PDA

View Full Version : Now that Romney's won New Hampshire



John Smith
01-11-2012, 07:53 AM
He made an interesting victory speech. Sounded a lot like Obama did in in 2008. Promises to bring congress together; good luck. Promised to do a lot of things he'll need congress to do.

Meanwhile, Gingrich goes forward thanks to a generous $5 million donation to his PAC, Huntsman's future depends on Daddy writing a check.

This isn't democracy. This is insanity.

Waddie
01-11-2012, 08:33 AM
John Smith; This isn't democracy. This is insanity.

And the Democratic party is different how?

Or is it ALL insanity?

regards,
Waddie

Nicholas Scheuer
01-11-2012, 08:46 AM
Running true to form, Repubs are well on their way to nominating a stuffed shirt with a constipated mind.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2012, 09:31 AM
And the Democratic party is different how?

Or is it ALL insanity?

regards,
Waddie

The Democrats won't have Richie Rich at the top of their ticket.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2012, 09:33 AM
And the Democratic party is different how?

Or is it ALL insanity?

regards,
Waddie

The Democrats won't have a preditorial business man at the top of their ticket.

TomF
01-11-2012, 09:42 AM
Pragmatically and paradoxically, what the last few years should have taught us is that in the current American political climate, the only party with the potential to "bring Congress together" is the Republicans.

This is not because today's Reps are better at extending a hand across the aisle. It's because the current group of Rep politicians have shown that they simply will not collaborate on meaningful (or even meaningless!) Dem initiatives, period. Despite the poisonous political climate during Bush II's presidency, the Dems in Congress were somewhat more willing to keep the business of government running. We've seen the comparative stats posted on the forum before.

Which is a way of saying that Romney might be right. But if so, he's right for which bring shame to current Rep politicians, rather than credit. And frankly, shouldn't be rewarded.

elf
01-11-2012, 09:54 AM
The Democrats won't have a preditorial business man at the top of their ticket.
predatory is the word you're looking for, Chuck.

wardd
01-11-2012, 10:53 AM
all i can say is go newt, perry, go

wardd
01-11-2012, 10:55 AM
class warfare with the republicans is the rich dudes against the richer dude

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2012, 10:56 AM
predatory is the word you're looking for, Chuck.

Thanks but "preditory" isn't a dire enough adjective to describe the likes of Mitt Romney.

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 10:58 AM
The Democrats won't have Richie Rich at the top of their ticket.You are right CC. Obama only has 700 million to spend. He doesn't need Richie Rich.

Waddie
01-11-2012, 11:01 AM
Maybe it's time to get a pro-business president in there. The socialist president doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with the economy.

regards,
Waddie

wardd
01-11-2012, 11:04 AM
the republicans have hobbled his feet and now complain that obama can't cross the finish line

Waddie
01-11-2012, 11:06 AM
the republicans have hobbled his feet and now complain that obama can't cross the finish line

And so will the Democrats if a Republican gets elected.

BTW; have you forgotten the Blue Dog Democrats?

regards,
Waddie

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 11:06 AM
I followed a hobbled horse for 26 miles one day. Even across streams. If a horse can do it, why not Obama?

wardd
01-11-2012, 11:08 AM
metaphor?

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 11:24 AM
Metaphor or not. Used to describe Obama being hobbled as usual by the reps.So I gave a real example where even a hobbled horse can do what Obama can not seem to do.*

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:34 AM
And the Democratic party is different how?

Or is it ALL insanity?

regards,
Waddie

It's pretty much all insanity. Come November, it is my prediction that the single biggest issue will be the Citizens United decision. Romney supports corporations being people; Obama does not.

This is an interesting interview http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-10-2012/andrew-napolitano?xrs=share_copy

Take note, please, of the section where the judge says the states cannot violate the constitution; at some point Romney will be asked how the state can mandate buying health insurance but the feds can't. He will also be asked if the exchanges the Affordable Health Care Act will bring don't address the very problem he was addressing Saturday night.

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:36 AM
Pragmatically and paradoxically, what the last few years should have taught us is that in the current American political climate, the only party with the potential to "bring Congress together" is the Republicans.

This is not because today's Reps are better at extending a hand across the aisle. It's because the current group of Rep politicians have shown that they simply will not collaborate on meaningful (or even meaningless!) Dem initiatives, period. Despite the poisonous political climate during Bush II's presidency, the Dems in Congress were somewhat more willing to keep the business of government running. We've seen the comparative stats posted on the forum before.

Which is a way of saying that Romney might be right. But if so, he's right for which bring shame to current Rep politicians, rather than credit. And frankly, shouldn't be rewarded.
They won't even vote for legislation the author in order to prevent Obama having a victory.

At some point, Romney is going to have to be asked for some specifics as to Obama policies that failed, as opposed to overly optimistic predictions being wrong.

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:38 AM
You are right CC. Obama only has 700 million to spend. He doesn't need Richie Rich.


I don't think we can imagine the massive amount of money that will be spent this year.

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:40 AM
Metaphor or not. Used to describe Obama being hobbled as usual by the reps.So I gave a real example where even a hobbled horse can do what Obama can not seem to do.*

Personally, I think it's wishful thinking and dillusional. They've slowed him down and, in doing so, have slowed growth in our economy down.

TomF
01-11-2012, 11:46 AM
I don't think we can imagine the massive amount of money that will be spent this year.Think of it as stimulus spending.

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 11:46 AM
The economy problem isn't only in the US, it's global

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:48 AM
The economy problem isn't only in the US, it's global

Yes, and is that Obama's fault, too?

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:50 AM
Think of it as stimulus spending.

I think my problem is, and the problem many will have is, that all this money could be spent in ways that would stimulate the economy. Just the cash spent in Iowa would fix a few bridges.

Or insulate some homes.

Ian McColgin
01-11-2012, 11:51 AM
South Carolina will be bloody. There were at least two major employers that Romney divested of employees and a bunch of those guys will be organized by Gingrich and perhaps Ron Paul to follow Mitt around and stick it to him.

If he finds a way to deal directly with people who have been dislocated in our economy and if he doesn't have a confrontational melt-down he'll come out ahead but this is the time when he'll be wishing he had the talent of an Irish hangman.

You know the Irish hangman?

He's there to hang you.

He'll borrow your rope for the job.

And he'll have you thanking him.

wardd
01-11-2012, 11:51 AM
Metaphor or not. Used to describe Obama being hobbled as usual by the reps.So I gave a real example where even a hobbled horse can do what Obama can not seem to do.*

could that hobbled horse win the race?

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 12:07 PM
Do you know what is involved in hobbling a horse? I think you might as you take care of a few (rumor). If a hobbled horse wins the race, the other horses are more than likely dead, or he is the only horse in the race.

wardd
01-11-2012, 12:44 PM
Do you know what is involved in hobbling a horse? I think you might as you take care of a few (rumor). If a hobbled horse wins the race, the other horses are more than likely dead, or he is the only horse in the race.

just where is this train wreck of thought going?

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 12:50 PM
Yours? I have no idea, tell me.You brought it all up.I did not mention the term "hobbled" you did.Or have you forgotten so soon?

wardd
01-11-2012, 01:19 PM
Yours? I have no idea, tell me.You brought it all up.I did not mention the term "hobbled" you did.Or have you forgotten so soon?

you're grasping

wardd
01-11-2012, 01:20 PM
I agree... this could become especially sticky for Romney. The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling on this issue well before the election. If the Supremes rule the mandate is constitutional, then Romney will be on the worng side of the issue, according to his current talking points.... if they rule against it, he will be shown to have been wrong on his previous talking points. It's a no-win for the guy.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/in-health-care-brief-obama-doj-needles-scalia-on-precedent.php?ref=fpa

TomF
01-11-2012, 01:33 PM
I frankly think that the whole Rep primary process this time out is every bit as pro forma as it was in 2008. All protestations and the last few years' obstructionism aside, in the wee small hours of the night I think that the Rep machine really doesn't want to win in 2012, any more than they really wanted to win in 2008. The country is in a difficult enough position that any President will be smeared by it, regardless of their actual responsibility for it. Much better to run a Primary season which pacifies the competing party sectors, annoints a Candidate who looks somewhat credible, but really can't win, and really target 2012 when (God willing) the economy will be rebounding, and the incoming administration can take credit.Frankly, I couldn't understand why Obama wanted the job in 2008, and entirely understood why the Reps ran McCain/Palin.

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 01:43 PM
you're graspingHope you recover soon enough to get back on your mule even with your saddle sores wardd.

wardd
01-11-2012, 02:01 PM
Hope you recover soon enough to get back on your mule even with your saddle sores wardd.

you silly man

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2012, 04:59 PM
Well, numbers.. Huffypoop was brought up on a poll that went poof earl er today whci stated that it took Romney 5 years to reach 40% in NH. Well, Obama came in second in 08 with a bit over 36% and he only was faxing one other candidate Why only 36% I don't know. I guess a heck of a lot of people stayed home. Well he is president now even with that showing in NH so, I'm not sure that Romney's showing against several candidates should be any different than the Dem primary in 08..*

John Smith
01-11-2012, 11:02 PM
You still don't understand this? Even after a bunch of different people from both sides of the aisle tried to explain it to you in another thread recently?

Do you even read the replies to your numerous dumb questions? :rolleyes:


But stewart's guest is the only one who cites the constitution when he makes the point, and he agrees with me.

Maybe I'm not the one who isn't understanding this.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2012, 11:45 PM
I frankly think that the whole Rep primary process this time out is every bit as pro forma as it was in 2008. All protestations and the last few years' obstructionism aside, in the wee small hours of the night I think that the Rep machine really doesn't want to win in 2012, any more than they really wanted to win in 2008. The country is in a difficult enough position that any President will be smeared by it, regardless of their actual responsibility for it. Much better to run a Primary season which pacifies the competing party sectors, annoints a Candidate who looks somewhat credible, but really can't win, and really target 2012 when (God willing) the economy will be rebounding, and the incoming administration can take credit.Frankly, I couldn't understand why Obama wanted the job in 2008, and entirely understood why the Reps ran McCain/Palin.

A more precise definition of the Republian candidate is, "sacrificial goat".