G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 22, 2012 2:40pm
He has a proven track record as a leader. Community organizer has a track record of failure. It's really not difficult. I mean, Obama can't even lead his party. Quitely he's kind of a just a joke - they all know he's an empty suit.ptown_trojans_1;1277398 wrote:Yes, because Romney has detailed how he will be a leader.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Sep 22, 2012 2:41pm
And that relates to interacting with Congress how?gut;1277404 wrote:He has a proven track record as a leader. Community organizer has a track record of failure. It's really not difficult.
And please point to specifics.
IggyPride00
Posts: 6,482
Sep 22, 2012 2:46pm
Whatever way the wind blows is where Willard will lead.Yes, because Romney has detailed how he will be a leader.
The reason he has had such a hard time is because he has no core convictions. He has had trouble connecting to Conservatives because Consservatism is a foreign language to him and he doesn't speak it well.
He has been on all sides of every issue depending on what he thought would be politically expedient to him.
That is not the type of leadership that is going to bring this nation out of the whole it is in. He is the feckless wimpy leader in the John Kerry mold.
Reagan was the last real "leader" this country had that brought an ideology to the table and implemented it while dragging the nation over to his side along the way.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 22, 2012 2:48pm
Dude, you're building strawmen. It really doesn't take a special or unique skillset to reach across the aisle. To compromise. To work things out. In fact, it comes pretty naturally for successful businessmen. Give me a fucking break - a "plan" to go talk to the other side and work things out. Now, Obama SAID he was going to break down bipartisanship blah blah blah, but in fact he's been extremely partisan. He had a strong mandate and Congress, and was just going to steamroll everything thru - and he paid the price, with Repubs and within his own party for it.ptown_trojans_1;1277409 wrote:And that relates to interacting with Congress how?
And please point to specifics.
But Obama is the smartest guy in the room. He's arrogant and has all the answers. He's proven to be a key part of the gridlock, and can't even lead his own party. Many in that party quietly don't even respect him (probably why he can't lead them, either). Why would they - what has he accomplished?
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
Sep 22, 2012 2:48pm
Remember when ptown was a rational poster and not just a left wing hack?
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Sep 22, 2012 2:54pm
Yup. Rationality went out the window on this board a little while ago.superman;1277430 wrote:Remember when ptown was a rational poster and not just a left wing hack?
I'm sorry, I honestly can't stand most of the stuff on here anymore.
If that makes me left wing, sure thing.
If Romney had any brains, he would detail in specifics how he would work with Congress to solve the debt/ tax/ and sequestration problems.
Look, I talk and converse with many people that are on the right side of the fence, and we all agree if Romney had any concept of how to run a campaign, and offer specifics, he would be ahead.
But, he has nothing.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Sep 22, 2012 2:57pm
I agree Obama has not been effective at reaching across. But, I have yet to see any indication that Romney would be any better.gut;1277426 wrote:Dude, you're building strawmen. It really doesn't take a special or unique skillset to reach across the aisle. To compromise. To work things out. In fact, it comes pretty naturally for successful businessmen. Give me a ****ing break - a "plan" to go talk to the other side and work things out. Now, Obama SAID he was going to break down bipartisanship blah blah blah, but in fact he's been extremely partisan. He had a strong mandate and Congress, and was just going to steamroll everything thru - and he paid the price, with Repubs and within his own party for it.
But Obama is the smartest guy in the room. He's arrogant and has all the answers. He's proven to be a key part of the gridlock, and can't even lead his own party. Many in that party quietly don't even respect him (probably why he can't lead them, either). Why would they - what has he accomplished?
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
Sep 22, 2012 3:00pm
Attitude reflect leadership captain.ptown_trojans_1;1277442 wrote:Yup. Rationality went out the window on this board a little while ago.
IggyPride00
Posts: 6,482
Sep 22, 2012 3:00pm
He can't, because in order to make the arithmetic work on the huge tax cut he wants it would mean admitting he plans to hammer the middle class with tax increases by getting rid of all of their deductions.If Romney had any brains, he would detail in specifics how he would work with Congress to solve the debt/ tax/ and sequestration pr
It would be political suicide, which is why he wants to wait until after the election to reveal it.
To make the massive increase in defense spending he wants be budget neutral it would mean admitting he wants to gut Medicare and Social Security to make it work. Again, he can't say this publicly.
If you follow politics closely you already know all of this. It is the low information voters he is shielding the facts from for that very reason.
When he says he will cut taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the budget.....there is only 1 way to get there that he doesn't want said out loud.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 22, 2012 3:20pm
Again, there's not some magic formula or secret plan. You're either willing and able to work with the other side, or as Obama has PROVEN you're not. I have never in my life heard, nor expected, someone to detail how they are going to sit down and cooperate with the other side. Your point is nothing more than an irrational affirmative defense of Obama - "I don't know Romney will be any better so I'll vote for the proven failure".ptown_trojans_1;1277447 wrote:I agree Obama has not been effective at reaching across. But, I have yet to see any indication that Romney would be any better.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Sep 22, 2012 4:30pm
work with
February, 2009 Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/?mobile=nc
February, 2009 Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/?mobile=nc
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 22, 2012 6:56pm
Spoken after nearly two years of watching Obama and the Dems ramrod failed policy after failed policy thru Congress.isadore;1277510 wrote:work with
February, 2009 Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/?mobile=nc
Clinton had a very similar circumstance. And after voters gave Repubs Congress, Clinton moved to the center. Obama moved further left and reaps what he sows.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Sep 22, 2012 7:18pm
Lets see Romney/Ryan would I follow those two guys if I was in the military .. Hell yes
Obama/Biden I would take orders for anyone that a socialist ... and a fool, O/B are both
Obama/Biden I would take orders for anyone that a socialist ... and a fool, O/B are both
believer
Posts: 8,153
Sep 23, 2012 3:52pm
Unfortunately it will be people who think like this who will insure that we endure 4 more years of failure. Better to go with the enemy we know I suppose. It's amazing that we need to choose between known failure and possible failure.gut;1277467 wrote:Your point is nothing more than an irrational affirmative defense of Obama - "I don't know Romney will be any better so I'll vote for the proven failure".
Obama is clearly the glass is half empty choice. Maybe Romney will be the glass is half full guy?
Oh that's right....I can always go for Gary Johnson and then thump my chest and exclaim, "Don't blame me....I voted for the other guy." :rolleyes:
password
Posts: 2,360
Sep 23, 2012 5:57pm
I know he donated $500 million to Solyndra, not sure about the percentage.Belly35;1277358 wrote:Why did Obama give in the same period. Percentage per percentage income?
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Sep 23, 2012 6:40pm
I see you're still fantasizing. Obama tried to meet Republicans in the middle and they dug in their heels because of the Tea Party and moved even further to the right. But hey, unless your boy gets his shit together it's looking like four more years of the empty suit. Time to start preparing to work with the guy.gut;1277590 wrote:Spoken after nearly two years of watching Obama and the Dems ramrod failed policy after failed policy thru Congress.
Clinton had a very similar circumstance. And after voters gave Repubs Congress, Clinton moved to the center. Obama moved further left and reaps what he sows.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 23, 2012 8:16pm
^^^what he said....Except Obama never made any legit attempt to "move to the middle". He tried an 11th hour power play that failed, and the suckers think that qualifies as "compromising".ccrunner609;1278694 wrote:Holy **** you are dilusional........Obama spent 2 years ramming through his left wing agenda before he ever talked to anyone. Reid and Pelosi were has lap dogs that blew off all the pubs and wouldnt even talk to them about stuff. When the Pubs took over the house he tried to play nice for a minute knowing they were going to tell him to **** off after what he did for the first 2 years. You cant have it both ways.
The fact that his budget didn't even get a single Dem to vote for it says it all: Absolute failure of leadership.
tcarrier32
Posts: 1,497
Sep 23, 2012 10:57pm
republicans - ironically proving the need for literacy tests since the 1960's
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Sep 23, 2012 11:53pm
Delusional only if one lives in the right wing echo chamber of false reality. Obama spent two years "ramming through" things that the Republicans supported without equivocation previously i.e. a tax cut laden and states' rights oriented stimulus plan and a healthcare plan they invented that could barely get liberal house members to support it. The entire national conversation was shifted toward the right and Obama's moderate proposals were treated as blasphemous Republicans who stomped their feet and cried.ccrunner609;1278694 wrote:Holy shit you are dilusional........Obama spent 2 years ramming through his left wing agenda before he ever talked to anyone. Reid and Pelosi were has lap dogs that blew off all the pubs and wouldnt even talk to them about stuff. When the Pubs took over the house he tried to play nice for a minute knowing they were going to tell him to fuck off after what he did for the first 2 years. You cant have it both ways.
They were never told to fuck off...they just didn't want to put their big boy pants on and support things they supported a year prior because the bad guys were in charge. It's that simple.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Sep 23, 2012 11:59pm
No it doesn't. We've covered this and a rational pragmatist, like you claim to be, ought to grasp this. When Republicans are passing fairy tale budgets in the House it would have been bad politics to pass and adult budget that grasps our current fiscal reality in the Senate that would've allowed more children in to get elected.gut;1278711 wrote: The fact that his budget didn't even get a single Dem to vote for it says it all: Absolute failure of leadership.
Kudos to them because it's looking like a smart play because there's no ads being run in competitive senate races claiming votes for raises in marginal rates and if the election were today the Democrats would retain control of the Senate.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Sep 24, 2012 12:02am
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/13/business/fi-swiss13ccrunner609;1277341 wrote: 2. "illegal"? Link?
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Sep 24, 2012 12:11am
Oh right...the massive underclass of welfare queens livin teh high life on teh "good welfare" that has been a myth for decades eh?? especially since there has been no such thing as welfare for over a decade??? Exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the rural white males with children who go to church who don't pay federal income tax who are the actual bulk of the alleged "freeloaders" imagining this huge succubus underclass of freeloaders...hmmm...still not marking our beliefs to market.ccrunner609;1277341 wrote:
3. we arent talking about white males that make low incomes when it comes to non-payers into the system. THe freeloading, food stamp using, lifetime welfare non-payers that take advantage of the system.
(But for what it's worth...if we had a real, liberal keynesian jobs program to offset recessions and keep us at full employment...even these small number of freeloaders wouldn't exist because they'd have to get a job. The deficit scolds would rather there be a bunch of moochers of food stamps and then tell us about how teh moochers are a huge drain on teh budget :/ )
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 24, 2012 12:29am
So Romney releases his charity donations but not his tax returns. Nothing like a benevolent crook.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 24, 2012 2:07am
LMAO...OBama's budget got 0 votes from the Dems. ZERO. (and not the first time, either). You can't spin that, it's a gross failure of leadership. Wow, what a whopper to try to blame that failure on budgets that are actually, you know, GETTING VOTES. Harry Reid wouldn't even let it come up for debate. Look no further than the liberal's tweedle-dee and tweedle dum for your blame game.BoatShoes;1278851 wrote:No it doesn't. We've covered this and a rational pragmatist, like you claim to be, ought to grasp this. When Republicans are passing fairy tale budgets in the House it would have been bad politics to pass and adult budget that grasps our current fiscal reality in the Senate that would've allowed more children in to get elected.
tcarrier32
Posts: 1,497
Sep 24, 2012 5:13am
if i had a dog as dumb as you, i'd teach it to walk backwards, shave its ass, and shoot it in the head.gut;1278887 wrote:LMAO...OBama's budget got 0 votes from the Dems. ZERO. (and not the first time, either). You can't spin that, it's a gross failure of leadership. Wow, what a whopper to try to blame that failure on budgets that are actually, you know, GETTING VOTES. Harry Reid wouldn't even let it come up for debate. Look no further than the liberal's tweedle-dee and tweedle dum for your blame game.