US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah lets see how often Romney, a rich ivy league educated man, is called elitist and go back and see how Kerry was treated. Kerry a man from almost the exact same background as Romney.

:lol: The best is Romney calling Obama elitist. One has degrees from Columbia and Harvard. The other has 2 from Harvard. One was raised by a single mother fairly poor. The other was raised by a former Governor of Michigan and Presidential candidate in 68.

Which one of these is elitist again?
 
Who was talking about Clinton or Obama? Bush wasnt up against Clinton or Obama. Really the term elitist is used by the common folk? I lived in a red state for 10 years and talked politics with those in the left right and middle and not one of them ever used the term elitist. Its a buzz word used to deride the democratic candidate, especially if he is ivy league educated, and by contrast to make the republican candidate seem by comparison to be more down to earth. Don't try to preach politics to me mate Ive lived in two of the most political countries on the planet and I know how they talk to the simple folk like yourself.

Look up the definition of elitist, you might learn something. For starters, it's not just associated with right calling the left. Oh but I shall bow to your elitist mindset. Ho-hum.

Appreciate taking your time to talk to simple folk like myself. :boring:
 
:lol: The best is Romney calling Obama elitist. One has degrees from Columbia and Harvard. The other has 2 from Harvard. One was raised by a single mother fairly poor. The other was raised by a former Governor of Michigan and Presidential candidate in 68.

Which one of these is elitist again?

on this whole matter of service in the forces, Romney comes out the worst. If he had just said he chose to be a missionary..fine. instead he goes to France where they are all dying in the streets for lack of food of course and still has the gall to say he wanted to be in Vietnam.

well who was stopping him!!

of all the candidates democrat or republican in recent memory, this is the guy who is the most elitist...because he has zero 'real life' experience. It is not the money..heck JFK had loads of that .
.... this guy is as fake as it gets. people can see right through him.
 
Hypothetical situation: If it were 1963 and Soviet missiles were seen in Cuba, which candidate would you want in office? Imagining any of the GOP candidates in that situation is scary as hell. I could see any of the presidents except Carter and W handling it decently, but the current group of Republicans terrify me with regards to foreign policy.
 
Hypothetical situation: If it were 1963 and Soviet missiles were seen in Cuba, which candidate would you want in office? Imagining any of the GOP candidates in that situation is scary as hell. I could see any of the presidents except Carter and W handling it decently, but the current group of Republicans terrify me with regards to foreign policy.

As good a reason as any to vote for or against candidate.
 
Hypothetical situation: If it were 1963 and Soviet missiles were seen in Cuba, which candidate would you want in office? Imagining any of the GOP candidates in that situation is scary as hell. I could see any of the presidents except Carter and W handling it decently, but the current group of Republicans terrify me with regards to foreign policy.

I'm not even so sure about Carter. His big foreign policy failure was the Iran hostages, and Reagan's team was dealing under the table there, telling Iran that they'd get a better deal after the election.
 
Look up the definition of elitist, you might learn something. For starters, it's not just associated with right calling the left. Oh but I shall bow to your elitist mindset. Ho-hum.

Appreciate taking your time to talk to simple folk like myself. :boring:

Again, Im not talking about the definition I am talking about who uses it. Politicians and the media use it, not normal people in my experience. But hey whats the point of talking politics to a sheep. I will just bleat at you see if it rings a bell. BAA BAA BAAAAA.
 
:lol: The best is Romney calling Obama elitist. One has degrees from Columbia and Harvard. The other has 2 from Harvard. One was raised by a single mother fairly poor. The other was raised by a former Governor of Michigan and Presidential candidate in 68.

Which one of these is elitist again?

Exactly its a bullshit word used by bullshit people

for example Jon Stewart calling out O'Reilly on elite hypocrisy

go to 4:30

 
In my personal experience, the word 'elitist' has always been used by righties against lefties.

So somehow an educated person from a poor background like Obama is an elitist while Bush, the son of a President is not...


and now what do they do, they nominate the most elitist person there ever was a nominee in any party. Zero 'real life' experience super wealthy guy who writes off his prancing horse as an expense and has money stashed away in Switzerland and teh caymans.

Yup. just your average Joe.
 
From my experience, it's almost always been attributed to the upper class wealthy people, often those on both sides of the political spectrum, big business persons, the country club types from yesteryear, and certain Hollywood types. I've never noticed it primarily aimed at democrats/liberals. Romney is as elitist acting as they come, IMO. GWB, while elitist by the definition of the term, did not come across that way to the public, nor did his father. Cheney did. Rumsfeld did. Trump is.
 
In the past few years, it's been used by teatards to discredit liberals and educated people. Anyone who is well-educated is automatically an elitist liberal who knows nothing. The irony is that it should more appropriately be used against Romney and other powerful GOP members who've convinced people that by doing what's best for the wealthy they're doing what's best for everyone when that's not the case at all.

W came across as a normal guy because he presented himself as just a regular Texan despite that being a complete lie. He seemed like a nice enough guy while Gore and Kerry both struggled to connect with people. Romney will have the same issue. He has no clue how the other 99% live. You can overcome that by being statesmanlike, but Romney isn't that either. He doesn't give good speeches, doesn't debate very well, and lies out of his ass every time he speaks. People don't like him, they just think he has the best shot to beat Obama. Except for Mormons. They love him. I think they're the only people who do though.
 
Dubya didn't talk or dress 'elitist' - he wore cowboy gear and seemed comfortable using colloquial registers of Texas dialect.

By any other measure, he was pure elite - scion of a family of oil barons and bankers with a President for a father and a former supreme court Justice among his relatives, with a lineage going back to the Plymouth pilgrims.
 
The liberal elitist/Bush regular guy paradox is one of the greatest tricks the Republicans have pulled. Along with convincing poor white america that Socialism is equal to Stalinism.
 
Dubya didn't talk or dress 'elitist' - he wore cowboy gear and seemed comfortable using colloquial registers of Texas dialect.

By any other measure, he was pure elite - scion of a family of oil barons and bankers with a President for a father and a former supreme court Justice among his relatives, with a lineage going back to the Plymouth pilgrims.

Why did I hear that last bit in the voice of Ron Burgundy? :lol:
 
The liberal elitist/Bush regular guy paradox is one of the greatest tricks the Republicans have pulled. Along with convincing poor white america that Socialism is equal to Stalinism.

And that centre-right corporatism is equal to socialism

Why did I hear that last bit in the voice of Ron Burgundy? :lol:

Probably the word "scion". I felt awkward even writing it... I should have struck with my original shit joke about WASPS.
 
Poor Mittens . . .

(CNN) – The chief executive of Barclays, who resigned Tuesday amid a bank lending scandal, will no longer co-host an upcoming fund-raiser for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a campaign spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday.

Bob Diamond, who stepped down from his role at one of the world's largest banks following the resignation of Barclay's chief operating officer, was slated to co-host the fund-raiser in London during Romney's upcoming trip to the Olympic Games.
 
Poor Mittens . . .

(CNN) – The chief executive of Barclays, who resigned Tuesday amid a bank lending scandal, will no longer co-host an upcoming fund-raiser for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a campaign spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday.

Bob Diamond, who stepped down from his role at one of the world's largest banks following the resignation of Barclay's chief operating officer, was slated to co-host the fund-raiser in London during Romney's upcoming trip to the Olympic Games.

Shame the resignation didn't come after the fundraiser.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/03/hows-our-model-doing/



A while back, Ezra — with the help of political scientists at Yale, UCLA, and George Washington University — developed Wonkblog’s very own presidential election model. It uses only three variables: economic growth during the first three quarters of the election year; the president’s average approval rating as measured by Gallup in June of the election year; and whether or not a candidate is a member of the incumbent party.

Now that June is over, and the presidential approval data are in, the second of those variables is set for the 2012 election. I went through Gallup’s tracking polls and found that Obama had an average approval rating of 46.46, virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s 46 percent June approval average in 2004. If second- and third-quarter economic growth stays at the first-quarter level of 1.9 percent, then the model predicts that Obama will win 82.5 percent of the time. Now, we won’t know the second-quarter GDP numbers until the end of this month (and the initial figures are often wrong and are revised later), and the third quarter hasn’t happened yet, so this could all change. But the president can find some comfort in the model now.
 
Political television ads always seem so weird to me. They're not even allowed in Norway. I guess recently some parties have tried to do something similar online, which is legal, but it never turns out quite.. like that. Well, except that one time our Conservative party made a video on the leader of the Socialist Left party, putting it to the tune of a Soviet military hymn honoring fallen soldiers in some particular battle (might be Leningrad or Stalingrad).
 
Mitt Romney: Individual Mandate 'Is A Tax'

he was for it before he was against it before he thought it was OK, which was just before he told a crowd that it was wrong and it doesn't work, but then he used to have undocumented people cutting his grass before he was running for public office for pete's sake BUT I am willing to bet he stands by what he said.....what ever that was....
 
Mitt Romney: Individual Mandate 'Is A Tax'

WASHINGTON -- Contradicting his own top campaign adviser, Mitt Romney on Wednesday declared that the individual mandate contained in President Barack Obama's health care law is, indeed, a tax and not a penalty against those who refuse to buy coverage

"I said that I agree with the [Supreme Court']s dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt [the individual mandate] was unconstitutional," Romney said in a released clip of a CBS News interview. "But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And now the Supreme Court has spoken. And while I agree with the dissent, that's taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it's a tax, and therefore, it is a tax."

Romney continued: "They have spoken. And there's no way around that. You can try and say you wish they decided a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is."

Romney also sat down with CNN for an interview, during which he repeated the new campaign line. The Supreme Court, he said, ruled that the mandate is a tax, "so it's a tax, of course, if that's what they say it is."

The remarks are a complete 180 from those made by two top advisers to the Romney campaign in recent days. Spokesperson Andrea Saul, two days ago, said that the governor "thinks [the mandate] is an unconstitutional penalty," not a tax. Top aide Eric Ferhnstrom, that same day, emphatically declared that the campaign did not believe the mandate was a tax.

"The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax," Fehrnstrom said in a Monday interview with MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown."


The comments from Romney, delivered during his July 4 break in New Hampshire, also clearly gave way to the counter-argument that, by his own definition, he raised taxes during his time as Massachusetts governor. The individual mandate, after all, is the concept that Romney helped spearhead as part of the health care overhaul in the Bay State. The penalty that citizens in his home state were subjected to should they opt not to buy insurance is greater than those levied under Obamacare.

The early clip of the CBS interview, however, doesn’t make clear if Romney was asked to address the mandate he signed into law and whether he now could be declared a tax-raiser. A request to the Romney campaign for the full transcript was not immediately returned. It is unclear when the network will air the interview.

The Romney campaign's abrupt reversal comes as conservatives pressured the candidate to use the Supreme Court's ruling -- which held that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' taxing power -- as a cudgel to attack the president. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus went so far as to openly break with the campaign's position, declaring that the individual mandate is a tax.

UPDATE: 3:28 p.m. -- The Romney campaign has released a fuller transcript of the CBS interview, in which the candidate is asked the question: If the mandate is a tax under Obamacare, isn't it also a tax under Masscare?

"Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates," Romney replied. "They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was."

The Romney campaign also sent over a portion of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in which he notes that because the Constitution "is not the source of" state power, states can act in ways that would be outlawed for the federal government. As Romney argues to CBS, "states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth ... which is what Massachusetts did."

This is a debate over semantics. In the end, the mandate used by Obama was virtually the same as the one used by Romney. Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who worked on both health care laws, told the Huffington Post as much recently. Although it is justified legally under different definitions, it is the same legislative instrument.

He was for it before he was against it before he thought it was OK, which was just before he told a crowd that it was wrong and it doesn't work, but then he used to have undocumented people cutting his grass before he was running for public office for pete's sake BUT I am willing to bet he stands by what he said.....what ever that was....
 
He's walking such a positional fine-line, message-wise that its so difficult for his surrogates to go out there to say anything without the potential of contradiction or tripping up now.

His message needs to be so finely tuned but at least he has a few months to do it.
 
Remember those "voter ID" laws certain people in this thread were so sanguine about? A new Pennsylvania law could disenfranchise almost one in ten legitimate Pennsylvania voters. Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth spins it as "this confirms that most Pennsylvanians have acceptable photo ID for voting this November."

:lol: These people are scum. Today's Republican party: "Most of you can vote."
 
Here's a good read on the sneaky financial crap Mittens has going:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

I don't know how Amerikans keep trusting these Republikans. I mean after Nixon and the whole Watergate thing, Reagan selling weapons to Iran and the Irancontra scandal meanwhile their "just say no" to drugs campaign while letting in loads and loads of coke to fund the same Contras, Bush and all his bogus Iraq war spiel . . . and now we're just beginning to find out about all of Mitten's hidden financial shenanigans. But still, about half the country will vote for them.

It's like having a junkie who lives downstairs, and first he steals your cricket bat, then a while later he steals your pot, then he takes money from your wife's purse, later on he fondles her when you're not home, yet you keep leaving the door open or inviting him over cause he seems like such a "nice guy" despite it all.
 
You'd think Reagan was our best president from listening to the republicans, most 'Mericans actually believe he didn't know about Iran Contra.

But then they also didn't want to hang GW Bush in the streets, for some strange reason. Strange people in this country. They mistrust information, they'd tell you politicians are full of crap, but they still vote for republicans who wreak havoc and democrats who won't stop the madness.
 
Remember those "voter ID" laws certain people in this thread were so sanguine about? A new Pennsylvania law could disenfranchise almost one in ten legitimate Pennsylvania voters. Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth spins it as "this confirms that most Pennsylvanians have acceptable photo ID for voting this November."

:lol: These people are scum. Today's Republican party: "Most of you can vote."

surely these are being challanged...hopefully coming to teh Supreme Court.

They violate Voting Rights Acts and Voter Registration acts. These are Federal Laws and cannot be overturned by States.
 
I love PA voters...they fecked off that prick Santorum from the Senate with a massive vote against him. What's going on with voter rolls is disgusting and a blatant attempt to steal the election again.
 
WASHINGTON -- Contradicting his own top campaign adviser, Mitt Romney on Wednesday declared that the individual mandate contained in President Barack Obama's health care law is, indeed, a tax and not a penalty against those who refuse to buy coverage

"I said that I agree with the [Supreme Court']s dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt [the individual mandate] was unconstitutional," Romney said in a released clip of a CBS News interview. "But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And now the Supreme Court has spoken. And while I agree with the dissent, that's taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it's a tax, and therefore, it is a tax."

Romney continued: "They have spoken. And there's no way around that. You can try and say you wish they decided a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is."

Romney also sat down with CNN for an interview, during which he repeated the new campaign line. The Supreme Court, he said, ruled that the mandate is a tax, "so it's a tax, of course, if that's what they say it is."

The remarks are a complete 180 from those made by two top advisers to the Romney campaign in recent days. Spokesperson Andrea Saul, two days ago, said that the governor "thinks [the mandate] is an unconstitutional penalty," not a tax. Top aide Eric Ferhnstrom, that same day, emphatically declared that the campaign did not believe the mandate was a tax.

"The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax," Fehrnstrom said in a Monday interview with MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown."


The comments from Romney, delivered during his July 4 break in New Hampshire, also clearly gave way to the counter-argument that, by his own definition, he raised taxes during his time as Massachusetts governor. The individual mandate, after all, is the concept that Romney helped spearhead as part of the health care overhaul in the Bay State. The penalty that citizens in his home state were subjected to should they opt not to buy insurance is greater than those levied under Obamacare.

The early clip of the CBS interview, however, doesn’t make clear if Romney was asked to address the mandate he signed into law and whether he now could be declared a tax-raiser. A request to the Romney campaign for the full transcript was not immediately returned. It is unclear when the network will air the interview.

The Romney campaign's abrupt reversal comes as conservatives pressured the candidate to use the Supreme Court's ruling -- which held that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' taxing power -- as a cudgel to attack the president. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus went so far as to openly break with the campaign's position, declaring that the individual mandate is a tax.

UPDATE: 3:28 p.m. -- The Romney campaign has released a fuller transcript of the CBS interview, in which the candidate is asked the question: If the mandate is a tax under Obamacare, isn't it also a tax under Masscare?

"Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates," Romney replied. "They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was."

The Romney campaign also sent over a portion of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in which he notes that because the Constitution "is not the source of" state power, states can act in ways that would be outlawed for the federal government. As Romney argues to CBS, "states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth ... which is what Massachusetts did."

This is a debate over semantics. In the end, the mandate used by Obama was virtually the same as the one used by Romney. Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who worked on both health care laws, told the Huffington Post as much recently. Although it is justified legally under different definitions, it is the same legislative instrument.

He was for it before he was against it before he thought it was OK, which was just before he told a crowd that it was wrong and it doesn't work, but then he used to have undocumented people cutting his grass before he was running for public office for pete's sake BUT I am willing to bet he stands by what he said.....what ever that was....

Obama's response: "The fact that a whole bunch of Republicans in Washington suddenly said this is a tax - for six years, he said it wasn't, and now he suddenly reversed himself," adding, "And so, the question becomes 'Are you doing that because of politics? Are you abandoning a principle that you fought for six years simply because you're getting pressure for two days?"

:lol::lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.