• 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.

Election 2012: Obama 50%, Gingrich 38%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Doubtful, Obama had no problem taking on McCain sans teleprompters.

McCain was the worst choice the Republicans could have made. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Not once they start talking about family values. :cool:
Click to expand...

Obama's family values is taking from my family to give to another family. Try to defend that one...

obama-%u00252BHAS%2BRUN%2BOUT%2BOTHER%2BPEOPLES%2BMONEY.PNG
 
Kandahar said:
Yeah, a few ideologues don't like Romney, so the media plays up the "anyone but Romney" angle to make it seem like there's more of a horserace than there actually is.
Click to expand...
A few? I have seen a lot of people critcize Romney. I am not an ideolog, but I do require candidates to have some core beliefs that they try to defend.



And then he immediately lost most of those. I'm talking about sustainable support, not sudden surges.
Click to expand...
But he lost it because he was terrible at the debates. If he was good in the debates, he would be the clear front runner right now.


Since no OTHER candidate is consistently polling above 25% either, why does this reflect poorly on Romney? In fact, the whole reason that this is sometimes viewed as "anyone but Romney" instead of, say, "anyone but Rick Santorum" is because Romney is obviously the frontrunner.

Romney is doing just fine in the primary; a lot of Republican voters haven't even made a decision yet. And I strongly suspect that they will overwhelmingly gravitate toward the serious candidate whose turn it is, just like they always do.
Click to expand...
It reflects badly on Mitt Romney because he has no competition. Herman Cain is completly clueless, Newt Gingrich has tons of skelectons, Rick Perry is clueless and is a terrible debater, Michelle Bachmann is crazy. Still he is polling equally with Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. There is obviously something very wrong with Mitt Romney.

I bet that Romney wins at least 90% of Republican votes next November, assuming he is the nominee.
Click to expand...
I think it is closer to 80%. Ron Paul supporters are not going to vote for Mitt Romney, and anyone who cares about authenticity will not vote for him either.

If 20% defects from Mitt Romney, then he will lose against Obama. How do you think Tea party people are going to react in 2016? Do you think they are ever going to nominate a moderate again? However the establishment will blame Republicans who didn't vote. Nominating Romney is a good way of causing conflict within the Republican Party. Maybe that is why so many liberals support Romney.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059959921 said:
Obama's family values is taking from my family to give to another family. Try to defend that one...

View attachment 67118421
Click to expand...
How has Obama taken money from you to give to others?
 
Camlon said:
Mitt Romney is unacceptable to large parts of the electorate. Where do you think the expression, anyone but Mitt comes from?


If Romney were mainstream, then he would have got more than 25% of the votes right now.

Also, I'm to the left of the positions Romney pretends to have. There is no way I would support Romney. Am I part of the crazies?
Click to expand...

It's a pretty safe bet that the majority of strong conservatives are going to vote for "the other guy" in 2012. You could probably run bozo the clown as the republican candidate and get their vote. Anything to get rid of Obama. The swing voters are the ones that will decide the election. If that 25% contains many swing voters, that could be a very important 25%.
 
No doubt they will vote against Obama ... if they get off their butts. Butt are they going to venture out on a cold, rainy day to cast their vote for Flip Flopney? Some won't.
 
AdamT said:
No doubt they will vote against Obama ... if they get off their butts. Butt are they going to venture out on a cold, rainy day to cast their vote for Flip Flopney? Some won't.
Click to expand...
And what if there is a third party ticket?
 
Camlon said:
And what if there is a third party ticket?
Click to expand...

Depends entirely who it is. If it's someone with a decent sized following, on either side, the race should be close enough that they could throw it the other way -- much as Nader did in 2000.
 
I support Romney over Gingrich. I also believe that Romney IS electable. In my opinion, If he can get through primaries, Republicans and Independents will flock to anyone except Obama.
 
Camlon said:
Mitt Romney is unacceptable to large parts of the electorate. Where do you think the expression, anyone but Mitt comes from?


If Romney were mainstream, then he would have got more than 25% of the votes right now.

Also, I'm to the left of the positions Romney pretends to have. There is no way I would support Romney. Am I part of the crazies?
Click to expand...

...but he is your 2012 presidential candidate. Its time to embrace the inevitable and love it.
 
poweRob said:
I know you probably have bought the whole "Newt is a genius" and "Newt is an Ideas man" stuff but he's not that smart and he's not that great a debater. I promise you he'd get his ass handed to him. Of politicians out there, he's the ultimate troll. That's his schtick and it wouldn't fly in a one on one debate.

*edit...

Love your sig btw.
Click to expand...

In a debate between Newt and Obama, when they get to job creation Newt need only say three words, "Trans-Canada Pipeline".

When they get around to fiscal responsibility, Newt can just say, "Solyndra", or, "Brightsource".

Yeah, Obama's got a shot...right!
 
AdamT said:
No doubt they will vote against Obama ... if they get off their butts. Butt are they going to venture out on a cold, rainy day to cast their vote for Flip Flopney? Some won't.
Click to expand...

That's the only hope that Obama has.
 
apdst said:
In a debate between Newt and Obama, when they get to job creation Newt need only say three words, "Trans-Canada Pipeline".
Click to expand...

Maybe that means something to you and the small fraction of the population that works in the oil industry. No one else cares.

When they get around to fiscal responsibility, Newt can just say, "Solyndra", or, "Brightsource".

Yeah, Obama's got a shot...right!
Click to expand...

I hope Newt is the nominee and appoints you as his campaign manager. I really do. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
In a debate between Newt and Obama, when they get to job creation Newt need only say three words, "Trans-Canada Pipeline".

When they get around to fiscal responsibility, Newt can just say, "Solyndra", or, "Brightsource".

Yeah, Obama's got a shot...right!
Click to expand...

Right, and Obama can ask Newt why he took over $1 million to lobby for Fannie and Freddie in the years leading up to the financial meltdown. Then he can ask him why he was for cap and trade before he was against it. And why he was for a healthcare mandate before he was against it. Or why he was against Ryan's budget before he was for it. Or why he was for Obama's Libya policy before he was against it. Or why he was for Obama's Iraq policy before he was against it. Or why he cheated on and divorced not one but two wives. Or why he was censured by the House of Representatives and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the list goes on and on. Those are some debates I would LOVE to see. :lol:
 
poweRob said:
Well...

1) He's not my boy. I didn't vote for him and, as it is, I won't voting for him in 2012 either
2) We are NOT comparing gaffes. We are responding to this quote of yours:



If you can't see ANY gaffes or stumbles committed by a serial ethics violator who wraps himself in the flag while carrying a cross all while ****ing his mistresses... you must walk through life with your eyes closed.
Click to expand...

Well in fairness I was talking about in a debate, but the point is not lost. Sure I would think that Newt, if he has a chance, has to explain these things to the electorate, but it's not undoable. Look, Newt wouldn't be my first choice, heck my guy(s) aren't even running, and Romney does have some appeal, but if I were hand selecting my pick it would be Rubio/Christie, or similar. I even like Santorum, but his has failed miserably and miscalculated where the nations support would be. He went too tea party, IMO, and has lost his way, but his ideas do more closely align with mine in limited government, budget accountabilty, and States rights..


Tim-
 
apdst said:
In a debate between Newt and Obama, when they get to job creation Newt need only say three words, "Trans-Canada Pipeline".

When they get around to fiscal responsibility, Newt can just say, "Solyndra", or, "Brightsource".

Yeah, Obama's got a shot...right!
Click to expand...

Trans canada pipeline? Really? lol

When the GOP is constantly shutting down the High Speed Rail, bridge and highway infrastructure bills and on and on and on. You know, stuff that actually creates loads of jobs. That pipeline wouldn't produce crap for jobs.

You are in for a HUGE disappointment come next November.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Trans canada pipeline? Really? lol

When the GOP is constantly shutting down the High Speed Rail, bridge and highway infrastructure bills and on and on and on. You know, stuff that actually creates loads of jobs. That pipeline wouldn't produce crap for jobs.

You are in for a HUGE disappointment come next November.
Click to expand...

High speed rail isn't self sustaining, but being a liberal I guess you don't mind tax payers footing the bill for it. Infrastructure cost money too. How should that be paid for, more taxes as well? How about cutting entitlement programs to pay for it?

There's a novel idea...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059962176 said:
High speed rail isn't self sustaining, but being a liberal I guess you don't mind tax payers footing the bill for it. Infrastructure cost money too. How should that be paid for, more taxes as well? How about cutting entitlement programs to pay for it?

There's a novel idea...
Click to expand...

How about cutting defense spending to cover it? You game for that? lol... You are making assumptions about it being self sustaining. I'll grant you that its initial construction costs aren't self sustaining but if airlines can sustain themselves with ticket costs, a maglev rail to the major cities can as well. You are cherry picking one thing of what I've said and I'd rather not go on and on about it being that I think there are three threads on HSR already I believe.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059962176 said:
High speed rail isn't self sustaining, but being a liberal I guess you don't mind tax payers footing the bill for it.
Click to expand...

This liberal doesn't mind. Who cares if it's self-sustaining. Has the Interstate Highway System ever turned a profit for the government? Are our power grid or water network big money-makers for the government? Why do conservatives insist on applying this "self-sustaining" standard to high-speed rail when it has never been necessary for other infrastructure projects? Of course it isn't going to turn a profit for the government; if it did the private sector would take care of it, and we wouldn't need government involvement in the first place. You are confusing "unprofitable" with "unnecessary." Some of the greatest projects our country has ever undertaken, like the Interstate Highway System, have never been profitable for the government.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
This liberal doesn't mind. Who cares if it's self-sustaining. Has the Interstate Highway System ever turned a profit for the government? Are our power grid or water network big money-makers for the government? Why do conservatives insist on applying this "self-sustaining" standard to high-speed rail when it has never been necessary for other infrastructure projects? Of course it isn't going to turn a profit for the government; if it did the private sector would take care of it, and we wouldn't need government involvement in the first place. You are confusing "unprofitable" with "unnecessary." Some of the greatest projects our country has ever undertaken, like the Interstate Highway System, have never been profitable for the government.
Click to expand...

Like Nuclear power. That is profitable to the company who owns it so long as they get a government loan guarantee and the taxpayer foots the cleanup bill.
 
vvx said:
It's a pretty safe bet that the majority of strong conservatives are going to vote for "the other guy" in 2012. You could probably run bozo the clown as the republican candidate and get their vote. ......
Click to expand...

"...Probably run Bozo the Clown..."? I think the Republican party liked that idea so much that they decided to find the biggest Bozoes they could find. The Republican debates have been nothing short of the battle of the Bozoes; a playoff for clowns.
 
poweRob said:
How about cutting defense spending to cover it? You game for that? lol... You are making assumptions about it being self sustaining. I'll grant you that its initial construction costs aren't self sustaining but if airlines can sustain themselves with ticket costs, a maglev rail to the major cities can as well. You are cherry picking one thing of what I've said and I'd rather not go on and on about it being that I think there are three threads on HSR already I believe.
Click to expand...

I say cut defense spending too.

The high speed rail system is impractical, a drain on taxpayer funds, and most people prefer to drive or fly rather than take a train.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059962938 said:
and most people prefer to drive or fly rather than take a train.
Click to expand...

That's BECAUSE there isn't an effective high-speed rail system in place. Of course people aren't going to be lining up at the train station if their only options are rickety old trains that don't get them where they need to go any faster than their cars do.
 
apdst said:
In a debate between Newt and Obama, when they get to job creation Newt need only say three words, "Trans-Canada Pipeline".

When they get around to fiscal responsibility, Newt can just say, "Solyndra", or, "Brightsource".

Yeah, Obama's got a shot...right!
Click to expand...

And when they get to integrity, family values, honor and respect....Obama will need only point and laugh!....
 
Kandahar said:
That's BECAUSE there isn't an effective high-speed rail system in place. Of course people aren't going to be lining up at the train station if their only options are rickety old trains that don't get them where they need to go any faster than their cars do.
Click to expand...
I just got back from South Korea. Man.....Asia is making the United States look like a third world country. We are being left behind in terms of technology and modern transportation. I took a bullet train from Seoul down to Masan. It was incredible. There is no excuse for the lack of high speed train transportation in this country, other than pure laziness and lack of direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom