The Politics Thread

[Ann_SS]

More selective editing and deflecting. What else is a guy to do when he is constantly shown up to be wrong. Here something else for you selectively edit. Romney is unlikeable because he is disingenuous 1 percenter who disregard and dislike for the struggling middle class and the poor comes shining through. No one who thinks that corporations are people has a soul and people sense it. Glad that you think that Obama is the "cool guy." I am not his biggest fan, but he is a damn sight better than that Romney which is the grand scheme of things is pretty sad.

[Max]

Romney's career wasn't based on firing people, as he had more successes than failures at Bain. Private equity firms maximize profits when they invest in successful start-ups (which themselves obviously need to hire as they are growing). Of course, not every investment is successful, so it's easy for Democrats to cherry-pick the failures and dupe the idiot public into thinking this is typical (and--all the while--switching the discussion away from the country's horrendous economy). Thankfully, President Clinton--whose popularity and economic record will forever eclipse that of Barry's--had the bravery to point out that Governor Romney had a "sterling" business career:

http://www.mediaite....y-its-bad-work/

Regarding Romney's statement that he "likes to fire people," the Obama campaign and the liberal media distorted what he said. The context of the statement was that he likes having the option of firing people who provide bad services to him (which is hardly something reprehensible).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nBfWB64iHAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not at all surprised that these types of vicious attacks have succeeded in making Romney unelectable, even in the Great Recession. The stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me.

The silver lining of an Obama victory will be that nobody will be able to credibly bitch about SuperPACs, the "conservative" media, or about what a "homophobic" and "racist" country the USA is. Also, four more years of Obama will lead to four more years of the economy in shambles. While that's terrible news for America, it will lead to hugely lopsided GOP Congressional majorities, and the GOP nominee in 2016--most likely somebody "likable" and extremely conservative like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie--will handily defeat a Democratic nominee who is "not as cool" as Obama. (I foresee even a strong Democrat like Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton losing in 2016 in a similar manner to John McCain's 2008 loss.)

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[juppiter]

Didn't know this was ending. Shame. I always had a huge crush on him. Really smart guy too. And hot. lol.

[DRW50]

Using that logic, the Democrats would have kept Congress for much longer than 2006-2010.

Christie isn't likeable. He hates everyone. That's what gets him attention. Rubio is a token who seems to be distrusted by most who control his party.

It's a bizarre, elitist comment. It sounds like something Scrooge would say. Why would you go around bragging about that? If you want to fire them, then fire them, but why is this so pleasurable to you?

Yet the media and the GOP spent years saying that Clinton was to blame for the bad economy of the past decade. They still say that. The only reason anyone praises him now is because another Democrat is in office. As soon as that isn't true anymore, Clinton will return to being a hate figure.

Edited July 3, 2012 by CarlD2

[Max]

Based on what I saw from the clip, I think he was trying to advocate giving people the right to fire their insurance providers if they didn't like them. Though the "I like to fire people" was badly taken out of context, I'm not trying to defend what Romney said, either (because it was terrible politics). The fact of the matter is that he should have been aware of his public perception as a rich elitist and never said anything that could be distorted by opponents. Since he made such a mistake, it shows just how poor his political skills are. It's a strange coincidence that political tone-deafness is a disease that mostly affects people from Massachusetts (see Dukakis and Kerry).

I didn't mean to imply that these huge GOP Congressional majorities will be permanent. If the economy is still sucks in 2018 (like it did in 2010), then control will revert back to the Democrats.

Carl, I personally dislike both men, but the common idiot voter perceives both men as likable. With Rubio, I can understand it, because he is very suave and charismatic. Christie's likability seems to defy logic, but he has skillfully turned the fact that he is a temperamental bully into (what many consider) a positive trait by carefully crafting an image of a straight-talking "Jersey guy." Despite their lack of experience (which swing voters don't care about, anyway), either of them would have defeated Obama. (Not only because of likability issues, but also because the GOP base is actually enthused about them.) Does anybody honestly believe that Obama would win re-election if he wasn't given an opponent who can easily be portrayed as an unlikable, one-dimensional villain?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[Max]

According to an article in the far-right New York Times, Obama is also a member of the one percent:

http://www.nytimes.c...ax-returns.html

But, since he's liberal, that's OK, right? Barry never attends parties and fund-raisers with the Hollywood elite, because that would be the sort of heartless and out-of-touch as thing Willard would do. Instead, I take heart that our beloved president spends his free time socializing with the homeless.

Since you seem to be so concerned about the 99%, may I point out that small businesses are likely to get hit hardest by the "taxes" Obamacare puts on them. (Ironically, the massive health-care conglomerates love Obamacare; they'll get millions of new customers who will likely fatten their profits even more.)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48000806

I'm not sure how you've "constantly shown [me] to be wrong." (I never once got overconfident and foolishly predicted that SCOUTS would overturn Obamacare, so that can't be what you're referring to.) Unless you are a small business owner, I'm puzzled how you'll be able to prove me wrong once again and explain why your knowledge of running a small business (and managing the health care costs involved) is superior to actual owners who say they now have ZERO incentive to hire people.

Even the most noble intention of Obamacare doesn't seem achievable. That's because there aren't enough health-care professionals to handle the new load of (currently) uninsured individuals:

http://www.dispatch....-obamacare.html

I'm honestly not sure if liberals ever thought about any serious flaws that existed in this legislation (other than arguments concerning it not being "progressive" enough). Rather, the attitude of the Democrats seems to be laid out in Nancy Pelosi's philosophy that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[Ann_SS]

"Barry?" Really? Even I didn't refer to the Republican presidents that I disliked like that. These are the moments that you unintentional unknowingly reveal yourselves. And here is a tip, it is called the Affordable Care Act. You all sound like fools ranting on about "Obamacare." I can't even figure out how you jumped on to health care and frankly, I don't care. The rest of the post is typical conservative incoherent rambling. Small business owner? Please. The only business you conservatives love is your fellow corporations and the one percent. You have no use for small businesses. Never have and never will.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ann_SS

[DRW50]

I don't believe Christie would win on a national ticket, or even get through the primary. Christie is good at ranting and raving, but he's not proven enough on far right issues. They are more likely to go with someone they can guarantee speaks the true believer language. I also don't think he would be able to win over the average voter the way he does the media (who love aggressive, unpleasant Republicans) or some in New Jersey. He is a stranger to most of the public. The first time they see him he will be in an ill-fitting suit, sweating, pointing his finger, shaming them, yelling at them.

Rubio has huge baggage, and I don't believe he's all that charismatic or likeable. He is a token.

I do think if Romney were more of a consistent and strong candidate, he would be more likely to win (I still think he will win, or come very close), but the problem with today's GOP primaries is that you really can't make it out into the general unless you take hard right positions on everything and yell very loudly about conspiracies and the great evils of the liberals. You go into the general election known as a hatemonger, and you have to continue to act that way just to make sure the base will still support you instead of sitting at home or going third party.

I think the next GOP nominee, if Romney doesn't win, will be a governor or senator from a deep red state, someone who breathes fire. Someone like Jim DeMint, or Sam Brownback. The media will go wild, and they will have plenty of money.

[Roman]

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/naacp-launches-voter-registration-initiative

Lets try this again shall we?

Went right to it.

[Roman]

Christie is a loud mouth bully who the cable news media has fallen in love with. I'm still waiting for the day someone gets up and smacks the taste out of his mouth for talking to people anyway he wants to. As far as the POTUS economic plan....I still have yet to hear ONE ANSWER as to how he's supposed to pass any legislation while the ENTIRE Republican caucus does nothing but block him at every turn. Now the GOTBs are telling the country that they would repeal the AHCA even if 17 million children would no longer be covered. Their hatred of this man is truly staggering, but remember...it's all his fault, right?

[Roman]

You know, don't even do that to yourself. Some will not call things down the middle and fairly. I know what is behind Barry and crap like that, but it just makes no sense in the long run. Save your fingers.

Besides, the GOTBs want to repeal HC because the money they were getting under the table from the HCICs was money they could stick in their pockets or in some Swiss bank account...you know, like their nominee.

[Roman]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html

I see now why those GOTBs want to repeal the law.

[Max]

Again, the article that link took me to had nothing to do with the issue of what (if anything) the NAACP is saying about alleged voter fraud on Charlie Rangel's part.

I can't refer to you personally, but Bush was called much worse things than "Barry," such as "murderer," "deserter," and "election stealer." The crazy things that enemies of Bush and Clinton accused them of doing (being responsible for 9/11, killing Vincent Foster) are far more severe than floating around absurd theories like the current president is a Kenyan-born, Muslim socialist. Obama supporters conveniently forget the s#it Bush and Clinton went through in order to advance the narrative that their commander-in-chief is the most persecuted president in history.

You're one to talk, Roman, given that you have called Governor Romney "Willard" on multiple occasions. So if you're gonna suggest that those who call the president "Barry" are racists, then you are anti-Mormon for calling the governor "Willard." You can't have it both ways. (If somebody wants to use the terms "Barry" or "Willard," I'm perfectly alright with that, since those are their actual names. What's not acceptable is for you to trash me for using "Barry" while you yourself proudly use the term "Willard.")

Exactly how do you know that all conservatives have "no use for small business" and only care about the one percent? Instead of actually addressing the concerns that small business owners have (as laid forth in the article), you go and make a very broad, simplistic generalization (as if you know exactly what all conservatives are thinking).

Are you currently unemployed (like I am)? (I not assuming anything, which is why I asked.) At least in the field of accounting, there are few decent paying jobs available because companies are so reluctant to hire. (Just about all the employers I see are being extremely selective in the Obama economy, where they won't even give you an interview unless you've done essentially the same exact job in another company, and also are knowledgeable about some obscure IT system.) So yeah, I get more than a little emotional when talking about the very likely prospect of four more years of this s#it. If one's job prospects seemed hopeless--though no fault of their own (I was laid off 14 months ago because the failing company I worked for was acquired by a competitor; as what always happens in these situations, all overhead personnel in the acquired company were terminated)--I'd venture to say that person would want to change presidents as well (especially when one reads reports that business owners are even more reluctant to hire because of his policies). Racism has nothing to do with it, nor the desire to worship the one percent.

The 2016 GOP nominee could certainly be somebody very far to the right (who is unlikable/unelectable), but I suspect that the most likely right-wing fire breathing nut isn't Brownback (who failed badly in 2008) or DeMint (who realizes he is unelectable, which is why he didn't run this year). If the GOP wants to go the far-right route, their darling will be Rick Santorum, whose supporters will be super-energized and say that he's "owed" the 2016 nomination because he correctly warned that a moderate nominee (which is the perception many have of Romney, whether you agree with it or not) would lose.

If you don't mind me asking, I am curious as to which states you think Romney will carry. (I don't blame you for thinking that Romney will win, because if I was a Democrat, I probably would think/fear the same thing.) Right now, the only safe Romney states are the 22 McCain states, along with Indiana and North Carolina (which total 206 electoral votes). Strangely enough, Romney is leading in historically Democratic Iowa, so that brings his total up to 212 (which his how I foresee the election turning out, barring some major game-changing event). Romney can basically only win if he also carries Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, but he's trailing in all these places.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[JaneAusten]

Max

Not to get overly simplistic, but really what does the GOP have to offer outside of counter attacks. I think a lot of voters bought into Obama in 2008 perhaps for a lot of the same reasons Americans elected Jimmy Carter. Promises of a more "person of the people " and almost anti Washington. I know a lot of the knocks on Obama was his lack of experience in Washington but I think that was also looked at as a positive as it was for Jimmy Carter. A lot of people like me who preferred Hilary Clinton and still do, recognized that you need to understand the politics of Washington to get things done.

So with that, what advantage does Romney come with. The GOP continues to hang onto the legacy of Ronald Reagon who's policies would probably be spit upon today by the GOP while the party continues to move further and further to the right. And I am not saying this as an Obama fan. He's been disappointing. And I am not sure he's that likable. He doesn't have the charisma and warmth Bill Cinton had that drew people to him or like it or not the political savvy Reagon did.

[Roman]

You said NAACP fighting against voter suppression. No wonder people are voting for these sorry clowns in the GOTB. They all outright lie about something when they never said it in the first place. get your words straight first before you make another closed minded comment please. Wow. I just read the article. You are the perfect explanation why people hate talking about politics. What was the title of the article? Or are you going to tell me and everyone we're wrong again?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Roman