My Prediction if Romney Loses

[Johnny Tremain]

not much except that the braniacs in Chicago are stupid enough to come up with this on their own.

Let's face it.
We still know almost nothing of this man's past.
And he was re-elected.

 

[dogtowner]

Let's face it.
We still know almost nothing of this man's past.
And he was re-elected.

we know he was a foreign exchange student

 

[Johnny Tremain]

we know he was a foreign exchange student

From where?
What did he use to get that status?
Funding?
Passports?

ALL of his higher education is an enigma.
He has been re-elected--why the secrecy now?

When will we see the movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

 

[dogtowner]

From where?
What did he use to get that status?
Funding?
Passports?

ALL of his higher education is an enigma.
He has been re-elected--why the secrecy now?

When will we see the movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

ammendments are difficult to pass and if he's lying thats impeachable

 

[BigRob]

How, specifically? They vote Democrat for a couple of main reasons - 1, Dems are Santa Claus - 2, Republicans are the Grinch.

Republicans would have to abandon their entire platform to compete, they'd have to push for higher taxes on the "rich", new entitlements, expansion of current entitlements, support affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, forced unionization of all labor... they'd have to copy the Dems on every issue to compete and they'll still lose if there are any differences in style or degree to what Dems are offering.

They vote Democrat because they don't know anything else -- and we make it to easy to be portrayed as the "boogie man". In polls this election cycle, hispanics ID'd unemployment, and economic growth as two of their biggest issues. Why in the world do we have to abandon our platform to make a case as to why we have better economic ideas?

So target blacks, hispanics, women, Unions etc as voting blocs... Right? So, affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, free contraception and forced unionization... Those are what Dems offer to attract the leftist LEADERS of those voting blocs, the NAACP, La Raza, and the Feminazi's, and the Union bosses, that is why those groups break for Dems - because their leadership sells them on Democrat policies.

You certainly are not going to get them all -- but there is no harm in say targeting an economic message to hispanics. They self ID economic issues as top concerns and we have done a bad job explaining our positions. All we really need to do is go in and pick off a few percentage points where we can, and that can be the difference in an election.

 

[BigRob]

You just said simply restating it to the same audience won't change any minds but then say that's exactly what Republicans need to do...

Its the manner in which we portray the argument has to change -- not the underlying argument.

I agree... But that's because Republican "principles" differ from Dems only by style and degree, their differences as NOT substantive.


The Dems entire plan is the same plan they've had for 100 years - Tax and Spend. Any compromise Republicans make would be to increase spending now in hopes of getting their own cuts in the future - You're right, that doesn't make sense but that does seem to be exactly what you're saying Republicans should do.


What I've outlined is a strategy to contain the debt and force Dems to be fiscally responsible, the soundbites are just fodder.

It doesn't force Dems to be fiscally responsible to cave on everything until its time to raise the debt ceiling again. We will just be back at the same argument -- "Republicans are forcing us over a fiscal cliff."

 

[Dr.Who]

If only every Republican and Conservative were as logical and rational as yourself our country would be in much better shape. I'm saddened that so few Conservatives have come to terms with such a simple and obvious truth. It's a problem Republicans and Conservatives (in general) don't seem to grasp...

If you concede that any amount of forced redistribution is good, then there is no objective basis for opposing greater degrees of redistributive policy, it becomes entirely subjective. Dems always claim they have the moral high ground when they seek to expand forced redistrubtion and the Republicans, who oppose those expansions, are left without a moral defense of their position because they've abandoned morality entirely by agreeing with the morality of the welfare state in the first place.

Is it moral to take, by threat of force, the fruits of one mans labor and give it to another man who has not earned it and does not deserve it? Of course not, it's immoral, it's legalized theft, it is slavery by degree. Opposition to policies of forced redistribution is the moral high ground. Once the Republicans agreed with the Dems that it IS moral to forcibly redistributed X amount of wealth, there is no argument they can make for why it's less moral, rather than more moral, to allow Y or Z levels of forced redistribution. Democrats will always win that argument and, worse yet, get the "moral" credit for being the more compassionate party.

You have been saying this for a long time and even though I have sympathetic ears all I heard was that you were blaming the pubs for being as bad as the dems. all I thought was that you were more jaded than I and did not appreciate that the pubs were so much better in style than the dems.

If the arguments fall on deaf ears when attached to my head how much more have these same arguments failed when falling on the ears of democrats or independents?

Clearly we need to back up and re-clarify what is being said. I have grown again as a result of being on this forum yet I still do not think most americans are growing. What is happening is that the collectivists arguments of the left are becoming more entrenched.

 

[Dr.Who]

Agreed.

Now what about the Ds? BO has to govern now and with the nation nearing bankruptcy, how is he to fund the welfare state? If he cuts benefits and spending, the Democrat brand could be irreparably harmed. The Ds stand for big government, dependency, and class warfare. Those on welfare and entitlements have an entitlement mentality and will not accept change gracefully.

I have been listening to his speech since being re-elected and he has no intention of doing anything different. The main thrust of his speech seems to be that pubs must cooperate in allowing for increased taxes on the rich. I think he really thinks this will help him.

 

[Gipper]

I have been listening to his speech since being re-elected and he has no intention of doing anything different. The main thrust of his speech seems to be that pubs must cooperate in allowing for increased taxes on the rich. I think he really thinks this will help him.

I don't think BO has any intention of changing anything. I was merely strategizing.

Remember this from his convention speech when he addressed how he would handle the economy? We need...."the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one." This absurd ignorance would be roundly condemned in a sane nation. For one to think the economic interventions by FDR did anything beneficial, one has to be a complete fool or a traitor. FDR failed on all counts just as BO will.

The consequences of BO's actions could very well result in terrible suffering for the American people. It is ironic that young people voted overwhelmingly for him when you consider that roughly 50% of young people in Spain and Greece are unemployed. American youth will experience the same thing thanks to BO's policies.

 

[Openmind]

I don't think BO has any intention of changing anything. I was merely strategizing.

Remember this from his convention speech when he addressed how he would handle the economy? We need...."the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one." This absurd ignorance would be roundly condemned in a sane nation. For one to think the economic interventions by FDR did anything beneficial, one has to be a complete fool or a traitor. FDR failed on all counts just as BO will.

The consequences of BO's actions could very well result in terrible suffering for the American people. It is ironic that young people voted overwhelmingly for him when you consider that roughly 50% of young people in Spain and Greece are unemployed. American youth will experience the same thing thanks to BO's policies.

Well, I believe President Obama has been re-elected on the basis of his intention to pursue a BALANCED approach to deficit reduction.

And I believe that Romney was rejected by the American voters based on HIS and RYAN's plan to reduce the deficit ONLY with austerity programs (like those who failed in England and have triggered lots of problems for the government) AND giving tax breaks to the wealthy. . .oh. . .and "revoking Obamacare on the first day in office!"

At least, President Obama NEVER felt the need to lie or to flip flop on his plan!

 

[GenSeneca]

Now what about the Ds? BO has to govern now and with the nation nearing bankruptcy, how is he to fund the welfare state? If he cuts benefits and spending, the Democrat brand could be irreparably harmed. The Ds stand for big government, dependency, and class warfare. Those on welfare and entitlements have an entitlement mentality and will not accept change gracefully.

I disagree entirely... One example - Detroit. Dems have run that once great city into the ground, it looks like a warzone with shelled out buildings and burnt cars lining the pot-hole riddled streets YET the people of Detroit keep voting for Dems in every election! Obama could personally come to peoples homes, loot everything they own, rape their daughter, eat their dog, and they would still continue to vote Democrat in every election.

I expect the Ds to further damage the private sector going forward. Obamacare alone could break the back of the private sector. This will result in high unemployment common in Europe and when accompanied with austerity programs, unrest will result. History shows that when the people take to the streets, the ruling elite starts a hot war.

Cant argue with any of that except to point out that a select few in the private sector will boom under Obama... Subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, kickbacks to big-business campaign donors and bundlers etc. I recommend opening a solar panel company, get 500 million from the taxpayer, then close up shop and walk out with duffel bags full of money... That exact scenario has worked for several "companies" so far.

 

[Gipper]

Well, I believe President Obama has been re-elected on the basis of his intention to pursue a BALANCED approach to deficit reduction.

And I believe that Romney was rejected by the American voters based on HIS and RYAN's plan to reduce the deficit ONLY with austerity programs (like those who failed in England and have triggered lots of problems for the government) AND giving tax breaks to the wealthy. . .oh. . .and "revoking Obamacare on the first day in office!"

At least, President Obama NEVER felt the need to lie or to flip flop on his plan!

A balanced approach you say....what exactly is that?

Did you know Paul Ryan's plan does not balance for 27 years? #mce_temp_url# Is that the definition of a radical austerity program in your mind?

Does a balanced plan include any cuts or reductions in the welfare state?

 

[Gipper]

I disagree entirely... One example - Detroit. Dems have run that once great city into the ground, it looks like a warzone with shelled out buildings and burnt cars lining the pot-hole riddled streets YET the people of Detroit keep voting for Dems in every election! Obama could personally come to peoples homes, loot everything they own, rape their daughter, eat their dog, and they would still continue to vote Democrat in every election.


Cant argue with any of that except to point out that a select few in the private sector will boom under Obama... Subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, kickbacks to big-business campaign donors and bundlers etc. I recommend opening a solar panel company, get 500 million from the taxpayer, then close up shop and walk out with duffel bags full of money... That exact scenario has worked for several "companies" so far.

I know Detroit well. Lived there for many years. If America becomes like Detroit, we are all in for a living Hell.

I do not know if the Ds would take us that far down, but you might be right.

 

[Openmind]

A balanced approach you say....what exactly is that?

Did you know Paul Ryan's plan does not balance for 27 years? #mce_temp_url# Is that the definition of a radical austerity program in your mind?

Does a balanced plan include any cuts or reductions in the welfare state?

I guess you haven't been listening to Obama's speeches, or you would KNOW that it includes spending cuts, but first of all, I hope it includes CORPORATE WELFARE cuts. . .and then reduction of wastes from entitlements. And, OBVIOUSLY, Obama (nor anyone else) could not erase the deficit in the next 4 years. . .I guess maybe you're the one believing in Santa Claus.

But at least Obama's plan includes a balance approach (cuts in spending AND increase in revenues through either . ..or both. . .increasing taxes for the wealthy and eliminating loopholes that allow people like Romney to pay a smaller percentage of taxes on $12.7 million annual income than the percentage most middle and upper middle class people pay!

I am very glad to see that, now that the elections are over, even some conservative Republicans are revising their views on this, and are actually recommending that the GOP adopt the "balanced" approach.

 

[GenSeneca]

You have been saying this for a long time and even though I have sympathetic ears all I heard was that you were blaming the pubs for being as bad as the dems. all I thought was that you were more jaded than I and did not appreciate that the pubs were so much better in style than the dems.

Morally, I see no difference between the R's and D's, they both ascribe to the immoral worldview of Collectivism. Now where style and degree are concerned, I do give Republicans credit for being the lesser of two evils and prefer them to the Dems. If we're going to be forced to go the wrong direction, I want to be dragged in that direction as slowly as possible.

What is happening is that the collectivists arguments of the left are becoming more entrenched.

Collectivism is not being opposed on the national stage, that's why it's so prevalent. I think many Christians are suckered into Collectivism too, "helping the poor" is something they believe in doing but nobody bothers to point out that Christ was calling on Christians to personally render assistance as individuals. Christ was not calling on Christians to demand that Caesar institute programs that forcibly redistributed the wealth of everybody, whether they were Christians or not, in order to "help the poor"... Yet that is what the scripture has been twisted into meaning for many people.