Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[SnyderShrugged]

People who are in power typically do not typically part with the powers that have been granted to them by prior administrations. It's just a part of governing, good or bad.

If a third party candidate became President, the first thing they did would not likely be rolling back the amount of power they have. They may keep it at the same level, but they wouldn't be likely to cede that power.

I can name one candidate that would have rolled that executive power back to where it was designed to be at. I'll vote for any candidate form any party that will do that too.

[twa]

Spending has not increased under Obama. Debt has... Obama inherited about a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit and has basically maintained it.

only if you count from a certain point, and consider maintain to mean added about the same each year as the bailout

doesn't work if you use any other year than that now does it?....the new 'normal'

[NLC1054]

I can name one candidate that would have rolled that executive power back to where it was designed to be at. I'll vote for any candidate form any party that will do that too.

I think there's some candidates who pay lip service to it. They may not use it, but they wouldn't get rid of it.

[DjTj]

I can name one candidate that would have rolled that executive power back to where it was designed to be at. I'll vote for any candidate form any party that will do that too.

How would you abolish the Fed or eliminate federal agencies without strong executive power?

[Corcaigh]

How would you abolish the Fed or eliminate federal agencies without strong executive power?

[The Evil Genius]

The Invisible Obamas model Mitt's magic underwear.

[NLC1054]

How would you abolish the Fed or eliminate federal agencies without strong executive power?

Logic! It doth not dwell here!

[SnyderShrugged]

How would you abolish the Fed or eliminate federal agencies without strong executive power?

Go ahead and show me anywhere that I said that executive power should be "weak". Nice attempt though, congrats.

[Larry]

it is as true as ....spending has not increased under Obama

No. It is not.

"Spending has not increased under Obama" is a fact.

(Edit. So far. From what I've seen, it's likely that, when the numbers come out for FY12, then spending will have increased, for one year out of his three.)

"Obama promised that he would keep the plant open, if elected" is not.

"Obama lied" is, I suppose, theoretically possible. But you've provided no support for it whatsoever. And, the only way it could be true would be if you assume that Obama knew that the economy was going to tank before he took office.

And frankly, making things up, getting caught, and responding by making more things up, getting caught, and responding by pulling out more things that you've been making up, and getting caught at, on a weekly basis, for years, really doesn't help your case.

Edit:

Unless, I suppose, your point is to demonstrate that the untrue things you spout are believed by millions of people who also believe lots of other things that aren't true, either.

If that's the case, then I think you're presenting pretty good evidence. But it would work better if you'd actually state that argument.

[SnyderShrugged]

Logic! It doth not dwell here!

Not so much

[The Evil Genius]

Muhahahaha.

[twa]

Larry was spending under O much higher than any single year but one under W?
creating a new normal from the bailout spike gives a false impression

[Larry]

Larry was spending under O much higher than any single year but one under W?
creating a new normal from the bailout spike gives a false impression

twa, claiming that spending was higher under Obama wasn't true the first time you saaid it.

It wasn't true the 10th time you said it.

It wasn't true the 25th time you said it.

Claiming that it's true, if you just ignore some things doesn't make it true.

Inventing things that I didn't say doesn't make it true.

It will never be true.

Obama did not greatly increase spending. (Or the deficit.)

Spending did not greatly increase, (nor did the deficit) due to Obama, or even due to other causes.

And no matter how many times you try to blame Obama for something which, not only did Obama not do, but for something which has not even happened, at all, it still won't be true.

Telling people that well, if you just ignore selected parts of reality won't make the claim true.

Inventing fictional claims and pretending that I said them won't make your claims true.

And you darned well know that they aren't true, and keep saying them, anyway.

Which, frankly, tells me all I need to know, about you.

[RedskinsFan44]

Government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz255U020Pn

So Bain received a Federal bailout under Romney? Interesting . . .

This is really quite damning in that it not only points him out as a hypocrite with regards to federal bailouts but also in that his tactics verged on extortion. I wonder if we will hear more about this, I have not seen a refutation of it.

[Larry]

I would assume that, if it's true, we'll hear more about it as we get closer to the election.