The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Lets see....

Obama is running on making gay marriage legal.  The Veep forced the issue to come out early, Obama wanted to annouce this policy around the time of the convention.  Seriously, man.  Not saying he is wrong on the issue, but you want to make this a campaign issue.   ???  There was absolutely nothing Mitt Romney biggest problem was solidifying the Christain conservatives.  Problem solved.

Romney on the other hand is running on the issue that Obama is a divider not a uniter for ever mentioning that Bin-Ladin was killed on his watch.  His campaign is going nuts screaming that this is horrible polticizing of an issue that should not be politized.  Really can you say that with a straight face?  Didn't hear you say the same thing when Bush did his "mission ackomlished" speech on a carrier or ever critize the entire fucking Rudy Gulliani campaign.  The only other issue Romney is running on is Obama's lack of experience.  That was an issue four years ago.  He has been president for four years.  He no longer lacks experience.

Meanwhile Romney's superpac has decided that the reason why McCain lost was he didn't hit hard enough on Jeromy Wright and want to make that the number one campaign issue against Obama.  Seriously?  Scaring people into thinking Obama was a black panther had some legs four years ago.  After four years in office even the folks who don't like Obama don't believe that. 

There are real differences and real issues between the two canidates, but both sides seem to be running completely inept campaigns. 

If Ron Paul ain't running, I ain't voting, simple as that. So it looks like I ain't voting again. Neither of those other 2 clowns deserve my vote. Kinda sad that this is the best that our country has to offer for leaders......

Then keep your mouth shut if something happens that you don't like. ;)

Has anyone heard the Jeremiah Wright interviews, claiming that Obama came to him as a Muslim, and he wasn't sure that he converted him to Christianity? He also says that the Obama campaign offered him 150 grand to not preach until after the election. This, combined with Obama care likely being overturned by the SCOTUS, coming out for gay marriage, etc spells disaster for the president in my opinion.

I thought McCain lost because he had no guts.  He seemed content to lose to a historical event from the get-go.  And he could have hammered the Obama campaign on any number of issues and didn't. 

However, I must admit Hoodie, even I look at the Romney campaign and go "what the fuck?!"  If Obama were able to get any kind of traction on any issue, or if he were a stronger candidate, then he'd be winning going away.  But it's still way too early yet.  None of these polls mean jack shit until after the convention.

There's nothing wrong with what badger6 said. I'm in his camp as well. I don't like either of the frontrunners, so am I to vote for one the those two jokers? I can still criticize them because I was against them at the start.

Romney wins by 8-12 points. And thank God for it.

Of course you can. Just for future reference, the ;) emoticon means joking or being facetious, etc. ;)

Understood.  :)

I thought he lost it b/c he lost his soul.

Before the campaign he was fiercely independant and willing to talk straight even if it offended some in his base by agreeing with the democrats.  But he sold out during the primary to win the base and never recovered from that.

Plus he never had a real vision.  He ran as the alternative to Obama, but never gave a reason to vote FOR him, only a few reason not to vote for Obama.  Obama on the other hand offered reason FOR himself, even if those were hollow reasons like "hope" and "change"

Likewise Romney has yet to offer a reason to vote for Romney, just some weak reason to vote against Obama.

Congrats on being part of the problem and not the solution. If you have finally had enough with the current two party system then look into a third party. You are options are not isolated to voting either (D), (R), or nothing. It is this mentality that you have to pick one of the two clowns offered up by the party machinations that keeps the status quo of  greed, corruption and inaction alive in D.C..

I think he will at and leading up to the convention. I agree that he should have already presented an agenda.

Has nothing to do with me being isolated to one side of the other. I actually don't get in to the whole republican or democrat thing. I pick based on the candidate. I would counter that the real problem is with the way the whole system is structured. In my opinion not voting for people that don't deserve my vote is the only thing to do. I won't pick the lesser of two evil.

IMO McCain lost because he honestly said it would be a mistake to bring all the troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY.  Then the GOP and his people stuck him with Sarah Palin, instead of the running mate he wanted.

True to an extent.  It's the diehard party extremists that end up picking the final candidates because they are the ones that vote in the primaries.  Additionally, with primaries spread out over time, its the voters in the early states that have more power in picking the eventual candidate because many times once a candidate gets rolling voters in other states just go along.  I'd be for having a National primary on the same date, I think you would see more main stream candidates emerge.

I think that this is somewhat of a myth, on a national scale.  Obama, as much as FOX wants to paint him a socialist, ultra-liberal, is basically a Republican from about 15 years ago.  He's a military hawk.  He has very mainstream views on most fiscal issues.  Socially, he's somewhat left, but even there, he's just changing to reflect the rest of the country.

And Romney, while he talks a big game about being a conservative, is a moderate, historically speaking.  He's certainly not the far right candidate that the tea party base wanted.

The issue with the extremists is not the Presidency.  It's the congress.  You end up getting a bunch of lunatics who aren't willing to work together, and are only there to make a name for themselves.

Really?  Do you really believe that?

This is definitely true.

+1 LOL

+1, minus the LOL ;)

Yeah, I absolutely believe that.

His military position is not very different from what we did under Clinton, Bush, Bush II.  It's hawkish.  He's on the offensive.  The liberal base isn't down with occupying Afghanistan.  He essentially modified Bush's war policy with a different strategy, but didn't back away from conflict at all.

And "Obamacare" is a modified version of Republican plans, supported by Nixon, Bob Dole, and even Mitt Romney. 

TARP (the bailouts) is another thing he gets pegged for, but this, again, was something signed in by Bush and supported by most Republicans.

And even on social issues, to this point, he hasn't pressed for marriage equality, legalization of marijuana, or other liberal social issues.

The concept that Obama is some far-leftist just isn't based in reality.

We need a third option. But as long as people refuse to consider voting for a third party and instead do not vote at all, then we will never get out from under the greed and corruption of the current two-party system.

I agree, his policies and actions do not indicate a hard-core socialist.

Dave, you are absolutely right.  There is a very apt analogy I've seen used: if the political spectrum is a football field, the Democrats are somewhere around their own 25-yard-line, Obama is around his own 40, and the Republicans are standing behind their own goalposts.

Solid Republicans from 30 years ago would be (and, in fact, are being) drummed out of the GOP today as RINOs; a common intraparty attack in the GOP is to accuse your opponent of being "moderate."  While the Democratic Party still has many congressional members that identify themselves as "moderate" and several that identify themselves as "conservative" (e.g. the Blue Dog Democrats), finding a congressional Republican today that actively identifies himself as "moderate" is tough, and I daresay that finding one that identifies himself as "liberal" is impossible.

Today's GOP is far, far to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, or even Reagan.  It is only in that context that Obama is "one of the most far-left presidents ever": it is solely by virtue of comparison to his opposition.

A High majority of President's move to the middle after being elected, they need to in order to get things accomplished.  However, Obama was pitching to the far left liberal base vs. Hillary Clinton who was more main stream.  As for Romney, I'd agree that he is more a centrist versus his primary opponents, but the only way he was able to outlast them THIS time is because he built up a base when he ran four years ago and got his but kicked.

Are you talking about the 2008 Democratic primary?  If you really want to compare who was pandering more to their base in the primary, Obama in 2008 or Romney in 2012, I'm happy to have that comparison.  I don't recall Obama ever insisting that he was "severely liberal"...

I'd say the real reason he was able to win the primary is because he was free to tack as hard right as possible (seriously: Romney tried to position himself to the right of Rick Santorum on social issues!), with a wink & nod to the party establishment that he will instantly flip-flop pivot in time for the general.

To be honest,I feel the whole Presidential election cycle takes too long,it's not 1876.It doesn't take a month or more to get from one area of the country to another.We are in a day and age of communication happens in seconds,and minutes,Not months,weeks,or even days.It's all a big business,and money grab....I have a hard time believing people need over a year to figure out whom they want,and make a decision...

Yet again,I think about how slow it is to get any type of real change in this country...Never mind... ;D

^^^

Also, you really need the time to properly vet the candidates. Thats what is supposed to happen anyway.

Yes I was talking about the 2008 Democratic primary.  I don't know where you are getting the "severely liberal" quote, because I didn't use those words.  What I said was that Obama was more liberal than Hillary in their race.  And no, I'm not making any comparisons between Obama 2008 and Romney 2012.  Hope this clears things up for you.

In the 2012 primary, during a speech at CPAC, Romney insisted that he was "severely conservative."

I bring that up as an example of the difference in scope between the way that Democrats appeal to their base and the way that Republicans appeal to theirs.

Gotcha, and I agree.  The GOP has made the word "Liberal" a dirty word, and Democrats don't like using the term because it scares off Republicans that may want to vote for them.  Whereas, Republicans wear the term "Conservative" like a badge of courage.

Well, my more general point was that at the federal level, there are Democrats that openly campaign as liberal/progressive, there are Democrats that openly campaign as moderate, and there are Democrats that openly campaign as conservative.  In contrast, there are zero Republicans that campaign as liberal/progressive, there are almost none that openly campaign as moderate (I don't believe even the Maine twins in the Senate would actually use that term), and everyone else is always trying to out-conservative their opposition.

Oddly enough, in the Mass senate race neither is even mentioning their own party.  If you watched the republican's ads and didn't know better you would bet money that he was running as a third party candiate.  The dems aren't quite as strong.

But neither of them mention their own party, their oppenant, the Obama administatration etc. just how "independant" they are. 

This is the general election campaign now, though.  I was talking more about primaries.

Frimp, I just don't understand your position.  I understand not liking Obama's policies, if that's your thing, but I don't get how anyone can call him a socialist.  ...for anything.  Obamacare (fact) is based off of previous Republican ideas which is an insurance mandate for PRIVATE companies.  Like it or not, it's nothing even remotely close to socialism. 

We do have aspects of socialism in our country: education, transportation infrastructure, mail, social security, and medicare.  But both parties are pretty on board with these ideas at this point, aside from the fringe.

What facts can you bring to the table to support your stance?  I'm not trolling; I really would like to understand where these allegations are coming from.

^^^^ Actually there is one  group of US citizens who have single payer socialized style health care.  -- The military.