The election....
Poll
 | 33 votes (51.56%) | ||
| | 31 votes (48.43%) |
64 members have voted
Quote: EvenBobThe article is just scathing. Talking about how
a couple of Obama cabinet members realized
in 2009 that they were 'home alone', there was
a child in charge of the country. They had to
reverse just about everything Obama tried to
do because it was so radically clueless.
Read that, and the press said Reagan was the incompotent one.
But it is not a suprise. When I used to hear Clinton talk I just thought his ideology was messed up. When I hear Obama talk I wonder if he has even had an ECON101 course. Then you hear Obama talk about ruining the coal business. Then you see he wants to almost unilaterally disarm, reducing the USA to just aother nuclear power, where a small number of attack warheads could make retaliation impossible. Issue after issue you wonder if he has any mastery whatsoever.
I'll stick to saying Romney is running his campaign like last years NY Giants ran so many of their games. Keep it close up until the end. Then pounce.
This very accurate site is more generous to the Democrats than Nate Silver!Quote: EvenBobThis is a very accurate site for following whats going on with
electoral votes. Just 10 days ago Obama was quite a bit ahead
of Romney, now its almost a dead heat. Neither are anywhere
close to getting 270 yet.
| Probability of Reaching 270 | % |
|---|---|
| Democrats | 89% |
| Republicans | 10% |
| Neither (Tie) | < 1% |
If Romney would release those tax returns he could demonstrate first hand how the current tax system is fleecing the rich by using himself as an example!
He could turn the lemons into lemonade.
Quote: rxwineHere's a thought...
If Romney would release those tax returns he could demonstrate first hand how the current tax system is fleecing the rich by using himself as an example!
He could turn the lemons into lemonade.
He has already released his returns.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe has already released his returns.
sure he did.
sin in this country. Harry Reid is rich, so are the
Clinton's and even Obama. Nobody ever said a
word about Teddy Kennedy's money. Yet Romney
is a skunk because he's rich. I don't get it. Kennedy's
father was a racist gangster, that was just fine with
Democrats.
Interesting. I haven't seen any protestations by Bob about Mitt's many many grandmothers. Funny that.Quote: EvenBobKennedy's father was a racist gangster, that was just fine with Democrats.
Quote: s2dbakerInteresting. I haven't seen any protestations by Bob about Mitt's many many grandmothers.
I don't get it.
Quote: EvenBobThis is a very accurate site for following whats going on with
electoral votes. Just 10 days ago Obama was quite a bit ahead
of Romney, now its almost a dead heat. Neither are anywhere
close to getting 270 yet.
That same site give Obama an 89% chance of winning. See the "probability of reaching 270" table.
Quote: rxwinesure he did.
He did and they are available here since you seem to have missed it in the news.
Quote: EvenBobI'm trying to figure out when being rich became a
sin in this country. Harry Reid is rich, so are the
Clinton's and even Obama. Nobody ever said a
word about Teddy Kennedy's money. Yet Romney
is a skunk because he's rich. I don't get it. Kennedy's
father was a racist gangster, that was just fine with
Democrats.
The worst part is that in one breath Obama rips the rich and in the next he brags about how much money he has and makes.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe did and they are available here since you seem to have missed it in the news.
Not being interested in vetting every aspect of Romney's background like Obamas is just the usual hypocrisy. That's why the see no, hear no evil monkies apply so well.
Quote: EvenBobI'm trying to figure out when being rich became a sin in this country.
Americans have always been deeply ambivalent about money. Before the depression we elect a self made mining engineer who would donate his presidential salary to charity. Once in the depression, we elect an old money candidate, whose family built a big portion of their wealth on the opium trade.
The reaction has never been very rational. The fact that Jay Rockfeller can represent West Virginia, a state to poor to even have an airport, is amazing.
Quote: pacomartin
The reaction has never been very rational. The fact that Jay Rockfeller can represent West Virginia, a state too poor to even have an airport, is amazing.
Like somebody once said, I love rich people. A poor
person has never given me a job.
If I remember correctly, that was Jesus who said that?Quote: EvenBobLike somebody once said, I love rich people. A poor
person has never given me a job.
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanHe did and they are available here since you seem to have missed it in the news.
Not being interested in vetting every aspect of Romney's background like Obamas is just the usual hypocrisy. That's why the see no, hear no evil monkies apply so well.
What? Do your really think President Obama was FULLY VETTED before the last election? There were a lot of questions ASKED but many of them went UNANSWERED. Previous candidates ended up disclosing (or having disclosed) their college transcripts so that we could see who was smarter (not that they prove it one way or the other anyway), he hedged on the stupid birth certificate issue (long enough to let it be a distraction), and he wasn't forthcoming about his relationships with some suspect people.
Romney is rich. Rich people pay lots of taxes but often at a lower rate because of capital gains, etc. Rich people put money in legal tax shelters to save on taxes. What more do we really need to know? Oh...Romney gave away a lot of money to charity.
This whole tax return thing is just a distraction...the economy and other issues are way more important.
Unless you have a crappy hand and have to play it out...
So if you're satisfied with Romney's self confession of what tax he paid, you're nothing but a hypocrite in vetting a presidential candidate.
We should take Obama at his word too.
.
Quote: rxwineI said, if you're not interested in getting at various questions of Romney's background, but go hohum, fine with me you're a hypocrite.
So if you're satisfied with Romney's self confession of what tax he paid, you're nothing but a hypocrite in vetting a presidential candidate.
We should take Obama at his word too.
We are not taking Romney at just his word, we can look at his actual tax returns.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe are not taking Romney at just his word, we can look at his actual tax returns.
I was under the impression that he was not going to release hid returns. Can you post a link?
By the way, those who belittle a man for buying tax exempt bonds obviously do not understand why there are such a thing as tax exempt bonds. The federal government decides that some entities are in need of assistance, like a city or municipality, and by declaring the bond tax exempt allows the city or municipality to pay out a lower interest rate. So the investor gets a lower interest rate than if he bought an equivalent bond of equal risk.
Quote: SOOPOOI was under the impression that he was not going to release hid returns. Can you post a link?
I have already posted the link to his and Ryan's. It is on the page, you just need to scroll around a little
Quote:By the way, those who belittle a man for buying tax exempt bonds obviously do not understand why there are such a thing as tax exempt bonds. The federal government decides that some entities are in need of assistance, like a city or municipality, and by declaring the bond tax exempt allows the city or municipality to pay out a lower interest rate. So the investor gets a lower interest rate than if he bought an equivalent bond of equal risk.
The lack of understanding of this kind of thing by so much of the American public simply amazes me. Just like how people think oil companies get some kind of special treatment when they get to "write off" expenses. What these people do not realize is that expenses are a cost of doing business; that a write-off only saves you at most 36 cents of every dollar of the expense; and that you have to make the revenue in the first place.
Of course!! You're expected to know all about Ted Kennedy's family history but be gleefully ignorant of Mitt Romney's. See, Ted Kennedy was an evil demoncRAT but Mitt Romney is going to replace an evil communist Kenyan so his background totally gets a free pass, even if his grandfather was a polygamist fugitive.Quote: EvenBobI don't get it.
Quote: rxwineI said, if you're not interested in getting at various questions of Romney's background, but go hohum, fine with me you're a hypocrite.
So if you're satisfied with Romney's self confession of what tax he paid, you're nothing but a hypocrite in vetting a presidential candidate.
We should take Obama at his word too.
.
President Obama has already chosen to release whatever information he is willing to release, answered the questions he choose to answer, and left the rest of the questions unanswered.
I'm not asking any more or less from Mitt Romney. He has released the information he said he would aboout his finances, he can answer the questions he chooses to answer, and he can leave the rest of them unanswered JUST LIKE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT!!
I say this...
--form your own opinion about either candidate based on the information that has been released...or has been withheld.
--form your own opinon of who would be the better of the two as President.
--Vote!!
Quote: RonC
--form your own opinion about either candidate based on the information that has been released...or has been withheld.
--form your own opinon of who would be the better of the two as President.
--Vote!!
I don't have to. I traded my vote for President for a State Senate vote (that I care more about) affecting a State election from halfway across the country! I've also traded one of my local votes for a Gubernatorial vote in another state. (Someone I know that lives elsewhere knows the guy running for Sheriff in my County.)
Quote: s2dbakerIf you're looking for an indication of transparency then go with the guy who has released more complete tax returns. Mitt Romney has released exactly zero complete tax returns. The 2010 return is missing the FBAR. I wonder what Mitt's hiding.
I doubt he is hiding anything. No credible source says he is. Anonymous phone calls are not credible.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/08/21/white-house-sets-ground-rules-local-interviews/
I give you a ten minute interview, you need to ask me about this issue, and I will eat up most of the time with it. That way, you don't get to ask many questions that you thought of!!!
Quote: RonCIs it okay for the President to tell local reporters what he'd like to talk with them about before the interview takes place?
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/08/21/white-house-sets-ground-rules-local-interviews/
I give you a ten minute interview, you need to ask me about this issue, and I will eat up most of the time with it. That way, you don't get to ask many questions that you thought of!!!
Standard, in virtually any interview, the party being interviewed can state what they wish to speak about predominantly, or call a certain topic, "Off-Limits." Athletes do it all the time.
Quote: s2dbakerIf you're looking for an indication of transparency then go with the guy who has released more complete tax returns. Mitt Romney has released exactly zero complete tax returns. The 2010 return is missing the FBAR. I wonder what Mitt's hiding.
I would think anyone who is rich has their tax returns prepared for them by smart people who can best assess how to lower the tax liability as best as possible in order to earn their keep. This isn't greed- this is common sense. Many rich people also derive a lot of their income through capital gains, which are at least currently taxed at a lower-tax rate, so when people get irate about rich people *only* paying a lower percent, they forget the times when self-made people paid at a higher rate- and then used the after-tax money to invest and then pay another (capital gains) tax at a lower rate. Tax tax tax- why the obsession with these games? The other side could play these games too if they wanted instead of sticking to the issues, and ask why hasn't the President released his college transcripts- what's he hiding there? There must be something, righhhhht?!
Quote: s2dbakerOf course!! You're expected to know all about Ted Kennedy's family history but be gleefully ignorant of Mitt Romney's. See, Ted Kennedy was an evil demoncRAT but Mitt Romney is going to replace an evil communist Kenyan so his background totally gets a free pass, even if his grandfather was a polygamist fugitive.
Seriously, s2d, if Mitt's grandfather was a polygamist fugitive, does that in ANY way affect Mitt's ability to be POTUS?
Why would you even care, unless you had a pre conceived notion that you don't want him to be POTUS, and for some reason think the American people are that stupid that they will care?
There was enough information in Romney's 2010 return to complete a FBAR Report. Read the forms 926 and 5471's.
And why is there a problem with a "Swiss" bank account? I can have a "Swiss" bank account. It isn't illegal. As long as I report the net interest, dividends or capital gains from whatever is invested in that "Swiss" bank accounts, I have complied with the Income Tax laws.
Do folks hide money overseas? Certainly. Did Mitt? I don't think so. Why? Becasue he wouldn't be running for president if he DID. That may sound niave, but it is not. There is NO way you could have hidden $$ overseas and gotten away with it, and be running for Pres, much less Gov of MA, and get away with it. Too monay folks KNOW. And they would use that to thier advantage.
And if Obama released his tax returns back to 1997, which would be 10 years before he ran for President, then I could see him demanding to see Mitt's returns. Obama only released 2007 and every year after. Mitt released his 2010 earlier this year, as well as an estimate of 2011, with the final at Oct 15th, which is the due date. I know how these large tax returns work, you wait, and wait, and wait, for the investments to send you the required tax information to include with your return. That is beyond Mitt's control. He is an investor now in these deals, and has no direct control to force management to get the info to him sooner.
Mitt should release his 2009 returns, and let Obama have his fun. Then start talking about the economy....
SFB
Quote: s2dbakerOf course!! You're expected to know all about Ted Kennedy's family history but be gleefully ignorant of Mitt Romney's.
I don't care about either one. My point was, Kennedy's
father was a truly evil, corrupt thug, and nobody seemed
to care. Now I'm supposed to care about Romney's? His
father was governor of my state, BTW, for 6 years and was
hugely popular. He inherited a deficit and when he left
there was a surplus. If Romney is half the leader his father
was, he'll make a great president.
Now lets talk about Obama's father. No, wait, thats not really
a good idea. Sorry..
My point exactly! Of course no one cares that Mitt's family believes in polygamy. But I wasn't the one who brought up Ted Kennedy now, was I?Quote: SOOPOOSeriously, s2d, if Mitt's grandfather was a polygamist fugitive, does that in ANY way affect Mitt's ability to be POTUS?
Why would you even care, unless you had a pre conceived notion that you don't want him to be POTUS, and for some reason think the American people are that stupid that they will care?
Quote: TheBigPaybakI would think anyone who is rich has their tax returns prepared for them by smart people who can best assess how to lower the tax liability as best as possible in order to earn their keep. This isn't greed- this is common sense. Many rich people also derive a lot of their income through capital gains, which are at least currently taxed at a lower-tax rate, so when people get irate about rich people *only* paying a lower percent, they forget the times when self-made people paid at a higher rate- and then used the after-tax money to invest and then pay another (capital gains) tax at a lower rate. Tax tax tax- why the obsession with these games? The other side could play these games too if they wanted instead of sticking to the issues, and ask why hasn't the President released his college transcripts- what's he hiding there? There must be something, righhhhht?!
People should not get irate about Romney paying a 14% tax rate. They should get irate about such a complex tax code that it allows you to perform such acts of juggling. Or not, as the case maybe.
But the US's tax code is seen by both right and left economists as a significant retardation to growth.
That's more important that what one person pays as an overall tax rate.
Quote: s2dbakerBut I wasn't the one who brought up Ted Kennedy now, was I?
YOU said "You're expected to know all about Ted Kennedy's family
history but be gleefully ignorant of Mitt Romney's."
If left to the Dem's, we'd all be gleefully ignorant of Kennedy's
father. They never talked about it, nobody did. Dem's
are always treated like their relatives rode the
short blue bus to school and its bad manners to discuss
it. But a Republican's relatives are expected to be above
reproach. If Bush had a brother like Billy Carter, or Roger
Clinton, or that brother Obama has in Africa that lives in
a corrugated hut, its all we would hear about when they
were president. But Dem's are expected to have goofball
relatives and weirdo's in their backgroud, shhh, we we
don't have to go there.....
If this was Bush's brother it would have been on the Nightly
News 3 times a week. But because it was a Dem, Billy was
just 'colorful'.
Quote: SOOPOOSeriously, s2d, if Mitt's grandfather was a polygamist fugitive, does that in ANY way affect Mitt's ability to be POTUS?
Why would you even care, unless you had a pre conceived notion that you don't want him to be POTUS, and for some reason think the American people are that stupid that they will care?
Seriously, we have to be responsible for our ancestors? My grandfather used to transport liquor during prohibition. McCain's ancestors were slave owners.
Queen Elizabeth had ancestors who committed genocide.
Quote: EvenBobLike somebody once said, I love rich people. A poor person has never given me a job.
Sean Hannity says that like every other episode.
I am a Conservative and I'm voting for Mitt Romney if I can switch my voting registration quickly enough. $200 out of my first paycheck is going to the RNC. On the other hand, the vast majority of Mitt Romney's charity went to the Mormon Church and... yeah. Although Mormons aren't required to "donate", they can be denied some status level in the Church if they don't give "enough"... 15%? Every single person who considers them self a Mormon does it. Getting any kind of credit for this is bullshit.
predicted the last 8 presidential elections, says Romney
will win with 53% of the vote. I'm surprised its only 53%..
Like somebody said yesterday, there are worse things than
being a one term president.
Quote: ahiromuOn the other hand, the vast majority of Mitt Romney's charity went to the Mormon Church and... yeah. Although Mormons aren't required to "donate", they can be denied some status level in the Church if they don't give "enough"... 15%? Every single person who considers them self a Mormon does it. Getting any kind of credit for this is bullshit.
I disagree. Perhaps there is some element of "buying your way in" within the church but the church also does a whole lot of good with at least some of the money...
"From 1985 - 2009, $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid was given throughout 178 countries."
I realize it is a rather weak reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Humanitarian_Services) but I also know Mormons here in the area who do charitable work of various kinds, so I have evidence supporting the work (if not the exact number of dollars). Though the church likes things done through the church instead of outside organizations, it appears they at least do some good work.
The numbers for the Democrat candidates and charities over the years have been rather anemic over the years...
"Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show."
"The Obamas...in 2000, when the couple made $240,726, they gave $2,350 to charity, about 1% of their income."
"Then-Vice President Al Gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity"
and some Republicans were a little low, too...
"When Vice President Dick Cheney was campaigning in 2000, he defended his family's charitable donations of $209,832, or about 1%, of the $20.6 million he earned from 1989 to 1999."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UDVhIaDLk0g
I guess all of them raised their levels when they got called on it or when they decided to run...
Anyway, I don't think it matters WHAT charity it is given to; it is good to see candidates who give decent amounts to charity.
This is just a variant of the "beer" test, but I claim that every presidential election since the first televised debate (Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960) went to the more charismatic candidate. In 2012 I have to give Obama more charisma points.
Quote: WizardI remember all the computer experts said that George HW Bush would beat Clinton in 92. All the economic indicators suggested the economy was strong enough to warrant reelection.
They failed to account for this guy:
(That's a picture of Ross Perot from a Simpsons episode; I wish you could see the "Perot '92" on the hat in this shot.)
In other words, I definitely think Obama is vulnerable and it might not take much to tip the balance to a permanent lead for Romney.
Quote: rxwineI'm only confident enough to believe that Obama must work harder than Romney and make fewer errors in these last couple months in order to win.
In other words, I definitely think Obama is vulnerable and it might not take much to tip the balance to a permanent lead for Romney.
Romney has had a steady 1-2 point lead in polls that track daily. Ie. Gallup and Rasmussen. I'm telling you peeps he is running a rope-a-dope on Obama.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThey failed to account for this guy:
I know Perot probably took more from Bush, so who would have won if Perot's votes were split 60/40 between Bush and Clinton in each state? This sounds like a job for Paco.
Just saying as a interested outsider.
Quote: EvenBobUh Oh. The Univ of Colorado analysis, that has correctly
predicted the last 8 presidential elections, says Romney
will win with 53% of the vote. I'm surprised its only 53%..
.
I remember this analysis from UofC in 2000, when they
correctly predicted that Bush would get more electoral
votes than Gore. Bush lost the popular vote and won
the election. The two prof's who started this painstaking
analyais say presidential elections are always decided by
issues and not by TV ad's. They also say its almost
impossible for a Dem president to be re-elected if unemployment
is over 6%. They predicted Kerry would lose in 2004, when
the polls at election time were so close that it was a toss-up.
These guys predicted it months in advance.
Quote: WizardI remember all the computer experts said that George HW Bush would beat Clinton in 92. All the economic indicators suggested the economy was strong enough to warrant reelection.
This is just a variant of the "beer" test, but I claim that every presidential election since the first televised debate (Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960) went to the more charismatic candidate. In 2012 I have to give Obama more charisma points.
Nixon moreso than McGovern, you think? I'd tend to disagree with that.
Quote: Mission146Nixon moreso than McGovern, you think? I'd tend to disagree with that.
It isn't often I can say this anymore, but that was a bit before my time (I was seven at the time of the election). However, there are some older farts that me on the board who I hope can comment. I do remember Nixon and before Watergate my impression was that he was well liked and handled the media well. It is easy for youngsters to think the only president to resign was probably terrible, but other than Watergate I think he had a proud record to stand on. In the 72 election you refer to Nixon won 49 out of 50 states.
Quote: WizardIt isn't often I can say this anymore, but that was a bit before my time (I was seven at the time of the election). However, there are some older farts that me on the board who I hope can comment. I do remember Nixon and before Watergate my impression was that he was well liked and handled the media well. It is easy for youngsters to think the only president to resign was probably terrible, but other than Watergate I think he had a proud record to stand on. In the 72 election you refer to Nixon won 49 out of 50 states.
I think he was liked because he was effective. He stated he would get us out of Vietnam. And almost to the week he took office troop levels fell. But the left hated the way he got us out, namely by Operation Linebacker and bombing the enemy to the table. From what I have seen in my studies of history (I was 3 at the time) McGovern was a complete disaster the whole way, and to bug a place to get intel on him was just stupid.
Nixon seems to be the GOP Clinton. Many of his policies should have endeared him to the other side and made him a ho-hum to his own side. But the oppisite is the case.
Quote: thecesspitThe best result on this election will be the egg on the faces of the side that is vehement their guy will win... and are wrong.
