I can't post in the political thread...

Question

So I'll post this here:

Obama and company have sharpened their knives for Mitt Romney for well over a year now. He is absolute toast to Obama. They've layed the groundwork. Romney's been put in the box as an out-of-touch car salesman looking trust funder living off daddy's money while closing businesses, gutting retirement plans, laying off workers, and laughing all the way to the bank with his rich corporate vulture buddies.

Doesn't matter AT ALL if a word of that is true or not. That has sunk in and has been successfully implanted in the American mind and it gets reinforced on every comedy show and snarky comment and joke about Romney from now until election. The more people see of Romney the less they like him. He's unelectable in the rust belt and the Republicans have no path to victory without Michigan and Ohio.

If you don't like Romney's position on an issue then wait a couple weeks. That image will not go away. Ever.

Bring on Romney by all means. In Santorum, throw away the one Republican that can attract Reagan Democrats. Set aside the one Republican that has a chance to win Michigan, Pennyslvannia, and Ohio. Ignore Obama has no road to the White House without those states. Passover a guy that directly appeals to soccer moms and blue collar workers in favor of a 1%'er with bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

At every turn I always expect the Republicans to do the stupidest thing possible. Defeeense is licking his lips hoping Obama gets to run against Romney as that's what Obama's entire campaign has been geared up to do and that's what ALL Obama's groundwork in implanting the image in the American voters' minds has been spent on.

Obama would have to begin at ground zero on Santorum. Santorum's negatives are easily explained. Santorum directly challenges Obama for Reagan Democrats that will decide this election in rust belt states.

Independent voters in the midwest cannot stand Mitt Romney. Everything they've lost has been to guys exactly like Mitt Romney. Their jobs have been shipped off, their factories shuttered, they lives turned upside down. Mitt Romney represents exactly what they hate.

Mitt Romney is fool's gold. You are probably going to lose anyway so who do you Republicans feel better losing with? Another moderate that will stab you in the back the minute he does win if by some miracle he does, or a guy that makes the case to the American people for Conservative values and offers a stark contract to Barack Obama?

The Republicans need to stop thinking in terms of winning and instead offer a clear choice between Republicans and Democrats. That sets them up much better for 2016 and hopefully throws off the shackles of the Corporate Republicans.

Republicans WIN when they stay true to their conservatism and nominate a candidate that offers a clear choice. They lose when they try and run a RHINO like Romney and every one of you know it, too.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 1

If he's already toast, why did you spend half an hour posting this nonsense?

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by WettCat.

Answer 2

So the voting public is a bunch of morons who are manipulated by a media that's allied with the socialist left. Got it.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JumperJack.

Answer 3

Mods, please help create and pin a new political thread and ban OP for his obvious disregard for your wishes to keep politics in one thread.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by catlanta31.

Answer 4

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 5

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by catlanta31.

Answer 6

Ludwig von Mises: "The intellectual leaders of the peoples have produced and propagated the fallacies which are on the point of destroying liberty and Western civilization." Planned Chaos

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by stable31.

Answer 7

Anyone else think that if Santorum were the Republican nominee that Z would be on here ripping him from top to bottom? In other news Saudi Arabia cuts oil production and Michelle is on another vacation skiing in Vail.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Catfan in Tn..

Answer 8

IMO, the best way to beat Obama is to run somebody who sharply contrasts him.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by wkycatfan.

Answer 9

If Romney loses in Michigan there is going to be a meltdown in the Republican hierarchy. A guy that talks about nothing more than god guns and gays is going nowhere in a general election and Gingrich is just about cooked.

Here's a prediction if Romney get's beat down to a pulp on super Tuesday and falls into the mid to low teens in the polls, super hero Jeb Bush steps up to the plate and saves the day for the Pub faithful.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Deeeefense.

Answer 10

I like Jeb. I thought in 2000 he made a much better candidate than his brother (whom I was luke-warm on). But he or any other potential recruit would be smart to wait to commit/allow themselves to be drafted until July/August and see where Obama's ratings are at the time. Rubio might make a better choice now, as Jeb might get some negative publicity from his brother with only 2-3 months to get people to overlook that & learn who he is. I don't know much about Daniels. Christie, as was discussed last night can't win due to the "looks principle".

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JonathanW.

Answer 11

I take the opposite view: I think Santorum changes gears in the general election and makes it all about the economy. No doubt Obama's team thinks they can pigeonhole him on social issues but I don't think Santorum is that naive.

This is all provided he gets the nomination; I don't think he will.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JumperJack.

Answer 12

bingo. But I'll add, best way to beat Obama is to sharply contrast non-social issues.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Willy4UK.

Answer 13

What type of experience or credibility does Sandorum have on economic issues that he could point voters to? If the economy is trending upwards the mids won't jump off that horse to take a chance on a guy with no economic creds. That's why Romney is the only one that can win on that side IMO. If he could frame the issues correctly he could be a formidable opponent to Obama.

This post was edited on 2/20 2:40 PM by Deeeefense

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Deeeefense.

Answer 14

If anyone besides a hard core lefty even mentions the name "Bush" when discussing Republican presidential candidates they should be smacked in the face.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Bill Cosby.

Answer 15

I'm not trying to be flip, but he's got the same experience that Obama did in 08. If things are no better by October, it will be tough for Obama, regardless of the opponent.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JumperJack.

Answer 16

So Santorum's economic pitch will be, 'Im not Obama.'

That should be enough to win.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by sinker16.

Answer 17

Going back to a post wkycatfan made toward the end of the last thread, the Nixon/Kennedy debates are often mentioned when talking about the visual aspect of elections. On the other hand, I've always heard that the story has been blown out of proportion over decades of re-telling. The version that I originally heard was that radio listeners thought Nixon won by a wide margin, while television viewers chose Kennedy. As I understand it, there was a difference but it's not nearly as wide as what it's become in the public consciousness. The urban legend makes it sound like it swung the whole election, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by cbpointblank1979.

Answer 18

It should be. But it won't be.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Bill Cosby.

Answer 19

hundreds of veterans marching at the capitol right now in support of Ron Paul
live stream

This post was edited on 2/20 3:39 PM by DaCizats

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by DaCizats.

Answer 20

Personally I think anyone who's campaign is based on discussing Obama's abysmal record and stays focused on that message and that message alone will win easily. Because the man has accomplished nothing which demands he deserves 4 more years.

Really, that's all it will take. 24/7 of Stimulus, Solyndra, Obamacare, Fast & Furious, Queen Michelle's World Tours, trillion dollar deficits, Beer Summits, Tim Geithner, 8% unemployment, Biden's ungraceful slide into senility & dementia, etc etc etc.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JHB4UK.

Answer 21

Does the White House's website still claim Obama has a plan that will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first or second term?


I know it did as of Friday or Saturday. I assume they probably changed it after Drudge linked the story.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Bill Cosby.

Answer 22

Forgot to mention the Keystone pipeline in my list of Obama failures. Here's a great article on how Canada isnt taking the outrageous political and job-killing decision by this regime lying down.

For those still too ignorant to realize what a finger in the eye this decision was to Canada, did you know that we buy 99% of the oil that country produces? Think of how insulted you would be if a customer you were that dependent on insulted you the way Obama has the Canucks.

And for the inevitable spin from zombie liberals in this thread, the Keystone project was evaluated 50% longer than typical for similar projects, was APPROVED by the State Dept in Aug 2011, and there was absolutely no reason for it to not be rubber stamped by the White House and construction started. With American jobs, getting paid in private money, not bullshit stimulus dollars borrowed from China for no-quite-shovel-ready government garbage.

Link: Obama forcing Canada to sell oil to China instead

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JHB4UK.

Answer 23

O'Bama has beat himself/ now the Republicans have to work to make sure O'Bama is not replaced by O'Bomney.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by post_u_up.

Answer 24

Gas prices are up from 1.89 when Obama took office - now they are $3.59 and growing. Where the outcry and outrage - of course, the mainstream media is ignoring that. If the keystone pipeline had been allowed to go forth and Obama had increased the drilling in the Gulf, things would be a lot better. This is going to cost all Americans - and offset any of the payroll tax cut that we got.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by C_Cat.

Answer 25

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 26

Predicting gas to be $5.00 a gallon by summer,what effect will this have on Obama? The economy is fragile,gas that high will have to hurt.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by KyFaninNC.

Answer 27

That’s what I love about you RINO’s, blame the mainstream media when your own ignorance is at fault.

The president has little to do with the cost of crude. It’s spiking now because Iran just shut off France and England. The situation in Syria isn’t helping matters.

There’s more drilling now in the Gulf then when Obama took office.

Nothing, NOTHING, says the oil that runs through the Keystone pipeline will be consumed in the US. And if they did decide to sell it to us it’s still several years away.

Seriously, I hope you don’t vote or have kids.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by WillGolf4Food.

Answer 28

could we get the election moved to, say, May?

If so, I have a feeling those gas prices that are predicted to soar to north of $4.25 per gallon by April would actually start dropping around that time.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by 3rex.

Answer 29

The only people who wins when there are high oil prices are big oil and their investors as well as foreign governments that export oil. O'Bama is setting himself up for the future knowing his time is about up as President. Not a bad idea on his part to be intentionally forcing through policy that drives up prices so he can dump a lot of money into big oil and make a few million of the returns. Wish I had the money, I would also.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by post_u_up.

Answer 30

Tax break for the middle class. Oil prices get raised. That's your REAL transfer of wealth right there. Big Oil taking that tax break right out of middle class pockets.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 31

The whole idea of running a campaign on the other person's record will not work. The Democrats tried the same thing in 1984 and 2004, with the Republicans trying someting similar in 1996. The results were second terms for the sitting President.

If the Republicans have any chance of winning they must have a candidate that People want to vote for. Not someone they can use to vote against the Incumbent. If that is the strategy/belief heading into the election then you can go ahead and chalk up 4 more years.

I've always wondered how the Democrats could have went into the 1984 election with a ticket of Mondale/Ferrara and somehow believe they had a legitimate shot at winning. Reading the current discussions on this board about the current slate of candidates explains it. Basically, it is simply too hard for some folks to look past their passionate dislike of the sitting President to see the warts on the guys they are putting up against him.

Honestly, the choices are a former disgraced speaker of the house, the new Millenium's version of Pat Robertson, the new Millenium's version of Ross Perot, and a Liberal Massachussetts Mormon. How in the world is this group going to generate enough passion to win a national election? Jeb Bush would wipe the floor with this whole group and the reason he hasn't is because he understands he would struggle winning the Presidency.

The possibility of a brokered convention is really the only interesting aspect left in the Presidential election cycle. Things would have to go bad at a catastrophic level to make any of the current Republican candidates viable at this point.

It's too bad really, because there really are lot of people (both supporters and opposition) who are not happy with the direction of the Obama Presidency. A little pressure might have been just the thing to make him live up to some campaign promises or face getting replaced. Looks like all we will get are months worth of crappy political ads followed by the inevitable.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Perrin75.

Answer 32

The corporatocracy is very adept at transfering wealth upwards. They have many tools in their bag.

This post was edited on 2/20 5:49 PM by stable31

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by stable31.

Answer 33

Jeb is a very good candidate. He was a very popular governor down here in Florida. He speaks much better than W. and he's smart.

Saying that, can we stomach another person named Bush? Not sure if I can.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by CatsRuleSEC.

Answer 34

You make some good and correct points, but ignore one important factor, the hypocrisy of the left and the media (88% of whom that donated to a Pres candidate in 08 donated to Obama). Because all we heard from 2003-2008 was that Bush/Cheney raised gas prices "for their oil cronies". So when a Rep is in office he controls oil prices, but when it is a Dem he doesn't.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by JonathanW.

Answer 35

Sorry to burst anybody's bubble but we're screwed no matter who wins the election. There are no wonder workers in sight that can get a handle on the mess our country is in. Just a bunch of self-serving guys who look out for their own constituency.

This post was edited on 2/20 6:00 PM by starchief5

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by starchief5.

Answer 36

The game is so rigged that no matter what benefits the middle class, some unscrupulous corporation is going to figure out a way to exploit it and take it away.

Any uptick at all in middle class income will be met with some type of price increase to take it out of our pockets.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 37

I think we need more government to unrig the game.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Bill Cosby.

Answer 38

That's his problem, and he knows it. It's WAY too soon for another Bush to run. He could be a great candidate, but the damage to that name is going to take more than 4 years to repair.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by cbpointblank1979.

Answer 39

That is essentially one of the fundamental purposes of good government.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 40

There is no finger in anyone's eye because the project was not turned down contrary to what you hear on Fox. The project simply has not and will not get approved until the environmental impact study on the NEW routing of the pipeline is finished. That should happen in the next few months but no later than the end of the year from what I have seen.

From what I have read there was some bureaucratic mishandling of this matter between the State Dept and EPA which made this process take longer than it should. That's fair criticism. But you can't just ignore the environmental issues. We should have learned our lessens by now after the BP spill that taking short cuts to save time and money can be very costly.

This post was edited on 2/20 6:46 PM by Deeeefense

This post was edited on 2/20 6:48 PM by Deeeefense

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Deeeefense.

Answer 41

If you actually believe that then your an idiot.
Oil prices are based on world wide futures and spot markets and are based largely on anticipated supply and demand. The Keystone Pipeline would not even be on line for years and even then the amount of oil it produces would be infinitesimal - too small to even move the supply needle. The only advantages of the Keystone Pipeline would be a few thousand jobs created and a little less dependency on 3rd world oil. It would have nothing to do with the price of gas at the pump.

The increase in gas prices is most indicative of an increase in demand due to an economic recovery and the risk of oil interruptions due to military action in the Persian Gulf.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Deeeefense.

Answer 42

I get highly suspicious when issues like Keystone try and get pushed through in the middle of an election. Good reason from Wikipedia as to why things need to proceed carefully: Link

This post was edited on 2/20 7:09 PM by Ziusudra

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Ziusudra.

Answer 43

I think you marry the two. See Ronald Reagan.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by wkycatfan.

Answer 44

I could NOT disagree more. Even if it was a role of govt., it is completely incapable of performing this function.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by stable31.

Answer 45

Canada has no choice but to try to sell their tar sands oil abroad. Obviously they're extremely overexposed to the US market, it's a natural move to look West for other areas of increased demand........especially when we have an administration that promotes a goal of less dependence on foreign oil.

They're not insulted. Shit, some Canadians are angry at TransCanada for pushing to refine this bitumen below the border. They're more likely licking their wounds from extremely costly near-sightedness. But this is what's going to offer the greatest profits to Canadian oil producers. Right now Midwestern refiners are bending Canadian oil producers over due to the oversupply of their oil in the Midwest pipelines and making a pretty penny, to the betterment of gas prices in the Midwest (TransCanada wants the pipeline to the Gulf so they can sell their crude elsewhere for a higher price, which will then increase gas prices in the Midwestern US). The only people the Canadians can really blame are themselves for giving their customers too much leverage.

Canadians are going to build pipelines to ship their supplies to Asia with or without the Keystone Pipeline. This will make them diversify quicker. We'll still be their #1 customer.....they really have no other choice at this point.

Also, the Keystone Pipeline was not approved by the State Dept last August. The State Dept issued a statement that the new pipeline proposes minimal environmental risk.

The reason this hasn't been rubber stamped by the Administration is that it really doesn't benefit the US. We get ~ 4,000 temporary construction jobs and increased gas prices. Prominent conservative Nebraskan and Oklahoman politicians are against the project as it poses increased costs of living and increased environmental hazards on their water supply.

Interestingly enough, and as you should know, TransCanada is going forward with potential pipeline routes in Tejas, and attempting to seize lands from non-interested private parties under the guise of eminent domain.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by Mime-Is-Money.

Answer 46

This constant blaming of the media is really tiresome. I’d love to see some proof and GodLikeProductions doesn’t count.

Obviously can’t watch all the “liberal” stations but I usually catch one of the national news casts from the big three most evenings. Never recall seeing one single story that blamed Bush and his relationship with his oil cronies as the cause of high gas prices.

But did hear plenty of folks raising more than an eyebrow that invading Iraq and Cheeny having secret “energy policy” meetings with big oil would help his petro buddies.

And hey, whadda know...they were right.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by WillGolf4Food.

Answer 47

Then, lets create more government to help the new government we just created. Wheeee

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by bigblueinsanity.

Answer 48

well we are/have

we now have an International Government that Governs the national Governments whom Govern the state Governments who Govern the City Governments. There are more Government jobs in the US than there are Manufacturing jobs. We have an entire political ideology that subscribes to the belief that Government is of a higher order than 'religion'. It is strange times we are living in-

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by post_u_up.

Answer 49

it's the rights 'race card'. Sounds like Stansbury with the 'taken out of context' bull$hit tonight.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by funkyFatCan.

Answer 50

And you would be utterly and completely wrong in that belief. Not that anyone is surprised.

Originally posted on The Paddock - General Discussion Forum by CatBC.