Will Obama win in 2012?

[hornadylnl]

At this point, either way I lose. I don't know which will be better. Romney winning and 4 years of silence from republicans about Romney's abuses (especially here) or the wailing in November after the republicans turd candidate loses.

This election should be the republicans to lose. It really looks like it will be mission accomplished.

 

[firehawk1]

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

You are correct, I voted for Paul in the primary and would have been happy had he won. There is our common ground. He did not though, and will not win the Republican nomination, so instead of constantly playing the victim card (everyone's out to get me and make me compromise my principles cause I'm a Paul/Johnson supporter) I myself decided to put my big boy underwear on and play with the ball we were given, Romney. That's just me though. It's not AOBO, it's Obama has to go IMO, and Romney is the best bet on that happening.

Everyone is free to vote for whomever they please. If voting for Paul/Johnson in the general makes you happy, great. My hope is Paul's supporters/delegates can influence the convention enough to move Romney to the right. Where we are right now I believe that would be Paul's greatest victory in the 2012 elections.

 

[IndyGunner]

On what do you base this?


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?

-Just messing with you.

-Amen.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

I've yet to hear how Romney will be ANY different than Obama. Far as i can tell his voting record isnt much different than Obamas is, and he's opening supported a few things Obama has done that would have divided the two

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Look at every Federal Judgeship including the Supremes, Zombie Apocalypse.... If you don't think they're different, you're not being intellectually honest. Seriously.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

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'll take your non-answer as evidence that there aren't any real differences between the socialist former governor & the socialist incumbent president.

I'm pretty sure the candidate who has voted against federal largess for 30 years in the congress would have spewed a bit less than the two socialist choices we now have before us.

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.

As I asked before, can you please quantify your assertion that Romney is better than Obama? Many of us don't see it. I'll even accept that he's more inept than Obama & therefore less likely to accomplish his freedom-diminishing goals.

The way I see it; if Romney wins 2012, the Republicans won't be able to run a man of honor & integrity until 2020. If Obama wins, the Republicans get another shot at offering a good candidate in 2016. Since there isn't much substantive difference between Romney & Obama, I'm leaning toward the latter...hopefully crippled with a Republican legislature.

 

[teddy12b]

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.

Ok, I about had a heart attack when I misunderstood that.

 

[churchmouse]

Remove the tele-prompter, the ear wig and Barry is a sitting duck.

 

[teddy12b]

Remove the tele-prompter, the ear wig and Barry is a sitting duck.

I desperately hope you're right.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Remove the tele-prompter, the ear wig and Barry is a sitting duck.

Cant wait to see how bad Romney will flip flop for the debates

Now Ron Paul vs Obama .... theres somethign worth watching

 

[teddy12b]

Cant wait to see how bad Romney will flip flop for the debates

Now Ron Paul vs Obama .... theres somethign worth watching

I don't think we'd get much worth talking about between a Romney vs Obama debate, but I'd love to see not only Ron Paul on a one on one vs Obama. I'd love to see Newt G. on a one on one debate vs Obama even more so than I would a Ron Paul debate. Newt would destroy Obama in a single debate.

 

[rambone]

I don't think we'd get much worth talking about between a Romney vs Obama debate, but I'd love to see not only Ron Paul on a one on one vs Obama. I'd love to see Newt G. on a one on one debate vs Obama even more so than I would a Ron Paul debate. Newt would destroy Obama in a single debate.

Newt scares me y more than Obama.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Newt scares me y more than Obama.

Newt is a lot CLOSER to Obama than is someone like Romney... I don't know if you can make the case for scaring you MORE, but I'd buy that both scare me equally.

Here's what I mean - Newt is an ego-driven small minded weasel. Who spouts conservative principles. Eloquently. Very intelligent - but not made of Presidential stuff. In a moment of crisis, very likely not to behave in a cool headed manner and likely to let ego drive things.

Obama is an ego-driven small minded weasel. Who spouts socialist principles. Eloquently. Very intelligent - but not made of Presidential stuff. In a moment of crisis, very likely not to behave in a cool headed manner and likely to let ego and his love of power drive things.

Both Obama and Newt would be likely to start a war or do something stupid because they thought that not doing so would make them look bad. Or to prove how big their male member was. Consider the recent leaks to see an example of Obama committing treason to prove how big his Johnson is... (hey wait a minute - I didn't have him in this discussion... )

Romney is a centrist that reflects the will of the constituents. To the point of the well documented and much discussed "flip flopping". If he has an agenda, it's economic, not socialist or conservative. While he and Ron Paul (and arguably Sandtorum) have different agendas that I may have a beef with (especially Santorum), they are not ego-driven in the same manner as Obama or Newt. (RP's agenda is well known, Santorum's is more moralistic). They will take more rational action - whether one agrees with their rationale or not.

I agree with you, Rambone - Newt would be of great concern to me. So is Obama - and just more so, because he's a Socialist. Why do you say Newt scares you more? Obama is just as loose of a cannon....

 

[rambone]

I agree with you, Rambone - Newt would be of great concern to me. So is Obama - and just more so, because he's a Socialist. Why do you say Newt scares you more? Obama is just as loose of a cannon....

Obama is a choirboy compared to Gingrich.

Surely you remember that large thread where I cataloged hundreds of video clips and quotes from Newt Gingrich. After studying the man I believe he is a true fascist masquerading as a conservative. He wants an iron-fisted Federal Government far beyond anything Obama has ever suggested. He wants EXECUTIONS for smuggling marijuana, and sponsored the bill himself. He wants a STRONGER Patriot Act. He said we should have a debate about restricting the First Amendment (now that we live in a post-9/11 world of course). He wants yet ANOTHER Federal terrorism agency that gets more power than the FBI and doesn't need to follow the constitution. Newt needs war like plants need sunlight. He literally wrote an article laying out his vision of "World War 3" and named the countries we should attack. On top of all that, he is anything but fiscally conservative. He has supported bailouts his entire career, helped create new agencies, lobbied for entitlement expansions, and SOO much more.

On a chessboard, Obama and Romney are pawns. Newt is more like a bishop. All of them are on the Dark Side with a common goal. They all ultimately are a part of the Great American Puppetshow. They all get their strings pulled by the globalist elites wanting more wars, and corporatist elites wanting more bailouts. They will all shield the Federal Reserve from scrutiny. They will all advance the Police State. They will all see to it that the Military-Industrial Complex prospers as the taxpayers are fleeced. The debt will soar, the spending will continue. Civil liberties will continue to be eviscerated. If the elites want conservatives to rally behind 8 years of spending, they will produce the crisis/threat that is necessary to achieve it.

 

[teddy12b]

I wasn't trying to give the impression that I'd ever consider voting for Newt, but I would still like to see him in a one on one debate with Obama. As a historian from a neo-con perspective I don't think you're going to find many people more squared away than Newt. In addition to that he would be absolutely ruthless to Obama and I'd love to see that discussion. I think he'd make Obama cry.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Respectfully, rambone, I think you DRASTICALLY underestimate Obama... you're looking at what he SAYS.. just look at what he's DONE...

We don't disagree on Newt - maybe only in degree or hyperbole. I have no use for the man.

How you can ignore Obama's misdeeds and bad intentions is frankly beyond me.

And I don't believe that Romney is even close to either one of them in the bad intents department. You could have said Santorum, and called him Gingrich lite, and I might have gone there. Romney's driving motivation is getting the economy straight - not fascism - nor ego in the same sense of Obama or Gingrich. Santorum wants to save our souls.

Frankly I think of that bunch I'll take saving the economy as goal #1. I'd rather see Johnson with his #1 goal of getting out of everyone's way. But that's not terribly likely.

My true first choice would have been Huntsman... but he didn't last long enough.

Look at the last time around. Obama decided not to save the economy - instead all of his political capital went into Obamacare. his next #1 priority will be socializing something else. Bet on it.

And you REALLY take him that lightly? He's throwing a couple of bones to attract the left lean libertarians back to the fold right now... Mark my words - that will bite you in the Keister - big time.

 

[rambone]

Respectfully, rambone, I think you DRASTICALLY underestimate Obama... you're looking at what he SAYS.. just look at what he's DONE...

How you can ignore Obama's misdeeds and bad intentions is frankly beyond me.

I don't like Obama in the least bit. His misdeeds are numerous. But he is an empty vessel. He rarely produces an original thought. He is a tool of the Establishment. A puppet. A fall guy, that can take the heat for bad policies and be replaced with another every few years. His speeches are handed to him and his Executive Orders are written for him. Those who focus all their attention on Obama are missing the bigger picture, and that is exactly how the game is designed to work. Obama is not special and he is not the worst president we've suffered through.

And I don't believe that Romney is even close to either one of them in the bad intents department. Romney's driving motivation is getting the economy straight - not fascism - nor ego in the same sense of Obama or Gingrich.

You're looking at what he SAYS.. just look at what he's DONE...

His rhetoric says one thing, his actions the opposite. Romney is a corporatist, passing laws to benefit his corporate allies and create monopolies. Not unlike Obama.

And you REALLY take him that lightly? He's throwing a couple of bones to attract the left lean libertarians back to the fold right now... Mark my words - that will bite you in the Keister - big time.

I don't take him lightly, but I don't inflate him to more than he really is. He's a rubber stamp on the Establishment's agenda. Same as Romney.

 

[TkdGunter]

I don't see either as extremely desirable; however, I do commend Romney for his success as a businessman, and a businessman is someone we are in dire need of in this current economy.

 

[rambone]

 

[firehawk1]

And regrettably Paul and/or Johnson would be forced into that same suit by powers they would have no control over if they assumed the office. Neither of them would really be allowed to effect any real change.