U.S. Presidential Election page 21 (locked)

1843 posts

Flag Post
Immigration isn’t about helping Latinos. It’s about helping immigrants to contribute to the country. A fair number of them are latino, but not all by any means. That you have to focus on and single out one particular race, is an example of a deep racist bias in your own thinking.

Notice how she says that I have to focus on and single out one particular race and that is an example of my deep racist bias in my own thinking. That’s pretty much implying you’re a racist. I demand an apology but you liberals won’t apologize.

If you keep claiming I’m a liar tenco1 then I would like to see specific quotes where I supposedly lied. You’re like the liberal mainstream media bashing Romney over the embassy quotes. If it was so disastrously awful what Romney had said why don’t they repeat the clip or show the actual quote, they didn’t.

Typical liberal, speak about the bad yet don’t provide any substantive evidence or objective proof. You cannot go by hearsay. That’s bad journalism and bad reporting.

sigh Mr. Romney was really right. You liberals regard yourselves as victims. Boo hoo! Not mentioning that you insulted me first, vikaTae insinuated I was a racist, and all the others here bashed me and other conservatives. When I fight back, you play victim. Please stop this nonsense.

Why would the retard comment be horrendously false? At least that person wouldn’t do any more harm than Obama already has.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Why would the retard comment be horrendously false?

It would be if you were completely serious about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Darear:

Why would the retard comment be horrendously false?

It would be if you were completely serious about it.

My reasoning is this: At least a mentally retarded person can’t do any more harm to the country and the economy than Obama can.

 
Flag Post

You keep saying I’m making “horrendously false” accusations.

I haven’t said any of that. Try to read it again.

Can people actually look what I wrote and address the facts on Obama’s failures?

They are not relevant when comparing to Romney. Romney has not been a president before.

And yes I think “any retard will do better” than Obama.

So, which of the two is it? Trolling or simply being wrong?

At least that person wouldn’t do any more harm than Obama already has.

Trolling it is.

 
Flag Post

I’m getting bored. Are you guys done yet? Darkruler2005, so you’re saying we shouldn’t hold Obama accountable even if he has failed immensely and broken many of his promises? So you’re just going to let Obama ruin the country until we he can be properly compared with a Republican president. I just don’t get this logic LOL.
Going by that logic, Obama could be actively seeking to enslave people and we still couldn’t hold him accountable because we wouldn’t have someone to compare him with. Is that what you’re saying?

 
Flag Post

Dude, he just suggested voting for Romney this time. What more do you need?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Dude, he just suggested voting for Romney this time. What more do you need?

Alright. Sorry, didn’t see that one. Was caught up in the whole feud with vikaTae who called me a racist and tenco1 who called me a liar and a troll. Then darkruler2005 jumped in and starting calling me a troll as well.

 
Flag Post

Large chunks of text asking if that’s all what I’m saying, but really you should just read and not put words in my mouth. As Twilight said, I suggested Romney should take a term first so that we could properly compare the two. I also stated you can’t just elect anybody and expect them to do better. You merely claim that we shouldn’t reelect Obama, but that doesn’t say anything about who should be elected instead (in other words, you say relatively little about Romney). A vote shouldn’t be cast merely because someone else did a bad job, it should be cast regarding both people at the same time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Immigration isn’t about helping Latinos. It’s about helping immigrants to contribute to the country. A fair number of them are latino, but not all by any means. That you have to focus on and single out one particular race, is an example of a deep racist bias in your own thinking.

Notice how she says that I have to focus on and single out one particular race and that is an example of my deep racist bias in my own thinking. That’s pretty much implying you’re a racist. I demand an apology but you liberals won’t apologize.

the thing about apologising, is you should only do it if you were in the wrong. If you were not in the wrong, and can prove that, then there is no reason to apologise. Let’s go through the posts again, shall we?

Originally posted by Darear:

Funny how you mention Romney pandering. Obama has pandered to Latinos, you cannot tell me Obama reversed his immigration policy to allow amnesty to those under 30 just out of the goodness of his heart… So much BS here.

Notice how my other statement was full of facts. Care to dispute them?

This was the part of your post under contention. That Obama’s immigration policy doesn’t stop the Latinos specifically from coming into the country. When immigration is a multi-cultural thing, and multi-ethnicity, there is no reason beyond personal bias, to target the Latino population directly. I countered that in my next post:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Immigration isn’t about helping Latinos. It’s about helping immigrants to contribute to the country. A fair number of them are latino, but not all by any means. That you have to focus on and single out one particular race, is an example of a deep racist bias in your own thinking.

He’s offered several paths for illegal immigrants who offer real constructive service to the country, to become legal. If they’re that keen on helping us, they should certainly get the benefits. He has also deported more people than any other president in U.S. history at least on a month by month basis. Nearly double that of anyone else. That is hardly the act of someone utterly pro illegal immigrants.

Your reply to that was to essentially ignore everything I had just said, and focus again specifically on the Latino segment of the population as being the specific problem.

Originally posted by Darear:

Ignoring tenco1/karmakoolkid as always.

viktaTae are you actually insinuating I’m racist for mentioning that Obama is pandering to Latinos for votes? Really, liberals base their whole world view in two spheres one sphere believes they are right and that mentioning any problems in immigration is wrong the other has it that anyone who doesn’t agree with liberals must be a racist. I am tired of arguing with this utter BS. Continue the argument on your own. I’ve made a case already. If you would go to my forum posts I list out every single one of Obama’s failures, I’m sure I’ve left plenty out, but I got the major ones in there. Unsurprisingly, no one wants to talk about Obama’s economic or foreign policy record…

Since you continue to paint the Latino population as the whole illegal immigration problem, in blatant disregard of the facts, then that means you are letting your racial bias color your arguments. Thus you are acting in a racist manner. From that I can safely conclude that you are racist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

How come Romney’s dinner cost $10,000 more than Obama’s when they are both serving the exact same purpose?

Did you forget that it’s Romney that we’re talking about here? (Yes, it’s a low blow, but the set up was too good to pass up.)

Well, one might (near correctly?) assume that the difference reflects the OVERALL differences between the two parties. If there is merit to the saying: The rich get rich because they make they poor poorer…..THEN, the Democrats which is know for championing the “little guys” (while it is well know the Republicans very much represent BIG BUSINESS—the wealthy), might be making a statement that their contribution-dinners are more in line w/ their ideology.

Originally posted by issendorf:
I said: Aren’t the rich ppl such great ppl.
I wish I could afford $50,000 for a dinner to support an ass like Romney.
Does a lot of that shit Romney is spewing sound a lot like what our boy, jake-0, so very often touts?

You are aware that Democratic candidates have just as many $50K plate dinners as Romney does, right?

Yes, certainly, there are Democrats who have money. I do wonder if they made theirs by NOT EXPLOITING their works. AND, I’d like to see some proof numbers on this: “…just as many”. This isn’t even addressing the overall picture of simple campaign contributions….of any nature.

Originally posted by issendorf:
I said: Is it any wonder that the “rich” are being “asked” to kick in some of their “hard-earned (hard-de-hard-de-har)” money so that the America they live in can at least APPEAR to be as prosperous as THEY live//are?

How does increasing taxes make the United States more prosperous again? It’s pretty common knowledge that in terms of cutting the deficit it’s just a gimmick and there is little, if any evidence, that tax hikes spur economic growth.

I’m glad ya asked that question. Now, I’m no economic scholar…at all. BUT, to me, a “spurring economic growth” usually would mean that more money is circulating. Using the adage: ya can’t get blood from a turnip,,,one can easily see that taxing those who don’t have (any at all?….enough?) money to be called a “surplus” by which to pay for many things beyond basic needs: housing, food, insurances (health, home, auto), cable (Internet & entertainment & news information) access, clothing. All of these purchases DO KEEP MONEY FLOWING.

BUT, ya can’t have the many infrastructure maintenance//imporvements & many other applications via money that are needed to continue a “lifestyle” that so many tout as being the things that make AMERICA THE BEST NATION IN THE WORLD.

So, one would likely (automatically) look to those who DO HAVE MONEY to HELP make these “American ideals” a reality. Let me make it clear, I DO NOT espouse the ridiculous notion that I want (and that America would do well with) a form of socialism that makes “everybody the same” (esp. in the “income” area). There will always be a hierarchy that reflects the different capabilities of members of a society. Remember the “bell curve” of prep school where A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, & F’s were handed out and very indicative of the different “abilities” in that area?

What I’m talking about is what happen when (NO teacher w/ control) the ppl w/ the A+’ers are able to assess & distribute the benefits of those other grades….they have are hugely able to control because they have huge amount of money which give huge amount of power to manipulate the market & call the shots. Why do ya think BIG business wants to “kill” unions? Do ya actually think for one minute that American workers are desirous of shooting them selves in the foot by sending their jobs overseas….just so the wealthy can own one more fancy house somewhere nice?

Face it, the wealthy are in charge of America. The govt. pretty much is just their “administrative” branch that keeps the “workers” working in a manner that best enhances their “bottom line”. This brings me to something YOU, issendorf, asserted that I blame ONLY the Republican side of the aisle for doing this. I have made it very clear in the past that ALL Congresspeople (this includes Dem’s)—to varying degrees—have to “play ball by the ground rules” of this form of administrating or they won’t play ball at all. SO, please refrain from trying to make my positions appear to be highly biased in this area.

Again: FOLLOW THE MONEY. If ya want it to “spur the economy”,,,ya gotten get it from those that have the most of it. The poor sure don’t…the middle class is slowing having a healthy cut of it taken away in order to maintain the whole of the “American dream” (yes, this includes helping the “poor”) when it should be the wealthy (1%ers?) who, via higher taxes, manage to “return” some of the money they “stole” from the lower classes,,,simply because they are “in charge” and can do it.

 
Flag Post
I do wonder if they made theirs by NOT EXPLOITING their works. AND, I’d like to see some proof numbers on this: “…just as many”. This isn’t even addressing the overall picture of simple campaign contributions….of any nature.

I’m not going to waste my time trying to find yet another link that proves one of your assertions wrong. Obama shattered all sorts of spending records in ‘08, but it’s always those pesky Republicans who buy elections. Obama could spend 57x more than Romney, and if Romney won, the rhetoric would be the GOP bought the election.

Now, I’m no economic scholar…at all.

You can say that again…

Using the adage: ya can’t get blood from a turnip,,,one can easily see that taxing those who don’t have (any at all?….enough?) money to be called a “surplus” by which to pay for many things beyond basic needs: housing, food, insurances (health, home, auto), cable (Internet & entertainment & news information) access, clothing. All of these purchases DO KEEP MONEY FLOWING.

Yeah, having money moving through the economy is good. I agree. Yet you have failed to show how raising taxes will accomplish that. All that happens when raising taxes is the government spends more. That would be fine, to accomplish these things, if the government maintained a semi-reasonably balanced budget (running small deficits generally isn’t the worst thing in the world, but that’s a story for another time). However, the government spends and spends and spends cash it simply doesn’t have. Raising taxes or keeping the taxes the same will have no effect on whether the government continues to spend itself into oblivion. We have an over $1t budget deficit for the most recent fiscal year. The Obama tax hike would net ~$40b/FY. That solves absolutely nothing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Obamacare is now Obamatax being levied on the middle class.

As i already explained several times in this thread. This is not true. A small but important part of Obamacare. The penalty for those who fail to follow suit can technically be considered a tax. The rest is not a tax. Since most people including people of the middle class will not be paying this penalty, you claim is untrue on extra level.

The $800 billion dollar stimulus failed to create jobs, just added to the debt.

Just plain pants on fire lie.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/oct/21/national-republican-senatorial-committee/national-republican-senatorial-committee-ad-says-s/

The auto bail out’s final tally is still unaccounted for, not knowing how much money tax payers had to fund for the bail out.

The auto bailout that started under Bush?

Non-union workers got a 70% decrease in their pensions, while union workers got a 100% increased in pensions at the Delphi region in Ohio.

Can you exactly say how this is Obama`s responsibility. Coming from a country with a lot more knowledge and thus respect for unions, i find any claim that the non-union workers would have gotten less than 70% decrease in pension if union workers had not gotten an increase suspect. Because thats generally not how it works. Companies generally take as much as they can from their workers. Here union workers are obviously in a better position because of their united bargaining power.

The stimulus money was dispersed and outsourced to other countries.
Green energy businesses like Solyndra were subsidized then went bankrupt.

Only a very very small portion of the stimulus money went to other countries. Something that in a Global economy is neither surprising nor stoppable without damaging your own economy.
To the Solyndra claim:

Fact-checkers at FactCheck.org have reported that the Energy Department has committed $34.7 billion in low-interest loans to nearly 40 green projects. Two companies that got such loans — one of them Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy. FactCheck calculates that the government could lose as much as $578 million on those two deals. That’s less than 2 percent of the total program, so, as FactCheck says, it’s a stretch to claim the entire $34 billion has been ‘wasted.’ Uh, yes. A stretch, indeed.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2012/may/04/tv-ad-claims-stimulus-ships-tax-dollars-overseas/

Did not close Guantanamo bay.

So? Most of those who want Guantanamo bay closed are quite satisfied with the Obamas work on this. While he was not able to close it completely, he reduced the number of inmates to 169(from 220 in January 2009), stopped the torture and the prison is no longer taking any new inmates.
The ones laying the blame for not closing gitmo on Obama are non surprisingly mostly conservatives who don´t care about what Obama has done to close gitmo and what congress has done to stop him. The ones that just want a talking point to show how Obama has failed to keep his promises even though his track record on his promises is quite good.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

 
Flag Post
Since you continue to paint the Latino population as the whole illegal immigration problem, in blatant disregard of the facts, then that means you are letting your racial bias color your arguments. Thus you are acting in a racist manner. From that I can safely conclude that you are racist.

Here’s what I said.

Obama is clearly pandering to Latinos to get their vote. He deported more illegals than Bush and now reversed his immigration policy via executive fiat and now is letting more illegal immigrants come more than ever. What’s racist is pandering to one select racial group instead of helping Americans as a whole. Again it’s not about being racist or not it’s about pandering to one racial group just to win an election then damning the whole entire country to pay for this mess. Illegal immigration and this welfare society is going to be the death knell of America.


You accusing me of racism just for saying Obama pandered to Latinos and deported more illegals than ever is disgusting, I suggest you stop.

I never once painted the whole Latino population as the whole illegal immigration problem. You really have a problem if you call anyone and everyone a racist for disagreeing with you. You truly are an ignorant victimologist. From you calling me a racist without any facts or backed up statements I can safely conclude that you are an idiot. Along with everyone else in this forum who thinks it’s somehow racist to say Obama’s pandering to Hispanics. Grow up really. This is not even a “pseudo political” forum, it’s a laughing stock.

JohnnyBeGood, again back up your claim with actual facts like I did. The national stimulus failed to create a net plus in jobs, it’s still a half a million in jobs lost and climbing. What a joke this “political” forum is.

EDIT: Ah, we’re getting somewhere now. I supposedly used a racial slur somewhere? So saying Latino, Hispanic, or illegal immigrant is a racial slur now?

 
Flag Post

Let’s see Johnny, According to a speech Obama made, there were 900,000,000 displaced workers (unemployed) and he has created 430,000,000 jobs. Wouldn’t that cut the unemployment by half? And wouldn’t it make the unemployment figures go down by half? Or is it just another Obama lie.

The reason non-union workers got a 70% cut and the union workers got a !00% increase was the little fact that Obama fired the CEO of GM and replaced him with the union leader. He literally gave the company to the union. See the information you miss when you don’t live in this country?

Actually, a large portion of the stimulus money went overseas to prop up banks and businesses. I get so tired of the fabrications from Obama and the liberals who want him to win reelection.

Politifact has a reputation of looking the other way on some subjects and statements.

So? He promised to close it and didn’t. That is a bald-faced lie in my book. And Obama is pandering to women and Mexican-Americans to get their votes. Why are you so blinded to Obama’s crap? It is called politics John.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

JohnnyBeGood, again back up your claim with actual facts like I did. The national stimulus failed to create a net plus in jobs, it’s still a half a million in jobs lost and climbing. What a joke this “political” forum is.

I rather not back my claims with the same kind of facts as you did. Since many were clearly not Facts at all. But either misinterpretations of existing facts or outright lies.
I listed some and gave sources that show wrong. Now you claim that you meant a net plus in jobs which is quite something different than the stimulus not creating jobs or even losing them. Your being ridiculously misleading and for someone who claims to be a fact person thats outright pathetic and troll level.

Originally posted by jhco50:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Let’s see Johnny, Accoding to a speech Obama made, there were 900,000,000 displaced workers (unemployed) and he has created 430,000,000 jobs. Wouldn’t that cut the unemployment by half? Or is it just another Obama lie.

If its true and just not another lie/misrepresentation/misunderstanding by you(and lets face it your track record of lies and misrepresentations and misunderstandings is among the highest here in this forum and bigger than Obamas), then it would not mean that it would cut the unemployment by half. Not only would you be off by about 20,000,000 jobs by your simplistic math. It also depends on how many jobs were created/lost in the economy in general and not just by Obama.
Now personally i rather doubt that Obama said that in the way your representing it here. And if he did, its certain that he misrepresented facts or lied.

The reason non-union workers got a 70% cut and the union workers got a !00% increase was the little fact that Obama fired the CEO of GM and replaced him with the union leader. He litteraly gave the company to the union. See the information you miss when you don’t live in this country?

Time to do some digging, since you won´t give sources.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/30/michael-turner/michael-turner-says-political-favoritism-and-backr/

Oh wow, i was pretty much on the mark(the united bargaining power being the reason for the special treatment) and you again show how much you can miss when you do live in the country.

Actually, a large portion of the stimulus money went overseas to prop up banks and businesses. I get so tired of the fabrications from Obama and the liberals who want him to win reelection.

Sources? I gave one, which says your wrong.

Politifact has a reputation of looking the other way on some subjects and statements.

Sources? Your not really in a position to question the reputation of any thing or anyone regarding honesty and integrity.

So? He promised to close it and didn’t. That is a bald-faced lie in my book.

Wrong terminology. A bald faced lie is a lie that is or should be an apparent lie to the listener at the time it is spoken. Also a statement is generally only considered as such when the lie is deliberate meaning, when the speaker knows he is not saying the truth.
Both things that can not be claimed about Obama or the audience when Obama made his promise. But hey its your book and according to your definition I would name you the king of bald faced lies.

For the promise broken i will just leave this here again:

So? Most of those who want Guantanamo bay closed are quite satisfied with the Obamas work on this. While he was not able to close it completely, he reduced the number of inmates to 169(from 220 in January 2009), stopped the torture and the prison is no longer taking any new inmates.
The ones laying the blame for not closing gitmo on Obama are non surprisingly mostly conservatives who don´t care about what Obama has done to close gitmo and what congress has done to stop him. The ones that just want a talking point to show how Obama has failed to keep his promises even though his track record on his promises is quite good.

 
Flag Post

Politifact has come under lots of criticism as of recently. Whether or not it’s actually biased is hard to say.

Here’s one interesting article, and here are some more.

 
Flag Post

Conservatives won one for Americans. Thank you Chris Hedges for fighing the NDAA.

“The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-total…provision.html

 
Flag Post

The NDAA’s problematic parts were primarily a conservative effort in the first place.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Politifact has come under lots of criticism as of recently. Whether or not it’s actually biased is hard to say.

Here’s one interesting article, and here are some more.

The first article complains about which and how Claims get chosen to be fact checked(implying that the result makes Republicans look bad). Not the quality of fact checking.
Since i am using it here to check claims made by people here or sources they cite, such bias if it even existed(i don´t find the argument convincing) does not effect my use.
The other links that i checked are not only obviously more biased themselves than can be claimed about Politfact, they use some of the most pathetic arguments i have seen.
Like the Argument that its unfair to fact check and grade clearly hyperbole statements. Its not unfair it should be unnecessary, sadly many Americans including some of politicians who sprout the hyperbole as well as the writers on this board obviously lack the ability to recognize same said hyperbole and (mis-)represent the hyperbole as facts.
Or the Argument that its unfair to check the context of otherwise truthful statements and rate down statements that are truthful but misrepresent the facts by omission or placing it in the wrong/unrelated context.

Attributed to Cathy Young by PolitiFactBias: Is rhetorical exaggeration a lie? Is an out-of-context statement false?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

The NDAA’s problematic parts were primarily a conservative effort in the first place.

You don’t know which political party or if both of them were in on adding the offending parts of the NDAA. But I will assure you of this, it was a democrat president who signed it into law.

 
Flag Post

According to The New York Times Obama is now ahead in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, amongst others. It seems like Obama has this election in the pocket—my guess is a 40 electoral college vote difference.

How many electoral college votes do you guys think Obama or Romney will win by?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

According to The New York Times Obama is now ahead in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, amongst others. It seems like Obama has this election in the pocket—my guess is a 40 electoral college vote difference.

How many electoral college votes do you guys think Obama or Romney will win by?

Too early to call. The swing states are called swing states for a reason. :D

 
Flag Post

You are so right Bob, but I figured to just let him stew in his acceptance of polls. :) I’m sure you are aware of election year politics as well as I am. I heard today the economy has all of a sudden made a major turn around and is growing by leaps and bounds. Then I found out they were looking at the census to get that information. I almost fell out off my chair laughing. I did spill my coffee. I often wonder if people look at the numbers politicians put out and compare them. They don’t make any sense at all. Just more election year misinformation being thrown at us. I have call after call asking who I’m going to vote for, which I just hang up. I’ll be glad when November gets here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

According to The New York Times Obama is now ahead in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, amongst others. It seems like Obama has this election in the pocket—my guess is a 40 electoral college vote difference.

How many electoral college votes do you guys think Obama or Romney will win by?

Too early to call. The swing states are called swing states for a reason. :D

I agree w/ Bob….too early to call.
I can give ya a better “answer” after the debates.
OR, if Romney fucks up royally….AGAIN.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I often wonder if people look at the numbers politicians put out and compare them.

Sure they do. They are called UNBIASED, IMPARTIAL FACT-CHECKERS.

They don’t make any sense at all. Just more election year misinformation being thrown at us.

They make sense if one has the sense to understand the sources & their agendas. It’s really just that easy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

According to The New York Times Obama is now ahead in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, amongst others. It seems like Obama has this election in the pocket—my guess is a 40 electoral college vote difference.

How many electoral college votes do you guys think Obama or Romney will win by?

Too early to call. The swing states are called swing states for a reason. :D

I agree w/ Bob….too early to call.
I can give ya a better “answer” after the debates.

I think the debates will be quite interesting too. Obama won’t look good if he continues his theme of blaming everything on Bush and he also won’t look that good if he just pushes a vague ‘forward and hope and change’ message. However, Romney won’t look good if he keeps appearing way up in the stratosphere compared to your everyday person as he has. So both candidates are going to have to do some serious work to impress in the upcoming debates.