U.S. Presidential Election page 37 (locked)

Yes, to err is human, but why must Obama be so human?

Sorry Vika, I’ve wanted to say that for a long time. :)

Its fine. All the presidential candidates are too human, too flawed, too easily corruptible. In most cases, too already corrupted.

Actually, I can’t really disagree with you.

They are both bad politicians and both had awful ideologies. Of course they will gaffe.

There is no way that Obama cannot gaffe when talking about, for example, drone strikes. If Romney becomes president and has similar war-mongering tactics like drone strikes, then he will also gaffe on drone strikes. (Making drone strikes be an example of a bad policy here, just to clarify.)

If ANYONE didn’t "gaffe at times,,,,
I would be highly suspicious of them.
LOL
Remember, ppl watch these two (and many others vie paparazzi stalkers) relentlessly.

Originally posted by jhco50:

LOL! No, not at this time. I just thought it was interesting. It seems no matter what party you are, there are gaffs that show up. Luckily, we don’t make arguments about these gaffs…well some do, but not the intelligent ones who actually research the candidates rather than just call out a candidate because he is cool.

Good thing amerika is full of “intelligent” people like you not. Btw a “gaffe” is made when u are speaking in front of a camera.. not when u are speaking confidential and u think there is no video camera recording… lol

Mitt Romney is a living joke. Vote for Obama!

Out of curiosity, why would drone strikes be an example of bad policy, please?

Interesting discussion of an AP photo

---

Polls now have Romney ahead overall and in many swing states. So, I’m 100% certain that Romney is going to win. Obama has absolutely no chance anymore. It’s over Obama fans. (Ha ha, just kidding. As I’ve previously stated, the election is still much too far away to call stuff like this.)

---

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Out of curiosity, why would drone strikes be an example of bad policy, please?

I think Jaume in general wants the US to be very isolationist (non-interventionist?) when it comes to military policies.

Anyone else notice R-money’s foreign policy speech at VMI was pretty much non-stop ignorance of the realities of foreign policy?
Also, anyone else think coming out as a hawk in regards to Iran probably isn’t what you want to hear your would-be President doing?

Finally, am I the only one that finds it hilarious that his “tough” ideas about Iran as far as sanctions and naval presence…are exactly what Obama is already doing?

What a joke.

have you seen this by the way? it’s an illustration of the fact that Romney Does not seem to have consistent policy.

---

“We ought to kill the death tax. You paid for that farm once, you shouldn’t have to pay for it again,” Romney said to cheers. “Now and then a farm is successful enough to save a little money. And when you do save your money, the president has this idea of raising your taxes a lot on your savings, your interest and dividends and capital gains if you’re lucky enough to have them. My view is that if you’re making $200,000 a year and less, you should pay no tax whatsoever on interest, dividends or capital gains.”

Romney said that? seriously? my family doesn’t make 200,000 dollars a year and we can afford to pay taxes on those things. That’s outrageous, anyone making that much a year isn’t struggling to scrap together savings, and capital gains tax is already low.

The idea that you should be able to get 100% of what your parents worked their whole life for, but you have never worked a day in your life for is odd. Now I confess I have no idea if the rate of tax is reasonable or is more problematic to family farms, but repealing it is overkill. The country can’t function without taxes. any tax repealed has to be made up for elsewhere.

I don’t know if I’m understanding it right but Obama seems to have proposed that the first 3.5 million of an estate is tax free.. Anyone who’s getting over 3.5 million from their dead relative/friend can’t cry poverty, or even middle class.

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Polls now have Romney ahead overall and in many swing states. So, I’m 100% certain that Romney is going to win. Obama has absolutely no chance anymore. It’s over Obama fans. (Ha ha, just kidding. As I’ve previously stated, the election is still much too far away to call stuff like this.)

Interesting you would say that. I wouldn’t want to tell anyone their vote doesn’t count, but in some states it has less of an impact. For example, we can bet that California will be blue just as we can bet that Texas will be red in an election this close. The swing states, such as Colorado (mine) are where it’s really probably more important to get out and vote.

The polls now show Romney ahead, Republicans are happy about this…wait…hang on…I thought the polls were alll lies made up by the ‘lamestream media’?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Out of curiosity, why would drone strikes be an example of bad policy, please?

Countless unnecessary civilian deaths.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

The polls now show Romney ahead, Republicans are happy about this…wait…hang on…I thought the polls were alll lies made up by the ‘lamestream media’?

Only when they’re pointing the wrong way of course. The newest polls are quite reputable.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Out of curiosity, why would drone strikes be an example of bad policy, please?

Countless unnecessary civilian deaths.

Say a drone strike could hit a target in the United States interests with minimal civilian casualties. Would you still consider it bad policy? (I’m not trying to make any point here, just curious)

Stay classy, GOP supporters!

Seriously, this is borderline (at best) voter intimidation.
Please, someone white knight this asshole.
Please.

Originally posted by softest_voice:

Stay classy, GOP supporters!

Seriously, this is borderline (at best) voter intimidation.
Please, someone white knight this asshole.
Please.

I hope you were equally upset when the Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philly in ’08 – you know, actual voter intimidation.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

The polls now show Romney ahead, Republicans are happy about this…wait…hang on…I thought the polls were alll lies made up by the ‘lamestream media’?

Not lies, just terrible, unrealistic partisan distribution in the models. Using the ’08 turnout for the Democratic Party and assuming it will be the same ’12 will lead to incorrect polls. There is no chance that the Dems will turnout the way they did in ’08.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

The polls now show Romney ahead, Republicans are happy about this…wait…hang on…I thought the polls were alll lies made up by the ‘lamestream media’?

Evening Flabby. Yes the polls are manipulated both ways. I wouldn’t put much stock in them at the moment. The last poll before the election will be accurate as that is the one the pollsters make there reputations with. This same thing happened when Reagan ran for president. They had him constantly running behind until the election. Then he won by a landslide. I won’t say Romney will win by a landslide, but I believe he will win. Obama, this far, has not offered anything but the same as his last term. I am pretty sure people don’t want more of that.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

The polls now show Romney ahead, Republicans are happy about this…wait…hang on…I thought the polls were alll lies made up by the ‘lamestream media’?

The lamestream liberal media is still as liberal as it will ever be and is still sticking their heads up Obama’s ass. It’s just horrible how biased the media is.
And Gallup poll did oversample democrats. Dick Morris explains this quite well. He stated something to the effect that the pollsters are using the 2008 model and there will not be the same enthusiasm and hold that Obama got in that election.

Obama is going down and must go down. He is far worse than Bush.
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/16/obamas-national-lead-based-entirely-on-over-sampling-democrats/

Oh by the way JaumeBG, you have no problem with Obama committing acts of terror and unauthorized killing of innocent civilians yet chant for Romney’s death when he hasn’t even done anything yet. Nice libpocrisy there.

Current events suggest that Obama has poor leadership skills or is decietful. Such includes Benghazi (“why didn’t he ask what happened?”) and unemployment numbers (“why has he accepted shoddy numbers for years?”). These are things that a normal mid manager would ask… well, really the higher level the quicker they would ask, and crappy managers might fail to have the insight to question the dynamics of this stuff they rely on. I suppose he could be too busy to lead. Maybe he’s been campaigning to long to manage the country… did we elect a guy that would do that, do we want him again?

Yeah, you’re absolutely right.
I’m sure he never once asked about any of those things.
Not once.
Nope.

Originally posted by Beegum:

Current events suggest that Obama has poor leadership skills or is decietful. Such includes Benghazi (“why didn’t he ask what happened?”) and unemployment numbers (“why has he accepted shoddy numbers for years?”). These are things that a normal mid manager would ask… well, really the higher level the quicker they would ask, and crappy managers might fail to have the insight to question the dynamics of this stuff they rely on. I suppose he could be too busy to lead. Maybe he’s been campaigning to long to manage the country… did we elect a guy that would do that, do we want him again?

The first of that paragraph is pretty much BULLSHIT.

That in bold: Do we want a man who’s agenda is again that which got us into trouble in the first place?

The first of that paragraph is pretty much BULLSHIT.

That in bold: Do we want a man who’s agenda is again that which got us into trouble in the first place?

This part is bullshit?
“Such includes Benghazi (“why didn’t he ask what happened?”)”
I think you need to get your head out of your…

Originally posted by Beegum:

I think you need to get your head out of your…

Why? So I couldn’t hear what ya’re saying because YOURS is deeply embeded in YOURS?
AND, yes…the first of that paragraph is STILL bullshit. We’ve pretty much proven that unemployment numbers are a real indicator of Obama’s capable management considering the shit mess he “inherited”.

At this point, it’s two (include softest) to YOUR one.

Also, learn how to use the quote feature.
It really isn’t that hard and it makes it a whoooole lot easier to separate who is saying what.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by Beegum:

I think you need to get your head out of your…

Why? So I couldn’t hear what ya’re saying because YOURS is deeply embeded in YOURS?
AND, yes…the first of that paragraph is STILL bullshit. We’ve pretty much proven that unemployment numbers are a real indicator of Obama’s capable management considering the shit mess he “inherited”.

At this point, it’s two (include softest) to YOUR one.

Also, learn how to use the quote feature.
It really isn’t that hard and it makes it a whoooole lot easier to separate who is saying what.

So, 43 months of 8+% unemployment numbers proves something good about Obama? Or the down tick that the media, such as NBC says is hard to explain proves Obama is doing something right?

You seem to be avoiding something here.