Romney/Ryan VS. Obama/Biden

[Night Strike]

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?".

They have? What evidence do you have for this?

The debt ceiling debate for one.

Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.

I truly have no idea at all why you would believe that last sentence. It is highly irrational.

Why? We already know Reid promised to block and Obama promised to veto even just $60 billion in less spending increases, so clearly they won't be enacting any budget cutting measures. If Congress passes a spending plan that reduces spending, there is no indication that Romney would veto such legislation. Obama clearly would because he believes that the deficit can only be fixed by higher taxes on "the rich".

[Nola_Lifer]

Here you go, same difference. haha

[thegreekdog]

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?". Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.

President Clinton and a Republican Congress fixed it in one year.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, given the "budget crisis" of last year and how the 12 Tea Party members of Congress and the Pauls tried to stall the process, but that's 14 people. Not close to enough. And it won't be close to enough after November. Not to mention, I think the Tea Party is for selective spending cuts, not overall spending cuts. I don't see any Tea Party Congresspeople talking about cutting the military. As I indicated before, if the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul or the other Mormon (I can't recall his name), I would say your faith in the Republican Party is warranted. However, if your views are what you say they are, there is no reason to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan; you should vote for Gary Johnson and you should vote for Libertarians for Congress. That's what I'll be doing.

[Woodruff]

President Clinton and a Republican Congress fixed it in one year.

But that wasn't because they worked together rationally on the problem...that was because Clinton got
lucky!

[SirSebstar]

Get your predictions in!

I am going with Tim Pawlenty. He's a clean dork, and he's from Minnesota.

wait, is this the prediction or what I wanted, cause those are 2 different things

[AndyDufresne]

As I indicated before, if the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul or the other Mormon (I can't recall his name), I would say your faith in the Republican Party is warranted.

Jon Huntsman? I don't think his campaign was run the best, but he appealed to quite a lot of sensible voters. But he never had much steam, nor was he ever going to get it I think.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center describes Romney's plan as "mathematically impossible."

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, it's about time JB uses a nonpartisan source.

Good job! You're a few steps away from your severe case of Phatism.

[Phatscotty]

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?". Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.

President Clinton and a Republican Congress fixed it in one year.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, given the "budget crisis" of last year and how the 12 Tea Party members of Congress and the Pauls tried to stall the process, but that's 14 people. Not close to enough. And it won't be close to enough after November. Not to mention, I think the Tea Party is for selective spending cuts, not overall spending cuts. I don't see any Tea Party Congresspeople talking about cutting the military. As I indicated before, if the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul or the other Mormon (I can't recall his name), I would say your faith in the Republican Party is warranted. However, if your views are what you say they are, there is no reason to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan; you should vote for Gary Johnson and you should vote for Libertarians for Congress. That's what I'll be doing.

Any Libertarian who actually wants to get elected, and has a brain, will try to get elected on the Republican ticket....JUST LIKE GARY JOHNSON DID AT FIRST. Remember he told that joke in the first Republican debate?

The calls from tea party politicians to cut military were already dug up by myself about a year ago. That specifically included the military. But at least you seem to agree with me that we need to send more Tea Party people to Congress, because 110-120 tea party members IS enough to not only stall the process, but start actually moving the ball to make the balanced budget a reality.

Jesus...14 members? lol Our Tea Party movement does not hinge on "we have to get the perfect presidential candidate, or else we should just give up". Many times throughout our history, the loser of an election or a campaign has turned out to have more impact on the country and our future than the winner ever could. There was actually a special on Cspan not too long ago that addressed this, very interesting.

Ron Paul and the Tea Party are in the process of changing history as we speak. I understand some will not be able to see this until they are looking back in hindsight. Oh well

[Juan_Bottom]

Is it true that BBS has been following me around this forums saying sh*t cause he knows that I can't see it? I don't want to sound paranoid, but he always post immediately after me.

[Juan_Bottom]

Obama Campaign Offer of Truce on Romney Tax Returns Rejected

“I am writing to ask again that the Governor release multiple years of tax returns, but also to make an offer that should address his concerns about the additional disclosures. Governor Romney apparently fears that the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide. So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point: if the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more–neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign.

“This request for the release of five years, covering the complete returns for 2007-2012, is surely not unreasonable. Other Presidential candidates have released more, including the Governor’s father who provided 12 years of returns. In the Governor’s case, a five year release would appropriately span all the years that he has been a candidate for President. It would also help answer outstanding questions raised by the one return he has released to date, such as the range in the effective rates paid, the foreign accounts maintained, the foreign investments made, and the types of tax shelters used.

“To provide these five years, the Governor would have to release only three more sets of returns in addition to the 2010 return he has released and the 2011 return he has pledged to provide. And, I repeat, the Governor and his campaign can expect in return that we will refrain from questioning whether he has released enough or pressing for more.”

[Phatscotty]

Neither is the request for Obama to unseal his college records unreasonable. Paul Ryan's grades are already being sifted through and interviews with his professors are already done! This is some seriously hypocritical shit!

It's not that Obama won't release his college records, it's that Obama took the action to make sure that nobody can ever see his college records, he sealed his records. Romney is not sealing his taxes, he's just not volunteering them. If I were Romney, I would not release my taxes either.

All you guys are doing is asking Mitt Romney to give you the baseball bat so that you can club him over the head with it. The more you guys ask for the bat, the more people who are watching are going to support Romney (just like gay marriage)

It really is too bad Obama and his supporters cannot run on his record.

[Night Strike]

On the topic of Supreme Court Justices, Romney is being advised on judicial matters and nominees by Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel at ACLJ, a group that supports strict constructional interpretations of the Constitution. Sounds like a clear difference between Obama and Romney when all those "third party supporters" claim there is no difference between the two.

[GreecePwns]

"third party supporters"

Your upturned nose toward those who fight the political duopoly greatly disturbs me.

It takes a large mix of stupidity, ignorance, indoctrination and flag-waving to have this kind of attitude toward supporters of parties other than your precious Republican Party.

[Night Strike]

"third party supporters"

Your upturned nose toward those who fight the political duopoly greatly disturbs me.

It takes a large mix of stupidity, ignorance, indoctrination and flag-waving to have this kind of attitude toward supporters of parties other than your precious Republican Party.

No, I'm just saying that those who would rather vote for a third party instead of the person who has the opportunity to get Obama out of office are just working to support another term for Obama. The path to changing the culture in politics is to change one party from within instead of trying to attack both parties from the outside. The outside attack will not work.

[thegreekdog]

"third party supporters"

Your upturned nose toward those who fight the political duopoly greatly disturbs me.

It takes a large mix of stupidity, ignorance, indoctrination and flag-waving to have this kind of attitude toward supporters of parties other than your precious Republican Party.

No, I'm just saying that those who would rather vote for a third party instead of the person who has the opportunity to get Obama out of office are just working to support another term for Obama. The path to changing the culture in politics is to change one party from within instead of trying to attack both parties from the outside. The outside attack will not work.

Except that a President Romney is not much better, if at all, than a President Obama (for Libertarians). Further, voting for Mitt Romney will not bring a message of "the Republican party needs to change" it will bring a message of "we like the Republican party the way it is."

[Night Strike]

Except that a President Romney is not much better, if at all, than a President Obama (for Libertarians). Further, voting for Mitt Romney will not bring a message of "the Republican party needs to change" it will bring a message of "we like the Republican party the way it is."

Then I guess we're going to just keep seeing that differently then.

[thegreekdog]

Except that a President Romney is not much better, if at all, than a President Obama (for Libertarians). Further, voting for Mitt Romney will not bring a message of "the Republican party needs to change" it will bring a message of "we like the Republican party the way it is."

Then I guess we're going to just keep seeing that differently then.

Yeah, unfortunately. I'll continue to vote Libertarian (or libertarian Republican candidates). I will not be voting for Romney this year.

Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?

[GreecePwns]

TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.

He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.

He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"

This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.

[thegreekdog]

TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.

He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.

He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"

This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.

I will add to this the following:

- Media is interested in and receives money (indirectly) from and gives money to the established political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Media has no interest in third party candiates.
- You hear a lot from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals in the media and elsewhere that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
- A third party vote is not a wasted vote; rather, Republicans, Democrats, and media members do not want you to vote for a third party for the reasons above.

[kentington]

TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.

He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.

He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"

This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.

I will add to this the following:

- Media is interested in and receives money (indirectly) from and gives money to the established political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Media has no interest in third party candiates.
- You hear a lot from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals in the media and elsewhere that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
- A third party vote is not a wasted vote; rather, Republicans, Democrats, and media members do not want you to vote for a third party for the reasons above.

What is the closest a third party has gotten to be voted in?

[Juan_Bottom]

The difference between hating Obama and loving America.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.

He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.

He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"

This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.

I will add to this the following:

- Media is interested in and receives money (indirectly) from and gives money to the established political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Media has no interest in third party candiates.
- You hear a lot from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals in the media and elsewhere that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
- A third party vote is not a wasted vote; rather, Republicans, Democrats, and media members do not want you to vote for a third party for the reasons above.

Yeah, well what the marx do you know?

[Neato Missile]

It's not that Obama won't release his college records, it's that Obama took the action to make sure that nobody can ever see his college records, he sealed his records. Romney is not sealing his taxes, he's just not volunteering them. If I were Romney, I would not release my taxes either.

You are misrepresenting the issue surrounding Obama's college records. Executive Order 13489, which is presumably what you are referring to, actually rolls back Bush-era restrictions on the release of records, restoring the original status of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Moreover, the presidential records which the act deals with are "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." Obama's college records were not created while carrying out the official duties of the President, and therefore do not fall under the umbrella of the PRA. As such, the PRA and Obama's executive order pertaining to it have no bearing on them.

Like Romney, Obama did not seal his college records, he's just not volunteering them. Something something handing Republicans a baseball bat, I'd say.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... l-records/
Brief discussion of the true effect of Obama's executive order re: Presidential Records Act.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html
Executive order in question.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/pres ... .html#2201
Relevant definitions re: "presidential records."

[Juan_Bottom]

Romney did have his bathing suit mugshot sealed though!
Slight misrepresentation for ya!