Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Daveman]

I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat 

Better than the pretentious solemn, sad, demeanor leaders feign during these times when I doubt they really give a darn about anyone who died or even that they died, unless of course those deaths carry a negative impact to their careers.  It takes a special breed of feces to be a politician regardless of party.


Of course, I can't prove that they don't care... but the latter point is rather self evident! 

[GQBlues]

...Nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

Might as well work on making them productive citizens.

 …and the politicians better figure this out sooner than later although I seriously doubt anyone can afford to lose votes. I have an idea how to work this…but my time is precious 

The irony in this situation is, especially the progressive party since they’re the one who seem to rally behind these issues in our society today, cheap labor borne by the ‘illegal’ hiring of illegal immigrants take away from our labor in the same manner outsourcing does. This is what confuses me about the Democrats (folks - not the stooges in  suits), they rail against conservatives because they blame loss of work for outsourcing companies and corporation, but ‘ignore’ the total impact of illegal immigrants providing ‘cheap labor’ to exploiting employers but shower them with some misguided, silly sensibilities instead. Isn't 'cheap labor' the very impetus of outsourcing our jobs?

Give that some thoughts, BC and tell me how that makes sense…
 
Thought on today’s events:

Bernanke:  Be careful with today’s NYSE. The appearance of the bull is deceiving. The rise is strictly based on negative economics.
Carrying the present interest rates in the credit sector not only hurt ‘real money’ market’ but also dangerously invite another coming of a housing bubble. This is what got us hurt in the first place and I do not understand why Bernanke chose this path. Print money may entice borrowing to build/buy/sell homes, but isn’t that the signature line of the housing bubble?
 
Libya/Egypt (Yemen/Iraq) and the political posturing:

I very strongly disagree with Romney’s antics. An attack against the US is an act of war. You simply do not show anything other than solidarity with your C-I-C during these times. If he has a need to disagree with any of the administration’s action, do so during debate or sometime after this event. I’d fire his campaign manager and convince the Romney's camp to STFU for now.

I won’t be surprise if he shed votes from here on in because of it.

Romney is showing is inexperience in this regard. That’s not leadership quality. He looks like a patronizing buffoon. The more I hear his silliness about this, the more I feel like sitting this election out. Remember Obama’s reaction with the Henry Gates’ affair? 2 Buffoons running for presidency in God's country.
 

[Daveman]

Wow, I wasn't aware that the term bullshit was so offensive to the guy that passes out dildos to his dates.

Technically speaking, I think they were G-spot vibrators.. what, exactly, constitutes a dildo? (other than holding political orifice).

It's a little late in your life for a civics class ML. I will assume you are familiar with the three branches of government? Your representatives and senators are your first line of representation in the federal government. You should vote for them very carefully based on the direction you wish to see the federal government move rather than just accepting "I will vote for my party and hope they do the right thing".

That's bullshit. You hold them accountable. You voice your opinion to them on their vote on the bills that interest or affect you. Do you know who your Congressmen and Senators are? Have you got their phone numbers or ever even spoke to them? Whether you voted for them or not, whether they represent your party or not, they are still your representation and it is your civic duty to hold them accountable rather than just sit back and let things happen around you. Next?

But, how does that change the point ML was attempting to make?  IF they vote along party lines most of the time, why does it matter which party member is elected?  How does voicing one's opinion influence that?  Or holding them accountable?  It seems by virtue of their having been elected that the constituents mostly agree with the party platform in that represented area.


I have three simple rules for voting. 


1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).


2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)


3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

[tfcrew]

[Eduard]

some of it is BS though. Like the commentator says that Mitt Romney would let the auto industry die. When in fact Mitt said that he would let it go through bankruptcy, which isn't the same thing. In fact they may still go through  bankruptcy despite billions of taxpayer dollars wasted spent to "save" them.

[Turboguy]

I have three simple rules for voting. 

1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).

2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)

3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

And it has been how many decades since you found a candidate you could vote for?   Oh, Nixon was the last.
 

[Faux Pas]

Technically speaking, I think they were G-spot vibrators.. what, exactly, constitutes a dildo? (other than holding political orifice).

da'mater, tomato

But, how does that change the point ML was attempting to make?  IF they vote along party lines most of the time, why does it matter which party member is elected?  How does voicing one's opinion influence that?  Or holding them accountable?  It seems by virtue of their having been elected that the constituents mostly agree with the party platform in that represented area.

I wasn't trying to change his point. His point is his point. I called it bullshit and lazy and it is.  That is permitting others to do your thinking for you. Voting along party lines in the hope that the elected will march goose step with the party is in essence, bullshit. It is exactly why we find ourselves in the quandary we are in today. That isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they drew up the Constitution nor could it be considered representation IMHO.

I have three simple rules for voting. 


1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).


2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)


3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

So, you are a Godless heathen who hasn't voted in the last 40 years. There are no metals for that 

[BillyB]

40 pages and no mention of women? What's the matter with you guys?
 
The most important thing this election is JOBS! With jobs people have more in their pocket and life is good. Companies create jobs when business is good. From workers and companies, government gets tax money and can do more things with that money... if the economy is good. If people and government don't have money, forget about the other issues. No money to clean the environment, no money for social programs, etc...
 
Some say they are voting for the lesser of two evils. Why vote evil? Neither candidate is evil. They have different ways of doing things and the majority of Americans agree with their means and methods. Are the majority of Americans wrong or evil in their beliefs?
 
If the American economy gets better, so will the rest of the World's. When America sneezes, the World catches a cold and we sneezed.
 
Debt. Used every election to scare people to vote in certain ways. Debt is ugly but I'm not worried about it. America has the most debt but #2 is United Kingdom and guess who they owe the most too? USA. Even China has debt. We owe people and people owe us. America has control over the International monitary fund and World Bank. Why? Because we have the most money! If you ask a country to trade places by accepting our debt and what we own, what do you think they would do?
 
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html
 
Racism. There's worse racism in other countries and I believe most people will vote for the candidate that represent their ideals but there is a small amount of people that will never vote for Obamo or Romney based on the color of their skin. Racists mumber small and the same on both sides and non factor in the election.
 
Economy. Obama didn't get it done. I read an article in the newspaper that said stocks did better when Obama was president compared to Bush. How can this be? Obama said he represents Main Street, not Wall Street.
 
Bush inherited a bad economy from Clinton. Being Presidential and unlike Obama, he never pointed fingers. If the economy was good, Gore would have been president.
 
Not only did Bush inherit a bad economy, shortly after 9/11 happened. After that the housing market crashed and Bush got the blame. Clinton wanted to get poor people into homes. He relaxed the rules to buy homes. Banks didn't want to discriminate and didn't check to see how much money people actually made and if they were actually working. People lied to buy homes or upgrade to better home and extended themselves financially. There's a reason some people are poor. They aren't financially responsible.
 
If Obama had a 9/11 and housing market crash, I don't think the stocks would be where it is today.
 
How can anybody who voted for Obama be satisfied with the results? My dad who never voted for a Republican is voting for Mitt Romney. If a guy doesn't get the job done, fire him and send a message to the rest of the politicians that they better perform.

[GQBlues]

...
1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).

2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)

3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

Agree, and I have just the candidate for you. He's got my vote...






Sorry Muzh, he's a white dude.

[GQBlues]

Absolute genius!

[Faux Pas]

Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself: [size=78%]


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits  [size=78%] [/size]

No, I say again Misha, "that is what you wanted to see". And what you want it to be. You are drinking the kool-aid of sheeple

[Misha]

No, I say again Misha, "that is what you wanted to see". And what you want it to be. You are drinking the kool-aid of sheeple

Well, Faux Pas, it is the American "sheeple" who will vote and IMVHO Romney had better perform very well in the first debate if he wants to turn this around.

[Eduard]

Word out is that Obama had intelligence that the attack on our embassy in Libya was imminent on 9/11/12, yet nothing was done to secure it and protect the ambassador and the personal. Obama was campaigning for his reelection while our ambassador was sodomised and then killed. Good job Mr. Obama!

[Faux Pas]

Well, Faux Pas, it is the American "sheeple" who will vote and IMVHO Romney had better perform very well in the first debate if he wants to turn this around.

You are confused Misha. It is the sheeple who will lap up the disinformation being distributed by the liberal mainstream media and proclaim it as fact. Just such as you did with this "Romney smirk" smear. There is no "smirk" in that clip you presented but, it is obvious you want there to be.

If you don't recognize that the American mainstream media and Hollywood fawning all over Obama at the expense of the truth, you're not looking. It is those sheeple along with the people of the US that will vote in said election.

[Gator]

 
Economy. Obama didn't get it done. I read an article in the newspaper that said stocks did better when Obama was president compared to Bush. How can this be? Obama said he represents Main Street, not Wall Street.
 

Muzh raised the same point, and it is true.  Evidently some explanation is needed because Obama had nothing to do with it.  In fact it happened in spite of Obama's programs pullng in the opposite direction.
 
 
The increase in stock value corresponds to monetary easing by the Federal Reserve.  The Fed has a dual mandate, employment and inflation.  For most of its history the Fed has focused on inflation.  However, the continued high unemployment is problematic.   To reduce unemployment the Fed has initiated a series of  programs to accommodate lending, i. e., qualitative easing (QE).
 
The Fed initiated QE1 in November 2008 and it lasted to June 2009.  The economy almost stalled again so the Fed did another phase (QE2) from November 2010 to June 2011.   Again the economy has almost stalled so yesterday the Fed started QE3.  This time the Fed said it would continue indefinitely.
 
http://www.igindex.co.uk/content/files/qer3_sep11.pdf

 
What happened yesterday upon announcing QE3?  The DJIA (the Dow) jumped over 200 points to a level higher than its peak in 2007 and very near its all time high.
 
   
 
What are the implications?  QE is a surrogate for printing money.  Such is not good as someday we must pay the piper.   Do you recall 1981-82 when the mortgage rate was near 16%!!!!!!  That was the medicine we had to take after a period of inflation during Carter's presidency.  However, the economy is so bad that inflation does not seem like a threat for years to come.   
 
Even with all the economic troubles the European community faces,  in response to QE3 the Euro has continued to advance while the dollar declines.   This illustrates how bad things really are.
 
What to do?  The Fed sets the monetary policy.  Yet without a sound fiscal policy the economic  problems will not be solved.  The Democrats have been in control.   They did not address fiscal policy, and instead worsened it with stimulus programs.   It is time to take our medicine, pay the piper and redirect America.
 

[Daveman]

...

I wasn't trying to change his point. His point is his point. I called it bullshit and lazy and it is.  That is permitting others to do your thinking for you. Voting along party lines in the hope that the elected will march goose step with the party is in essence, bullshit. It is exactly why we find ourselves in the quandary we are in today. That isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they drew up the Constitution nor could it be considered representation IMHO.

We are so far off from the vision of the founding fathers that it's ridiculous.  From our Ponzi Scheme Economy, to the raping and murdering of Freedom through executive orders (IMO should be view as an act of treason and treated as such) to the worship of profit at any cost and the ME me ME me ME me ME me society. 


IF they vote along party lines then it makes no difference which party member is elected.  It's more about who looks better on TV...     SO rather than being bullshit, it's voter downsizing and efficiency at its finest... 


One can make a difference at the local level. The Fed gov't was, by design, almost a non entity at the inception. 


At this point just about the safest course of action would be to make sure to vote opposite party members to anywhere one can.. so neither party has enough power to screw things up further.

So, you are a Godless heathen who hasn't voted in the last 40 years. There are no metals for that 

I vote religiously (har har) but had to add another rule.. I vote for no one, ever, who is a republican or democrat.    [size=78%] [/size]

[Daveman]

Agree, and I have just the candidate for you. He's got my vote...

HAH!!  I'll  write him in.... 

[Gator]

HAH!!  I'll  write him in....

But he did not  feed the multitude with five loaves of bread and two fish.

[Daveman]

And it has been how many decades since you found a candidate you could vote for?   Oh, Nixon was the last.

LoL.. and I needed my fake ID to vote for Nixon!  Ahhh, a fond memory.. not of Nixon, whose legacy still has not reached the nadir of disaster it one day will, but  rather to the days when the words "made in USA"... ah nevermind...

[Gator]

Is anyone feeling deja vu?
 
Carter in 1979, the overthrow of the Shah, and Iran becoming a growing menace.
 
Obama in 2011 allowing the overthrow of Mubarak and Qaddafi. 
 
It is not playing out as fast as it did in Iran, yet there are some parallels.  And I assert the eventual outcome is not clear.
 
BTW Carter also had a bad economy during his tenure.

[Gator]

 
Romney  has been a moderate all his life (or otherwise Massachusetts would never have elected him governor).  However, he had to change colors to secure the Republican nomination.   This supports the point ML was making about the party vs, the person.
 
 

[Faux Pas]

We are so far off from the vision of the founding fathers that it's ridiculous.  From our Ponzi Scheme Economy, to the raping and murdering of Freedom through executive orders (IMO should be view as an act of treason and treated as such) to the worship of profit at any cost and the ME me ME me ME me ME me society. 


IF they vote along party lines then it makes no difference which party member is elected.  It's more about who looks better on TV...     SO rather than being bullshit, it's voter downsizing and efficiency at its finest... 


One can make a difference at the local level. The Fed gov't was, by design, almost a non entity at the inception. 


At this point just about the safest course of action would be to make sure to vote opposite party members to anywhere one can.. so neither party has enough power to screw things up further.


I vote religiously (har har) but had to add another rule.. I vote for no one, ever, who is a republican or democrat.    [size=78%] [/size]

I have voted along party lines when I didn't give a rat's patootie about either candidate. While I was a card carrying Republican I also voted for Democratic candidates. Most generally I will vote for the one that is more in line with my personal political philosophy. Regardless if they have shown their Stepford families on TV 

It matters little to me which one wins. I will still follow and watch them closely. I pay attention to Bills introduced and on the floor. I know my Congresspersons and Senators. Most know me. I am quick to contact them for criticism or praise of their performance regardless of their party affiliation. Sometimes they contact me. Quite often they avoid me but, that doesn't slow me down

[Daveman]

But he did not  feed the multitude with five loaves of bread and two fish.

Heh... no he did not, but your comment does emphasize a related point -- that Jesus does seem to be the first documented Master of quantitative easing...so when he returns, I'll need to add him to the "Do Not Vote" list..

[tfcrew]

Do you think Romney might be getting a big head?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=WEymNcIHpvc&NR=1

[GQBlues]

Is anyone feeling deja vu?
 
Carter in 1979, the overthrow of the Shah, and Iran becoming a growing menace.
 
Obama in 2011 allowing the overthrow of Mubarak and Qaddafi. 
 
It is not playing out as fast as it did in Iran, yet there are some parallels.  And I assert the eventual outcome is not clear.
 
BTW Carter also had a bad economy during his tenure.

That's more than sheer coincidence. The phrase "those who don't learn from history....".

All this Global Contingency Operation BS is nothing more than trying to brown-nose ourselves behind an arse that we shouldn't be doing in the first place. Carter weakened our global position position in that region and Obama did the exact same thing.

If that isn't enough, the embassy tweet only reinforces the notion we are a country without a leader. When that happens, there's no 'alternative ending' on this re-run. It always ends with brutal take-overs and we're left watching smoke billow out from every fiber of our collective stupidity.