PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Pick Not Helping Romney! Romney Slides MORE!



Gayle in MD
08-16-2012, 10:46 AM
If the election were held today, President Obama would win.

Romney's slection of Ryan, a definite Hail Mary Pass isn't working, and in fact, it's costing him.

His approval ratings are even greater since the Ryan Pick!

Whoppie! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lomb...=elections-2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lombardo/84-days-to-go-but-if-the_b_1776889.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012)

llotter
08-16-2012, 12:14 PM
Romney will win in a landslide bigger than Reagan did in 1980 even without my vote.

Soflasnapper
08-16-2012, 02:02 PM
So, he'll top 50.5%? (Reagan's popular vote percentage, with John Anderson splitting the no-Reagan vote with Carter.)

That's a low bar, if he wins at all, given no major 3rd party candidate.

llotter
08-16-2012, 06:11 PM
the landslide was in electoral votes.

Gayle in MD
08-16-2012, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the election were held today, President Obama would win.

Romney's selection of Ryan, a definite Hail Mary Pass isn't working, and in fact, it's costing him.

His approval ratings are even <span style='font-size: 14pt'> worse </span>since the Ryan Pick!

Whoppie! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>MEANT TO WRITE THAT HIS DISAPPROVAL RATINGS ARE GREATER NOW THAN BEFFORE THE RYAN PICK!</span>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lomb...=elections-2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lombardo/84-days-to-go-but-if-the_b_1776889.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012) </div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-16-2012, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney will win in a landslide bigger than Reagan did in 1980 even without my vote. </div></div>

Romney will lose.

He does not have the African American vote.

Does not have the women's vote.

Does not have the young American college aged voters.

Does not have the Hispanic vote.

And will not have the senior citizens vote, once they fully understand The Ryan Plan....and can compare it to the Affordable Health Care Act.

He offends animal lovers.

He offends environmental protection organizations.

He offends people in foreign countries.

Today , he offended over half the country, closer to two thrds of the country, who want him to release his tax returns, like all other presidential contenders have, by calling them small minded.

He offends people who have made their own way in life without a millionaire Da Da there to hand them everything they ever wanted, and then hide money off shore to avoid taxes.

He offends people who have lost their jobs to pigs like him who bankrupt companies, fire employees, and ship their jobs to China.

He has among the lowest approval ratings of any presidential contender.

He's going to lose, mostly because people don't like him, but also, because he is a colossal LIAR, AND a pig.

And all the same can be said of his VP choice, Ryan, who offends even MORE people than Romney!

G.

llotter
08-17-2012, 07:37 AM
There aren't enough loonies out there to re-elect such a moron who has made a shambles of both domestic and foreign affairs.

Gayle in MD
08-17-2012, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There aren't enough loonies out there to re-elect such a moron who has made a shambles of both domestic and foreign affairs. </div></div>

The Moron who made the mess and shambles of both domestic and foreign affairs, was George W. Bush.

The Morons who voted him back into office the second time, after all of his lies and illegal activities were exposed, deserve as much criticism for being morons as Goerge Bush and his fellow lying ass Neocons deserve.


Every disaster, and there were many, many disasters, that Bush left behnd him, has been improving since this president has been in office.

Rational people know that.

G.

llotter
08-18-2012, 06:15 AM
I have maintained all along that our economic problems were caused by excessive debt, both public and private and Bush certainly contributed more than his share on the public side. Spending is the disease of both parties and it is slowly dragging down what was once a great country. As I have often said, the Democrats want to spend us into collapse at 80mph and Republicans at 60 but neither party actually cares to reverse course and get us back to the constitutionally limited government. To continue speeding along on the course our politicians have chosen is moronic but we have created so much dependency that changing course seems nearly impossible. Politicians only answer seems to spending still more ever though the evidence is clear that that solution is disastrous.

There is a little hope on the horizon and that is the small revolution taking place within the Republican Party fueled by the Tea Party who are attempting to weed out the spenders and replace them with small gov. conservatives. The Tea Party revolution is a countervailing force to the statist Left that have been leading us all toward the economic cliff for decades. Let us all hope that we are not too late.

LWW
08-18-2012, 07:33 AM
The wailing and gnashing of teeth come November will be memorable.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2012, 07:40 AM
The only hope for The U.S. is to reverse our
Repiglican history of extreme Corporate Welfare, absurdly exhorbitant, irrational, wasteful defense spending, and stop the Repiglican policies of pushing this country further toward legal economic genocide against the best interests of the common man, the middle class, while destroying all opportunities for the poor to move up the economic ladder.

Tax evading pigs lie Romney and Ryan will push this country further toward fascism, just as Repiglican policies have done for decades.

Without a strong, thriving Middle Class, the economy cannot recover from thirty five years of trickle down economics, which created the irrational vast void between the wealthy and the rest.

Wealthy pigs who hide their profits off shore, and outsource American jobs, while advantaging every American economic opportunity here in this country, FROM THE GOVERNMENT, and hiding their money away where they do not have to give back to their country, are strangling the American economy.


The Repiglican solution is to throw our coming generations off the cliff, and let them starve, die with diseases, become less educated, and let our infrastructure crumble in the interest of created a Millionaire and billionaire plutocracy.

That is not what this country was founded upon.

Tea Party people have been far too brainwashed to grasp what is really happening to the American middle class, and the unfair tax policies which have been prosecuted against them by greedy, un-american, Repiglican fascists through their failed Trickle down economics, and war profiteering thieves.




That has to end, and it will never end under Repiglican control. Romney makes more money in a day, than Ryan makes in a year, and pays less taxes, and Ryan wants our tax structure to allow him to pay even less, 0.82 percent! We cannot survive under Repiglican economic policies.

Corporations who outsource, and hide their money, have sucked our economy dry, period.

People like Mitt Romney, and some corportions like Bain and Walmart, and energy corporations, which are making record breaking profits, and still being susbsidized, are, without conscience and without patriotism, to contiue to suck this country dry.

That kind of corporate greed and corruption must end.

You'd have to go on a massive hunt to find two less patiotic Americans, than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, in the true sense of the word!

G.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2012, 12:59 PM
llotter, you have stated well a coherent account applying to both parties, as well as charging Bush with his not inconsiderable part in it. Nicely done, and kudos.

But I think it's a coherent myth that's not exactly true.

Consider two periods, the end of the '70s, and the '90s.

Carter's last year had a small recession, and under that flagging economy, the deficit grew to a then-nominal record of about $75 billion dollars. (The WW II record deficit of $65 billion was still far larger in real terms.) Reagan thundered down his condemnation, said that level of deficit would destroy the country, and he promised to balance the budget in 2 years (later amended to 'year after next' repeatedly, lol!).

If ONLY we'd kept that situation, even if it had been $75 billion a year in deficits, we'd have saved many trillion of dollars in debt. In just Reagan's 8 years, we'd have had half the debt we ended up with. And, of course, as the economy improved, we'd have had far lower deficits than that record level. Instead we went with an unusual fiscal policy that even Sen. Majority Leader Howard Baker (R) called 'a river boat gamble,' and saw deficits double, and then redouble again.

Fast forward to the Clinton years (or really, before him, to the last GHW Bush years). The Congress then imposed tax hikes (twice, once for Bush, and a still higher tax rate under Clinton), and set hard caps on discretionary spending increases, and instituted pay-go rules. No new spending could add to the deficit, and no new tax cuts could, either, so if you wanted any of these new policies-- new programs or increased spending in existing programs, or new tax cuts to incentivize this or that activity-- offsets would be necessary-- either raise the same money somewhere else, or drop spending in some other program entry line.

Now, none of this required rolling back the scope of government to the smallest government the limited government advocates clamor for. It was rather some limited tax hikes, and just a bit of fiscal discipline. Yet it worked. It worked so well in fact that the limited government types had to go to plan B.

Plan B was to blow up the deficit by strangling government revenues with large tax rate cuts (without spending reductions), and then blow out the spending side with unpaid for huge items such as military buildups or wars ($3 trillion for the current ones, e.g.). This was done in my view deliberately to cause a financial crisis so grave as to THEN lay out the predicate for severely trimming back the social welfare arrangements.

Why do I say it was deliberate? Because that's what they themselves said. Starve the beast. Shrink it to where it could be drowned in the bathtub.

Your solution would be to allow these guys to have what they engineered. My suggested solution is to stop their strategy, and return to the '90s policies, which worked.

Qtec
08-18-2012, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the election were held today, President Obama would win. </div></div>

I have my doubts.

7 HOURS. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwWSL8VIvhE&feature=relmfu)

The massive voter suppression will take its toll.

Q

Gayle in MD
08-18-2012, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the election were held today, President Obama would win. </div></div>

Only if those who wanted to vote were allowed to and be able to cast their vote.

7HOURS. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwWSL8VIvhE&feature=relmfu)

Q </div></div>

True, what a disgrace!

I hope there is a backlash, and that it inspires some who don't usually bother to vote, to get out and vote.

G.