• 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.

New poll is out, Romney down to 15%!! Newt is surging on Intrade

You really think the right would support a guy who pushed for universal health care in his state

Only to give it further thought and actually not just support but sign into law consumer driven, market focus health care reform.

What ACTUALLY passed, what he supported fully in the end, what he signed into law, what came into place in part because of his support and action seems a lot more important and telling then one stance he had at one point during it.
 
You liberals don't get it. The fact that so many of you like Romney and Huntsman is the very reason why neither will win the nomination. Both are barely conservative when you take into consideration the totality of their policies.

I'll be happy to go point by point in regards to the policies of Huntsman and conservative principle to show what is already obvious by this ignorant statement; that you don't know jack crap about Huntsman's policies or actions.
 
Really? You think Conservatives would come out in droves to vote for a man with no character who cheated on his wife?

No, but I bet they'll come out in droves to vote against a man that has repeatedly exhibited his willingness to do harm to the country and it's citizens.
 
You liberals don't get it. The fact that so many of you like Romney and Huntsman is the very reason why neither will win the nomination. Both are barely conservative when you take into consideration the totality of their policies. With that said, any republican will beat BO, even these guys since the repubs will go to the polls in huge numbers.....many holding their noses closed when they vote.

The last president was very conservative and he is also the worst president in modern history. I think most of the country has learned that we want a pragmatic, reasonable leader over one that clings to senseless principles for sake of partisan politics... especially when those principles don't deliver the better option.

It's funny how people can be so dogmatic over partisan principles because they are divine. They are obviously man made and subject to error and flaws.
 
He repeatedly calls me a political hack, I tell him his comments aren't working and you flag me. Really?

Moderator's Warning:
Reminder, do not comment on moderator actions. If you disagree with a mod action, use PM's, the Contact Us button, or Binky.
 
No, but I bet they'll come out in droves to vote against a man that has repeatedly exhibited his willingness to do harm to the country and it's citizens.
That would be a "yes," Conservatives would come out in droves to vote for a man with no character who cheated on his wife.
 
The last president was very conservative

Highly arguable, and if you go by the requirements of how many liberals attempt to proclaim Obama as simply being a "moderate" and not even a liberal then there'd be no argument at all.
 
Highly arguable, and if you go by the requirements of how many liberals attempt to proclaim Obama as simply being a "moderate" and not even a liberal then there'd be no argument at all.

From a social conservative vantage Bush was all that and a bag of chips. Fiscally, he spoke the game of one but only provided the tax cuts and no spending cuts. Actually increased spending. Obama however, if he were to actually put some regulations and/or restrictions or taxes on derivatives or wall street speculation in one way or another I'd look at him more as a liberal. But his not doing that along with his war policies, kind of keeps him in the hawkish and more conservative stance for my tastes.

To me it all looks like two former parties racing, not to the center, but off the political line into corporatist territory. Both seeing who can get the biggest fund raising bucks from the exact same sources. Along with securing lobbying jobs for themselves and/or family. It's all rather disgusting.
 
From a social conservative vantage Bush was all that and a bag of chips. Fiscally, he spoke the game of one but only provided the tax cuts and no spending cuts. Actually increased spending. Obama however, if he were to actually put some regulations and/or restrictions or taxes on derivatives or wall street speculation in one way or another I'd look at him more as a liberal. But his not doing that along with his war policies, kind of keeps him in the hawkish and more conservative stance for my tastes.

To me it all looks like two former parties racing, not to the center, but off the political line into corporatist territory. Both seeing who can get the biggest fund raising bucks from the exact same sources. Along with securing lobbying jobs for themselves and/or family. It's all rather disgusting.
Your second paragraph says it all Rob. That really is what our main political system has come down to.
 
God how I hope that the GOP nominates the slimely three-timing hypocrite Newt as their candidate. The only thing that would make Obama's job easier is if he were to select Larry "I'm not gay...I never have been gay" Craig as his running mate....LOL!!!!
 
You guys are putting Obama on some sort of a pedestal as if he's golden boy of the century or something - I don't get it. The guys an idiot and he's continually proven himself as such. If you don't think that's quite true you can't deny he's made little positive progress in anything he's put his foot in since his presidency began. He's more of a figurative head like the Queen of England.

Look: brain for brain - Newt dominates Obama in many ways: overall political savvy and knowledge, a long track record of getting things done when he sets his mind to it, a solid and unmoving knowledge of the economy and how it works. . . and so forth.

Between these two - Newt is superior - Obama could learn a thing or two. . . and apparently so could a lot of people - if they'd listen to the guy for two seconds. And when people instantly bash him with their personal bias it really shows that they don't follow Newt's progress in politics *at all* and know nothing about his knowledge and experience.

He - of all the nominees on that side this year - is the only solid individual who has a proven history of making significant change and a clean ability to comprehend politics, our economy and how to fix problems. . . Thinking back to when things crashed in 2008 - he was the only figure out there who understood how and why things happened and had good solutions and wasn't afraid to criticize Bush and Obama both for their inabilities and failures while citing - not only - what they've done wrong but what they should do right instead.

Huntsman comes in close under him - all the knowledge of how to fix *certain* economic issues as is seen with his history in Utah and has a strong foreign-policy experience base and knowledge pool to draw from . . . but he's more of a docile individual and i think he's be slaughtered easily when pitted against congress.

I'm pleased to see him finally gaining positive recognition for all he's accomplished and has proven himself capable of after all these years.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Obama. He has done pretty good given the horrible economic crisis handed to him by Bush and the repubs. I am very distrustful of the repubs, since they got the US in an expensive war in Iraq we did not need to fight, they blew up the housing bubble and they failed to regulate the banking environment adequately to prevent the solvency crisis in the banks. Then they passed medicare prescription drug coverage that now costs us $70 billion a year without ANY tax to pay for it, while the law requires medicare to pay LIST PRICE for the drugs. The VA can negotiate for volume discounts, but not medicare. The repubs look like total idiots to me, yet NOW all of a sudden they want us to believe they know how to FIX the economy?

The democrat healthcare reform is a step in the right direction. Everyone should pay into the system. Ins. co. should not be able to reject an applicant because they have a pre-existing condition, nor should they be able to drop a customer because they get sick and are costing the ins. co. too much money. When we let the ins. co. make up their own rules, we get a system that guarantees the ins. co. a good profit, but IT IS NOT A US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

Huntsman sounds worth listening to, but he's dull and not getting much traction. Newt is bright and has some good ideas. Romney probably would not be a disaster, but he seems to be driven by the polls.

If the repubs are committed to killing healthcare reform and gutting medicare and social security, I am not for them.

Medicare needs reform. 30% of annual medicare dollars go to people in their last year of life, so fix that, don't throw poor people off of medicare the way the Ryan plan proposed. Place people on hospice care after a certain point. 10 - 20% of medicare spend is on fraud, tighten up the damn system, don't throw poor people off the system the way the repub plan proposed. These medicare reforms are available to BOTH parties, and neither does anything about them! Both parties suck. But, the dems didn't get thousands of good americans killed in a war we didn't need to fight, and that alone argues for a dem victory. The dems seem to suck a little less.
 
Last edited:
At best: under Obama our economic downturn has only stagnated . . . "Our shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we thought - laugh laugh" :shrug:

He did get through his Obama Care - but woopie - how are people suppose to be able to cover insurance when they don't even have a job?
 
At best: under Obama our economic downturn has only stagnated . . . "Our shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we thought - laugh laugh" :shrug:

He did get through his Obama Care - but woopie - how are people suppose to be able to cover insurance when they don't even have a job?

You sound as though you think the president can influence the economy (which I think is incorrect, beyond the short term).

In the '60's and prior, we had a labor intensive economy. That has changed over the last 40 years and today we have a technology intensive economy. The same things a president could do 50 years ago don't work nearly as well today, that's the problem. Bush managed to create jobs, but only through temporary housing and monetary policy and unwise banking de-regulation that ultimately collapsed and created a much bigger mess than the minor 2001 recession.

In 1900, 40 out of 100 americans worked in agriculture and today it is 2 out of 100. Robots have replaced assembly line workers, there are no more "telephone operators" connecting calls, PC's with autocad have replaced many draftsmen, Microsoft Word has eliminated many secretary jobs, PC's and Microsoft Excel have replaced many accounting "analysis" jobs. And we have been joined in the world workforce by India and China since 1980, bringing 1.5 billion people into a workforce that CAN BE TAPPED thanks to advances in technology like advanced telephony and email, and containerized shipping. The workforces in India and China still make 19th century wages since they were cut off and separated from the worlds economy by the closed practices of Mao in China, and the British in India prior to 1950.

Regarding supply and demand, there is simply too great a supply of labor today, and business sees this, and they will not overpay for it. You cannot blame them. You can only see what is, and deal with it. Americans will have to drive smaller fuel efficient cars, live is smaller homes, don't heat and cool homes or offices to much, wear sweaters in the winter, and economize in every way, like the rest of the world.

Now, what is the president going to do that will trump technology in the world, and a massively expanded labor force? Nothing.

And for the repubs who think "tax policy" is the answer, HA! What a joke. That only flies if you never look at what is really going on in the world. Like Bush's tax cuts helped? No, they didn't, except for a short period of time. Bush's administration ended as a disaster, period.

Before offering a solution, you have to accurately define the problem. That is what our politicians avoid doing, because then they would have to admit that they can't solve it. Then you wouldn't vote for them.

THINK (FOR YOURSELF) !!!
 
You guys are putting Obama on some sort of a pedestal as if he's golden boy of the century or something - I don't get it. The guys an idiot and he's continually proven himself as such. If you don't think that's quite true you can't deny he's made little positive progress in anything he's put his foot in since his presidency began. He's more of a figurative head like the Queen of England.

Obama's first two years in office were among the most productive of any president since Lyndon Johnson. He worked with Congress to pass the most important entitlement reform since 1965 and a huge stimulus, he appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, and he drew down our troops in Iraq. You may not LIKE those decisions, but it's hard to deny that they were very important actions.

Look: brain for brain - Newt dominates Obama in many ways: overall political savvy and knowledge, a long track record of getting things done when he sets his mind to it, a solid and unmoving knowledge of the economy and how it works. . . and so forth.

Between these two - Newt is superior - Obama could learn a thing or two. . . and apparently so could a lot of people - if they'd listen to the guy for two seconds. And when people instantly bash him with their personal bias it really shows that they don't follow Newt's progress in politics *at all* and know nothing about his knowledge and experience.

He - of all the nominees on that side this year - is the only solid individual who has a proven history of making significant change and a clean ability to comprehend politics, our economy and how to fix problems. . . Thinking back to when things crashed in 2008 - he was the only figure out there who understood how and why things happened and had good solutions and wasn't afraid to criticize Bush and Obama both for their inabilities and failures while citing - not only - what they've done wrong but what they should do right instead.

I don't deny that Newt is a smart guy. But being a smart guy isn't enough; almost every president is smart. While Newt would certainly make a better president than, say, Rick Perry, he has plenty of problems of his own. Furthermore I would suggest that his ability to "get things done" is overrated. IMO the legislative wheeling-and-dealing required to get things done when you're Speaker of the House is very different than the negotiations needed to get things done when you're President. Furthermore, Newt made some major mistakes as Speaker that impeded his ability to get things done, like leading the country through a year-long impeachment saga that ultimately ended the way everyone knew it would: acquittal.

But I think Newt's biggest problems start before he ever gets to the White House. He would be a terrible candidate because he is unfocused, undisciplined, and has an abrasive personality.
 
Newt did manage to get himself run out of the House of Representatives. And what exactly has he gotten done in the last 20 years? Other than promote Newt? Can you say nothing?
 
Newt did manage to get himself run out of the House of Representatives. And what exactly has he gotten done in the last 20 years? Other than promote Newt? Can you say nothing?
The budget got balanced?
 
The budget got balanced?

Right, the budget got balanced thanks to spending cuts and tax hikes, which Newt opposed, and because of the dotcom bubble. But the question was, what has Newt done in the *LAST* 20 years except endlessly promote himself and beg for donations?
 
I voted for Obama. He has done pretty good given the horrible economic crisis handed to him by Bush and the repubs. I am very distrustful of the repubs, since they got the US in an expensive war in Iraq we did not need to fight, they blew up the housing bubble and they failed to regulate the banking environment adequately to prevent the solvency crisis in the banks. Then they passed medicare prescription drug coverage that now costs us $70 billion a year without ANY tax to pay for it, while the law requires medicare to pay LIST PRICE for the drugs.
.

LMAO. Where were the democrats while this was going on? Who signed the bill that blew up the housing market? Who coddled and protected the democrats running Fannie and Freddie for decades? Geez, BArney Frank was sleeping with a top Fannie exec (excuse the pun). If you think the drug benefit was bad, you just not have read anything about the looming disaster called BOCare that is funded with nothing and will cost trillions......the biggest joke is the democrats claim they will cut medicare by $500,000,000,000 over the next ten years to help pay for BOCare. I could have sworn most democrats voted for the Iraq war and I don't remember them crying about the lack of funding.

Regarding war .....how's it working out for BO in Afghanistan. How many soldiers have died under his failed strategy? Any chance they are going to have free and open elections there in the near term?
 
Right, the budget got balanced thanks to spending cuts and tax hikes, which Newt opposed, and because of the dotcom bubble. But the question was, what has Newt done in the *LAST* 20 years except endlessly promote himself and beg for donations?

The budget was never balanced and the economy was barely moving after BJ Clenis and the libs jacked up the taxes. BJ had to back peddle on those rates to stimulate the economy. The dot.com ponzi scheme jacked up cap gains tax revenues ..... wow, let's do that again.
 
Anyone know how Trump is doing with his numbers? I remember when he was leading as well. :)
 
LMAO. Where were the democrats while this was going on? Who signed the bill that blew up the housing market? Who coddled and protected the democrats running Fannie and Freddie for decades? Geez, BArney Frank was sleeping with a top Fannie exec (excuse the pun). If you think the drug benefit was bad, you just not have read anything about the looming disaster called BOCare that is funded with nothing and will cost trillions......the biggest joke is the democrats claim they will cut medicare by $500,000,000,000 over the next ten years to help pay for BOCare. I could have sworn most democrats voted for the Iraq war and I don't remember them crying about the lack of funding.

Regarding war .....how's it working out for BO in Afghanistan. How many soldiers have died under his failed strategy? Any chance they are going to have free and open elections there in the near term?
Barney Frank?? Barney Frank was in the minority party during 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 when the bulk of the toxic loans were being written. Republicans were in charge and Republicans should have passed oversight. As far as Barney Frank, in early 2007 when Democrats were in charge, Barney Frank sponsored oversight and got it passed in the House. So why the hell are you blaming Barney Frank?

Oh, that's right ... it's a rightie talking point, carry on.
 
The budget was never balanced and the economy was barely moving after BJ Clenis and the libs jacked up the taxes. BJ had to back peddle on those rates to stimulate the economy. The dot.com ponzi scheme jacked up cap gains tax revenues ..... wow, let's do that again.
Suuure ... too bad for you, the economy was already improving before the Internet really took off.
 
Back
Top Bottom