Why Romney Will Win

Independents are not the only ones to vote.

 

What policies have 'failed'?

 

Uhhh..... ...all of them

 

Ok, when you've got nothing, just say so, but please stop trying to get everyone else to think that you have something of substance.

 

I started this thread Eisntein. Your responses have been crap.

 

I supported Ron Paul in the primary and will vote for Gary Johnson in November. Between Obama and Romney, I feel that Obama is definitely the lesser of the two evils. Less US citizens have been killed by terrorists in Obamas first term than the previous idiot neoCON regime. Less US soldiers have been killed under Obama and US forces have killed less innocent civillians over seas. Romney has surrounded himself with several of GW Bush's former advisors and is a probable lapdog for his old college buddy BiBi Netanyahoo...Electing little Mittens would no doubt lead to more defense and foreign policy blunders like we experienced continually from 2000-2009....We can't afford to have another hapless chickenhawk buffoon trying to play war chief in charge of the US military.

 

And your thread is crap, filled with your typical childish nonsense and lame comments.
But seriously, when you have nothing you start a thread!

 

All you are doing is putting a vote in Obama's pocket, because you and I both know that Gary Johnson will not be elected. You may think you are voting on principle, but all you are doing in reality is helping Obama destroy this country.

 

Then get the hell out of it. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

q.f.t.:

 

Or Romney will win, sending Obama into the political crap heap along with Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. Ryan will become the de facto nominee in 2016 or 2020 and perhaps the President.

 

Yes, the polls can be wrong if for no other reason than because they address voters and not electorial college votes that actually elect the president.

Where Romney loses is electorial college votes and this is probably going to come down to the Libertarian vote for Gary Johnson.

Libertarians can't stand either Romney or Obama, period, and won't vote for either one of them. In discussions with other Libertarians overwhelmingly they're going to vote for Gary Johnson which will probably hand the election to Obama. Do we care? Absolutely not. When it comes to protection of or Inalienable Rights Obama actual has a slight edge because he supports both aborition rights for the woman and marriage rights for same-sex couples which Romney opposes. On all other issues Romney and Obama are basically tied which is why neither of them will gain the Libertarian vote. We're committed to voting for the best candidate and not the lesser of two evils.

 

Let's see, Romney is worse than McCain and Ryan is worse than Romney so Republicans are already projecting that they will lower their standards even further in 2016? Amazing. Absolutely amazing!

 

The democrat's will certainly be pleased to know that they now control these guy's:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/

 

Do NOT mention Fox news. It's a bit of a sore point around here at the moment. I imagine when Rush the Hut admits that Obama will win the wrist slicing will commence.

 

Let's see...

McCain - Been in Congress for 29 years, the bulk of them as Senator.
Romney - Was Governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most Democratic state in the country.
Ryan - Perhaps the sharpest person we've ever had to chair the House Budget Committee. Knows Social Security and Medicare more than just about anyone in Congress. Has been in Congress for 13 years from a fairly Democratic district.
Obama - Was Senator of a Democratic state for 3 years, two of them spent mostly running for President.

Which one would you say is most qualified for the Presidency?

 

Romney is worse than McCain? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

I'm answering for him...

But...

Romney lost to McCain.
McCain lost to Obama.

Now Republicans have nominated THE GUY who lost to THE GUY who lost to Obama four years ago. So its a bit of a logical conundrum: how could the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama now come back and be the guy who beats Obama?

 

Oh well that's a good reason to give him four more years.....................

 

You're kidding, right?

Look, Reagan lost in the primaries to Gerald Ford of all people--only to come on strong in 1980 to bury the hapless carter in a landslide victory. There are so many similarities between Reagan and Romney that looking at and gleaning something worthy out of a Romney loss to McCain in the primaries is nothing short of blind foolishness.

 

A valid point.

I was simply playing devil's advocate. I am supporting Romney this year.

 

I hear ya, but we have enough clueless real live liberal devils here as it is.

 

Well I figured you'd rather have someone playing dumb than doing the real thing.

 

Let's look and see.

"McCain - Been in Congress for 29 years, the bulk of them as Senator." McCain, as a presidential candidate also proposed a budget that had larger deficits than candidate Obama's proposed budget and then, in following the "Bush" example, selected the cleaning woman to be his running mate.

"Romney - Was Governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most Democratic state in the country." Yes, where he imposed a health care program that was the blueprint for the ACA and advocated a government health care program for the nation based upon the Mass. model. He balanced the State budget by increasing tax revenues with fees (one strikingly similiar to the fee/tax being imposed under the ACA to fund Romneycare). His only knowledge of how enterprise works is based upon cutting jobs and outsourcing so that the wealthy owners of the enterprise make more money. He uses and supports tax loopholes for the wealthy such as off shore paper corporations in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. Massechusetts was at the bottom of the barrel in job creation during his adminstration. He has no foreign affairs experience. While governor Mitt Romney signed the executive order requiring the county clerks to issue marriage licences to same-sex (gender) couples but opposes that right of other same-sex (gender) couples.

"Ryan - Perhaps the sharpest person we've ever had to chair the House Budget Committee. Knows Social Security and Medicare more than just about anyone in Congress. Has been in Congress for 13 years from a fairly Democratic district." If Paul Ryan is so sharp then why did he propose a budget that would result in continued deficit spending by the US government for another 28 years? Why is his only solution to the problems of Medicare and Social Security to screw those that are under 55 by dramatically cutting their benefits? All of Paul Ryan's wealth comes from investments most of which were "favorable" deals related to his family. He has no corporate experience and no foreign policy experience. He's not even a Senator but instead only represents a congressional district.

"Obama - Was Senator of a Democratic state for 3 years, two of them spent mostly running for President." And has been President for the last three years. He inherited an economy on the brink of collapse and turned it around. Republicans like to whine about the high unemployment rate under Obama stating he didn't bring down unemployment to less than 8% but, in fact, he has reduced unemployment for Republicans to less than 8% because "white" unemployment is at 7.2%. Only minorities, that Repubicans have long since stopped caring about, are suffering higher than 8% unemployment.

Of course, at least for me, none of the above are the most qualified to be president because Gary Johnson is the most qualified based upon what's best for America.

 

Democrats should love McCain then. They always say the economy isn't doing great because "Obama isn't spending ENOUGH". If that's true, then you're saying McCain had a better grasp on what it would've taken to get the economy back to a healthy position.

Hmm... You say Romney: 1) Passed government health care program. 2) Balanced budget by increasing tax revenues. This should be another reason for Democrats to love him!

So does Obama. Obama makes over $250k/year (he makes $400k as President, plus royalties from his book sales). Yet Obama paid only 20% in taxes last year. According to the Bush tax rates, he's supposed to pay 35%. Obama must "use" a lot of tax loopholes in order to pay only 20%. Its hypocritical to attack Romney for "using" tax loopholes when Obama takes advantage of the same tax loopholes to pay 20%. Obama doesn't pay his "fair share". How come its only evil or greedy when Romney does it too?

And Obama did? How? He went to Indonesia as a child? Oooh, then Romney has foreign affairs experience by going to France as a youth.

Would you rather have an immediate balancing of the budget, no matter the cost? Aren't Democrats the ones who usually support "gradual and slow change"? 28 years sounds pretty slow and gradual to me.

Well sure... I'd say a broom is more qualified to be President right now. That doesn't mean I'll go and cast my vote for one.