Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.
He's real good at vacations
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
Ive now heard this general line of rhetoric so many times that it has lost any sort of meaning to me. Let me issue my general line of rhetoric in response one more time. I don't care which nominee wins. They both suck for conservatives and both REALLY suck for libertarians.
The entire point of my OP was to agree with most people that Romney won the debate but to also point out that ANY GOP candidate should have been able to win that debate, considering the state of the economy. It tanked under a Republican president and continued tanking under a Democrat and will continue to tank under whoever wins this election. This was a "gimme" debate for Romney. Failing to win it would have secured his spot as worst nominee ever.
That entire argument carries over to the election itself. This is a "gimme" election for Romney. If he fails to win it, it's because he is the worst nominee ever. Republicans, especially in the early primary states, will need to determine whether voting for somebody simply because they're told he's the "electable" one is a sound strategy going forward.
Republicans will need to shoulder 100% of the blame for the loss. Will they be able to do that? Will they be able to then learn from it and fix it next time? My instinct says "no". They will blame the media, voter fraud, libertarian voters, Ron Paul, and a whole lot of others. Hopefully I'm wrong, because I want them to fix it next time.
I look at myself as a libertarian. I am more than willing to vote libertarian in local races and maybe even statewide races. But I cannot, with a clear conscious, vote for Gary Johnston or any other 3rd party candidate. A vote for the 3rd party candidate is a vote for Obama. The Libertarian party needs to be built from the ground up, and I believe that's happening. I don't believe the country can take another 4 years of an Obama administration. So arguments and discussions are fine, but right now we must defeat Obama!
Please vote! It's that important!
The "right now" attitude is the problem, not the solution.
"We finally have a budget surplus, but right now, we just got attacked by terrorists so let's spend like crazy, expand the government like crazy, flail our military wildly in wars without goals, and deal with it all later" is what got us into this mess.
Now, "later" is here, and we don't have anybody who truly wants to deal with it. Not anybody who can get elected, anyway, which means the people don't want to deal with it.
Let's think past the "right now" now, because we know we won't want to deal with it later.
Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
1) Mandatory spending (comprised of Entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and interest on debt) + DoD budget = 2.837 trillion
2) EVERYTHING else in the Fed. budget expenditures = 714 billion.
3) Federal revenue = 2.165 trillion
Do I really even need to go further? You see the problem with folks like you preaching about cutting 200 million from PBS or closing Dept. of Ed. ... or pick ANY and ALL federal departments ... and how ridiculous it is ultimately?
MATHY NO WORKY
BUT I'll assume you failed 4th grade math ... lets take a scenario where we cut EVERYTHING from the budget but entitlements and DoD. So our ONLY expenditures are 2.837. Ooops! WE only have 2.165 trillion to spend. So our deficit grows by another 672 billion dollars this year. But I like "Big Bird" .. I'm gonna add him back to the budget. Guess what ... our deficit (assuming rounding) is still 672 billion. LMAO
From the budget ... in case visuals help you "get it":
Yah, and reelecting Obama by voting third party Right Now, is sure a good plan for the future
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.
"If you vote for the Green Party, you're voting for Mitt! Obama needs your vote!"
See how that works?
Send out SOS !
The battleship Obama is listing 30degrees portside.
Jim, can you right 'er ?
Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost
See how that works?
And "your" man is running in the general election. When he loses, are you going to see how it works yourself?
My guess is that your behavior after that loss won't be any more mature than many of the "PaulBots" were after his.
Your admonitions to the PaulBots to accept reality are going to come back at you, are you prepared?
I handled those well. More importantly, I didn't become obnoxious when my primary choice didn't win. Obviously you lack that skill.
Is this the part where you show an example of me being obnoxious over somebody (I presume RP) not winning, or is it the part where you say it's not worth your effort to back up your personal attacks with facts?
The Dems know the damage a third party candidate can do. Remember what the DNC did to the Nader campaign? They tried to keep off of the ballots in like 18 states. Nader had to file a lawsuit against them that was later dismissed.
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.
What are you talking about, the election isn't over.
I meant it in the future tense, but you can interpret it as hypothetical if you want.
Federal revenue before the recession was over $2.5 trillion/year, so that's an extra $400 billion/year that can be added back in. Means-tested welfare spending is over $500 billion/year and the one-third in cuts made in the 90's that were undone in with the stimulus can be restored. Revenues from opening up domestic drilling could add $100 billion/year in revenues. That's $6-700 billion/year right there.
You can answer that question yourself.
Who are you voting for?
What would you have me say/do if Mittens looses?