US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Guam said:
unrepentant said:
Interesting demographics too. Nice to see the mix and the youth. The RNC audience seemed to consist of a lot of white coffin dodgers. Stale, like the platform.
It's only racist to you because you hanker after the days when you could openly wear you pointy white hat and hang around in public with the other sicko white supremicists.
Captain Cadillac said:
So how would you say that Obama has handled the economy?
Pretty well. He inherited the worst economy since the great depression. He chose to stimulate that economy and as a result we have not had the double dip recession that Europe has suffered. The Europeans chose austerity which is what McCain was preaching and it has demonstrable failed. Given the chalice of poison that he inherited I think he has done a good job, I'm sure mistakes have been made but overall we're in a better position than we would have been had he lost the election in 08. IMO. jeff m2 said:
unrepentant said:
Yeah, it's racist to say that it's great to see a party that is inclusive of all colors and creeds.
It's only racist to you because you hanker after the days when you could openly wear you pointy white hat and hang around in public with the other sicko white supremicists.
Are you aware the Klan was Democrats!!!!!!!!It's only racist to you because you hanker after the days when you could openly wear you pointy white hat and hang around in public with the other sicko white supremicists.
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
You said "White coffin dodgers". Enough said. Racist.
Was he suggesting it was mainly elderly whites at the republican conference, something Jon Stewart also made fun of.Just out of interest Jim, what percentage at the Republican conference were non-white & their age profile? & at the Democrats conference?
He's what we call a "Garden" where I come from.
jeff m2 said:
What do mean "Not Really 
It is twisting it a bit to say they were supported by white segregationist Democrats.
The KKK was part of the Democratic party.
In the same way the IRA was the armed wing on Sinn Fein.
You are aware they killed Black people right?
That is an accepted fact, part of history.
I'm pretty sure Jim leans towards the GOP. So accusing him of being a Democrat I think deserves an apology
I would never accuse him of being on the side of the righteous. It is twisting it a bit to say they were supported by white segregationist Democrats.
The KKK was part of the Democratic party.
In the same way the IRA was the armed wing on Sinn Fein.
You are aware they killed Black people right?
That is an accepted fact, part of history.
I'm pretty sure Jim leans towards the GOP. So accusing him of being a Democrat I think deserves an apology
The distant history of the two US parties is very mixed but their forebears have little connection to the modern day equivalents. You could argue that the party we know today only came in to being after the civil rights act of 1964. There is no question that the modern democratic party is the champion of minorities and the poor and that is reflected in the fact that they have received the vast majority of the votes cast by those groups in modern times.
jeff m2 said:
unrepentant said:
I would never accuse him of being on the side of the righteous.
The distant history of the two US parties is very mixed but their forebears have little connection to the modern day equivalents. You could argue that the party we know today only came in to being after the civil rights act of 1964. There is no question that the modern democratic party is the champion of minorities and the poor and that is reflected in the fact that they have received the vast majority of the votes cast by those groups in modern times.
How long have you been here?The distant history of the two US parties is very mixed but their forebears have little connection to the modern day equivalents. You could argue that the party we know today only came in to being after the civil rights act of 1964. There is no question that the modern democratic party is the champion of minorities and the poor and that is reflected in the fact that they have received the vast majority of the votes cast by those groups in modern times.
I just found this on wiki which seems aposite;
The Democratic Party traces its origins to the inspiration of Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. That party also inspired the Whigs and modern Republicans. Organizationally, the modern Democratic Party truly arose in the 1830s, with the election of Andrew Jackson. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has gradually positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party on economic and social issues. Until the period following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which was championed by a Democratic president but faced lower Democratic than Republican support in Congress—the Democratic Party was primarily a coalition of two parties divided by region. Southern Democrats were typically given high conservative ratings by the American Conservative Union while northern Democrats were typically given very liberal ratings. Southern Democrats were a core bloc of the bipartisan conservative coalition which lasted through the Reagan-era. The economically activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party's economic agenda since 1932, and served to tie the two regional factions of the party together until the late 1960s. In fact, Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until the 1970s.
Fishtigua said:
Not sure if this Forbes article has been posted yet?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/w...
Posted something similar a few pages back. Facts and the truth don't work so well on here with these republican fellows though. They prefer the bare faced lies of the Romyan machine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/w...
unrepentant said:
Bare faced lie;
Fact;
Mitt Romney said:
"Since President Obama took office 3 years ago federal spending has increased at a pace without precedent in recent history"
Fact;
Wall St Journal said:
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rsing at a 1.4% annualized rate - slower than at any time in the past 60 years.
You can bet that Romyan will keep repeating that lie and all the others right up to Nov 8 in the hope that it sticks.Willie Dee said:
Yep, you can die for your country but good old Mitt (who didn't go to Vietnam, he went to France to "serve" the Mormon church instead ) doesn't think you should have the same rights as others because you're gay. That old guy had every right to be angry. The homophobic policies of Romney and Ryan are a disgrace.
Countdown said:
Guam said:
Willie Dee said:
Love that, nothing like bushwacking a candidate, and the vet did that with class and civility.As he said he fought for his country he earned it
Top man You go Grunt
ETA kickass speech by Clinton and by Michelle Obama. She is sexy
One of the posters here thinks it's racist to say that the RNC is mainly supported by old white folks like hinmself.
That was news to me so it got me thinking about who does vote for them. We know that the republicans are not the party of African Americans, 95% of them voted Democrat last time (more even than the usual 80 - 90% they get) and a recent poll showed that Romney was polling a big round zero amongst that section of the electorate! Latinos voted a whopping 67% for Obama last time and the dems are well ahead again there so the republicans can hardly call themselves the party of the latinos! Asians go democrat 62% to 35% so again, no love for the republicans there. "Others" also voted 66% for the president in 2008.
Hmm.. well how about the young? Maybe they all go for Mitt and that gives the republicans a claim to be the party of the future? Sadly that's not looking likely, the under 30's went for Obama by a huge margin, 66% to 32% and with first time voters the margin was even wider. In fact demographically white folks over the age of 65 were the ones most likely to vote for the GOP in 2008.
So, I'm scratching my head. It's not the young, or the minorities and our poster says that it's wrong to suggest that the GOP is mainly supported by older white folks. Who the hell is going to vote for poor old Mitt?
That was news to me so it got me thinking about who does vote for them. We know that the republicans are not the party of African Americans, 95% of them voted Democrat last time (more even than the usual 80 - 90% they get) and a recent poll showed that Romney was polling a big round zero amongst that section of the electorate! Latinos voted a whopping 67% for Obama last time and the dems are well ahead again there so the republicans can hardly call themselves the party of the latinos! Asians go democrat 62% to 35% so again, no love for the republicans there. "Others" also voted 66% for the president in 2008.
Hmm.. well how about the young? Maybe they all go for Mitt and that gives the republicans a claim to be the party of the future? Sadly that's not looking likely, the under 30's went for Obama by a huge margin, 66% to 32% and with first time voters the margin was even wider. In fact demographically white folks over the age of 65 were the ones most likely to vote for the GOP in 2008.
So, I'm scratching my head. It's not the young, or the minorities and our poster says that it's wrong to suggest that the GOP is mainly supported by older white folks. Who the hell is going to vote for poor old Mitt?
Countdown said:
unrepentant said:
Civil partnerships are not recognised everywhere in the USA, only in a few states and cities. The areas in grey do not recognise civil partnerships or allow benefits. The dark green areas are cities that allow benefits, light green are states that do. Most of the gray areas are rupublican controlled.
Cheers.Jimbeaux - do you think that's acceptable?
davepoth said:
That was actually worth staying up for I think. I'm guessing Obama will get a bit more of a bounce from this.
That was something that we didn't hear last week. It was.. well...Presidential. And to think some people would prefer a vacuous snake oil salesman like Romney. Frankly it beggars belief. Unless you're in the 1%. Which most who will are not.davepoth said:
No, we're not comparing it to Bush. We're comparing it to every other developed economy. I know where our economy is, and the rest of Europe is teetering on the brink of a massive and persistent depression that will make Japan's lost decade look like a blip. No comparable country is doing as well as America.
By rights, this financial crisis should have been worst in the USA - it blew up in the sub-prime mortgages first. However, the US economy is recovering faster and stronger than anyone else, and that does appear to be down to the policies put in place by Obama.
By rights, this financial crisis should have been worst in the USA - it blew up in the sub-prime mortgages first. However, the US economy is recovering faster and stronger than anyone else, and that does appear to be down to the policies put in place by Obama.
Great post.CommanderJameson said:
What about this:
Spot on.- State A decides to have Gay Marriage, but State B doesn't
- Gay couple gets married in State A. They are married, with all the taxation/legal stuff that that entails
- They move to State B, or they travel through state B and on the way have a massive accident which requires a life support decision from a spouse, or whatever. Pick your favourite "involves a spouse and results in spouse-specific things" scenario
- Are they now not married? Even if State B won't let you get Gay Married, will it let you be Gay Married? Do they Gay Divorce you?
Never mind states rights, these are basic HUMAN rights and only the homophobic GOP would get their knickers in a twist over them.
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Guam said:
Context and you are being trite, he has made numerous accusations of racism on this thread, he even accused Jim of hankering after being in the KKK, in that context his statement was clearly racist <and intended to be so>.
If one establishes a pattern in numerous preceding comments one should not be surprised that readers will interprate a comment in a logical way.
However many of us have no political affilliations and therefore have no axe to grind in the discussion, our interpretation is not being driven by an "agenda".
Perhaps he should knock of the racism memes and focus on the numbers and policy issues?
Don't see how UR stating that Jimbeaux was racist means that UR himself is racist.If one establishes a pattern in numerous preceding comments one should not be surprised that readers will interprate a comment in a logical way.
However many of us have no political affilliations and therefore have no axe to grind in the discussion, our interpretation is not being driven by an "agenda".
Perhaps he should knock of the racism memes and focus on the numbers and policy issues?
With regards to numbers my understanding is that the demographic voting for the GOP confirms what UR stated ie mainly white, mainly elderly. Now saying that does not make one racist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff