2012 Election Thread

You fuckers are funny as shit, but the joke is on you. Irony is that what I posted will actually make the rounds of conservative media whereas what you say won't make the rounds of any liberal media or the "liberal" media. So make all the snide comments you want cause I'll be :rofl: at all the cries about the "liberal media bias" tomorrow.
 
Pretty shitty debate in my opinion. Can we vote to have no one in the White House for the next 4 years instead? It'd be a vast improvement over what we have now, plus it'd be much more entertaining.
 
Sorry your guy had his ass handed to him.

At least we had the decency to admit when our candidate showed up and got schooled. I'm really enjoying your version of "Mitt Romney lost": whine about the moderator and say that the whole thing stinks.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sorry your guy had his ass handed to him.

At least we had the decency to admit when our candidate showed up and got schooled. I'm really enjoying your version of "Mitt Romney lost": whine about the moderator and say that the whole thing stinks.[/QUOTE]

People think Obama did the best? I thought Romney was doing great at obfuscating just about everything during the debate.

Maybe I just can't get into the 'undecided' voter mindset.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sorry your guy had his ass handed to him.

At least we had the decency to admit when our candidate showed up and got schooled. I'm really enjoying your version of "Mitt Romney lost": whine about the moderator and say that the whole thing stinks.[/QUOTE]

also...the audience was stacked with Obama supporters...grumble. Liberal media
 
[quote name='ID2006']People think Obama did the best? I thought Romney was doing great at obfuscating just about everything during the debate.

Maybe I just can't get into the 'undecided' voter mindset.[/QUOTE]
For them, it's all about presentation; not content. Romney came off like a total asshole last night though.
 
Yep. There's really no such thing as an informed undecided voter this late in the game. Maybe a few centrists who just don't like either guy I suppose, but otherwise it's just uniformed people who aren't paying attention.

Anyone that doesn't know who they're voting for by the time debates roll around jsut isn't someone who knows each person's platform or really cares to for the most part. And even if they did care, debates aren't a useful platform for getting informed anyway as it's just two candidates repeating the same talking points they've been saying for months.

So it mostly comes down to presentation. Not looking like an asshole. Not looking like you don't care as Obama did in the first debate. Making people like you and think you have their interest at heart better than the other guy etc.
 
[quote name='dohdough']For them, it's all about presentation; not content. Romney came off like a total asshole last night though.[/QUOTE]

Yep. My wife who is probably a decent example of an undecided voter (and probably someone who won't vote period because she doesn't feel comfortable for blind voting) thought he was an asshole last night also. Flat out said she didn't like how he was coming off and she doesn't pay attention to any of their plans for office.
 
to be fair:
Romney interupting Obama makes him an asshole but apparently Biden interupting Ryan makes Biden cool and funny.

I really wish Obama would have taken the three seconds necessary for the last question to say "I'm not Muslim, I'm not a Socialist Commie Marxist Anti-American whatever, I was born here and this bullshit just needs to stop." because that would have been pretty damn rad.
 
[quote name='usickenme']also...the audience was stacked with Obama supporters...grumble. Liberal media[/QUOTE]

You mean the 82 undecided voters gathered by the Gallup Organization?
 
[quote name='nasum']to be fair:
Romney interupting Obama makes him an asshole but apparently Biden interupting Ryan makes Biden cool and funny.[/quote]
Nah...Biden came off like an asshole and Ryan came off like a big douche.

I really wish Obama would have taken the three seconds necessary for the last question to say "I'm not Muslim, I'm not a Socialist Commie Marxist Anti-American whatever, I was born here and this bullshit just needs to stop." because that would have been pretty damn rad.
That's what I said when I heard the question, but when Romney said he believed in god, I couldn't help but wonder which one.:lol:
 
Did a round up of the rags and looks like most agree that the debate was at best a draw and a sorry ass debate unless you ask a hard leftie or rightie then of course their horse won. I agree in that it was embarrassing watching those two bafoons. Embarrassing because in a so called presidential debate they acted like a couple of school children on the playground. Neither one came across as anywhere near presidential material and I would go with the draw because they were both losers by that standard.

Politics as usual these days I suppose. If that is the best we expect or hold our politicians to then that is what we get.
 
I think it's just a sign of the times, politics has gotten pretty brutal lately, and these debates reflect that. By the next election I fully expect steel cage matches.
 
I am late to the party about the conventions. But I was wondering why any party would put that sleaze ball Bill Clinton as a spokesperson for their party? That man is nothing but a sleeze and yet he was held up high as some golden voice for the democrats. I mean really that is your golden boy?

Republicans any better? Hell no. But at least they didn't put up Arnold as their golden boy.

The democrats should be distancing themselves from that sleaze not embracing him.

Oh my modern politics and the standards we expect are quite a mess.
 
[quote name='Recycle']I am late to the party about the conventions. But I was wondering why any party would put that sleaze ball Bill Clinton as a spokesperson for their party? That man is nothing but a sleeze and yet he was held up high as some golden voice for the democrats. I mean really that is your golden boy?

Republicans any better? Hell no. But at least they didn't put up Arnold as their golden boy.

The democrats should be distancing themselves from that sleaze not embracing him.

Oh my modern politics and the standards we expect are quite a mess.[/QUOTE]
In Bill's defense, who hasn't gotten a hummer from a fat chick and tried to cover it up?
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']In Bill's defense, who hasn't gotten a hummer from a fat chick and tried to cover it up?[/QUOTE]
:rofl:

But in all seriousness he is a sleaze and that it what he chose to be and that is fine. But the golden boy of the democrat party that is really sad.
 
what's really sad is that this is your attempt to get involved in engaging political conversation.

Romney's 5 point plan? http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan
1) drill, baby, drill
2) go to war with China
3) magical jobs appear!
4) eliminate PBS and the deficit will disappear
5) cut income taxes, eliminate capital gains taxes. ignore #4.
 
Yeah all I hear from conservatives around me is "Obama is going to slam the middle class, Mittens will cut taxes."

He keeps spouting this five point plan that doesn't really seem to help the middle class at all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what's really sad is that this is your attempt to get involved in engaging political conversation.

Romney's 5 point plan? http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan
1) drill, baby, drill
2) go to war with China
3) magical jobs appear!
4) eliminate PBS and the deficit will disappear
5) cut income taxes, eliminate capital gains taxes. ignore #4.[/QUOTE]

And this post by you is an example of quality political conversation?
You showed me. :drool:
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Yeah all I hear from conservatives around me is "Obama is going to slam the middle class, Mittens will cut taxes."

He keeps spouting this five point plan that doesn't really seem to help the middle class at all.[/QUOTE]

So your first question was rhetorical? Or do you already have an opinion on it but you don't know what it is?
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Yeah all I hear from conservatives around me is "Obama is going to slam the middle class, Mittens will cut taxes."

He keeps spouting this five point plan that doesn't really seem to help the middle class at all.[/QUOTE]
That's because it won't.

edit- "Reagan Economic Zone"? Is he fucking serious?
 
[quote name='Recycle']Here is the one pager http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan also there is the full plan laid out on his site as well. I would suggest you go over it and Obama's plans as well.[/QUOTE]

Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices. America’s economy will boom when the billions of dollars we send overseas for our oil are kept here at home instead.

Part two of the plan is trade that works for America. Mitt believes that trade can offer enormous opportunities for American businesses and workers, but only if they are given a level playing field on which they can compete and win. That is why he will work to open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs.

Part three is to provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

Part four is to cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

Finally, part five of Mitt’s plan is to champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.


Ok so I read this and honestly I am trying to see how this is different from what Obama wants to do. Over the past 3 years oil production on federal lands is up 10.4% and will grow the more the government forces oil companies to use the land instead of sitting on it to drive prices up. Creating a trade export is part of the Obama platform. The educating of people for skilled jobs is a focal point of the Obama administration. The biggest difference is Obama wants the government to help you while Romney says you should just borrow from your parents. Cutting the deficit is nothing but blah blah blah since he has not provided one area where deficit reduction is feasible. PBS and Planned Parenthood won't cut shit. Part five is nothing but lip service. If cutting taxes always helped small business then why have the last 12 years been so stagnate? And regulation is another boogeyman word conservatives like to throw out without any real context. Frankly, I see both Obama and Romney closer on this issue than others so things like abortion, gay marriage, women's rights etc. mean more to me in differentiating the two of them.
 
Agreed.

The main major differences between Obama and Romey's platform are more or less the following (and I'm not listing problems/inaccuracies etc. with these--just what they're plans are).

1. Taxes/Deficit reduction. Obama wants to up taxes on higher income brackets, capital gains etc. and close loopholes. Romney wants to cut taxes 20% across the board, and says he can make it be revenue neutral by closing loopholes.

2. Healthcare. Romney would repeal Obama care, but keep some parts (kids on parents insurance until 26, no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions) etc. in place. But would still mean fewer poor people getting insurance.

3. Social issues. Romney/Ryan are pro-life, would appoint pro-life judges, cut funding to Planned Parenthood, keep insurance from having to cover contraceptions etc. They oppose gay marriage, Obama spoke in support of it. And so on.

4. Foreign Policy. Romney views Russia as an enemy, would further rile relations with China, more likely to intervene militarily in Iran etc.

There's other stuff, but that's the big picture stuff where the differences are most stark between the two platforms.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']
Ok so I read this and honestly I am trying to see how this is different from what Obama wants to do. Over the past 3 years oil production on federal lands is up 10.4% and will grow the more the government forces oil companies to use the land instead of sitting on it to drive prices up. Creating a trade export is part of the Obama platform. The educating of people for skilled jobs is a focal point of the Obama administration. The biggest difference is Obama wants the government to help you while Romney says you should just borrow from your parents. Cutting the deficit is nothing but blah blah blah since he has not provided one area where deficit reduction is feasible. PBS and Planned Parenthood won't cut shit. Part five is nothing but lip service. If cutting taxes always helped small business then why have the last 12 years been so stagnate? And regulation is another boogeyman word conservatives like to throw out without any real context. Frankly, I see both Obama and Romney closer on this issue than others so things like abortion, gay marriage, women's rights etc. mean more to me in differentiating the two of them.[/QUOTE]

I see the two as sides of the same coin and both of them providing lip service for politics as usual. Unfortunately we are screwed no matter which of the two win and that is my honest opinion. My vote doesn't matter this election in deciding which bafoon will win. Even if it did I would probably sit it out anyway. I am sick and tired of the politicians/candidates being forced upon us and being told they are the end all be all. Well if that is true and we have accepted that to be true as it seems we have then there is no hope for this country anyway. I find our whole political system to be broken and I don't see that changing and it definitely wont change if Romney or Obama is elected.
 
[quote name='Recycle']I am late to the party about the conventions. But I was wondering why any party would put that sleaze ball Bill Clinton as a spokesperson for their party? That man is nothing but a sleeze and yet he was held up high as some golden voice for the democrats. I mean really that is your golden boy?

Republicans any better? Hell no. But at least they didn't put up Arnold as their golden boy.

The democrats should be distancing themselves from that sleaze not embracing him.

Oh my modern politics and the standards we expect are quite a mess.[/QUOTE]
I hear a lot of mudslinging, but don't see a lot of content. Do you think Eastwood was as bad or better than Clinton after he acted like he had Alzheimers? For someone that wants a deeper discussion, you sure don't provide a lot of substance or analysis, just more fluff.

I'm glad that you cleaned up your grammar though, Pliskin.

[quote name='Recycle']:rofl:

But in all seriousness he is a sleaze and that it what he chose to be and that is fine. But the golden boy of the democrat party that is really sad.[/QUOTE]
Again, why is he sleaze?

Oh, and it's Democrat-IC party.
 
[quote name='Clak']I remember Romney being a little unclear on the pre existing condition subject I think.[/QUOTE]

If Romney gets elected, the pre-existing condition requirement would probably stay.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If Romney gets elected, the pre-existing condition requirement would probably stay.[/QUOTE]
Here's the catch, what he's talking about is someone who has coverage, loses it, and goes to seek new coverage, they couldn't be denied because of per-existing conditions. That doesn't include people seeking outright new coverage with pre-existing conditions. I remember him saying this a while back, I think on the Tonight Show of all places. He more or less had the opinion that if you'd been working you deserved to not be rejected, if you hadn't been working, well screw you.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-08/romney-s-preexisting-conditions-put-36-million-at-risk

Romney’s plan would void the administration’s law and instead bar insurers from denying coverage to those “who have maintained continuing coverage,” according to Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign.
 
[quote name='Clak']Here's the catch, what he's talking about is someone who has coverage, loses it, and goes to seek new coverage, they couldn't be denied because of per-existing conditions. That doesn't include people seeking outright new coverage with pre-existing conditions. I remember him saying this a while back, I think on the Tonight Show of all places. He more or less had the opinion that if you'd been working you deserved to not be rejected, if you hadn't been working, well screw you.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-08/romney-s-preexisting-conditions-put-36-million-at-risk[/QUOTE]

You really only need to watch the first minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gCTGJDrHr9w
 
[quote name='Clak']Here's the catch, what he's talking about is someone who has coverage, loses it, and goes to seek new coverage, they couldn't be denied because of per-existing conditions. That doesn't include people seeking outright new coverage with pre-existing conditions. I remember him saying this a while back, I think on the Tonight Show of all places. He more or less had the opinion that if you'd been working you deserved to not be rejected, if you hadn't been working, well screw you.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-08/romney-s-preexisting-conditions-put-36-million-at-risk[/QUOTE]

I think you're sort of looking of how things would go a bit differently than me. Romney isn't going to be able to pass his own health care legislation if elected. What he's going to have to do is change what's already there. Assuming he can do anything at all.
 
I think Bill Clinton's was a good president overall, but he is a sleaze. He broke his oath to his wife, while holding the most trusted position in the country.....with a chubby gal.;-) How can you believe anything he says if he will lie and deceive the most important person in his life?
Help me out with the pre-existing condition debate, does the 35 year old guy with a heart condition pay a much higher rate? Smokers do, right? Its a risk assessment calculation by the insurance company.
Lastly, I do see a lot more similarities between the parties than differences, but the method of achievement differs. Whether to extend the governments powers beyond those laid out in the Constitution or not seems to be the question. If only the Republicans truly meant it.;-)
 
You're being far too kind. When Romney is talking about some sort of Medicare voucher system that gives patients the ability to "shop around" its a downright fantasy.

Lets break this down : You're on medicare (not the voucher program) and you've been diagnosed with cancer. While going through treatment you decide you're not happy with the level of care you've been receiving from your Primary physician or , who hes recommended for treatment. The ability to "shop around" is inherit in Medicare. It isn't an aspect of the product that needs to be advertised. Because frankly , Medicare is like liquid gold. Contrary to how the Romney Campaign would paint it : 97% of Doctors accept Medicare. While its true that a couple of Private Practices have begun limiting or capping off patients with Medicare. This is more akin to small business douchebags that think they're going to avoid ACA by limiting all of their employees hours.(Simply put : Pouty pants)

So Now lets look at the voucher: Same scenario (you're unhappy)
You're stuck.
Honestly someone(without laughing) Tell me that when you're unhappy with the treatment you're getting that you'll be able to "shop around".
You've used the blank check(voucher) to purchase private insurance. An now that you've been diagnosed with cancer you're going to go out on the open market with your cancer and private insurance and find "better" care? The private insurance you've purchased isn't going to drop you after you've been diagnosed and call it a disqualifyer? Why? Because the manner in which it was purchased? (absurd)

Look I get why the Mitt Romneys of the world like this idea. I'll never understand why anyone else would take it remotely seriously.


You know who'll be the only person you've ever heard of that shops around after he gets Cancer? : Mitt Romney
 
Does someone like Romney even have health insurance? I guess he might but really I think he pays cash for anything he needs and he gets it the day he wants it.
 
[quote name='Recycle']:rofl:

But in all seriousness he is a sleaze and that it what he chose to be and that is fine. But the golden boy of the democrat party that is really sad.[/QUOTE]

Clinton may have done some sleazy things, but in my opinion, he's more than making up with it with his global initiative. A person isn't just one mistake.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']The ability to "shop around" is inherit in Medicare. It isn't an aspect of the product that needs to be advertised. Because frankly , Medicare is like liquid gold. Contrary to how the Romney Campaign would paint it : 97% of Doctors accept Medicare. While its true that a couple of Private Practices have begun limiting or capping off patients with Medicare. This is more akin to small business douchebags that think they're going to avoid ACA by limiting all of their employees hours.(Simply put : Pouty pants)[/QUOTE]
That 97% number is about two years old, and does not include doctors who have stopped taking new Medicare patients or who have restricted the number of Medicare patients they will allow. The rate cuts under Obamacare only make that problem worse, making doctors and hospitals take a loss on these patients is not a practical solution.

The government doesn't track how many doctors won't see new Medicare patients or who cap the number, but smaller studies have come in at anywhere from 25 to 50%, with primary care physicians as the most likely to turn people away.
 
Late to the party. Trying to sit through the latest U.S. presidential debate. It's a damn shame some people are too stupid to see that Mitt Romney is a pathological liar. How in the world is this guy a presidential candidate? Seriously. I'd rather see Sarah Palin run for office. At least she has a modicum of honesty. Romney gives off a pretty big psychopath vibe. It's straight-up scary that the guy could become president of the U.S.
 
bread's done
Back
Top