Will Obama win in 2012?

[Paco Bedejo]

There's a disconnect in the logic that says Ron Paul would be an acceptable alternative to Obama but Romney wouldn't.

Could you please enlighten us then? Personally, I fail to see any potential, significant policy differences between an Obama executive branch or a Romney executive branch.

• We'll continue to get new forms of social controls.
• We'll continue to get new forms of movement controls.
• We'll continue to get new forms of communication controls & spying.
• We'll continue to get new forms of taxation.
• We'll continue to get new forms of wealth-redistribution.
• We'll continue to get new theaters of war.
• We'll continue to get new forms of crony capitalism.

From my POV, I'm going to get upon either way. Romney is just as anti-gun as Obama, so there's not even that difference this go-'round.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nothing in this world is inevitable.

Besides Death.

I had my first checkbook at 13. I knew then that that goes ins have to be equal to or greater than the goes outs. If our politicians with the centuries of education amongst them haven't figured that out then the aliens might as well come now and destroy us.

We know what the solution is and we know how to implement it. Most voters keep voting to keep their cheese because they hope the cheese factory will remain open long enough to outlive them. Thank God our founders valued and loved their posterity. It's a shame it was all for naught.

 

[88GT]

We know how to implement it as well. We just don't have the intestinal fortitude to do it. We'd have better luck educating a welfare recipient on how the system is enslaving them than to convince the average American how broke and corrupt our government is. Americans have been led to the water and had their noses shoved in it. But their more interested in seeking their brand of tyranny and largesse than liberty. I don't lose any sleep over those who value tyranny over liberty.

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

[88GT]

Could you please enlighten us then? Personally, I fail to see any potential, significant policy differences between an Obama executive branch or a Romney executive branch.

• We'll continue to get new forms of social controls.
• We'll continue to get new forms of movement controls.
• We'll continue to get new forms of communication controls & spying.
• We'll continue to get new forms of taxation.
• We'll continue to get new forms of wealth-redistribution.
• We'll continue to get new theaters of war.
• We'll continue to get new forms of crony capitalism.

From my POV, I'm going to get upon either way. Romney is just as anti-gun as Obama, so there's not even that difference this go-'round.

Where's the guarantee you won't get on in a Paul presidency?

If getting on you is your standard, no candidate is better than the other. THAT is the disconnect in the logic.

 

[sepe]

Where's the guarantee you won't get on in a Paul presidency?

If getting on you is your standard, no candidate is better than the other. THAT is the disconnect in the logic.

Getting on is the standard simply because people (in general) have been caring less and less. If people don't care, why should any candidates be better than the other? If someone thought that JUST a Paul presidency would change things dramatically, they're a bit delusional. It takes much more than that. It takes stopping the cycle of voting for every election cycle because it smells slightly better than the current piece of , even if that slightly better smell is simply an attempt to get elected.

 

[churchmouse]

Where's the guarantee you won't get on in a Paul presidency?

If getting on you is your standard, no candidate is better than the other. THAT is the disconnect in the logic.

I have to go with 88 on this one.

If you really look into Ron Paul he is not what I would consider the total package answer either. He has some way the hell out there ideas that are a bit unsettling.

I am going for the fire resistant suit now. Let the flame throwers begin.

 

[firehawk1]

You can't seriously be comparing Romney to Reagan are you? I don't care for either of our most likely options, and lately I've been under the impression that my attention is better spent on prepping than on studying politics because of our lack of options.

No no no.... not policy wise at all OR charisma wise. There will never be another Ronald Reagan.

I was commenting about thinking Obama could destroying Romney in a debate.

 

[sepe]

I have to go with 88 on this one.

If you really look into Ron Paul he is not what I would consider the total package answer either. He has some way the hell out there ideas that are a bit unsettling.

I am going for the fire resistant suit now. Let the flame throwers begin.

He may have some ideas you find way the hell out there and some that I don't fully agree with but he has many ideas that sound much better than Obama and Obama lite. Many that are much, much better than Moon Base. Herman Cain made a joke of himself. I really don't see the difference between the current piece o' and the GOP pieces o'.

If I'm missing something completely, please enlighten me. If there is something that Frothy, Willard, Moon Base, Cain, or fill-in-the-blank would be doing much better than Barry O, the general public NEEDS to hear it. If there are vast differences, people need to be informed.

 

[churchmouse]

He may have some ideas you find way the hell out there and some that I don't fully agree with but he has many ideas that sound much better than Obama and Obama lite. Many that are much, much better than Moon Base. Herman Cain made a joke of himself. I really don't see the difference between the current piece o' and the GOP pieces o'.

If I'm missing something completely, please enlighten me. If there is something that Frothy, Willard, Moon Base, Cain, or fill-in-the-blank would be doing much better than Barry O, the general public NEEDS to hear it. If there are vast differences, people need to be informed.

Please know I hate them all. Nothing is a good package offered by either party and you are correct in much of what you say. I can offer no more than my disdain for the current coward and thief or the light version. Pun intended.

 

[firehawk1]

Americans have been led to the water and had their noses shoved in it.

And you wonder why they don't want to see, or agree with your view of things? One doesn't make friends or win over converts by "shoving their nose in it".

Also, who exactly has been doing the shoving, and what makes them think they are the all knowing all seeing anyway?

 

[IndyGunner]

Sounds like 88's ideal candidate is himself. No politician will meet every one of everyones standards... its impossible. In the battle of modern politics, paul wins over anyone else IN MY OPINION. Deregulation of irrelevant government cash black holes (epa), reduction of inefficient bureaucracy, immediate withdrawal from senseless and unconstitutional wars, elimination of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of funding to countries that want to kill us (pakistan for instance), elimination of debt ceiling increases followed by drastic cuts for spending to balance the budget, destruction of the federal reserve (which is the biggest cause for inflation in the past 15+ years), and an unwavering stance on every political issue for his entire career...

How exactly is that anything like romney? Hes a liberal "conservative" from MA (I was born and raised there, a conservative in MA is no different than the most liberal politician from the midwest... think dick lugar only worse), he INVENTED obama care, he is blatently pro war (Im not a tree hugger, but there is no point in war until we should defend ourselves... trade with everyone, make alliances with no one), and flip flops on every single stance from gun control to social security literally within the same sentence.

Im not saying paul is god, I find people who say that to be just as stupid as those who hailed obama to be... but hes a ****load better than anything we've had... arguably in the past 100+ years.

 

[hornadylnl]

And you wonder why they don't want to see, or agree with your view of things? One doesn't make friends or win over converts by "shoving their nose in it".

Also, who exactly has been doing the shoving, and what makes them think they are the all knowing all seeing anyway?

Balancing a checkbook. Who needs it? Let's just keep voting for more of the same. Enjoy the defeat of liberty this November, whichever candidate wins.

 

[restonlane]

Will depend on price of gas, and the job situation at the time.

 

[88GT]

Sounds like 88's ideal candidate is himself.

On what do you base this?

No politician will meet every one of everyones standards... its impossible. In the battle of modern politics, paul wins over anyone else IN MY OPINION. Deregulation of irrelevant government cash black holes (epa), reduction of inefficient bureaucracy, immediate withdrawal from senseless and unconstitutional wars, elimination of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of funding to countries that want to kill us (pakistan for instance), elimination of debt ceiling increases followed by drastic cuts for spending to balance the budget, destruction of the federal reserve (which is the biggest cause for inflation in the past 15+ years), and an unwavering stance on every political issue for his entire career...

You do realize this wasn't about comparing the actual policies/platforms of the candidates, don't you?

How exactly is that anything like romney? Hes a liberal "conservative" from MA (I was born and raised there, a conservative in MA is no different than the most liberal politician from the midwest... think dick lugar only worse), he INVENTED obama care, he is blatently pro war (Im not a tree hugger, but there is no point in war until we should defend ourselves... trade with everyone, make alliances with no one), and flip flops on every single stance from gun control to social security literally within the same sentence.

In the words of all the Paul supporters, does it really matter who is doing the ing? If Paul can't keep the from coming down on the citizenry, then it doesn't really matter who sits in the Big Boy chair, does it?

Im not saying paul is god, I find people who say that to be just as stupid as those who hailed obama to be... but hes a ****load better than anything we've had... arguably in the past 100+ years.

Ah, there's the contradiction. Paul is better. Not perfect, just better. And for that we should throw all our support to him. Yet when considering reality, and the fact that Paul isn't going to be on the ballot, we can't choose Mittens for the same reason: that he's better than the Kenyan. No, somehow it's not enough. It's good enough for Paul, but not good enough for Romney.

Please understand, this is purely an academic endeavor. I'm not supporting Romney over Paul. Let the record show that I happily cast my primary vote for Paul. This is about the inconsistency in logic that is used to support Paul. Particularly when Paul is not going to be on the ballot and we'll be face with a different set of choices.

 

[88GT]

Balancing a checkbook. Who needs it? Let's just keep voting for more of the same. Enjoy the defeat of liberty this November, whichever candidate wins.

I'm gonna ask this again: how is a vote for the guy who can't win, be it Paul, Johnson, or whomever, a better solution? With emphasis on SOLUTION.

 

[sepe]

On what do you base this?



You do realize this wasn't about comparing the actual policies/platforms of the candidates, don't you?



In the words of all the Paul supporters, does it really matter who is doing the ing? If Paul can't keep the from coming down on the citizenry, then it doesn't really matter who sits in the Big Boy chair, does it?


Ah, there's the contradiction. Paul is better. Not perfect, just better. And for that we should throw all our support to him. Yet when considering reality, and the fact that Paul isn't going to be on the ballot, we can't choose Mittens for the same reason: that he's better than the Kenyan. No, somehow it's not enough. It's good enough for Paul, but not good enough for Romney.

Please understand, this is purely an academic endeavor. I'm not supporting Romney over Paul. Let the record show that I happily cast my primary vote for Paul. This is about the inconsistency in logic that is used to support Paul. Particularly when Paul is not going to be on the ballot and we'll be face with a different set of choices.

I haven't seen a single person point out how Willard is actually better than Barry O (nope, not going to fallback on the trolling or racial BS...the state of Arizona believes Barry O was born in Hawaii). If someone can point out differences big enough to convince Paul supporters to support Willard, they need to be presenting that information if they truly think that Willard is that much better than Barry. It has been said/asked quite a few times and not a single time has anyone given reasons to vote for Willard other than "he is better than that Kenyan".

As far as inconsistency in logic that is used to support Dr. Paul, simply because he isn't going to be the nominee doesn't automatically make me join the anybody but Obama group. I'm not going to pick with corn bits in it or with some peanut bits in it and pretend I like either choice.

 

[firehawk1]

No politician will meet every one of everyones standards... its impossible. In the battle of modern politics, paul wins over anyone else IN MY OPINION. Deregulation of irrelevant government cash black holes (epa), reduction of inefficient bureaucracy, immediate withdrawal from senseless and unconstitutional wars, elimination of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of funding to countries that want to kill us (pakistan for instance), elimination of debt ceiling increases followed by drastic cuts for spending to balance the budget, destruction of the federal reserve (which is the biggest cause for inflation in the past 15+ years), and an unwavering stance on every political issue for his entire career...

Please state exactly in detail how a President Paul would accomplish any of this. Keep in mind almost no one in Congress would work with him.


Im not saying paul is god, I find people who say that to be just as stupid as those who hailed obama to be... but hes a ****load better than anything we've had... arguably in the past 100+ years.

I'm with 88 on this one, if Paul isn't perfect just better in some people's opinion, how is that any different than Romney is better than Obama in other people's opinion?

We truly all want the same thing, we just differ how to get there. The sooner we get past the one opinion is gospel, and everyone else is simply ignorant background noise we might begin to form some common ground to work from. That means the "shoving people's nose in it" needs to stop. But alas.... it won't happen.

 

[hornadylnl]

We truly all want the same thing, we just differ how to get there. The sooner we get past the one opinion is gospel, and everyone else is simply ignorant background noise we might begin to form some common ground to work from. That means the "shoving people's nose in it" needs to stop. But alas.... it won't happen.

If anyone is seeking common ground, it's you. So long as a third party candidate isn't standing on that same ground.

 

[sepe]

We truly all want the same thing, we just differ how to get there. The sooner we get past the one opinion is gospel, and everyone else is simply ignorant background noise we might begin to form some common ground to work from. That means the "shoving people's nose in it" needs to stop. But alas.... it won't happen.

But if nobody can point out any major differences, how would Romney be any better than Obama? Will he MAYBE slow down the BS Obama wants? Possibly. Does he want vastly different things when compared to Obama? Not that I've seen. He surely isn't a candidate that respects the Constitution.

 

[88GT]

I haven't seen a single person point out how Willard is actually better than Barry O (nope, not going to fallback on the trolling or racial BS...the state of Arizona believes Barry O was born in Hawaii). If someone can point out differences big enough to convince Paul supporters to support Willard, they need to be presenting that information if they truly think that Willard is that much better than Barry. It has been said/asked quite a few times and not a single time has anyone given reasons to vote for Willard other than "he is better than that Kenyan".

I agree the historical record of Romney in MA seems to mirror Obama's in substance. But the differences are rooted in the character of the individual. And while Romney may support some disgusting legislation/policies, I do not believe he will sully the office with the same perversions that Obama has done. Will it amount to a difference in consequences? Hard to say. But I see more than just a policy or a veto signature in the Man in the Oval Office. And Romney is a far better choice than Obama.

I understand that others don't measure the candidate's with the same criteria. I'm cool with that.

As far as inconsistency in logic that is used to support Dr. Paul, simply because he isn't going to be the nominee doesn't automatically make me join the anybody but Obama group. I'm not going to pick with corn bits in it or with some peanut bits in it and pretend I like either choice.

Well, then you should understand the conundrum some of us face: a candidate or a candidate who isn't running/going to win. The only difference is that Paul supporters put on this air of moral superiority for their choice as if picking the loser is somehow better. Sure, you might be able to sleep at night for not having to compromise your pure principles. But you still lost. I don't see how that's better than a bad candidate winning. Most of us here would love to be able to cast the vote for Paul (I venture to say most of us did in the primary).

If I can't have my candidate, I'm going to try and influence the election such that the next best one is the winner. This is reality. This is how most people live their lives, acknowledging that the perfect choice is unattainable and opting to "settle" for the best of the achievable ones. I don't see how there's any fault to be placed on us for that. Particularly when those who scream the loudest about it can't seem produce different results their way.