happen.
naughtynurse
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:31:02 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,425
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
sprite wrote:


vote who YOU want to win. that's what i do - if enough people vote independent, maybe next time, others will take heart and do it and maybe not soon, but eventrually, we'll have a viable third or fourth or even fifth party - change happens slowly, but it does happen.


It's what I've done in the past :)

Seriously, neither political party suits me. I don't like the fiscal policies of one party, highly dislike the social policies of the other.



A special thank you to all who read and voted on my competition Quickie, a Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
principessa
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:34:12 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,868
Location: Canada
naughtynurse wrote:


It's what I've done in the past :)

Seriously, neither political party suits me. I don't like the fiscal policies of one party, highly dislike the social policies of the other.


Sorry to disagree with Sprite, but if you live in a state that is a swing state, you have to vote strategically, even if you hold your nose while doing it, or you will help your worst option to win. Unforunately, the Electoral College system is winner take all, state by state. In a parliamentary system, my take would be different.

jollylolly
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:42:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/24/2012
Posts: 332
Location: Texas, United States
sprite wrote:


this is sarcasm, right? cause i really can't take you seriously when you say stuff like this. it's just all sorts of wrong, factually, for starters. hatred of fetuses... yeah... *puts on best Charlton Heston voice* Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty fetus!


Yes it was, lol. I think I need a font that conveys sarcasmidea1 But I do know people who think like this!
Thank you for defending my sanity Lady X! Pour Wine
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:50:13 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,567
Location: My Tower, United States
jollylolly wrote:


Yes it was, lol. I think I need a font that conveys sarcasmidea1 But I do know people who think like this!
Thank you for defending my sanity Lady X! Pour Wine


*heaves a sigh of relief* sadly, this thinking is wide spread... *hugs*
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:01:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,265
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
sprite wrote:

you're just moving for the weed, don't lie to me! can i come visit? drunken


Dammit sprite... We've got weed! And wearing parkas 6months of the year, ain't all bad.

And I was about to work out a visitation rights between Dudealicious and I, for you. angry7

MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:12:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 538
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
I think the race is very close, too close to call in every poll, especially the swing states. There are a lot of people very unhappy with the current leadership and spending as if there are no consequences.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:40:09 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,656
Location: United States
Quote:
There are a lot of people very unhappy with the current leadership and spending as if there are no consequences.



The big-spender label that Republicans slap Obama with is somewhat of a falsehood.

The biggest jump in federal spending under Obama by far was the 2009 stimulus, which while technically on his watch, was approved by Congress and the previous President. I think it's safe to say there's a sizeable lag between dollars spent at a given time and a President's decision-making + congress's passage.

But that first year, with an inherited budget shaped around a gun-to-the-head stimulus package for an economy on the ropes, saw federal spending rise 18%.

The next year, it dropped 1.8 percent.

The next year, it rose 4.3 percent.

The next year, 2012, it's set to rise 0.7 percent.

(all stats per OMB)

Just for fun, go look at the list of presidents who have driven federal spending upwards at dizzying percentages (hint #1: they aren't all spendthrift liberals. Hint #2: you have to go back to Eisenhower to find one that's NOT on that list). Spending at the federal level is growing slower under Obama than any president since Eisenhower.


The deficit has risen a lot, yes, which is largely a matter of low taxation compounded by low, recession-affected, tax revenue.

-

But, to many conservatives, perception is reality, and to hear how big of a spender Obama is over and over is, apparently, to eventually believe it as truth.
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:46:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Did this fucking crook ever find out what caused the collapse of one of the most powerful economies during his 8 years in office?


I don't know if he figured it out, but the investors did. What year did the Dems retake Congress?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
naughtynurse
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:58:33 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,425
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
principessa wrote:


Sorry to disagree with Sprite, but if you live in a state that is a swing state, you have to vote strategically, even if you hold your nose while doing it, or you will help your worst option to win. Unforunately, the Electoral College system is winner take all, state by state. In a parliamentary system, my take would be different.


Sadly I do. In fact I have family that would prefer I not vote then vote for a 3rd party candidate.



A special thank you to all who read and voted on my competition Quickie, a Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:50:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
naughtynurse wrote:
Sadly I do. In fact I have family that would prefer I not vote then vote for a 3rd party candidate.


Sometimes you just have to think about which is the greater danger. In this case, the stakes are economic collapse or whatever we would get with a purple GOP president.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:02:33 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,149
Location: Atlanta, United States
The 'shrub' GW Bush was a big spending liberal and Obama is his clone. (If you think Bush was a conservative then you are wearing blinders, he signed off on the largest increase in entitlements since LBJ and spent more proportionally than any of the preceding non-wartime presidents. His war in Iraq (an undeclared war, was extremely expensive and enacted without just cause.) Bush greatly interfered with states rights to control education and the US education ranking dropped again during his administration. Obama took the baton from him like it was a relay race and nothing has changed. Whether or not anything would be different under Romney is not totally known, but really not much would. Neither Democrat or Republican Party really has your best interest at heart.

Liberals can be just fine if they are fiscally responsible. I'm liberal as hell on many issues but I do think the federal government should operate on a balanced budget, spend no more than they take in unless there is a major disaster.

It is well passed time to get our troops the fuck out of Afghanistan!

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

jillinjulie
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:04:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/17/2011
Posts: 157
Location: O H - I O , United States



Yes............
groucho
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:36:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/29/2009
Posts: 225
Location: Nebraska, United States
for what it's worth i am beginning to believe that the two party system has seriously failed us beginning with the 2000 election. I pick that date because of the serious failure that took place in the florida recount. i also believe that the two party system began failing going as far back as perhaps the reagan.

for a two party system to work there must be a willingness for those on opposite sides of the isle to reach across to work with one another on large significant pieces of legislation, e.g. health care. regardless of what your party has said on this subject any working together was merely window dressing...the final vote proves that there was never going to be any concilation. and most votes on major legislation since obama took office have only reinforced that. when in a two party systemboth or even one side adopts a winner take all attitude that system has failed.

another symptom is the way the political base of both parties are driving more than just the parties presidential nominee. nixon stated that you run toward your base to get the nomination and then you must run toward the middle to get elected. it was true then and is now since maybe 20% of people are part of the far left or right base. the vast majority is somewhere in the middle and when a two party system is ruled totally by the base that systen is failing.

just saying!

gblah5 blah5 blah5



"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:21:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
groucho wrote:
for a two party system to work there must be a willingness for those on opposite sides of the isle to reach across to work with one another on large significant pieces of legislation, e.g. health care. regardless of what your party has said on this subject any working together was merely window dressing...the final vote proves that there was never going to be any concilation. and most votes on major legislation since obama took office have only reinforced that. when in a two party systemboth or even one side adopts a winner take all attitude that system has failed.


Compromise for the sake of compromise is a fool's game. The middle ground is not found where a thinker is forced to meet a fool halfway. The problem with the two party system is that one side always favors a maternal approach and the other side takes the paternal approach. That's due to the emotional immaturity of the voters. They played mommy against daddy or vice versa when they were minors and that's how they still try to get what they want. When we get a bipartisan compromise, it's a sausage, there's all the worst cuts of meat ground into it with fat and gristle.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Biff
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:09:51 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 9/11/2012
Posts: 3
Location: United States
"The biggest jump in federal spending under Obama by far was the 2009 stimulus, which while technically on his watch, was approved by Congress and the previous President. I think it's safe to say there's a sizeable lag between dollars spent at a given time and a President's decision-making + congress's passage."

Ummm.....anyone willing to provide some facts to back that statement up? Bush approved a 158 billion dollar bipartisan package in 2007. In 2009 Obama approved 787 billion dollar package. He tried for another 447 billion in 2011 (I think) but congress shot him down and it got turned into the american jobs act as we know it today at a price tage of over 450 billion. If my math is correct, our government spent 1 1/2 trillion dollars on stimulus and job creation in the past 5 years.

keoloke
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:47:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 553
Location: United States
Also, I would like to add that regardless of what they say.. they don't want you to vote. Elections are better controlled that way.

Over 2000 voters from a district of over 120000 people will decide here the the assembly primary. Awful!

You're a know business person in the area? You present yourself as a candidate, you win and stay there for decades. Some peoples they don't even know that is primary elections.

Yes, it's their fault if they do not participate, but I believe when you put a registration step where you also have to state your party affiliation, you're doing the opposite of encouraging presence at the booth.

You're of age? Your live here? You vote.









Practice Happiness, it is a choice

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is not much needed.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:09:36 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,656
Location: United States
Biff wrote:

Ummm.....anyone willing to provide some facts to back that statement up? Bush approved a 158 billion dollar bipartisan package in 2007. In 2009 Obama approved 787 billion dollar package. He tried for another 447 billion in 2011 (I think) but congress shot him down and it got turned into the american jobs act as we know it today at a price tage of over 450 billion. If my math is correct, our government spent 1 1/2 trillion dollars on stimulus and job creation in the past 5 years.



"Ummm"...the dates and milestones are all a matter of public record, Biff. The 2009 stimulus was negotiated while Bush was still president. By the time it came to newly inaugurated President Obama's desk for signature, it was already passed by both houses at the previous president (as well as nearly everyone else on earth)'s urging. For him to have put on the brakes at that point was, if you remember the economic climate at that time, very much out of the question.

That expenditure was Obama's in name only. Not that he or any other President would necessarily have acted differently if he'd been in office in the months or years prior, but it's openly dishonest to say Obama's a big spender based on the '09 stimulus, since it comprises the lion's share of federal spending growth over his tenure.
tazznjazz
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:59:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
The nation is so divided by people with their opinions already formed by Fox news/R. Murdock/ kock brothers on one side and R.Madoff / J.Stewart /S.Colbert [much more entertaining] on the other, believing whatever they are spoon fed in the media in the latest spin cycle instead of checking facts, records.

If you get your facts from a conservative source, they will be skewed. The exact same is true of liberal media outlets.

I just wish people would think for themselves before going to vote on what is in our best interests for ourselves and future generations.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:38:48 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
tazznjazz wrote:
The nation is so divided by people with their opinions already formed by Fox news/R. Murdock/ kock brothers on one side and R.Madoff / J.Stewart /S.Colbert [much more entertaining] on the other, believing whatever they are spoon fed in the media in the latest spin cycle instead of checking facts, records.

I just wish people would think for themselves before going to vote on what is in our best interests for ourselves and future generations.


Shush. You're making too much sense again for anyone used to a 15 second sound bite to pay attention to.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:44:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
I just wish people would think for themselves before going to vote on what is in our best interests for ourselves and future generations.


It might be easier for people to think for themselves if they weren't shown meaningless statistics that are presented as meaningful statistics. Looking at the makeup of Congress during those same years would add meaning. So would subtracting out defense and other non-optional expenditures. Comparing those stats to GDP growth would add balance. Same for revenues.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:25:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
Mr. 8 ball has spoken and the wise and powerful demagog has enlightened and admonished those too dull to comprehend. We may as well stay home and let him decide the election.

I posted the graph as a favor to another poster that had mentioned it, not that I take any bar graphs to sum up much of anything, but I and many others on this thread have flexablity to discuss issues instead of proclaiming opinion to be fact and that is why this country cant compromise and move ahead.

One fact, and I'd like you to answer this one Master 8 ball, Is under which president did we cease being a lender nation and become a debter nation?
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:32:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
One fact, and I'd like you to answer this one Master 8 ball, Is under which president did we cease being a lender nation and become a debter nation?


If you have to call people names...

I don't know the answer to your question. Since Congress bears the lion's share of the power on budgeting and requiring spending, I find it to be an irrelevant question. Blaming presidents for what they have no power to prevent is silly. Probably a better question would be, "Under what party did we start down the path to financial ruin?"

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:59:57 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States


Not that it's relevant or anything...

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
midnightraider61
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:15:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/28/2011
Posts: 94
Location: Lubbock, United States
I am extremely Republican and I want Romney/Ryan to be elected. To say I was upset by the tone of some of the postings on this thread is like saying I was upset by 9/11/01 and 9/11/12. I lashed out and was sorry I did. This is the revised version.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:08:01 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,166
Location: United States
midnightraider61, Nidal Hassan hasn't been tried yet, that much is true. His trial, has been delayed for various reasons which can easily be found by looking for them on the Internet. Most recently he has been ordered to shave his beard by the judge in order that it not be prejudicial to the jury. It's a military trial and they are different from civilian trials.

1ball, if you don't know the answer to a question look it up. Don't be so lazy. The USA became a debtor nation officially in 1973 while Nixon was still President. It happened because of the oil crisis. We didn't become a net debtor nation until 1985 though. That was under Reagan. The Democrats controlled the house and the Republicans controlled the senate. Reagan got pretty much any legislation he wanted passed though. The Democratic party was a lot more cooperative than the present day Republican party. They managed to find just enough votes to let his legislation pass.

Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor, as did George W. Bush. Part of the conservative Republican plan has always been to deplete the treasury so that we can't afford money for social programs, making it possible to "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," in the words of Grover Norquist.

Biff, the 2009 stimulus package was negotiated during the transition period, while George W. Bush was still president. It was passed and signed in 2009. If John McCain had been elected he would have been the one signing it. Huge chunks of the money went to programs put into existence during the Bush administration, especially energy programs, including solar and wind energy.

Mitt Romney, by the way, among 2008 presidential candidates, had the biggest and most expensive stimulus plan.






tazznjazz
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 6:47:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
1ball wrote:


If you have to call people names...

I don't know the answer to your question. Since Congress bears the lion's share of the power on budgeting and requiring spending, I find it to be an irrelevant question. Blaming presidents for what they have no power to prevent is silly. Probably a better question would be, "Under what party did we start down the path to financial ruin?"


Kindly re-read your responses and note your name calling, and trust me that I've held back from name calling.

I refer you to the topic of this post, It's not lets blame congress for presidential policy.

Finally, unlike you I will answer your question [ty Ruthie] and blame Alexander Hamliton and the federalists for starting the slide to monitary ruin and will refrain from blaming Aaron Burr for putting so sudden and complete an end to his influence.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:18:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
Kindly re-read your responses and note your name calling,


Who have I called a name? and what name did I call them?

Quote:
and trust me that I've held back from name calling.


It doesn't appear so.

Quote:
I refer you to the topic of this post, It's not lets blame congress for presidential policy.


You didn't show anything relevant to presidential policy that wasn't more relevant to congressional policy. Do you believe a President can pass a budget that wasn't passed by Congress? Can he spend money not authorized by Congress? Does he hold a gun to their heads forcing them to cough up the cash?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.