Mitt Romney is making a come back.

[longhornfan1234]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

[IcanzIIravor]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

You should be looking at the battle ground state pollings. The election will be decided based on wins the majority of those states.

[DukeDelonte13]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:


Serious question about Romney:

What will he do differently than George W. Bush?

Economically speaking he just wants to go back to Bush era policies that nearly destroyed the country. Why do people think that's a good thing?

[niko]

Both candidates are solidifying the states they were already leading in. There are actually two battleground states leaning Republican (and that always were) that seem to be coming more into play. Romney actually looks to be in a lot of trouble.

[kentatm]

yea, that Fox News poll that had Obama kicking Romney in the teeth was obviously biased towards Dems.

[Sarcastic]

I don't know if it's possible to come back from "they think they are entitled to food...."

[longhornfan1234]

Serious question about Romney:

What will he do differently than George W. Bush?

Economically speaking he just wants to go back to Bush era policies that nearly destroyed the country. Why do people think that's a good thing?

Cut spending and bring successful business experience with him. GWB spent money like a liberal.

[DukeDelonte13]

Cut spending and bring successful business experience with him. GWB spent money like a liberal.


Cutting spending? Isn't part of his platform boatloads of new tax cuts and subsidies?

And when does being born with a silver spoon in your mouth constitute successful business experience?

[Sarcastic]

Cut spending and bring successful business experience with him. GWB spent money like a liberal.

Cut spending from where? Medicare and Social Security? He's already said he won't do that. He also said he will increase the military budget by $2 trillion. Add that up with $5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, and that's $7 trillion he is increasing the deficit by.

Serious question: where will this money come from?

[IcanzIIravor]

Cut spending and bring successful business experience with him. GWB spent money like a liberal.

He plans on increasing military spending. We already spend more than damn near every other country combined on the armed forces.

[daily]

As more an more facts about the mess in Libya come out the more it's going to put Obama and his policies in the spot light. Libya could be the October surprise that turns the election around

[longhornfan1234]

:facepalm


Cutting taxes is not cutting government revenue, when you consider the increased economic activity that will take place as a result. Yes, the government gets a smaller cut, but businesses usually hire more people and expand when the economy picks up. That will add up to an increase in government revenue from taxes.

Cutting the military budget is a terrible idea, given the situation with Iran. Besides there are 1,000's of private contractors who will be laying off people in the millions if that was to happen. Bad play for the economy if you ask me.

The Ryan budget will cut spending much like the line item veto. They will examine each and every government program and cut the waste out of it. Don't tell me their isn't any, because we are dealing with the government here.

[kentatm]

:facepalm


Cutting taxes is not cutting government revenue, when you consider the increased economic activity that will take place as a result. Yes, the government gets a smaller cut, but businesses usually hire more people and expand when the economy picks up. That will add up to an increase in government revenue from taxes.

Cutting the military budget is a terrible idea, given the situation with Iran. Besides there are 1,000's of private contractors who will be laying off people in the millions if that was to happen. Bad play for the economy if you ask me.

The Ryan budget will cut spending much like the line item veto. They will examine each and every government program and cut the waste out of it. Don't tell me their isn't any, because we are dealing with the government here.


:facepalm


trickle down economics has been proven over and over to NOT work.

its not going to magically change.

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm


Cutting taxes is not cutting government revenue, when you consider the increased economic activity that will take place as a result. Yes, the government gets a smaller cut, but businesses usually hire more people and expand when the economy picks up. That will add up to an increase in government revenue from taxes.

Cutting the military budget is a terrible idea, given the situation with Iran. Besides there are 1,000's of private contractors who will be laying off people in the millions if that was to happen. Bad play for the economy if you ask me.

The Ryan budget will cut spending much like the line item veto. They will examine each and every government program and cut the waste out of it. Don't tell me their isn't any, because we are dealing with the government here.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf


Tax cuts for the rich haven been proven to only redistribute money towards the top, and have not increase economic growth.


The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

[rufuspaul]

:facepalm


trickle down economics has been proven over and over to NOT work.

its not going to magically change.


Have the poor and the middle class fared better under Obama? Legitimate question.

[kentatm]

Have the poor and the middle class fared better under Obama? Legitimate question.


considering where the economy was headed had he not stepped in?

YES

[DukeDelonte13]

Have the poor and the middle class fared better under Obama? Legitimate question.


Millions more with health insurance? I'm sure there are plenty of 24 to 26 year olds on this board that can thank Obama for their insurance...

[Balla_Status]

Millions more with health insurance? I'm sure there are plenty of 24 to 26 year olds on this board that can thank Obama for their insurance...

Getting more hand outs and encouraging laziness =/= poor and middle class doing better.

[kentatm]

Getting more hand outs and encouraging laziness =/= poor and middle class doing better.

Obamacare isn't a free handout.

people still have to pay for their insurance.

[Sarcastic]

Getting more hand outs and encouraging laziness =/= poor and middle class doing better.


Isn't that what Rmoney did in Massachusetts?

[KevinNYC]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

How did you determine how many Democrats were part of this poll?

[Whoah10115]

It's disconcerting when people vote for someone solely out of party allegiance.


And by that I mean voting for Mitt Romney.

[DukeDelonte13]

Obamacare isn't a free handout.

people still have to pay for their insurance.


after several years people have still failed to understand obamacare is really just insurance reform. (and the reform benefits every single person who uses health insurance)

[dunksby]

http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/justin-bieber-throws-up-on-stage.gif

[rufuspaul]

Millions more with health insurance? I'm sure there are plenty of 24 to 26 year olds on this board that can thank Obama for their insurance...


True, but did the gap between rich and poor close at all in the last 4 years? At 8% unemployment did the middle class strengthen? Aren't the rich still getting richer just like under Bush?

[KevinNYC]

Have the poor and the middle class fared better under Obama? Legitimate question.

You could reframe this question to have the poor and middle class fared better under this period of historically low taxes?

or

Have the poor and middle class fared better during the worst economic downturn in over 70 years?

[DukeDelonte13]

True, but did the gap between rich and poor close at all in the last 4 years? At 8% unemployment did the middle class strengthen? Aren't the rich still getting richer just like under Bush?


well considering the bush era tax cuts didn't simply just end when Obama took office....

[rufuspaul]

well considering the bush era tax cuts didn't simply just end when Obama took office....


Do you really think that's the sole cause of the income gap? How much longer can Obama keep blaming Bush for his own lack of leadership?

Look, I'm not endorsing Romney by any means, but I sure as hell don't expect things to change that much under Obama's 2nd term.

[KevinNYC]

You are correct about this though

True, but did the gap between rich and poor close at all in the last 4 years? At 8% unemployment did the middle class strengthen? Aren't the rich still getting richer just like under Bush?

I think the last time the middle class did OK was in the 1990's.

[Nanners]

Getting more hand outs and encouraging laziness =/= poor and middle class doing better.


can you explain to me exactly how obamacare translates into free handouts for the poor and middle class? while you are at it, explain how romneycare does not translate into free handouts for the poor and middle class.


Romney is going to get crushed in this election. He is the personification of everything that is wrong with this country. Tax evading multi millionaires that make their money shuffling around numbers and providing "financial products", this is a man who has enriched himself by harvesting and outsourcing the manufacturing base that made this the most powerful country in the world. The guy is very shady, not to mention about as un-patriotic as you can possibly get.

Also, Obama is winning in every swing state right now and OP is a complete idiot.

Vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

[TheMan]

:oldlol: The OP really does believe Romney is making a comeback:lol

I would hate to be him on Nov. 6th when the GOP get's crushed again.

I'm gonna watch FOX news presidential election results coverage for shits and giggles, gonna be EPIC:roll:

[KevinNYC]

Vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

Nanners, I suspect you weren't old enough to vote 12 years ago. I remember having this debates about the value of voting for Ralph Nader. The end result was Bush was elected. I saw this the other day (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/09/28/if-you-choose-not-to-decide-you-still-have-made-a-choice/) about the debate about purity over politics.

I simply refuse to take any one who votes for someone over Obama or Romney seriously. One of them will be the next President. Anyone who chooses to vote for anyone else has made their choice, and that choice was to be irrelevant.
This quote about the Nader wars will never not be accurate (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/25/your-mumia-sweatshirt-wont-get-you-into-heaven-anymore/) :

The Democrats don’t deserve my vote. They aren’t helping the left, why should the left help them?

Let me see if I can explain it this way:

Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

You don’t live there.

Grow the **** up.

[crisoner]

I think Romney can win because the GOP is setting up all those rules for voters to have ID's and changing polling places etc. where they know certain groups of voters can not go. (Just like they did for Bush).

These clowns are doing all they can to suppress the Obama vote in the keys states.

Look at this video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc&feature=youtu.be

[branslowski]

If Romney becomes president then there will be nomore middle class, just sayin..

If I were rich though, I'd vote for Romney
...but im not.

Also imagine Abortion being abolished and no goverment assistance? More crime, more strippers and crack babies....

Romney also used the same exact quote as a kkk leader did back in 92'...So, i see wat Romney on..

[crisoner]

:facepalm


trickle down economics has been proven over and over to NOT work.

its not going to magically change.

THIS

It's simple....when these wealthy corporations get money they will keep it.
They won't spend it on more jobs etc. They will find a way to even make more money that is the nature of the beast. That's capitalism.
And that is what has got us in to the mess we are right now.
These corporations have been sending American jobs overseas for years to save a buck. Now Americans are out of work and our money is flowing in to other countries and nobody here has $$$ to buy their products.

F*ck the Regan trickle down BS. Greed ISN'T good.

[Nanners]

Nanners, I suspect you weren't old enough to vote 12 years ago. I remember having this debates about the value of voting for Ralph Nader. The end result was Bush was elected. I saw this the other day (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/09/28/if-you-choose-not-to-decide-you-still-have-made-a-choice/) about the debate about purity over politics.

First of all, my age is irrelevant. Secondly, I am going to vote for whoever I want to vote for. I agree with Gary Johnson and Jill Steins positions on most issues far more than I agree with Obama or Romney, they are both better candidates. For the record, I voted for Nader too.

I hate to use a term that Starface uses, but you are a SHEEP. Fake liberal mainstream democrats like yourself do a disservice to the few remaining true liberals in this country. The world is not blue vs red, good vs bad. The only difference between Obama and Romney are the words that slither out of their mouth while they **** over the american public. I posted a great article by Chris Hedges in one of your previous political threads, you obviously ignored it.


When you want to wake up, you should start reading chris hedges. Here is the article I am talking about (http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/how_do_you_take_your_poison_20120924/)

edit: fixed broken link



Obama is not in charge. Romney would not be in charge. Politicians are the public face of corporate power. They are corporate employees. Their personal narratives, their promises, their rhetoric and their idiosyncrasies are meaningless. And that, perhaps, is why the cost of the two presidential campaigns is estimated to reach an obscene $2.5 billion. The corporate state does not produce a product that is different. It produces brands that are different. And brands cost a lot of money to sell.

You can dismiss those of us who will in protest vote for a third-party candidate and invest our time and energy in acts of civil disobedience. You can pride yourself on being practical. You can swallow the false argument of the lesser of two evils. But ask yourself, once this nightmare starts kicking in, who the real sucker is.

[TheMan]

If Romney becomes president then there will be nomore middle class, just sayin..

If I were rich though, I'd vote for Romney
...but im not.

Also imagine Abortion being abolished and no goverment assistance? More crime, more strippers and crack babies....

Romney also used the same exact quote as a kkk leader did back in 92'...So, i see wat Romney on..
That's a bad thing??

On a more serious note, the reason Romney/Ryan don't give us any specifics on their economic plan is because they have NOTHING new to sell, all they want to do is give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country, that plan has been proven to NOT help the middle class nor does it create more jobs. Trickle down economics is voodoo economics like HW said. Obama is gonna punk Romney with that question in the debates and Romney won't be able to run away from it.

[Droid101]

lol

http://i.imgur.com/Fx0tx.png

[TheMan]

That's biased!!:lol

Nate Silver had a great article refuting the conservative BS line about "biased polling".

Right wing nuts will have a rude awakening on Nov 6:oldlol:

[DeuceWallaces]

Last I saw he was getting killed in swing states. Not to mention he'll likely get crushed in the debates.

[rufuspaul]

Last I saw he was getting killed in swing states. Not to mention he'll likely get crushed in the debates.



Oh yeah Obama is gonna win big, no question. I just wouldn't get my hopes up for much getting done in his 2nd term.

[KevinNYC]

Oh yeah Obama is gonna win big, no question. I just wouldn't get my hopes up for much getting done in his 2nd term.

Supposedly North Carolina is the state where the election is tightest.

[DeuceWallaces]

I don't think it's possible for anyone to get much done this days. So I'll be happy with supreme court appointments, increased science and social funding, and some other little things.

[DukeDelonte13]

Oh yeah Obama is gonna win big, no question. I just wouldn't get my hopes up for much getting done in his 2nd term.


depends on how those midterms go.

[falc39]

Nanners, I suspect you weren't old enough to vote 12 years ago. I remember having this debates about the value of voting for Ralph Nader. The end result was Bush was elected. I saw this the other day (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/09/28/if-you-choose-not-to-decide-you-still-have-made-a-choice/) about the debate about purity over politics.

lol what. So it's basically don't vote for the candidate you like because I don't want the candidate that I'm supporting to lose?

Such a compelling argument :oldlol:

[daily]

lol what. So it's basically don't vote for the candidate you like because I don't want the candidate that I'm supporting to lose?

Such a compelling argument :oldlol::facepalm

It's about not wasting your vote on somebody that has zero chance of even coming in 2nd place.

[SpecialQue]

Please keep believing this. It's going to make this political season more fun.

I don't even like Obama, but he's clearly going to win this. It's like Heat vs. Bobcats.

[senelcoolidge]

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

I don't think Romney is so great, but he has to be better than Obama. This is just embarrassing. You can't just buy people's votes by giving them things. That's what they do in third world countries. Stop free loading. The next President has to create real jobs so these lazy freeloading people can get off their asses and work and be productive. Obama is evening promoting food stamps for illegals. :facepalm

[Jailblazers7]

A judge just ruled that PA voter ID will not be enforced during this years election.

[SpecialQue]

Nanners, I suspect you weren't old enough to vote 12 years ago. I remember having this debates about the value of voting for Ralph Nader. The end result was Bush was elected. I saw this the other day (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/09/28/if-you-choose-not-to-decide-you-still-have-made-a-choice/) about the debate about purity over politics.

This is hilarious. So if someone doesn't like Gore, they shouldn't vote at all rather than vote for a third party?

I'm left-leaning and DESPISED Al Gore. I was indifferent about Bush. I voted Nader and don't regret it. Why should I give a shit if Bush won? I'd rather have anyone over Al Gore.

It's really cute, though, telling people who wouldn't vote for either party but like a third party candidate that they might as well not vote, because the guy on the "other team" that you don't like will win.

[KevinNYC]

lol what. So it's basically don't vote for the candidate you like because I don't want the candidate that I'm supporting to lose?

Such a compelling argument :oldlol:

It's not an argument about the edges. It's an argument about the middle.

If you are against the Democrats (or the Republicans) because you feel they are too much like the other side withholding your support doesn't tend to get the outcome you support. It just gives their opponents, who presumably are even further away your positions more power. Politics is the art of the possible. Because 90,000 Florida voters voted for Nader, we ended up with President Bush and all that happened afterwards. How many of Nader voters regret that vote?

The ones who don't regret it want to me remain on the edges and value purity over practicality.

[falc39]

:facepalm

It's about not wasting your vote on somebody that has zero chance of even coming in 2nd place.

No, you don't get it. The whole election is already wasted when the top 2 are both equally as bad...



It's not an argument about the edges. It's an argument about the middle.

If you are against the Democrats (or the Republicans) because you feel they are too much like the other side withholding your support doesn't tend to get the outcome you support. It just gives their opponents, who presumably are even further away your positions more power. Politics is the art of the possible. Because 90,000 Florida voters voted for Nader, we ended up with President Bush and all that happened afterwards. How many of Nader voters regret that vote?

The ones who don't regret it want to me remain on the edges and value purity over practicality.

But say I don't like both candidates equally because they are too much like the other side like you said. How can you assume that the outcome will be what I rather not have? You already said that both sides are too similar. See the error in your reasoning? Blame doesn't go on the voters who voted for Nader, the blame goes on the candidate who wasn't convincing enough to convince those voters to vote for him instead of Nader. Similarly, this election we are given two very unconvincing candidates, so it's understandable why someone would vote for someone else. Blame the candidates for not being convincing enough, not the voters.

[KevinNYC]

I'm left-leaning and DESPISED Al Gore. I was indifferent about Bush. I voted Nader and don't regret it. Why should I give a shit if Bush won? I'd rather have anyone over Al Gore.

Were you happy with the Bush years?

Do you believe 2001-2008 would have been the same under Gore or worse?

[rufuspaul]

Supposedly North Carolina is the state where the election is tightest.


Too bad it doesn't matter. Obama wins either Florida or Ohio (he's gonna win both) he's got it in the bag.

[SpecialQue]

Were you happy with the Bush years?

Do you believe 2001-2008 would have been the same under Gore or worse?

I was fine during the Bush years. I didn't like the guy, but I think that the "restriction on personal liberties" that my peers were bitching about due to things like the Patriot Act were grossly over-stated. Also, Bush did good things as well, such as PEPFAR.

It would not have been the same under Gore, but there's no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse. 9/11 may not have happened, but a different, possibly bigger, possibly smaller terrorist act may have occurred in its place. There's absolutely no way of knowing that. The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that there would not have been a war in Iraq under Gore.

[LJJ]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

This makes no sense.


yea, that Fox News poll that had Obama kicking Romney in the teeth was obviously biased towards Dems.

Even though you are trying to be sarcastic this makes perfect sense.


Of course CNN would display Romney's poll results as more favorable, as Fox would do for Obama's. That gives their viewers more incentive to vote, and more of their viewers voting is exactly what they want if they want to help their political alignment.

[Droid101]

I was fine during the Bush years. I didn't like the guy, but I think that the "restriction on personal liberties" that my peers were bitching about due to things like the Patriot Act were grossly over-stated. Also, Bush did good things as well, such as PEPFAR.

It would not have been the same under Gore, but there's no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse. 9/11 may not have happened, but a different, possibly bigger, possibly smaller terrorist act may have occurred in its place. There's absolutely no way of knowing that. The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that there would not have been a war in Iraq under Gore.
http://oakshirefinancial.com/images/content/u.s.%20national%20debt.jpg

We really, really need to scrub out all the Republicans until they can come up with actual fiscal responsibility and no theocraticness in their platform.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

I don't think Romney is so great, but he has to be better than Obama. This is just embarrassing. You can't just buy people's votes by giving them things. That's what they do in third world countries. Stop free loading. The next President has to create real jobs so these lazy freeloading people can get off their asses and work and be productive. Obama is evening promoting food stamps for illegals. :facepalm

lol, this old canard?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/08/22/opinion/22bushobama-ch/22bushobama-ch-blog480.jpg

[UConnCeltics]

You know voting for Obama will let us vote for two new candidates to screw the country up even more in 2016. Plus Romney is a prickdouche.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I find it funny people are like "I dont like this guy, and i dont like this guy, i dont wanna vote for these people, bla bla bla.." There are 2 goddamn choices, and only 1 of them is going to get picked. Stop being a little whiny bitch, and pick one you prick. You don't want to vote? Then don't vote, you're an idiot anyway. This isn't happy fun time at disney land, its a goddamn election. Morons who cant accept reality are whats wrong with this country.

[longhornfan1234]

lol

http://i.imgur.com/Fx0tx.png
:facepalm


Left leaning poll.


Obama is in trouble.


"Obama, Romney Tied Among Likely Voters"

"47-47"

"President Obama and Mitt Romney are deadlocked among likely voters as they prepare to square off in their first presidential debate, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll."

"Romney led in the poll among independents, 49 percent to 41 percent, with both candidates winning more than 90 percent support from their respective parties. The survey had Obama winning 81 percent of the nonwhite vote and Romney carrying 55 percent of white voters."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-romney-tied-among-likely-voters-20121002

[Godzuki]

I find it funny people are like "I dont like this guy, and i dont like this guy, i dont wanna vote for these people, bla bla bla.." There are 2 goddamn choices, and only 1 of them is going to get picked. Stop being a little whiny bitch, and pick one you prick. You don't want to vote? Then don't vote, you're an idiot anyway. This isn't happy fun time at disney land, its a goddamn election. Morons who cant accept reality are whats wrong with this country.

``

[joe]

Serious question about Romney:

What will he do differently than George W. Bush?

Economically speaking he just wants to go back to Bush era policies that nearly destroyed the country. Why do people think that's a good thing?

Serious question, what has Obama done differently than Bush?

[joe]

THIS

It's simple....when these wealthy corporations get money they will keep it.
They won't spend it on more jobs etc. They will find a way to even make more money that is the nature of the beast. That's capitalism.
And that is what has got us in to the mess we are right now.
These corporations have been sending American jobs overseas for years to save a buck. Now Americans are out of work and our money is flowing in to other countries and nobody here has $$$ to buy their products.

F*ck the Regan trickle down BS. Greed ISN'T good.

Capitalism does not = trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is a political term, used by politicians. It is not a form of economics. Stop conflating Reagan and "trickle down theory" with capitalism.

In capitalism, wealth does trickle down. But the politicians who use the term "trickle down" are not supporters of capitalism, and their policies are not consistent with capitalist ideals.

[Dictator]

Obama getting chumped off everywhere.

[bagelred]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

Why specifically do you want Romney as president and not Obama.

[rufuspaul]

I find it interesting that Romney is getting reemed for paying 14% in taxes. He's simply taken advantage of the tax code as it now exists. Who among us would not have done the same exact thing? You don't like it, change the code.

Another interesting thing about Romney's returns: he donated 15% of his income to charity. Obama? 1%.


Again I'm not endorsing Romney but by voting for Obama you're just electing one elitist over another. Their only real difference is in the false rhetoric they both spew out.

[KevinNYC]

Serious question, what has Obama done differently than Bush?

Glib, but quick answer.

Left Iraq,

killed Bin Laden.

Passed health insurance reform.

Avoided The Great Depression II

[Timmy D for MVP]

I must say... you guys crack me up sometimes.

[joe]

Glib, but quick answer.

Left Iraq,

killed Bin Laden.

Passed health insurance reform.

Avoided The Great Depression II

Can I ask you something? Where do you get your information as far as, how many troops we still have in Iraq/overseas? I can't seem to find good sources on that subject.

And when you say Obama left Iraq, what do you mean? So he finally moved out of his home country?

(Just playing just playing. lol).

Seriously though, I know we still have people in Iraq. Contractors and such. To what extent does Obama have control over those people? Have they increased under Obama, decreased, or stayed the same?

Do we have more troops stationed overseas under Obama, or less? More people actively fighting an enemy overseas, or less?

[KevinNYC]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4Oap-FCEAAO_55.jpg

[rufuspaul]

Left Iraq,


Under the agreement negotiated by Bush. Remember the shoe throwing incident? Bush was there to sign the papers agreeing to the withdrawal of troops.

It amazes me how many people think Obama just swept into office and started ending wars. (Peace Medal made me vomit).

We are still in Afghanistan (losing), still in Guantanamo, still fighting an illegal drone war on civilians (and the occasional terrorist) and he got us involved in Lybia without congressional consent.

Peacemaker my ass.

[joe]

Under the agreement negotiated by Bush. Remember the shoe throwing incident? Bush was there to sign the papers agreeing to the withdrawal of troops.

It amazes me how many people think Obama just swept into office and started ending wars. (Peace Medal made me vomit).

We are still in Afghanistan (losing), still in Guantanamo, still fighting an illegal drone war on civilians (and the occasional terrorist) and he got us involved in Lybia without congressional consent.

Peacemaker my ass.

What's a good source to find this information? What do you use rufuspaul?

Edit - (As far as the number of troops we have in different places)

[rufuspaul]

What's a good source to find this information? What do you use rufuspaul?

CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, Reuters, The Atlantic


Where do you get your news?

[rufuspaul]

\

Edit - (As far as the number of troops we have in different places)


Ah now that's where the drone war is a nice little coup for the prez. The only troops involved are here in this country controlling the drones remotely. How convenient.

[KevinNYC]

Do we have more troops stationed overseas under Obama, or less? More people actively fighting an enemy overseas, or less?

I would guess that we have less fighting an enemy. The combat troops left Iraq. The "surge" of troops into Afghanistan has ended. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/us-troop-surge-in-afghanistan-ends.html?pagewanted=all) 33,000 troops have just left Afghanistan and about 68,000 troops remain. That number is from September and should be accurate. I don't know about Iraq.


Nato just signed a partnership agreement with Iraq. So they might be some training going on. Don't know if US forces will be used for that.
[QUOTE]The Alliance is committed to assisting Iraq as it builds a modern security sector which can cooperate with international partners. The partnership will promote dialogue and address shared threats. NATO and Iraq intend to work together to develop the capacity of Iraq

[KevinNYC]

Do we have more troops stationed overseas under Obama, or less? More people actively fighting an enemy overseas, or less?

I would guess that we have less fighting an enemy. The combat troops left Iraq. The "surge" of troops into Afghanistan has ended. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/us-troop-surge-in-afghanistan-ends.html?pagewanted=all) 33,000 troops have just left Afghanistan and about 68,000 troops remain. That number is from September and should be accurate. I don't know about Iraq.

Just found this in The Army Times. Seems like we really did get the troops out of Iraq.
[QUOTE]Budget resolution omits Iraq training authority
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

[Droid101]

:facepalm


Left leaning poll.


Obama is in trouble.


"Obama, Romney Tied Among Likely Voters"

"47-47"

"President Obama and Mitt Romney are deadlocked among likely voters as they prepare to square off in their first presidential debate, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll."

"Romney led in the poll among independents, 49 percent to 41 percent, with both candidates winning more than 90 percent support from their respective parties. The survey had Obama winning 81 percent of the nonwhite vote and Romney carrying 55 percent of white voters."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-romney-tied-among-likely-voters-20121002
Nate Silver's data is the most unbiased out there, as it takes into account every poll plus economic data.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Droid101]

Another interesting thing about Romney's returns: he donated 15% of his income to charity. Obama? 1%.

No. He donated 15% of his income to a cult to build towers. The Mormon church isn't a "charity" even though they are tax exempt.

Here is how "charity" money is spent:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/sandiego/images/san-diego-mormon-temple.jpg

http://www.lds.net/forums/mormon.jpg

[RaininThrees]

I find it interesting that Romney is getting reemed for paying 14% in taxes. He's simply taken advantage of the tax code as it now exists. Who among us would not have done the same exact thing? You don't like it, change the code.

Another interesting thing about Romney's returns: he donated 15% of his income to charity. Obama? 1%.


Again I'm not endorsing Romney but by voting for Obama you're just electing one elitist over another. Their only real difference is in the false rhetoric they both spew out.


"But, Brad Malt acknowledged, the couple

[KevinNYC]

It amazes me how many people think Obama just swept into office and started ending wars. (Peace Medal made me vomit).

Did you ever read Obama's Nobel Speech? It's not a pacifistic speech.

[QUOTE]But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism

[KevinNYC]

Under the agreement negotiated by Bush. Remember the shoe throwing incident? Bush was there to sign the papers agreeing to the withdrawal of troops.

Let's not pretend there was bipartisan support for what Obama did. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/iraq-troop-withdrawal-mitt-romney-barack-obama-/1#.UGuvhZjA-AU)


GOP candidates blast Obama on Iraq

GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain are blasting President Obama for his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government," said Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.

Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, said Obama's decision is "a political decision" and "not a military one."

John McCain and 10 other Republicans Senators and Joe Leiberman called
the withdrawal "a strategic victory for our enemies (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM205_10_27_11_joint_ltr_to_chairman_levin_req_ir aq_hearing.html)."

[JtotheIzzo]

The Latest CNN polls shows Romney trailing Obama by three percent. Democrats are over-sampled in this poll by twelve percent. Not looking too good for Obama. If Romney has a better debate tomorrow, Romney will close the distance. :cheers:

Look to Vegas when you have questions.

Barack Obama is -190 and Mitt is +155, this isn't really close.

[rufuspaul]

No. He donated 15% of his income to a cult to build towers. The Mormon church isn't a "charity" even though they are tax exempt.

Here is how "charity" money is spent:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/sandiego/images/san-diego-mormon-temple.jpg

http://www.lds.net/forums/mormon.jpg


Impressive.




Since 1985, LDS Charities (aka Humanitarian Services) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided aid regardless of cultural or religious boundaries. Emergency assistance is provided through the Humanitarian Aid Fund, and long-term aid is provided through major initiatives such as clean water, wheelchairs, neonatal resuscitation training, vision care, immunization, food production, and a variety of local area initiatives.

Two tenets of humanitarian aid define LDS Charities: 1) One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin, and 2) LDS Charities helps people attain self-sufficiency so they can be self-reliant long after LDS Charities departs.

In 2011, help was provided to more than 2 million people in 132 countries. Currently we are receiving donations for:

Humanitarian Aid Fund
Clean Water
Wheelchairs
Neonatal Resuscitation Training
Vision Care
Food Production & Nutrition

[Real Men Wear Green]

There's plenty to go after Romney for without attacking his faith. I don't believe in Mormonism at all but at most one of our thousands of religions has got it right. The real reason they get hated like this is they started out after human civilization had turned to reason and science so we now doubt everything. It doesn't have to matter to you that he gives his church $ (I certainly don't care) but those donations are no less valid than any other kind of tithing.

[rufuspaul]

I wonder if the debates will actually change anyone's vote. It's happened in the past (Kennedy-Nixon) but I think it's highly unlikely in this case. The only sway I can foresee happening is maybe people who are fiscally in line with the Republicans but are turned off by the gay-bashing, bible thumping side of the party. If Romney can somehow come across as intelligent and not a religious nut it might help get some of those votes, but I don't think they'll make much of a difference.

[Rasheed1]

It's not an argument about the edges. It's an argument about the middle.

If you are against the Democrats (or the Republicans) because you feel they are too much like the other side withholding your support doesn't tend to get the outcome you support. It just gives their opponents, who presumably are even further away your positions more power. Politics is the art of the possible. Because 90,000 Florida voters voted for Nader, we ended up with President Bush and all that happened afterwards. How many of Nader voters regret that vote?

The ones who don't regret it want to me remain on the edges and value purity over practicality.


:hammerhead:

nobody who voted for Nader should regret it.

everyone has the right to vote for the candidate they prefer. Nobody is obligated to play the phony 2 party charade.

you waste your vote when you vote for someone for any other reason than because they are your preferred candidate.

If Americans were smart? they would promote a third party in this country to break up the hold the dems/repubs have on the political system.

We get nothing done with these two groups and something has to change. The poisonous rhetoric and the lies being hurled around by these groups is destroying the country and making it hard for people to come together. These 2 groups are very busy finding ways to divide the public.

its not a 'purity over practicality' argument... Its that niether of these 2 parties are good for America anymore.. Americans need BETTER POLITICIANS (more honest ones with integrity). These 2 groups are a MESS

[DukeDelonte13]

There's plenty to go after Romney for without attacking his faith. I don't believe in Mormonism at all but at most one of our thousands of religions has got it right. The real reason they get hated like this is they started out after human civilization had turned to reason and science so we now doubt everything. It doesn't have to matter to you that he gives his church $ (I certainly don't care) but those donations are no less valid than any other kind of tithing.


I don't care the Mitt wears magic underwear and that he is essentially forced to donate a certain percentage of his income to the church. Mitt's religious beliefs aren't my problem. It's his belief in trickle down economics which have been shown time and time again to not work that bothers me. And i don't want that asshole making it harder for me to afford health insurance. I'm self insured, and even post obamacare i still will have to wind up paying in excess of a grand a month if my woman gets pregnant assuming we are healthy. (actually we would be dropped if she got pregnant and we would have to re-apply for coverage) If any of us weren't healthy without obamacare we probably wouldn't even be able to get insurance. America has such a stupid and shitty healthcare system, Obama finally gives some power back to us self insured people, and this f*cking moron thinks it would good idea to take that away so insurance companies can make even more money off the middle class.

[Rasheed1]

I find it interesting that Romney is getting reemed for paying 14% in taxes. He's simply taken advantage of the tax code as it now exists. Who among us would not have done the same exact thing? You don't like it, change the code.

Another interesting thing about Romney's returns: he donated 15% of his income to charity. Obama? 1%.


Again I'm not endorsing Romney but by voting for Obama you're just electing one elitist over another. Their only real difference is in the false rhetoric they both spew out.

A couple of things

Romney should be able to take advantage of the tax code if he pleases.

But he is auditioning for a job here... You arent going to get the job as president if you have tax havens overseas and you make a it habit to "take advantage of the tax code".

Fine, do that as a private citizen, but you cannot be the president of this country hiding your money and subverting the rules of the very government you wish to lead.

[rufuspaul]

:hammerhead:

nobody who voted for Nader should regret it.

everyone has the right to vote for the candidate they prefer. Nobody is obligated to play the phony 2 party charade.

you waste your vote when you vote for someone for any other reason than because they are your preferred candidate.

If Americans were smart? they would promote a third party in this country to break up the hold the dems/repubs have on the political system.

We get nothing done with these two groups and something has to change. The poisonous rhetoric and the lies being hurled around by these groups is destroying the country and making it hard for people to come together. These 2 groups are very busy finding ways to divide the public.

its not a 'purity over practicality' argument... Its that niether of these 2 parties are good for America anymore.. Americans need BETTER POLITICIANS (more honest ones with integrity). These 2 groups are a MESS

:applause: Good post

[rufuspaul]

A couple of things

Romney should be able to take advantage of the tax code if he pleases.

But he is auditioning for a job here... You arent going to get the job as president if you have tax havens overseas and you make a it habit to "take advantage of the tax code".

Fine, do that as a private citizen, but you cannot be the president of this country hiding your money and subverting the rules of the very government you wish to lead.


How did he break the law?

[Rasheed1]

How did he break the law?


I dont mean to imply he broke the law..

Im saying he can do as he pleases while he is a regular citizen. But when he goes before the public and campaigns to become the president of the United States? He has to be alot more transparent with his finances and his finances have to reflect the integrity that Americans expect from someone who would be president of this country.

You cant be president when your taxes are funny. Not saying it isnt legal, just saying the threshold for the presidency is higher than just 'its all legal'.

More simply put, Mitt Romney has an image problem. He doesnt come off as a guy who can be trusted when no one is looking.

The issues surrounding his taxes just reinforce the narrative that something stinks about this guy.

[niko]

The Romney and taxes reminds me a lot of the discussion Jet fans are having with their owners saying its more important Romney wins the elections that the Jets win games. it's a perception issue, but the fact is perception is reality. Woody Johnson is totally right in saying the election is more important than football, but his fans don't think so, and since they are the paying customer, that fact is bad for him. People want to argue he is right but they are missing the point, pissing off your customers is not a good idea.

People who are not rich in the US have a perspective that rich people get unfair breaks on their taxes. Romney taking advantage of those breaks to such a large degree (the pct he pays is ridiculously small) makes him look bad. You can argue it's ok but it does not matter, he is courting voters and this (to them) makes him look bad. It just does. It screams UNFAIR which isn't exactly a quality i look for in a leader.

[Rasheed1]

The Romney and taxes reminds me a lot of the discussion Jet fans are having with their owners saying its more important Romney wins the elections that the Jets win games. it's a perception issue, but the fact is perception is reality. Woody Johnson is totally right in saying the election is more important than football, but his fans don't think so, and since they are the paying customer, that fact is bad for him. People want to argue he is right but they are missing the point, pissing off your customers is not a good idea.

People who are not rich in the US have a perspective that rich people get unfair breaks on their taxes. Romney taking advantage of those breaks to such a large degree (the pct he pays is ridiculously small) makes him look bad. You can argue it's ok but it does not matter, he is courting voters and this (to them) makes him look bad. It just does. It screams UNFAIR which isn't exactly a quality i look for in a leader.


Mitt Romney reminds me of a kid who says he got good grades on his report card, but he wont let you see the report card. You just have to trust him on this one

He wants to go to Great Adventure this weekend and insists his grades are good, but he wont let you have a look..


:lol

[Sarcastic]

How did he break the law?


Wasn't he evading taxes by offshoring his money in Switzerland, and then brought his money back when that amnesty window opened up in 2009?

[IGOTGAME]

I find it interesting that Romney is getting reemed for paying 14% in taxes. He's simply taken advantage of the tax code as it now exists. Who among us would not have done the same exact thing? You don't like it, change the code.

Another interesting thing about Romney's returns: he donated 15% of his income to charity. Obama? 1%.


Again I'm not endorsing Romney but by voting for Obama you're just electing one elitist over another. Their only real difference is in the false rhetoric they both spew out.

I think the issue that some Americans have with Romney is the amount he stores off-shore. They may find it unpatriotic to not pay taxes on a large some of your money as an American citizen(many with large sums of money choose not to do this). I don't have any problem with him paying 14%. I do think that the fact that he intentionally paid more than he had to get to 14% was not a good move tho.

Bottom line - if you are running for office and hide a lot of income overseas to avoid taxation --> some Americans are going to look at that the wrong way. Especially when you will not shed any light into the process. Everything is in the dark and that is not the standard we should hold politicians to.

[TheMan]

:facepalm


Left leaning poll.


Obama is in trouble.


"Obama, Romney Tied Among Likely Voters"

"47-47"

"President Obama and Mitt Romney are deadlocked among likely voters as they prepare to square off in their first presidential debate, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll."

"Romney led in the poll among independents, 49 percent to 41 percent, with both candidates winning more than 90 percent support from their respective parties. The survey had Obama winning 81 percent of the nonwhite vote and Romney carrying 55 percent of white voters."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-romney-tied-among-likely-voters-20121002
National polls don't matter:no:

Look at the battleground states, Romney needs almost a clean sweep to win yet he is losing almost all of them, Obama has some nice leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and is slightly up in Florida and Iowa.

To illustrate just how meaningless national polls are, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but still lost. It's closer to an Obama landslide right now than a Romney win:oldlol:

Only thing that worries me is those old GOP dirty tricks like voter supression, other than that, your boy is heading for a loss.

[bagelred]

Republicans are the worst spenders by far.....if you want a balanced budget, don't vote them in. Look at history when Republican is in white house. The debt goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAY up. that's because they support the Military Industrial Complex which steals all our money. No one is going to tell you that though.......

Of course, not like Obama has been much better, but he got caught in a terrible recession. That's not the time to balance the budget.

[intrinsic]

Ryan doesn't seem very interested in the candidacy of Mitt Romney, but he likes the idea of being Vice President. That guy is going to be one of the first rats off the sinking ship, and it shouldn't be too much longer before he 's motivated by jealousy, spite or self-preservation, to betray Romney.

[Droid101]

but those donations are no less valid than any other kind of tithing.
I personally wouldn't consider it a "charitable donation" when it's REQUIRED for him to a part of the church.

A charitable donation is supposed to be voluntary, not compulsory.

But whatever, this plutocratic douchebag will never be president, so that gives me a little comfort.

What worries me is the 45% or so of the country that will actually vote for him. :eek:

[rufuspaul]

It screams UNFAIR which isn't exactly a quality i look for in a leader.



Of course the tax code is unfair. It's also ridiculously complicated and you'd be hard pressed to find voters on both sides that don't think tax reform should be a priority. Interestingly enough the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was one of Ronald Reagan's best accomplishments, imo, working with the democrats in congress and producing a fair and comprehensive piece of legislation that both sides could be proud of. Unfortunately over the years congress has effectively done away with almost all of the reforms the act encompassed.

[rufuspaul]

Ryan doesn't seem very interested in the candidacy of Mitt Romney, but he likes the idea of being Vice President. That guy is going to be one of the first rats off the sinking ship, and it shouldn't be too much longer before he 's motivated by jealousy, spite or self-preservation, to betray Romney.


The VP debate is gonna be hoot.

[rufuspaul]

Wasn't he evading taxes by offshoring his money in Switzerland, and then brought his money back when that amnesty window opened up in 2009?



Proof? :confusedshrug:

[Sarcastic]

Proof? :confusedshrug:

He won't release his tax returns, remember? Nothing is definitive.

[rufuspaul]

He won't release his tax returns, remember? Nothing is definitive.

While that's highly suspicious and suggestive, it's not proof.

[IGOTGAME]

Proof? :confusedshrug:
we would need to see his tax returns. the ones that he won't release.


While that's highly suspicious and suggestive, it's not proof.

whether or not he is breaking the law, shielding money from taxation overseas is not patriotic. It is legal, it is not wrong but it isn't something many want their politicians doing.

[TheMan]

I personally wouldn't consider it a "charitable donation" when it's REQUIRED for him to a part of the church.

A charitable donation is supposed to be voluntary, not compulsory.

But whatever, this plutocratic douchebag will never be president, so that gives me a little comfort.

What worries me is the 45% or so of the country that will actually vote for him. :eek:
How awesome would it be if he ended up at 47%...

[rufuspaul]

How awesome would it be if he ended up at 47%...

:oldlol:

[rufuspaul]

whether or not he is breaking the law, shielding money from taxation overseas is not patriotic. It is legal, it is not wrong but it isn't something many want their politicians doing.


Yeah I don't want my president conducting secretive drone strikes that kill civilians either but what can you do?

[niko]

Of course the tax code is unfair. It's also ridiculously complicated and you'd be hard pressed to find voters on both sides that don't think tax reform should be a priority. Interestingly enough the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was one of Ronald Reagan's best accomplishments, imo, working with the democrats in congress and producing a fair and comprehensive piece of legislation that both sides could be proud of. Unfortunately over the years congress has effectively done away with almost all of the reforms the act encompassed.
Again as i said, it looks bad and this is a situation (an election) where LOOKS BAD is a big deal. You are trying to convince peopel to vote for you, anything that the people voting take as a bad thing is by definition a bad thing, no?

[rufuspaul]

Again as i said, it looks bad and this is a situation (an election) where LOOKS BAD is a big deal. You are trying to convince peopel to vote for you, anything that the people voting take as a bad thing is by definition a bad thing, no?


Most certainly. Perception is everything.

[IGOTGAME]

Yeah I don't want my president conducting secretive drone strikes that kill civilians either but what can you do?

please explain your issue with these strikes...

-is it that they are secretive? that would be an odd criticism.

- is it that they killed civilians? odd criticism because you don't know the intel behind the strikes.

[Droid101]

Yeah I don't want my president conducting secretive drone strikes that kill civilians either but what can you do?
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/M/4/4/miss-me-yet-yes.jpg

It's funny, I bet if a white dude with an "R" next to his name was president, the drone strikes that took out most of the leadership of Al Queda would be considered "tough on terrorists." Not hypocritical at all, that.

[Sarcastic]

Yeah I don't want my president conducting secretive drone strikes that kill civilians either but what can you do?

You seem very concerned for the Pakistanis.

Are you Pakistani?

[rufuspaul]

You seem very concerned for the Pakistanis.

Are you Pakistani?



:oldlol: I have to be Pakistani to be critical of an illegal military campaign being undertaken by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?

[IGOTGAME]

:oldlol: I have to be Pakistani to be critical of an illegal military campaign being undertaken by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?

tbf, the killing of Bin Laden was illegal as well.

[rufuspaul]

tbf, the killing of Bin Laden was illegal as well.


At least he wasn't an American citizen.

[IGOTGAME]

At least he wasn't an American citizen.

so the illegality isn't the issue?

[rufuspaul]

so the illegality isn't the issue?

It's one of the issues. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/


I don't agree with everything in it but he does have some valid points, especially about Obama'a hypocrisy and the blind faith of his followers.

Again, I don't endorse Mitt Romney by any means. Both candidates make me sad for this country.

[IGOTGAME]

It's one of the issues. Read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/


I don't agree with everything in it but he does have some valid points, especially about Obama'a hypocrisy and the blind faith of his followers.

Again, I don't endorse Mitt Romney by any means. Both candidates make me sad for this country.


This guy seems to be talking out of his ass.

This is a poorly written article. He raises 3 points and does nothing to back them up. I'm I susposed to just take his interpretation of War Powers Resolution. Guy is not an attorney and does not specialize in national security law. I would be surprised if he has ever read the case law surrounding this act. But, he has the nerve to call Barack a hypocrite? If you are gonna do that at least cite someone and make an argument.


If all of this is too much than don't write the article or blog and post it on a susposedly reputable site/publication. This article is the exact reason I don't read publications like the Atlantic.

Fact is that decisions are often more complicated and based on facts unknown to the public. This is something that I accept from both republicans and democrats.

Guy may be expanding the interpretation of the War Powers Resolution...but I'm not privy to the informaition that he is acting on and thus I don't criticize.

[Sarcastic]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/799357/original.jpg

Sums it up right there.

[kentatm]

I personally wouldn't consider it a "charitable donation" when it's REQUIRED for him to be a part of the church.

A charitable donation is supposed to be voluntary, not compulsory.


:applause:

to me when you require donations to be in the church its nothing but a blatant tax scam, much like Scientology.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I personally wouldn't consider it a "charitable donation" when it's REQUIRED for him to a part of the church.

A charitable donation is supposed to be voluntary, not compulsory.
"Tithing" is equally required by any church that tells their members to do it. If Romney hands his church a check for 50k instead of 100k one particular week there's no legal body or whatever that's going to punish him. I'm not saying that I like Romney or anything but the disrespect handed to him related to his church isn't justified.

[rezznor]

Yeah I don't want my president conducting secretive drone strikes that kill civilians either but what can you do?
i don't want my President making up excuses to needlessly invade a nation, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, thousands of our own soldiers, wasting trillions of dollars of our money, and ultimately helping out our biggest enemy in that region either, but what can you do? :confusedshrug:

[rufuspaul]

This guy seems to be talking out of his ass.

This is a poorly written article. He raises 3 points and does nothing to back them up. I'm I susposed to just take his interpretation of War Powers Resolution. Guy is not an attorney and does not specialize in national security law. I would be surprised if he has ever read the case law surrounding this act. But, he has the nerve to call Barack a hypocrite? If you are gonna do that at least cite someone and make an argument.


If all of this is too much than don't write the article or blog and post it on a susposedly reputable site/publication. This article is the exact reason I don't read publications like the Atlantic.

Fact is that decisions are often more complicated and based on facts unknown to the public. This is something that I accept from both republicans and democrats.

Guy may be expanding the interpretation of the War Powers Resolution...but I'm not privy to the informaition that he is acting on and thus I don't criticize.


It's obviously a gray area both legally and morally. I'd like for there to be more transparency and explanations from the current administration, especially given their projection of always taking the higher moral ground and blaming any indiscretions on the Bush administration.

[rezznor]

I dont mean to imply he broke the law..

Im saying he can do as he pleases while he is a regular citizen. But when he goes before the public and campaigns to become the president of the United States? He has to be alot more transparent with his finances and his finances have to reflect the integrity that Americans expect from someone who would be president of this country.

You cant be president when your taxes are funny. Not saying it isnt legal, just saying the threshold for the presidency is higher than just 'its all legal'.

More simply put, Mitt Romney has an image problem. He doesnt come off as a guy who can be trusted when no one is looking.

The issues surrounding his taxes just reinforce the narrative that something stinks about this guy.


I don't often agree with you but this is pretty much it, in a nutshell. He wants to be POTUS, he needs to held to a higher standard and be transparent.

[Droid101]

"Tithing" is equally required by any church that tells their members to do it. If Romney hands his church a check for 50k instead of 100k one particular week there's no legal body or whatever that's going to punish him. I'm not saying that I like Romney or anything but the disrespect handed to him related to his church isn't justified.
I don't care that he's Mormon (just like I wouldn't care if he was a Scientologist or Catholic or Christian, they're all kooky cults with their own dogmas). I just care that he states that he "give to charity so generously" when in reality he does it because he's required to by the church. If he does not pay at least 10%, he cannot attend Temple.

Using his membership fee as a sign of his "generous and caring" nature is disingenuous.

Edit: Also, Catholic tithing is suggested, not mandatory.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I don't care that he's Mormon (just like I wouldn't care if he was a Scientologist or Catholic or Christian, they're all kooky cults with their own dogmas). I just care that he states that he "give to charity so generously" when in reality he does it because he's required to by the church. If he does not pay at least 10%, he cannot attend Temple.

Using his membership fee as a sign of his "generous and caring" nature is disingenuous.

Edit: Also, Catholic tithing is suggested, not mandatory.
If he handed them a half-mil for last year you really think they'd tell him to get out? Be real. The Mormon church, like most large Christian churches, does a number of good works around the world. Just because the man isn't suitable for the resideny doesn't mean everything he touches is crap.

[kentatm]

If he handed them a half-mil for last year you really think they'd tell him to get out? Be real. The Mormon church, like most large Christian churches, does a number of good works around the world. Just because the man isn't suitable for the resideny doesn't mean everything he touches is crap.


you could also say they do a ton of damage too.

churches will go to places like Africa where STDs like AIDS are rampant and discourage any sex ed other than abstinence. I think purposely keeping people in the dark about condoms in poor, uneducated regions with high STD rates is morally reprehensible.

regardless, I think its fair to critically look at a person who pumps up their charitable donations to their church when you are literally required to do it to participate.

[Real Men Wear Green]

you could also say they do a ton of damage too.

churches will go to places like Africa where STDs like AIDS are rampant and discourage any sex ed other than abstinence. I think purposely keeping people in the dark about condoms in poor, uneducated regions with high STD rates is morally reprehensible.

regardless, I think its fair to critically look at a person who pumps up their charitable donations to their church when you are literally required to do it to participate.
That's the stupid side of Catholicism and other religions. They're still a net positive. They build schools and hospitals, more than a lot of developed nations do for poor countries.

[Balla_Status]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/M/4/4/miss-me-yet-yes.jpg

It's funny, I bet if a white dude with an "R" next to his name was president, the drone strikes that took out most of the leadership of Al Queda would be considered "tough on terrorists." Not hypocritical at all, that.

So to you, Obama does it=good. Bush does it=bad.

Goes both ways. Stop assuming the ones talking bad about Obama are bush nut huggers. We're merely pointing out striking similarities between the two.

[Balla_Status]

we would need to see his tax returns. the ones that he won't release.



whether or not he is breaking the law, shielding money from taxation overseas is not patriotic. It is legal, it is not wrong but it isn't something many want their politicians doing.

It's the opposite. Good on Romney for avoiding giving money to a corrupt, wasteful government.

[Sarcastic]

It's the opposite. Good on Romney for avoiding giving money to a corrupt, wasteful government.


You should leave America since you hate it so much.

[Balla_Status]

You should leave America since you hate it so much.

That's what you got out of that statement? Ok.

[Sarcastic]

That's what you got out of that statement? Ok.


Well how could you love a wasteful, corrupt government?

[Droid101]

So to you, Obama does it=good. Bush does it=bad.

Goes both ways. Stop assuming the ones talking bad about Obama are bush nut huggers. We're merely pointing out striking similarities between the two.
When did I say that?

Bush started a war with the wrong country and then gave up on finding Bin Laden.

Seems like the OPPOSITE of what the current President has done.

But keep on keeping on.

[rufuspaul]

So to you, Obama does it=good. Bush does it=bad.

Goes both ways. Stop assuming the ones talking bad about Obama are bush nut huggers. We're merely pointing out striking similarities between the two.


This. I'm not a Republican but I recognize bullshit when I smell it.

[Droid101]

It's the opposite. Good on Romney for avoiding giving money to a corrupt, wasteful government.
Hold on.

Romney calls out the "47%" of Americans who don't pay taxes and says they need to get their "skin in the game."

But on the other hand, it's good that he avoided taxes.

Does this much intellectual dishonesty make your head spin?

[Rasheed1]

Hold on.

Romney calls out the "47%" of Americans who don't pay taxes and says they need to get their "skin in the game."

But on the other hand, it's good that he avoided taxes.

Does this much intellectual dishonesty make your head spin?


its hawker.. he never makes any sense