Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Ryan bans video/audio recordings at event.  Will he request the same at the debate?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/paul-ryan-fundraiser_n_1951515.html

Since a debate is a public event at a public forum, and the fundraising is a private event at a private place, I doubt it. However his move seems reasonable since the media released a partial quote from Romney claiming they had the full context and a full record, and then they magically didn't. The media is supposed to keep politicians honest. Since they are dishonsetly attempting to election Barack Obama, the actions seem very reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Ryan bans video/audio recordings at event.  Will he request the same at the debate?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/paul-ryan-fundraiser_n_1951515.html

I guess he's just following in Obama's footsteps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Obama actually runs Big Bird ad: 

 

I believe, as trump would say, Obama has jumped the shark.  

I think that is a really effective ad. Funny too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I think that is a really effective ad. Funny too.

I agree.

And to think that so many people will choose to miss the point.

- - - - -

Mittens once again backs away form the 47% comment, but explains, again, that he was only trying to get 50.1% of the vote (yep, that figure again).  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-cnn-interview_n_1952708.html

He was interviewed on CNN.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

OK, let me first state the ad was funny.  But it's funny because it's so stupid one cannot even believe it's real.  It's not effective at all.  All it shows is that the President has spent the week talking about Sesame Street instead of actual issues.   

A lot of families rely on Sesame Street as both an educational tool, because public education has more than a few shortcomings, and two as a baby sitter because you can't survive in the US today without a two income household so in the morning both parents are getting ready for work while the kids watch SS. 

The Dems were upset about Obama's apparently lackluster performance in the debate but I think he just wanted to be chill and not overly emotional to let Romney put his foot in his own mouth the way he always does and it worked. Romney is so under qualified to perform on the big stage it isn't even funny. Nobody likes him. The Republicans are trying to make the best of it but they don't like him either. Face it, the best candidates for the job are too smart to even run for office. The bickering and backstabbing that goes on in congress is just intolerable. Who wants to subject themselves to that? Being President isn't all it is cracked up to be. I think Obama seriously wanted to help the country improve where as Romney is just on an ego trip and wouldn't mind leveraging the position to advance his crony network to the next income bracket. In these stressful political environments of the modern times, two terms is almost more than any sane person can endure. The whole political system is just jacked, and I point the finger at the Republicans for the failure because they would even vote against their own agenda so long as it in some way harmed the Democrats efforts to pass any meaningful beneficial legislation. They are spiteful and hateful, yet they hide behind their holier than thou fake religious morality. The Republicans are only interested in gaining more power for themselves and care absolutely nothing for middle class working Americans, the poor, the youth or the elderly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

A lot of families rely on Sesame Street as both an educational tool, because public education has more than a few shortcomings, and two as a baby sitter because you can't survive in the US today without a two income household so in the morning both parents are getting ready for work while the kids watch SS. 

 

Even assuming we cut all government funding, Sesame Street would not go away.  Sesame Workshop makes millions.  Big Bird is part of the 1%.   

 

But the fact remains that the ad is effective because it communicates to middle class voters that Republicans hate Big Bird. That is the take away. The fact that Romney stepped right into a steaming pile without any help from Obama only proves he has no tact or skill or political understanding of how to communicate with people. If he became president, he would be making these same gaffes on the international stage weekly. That is not something I would like to see happen. It will only serve to lower the world opinion of the US and harm our economic and national security. The guy is an idiot. We already tried electing an idiot and it didn't work out so well. Can't we learn from our mistakes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

But the fact remains that the ad is effective because it communicates to middle class voters that Republicans hate Big Bird. That is the take away.

Aren't you making an claim here without any data to support it besides your own assumptions and biases?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

The fact that Romney stepped right into a steaming pile without any help from Obama only proves he has no tact or skill or political understanding of how to communicate with people.

OK. Let's stop pretending that what Romney did and said is any worse than similar missteps (if we grant the benefit of the doubt that it was a misstep) made by any previous person who actually got elected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

If he became president, he would be making these same gaffes on the international stage weekly.

This, of course, is merely your opinion. Despite that, even if we were to grant your claim as true, what should we make of the numerous gaffes Obama has made as President?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

It will only serve to lower the world opinion of the US and harm our economic and national security.

Non sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

The guy is an idiot. We already tried electing an idiot and it didn't work out so well. Can't we learn from our mistakes?

Well that depends. If the nation re-elects Obama, then the answer apparently is no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
I've heard Romney called a lot of things, but "idiot" is not one.  By all accounts he's an extremely smart and successful man.  Can't say the same about everyone here, unfortunately.  

You and your ilk will not prevail. You should move north, even north of the north pole because that is where your fantasy land is.

GOP now ironically begging Ron Paul supporters for help

That's like kicking a guy in the crotch, then asking him if he has any spare change.

Sorry, GOP. You don't deserve our support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I think that is a really effective ad. Funny too.

Yeah, it's a real effective ad, that will only help Romney. As a matter of fact, it's one of the least effective political ads ever, and one of the dumbest.

Big Bird is part of the one-percent, their CEO makes over 684k a year and they have many, many millions of dollars in capital.

Sesame Street has of course requested that the incompetent Obama campaign remove the ad, and it's quite telling that Obama chooses to focus on Big Bird instead of other issues that he'd rather not talk about, such as dead ambassadors and terrorist attacks against the USA.

At the end of fiscal 2011, Sesame Workshop and its subsidiaries had total assets of $289 million. About $29 million was held in cash and “cash equivalents,” mainly money-market mutual funds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

GOP now ironically begging Ron Paul supporters for help

 

That's like kicking a guy in the crotch, then asking him if he has any spare change.

 

Sorry, GOP. You don't deserve our support.

Yeah, I kind of really hate this whole issue.  Ron Paul unfortunately put the GOP in a no win situation with respect to the RNC, not that I can really blame him for that though.  The problem is that the MSM would have cherry picked the most extreme statements Ron Paul would make in a speech and presented those as the Republican platform.  Whether you agree with Ron Paul's positions or not, his views are NOT what the Republican party platform is and he would have inadvertently sabotaged the RNC which was supposed to be a huge pep rally for the Republican ticket.  Additionally, even if Ron Paul was given free reign and the party would simply deal with the likely MSM nightmare to follow, unless it ended with Ron Paul being announced as the Republican nominee nothing would have satisfied his incredibly loyal supporters.  Simply put it was a no win for the Republican party.

Of course, the Ron Paul line is that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  This means that the Paul supports will "stand by their principles" even if that means helping to re-elect Obama and that is the sad and scary part here.  This particular election is simply too important for hundreds of thousands of voters to write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson neither of which has a prayer of winning.  If this was 1996 I would encourage them to stick by their principles and support Paul or Johnson in the hopes of legitimizing an actual third party movement with an impressive number of votes, and in fact given the choices then I would likely have joined them.  Today however the election is simply too important to negate all of these votes but unfortunately short of some kind of miracle that's what I see as happening.

In the view of a couple of friends who are die hard Paul supporters, it looks like regardless of the outcome of this election the US is destined for at best a total financial collapse within the next few months followed by a disastrous few years.  By this point the country will hopefully come to the realization that only Ron Paul and his policies are capable of restoring America to any semblance of what it once was.  The more grim outlook involves actual civil war here in America possibly before the election, but this would somehow be avoided if Ron Paul were elected.  Not sure how that particular time warp theory works.

Personally, I'm going to hope and pray for Mitt Romney.  Hope that he wins the election because Obama has been a disaster so far and I'm afraid he will be much worse if he manages to get re-elected.  Assuming that Romney wins, I'll pray that he doesn't disappoint and is able to do for the US the kind of thing he did for the likes of Staples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Yeah, it's a real effective ad, that will only help Romney. As a matter of fact, it's one of the least effective political ads ever, and one of the dumbest.

 

Big Bird is part of the one-percent, their CEO makes over 684k a year and they have many, many millions of dollars in capital.

 

Sesame Street has of course requested that the incompetent Obama campaign remove the ad, and it's quite telling that Obama chooses to focus on Big Bird instead of other issues that he'd rather not talk about, such as dead ambassadors and terrorist attacks against the USA.

 

At the end of fiscal 2011, Sesame Workshop and its subsidiaries had total assets of $289 million. About $29 million was held in cash and “cash equivalents,” mainly money-market mutual funds.

The part I hate about this is that the Democrats willfully ignore the entire point of the Big Bird reference in the debate.  They refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that the Federal government is grossly oversized and to continue spending a trillion a year more than we take in is the path to ruin.  Just look at the EU.  How's Greece doing these days?  The point of Big Bird isn't the size of the subsidy, but the fact that these kinds of things exist and when we are borrowing money from China to fund them that is simply insane domestic financial policy.  Personally, I hope that Romney picks up at least one of the few good ideas that Rick Perry had, and I think Ron Paul supporters would agree with, which is to basically reset all foreign aid to ZERO.  Then reevaluate each country on a case by case basis with the first benchmark being are these countries allies of the US.  This would at the very least result in us not giving billions to countries that hate us as well as saving several billion a year that we don't have to borrow from another country that doesn't like us very much either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Yeah, I kind of really hate this whole issue.  Ron Paul unfortunately put the GOP in a no win situation with respect to the RNC, not that I can really blame him for that though.  The problem is that the MSM would have cherry picked the most extreme statements Ron Paul would make in a speech and presented those as the Republican platform.  Whether you agree with Ron Paul's positions or not, his views are NOT what the Republican party platform is and he would have inadvertently sabotaged the RNC which was supposed to be a huge pep rally for the Republican ticket.  Additionally, even if Ron Paul was given free reign and the party would simply deal with the likely MSM nightmare to follow, unless it ended with Ron Paul being announced as the Republican nominee nothing would have satisfied his incredibly loyal supporters.  Simply put it was a no win for the Republican party.

 

Of course, the Ron Paul line is that there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  This means that the Paul supports will "stand by their principles" even if that means helping to re-elect Obama and that is the sad and scary part here.  This particular election is simply too important for hundreds of thousands of voters to write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson neither of which has a prayer of winning.  If this was 1996 I would encourage them to stick by their principles and support Paul or Johnson in the hopes of legitimizing an actual third party movement with an impressive number of votes, and in fact given the choices then I would likely have joined them.  Today however the election is simply too important to negate all of these votes but unfortunately short of some kind of miracle that's what I see as happening.

 

In the view of a couple of friends who are die hard Paul supporters, it looks like regardless of the outcome of this election the US is destined for at best a total financial collapse within the next few months followed by a disastrous few years.  By this point the country will hopefully come to the realization that only Ron Paul and his policies are capable of restoring America to any semblance of what it once was.  The more grim outlook involves actual civil war here in America possibly before the election, but this would somehow be avoided if Ron Paul were elected.  Not sure how that particular time warp theory works.

 

Personally, I'm going to hope and pray for Mitt Romney.  Hope that he wins the election because Obama has been a disaster so far and I'm afraid he will be much worse if he manages to get re-elected.  Assuming that Romney wins, I'll pray that he doesn't disappoint and is able to do for the US the kind of thing he did for the likes of Staples.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" has not served our country well. It should be obvious by now.

But go ahead and hope and pray that your preferred evil will somehow help set things right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" has not served our country well. It should be obvious by now.

 

But go ahead and hope and pray that your preferred evil will somehow help set things right.

How much does not voting help?  How much does a write in or a vote for someone who can in the most optimistic of estimates gain 5% of the national vote help?  Romney is not my first choice, but he is the only choice we have in getting rid of Obama.  Is it the lesser of two evils, I don't think so.  I think Romney is fundamentally a much better person than Barack Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

How much does not voting help?  How much does a write in or a vote for someone who can in the most optimistic of estimates gain 5% of the national vote help?  Romney is not my first choice, but he is the only choice we have in getting rid of Obama.  Is it the lesser of two evils, I don't think so.  I think Romney is fundamentally a much better person than Barack Obama.

Voting has resulted in what we are experiencing today. Perhaps not voting is a viable alternative.

Voting for the Republican/Democrat false dilemma that has been placed before us by the establishment has resulted in what we are experiencing today. Perhaps voting for a third party candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and is not bought and paid for by special interests and corporations is a viable alternative.

As long as you believe there are only 2 choices and there's nothing you can do about it, you will continue to be disappointed in the direction this country is going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Voting has resulted in what we are experiencing today. Perhaps not voting is a viable alternative.

 

Voting for the Republican/Democrat false dilemma that has been placed before us by the establishment has resulted in what we are experiencing today. Perhaps voting for a third party candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and is not bought and paid for by special interests and corporations is a viable alternative.

 

As long as you believe there are only 2 choices and there's nothing you can do about it, you will continue to be disappointed in the direction this country is going.

You really don't think that if the Libertarian party were to become a solid third party that they wouldn't be lobbied by corporations and special interests.  There have been other political parties in the past and history seems to keep limiting us to two.  Even if there were more political parties in the country though, you are completely naive to think that your new third party would be uncorruptable and somehow immune to lobbying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

You really don't think that if the Libertarian party were to become a solid third party that they wouldn't be lobbied by corporations and special interests.  There have been other political parties in the past and history seems to keep limiting us to two.  Even if there were more political parties in the country though, you are completely naive to think that your new third party would be uncorruptable and somehow immune to lobbying.

I'm sorry, you seem to be attempting address claims I never made. I never said I exclusively supported the Libertarian Party (or that I supported it at all), nor that it would be incorruptible should it rise to prominence.

But thank you for acknowledging that both major parties (Republican and Democrat) are influenced by lobbyists and special interests.

I'm simply pointing out that, as of today, the candidate least beholden to such influences is the Libertarian Party candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I'm sorry, you seem to be attempting address claims I never made. I never said I exclusively supported the Libertarian Party (or that I supported it at all), nor that it would be incorruptible should it rise to prominence.

 

But thank you for acknowledging that both major parties (Republican and Democrat) are influenced by lobbyists and special interests.

 

I'm simply pointing out that, as of today, the candidate least beholden to such influences is the Libertarian Party candidate.

So you are perpetually going to be supportive of the underdog regardless of political ideaology?  If Gary Johnson weren't the least likely candidate to be elected, he wouldn't be the candidate receiving the least political lobbying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

So you are perpetually going to be supportive of the underdog regardless of political ideaology?  If Gary Johnson weren't the least likely candidate to be elected, he wouldn't be the candidate receiving the least political lobbying.

No. If I vote, it will be for candidates I believe will do the best job and most closely reflect my own values and principles. Not out of fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Yes, you are.  But you're not just pointing that out.  You're going much further in voting for a candidate who you know cannot and will not win. 

What happens if everyone wastes their vote on Gary Johnson? He's the next President of the United States.

You are again denying the reality of a first-past-the-post voting system.  Of course, you deny the reality of evolution, global climate change, and a whole host of other things, too.  Why not add one more to the pile?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You are again denying the reality of a first-past-the-post voting system.  Of course, you deny the reality of evolution, global climate change, and a whole host of other things, too.  Why not add one more to the pile?

What exactly do you mean by a "first-past-the-post voting system"?

As to the "reality" of evolution...  I suppose you are an atheist then?  The universe simply sprang into being with a "Big Bang"?  I suppose the energy for such a theory is perpetual and has simply existed eternally?  There are too many missing links and sudden "evolvements" in my mind for evolution to be a purely and scientifically accurate explanation for life on our little rock here.

As to global climate change...  No problems with that theory either.  It's not as if the world hasn't undergone ice ages and periods of warmth far beyond when us squishy humans started wandering around.  Just back in the 1970s they were talking about global cooling.  Now I don't deny that the global climate MAY be changing, but I seriously doubt that we have much if anything to do with that.

First-past-the-post = winner takes all.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It also does not attempt to explain how life arose from nonlife.  That science is called abiogenesis.  Your argument from incredulity isn't doing you any favors, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

What happens if a meteor hits the Earth tomorrow and we all die?  There is no next President of the United States.   I think that you know the likelihood of both is about the same.  

Wrong.

You have no control over meteors.

You do have control over who you vote for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You are again denying the reality of a first-past-the-post voting system.  Of course, you deny the reality of evolution, global climate change, and a whole host of other things, too.  Why not add one more to the pile?

And again BR resorts to ad-homs. Shocking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. It also does not attempt to explain how life arose from nonlife.  That science is called abiogenesis.  Your argument from incredulity isn't doing you any favors, either.

Generally speaking athiests have a problem with anything based upon faith.  However, the argument against evolution is by no means rooted only in Biblical faith.

Paleontologists have recently discovered a few, very few in fact, instances of missing links in the evolutionary chain.  The fact that these transitional fossils are so very sparse indicates that these intermediate forms did not survive very long at all.  If evolution is the slow process of creatures evolving new biological features isn't it odd that these in-between organisms completed the evolution of major structures like legs very suddenly, evolutionarily speaking that is.  I don't believe that God created the Universe and everything else in 7 24 hour periods, there is simply too much physical/logical evidence to the contrary.  I do however believe that life and indeed mankind would never have evolved from the primordial soup without the hand of God to nudge things along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Wrong.

 

You have no control over meteors.

 

You do have control over who you vote for.

It's not wrong at all.  Control isn't the issue here, it's the odds of something happening.  You have control over only your own vote, and possibly some influence over a small circle of associates.  Your control over your own vote in this case is similar to you going into a very large and very cold room and deciding to do something to raise the temperature.  Jumping jacks will raise your body temperature a couple of degrees and subsequently add to the total thermal energy in the room, but do you really think you are going to actually change the temperature of the room?

GJ will probably garner somewhere close to 5% of the vote nationally, but even if he wildly exceeds expectations the best to reasonably hope for is a Ross Perot like performance which would put GJ somewhere in the teens.  Congratulations, you and your friends have managed to raise the temperature in the room from 25F to 29F.  Is this really a significant change?

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

It's not wrong at all.  Control isn't the issue here, it's the odds of something happening.  You have control over only your own vote, and possibly some influence over a small circle of associates.  Your control over your own vote in this case is similar to you going into a very large and very cold room and deciding to do something to raise the temperature.  Jumping jacks will raise your body temperature a couple of degrees and subsequently add to the total thermal energy in the room, but do you really think you are going to actually change the temperature of the room?

 

GJ will probably garner somewhere close to 5% of the vote nationally, but even if he wildly exceeds expectations the best to reasonably hope for is a Ross Perot like performance which would put GJ somewhere in the teens.  Congratulations, you and your friends have managed to raise the temperature in the room from 25F to 29F.  Is this really a significant change?

5% of the vote is actually an important benchmark. It would allow a third party access to campaign funding reimbursement and make it easier to get their candidates on the ballot in many states.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" has not resulted in the changes we need. It fails. Every time.

So, I'm doing something different. You're welcome to join me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Generally speaking athiests have a problem with anything based upon faith.  However, the argument against evolution is by no means rooted only in Biblical faith.

 

Paleontologists have recently discovered a few, very few in fact, instances of missing links in the evolutionary chain.  The fact that these transitional fossils are so very sparse indicates that these intermediate forms did not survive very long at all.  If evolution is the slow process of creatures evolving new biological features isn't it odd that these in-between organisms completed the evolution of major structures like legs very suddenly, evolutionarily speaking that is.  I don't believe that God created the Universe and everything else in 7 24 hour periods, there is simply too much physical/logical evidence to the contrary.  I do however believe that life and indeed mankind would never have evolved from the primordial soup without the hand of God to nudge things along.

Another tired creationist argument.  Sigh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

2.  You're correct from a technical standpoint.  But I think you'll find that those who fully embrace evolution and are convinced there is no God

 

,

False.  That would be gnostic atheism.  I am an agnostic atheist igtheist.  I lack a belief in deities, don't believe that a deity is even knowable, and demand a falsifiable definition of a particular deity before considering that a discussion about said proposed deity is worthwhile.

Shocking that those who understand one major branch of science understands another branch.

Bringing a deity into the conversation is an argument from ignorance--god of the gaps.  

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I am an agnostic atheist igtheist.  I lack a belief in deities, don't believe that a deity is even knowable...

So, your basic belief is in the unknowability of things about a deity or the deity itself if it exists? Do I have that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

and demand a falsifiable definition of a particular deity before considering that a discussion about said proposed deity is worthwhile.

Is "worthwhile" an objectively measurable thing or is it subject to individual value rankings?