|
Post by Fredo on Oct 18, 2011 0:19:07 GMT -5
You can only have one vote but you can change it at will. This will be our own little running opinion poll.
|
|
|
Post by newuser on Oct 25, 2011 16:54:01 GMT -5
Whoever gets the nomination - that is NOT Obama
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Nov 4, 2011 12:22:52 GMT -5
no newt?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Nov 4, 2011 13:42:24 GMT -5
Dang it. I knew I forgot someone. I guess he'll just have to be a write in.
|
|
|
Post by cvhs67 on Jan 5, 2012 7:09:53 GMT -5
I think that would be:
Great, no newt.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Jan 5, 2012 14:42:47 GMT -5
I dig Newt
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jan 27, 2012 19:09:56 GMT -5
Obama, but only because the Republicans have not yet offered a reasonable alternative. Obama has given us two fairly reasonable supreme court Justices. Only Ron Paul has opposed the signing of Patriot Act & NDAA.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 27, 2012 20:45:07 GMT -5
It pains me a bit, but I'm going to toe the line and vote Romney. I like Newt's encyclopedic knowledge of damn near everything but his general rambunctiousness is unsettling. As much as I'd like to see him leave Obama in a quivering heap on the debate stage, his general immorality may cause the church crowd to stay home on election day and this is an election that we can't afford to lose. If Obama is reelected, the economic consequences would be extreme.
I don't dislike Romney, to the contrary, I like the fact that he's actually lived in the real world and made a lot of jack while doing so pretty comforting. It's been a long time since we've had a President who made his own living and that can't be a bad thing for the working guy.
If we had a moderately failing President like Bush or Clinton it might be worth taking a flyer on a candidate who proposed real and substantive change but at this point I don't think we can afford to chance losing and the price of that safety is a candidate who will probably do pretty well but won't be the pivotal change that a good number of us would like to see.
The name of the game is manageable risk.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 0:04:43 GMT -5
Compare Romneycare to Obamacare and look at the way it is destroying the insurance industry in MA (BCBS will be insolvent by 2017) and then tell me that it will be better.
I say let Barry get re-elected and put a bunch of republicans (no need for conservatives) in Congress to create permanent gridlock.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 28, 2012 13:19:13 GMT -5
If the people of MA want to repeal "romneycare" they can do so at anytime. Evidently, they're satisfied with it.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 14:57:09 GMT -5
They're welcome to it. As a state, it's their choice. (And when no one will do business there, they can all die slowly while waiting on government-run clinics.)
I don't want it to replace Obamacare. There's little practical difference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 28, 2012 15:13:25 GMT -5
Romney has said that he would grant all 50 states waivers immediately upon election so I'm not worried about him attempting to implement a replacement plan. Obama, OTOH still thinks his plan is a good one and will never back away from it.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 16:21:09 GMT -5
In one debate, Romney did say he would push for it. I think he backed off after the uproar.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jan 29, 2012 10:39:09 GMT -5
So does the philanderer Herman Cain. Your are in 'good' company.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jan 29, 2012 10:44:01 GMT -5
Fredo appears to feel sorry for the underpaid and unemployed Romney. LOL The release of Gov. Mitt Romney's tax returns on Tuesday highlights the Presidential candidate's wealth and the low 14% tax rate that investors enjoy, far less than the 25-35% tax rate that the average American pays for wages. Yes, Gov. Romney's annual earnings of about $20 million indicate that his dividends and interest received in one day are close to the average household annual income of about $57,000. This should surprise no one. Let's put some perspective on this, relative to individuals with his business expertise - by some accounts, he is underpaid. scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 29, 2012 14:09:18 GMT -5
And what is wrong with that? Investments provide the rest of the jobs; he put his capital at risk, and he's not punished for being successful.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 29, 2012 14:27:57 GMT -5
It's true. I feel for anyone who has to scrape by on such a pitiful sum, but I'm soft hearted like that.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jan 29, 2012 17:20:39 GMT -5
The Media Is Confusing Private Equity And Venture Capital — To Mitt Romney's BenefitJan. 23, 2012 by Pema Levy 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/the-media-is-confusing-private-equity-and-venture-capital----to-mitt-romneys-benefit.php For better or worse, a key feature of this campaign will be Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital. As a result, the understanding the difference between private equity and venture capital will help voters understand the man they may vote for in the primary, and possibly the general election. Because venture capital tends to be regarded as a job-creation industry, confusing the two terms will likely work to Romney's advantage. The term private equity simply refers to equity that is not public, like stocks. Venture capital — the practice of investing in the early stages of a company — uses nonpublic equity and is therefore a form of private equity. However, most similarities stop there. 'Venture capital and private equity obviously don't have technical definitions,' said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at USC's Gould School of Law and former chief of staff to the Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. 'But properly used, they point to different business strategies and different points in the life cycle of a business.' Historically, venture capital is about investing in the early stages of a company in order to help it succeed. With a minority stake in the company, after several years, the venture capital firm will make money by merging the new company or taking it public. If the company doesn't succeed, they lose their investment. 'Venture capital is all about feeding a toddler of a company; getting it from toddler to early adulthood,' says Kleinbard. Continuing this metaphor, private equity is about improving mature companies. Romney / Bain Capital = corporate raider. Sell off the asset parts, reduce labor cost = the sum of the parts is greater than the whole = profit and companies that no longer are strong enough or have the resources to continue operations. Shutdown with more layoffs. If this is Romney's formula for "jobs" in the US, look for even greater unemployment.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Feb 6, 2012 12:46:42 GMT -5
It pains me a bit, but I'm going to toe the line and vote Romney. I like Newt's encyclopedic knowledge of damn near everything but his general rambunctiousness is unsettling. As much as I'd like to see him leave Obama in a quivering heap on the debate stage, his general immorality may cause the church crowd to stay home on election day and this is an election that we can't afford to lose. i highly doubt that. newt vs. romney may keep them from the primary polls, but pitted against obama, i don't think you have to worry about the religious portion of the GOP not showing up.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Feb 6, 2012 13:34:34 GMT -5
Agreed.
I recently heard one interview in which the 'man on the street' said he'd gladly vote for a hockey puck if that was his only choice against Obama.
The guy is also a former democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Feb 6, 2012 13:43:08 GMT -5
Considering the change in the field.
Can we get an updated poll?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Feb 6, 2012 15:22:11 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I can't change this poll, but it's set up so that you can change your votes.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 16, 2012 14:04:11 GMT -5
|
|