Stop sending corporate shills and the 1% who are completely out of touch with the USA into politics to lead our country. Health care is a right that all should have access to, not just the wealthy. Any more tidbits of wisdom to the GOP on how to win an election?

Healthcare is a right? Please provide links.

Wasn't Obama part of the 1% when he was elected?

A career academic and politician is a little more out-of-touch with people than Romney is, to be honest. Although Obama does have a gift to talk down to people and make them feel good having listened to him.

Thus far the question in the title has been deflected. I'm also curious as to the answer. The Republicans seem to be convinced Obama is an abysmal failure by any objective measure and the cause of our economic woes. What message does it send to their party on a national scale when they lose to him? Will there be any self reflection or changes made?

My guess, no. I'm thinking a lot of "voters are stupid/Obama bought off everyone's votes with free stuff/people voted illegally" type crying that won't actually address the fundamental problems within their party.

Why would anyone vote for Romney? If you believe that printing money grows the economy, our military should run roughshod throughout the world, and there is no limit to government power, then why wouldn't you vote for Obama who has a proven track record of advancing these ideals?

Cleveland Buck;1236329 wrote:Why would anyone vote for Romney? If you believe that printing money grows the economy, our military should run roughshod throughout the world, and there is no limit to government power, then why wouldn't you vote for Obama who has a proven track record of advancing these ideals?

If 2 candidates are similar I always choose the one who at least wears the label of a party that is supposed to be more conservative. ...That isn't Obama.

end of thread

Zombaypirate;1236251 wrote:Health care is a right that all should have access to, not just the wealthy.

The number of people who have died in this country in the last several decades due to being denied needed health care is zero.

Not a small number.
Not a number approaching zero.
Exactly. Zero.

What else ya' got?

Zombaypirate;1236251 wrote:Stop sending corporate shills and the 1% who are completely out of touch with the USA into politics to lead our country. Health care is a right that all should have access to, not just the wealthy. Any more tidbits of wisdom to the GOP on how to win an election?

Find me a democratic President who wasn't in the 1% in the history of the US, until then your point has been proven wrong.

queencitybuckeye;1236343 wrote:The number of people who have died in this country in the last several decades due to being denied needed health care is zero

What else ya' got?

False. I personally know of someone who died because of his inability to pay for his own healthcare. And he was a business owner to boot. He was a really sick puppy who did not want to give all his earnings to healthcare. The US ranks 37th internationally for a reason. My deceased friend 47 years old at time of death, is one of millions that fell victim to our crappy healthcare economics.

jmog;1236347 wrote:Find me a democratic President who wasn't in the 1% in the history of the US, until then your point has been proven wrong.

Right off the top of my head, Carter and Clinton. But the wealth of the president is irrelevant to what the OP is stating anyway. He is referencing. The WIDENING GAP....and not how the middle class is eroding...something the Republicans don't view as a problem.

Footwedge;1236349 wrote:The WIDENING GAP....and not how the middle class is eroding...something the Republicans don't view as a problem.

Both parties have contributed to the "erosion of the middle class." Apparently the Dems don't view it as a problem either with the exception of using class warfare as a deceptive mechanism to earn votes from the Kool Aid drinkers.

Both parties suck. Both candidate suck. Our nation is in a lose-lose situation this election.

WebFire;1236362 wrote:Both parties suck. Both candidate suck. Our nation is in a lose-lose situation this election.

This.

queencitybuckeye;1236343 wrote:The number of people who have died in this country in the last several decades due to being denied needed health care is zero.

Not a small number.
Not a number approaching zero.
Exactly. Zero.

What else ya' got?

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

jmog;1236347 wrote:Find me a democratic President who wasn't in the 1% in the history of the US, until then your point has been proven wrong.

Truman

Interesting fact (and it might come as a shock that I'm posting this, seeing how I detest Mitt Romney as a candidate):

When Romney left Bain around 2000, he took the vast majority of his money out of Bain and into Blind Trusts.

Today, it is estimated that Romney is worth $150MM to $250MM.

However, all of the partners he had at Bain are billionaires today.

Now, when he left Bain, he owned (correct me if I'm wrong) slightly over half the income and return.

So, had Romney chosen to stay with Bain and not pursue a public office, his fortune would likely be in the neighborhood between $4 and $6 billion today (given proportional growth of his partners' earnings from Bain). Now, none of us but Romney know what is truly in his heart and why is he doing what he is doing, and I still don't trust the guy's policy at all, but it would appear that he's not been the greedy pig he's being demonized as being, or at least, it doesn't appear to be all about money.

2kool4skool;1236319 wrote:Thus far the question in the title has been deflected. I'm also curious as to the answer. The Republicans seem to be convinced Obama is an abysmal failure by any objective measure and the cause of our economic woes. What message does it send to their party on a national scale when they lose to him? Will there be any self reflection or changes made?

My guess, no. I'm thinking a lot of "voters are stupid/Obama bought off everyone's votes with free stuff/people voted illegally" type crying that won't actually address the fundamental problems within their party.

I agree and they'll also believe that the reason they lost is because they didn't nominate a "true conservative" and will continue to vote for hardcore tea party candidates how think it would be a good idea if the United States defaulted on its obligations.

O-Trap;1236932 wrote:Interesting fact (and it might come as a shock that I'm posting this, seeing how I detest Mitt Romney as a candidate):

When Romney left Bain around 2000, he took the vast majority of his money out of Bain and into Blind Trusts.

Today, it is estimated that Romney is worth $150MM to $250MM.

However, all of the partners he had at Bain are billionaires today.

Now, when he left Bain, he owned (correct me if I'm wrong) slightly over half the income and return.

So, had Romney chosen to stay with Bain and not pursue a public office, his fortune would likely be in the neighborhood between $4 and $6 billion today (given proportional growth of his partners' earnings from Bain). Now, none of us but Romney know what is truly in his heart and why is he doing what he is doing, and I still don't trust the guy's policy at all, but it would appear that he's not been the greedy pig he's being demonized as being, or at least, it doesn't appear to be all about money.

I thought I saw a blurb on how Romney discussed with his family his desire to pursue public office, and the vast fortune he'd be walking away from. Of course, when you already have $150-$250M it's really just an issue of keeping score and not some massive fortune you are really choosing to walk away from.

I have some bit of confusion understanding how exactly either one of these candidates is going to help me? Not to sound bias or a "the glass is half empty" kind of guy. I see people all day long that seem to get carrots dangled in front of them and loose sight of some of the overwhelming problems that face this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And we are hung up over who ownes an AR15? Kind of seems small in comparison? Of course figrues lie and liars figure (at least that is what my daddy used to say)

sanitizer;1237122 wrote:I have some bit of confusion understanding how exactly either one of these candidates is going to help me? Not to sound bias or a "the glass is half empty" kind of guy. I see people all day long that seem to get carrots dangled in front of them and loose sight of some of the overwhelming problems that face this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And we are hung up over who ownes an AR15? Kind of seems small in comparison? Of course figrues lie and liars figure (at least that is what my daddy used to say)

Well you should probably get better sources of information. You're not going to be able to balance a budget at below target inflation, a large trade deficit, and unemployment well above full-employment...that is true. However, a higher inflation target, full employment and a weaker dollar that would encourage a trade surplus (which may be possible if we can start using domestic natural gas converted to syngas as fuel like the Germans did in WWII as people will be ok with higher price foreign goods so long as gas prices don't spike) make a balanced budget feasible.

Obama is not great but all of those policies are in the realm of possibility if he is re-elected. With a president Romney, and not so much him but the scorched earthers that currently make up a sizeable coalition of his party, those policies will not be pursued unfortunately.

gut;1237070 wrote:I thought I saw a blurb on how Romney discussed with his family his desire to pursue public office, and the vast fortune he'd be walking away from. Of course, when you already have $150-$250M it's really just an issue of keeping score and not some massive fortune you are really choosing to walk away from.

Eh, it depends. Everyone has their own number ... the number they'd be willing to walk away with.

However, I'll be honest. If it came down to either public office or being a billionaire ... I'm going for the billionaire role.

O-Trap;1237203 wrote:Eh, it depends. Everyone has their own number ... the number they'd be willing to walk away with.

However, I'll be honest. If it came down to either public office or being a billionaire ... I'm going for the billionaire role.

No normal person would want to hold public office. It's about the desire for power and validation for 99% of them.

NAFTA for the win!!!!!!!

O-Trap;1237203 wrote:Eh, it depends. Everyone has their own number ... the number they'd be willing to walk away with.

However, I'll be honest. If it came down to either public office or being a billionaire ... I'm going for the billionaire role.

False dichotomy. Many are already billionaires now they get power for all other billionaires to keep it. It is called a plutocracy.