Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Predicto]

[/COLOR]

Any excuse will do I guess.

Aw c'mon. Do you really object to an obvious joke about the value of an endorsement by an 88 year old?

[thebluefood]

What are they going to do? They will have to deal with a Democratic Senate.

All you will get is deadlock again- accept instead of left wing deadlock, you will get right wing deadlock.

By the slim chance it's all Republican government; they go to far the right and they will be thrown out in 2014. The country doesn't like extremes in either direction.

Yeah, I'm not too worried, but I can understand Larry's concern. A determined, Republican controlled government could be a living hell for liberals, even if it only lasts two years.

I doubt one party will control the government, though. I can't imagine much is going to change in either houses and I think Obama will win the election.

[Predicto]

Yeah, I'm not too worried, but I can understand Larry's concern. A determined, Republican controlled government could be a living hell for liberals, even if it only lasts two years.

I doubt one party will control the government, though. I can't imagine much is going to change in either houses and I think Obama will win the election.

My problem is with rewarding the GOP for their jackassery the past few years. They have been totally irresponsible and childish, and if they win this election, they will take away from it the lesson that they have been doing the right thing in acting that way and they should keep doing it. I want the respectable GOP back, and that won't happen if they keep winning elections by being complete dicks.

---------- Post added October-19th-2012 at 05:19 PM ----------

despite my conservative views (which aren't nearly as hardline as some fellow ES'ers would imply)

You hide your light under a bushel, my friend.

[Larry]

Yeah, I'm not too worried, but I can understand Larry's concern. A determined, Republican controlled government could be a living hell for liberals, even if it only lasts two years.

But the damage they can do could well be permanent.

The Bush Tax Cuts were passed to save us from the terrifying prospect of budget surpluses, stretching into the future. Such huge surpluses that the entire national debt would be completely paid off by 2015. And, when that happens, when the entire national debt has been paid off, the Democrats might be in change. And if the Democrats are in charge, then they'll take that surplus, and they'll spend it. And that's why we have to have this huge tax cut, right now, to save us from that horrifying possibility.

And, they're only going to last for a year, anyway. If they cause a deficit, then well, they'll just expire.

We not only still have them, 12 years later, the Republicans are demanding to triple them. In fact, to completely eliminate entire categories of taxes. (The ones that hit the really rich people.)

I see the Republicans successfully passing even bigger tax cuts. And then, once again, claiming that the deficits are terrible, and are caused entirely by spending, and in fact, entirely by spending on Social Security and Medicare.

I see then successfully getting rid of them. "Reforming" them into "well, you'll just live off of your 401K. And if you don;t have one, then well, we'll give you a coupon for $100 off on whatever plan you decide to pay for. Oh, and the coupon will only be worth $90, next year. And $85, the year after that. But don;t worry. After only 20-30 years of this, we'll have saved enough money to make up for the tax cuts that we swear have nothing at all to do with this deficit."

[twa]

OMG more Medicare part D (which was a totally irresponsible bill since it costs were slightly different than the Dem plan)

$100 coupons ?.....has Medicare or social security ever been cut in its history?

Though Obamacare did take funds from it , but that is just a accounting gimmick....Nothing to see here

[deejaydana]

Aw c'mon. Do you really object to an obvious joke about the value of an endorsement by an 88 year old?

Fair enough. Was just ribbing you ;-D
On that same topic, I loathe seeing the ancient members of our government feeding from the teat of the people. Byrd, Rangel, whoever, once you hit a certain age the gov't should jettison your ***.

[Larry]

OMG more Medicare part D (which was a totally irresponsible bill since it costs were slightly different than the Dem plan)

$100 coupons ?.....has Medicare or social security ever been cut in its history?

Funny, I could have sworn that you, personally, have claimed that Obama has.

Remember your talking points?

But, keep right on pretending like a coupon that intentionally doesn't go up as fast as health care costs go up isn't a cut.

And acting surprised why people think you're out to screw them.

"No, the Ryan budget doesn't cut Medicare. It just assumes that when the number pf people being covered goes up, and the cost of coverage goes up, and the total spending stays the same, that's not a cut"

[twa]

Funny, I could have sworn that you, personally, have claimed that Obama has.

Nah, that was his future death panels.
stealing money ain't cutting

[GSF]

But the damage they can do could well be permanent.

The Bush Tax Cuts were passed to save us from the terrifying prospect of budget surpluses, stretching into the future. Such huge surpluses that the entire national debt would be completely paid off by 2015. And, when that happens, when the entire national debt has been paid off, the Democrats might be in change. And if the Democrats are in charge, then they'll take that surplus, and they'll spend it. And that's why we have to have this huge tax cut, right now, to save us from that horrifying possibility.

And, they're only going to last for a year, anyway. If they cause a deficit, then well, they'll just expire.

We not only still have them, 12 years later, the Republicans are demanding to triple them. In fact, to completely eliminate entire categories of taxes. (The ones that hit the really rich people.)

I see the Republicans successfully passing even bigger tax cuts. And then, once again, claiming that the deficits are terrible, and are caused entirely by spending, and in fact, entirely by spending on Social Security and Medicare.

I see then successfully getting rid of them. "Reforming" them into "well, you'll just live off of your 401K. And if you don;t have one, then well, we'll give you a coupon for $100 off on whatever plan you decide to pay for. Oh, and the coupon will only be worth $90, next year. And $85, the year after that. But don;t worry. After only 20-30 years of this, we'll have saved enough money to make up for the tax cuts that we swear have nothing at all to do with this deficit."

See, I think they are more focused on outlawing abortion, contraception, sex, gays in the military, and the teaching of evolution in schools.

[alexey]

See, I think they are more focused on outlawing abortion, contraception, sex, gays in the military, and the teaching of evolution in schools.

You may be confusing people who pay for republicans with people who vote for republicans

Red meat social and deficit issues are a mask. GOP is at its core all about helping the rich get richer.

[visionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us...atic.html?_r=0

Romney as a Manager: Unhurried and Socratic

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney could not resist burrowing into the bureaucratic weeds: He once took the statewide math and reading test for 10th graders, then startled his education commissioner by calling to say, “I like No. 14” and rattling off the answer.

As head of the private equity firm Bain Capital, he was so uncomfortable cutting loose struggling employees that a legend grew: executives sent in to his office to be fired emerged thinking they had been promoted.

And as a candidate for president this year, he resisted pressure from advisers to select a running mate before leaving on a high-profile trip overseas, insisting that he makes better decisions with time and reflection.

Mr. Romney’s bid for the White House largely hinges on his own narrowly drawn image of himself as a chief executive: the data-splicing, cost-cutting turnaround expert. But dozens of interviews with those who have worked for him over the past 30 years — in the Mormon Church, business, the Olympics and state government — offer a far more textured portrait of the management style that he might bring to the presidency.

A serial chief executive, the Republican presidential nominee is steeped in management theory and eschews gut instincts. He is not so much a micromanager as a microprocessor, wading deeply into the kind of raw data that is usually left to junior aides. He entrusts advisers with responsibility, but keeps them on a short leash, accountable through a flurry of progress reports and review sessions. His decision-making process is unhurried and Socratic, his instinct to exhaustively debate and prod.

[Thiebear]

The Congress has lost focus and have gone out of their way to be obstructionists. I think it was Larry that pointed out the Republicans had taken it to a elementary school zero tolerance like levels of insanity.
In appointments and blocking of everything in the Senate, with Harry Reid not helping matters.

[RedskinsFan44]

The Congress has lost focus and have gone out of their way to be obstructionists. I think it was Larry that pointed out the Republicans had taken it to a elementary school zero tolerance like levels of insanity.
In appointments and blocking of everything in the Senate, with Harry Reid not helping matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arty-unity.jpg

I would like to see this broken down by party / majority/minority /opposition to the president. Both sides do it and feel justified.

---------- Post added October-20th-2012 at 08:54 AM ----------

Just noticed the alternating election year non-election year pattern. Pretty bad when nothing can be done every other year.

[skinsmarydu]

COLOR="Gold"]

---------- Post added October-20th-2012 at 08:54 AM ----------

[/COLOR]Just noticed the alternating election year non-election year pattern. Pretty bad when nothing can be done every other year.

If Governot Romney is elected, and the Democrats keep control of the Senate, and narrowly squeak by with a majority in the House, they won't "just say NO". They'll find ways to make things work for the nation. I don't believe they're the immature brats the Republicans have shown themselves to be for the last two years. Then again, I realize I'm just one vote and...hey, I could count for something after all!

[Larry]

If Governot Romney is elected, and the Democrats keep control of the Senate, and narrowly squeak by with a majority in the House, they won't "just say NO". They'll find ways to make things work for the nation. I don't believe they're the immature brats the Republicans have shown themselves to be for the last two years. Then again, I realize I'm just one vote and...hey, I could count for something after all!

I think you're right, that a hypothetical Dem Congress/Rep Pres would not face such rigid, unanimous, across the board partisanship. But I will point out that there are other possible explanations besides the theory that the Republicans put Party above the Good of the Nation, and the Dems don't.

Another possible theory is simply that the Dems aren't as rigidly bullied and controlled.

----------

I think you've correctly described the results. Just maybe not the reason.