Question for Romney supporters

#26
#26
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I am not voting against Obama because I "dislike him". I'm voting against him because he has failed to deliver on nearly all of his key objectives and has done a generally poor job imo.
Click to expand...

Same, my dislike for Obama isnt personal, he has just done a poor job at leading this country and has failed to do what he said he would do
 
#27
#27
volfanjustin said:
I agree with that. I am not worried about people voting for Paul or Johnson, there won't be enough of them to change the outcome either way.
Click to expand...

Polls I saw showed Paul garnering 15% of the popular vote if he decides to run as an independent. You sure about that?
 
#30
#30
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Sorry, thats one guy in the CC, there are a billion+ in the church, some are going to disagree
Click to expand...

Not like the issue matters. Obama has credited religion for some of his actions, and he's not done much for gay rights either (excluding DADT).

If the primaries got one thing right, it's electing a social moderate who probably won't pay any attention to social issues except in three years when he needs to rally the base again.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Well that would be 100 pct anti-Obama, then, wouldn't it ?
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be the case. I actually would like a "anybody but Obama" option.

It's sad but true that because of the primary system, a good candidate on either side cannot win the nomination. Way to many one issue voters out there both red and blue.
 
#33
#33
hog88 said:
Yes, that would be the case. I actually would like a "anybody but Obama" option.

It's sad but true that because of the primary system, a good candidate on either side cannot win the nomination. Way to many one issue voters out there both red and blue.
Click to expand...


I preferred Hillary C last go 'round, myself. Just thought she had more experience.
 
#36
#36
hog88 said:
Oh wow, and I thought I couldn't think any lower of you than I already did...
Click to expand...



I am not nearly the ideologue you think. It might seem that way because a large amount of what I post here is in response to -- or trying to have conversation about -- what I perceive to be irrational demagogeury from the far right.

What I want most of all in a POTUS at this point in my life and in the nation's history is someone who makes the trains run on time and wants to adjust to, and move forward with, the changing face of the country and the world.

I don't like people running who rely on harkening back to "the good old days," or some version of that concept, because I think it appeals to prejudices (of many types) and more importantly dooms us to losing our place as the world's greatest country.

I daresay that over the millenia many empires and world powers have imploded for failure to understand what was going on around them and to meet those challenges, instead of always just trying to reframe the reality in terms of "better times."

This country was founded on a break from "tradition." I'm not saying it doesn't have its place. But there is a difference between respecting tradition and ignoring what is going on around you.

Since the GOP right now seems much more interested in protecting the existing uppermost economic class versus broadening support of the middle class, at the moment they usually don't get my support. Some do, but they have to show a bit of vision that the base of the GOP right now seems to want to turn a blind eye towards.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
I am not nearly the ideologue you think. It might seem that way because a large amount of what I post here is in response to -- or trying to have conversation about -- what I perceive to be irrational demagogeury from the far right.

What I want most of all in a POTUS at this point in my life and in the nation's history is someone who makes the trains run on time and wants to adjust to, and move forward with, the changing face of the country and the world.

I don't like people running who rely on harkening back to "the good old days," or some version of that concept, because I think it appeals to prejudices (of many types) and more importantly dooms us to losing our place as the world's greatest country.

I daresay that over the millenia many empires and world powers have imploded for failure to understand what was going on around them and to meet those challenges, instead of always just trying to reframe the reality in terms of "better times."

This country was founded on a break from "tradition." I'm not saying it doesn't have its place. But there is a difference between respecting tradition and ignoring what is going on around you.

Since the GOP right now seems much more interested in protecting the existing uppermost economic class versus broadening support of the middle class, at the moment they usually don't get my support. Some do, but they have to show a bit of vision that the base of the GOP right now seems to want to turn a blind eye towards.
Click to expand...

What have the Dems EVER done to broaden the support for the middle class?
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
I am not nearly the ideologue you think. It might seem that way because a large amount of what I post here is in response to -- or trying to have conversation about -- what I perceive to be irrational demagogeury from the far right.

What I want most of all in a POTUS at this point in my life and in the nation's history is someone who makes the trains run on time and wants to adjust to, and move forward with, the changing face of the country and the world.

I don't like people running who rely on harkening back to "the good old days," or some version of that concept, because I think it appeals to prejudices (of many types) and more importantly dooms us to losing our place as the world's greatest country.

There's a reason we got to this point - namely, self-reliance and an almost radical focus on individual rights and self determination. The move towards an ever expanding reliance on the Federal government is not unique and does not lead towards greatness - it is the common approach practised around the world with predictably mediocre results and the fruits of this mentality are coming home to roost.

One can attempt to return to the founding philosophy without the baggage of slavery, poor working conditions, etc. It is not an all or nothing proposition.

I daresay that over the millenia many empires and world powers have imploded for failure to understand what was going on around them and to meet those challenges, instead of always just trying to reframe the reality in terms of "better times."

We are solidly on that path to implosion with the mentality in the current administration - you can have your cake and eat it too. We can extract sufficient resources from an increasingly smaller portion of the population and fund projects deemed appropriate by a chosen few bureaucrats as opposed to the wisdom of crowds.

This country was founded on a break from "tradition." I'm not saying it doesn't have its place. But there is a difference between respecting tradition and ignoring what is going on around you.

See above. It was founded on an almost fanatical belief that individuals should control their own destiny rather than centralized decision makers (monoarchies at the time). We are rapidly moving towards centralized control

Since the GOP right now seems much more interested in protecting the existing uppermost economic class versus broadening support of the middle class, at the moment they usually don't get my support. Some do, but they have to show a bit of vision that the base of the GOP right now seems to want to turn a blind eye towards.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand the GOPs or at least conservatives philosophy. It is entirely about helping the middle class, lower class and upper class. It is about freeing the system to allow individual pursuit. It rails against the "fatal conceit" that vesting increasing control over individual lives via further government reach and "programs" is the worst way to help these groups.

You may not agree with the philosophical mechanism but at least attempt to understand the motivation.
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
You clearly don't understand the GOPs or at least conservatives philosophy. It is entirely about helping the middle class, lower class and upper class. It is about freeing the system to allow individual pursuit. It rails against the "fatal conceit" that vesting increasing control over individual lives via further government reach and "programs" is the worst way to help these groups.

You may not agree with the philosophical mechanism but at least attempt to understand the motivation.
Click to expand...


I agree that a large number of conservatives, whether they are members of the GOP or not, are motivated by a belief that economic freedom is the surest way to prosperity for all.

But right now, I firmly believe that the GOP leadership are so in the back pocket, bought and paid for by big business and the super wealthy, that they affirmatively use government to perpetuate the current stratification of our economy.

One could certainly argue that the Dems in power are also beholden to special interest groups who want to protect their own power, above all else. That is definitely true.

However, I view in particular the manipulation of the tax code and the protection of financial breaks and basically gifts to big business, as substantially more a component of the GOP than the Dems.

Not always, and I look at each candidate individually to determine whether I think they are part of that culture. And right now it sure seems to me that the GOP in Washington is basically 100 percent about preserving and increasing the wealth of the tip top of the economy, at the expense of everyone else, because that's who pays for them to keep power.
 
#42
#42
It's laughable to suggest GOP leadership is any more beholden to special interest groups than Dem leadership. That said, I believe the policies advocated by the beholden GOP are much better for the country as a whole than are those advocated by the beholden Dems.
 
#45
#45
vols4sure said:
I just want to see who Obama would blame/attack if he loses the election.
Click to expand...

his default position would be to blame George W. Bush, after that excuse is laughed out of the room he'd blame the Japanese earthquake/tsunami, ATMs and kiosks, global warming/cooling, Paul Ryan, the Arab Spring, and business conventions in Vegas
 
#46
#46
A couple questions I've always wanted answered by a Dem is "what is rich"? What's the cut off point for being rich, where does the middle class start and where does it end?

Never have gotten those numbers... Go figure.
 
#47
#47
hog88 said:
A couple questions I've always wanted answered by a Dem is "what is rich"? What's the cut off point for being rich, where does the middle class start and where does it end?

Never have gotten those numbers... Go figure.
Click to expand...


Question is irrelevant. You can get as rich as you want as long as you a) don't do it based on lobbied for tax or other legal breaks granted you or your business or industry as political favors and b) pay your proportion of taxes just as though you made your money painting houses rather than through ownership of the painting business.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
Question is irrelevant. You can get as rich as you want as long as you a) don't do it based on lobbied for tax or other legal breaks granted you or your business or industry as political favors and b) pay your proportion of taxes just as though you made your money painting houses rather than through ownership of the painting business.
Click to expand...

wow, you must have huge issues with Warren Buffet because that is EXACTLY what he's been doing
 
#49
#49
volinbham said:
Panthro's comments were clear - his vote won't matter in his state since it will go Romney. If he lived in NC or FL it would be a different story and not voting for Romney would in effect be a vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm voting Romney in FL. More in line with voting for Obama out more than anything else.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Question is irrelevant. You can get as rich as you want as long as you a) don't do it based on lobbied for tax or other legal breaks granted you or your business or industry as political favors and b) pay your proportion of taxes just as though you made your money painting houses rather than through ownership of the painting business.
Click to expand...

That's about what I thought. But the question is relevant when the Dems campaign on taxing the "rich" but will not tell us where rich starts.

What if I struggled to start a "painting" buisness worked my a$$ off for years, started hiring people, purchased equipment (and yes took the tax breaks) and now employee 40+ people. I don't have Buffett money by any stretch but when the Dems want to tax the rich "their fair portion" I want to know the number.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top