Mitt Romney VS President Obama (1 Viewer)

[Joe8915]

Well you know its coming down to dead heat.

Mitt Romney leads President Obama

 

[MarkK]

A 'dead heat' is a tie. But you are saying Romney is ahead?

Do you have a source for this info, or maybe it's just how you feel?

How about that Todd Akin? Priceless!

 

[Joe8915]

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 45% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

 

[Joe8915]

How about that Todd Akin? Priceless!

what a jerk

 

[Adam Caramon]

what a jerk

Agreed. I think Akin is really going to hurt the R&R ticket as well. The Obama team is going to directly and indirectly link Akin to Ryan, and thus Akin to Romney. In addition, I think the lack of tax releases by Romney is resonating with a lot of middle class Americans. There is a feeling among some Americans that Romney is hiding something, and his decision to not release additional years of tax returns is fueling that feeling.

I'm looking forward to the presidential debates. I think President Obama will outshine Romney, as he has a lot of material to work with. Ryan versus Biden I think will be much closer. I think Ryan has the edge as an orator, however Biden's down-to-earthness, for lack of a better term, lands well with average Joes. Ryan has a lot of vulnerabilities towards seniors and the middle class as well with his view on the budget.

If I had to make a guess at this point, I'd say Obama wins reelection by 5+ points.

 

[Joe8915]

I don't really like any of them, but going to lead with Romney. Romney has already di owned Akin, so I don't think it will hurt.

Romney hiding something.................. whats new with that. I think every president we had was hidning something.

I think it will be the reverse Romney by 5+ points.

I didn't even think Obama will debate. Just my thought

 

[Steve R.]

I think President Obama will outshine Romney, as he has a lot of material to work with.

Obama knows how to sell a populist message with lofty and eloquent rhetoric. But it is all "smoke and mirrors". Obama is the Manchurian Candidate realized.

Obama's economic policies are nothing more than "Bread and Circuses" to entice the unthinking electorate to vote for him. Which leads me to this Alexis de Tocqueville quote: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”. Obama is frantically pandering for votes.

As for Romney, he has his own credibility issues. He claims to want to balance the budget, but we have out of control deficit spending yet he proposes to have a "BIG" military. So what is to be cut, if taxes are not raised, to offset the desired "BIG" military?

Romney spews the free-enterprise message and claims to want government out of the private sector. Yet he claims that he, as President, will create jobs! Of course the misleading assertion will be that he will foster an environment that would encourage job creation. Job creation results when there is unmet demand for goods/services, not by manipulating the tax code.

Both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson raised the issue of restoring "liberty" and reducing the scope of government. Regretfully, these concepts have been lost in the grossly partisan political "debate" of manufactured issues going on. Neither Obama nor Romney will do anything to reduce the trend at suppressing individual liberty. Both Obama and Romney will further promote "strong" so-called "intellectual property" rights and will curtail free trade. (Romney has been particularly livid on these issues which would contradict his supposed free-market theme.)

The election is coming down to the lesser of two evils.

 

[Vassago]

I think the Republican party is starting to fall apart. Here you have Akin putting his foot in his mouth over his pro-life beliefs. You have Ryan who actually agrees with Akin's pro-life beliefs, but hasn't used the harsh words he has. You have Romney, who has said his stance is abortions should be allowed for ra**/incest victims. Then you have the Republican party trying to push a bill, as they do every year lately, to ban abortions for any reason. How can they nominate a President who doesn't even agree with their ideals?

To be fair, I have find Romney's stance on abortion hypocritical, even though more people share this feeling than an out-right ban. To me, if you are pro-life, and you believe that life begins at conception, short of life or death, how can you possibly pick a time when abortion is ok? Why would it be ok for incest and ra** victims to get an abortion? Why does the innocent "baby" or "life" deserve to be aborted because of the crimes of the parent(s)? Secondly, what about birth-control pills? How can someone be pro-life and take or support birth control pills? Birth control pills are designed to prevent a possible fertilized egg from attaching and growing. Once it's fertilized, isn't it a life?

With the possible consequences of banning birth control and abortion, especially in the instance of ra** or incest (psychological and emotional issues for the mother/father), how can anyone be anything but pro-choice. At least pro-choice allows you to have an opinion on a case by case basis. Every situation is unique. To say we should ban it outright is just ridiculous.

An old co-worker of mine and his wife were hounded at Planned Parenthood by protesters as they were entering for their procedure. It turned out the baby they had been trying to have for years had a rare birth defect that caused the fetus's brain to not form. Abortion was their only option to not have the emotional and psychological meltdown giving birth to this empty shell would have caused them, only for it to be stillborn or die. They didn't need pictures and shouting in their face as they were dealing with this already difficult situation, but they got it. The people had no idea what their situation was, they were just so narrow-minded to not accept that they don't understand everything there is to know about abortion or why people choose it. He walked back outside and put them in their place.

 

[Vassago]

As far as his tax returns, I find it amusing he wouldn't follow his own father's suit and release more information. This is a standard thing most Presidential nominees have done, and when you promise to work for the middle class, why hide it?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Romney hiding something.................. whats new with that. I think every president we had was hidning something.

Agreed.

I think it will be the reverse Romney by 5+ points.

We'll have to resurrect this thread after the election (assuming it has died by then) to see who's guess was closer.

Obama's economic policies are nothing more than "Bread and Circuses" to entice the unthinking electorate to vote for him.

Actually, I think they are much more then that. I think there is a an agenda that is getting through, which many Americans agree with, but which cannot be called out into the light of day as it is too prone to over-sensationalized "patriotic" attacks.

Romney spews the free-enterprise message and claims to want government out of the private sector. Yet he claims that he, as President, will create jobs! Of course the misleading assertion will be that he will foster an environment that would encourage job creation. Job creation results when there is unmet demand for goods/services, not by manipulating the tax code.

Agreed. If you think of all of the corporations sitting on piles of cash right now, it isn't hard to imagine that if Romney should happen to be elected, that they might spend some of it. Why? Mostly because with a President Romney the corporations know they will have a friend in the White House. They won't have to worry so much about taxes or regulations.

If that were to happen, and those corporations started to spend, there would be some people who would say "See, Romney helped the economy". In my own opinion, if we're down to begging corporations to spend their money to help the American economy, our government is already in far worse shape than most Americans can imagine.

The election is coming down to the lesser of two evils.

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

I realize that politics will shade everyone's perception, mine included, but I feel much more pride in our country now than I did during President Bush's terms. I think most of our allies would agree.

I think the Republican party is starting to fall apart.

Agreed. The Republican party of Barry Goldwater is no more. The party has been commandeered by social conservatives, which is turning away a lot of the moderate Republicans or right-leaning independents.

With the possible consequences of banning birth control and abortion, especially in the instance of ra** or incest (psychological and emotional issues for the mother/father), how can anyone be anything but pro-choice.

Yeah, I don't get it. The supposed sanctity of life seems to end at birth.

As far as his tax returns, I find it amusing he wouldn't follow his own father's suit and release more information. This is a standard thing most Presidential nominees have done, and when you promise to work for the middle class, why hide it?

That's why I think it is going to be a lingering issue. The democrats keep hammering this issue, because they know it is working. They even offered him a "deal" where if he would release the last 5 years returns, they'd stop asking him about it, and he refused. The only reason to refuse is that there must be something so politically damaging in his returns that he can't release them otherwise he'd be ruined. That says a lot.

 

[MarkK]

But lets keep in mind in every partisan debate that the real problem in the US is money in politics. The people in Washington, all of them, need so much money to get elected that by the time they take office they are completely beholden to corporations and big business interests, not the people! This is a fundamental assault on the principles of democracy and no one is talking about it. And notice that the people who pay for the commercials on the news are the same people that elected officials are beholden to. Hmmnn.

PR departments carefully shape the message to favour the messenger, and the interests of big media converge with the interests of all other big business, and the result is government by corporations, for corporations.

The United States is now a plutocracy, or plutarchy, which wikipedia describes as "rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth."

 

[Adam Caramon]

Another recent poll - this one show's Obama leading by 7 points:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/cnn-poll-obama-holds-7-point-lead-over-romney/

 

[Joe8915]

They all should have term limits. If you can't get the job done in 4 years get the hell out and none of this full pay crap after you get out.

Just when is enough is enough, you have way to much of the good old buddies going on. If you get NEW blood in there, you won't have this I owe you crap.

just my 2 cents

 

[pono1]

But lets keep in mind in every partisan debate that the real problem in the US is money in politics. The people in Washington, all of them, need so much money to get elected that by the time they take office they are completely beholden to corporations and big business interests...
The United States is now a plutocracy, or plutarchy, which wikipedia describes as "rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth."

Agree with most all of this. It's a not-so pleasant state at the national level in American politics, with the amount of corporate influence. And yet the wealthy have always had some influence at the national level, starting with the Revolution...Washington and Jefferson, for example, were not paupers.

Still some hope, perhaps, at the local level of politics...

 

[Vassago]

Agree with most all of this. It's a not-so pleasant state at the national level in American politics, with the amount of corporate influence. And yet the wealthy have always had some influence at the national level, starting with the Revolution...Washington and Jefferson, for example, were not paupers.

Still some hope, perhaps, at the local level of politics...

No, but it's a difference of who's money is influencing the political parties today vs 200 years ago. We even have international banks and their subsidiaries donating to Presidential candidates. That's a far cry from Washington and Jefferson using their own wealth to spread their agenda.

 

[MarkK]

No, but it's a difference of who's money is influencing the political parties today vs 200 years ago. We even have international banks and their subsidiaries donating to Presidential candidates. That's a far cry from Washington and Jefferson using their own wealth to spread their agenda.

And look at how Americans rights are being eroded. Corporations are now people in the eyes of American law, exceedingly rich people with no conscience. Money is speech, so money in politics is now a protected first amendment right, so unlimited SuperPACs, and a reduction in the relative power of the people's voice. An American citizen was murdered by the American government overseas without trial. American citizens are now allowed to be strip-searched after any arrest for anything. American citizens are now allowed to be detained indefinitely without charge. Domestic spying budgets are secret, so no accountability. Sopa. Acta. Copyright BS.

Why are these not major issues in the US? See how the issue of gay marriage, by contrast, and no matter where you stand, is of no lasting consequence? But the press loves it, and ignores issues of serious ruptures in American rights and freedoms? WTF?

 

[Fifty2One]

From outside USA it often seems that the campaining for election starts the day after inauguration. Does not appear to be too much of a democracy with only two parties.

 

[Vassago]

And look at how Americans rights are being eroded. Corporations are now people in the eyes of American law, exceedingly rich people with no conscience. Money is speech, so money in politics is now a protected first amendment right, so unlimited SuperPACs, and a reduction in the relative power of the people's voice. An American citizen was murdered by the American government overseas without trial. American citizens are now allowed to be strip-searched after any arrest for anything. American citizens are now allowed to be detained indefinitely without charge. Domestic spying budgets are secret, so no accountability. Sopa. Acta. Copyright BS.

Why are these not major issues in the US? See how the issue of gay marriage, by contrast, and no matter where you stand, is of no lasting consequence? But the press loves it, and ignores issues of serious ruptures in American rights and freedoms? WTF?

Hey, I completely agree with you. Do you wonder why the press is covering stories unrelated to the more pressing issues? Who owns the press? Banks. Corporations. The "people" who also donate to the two major parties, who we also bail out with OUR tax money. This is why Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are snubbed so much in the election. Ron Paul is still a candidate. He still has enough delegates to speak at the convention in Tampa. Gary Johnson has one of the highest poll numbers of a Libertarian candidate in years and is close to enough to speak in the actual Presidential debates. As soon as he jumped from 9% to 13% within a couple months, 15% being the threshold to speak in debates, the major news networks stopped talking about him. They don't even mention him anymore. It's sickening that we allow these corporations to have so much power over where we get our information. They can feed us anything they want and we buy into it immediately. I see the tables finally starting to shift. People are waking up. I'm just afraid it's going at too slow a rate for it to matter this election year.

 

[Steve R.]

And look at how Americans rights are being eroded.

I see the tables finally starting to shift. People are waking up. I'm just afraid it's going at too slow a rate for it to matter this election year.

Sigh, only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson would seem to offer a real push-back. (Hey, I got to shake hands with Congressman Walter Jones (R,NC) a couple of weeks ago to give him a 1 minute spiel on the debt crises.) Neither Obama nor Romney will do anything restore civil liberties. Given that the presidential race is basically limited to Obama/Romney, the trend towards a police state will continue.

 

[boblarson]

Let's just put them into an Ultimate Fighting ring and the last one standing can have the job. At least that way it would at least have some entertainment value. I used to vote for who I liked. Now I have to vote for who I dislike least.