• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Wins by Default

W

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
4,664
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Seems like there will be a weakened Republican candidate after the primaries are over. We even had some quack pastor claim that Romney's religion is a cult.

The people surging in the Republican field right now seem to be Cain and Paul. My view is that these are fringe candidates. But in an era of no compromise perhaps that is who the Republicans will have represent them.

If that is the case then my sense is that we will see low voter turnout with the best organization winning the election. Obama and hos team are masters at that, ask Hillary.

How is it in an country of 300 plus million we get to pick between two knuckleheads and have to pick the person we dislike least?
 
washunut said:
Seems like there will be a weakened Republican candidate after the primaries are over. We even had some quack pastor claim that Romney's religion is a cult.

The people surging in the Republican field right now seem to be Cain and Paul. My view is that these are fringe candidates. But in an era of no compromise perhaps that is who the Republicans will have represent them.

If that is the case then my sense is that we will see low voter turnout with the best organization winning the election. Obama and hos team are masters at that, ask Hillary.

How is it in an country of 300 plus million we get to pick between two knuckleheads and have to pick the person we dislike least?
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think its pretty clear now that Romney will be the Republican candidate. While he is the first choice for relatively few, he is an acceptable choice for many, myself included, and many of those who lack real enthusiasm for Romney will be motivated to go to the polls by anti Obama sentiments.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
I disagree. I think its pretty clear now that Romney will be the Republican candidate. While he is the first choice for relatively few, he is an acceptable choice for many, myself included, and many of those who lack real enthusiasm for Romney will be motivated to go to the polls by anti Obama sentiments.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet? They didn't do it for McCain.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
That's because they didn't know what an incompetent Obama was yet.
Click to expand...

That's right. You can't want to go to the polls and vote anti-Obama if you don't really have much reason to hate him. He's given people plenty of reason. He'll be a black Jimmy Carter.
 
Quite frankly I think if Obama winning would be a good thing. He may not have done much this term, but the way I see it that's the fault of all the goddam Republicans in senate and congress who won't let him. Everyone seems to think Obama reigns supreme, but he really doesn't have enough power to effectively change things for the better. It seems to me as if he has had a lot of good ideas that have been blocked by congress. One thing he could've done but didn't was to continue to raise the debt ceiling but didn't.
 
Confucius said:
Quite frankly I think if Obama winning would be a good thing. He may not have done much this term, but the way I see it that's the fault of all the goddam Republicans in senate and congress who won't let him. Everyone seems to think Obama reigns supreme, but he really doesn't have enough power to effectively change things for the better. It seems to me as if he has had a lot of good ideas that have been blocked by congress. One thing he could've done but didn't was to continue to raise the debt ceiling but didn't.
Click to expand...

Write Reid and tell him to quit blocking them.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
I disagree. I think its pretty clear now that Romney will be the Republican candidate. While he is the first choice for relatively few, he is an acceptable choice for many, myself included, and many of those who lack real enthusiasm for Romney will be motivated to go to the polls by anti Obama sentiments.
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that the Libertarians and Tea Party have been tearing Romney to shreds for quite some time now. They may have frightened a lot of independents away from voting for him. I know this is the case for me.

All the talk of how wishy-washy Romney is has lead me to feel he isn't a good man for the job and that I will likely vote for Obama even though I'm not thrilled with Obama's performance. At least I know what I'm getting with Obama; With Romney I don't.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
The problem I see is that the Libertarians and Tea Party have been tearing Romney to shreds for quite some time now. They may have frightened a lot of independents away from voting for him. I know this is the case for me.

All the talk of how wishy-washy Romney is has lead me to feel he isn't a good man for the job and that I will likely vote for Obama even though I'm not thrilled with Obama's performance. At least I know what I'm getting with Obama; With Romney I don't.
Click to expand...

Good example of what I mentioned. Becoming the CEO of a company like Bain it is not possible to be a "wimp" but that is the sort of tearing down that goes on in what is called politics in America today.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
That's right. You can't want to go to the polls and vote anti-Obama if you don't really have much reason to hate him. He's given people plenty of reason. He'll be a black Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? There was more jobs created in 4 years of Carter than in 8 years of Bush, with far less population.
 
washunut said:
Seems like there will be a weakened Republican candidate after the primaries are over. We even had some quack pastor claim that Romney's religion is a cult.
Click to expand...

Most Christians do not believe Catholics are Christian either. Romney is a liberal. This waa boo hoo no one will vote for me because I am a Mormon is nothing more than a ploy to distract from the fact he is a liberal and to guilt people into voting for him.So if someone doesn't vote for Romney its because they are a democrat, or a conservative who knows that Romney is a liberal.
How is it in an country of 300 plus million we get to pick between two knuckleheads and have to pick the person we dislike least?
Click to expand...

Why? Its because a lot of people have the mentality that democrats are good and republicans are evil or republicans are good and democrats are evil and have no clue what that candidate is all about..
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
The problem I see is that the Libertarians and Tea Party have been tearing Romney to shreds for quite some time now. They may have frightened a lot of independents away from voting for him. I know this is the case for me.

All the talk of how wishy-washy Romney is has lead me to feel he isn't a good man for the job and that I will likely vote for Obama even though I'm not thrilled with Obama's performance. At least I know what I'm getting with Obama; With Romney I don't.
Click to expand...

With Romney you get some one with a long record of successful leadership in every job he has ever had since his college years. Check it out.

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Obama you get some one with a nearly unblemished record of failure in every job he has ever had.

Obama has no long term strategy to help grow the economy. While he loves to talk about his "jobs" bill, what he doesn't tell you is that all the jobs he hopes to create with this bill are temporary jobs that will disappear when this new stimulus money is gone just as the temporary jobs the last stimulus bill created have disappeared now that that stimulus money is gone. The Republicans, including Romney, on the other hand, are focused on stimulating longer term growth by incentivizing private investment by, in part, reducing costly regulations and taxes and repatriating foreign profits of US firms without penalties.

Here's an illustration of the difference between the Obama approach and the Republican approach. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge that needed painting or repairs. Obama would tax money away from private investors or borrow it to hire people to do this work. Some of these people would likely eat some of their meals at your diner, so you might even hire new servers and cooks, but when the work was done or the stimulus money ran out, these new jobs would disappear and you would have to fire these newer servers and cooks. Everything would be exactly as it had been before.

The Republican, including Romney, approach of incentivizing private investment by, in part, reducing costly regulations and taxes and repatriating foreign profits of US firms without penalties, might lead to a factory or office building being build near your diner. It is likely some of these new workers would eat some of their meals at your diner and this might lead you hire new servers and cooks. The difference here is that these jobs are long term jobs which means the servers and cooks would also have long term jobs.

With Obama you get nothing but political slogans and ideological imperatives with no apparent concern for the effect these have or don't have on the economy. With Romney you get a practical businessman with a long and successful career taking on failing enterprises and returning them to success and profitability.
 
There is only one question yet to be answered for me: will all sectors of the GOP unite around Romney after he is the nominee?

I say this because
1) if Romney is NOT the nominee and somebody on the far right gets the nod - its all over anyway
2) the only candidate who can beat Obama by picking up Indie votes is Romney
3) a third party insurgent candidate from the right would kill the GOP in 2012
 
toomuchtime_ said:
With Romney you get some one with a long record of successful leadership in every job he has ever had since his college years. Check it out.

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Obama you get some one with a nearly unblemished record of failure in every job he has ever had.

Obama has no long term strategy to help grow the economy. While he loves to talk about his "jobs" bill, what he doesn't tell you is that all the jobs he hopes to create with this bill are temporary jobs that will disappear when this new stimulus money is gone just as the temporary jobs the last stimulus bill created have disappeared now that that stimulus money is gone. The Republicans, including Romney, on the other hand, are focused on stimulating longer term growth by incentivizing private investment by, in part, reducing costly regulations and taxes and repatriating foreign profits of US firms without penalties.

Here's an illustration of the difference between the Obama approach and the Republican approach. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge that needed painting or repairs. Obama would tax money away from private investors or borrow it to hire people to do this work. Some of these people would likely eat some of their meals at your diner, so you might even hire new servers and cooks, but when the work was done or the stimulus money ran out, these new jobs would disappear and you would have to fire these newer servers and cooks. Everything would be exactly as it had been before.

The Republican, including Romney, approach of incentivizing private investment by, in part, reducing costly regulations and taxes and repatriating foreign profits of US firms without penalties, might lead to a factory or office building being build near your diner. It is likely some of these new workers would eat some of their meals at your diner and this might lead you hire new servers and cooks. The difference here is that these jobs are long term jobs which means the servers and cooks would also have long term jobs.

With Obama you get nothing but political slogans and ideological imperatives with no apparent concern for the effect these have or don't have on the economy. With Romney you get a practical businessman with a long and successful career taking on failing enterprises and returning them to success and profitability.
Click to expand...

10 years of the Bush tax cuts and you are still trying to sell
might lead to a factory or office building being build near your diner.
Click to expand...
Before we give away the farm we need more then
might lead to a factory or office building being build near your diner.
Click to expand...

No more promises of trickle down, no more tax cuts for the rich, no more bail outs for the banks, no more
might lead to a factory or office building being build near your diner.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
Are you kidding? There was more jobs created in 4 years of Carter than in 8 years of Bush, with far less population.
Click to expand...

there also was a misery factory around 20, foreign policy incompetence as highlighted by Carter's failure to do what needed to be done with Iran (such as destroying those who violated the sanctity of our embassy) which encouraged more banditry in that region and then there was asshole carter's complete destruction of the olympic dream of our athletes and his illegal threats to those who wanted to compete under the IOC flag

Carter was a asswipe on so many levels but Obama seems to be giving him a run for his money
 
I gues I should have added that I don't know if Romney would be allowed by the libertarians and Tea Party members of the GOP to perform as he has in the past. After hearing how wishy-washy he is from the right, why I am I supposed to believe he won't cave in when the libertarians and Tea Party members make demands?

Pretty much everyone knows that if a Tea Party candidate or Paul is the GOP nominee, they won't have a chance of winning. Why? Because the majority don't want what they are selling. So tell me why any independent should vote for Romney when the right has given independents lots reasons to believe Romney is not capable of resisting pressure from the groups everyone knows the independents would not consider voting into the presidency.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
There is only one question yet to be answered for me: will all sectors of the GOP unite around Romney after he is the nominee?

I say this because
1) if Romney is NOT the nominee and somebody on the far right gets the nod - its all over anyway
2) the only candidate who can beat Obama by picking up Indie votes is Romney
3) a third party insurgent candidate from the right would kill the GOP in 2012
Click to expand...

While what you say is correct they are so dogmatic someone like Paul might run as a third party. Or Romney might lose. Did you hear the pastor today call his religion a cult.
 
washunut said:
Seems like there will be a weakened Republican candidate after the primaries are over. We even had some quack pastor claim that Romney's religion is a cult.

The people surging in the Republican field right now seem to be Cain and Paul. My view is that these are fringe candidates. But in an era of no compromise perhaps that is who the Republicans will have represent them.

If that is the case then my sense is that we will see low voter turnout with the best organization winning the election. Obama and hos team are masters at that, ask Hillary.

How is it in an country of 300 plus million we get to pick between two knuckleheads and have to pick the person we dislike least?
Click to expand...

Just a minor correction: Paul is not surging. He is polling just as he has been, between 7 and 10 %(at 8 according to RCP).
 
Redress said:
Just a minor correction: Paul is not surging. He is polling just as he has been, between 7 and 10 %(at 8 according to RCP).
Click to expand...

Depends where you look. I noticed he just won some straw poll. Not saying he will win, but this will be a long, bloody primary and Romney is not a sure winner. I doubt any other candidate has a chance in heck of even making it a close election.
 
EarlzP said:
10 years of the Bush tax cuts and you are still trying to sell Before we give away the farm we need more then

No more promises of trickle down, no more tax cuts for the rich, no more bail outs for the banks, no more
Click to expand...

You're right that the factory or office building might not be built near your diner, but history has shown us that fewer costly regulations and lower taxes does lead to more private investment, so the factory or office building might be built near some one else's small business, but it will likely be built.

I agree that allowing free markets to make investment decisions carries risks as well as the potential for prosperity, but historically taxing and regulating away the incentive for private investment and allowing the government to make investment decisions leads to a stagnant economy and higher unemployment. Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation spurred the robust economic growth of the late 1980's and the 1990's but it also led to much higher public debt and to the tech bubble of the late 1990's that wiped out so much of the retirement savings of working Americans, and while the Bush tax cuts probably staved off an earlier recession, unfortunately the private investment they spurred was largely in over priced real estate and, largely because of the failures of the FDIC, the FED and Congress to exercise their oversight responsibility to prevent banks from investing so heavily in risky loans, they also led to the recent financial crisis and recession.

So incentivising private investment and allowing free markets to make investment decisions carries the potential for both risk and reward, and no one has yet figured out how to eliminate the risks and still realize the reward. In 2012 we will have the choice between four more years of a stagnant economy, high unemployment occasionally relieved by temporary jobs financed by higher taxes or higher debt or we can choose to try to regain our confidence in ourselves and our country and return to the kind of free market economy that built this country. Romney, the likely Republican nominee, has had a long and successful career taking on failing enterprises in both the public and private sectors and returning them to success and profitability. Obama, on the other hand, has failed to accomplish anything on significance in any job he has ever had. Why would anyone want to vote for failure a second time?
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I gues I should have added that I don't know if Romney would be allowed by the libertarians and Tea Party members of the GOP to perform as he has in the past. After hearing how wishy-washy he is from the right, why I am I supposed to believe he won't cave in when the libertarians and Tea Party members make demands?

Pretty much everyone knows that if a Tea Party candidate or Paul is the GOP nominee, they won't have a chance of winning. Why? Because the majority don't want what they are selling. So tell me why any independent should vote for Romney when the right has given independents lots reasons to believe Romney is not capable of resisting pressure from the groups everyone knows the independents would not consider voting into the presidency.
Click to expand...

What some would call wishy washy others would call not being an ideologue. Romney is a practical businessman who is more interested in outcomes than in ideology, which means he is able to learn from his experiences and change his opinions when experience indicates he should. While some may prefer a candidate who is wedded to an ideology regardless of the outcomes it leads to, most independents will prefer a candidate who is running on a long record if success in returning failing enterprises in both the public and private sectors to success and profitability rather than a candidate with a proven record of failure who is wedded to a failed ideology.
 
Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think they're trying to move up the primary dates just b/c of paul. Lots of people switching over to repub each day to vote for him. :-D. Figure they squash it soon before it gets out of hand.

Anyway, straw polls are just a tiny boost and is still a uphill battle for him. I think people are just voting for Romney and Obama just because they have the best chance of winning. I say have the guts to look at someone else who you think best represents your ideals and push for that candidate to win. Even if it may be futile, at least you know you've done the right thing in your mind. No guilt coming out of that booth.

At the end, I still think Romney is going to win the primary but I except an abnormal amount of people voting third party being fed up with the establishment picks. The year of the third party will be the tone this election.
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
Depends where you look. I noticed he just won some straw poll. Not saying he will win, but this will be a long, bloody primary and Romney is not a sure winner. I doubt any other candidate has a chance in heck of even making it a close election.
Click to expand...

Straw polls are not indicative of much. The path to winning a straw poll is not the same path of winning a primary.
 
Redress said:
Straw polls are not indicative of much. The path to winning a straw poll is not the same path of winning a primary.
Click to expand...

I agree, just saying that there seems to be no clear cut frontrunner. Plus with what that pastor said, there may be more racism in the Republican party than I thought. This could turn people off and hand this thing to some extreme candidate.
 
washunut said:
I agree, just saying that there seems to be no clear cut frontrunner. Plus with what that pastor said, there may be more racism in the Republican party than I thought. This could turn people off and hand this thing to some extreme candidate.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that anti Mormon bigotry is Obama's best chance of being reelected? There are only three candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning the Republican nomination, Romney, Cain and Perry - voting for Paul is a whimsical indulgence, not a serious political act - and whichever of them wins, he will be running against Obama's record of failure in office, his lack of any strategy for growing the economy or reducing unemployment other than occasionally providing some temporary jobs and his incessant whining about being picked on by Republicans. All three Republicans have impressive records of successful leadership that will persuade open minded voters they are better qualified to turn the economy around than Obama is. An American electorate that elected a black man with a Muslim sounding name is unlikely to be distracted by other kinds of bigotry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom