| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2012 02:33:38 AM · #1 |
All I know is that he is a business man first, one who worked for a company that torn the average working man's life apart in order to make himself rich. Then he was a 1 term governor (Correct me if I'm wrong) and that's about it. Was he good at his job...if he was, it was at the expense of many unfortunate people. If he runs on that, I don't understand how he can win. I don't know exactly what he accomplished as governor, I'd be interested in hearing from his supporters as to what they think.
Has Obama done a good job? And since he is running for a second term, will other democrats also campaign against him in order to replace him? Or is this a no no? I don't know... |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 02:42:43 AM · #2 |
Let's ignore the undercurrents and ask: If you had to put the country's future in the hands of one who has taken several businesses that had "gone bad" under prior management and who had restored them and then sold them off to the highest bidder... and made a profit for himself and the prior investors... many times over ... OR...
... one who'd taken a "business" and run it under many more times below where it was when he got it...
Which would you choose?
America used to be a very strong country. Now we borrow... hither and yon ... just to get by.
Who do you want to be in charge?
One who's rescued many companies for a profit?
Or one who's never rescued a company for profit and and the only entity he promised to change for the better is now worse financially than the two hundred years it's been around... than it ever was?
You decide... |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 02:55:46 AM · #3 |
I'm not an American, so I don't get a vote. I don't see it as you do though. America was hurting before Obama was in charge and I don't think that a new president be it Romney, or if Obama is re-elected, that you will see much of a change in a matter of 4 years. Are you hoping for a business man to be in charge?
I understand the economy is a priority for many Americans, but at what cost? I'm going to have to dig deeper into both Obama and Romney to give a better opinion with more facts. What I understand so far though is that the businessman Romney is, is one for the already very rich at the expense of the not so rich. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 02:57:24 AM · #4 |
| I have no idea or interest in American politics, as an European though i have always looked upon America as a wealthy country that has a very unfair social structure, a country where people can actually lose all they have because of heath issues and I'm pretty sure most people outside the states also have this image. Wouldn't it be better to get this sorted out before one thinks in terms of weath and power, perhaps looking elsewhere for inspiration and accepting the fact that maybe you haven't got it all right and never have. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 03:34:26 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Let's ignore the undercurrents and ask: If you had to put the country's future in the hands of one who has taken several businesses that had "gone bad" under prior management and who had restored them and then sold them off to the highest bidder... and made a profit for himself and the prior investors... many times over ... OR...
... one who'd taken a "business" and run it under many more times below where it was when he got it...
Which would you choose? |
Wait, both of those describes Romney. Was that a trick question? |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 06:24:11 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Let's ignore the undercurrents and ask: If you had to put the country's future in the hands of one who has taken several businesses that had "gone bad" under prior management and who had restored them and then sold them off to the highest bidder... and made a profit for himself and the prior investors... many times over ... OR...
... one who'd taken a "business" and run it under many more times below where it was when he got it...
Which would you choose? |
Wait, both of those describes Romney. Was that a trick question? |
the latter sounds like the Bush Jr.
i will be voting for Romeny, my mind is already made up for a couple of reasons.
1. IMO, former governors usually make better presidents than senators. they actually have experience "running" a form of government.
2. i usually always go against the incumbent party, you need to keep them on their toes and not let the party get complacent.
3. Most importantly Obama inst anything special to lead me to believe he deserves a second term, give someone else a shot. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 08:41:25 AM · #7 |
ok the question...( who would vote for Romney )
I for one....Obama is assiisting ( at a rapid rate I might add ) in the downfall of this country. If he was the only person running in the election....I would do a write-in vote and vote on my dog.
In fact, a better question is...Who would vote on Obama????
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 08:53:17. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:02:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
.Who would vote on Obama???? |
how many people need a handout?
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 09:02:44. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:05:20 AM · #9 |
| the only prob is...his handouts are going to bankrupt us |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:20:20 AM · #10 |
Being a Mormon, a flip flopper, aggressive capitalist corporate raider who comes from a life of privilege are perhaps relevant,
but its the swing voter independents that matter- there are those who will vote Dem or Gop no matter what- that is sealed.
But will the swing voter be able to relate to a guy who was 47th on the list of "job creators" as the Governor of Mass?
A guy who has an elevator in his garage and pays way less taxes on money he does nothing to earn? (all capital gain investment income)
Will swing voters ignore history and think we can use austerity to get out of this great recession? (how's it working in Europe, btw?)
We shall see. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:22:01 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the only prob is...his handouts are going to bankrupt us |
exactly. you asked who would vote for Obama? |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:30:55 AM · #12 |
I think this is an election where people are voting against, not for.
Bush Jr. proved the failure of conservative politics, both domestically and internationally. His presidency will probably be remembered as the death blow to U.S. supremacy. Romney wants to give it another try. Obama wants to fix it with masking tape. Still, Obama's the clear choice. Better to pick the masking tape than the wrecking ball.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:33:42 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think this is an election where people are voting against, not for.
Bush Jr. proved the failure of conservative politics, both domestically and internationally. His presidency will probably be remembered as the death blow to U.S. supremacy. Romney wants to give it another try. Obama wants to fix it with masking tape. Still, Obama's the clear choice. Better to pick the masking tape than the wrecking ball. |
+1000 |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:37:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
IMO, former governors usually make better presidents than senators. they actually have experience "running" a form of government. |
This is a former governor running against an experienced president already running the government.
A country is not a company, and good businessmen are often lousy economists. I would far rather have a leader devoted to the interests of others than one who spent his life enriching himself.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the only prob is...his handouts are going to bankrupt us |
Which of HIS handouts would you be referring to? the Bush tax cuts alone (a handout to the already wealthy) have contributed more to national debt than all of Obama's policies combined.
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 09:40:02. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:39:28 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Bush Jr. proved the failure of conservative politics, both domestically and internationally. |
conservative politics work great when those that ruin the system actually face consequences. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:41:39 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
conservative politics work great when those that ruin the system actually face consequences. |
Has this ever happened? |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:48:54 AM · #17 |
| I would love to see where they got the numbers for this...His handouts.and being that it is the New York Times...I am sure it is padded to make the dems look wonderful.. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 09:50:00 AM · #18 |
U. S. supremacy, I wonder why that statement has never sat well with the rest of the world?
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 10:08:43 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I would love to see where they got the numbers for this...His handouts.and being that it is the New York Times...I am sure it is padded to make the dems look wonderful.. |
Read the chart. "Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" (both non-partisan). What you see on blogs and tabloid news are very often misleading numbers like how much the deficit increased under each president (not the specific policies that caused those increases) or deficit numbers by year in office while ignoring the budget carryover. Granted, the largest overall contributors to debt are existing defense spending and entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security (not a handout- we pay into it), however you can't blame all of that on one president. Look again at the real numbers... Bush contributed more to the deficit at every single level: defense spending, bailouts, and entitlements. You've been had.
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 12:33:04. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 10:34:49 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i will be voting for Romeny, my mind is already made up for a couple of reasons.
1. IMO, former governors usually make better presidents than senators. they actually have experience "running" a form of government.
2. i usually always go against the incumbent party, you need to keep them on their toes and not let the party get complacent.
3. Most importantly Obama inst anything special to lead me to believe he deserves a second term, give someone else a shot. |
1. He's been president for 4 years now, so I think he has a better understanding than a 1 term governor who hasn't been governing for quite some time.
2. I'm not sure I would go against the grain just to go against the grain. I'm not sure why you would do that when it's something as important as this.
3. Give someone else a shot...sure, if that shot goes to someone more deserving and shows more promise. Is Romney deserving of that shot? If so, why?
Had Ron Paul won the vote, I would've voted for Ron Paul (If I could vote). If McCain were younger and had a VP that was the opposite of Palin (Sorry, that's a big reason why the dems won), then I think he would also make a good president.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 11:45:09 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
2. I'm not sure I would go against the grain just to go against the grain. I'm not sure why you would do that when it's something as important as this.
It's not going "agains the grain". I am wanting to get a failed president with a failed agenda out of office!!!
3. Give someone else a shot...sure, if that shot goes to someone more deserving and shows more promise. Is Romney deserving of that shot? If so, why?
Ok again....Does Obama deserve to be re-elected??...Do I think Romney is the best candidate for the RNC??...no..(I was a fan of Herman Cain) Do I think Romney is a much better candidate and could possibly undo some of Obama's work??..yes
Had Ron Paul won the vote, I would've voted for Ron Paul (If I could vote). If McCain were younger and had a VP that was the opposite of Palin (Sorry, that's a big reason why the dems won), then I think he would also make a good president. |
Oh and yes I liked McCain.... Paul will never make it to president. I think people are scared of him. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 12:32:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Oh and yes I liked McCain... |
I used to. One of many reports. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 01:39:45 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I would love to see where they got the numbers for this...His handouts.and being that it is the New York Times...I am sure it is padded to make the dems look wonderful.. |
Read the chart. "Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" (both non-partisan). What you see on blogs and tabloid news are very often misleading numbers like how much the deficit increased under each president (not the specific policies that caused those increases) or deficit numbers by year in office while ignoring the budget carryover. Granted, the largest overall contributors to debt are existing defense spending and entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security (not a handout- we pay into it), however you can't blame all of that on one president. Look again at the real numbers... Bush contributed more to the deficit at every single level: defense spending, bailouts, and entitlements. You've been had. |
Well if this was a debate between two well informed individuals on the subject the next move would be for cowboy221977 to counter this with a rebuttal that is both rational and supported by evidence or simiply admit his error or ignorance on the subject and move on. My guess is you'll get ignored. It is the go to move of most conservatives these days who rely on talking points for their views.
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 13:40:33. |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 02:16:18 PM · #24 |
on debt bush vs obama....the national debt has increased more under Obamas 3 years than under bush's 8 years..
Check this out
and no this is not from fox...
This administration can't even pass a budget
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 02:38:56 PM · #25 |
"A country is not a company, and good businessmen are often lousy economists. I would far rather have a leader devoted to the interests of others than one who spent his life enriching himself."
"A guy who has an elevator in his garage and pays way less taxes on money he does nothing to earn? (all capital gain investment income)"
Romney EARNED his money by taking companies that were going under and making them make a profit. Employees were going to lose their jobs, economy in the area of the business was going to going down when those employees had no job and no way to buy things from the other businesses, not to mention going on government programs instead of working.
Yes, he did enrich himself. Why do YOU work? To get paid, I assume.
Then, he invested that money that he earned (did not take from the government for doing nothing) and invested it. If he's smart enough to do that and live off the earnings of that investment that also pays the salaries of other people who are earning it (not taking it for free from the government) before it pays his capital earnings, then I'm totally fine with that.
The fact that he works hard is what bothers you about him?
What if he and the rest of the 10% that pay 70% of the taxes decided that THEY didn't want to work while everyone else wasn't and they went on the government handout list too? WHO do you think would pay then? Someone has to. Everybody can't think like you do, if we want the USA to survive. Wealthy people are not the bad guys here.
eta:syntax
Message edited by author 2012-06-01 14:40:47. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 07:05:12 AM EDT.
