US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus would be a radical socialist, him with that free fish from the basket malarkey.
Then I am not sure what the tea-baggers & right wingers of the GOP even think of Mother Teresa... lesbian whore monger?
 
Redjazz said:
"It's the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country."

Quote from the Colbert Super PAC, temporarily known as The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, officially registered as Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, but considering changing it again to John Colbert Cougar Super MellenPAC.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
His fightback against Gingrich was quite impressive, he needed to show a balance of calmness and fire in his belly and he did it fairly easily.

He's not as smooth as I thought, quite prone to gaffes, but none of them are very serious, they're Biden level, embarrassing but not fatal. That said, he does need to stop calling attention to his high level of comfortableness with his own massive wealth... pink slips, $10K bet, I like being able to fire people, $350K is not very much, 'maybe' I'll reveal my taxes, I don't care about the poor... individually they're manageable but cumulatively they spell 'wanker'.

Still, I'm sticking to my prediction that if the economy slows he wins.
 
According to ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser, who was at the Capital Hilton for the dinner, O’Connor said that of the two leading Republican candidates, “one is a practicing polygamist, and he’s not even the Mormon.”
Click to expand...


oh-snap.jpg
 
gambit28 said:
If it's already been in here apologies, but who the hell is advising Romney on what to say.
Click to expand...


I don't think it'll be that damning, the poorest Americans won't vote for him either way. It would be akin to Thatcher telling the Scots to get fecked before her second term.

I can see it being poorly reacted to by progressives, but again I don't think any of them would bother with Romney either.
 
RedKaos said:
I don't think it'll be that damning, the poorest Americans won't vote for him either way. It would be akin to Thatcher telling the Scots to get fecked before her second term.

I can see it being poorly reacted to by progressives, but again I don't think any of them would bother with Romney either.
Click to expand...

Voters struggling with employment or any undecided voter struggling with money will have to think twice before voting for him. If he wants to focus on the economy and Obama's job record, he can't come across as someone who is seemingly callous towards a large demographic of people who happen to not have jobs. Some people are struggling under Obama, and whether or not it's his fault and whether or not it's within their best interests to do so, they're considering possibly voting for his opponent. This is a very clear way to send a message to them that he doesn't care all that much about their problems and shut the door in their face.

Old people are dying and more young people are voting. The country's turning blue and Romney's fighting from the minority side. He can't sit pat. He has to get people to switch in order to win, and he's shutting out a lot of people that are considering switching.
 
the poor does not mean just those on welfare. The majority are working full time but just not earning enough to make ends meet.

...and this guy does not include them as Americans and therefore he does not care for them.

so at a time when the vast majority of people are concerned with an unfair system that helps the wealthy, the Repubs are going to nominate the greatest example of someone who represents the 'bad guy'.

This is what happens when the intellectuals are driven out of the party and what is left are the religious zealots and the cluless gimps...errr I mean the tea party.
 
Good News

Jobs created in January - 243,000
Unemployment rate - 8.3% down 0.2% from December

All good news for Obama and the country as a whole.....


Perspective

Total nonfarm payroll employment now stands at 132.4 million jobs, after some benchmark revisions, or about 5.6 million jobs lower than the 138 million at the peak in January 2008.

In other words, it will take many more months of this sort of job growth just to get employment back to where it was four years ago.
 
Why do the media continue to give that odious, attention seeking media whore Trump the time of day?

Who gives a feck who he endorses.
 
Smashed market estimates by 100K. Unemployment rate close to a 3-Yr low too.

Impressive figures.
 
The unemployment trajectory is clearly downwards at this point. Right now, we're back where we were after Obama's first month in office (8.3). A majority of the unemployment spike took place in Bush's final year, so if we're in the mid 7s by the summer, Obama can confidently point to numbers that show he's turned the economy around.
 
Red Dreams said:
the poor does not mean just those on welfare. The majority are working full time but just not earning enough to make ends meet.

...and this guy does not include them as Americans and therefore he does not care for them.so at a time when the vast majority of people are concerned with an unfair system that helps the wealthy, the Repubs are going to nominate the greatest example of someone who represents the 'bad guy'.

This is what happens when the intellectuals are driven out of the party and what is left are the religious zealots and the cluless gimps...errr I mean the tea party.
Click to expand...

That's just your lefty spin on it RD. The exact people you're talking about, those who aren't poor but are struggling, are the ones he was talking about needing help. Now if he really cares, thats what I would be concerned with.
 
Cali Red said:
That's just your lefty spin on it RD. The exact people you're talking about, those who aren't poor but are struggling, are the ones he was talking about needing help. Now if he really cares, thats what I would be concerned with.
Click to expand...


lefty spin??

if you are below the poverty line, you are poor whether you are working or not.

care to explain why you would be concerned if he cares about the poor?
 
You can see what he is trying to say and the political reasons for saying it but he's worded it in an absolutely awful way. And the fact that he makes as much as he does just makes the message sound even worse.
 
africanspur said:
You can see what he is trying to say and the political reasons for saying it but he's worded it in an absolutely awful way. And the fact that he makes as much as he does just makes the message sound even worse.
Click to expand...

he is just trying to copy what the President has been saying.

But Romney is just a very poor candidate. He cannot connect with ordinary people. that is the biggest concern for the average republican.
 
The job numbers are a huge boost for Obama. The jobless numbers are down to similair level to a few montsh after he was elected. If you consider it takes at least a couple of years for polices to take effect then the peak of the jobless numbers are firmly on GW Bush's shoulders.

It really would be a shame if Romney got in office as the economy was turning and stook around for a couple of terms.
 
Red Dreams said:
lefty spin??
Click to expand...

Yes.

if you are below the poverty line, you are poor whether you are working or not.
Click to expand...

Ok. But I'm not sure what you're saying here.

care to explain why you would be concerned if he cares about the poor?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not sure what he cares about. The problem with guys like him is it's hard to nail down their true beliefs because they say what they need to gain office. If a politician says something that comes out that is even the looked at the slightest bit controversial they break out the 'out of context' or 'let me clarify'. When I said if he 'really cares I would be concerned' I mean concerned with if he really does or he's just saying it. I think based on his comment he believes the gov't is there to help already so focusing on the middle class by default helps the very poor.
 
mjs020294 said:
The job numbers are a huge boost for Obama. The jobless numbers are down to similair level to a few montsh after he was elected. If you consider it takes at least a couple of years for polices to take effect then the peak of the jobless numbers are firmly on GW Bush's shoulders.

It really would be a shame if Romney got in office as the economy was turning and stook around for a couple of terms.
Click to expand...

For sure. If he keeps even a slight trend up he will be unstoppable. I've seen the repubs are spinning the numbers but most people don't look deep into it. They see the headline 'unemployment drops' and that makes them feel better. This then leads to consumer confidence, spending, etc.
 
It's a shame that as keen as so many of us would be for a legitimate 3rd party, the mongrels that actually make a run of it inevitably turn it into a publicity whoring circus. The first and probably worst in recent history being Buchanan. As I recall he crapped out of the republican race and then proceeded to devalue the 3rd party option by crashing their party. Trump playing his publicity games with it a few years ago only devalued it further. I guess Perot was a serious, if perhaps unpolished candidate, and before him I've heard that Anderson was a legitimate figure.

Anyway, it's a shame. I still reckon a centrist party would be a good place to start. At least conceptually it wouldn't serve as so much of a spoiler. It might even turn my head.
 
problem with any 3rd party run is they need to have the same amount of money the other parties do.

Campaign Finance reform has to be the start.For that to happen we need a clean Supreme Court.

Hopefully Thomas and Scalia will kick the bucket soon :)
 
Red Dreams said:
problem with any 3rd party run is they need to have the same amount of money the other parties do.

Campaign Finance reform has to be the start.For that to happen we need a clean Supreme Court.

Hopefully Thomas and Scalia will kick the bucket soon :)
Click to expand...

As I read this post I thought you and I agreed on something for the first time......then I got to the end.

;)
 
Plechazunga said:
Nader fecked the world.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're serious, but I certainly agree. He seems to score quite a few points on this board with all his "corporatist" talk. Fair enough, but aside from this he rarely made an effort to present any sort of coherent and comprehensive world view. What got me was his despicable arrogance. When asked after the Iraq invasion whom he would have voted for, he still had to bang on with his "Who cares, they're all corporate stooges" crap. Aside from the tens of thousands of Iraqis that won't ever care about anything again, who didn't care? I can't think of a candidate less likely to be "representative". Dogmatic prick.

Also reckon we missed a real chance for a good man with Gore. An actually intelligent fella with some reasonable progressive ideas and an strong eye towards the environment.

Sorry, rant over. I guess this thread is meant to be about this election and all.
 
Yeah no, I was being serious, if somewhat hyperbolic.

The one thing I'd say in his defence is that despite the extremity of the current GOP, in US politics there's consensus between parties on so much, and so much that's pernicious. The drugs war, the destruction of civil liberties since the Patriot Act, the unconditional support for Israel, drone attacks, etc. If you always cede to the argument that a run from the left will let in a Republican who's worse, you are basically accepting those things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.