Amazed the GOP nominated someone like Romney over someone like Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman. Oh wait, the GOP wouldn't allow Gary Johnson in the debates! They thought Michelle Bachmann was more inclusion worthy.

9/30/2012 8:45:26 AM

Quote :

"Polls? Those fuckers always call while I'm at work. Most Romney supporters do work, so who do you think the pollsters actually reach?"

LOL you are a fucking moron.

9/30/2012 10:17:26 AM

White trash works.

9/30/2012 10:22:37 AM

HURRR HURR HURR ONLY UNEMPLOYED BLACK PEOPLE VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! GIT ER DONE, USA #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9/30/2012 10:34:27 AM

Quote :

"Your problem is you trust the media and the gov't. The majority of the media wants BO to win and will slant, skew and lie to make Romney look bad."

You're preaching to the wrong choir.

9/30/2012 12:13:36 PM

FOX loves obama

9/30/2012 1:44:05 PM

I guess we'll see who the morons are after the election.

9/30/2012 2:12:00 PM

HOW ARE YOU NOT BETTER OFF? WHAT IS "BETTER OFF"? WHAT HAS ROMNEY DO TO DESERVE YOUR VOTE? DON'T IGNORE MY QUESTION MORON.

9/30/2012 2:16:10 PM

http://www.officialwebsiteofamerica.com/

9/30/2012 2:17:07 PM

Did someone say something?

9/30/2012 2:18:29 PM

9/30/2012 4:54:49 PM

Quote :

"I guess we'll see who the morons are after the election. "

Someone wants to bet? How much are you willing to wager?

9/30/2012 5:00:32 PM

9/30/2012 5:01:59 PM

Quote :

" Call me crazy but I'm convinced that the GOP want Obama to win. Why else would they hand pick such a loser like Romney? Someone so out of touch with the American people? Someone with offshore accounts and elevators for his cars when the economy is in near depression? Someone who makes $10,000 bets when people can't afford to go out to dinner? Someone who thinks corporations are people when peopl e are losing their jobs from said corporations? Someone who can't draw a crowd of more than 500 people and has to have campaign made "spontaneous made" signs for the audience? Why would they reject someone who draws 6,000 and 8,000 people and has people make up video games about the candidate and is the most popular thing going on the internet? Why would they reject someone who is drawing in the youth, and the independents and the blue democrats? Why would they go out of their way to make sure that candidate doesn't get a chance to be heard on the convention floor and in the national debates? It can only be that they want to re-elect Obama. Whether it has to do with his twisted foreign policy, his destruction of the economy or the 450 million hollow point bullets, I don't know. But something bigger than Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is going on here. Just my two cents. "

10/1/2012 3:44:26 AM

^romney won the primary process. he wasnt chosen in a smoke filled room.

10/1/2012 6:27:08 AM

GOP loses credibility when they don't let people like Gary Johnson in debates but include people like Michelle Bachmann.

10/1/2012 6:44:07 AM

Quote :

"romney won the primary process. he wasnt chosen in a smoke filled room. "

Are you sure about that?

Did you not pay attention to the voting fraud and corruption in 75% of the states??






I bet you didn't even know Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands.

The media is part of the crime syndicate. You won't find this information on ANY mainstream news primary results.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/vi


But at least you can find them on the internet if you knew where to look

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ar8KG2G0o7hTDkdp4f8ffwibvZx4?p=ron+paul+wins+virgin+islands&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701


Also, because nobody care about about Virgin Islands... and the establishment dunn fucked up, the following week, they had Romney win with 83% of the vote in Puerto Rico.

You have to know that is absolute horseshit because when was the last time someone won with that much vote. We're talking about Mitt fucking Romney here. Against a man who has sold out a super majority of all the stadiums he spoke at during the campaign process.

Also, they made ron paul lose to some unheard of guy with less than 1% after winning virgin island.
The disparity is just too large for islands that are in the same boat.

10/1/2012 1:13:34 PM

The Virgin Islands have a primary? I'm guessing no one else spent any money there on account of them not counting in an election.

10/1/2012 2:17:10 PM

Quote :

"Most Romney supporters do work, so who do you think the pollsters actually reach?"

we've got a regular political scientist here.

10/1/2012 2:23:50 PM

Mitt Romney stole his nomination. He's worse than bush.

10/1/2012 2:28:22 PM

Yeah, the Paul contingent really started playing the game, and it really pissed off a ton of GOP state representatives who got caught sleeping.

Paul had at least 4 state delegations literally stolen from him through RNC strongarm tactics at the state and national level. His supporters are finally learning the rules of the electoral primary process.

Next time around it's going to be really ugly for the GOP. They had the benefit this time of Paul's people still learning, so the GOP was able to pull a litany of backdoor tricks and traps. None of that is going to work again, and RP's people get more and more organized with every election cycle.

10/1/2012 3:07:11 PM

10/2/2012 2:25:17 AM

Quote :

"Next time around it's going to be really ugly for the GOP. They had the benefit this time of Paul's people still learning, so the GOP was able to pull a litany of backdoor tricks and traps. None of that is going to work again, and RP's people get more and more organized with every election cycle."

There is no next time. They steamrolled over the delegates and put into place a dictatorial set of rules that state the top tier of the Republican Party can strip a state of all its delegates that are not approved by the party.

10/2/2012 3:25:14 AM

Did anyone see Chris Wallace (FoxNews) grill Paul Ryan?

http://newsone.com/2051465/chris-wallace-paul-ryan/

10/2/2012 9:39:49 AM

I'm voting for Romney, but the more I see from the guy, the more he disgusts me. I really wish that Ron Paul had won, but somehow his votes disappeared and no one seemed to care. Herman Cain would have been great, too. 9/9/9 was the next best thing to a fair tax out there.

But I kinda look at Romney as a necessary evil... like a boss. You've gotta have one, most of them are underqualified - and I sure as hell can't deal with Obama in there for 4 more years. He had his chance, I rooted for him, and all he did was put stuff off until November 2012. Then what?

The one redeeming thing about Romney as a person is that he comes right out and says what he means, whether it's a dickhead move or not -- and I can appreciate it. Sure, he fucked up his numbers with the whole 47% thing, and I cringed.... but it is certainly true that a large number of americans are on the government's tit, making more per year off having babies and faking disability than lots of good hard-working people do by working some shitty fast-food job. Obama would never say something that wasn't cool.

I'm glad he said it, I just hate that he fucked the numbers all up. They really do consider themselves victims, and they depend 100% on the government and my tax dollars... and as long as they are getting the money they need from the government, the democrats will always have their vote.

I made my choice, and I'm not gonna be browbeaten into changing my opinion because of some poorly edited internet clips and some intellectually dishonest moron with a 7th grade education who tosses out the term "racist" every time he can't hold his own in an discussion.

This is why I hate politics... cause I've sat here for years not getting involved in the debates, and now I see so much stupid shit every day that I feel like I HAVE to say something. OMG Romney is anti-pot!!!1 He treated a guy in a wheelchair the same way he would have treated anyone else!!!1 The really sad thing is that if he pandered to the guy, the other side would just call him a clown.

I'd LOVE to vote for Johnson and Gray, but unfortunately for the libertarians, this election matters too much, and it's gonna be really close... and I don't trust those buses that ride back and forth from the housing projects and the DSS to the polling places all day

10/2/2012 10:08:11 AM

Quote :

"9/9/9 was the next best thing to a fair tax out there."

I should take the opportunity to note that 9/9/9 is obviously woefully insufficient for funding our present rate of government spending.

Quote :

"he fucked up his numbers with the whole 47% thing, and I cringed.... but it is certainly true that a large number of americans are on the government's tit, making more per year off having babies and faking disability than lots of good hard-working people do by working some shitty fast-food job."

1. Elderly on social security
2. Those working with children getting assistance

This has been rehashed over and over again. The characterization you offer is so divorced from the definition of the 47% it is literally incoherent. The most fair characterization of your point I can make is to consider the 6.9% of people who
- are not retired
- are not working (evidenced by not paying payroll tax)
- are not paying income tax

Nothing else fits with the words that you use. I mean...

Quote :

"they depend 100% on the government and my tax dollars"

I mean, granted.... for the elderly on social security... who paid into it with their tax dollars. The only people you have left is a marginal slice coming in at <7%

Quote :

"I'm not gonna be browbeaten into changing my opinion"

I don't want to convince you. I want you to convince me of the reasons you're using to vote for Romney. As it is, it appears as a conspiracy, because you obviously are intelligent enough to see the points I've made here which literally invalidate the characterizations you made, which, even if right, wouldn't support voting for Romney.

10/2/2012 11:04:44 AM

Even if those things were true, could someone explain how those things would change under Romney/Ryan? As far as I can tell, they haven't offered a plan, just vague generalities.

10/2/2012 11:07:22 AM

One accusation is that Obama removed the welfare work requirement

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

10/2/2012 11:16:32 AM

^^See the interview I posted a few posts up.

According to Ryan, he could explain it, but

Quote :

"I don’t have the time …it would take me too long to go through all the math…"

.

10/2/2012 11:18:35 AM

The only thing I got out of the Ryan video was that he wanted to make it so where instead of getting a check back from the government in refund form, that we just keep the money.

wtf. the government will lose all that (dirty) free money from unclaimed refunds.

10/2/2012 11:42:00 AM

whoa, i hadn't seen that

I think the worst quote is:

Quote :

"Wallace: But how much would it cost? Ryan: It’s revenue neutral. Wallace: No, I’m just talking about the cut — we’ll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates, how much does it cost? What’s the percent? Ryan: It’s revenue neutral. Wallace: No, it’s not revenue neutral unless you take away deductions. And we are going to get to that in a second. But the first half, does that cost $5 trillion?"

10/2/2012 12:26:11 PM

That's the thing about the Romney Ryan tax plan. They claim it is revenue neutral, but it's not without it getting into a regressive tax system and without increasing the capital gains tax, which they have already taken off the table.

From what I've read and understood on their deductions is that even if they close the deductions for the rich, it will still end up hurting the middle class the most. He said he would take 20% points off the current rates across the board, but to do that he'll have to get rid of many deductions, which in effect will either keep taxes paid the same by keeping your taxable income higher than it is now.

Then he wants to cut corporate tax rates and payroll taxes with the idea that it will be budget neutral by usin some astronomical assumption of growth that i don't think any economist will even come close to standing behind and backin it up as realistic.

The point is that with Romneys plan is that it will be next to impossible to lower taxes for the middle class and everyone else while also reducing our deficit.

10/2/2012 12:50:41 PM

they haven't even mentioned which deductions and loopholes they are talking about

(*because by deductions and loopholes they really mean massive cuts to medicaid)

10/2/2012 12:53:01 PM

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/mitt-romneys-plan-stronger-middle-class01

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/the_romney_program_for_economic_recovery_growth_and_jobs.pdf

Quote :

"they haven't even mentioned which deductions and loopholes they are talking about"

In their official tax plan (correct me if I have the wrong thing) a search of the document doesn't even turn up the word "loophole" or "deduction".

10/2/2012 1:08:22 PM

Quote :

"Amazed the GOP nominated someone like Romney over someone like Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman. Oh wait, the GOP wouldn't allow Gary Johnson in the debates! They thought Michelle Bachmann was more inclusion worthy. "

Because the average person who votes in the GOP primary is more concerned about stupid social issue bullshit than the big picture. They don't want a moderate like Jon Huntsman who would actually have a chance of pulling in moderate left-leaning voters. Having met Jon Huntsman if he had been the nominee there's a very good chance I would have voted for him. I'm sure I'm not the only moderate liberal that feels the same way.

10/2/2012 1:15:56 PM

Quote :

"I should take the opportunity to note that 9/9/9 is obviously woefully insufficient for funding our present rate of government spending."

Surely you're not suggesting that our present rate of government spending is necessary and justified and should be maintained.

10/2/2012 1:24:26 PM

It's complicated, but the average GOP listens to the media because it's the only source they get "credible" information (even though it's hardly credible anymore). Also, they don't have to think for themselves, because the TV, newspapers, and magazines does all of the thinking for them.

How many times have you heard "I want to vote for _____ but Romney has the best chance of winning"
How many times have you heard "A vote for ______ is a vote for Obama because you're taking away a vote from Romney"


It's these mentalities, backed up by peer pressure and media bias, that wins the primaries. Nobody wants to "waste" their vote by voting for the person that has preemptively been chosen to lose by your peers and national media.

10/2/2012 1:24:49 PM

^^^^ exactly, despite saying that they will reduce taxes and pay for them with deductions and loopholes they are talking about to keep it revenue neutral, they haven't explained how that is supposed to work or given details.

In addition, they haven't explained how they plan to reduce spending

They also haven't explained which regulations they are talking about that are in the way of small businesses.

Those links don't provide any real information, they need to offer an actual plan.

Quote :

" I'm sure I'm not the only moderate liberal that feels the same way. "

I'm pretty damn liberal and I may have (not sure his record on a couple social issues though). Well I may have for not-party-controlled Hunstman. They all become the same when the party takes over.

[Edited on October 2, 2012 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2012 1:26:11 PM

MSM just releases next (scripted) attack on Romney.
Remember, Romney was chosen to lose.

The people will buy it.


Obama will win.

10/2/2012 1:38:28 PM

Quote :

"The one redeeming thing about Romney as a person is that he comes right out and says what he means,"

lol wut? Until he's asked a question about actual policy, then he doesn't say much of anything.

10/2/2012 1:48:10 PM

"Obama policy is bad, my policy is good?

Mr. Romney what is your policy?

My policy is a good policy, its my policy and I know its a good policy"

10/2/2012 1:51:31 PM

I wonder if they are building him up to be a prodigal son figure, cause he really is snowballing right now.

10/2/2012 1:54:37 PM

Quote :

"Surely you're not suggesting that our present rate of government spending is necessary and justified and should be maintained."

Honestly that's a matter of prerogative. Personally, no, I don't want the US federal government to be >20% of GDP, but it's hard to make a tenable proposal that gets us there. In fact, you largely can't. Even if you converted the entire social security fund to private accounts today, that's only changing government spending to private spending in name. Either way, we've committed to some baseline government spending through our actions in the last half-century.

I understand the game. Team A yells for more spending, Team B yells for more tax cuts. You're playing the game. I would prefer to yell for both higher taxes and less spending. The problem is that I've articulated a 2-dimensional position. People don't listen beyond the first dimension.

10/2/2012 2:25:51 PM

Quote :

"I understand the game. Team A yells for more spending, Team B yells for more tax cuts. You're playing the game. I would prefer to yell for both higher taxes and less spending. The problem is that I've articulated a 2-dimensional position. People don't listen beyond the first dimension."

The real joke is that the budget issue is going to be addressed in a deliberate, political way.

Unfunded liabilities: Payments that have already been promised. Pensions, social security, etc. Some estimates put these at 80 trillion. Other estimates have them at over 100 trillion. These are liabilities that, if we wanted to fund them, warrant higher taxes today.

The U.S. population will not stomach decades of lower government spending and very high taxes. They just won't. There's not going to be a paying down of the national debt. There's not going to be budget surpluses. There will be stop gap measures to make it to the next election until a catastrophic, financial shift occurs that fundamentally changes the geopolitical landscape.

10/2/2012 2:42:36 PM

plenty of americans support higher taxes

10/2/2012 3:00:31 PM

Quote :

"Unfunded liabilities: Payments that have already been promised. Pensions, social security, etc. Some estimates put these at 80 trillion. Other estimates have them at over 100 trillion."

I'd call any such estimates put forth without the context of time period as intentionally misleading.

you can extend a program with a certain annual spend out to infinity and come up with a BIG SCARY NUMBER to make libertarians grind their teeth and wring their hands.

10/2/2012 3:02:58 PM

Quote :

"The U.S. population will not stomach decades of lower government spending and very high taxes. They just won't. "

heh... at what interest rate won't they? In 20 years, all the collective governments of the world will be so thoroughly indebted to the wealthy that someone will have to lose their shirt.

Quote :

"There will be stop gap measures to make it to the next election until a catastrophic, financial shift occurs that fundamentally changes the geopolitical landscape."

Sounds pretty reasonable actually. Once the debt negotiations get so bad there's no choice but to throw sovereignty of various forms into the discussion.

Anyone interested in seeing the realignment sooner rather than later should vote for Romney though. Romney is the stimulus candidate. You can read that from his tax position paper I linked to.

10/2/2012 3:05:08 PM

Quote :

" should take the opportunity to note that 9/9/9 is obviously woefully insufficient for funding our present rate of government spending"

And so is the progressive income tax. Third or 4th straight year with Trillion dollar deficits?

10/2/2012 6:12:04 PM

Quote :

"plenty of americans support higher taxes "

on someone else. That is the problem

10/2/2012 6:13:14 PM

No, plenty of Americans recognize that their own tax rate is lower than it should be

10/2/2012 6:18:30 PM