Obama Vs Romney

K-9

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, that's probably as far as anyone needs to stay up.

I won't be staying up. If there's a result by bedtime, so be it. Whoever wins, I have to go to work in the morning. Honestly, I am far more worried by whether or not Prop 30 or 38 passes in the California referendum. It's far more important to me, and I'm not being facaetious.

Ohio seems to be the key with national polls pretty close, Obama is a clear favourite there, Romney hasn't been forgiven for not wanting to bail out the car industry 4 years ago and he can't spin out of it.

Manic Moran

EllenD wrote: »

Did anyone notice how during the each presidential debate Romney barely commented and pretty much avoided any direct answers(to most things) but in particular our environment and plans for sustainable energy etc.......how can these issues not be top of the list?we are going to go through some serious changes in the next couple of years, some one who doesn't give **** about this should NOT be appointed one of the most influential people in the world.

For starters, no votes in it. People are more worried about the unemployment rate and cheap petrol to get to whatever employment they find than they are about most other things.

Rigol

Too great not to post, hope it hasn't already been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

The president shall not be the shiniest ..... :D:D

aligator_am

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course Obama supporters are all MENSA members.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

Another gem right here, I think this gave Republicans a glut of ammo. (Think someone subsequently explained that there's a bunch of hoops ye need to jump through to get the phone, it's not just as simple as this woman puts it.)

aligator_am

Lollers wrote: »

God yes, I think that was the best celebrity "endorsement" video I've seen

Was a great vid in fairness, I was half expecting Max Brooks to appear and hand over a copy of the Zombie Survival Guide

DEFTLEFTHAND

What's Romney's take on gays? In the Liberal world of America this is an issue. It's kind of like stating that you don't agree with the Israelis's policies, you just don't do it if your going for election.

The Mormon Church were once very disapproving of gays but this has mellowed in recent years. The thing that interests me though is that in high school, friends have come out and stated that Mitt was in a group who persecuted and targeted fellow classmates who they perceived to be homos.
Their alleged actions were often violent

jill_valentine

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What's Romney's take on gays? In the Liberal world of America this is an issue. It's kind of like stating that you don't agree with the Israelis's policies, you just don't do it if your going for election.

The Mormon Church were once very disapproving of gays but this has mellowed in recent years. The thing that interests me though is that in high school, friends have come out and stated that Mitt was in a group who persecuted and targeted fellow classmates who they perceived to be homos.
Their alleged actions were often violent

It hasn't mellowed a hell of a lot, lemme tell you.

Re: Romney, he isn't Televangelist outright about it, but his stance is pretty clear.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children."

So while he's ostensibly tiptoeing around the subject in the name of state's rights, in practice, he'd like to constitutionally oppose marriage equality, and he thinks hospital visitation rights for gay couples are benefits. Benefits, not rights. ie. maybe the gays can be allowed to visit their dying lifetime partner out of the sheer goodness of their home state. And then...

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/09/romney_a_wimp_not_so_much_acco.html

It was 2004, after the Supreme Judicial Court had cleared the way for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney remained a roadblock, endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban it.

For about 20 frustrating minutes, say those in attendance who Boston Spirit interviewed recently, they shared their stories, pled their case, and tried to explain how equal marriage would protect them and their families. Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.

“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.

...

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.

The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

Romney’s retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn’t care, and by referring to her biological daughter as “adopted,” it was clear he hadn’t even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears.

Benny_Cake

jill_valentine wrote: »

It hasn't mellowed a hell of a lot, lemme tell you.

Re: Romney, he isn't Televangelist outright about it, but his stance is pretty clear.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children."

So while he's ostensibly tiptoeing around the subject in the name of state's rights, in practice, he'd like to constitutionally oppose marriage equality, and he thinks hospital visitation rights for gay couples are benefits. Benefits, not rights. ie. maybe the gays can be allowed to visit their dying lifetime partner out of the sheer goodness of their home state. And then...

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/09/romney_a_wimp_not_so_much_acco.html

That account has the ring of truth to me - it seems to echo the thoughtlessness that Romney brings to so much of what he does. What I still can't figure out is just why he wants to be president - he doesn't seem to have a fixed position on anything.

As disappointing as Obama has been in many ways, for moderates and progressives it is important that he be re-elected, not least because of the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years.

jill_valentine

There's a little more in that vein. Again, while he doesn't tend to confront the issue head on, his petty little political spites speak volumes.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/24/mitt-romney-overruled-state-agency-and-rejected-new-birth-certificates-for-children-born-gay-parents/TqOHBb99V98H6nGQqUQrjO/story.html

To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law. But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

The practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.

Crossouts and handwritten alterations constituted “violations of existing statutes’’ and harmed “the integrity of the vital record-keeping system,’’ the deputy general counsel of the department, Peggy Wiesenberg, warned in a confidential Dec. 13, 2004, memo to Mark Nielsen, Romney’s general counsel.

The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.”

Romney’s interventions mostly resulted in delays awarding birth certificates for women married to same-sex partners who gave birth. Gay men seeking parental rights were required to take a different route, by obtaining a court order. By law, birth certificates must be issued within 10 days of birth, and in some instances, those deadlines were not met.

Most of the birth-certificate reviews by the governor’s office appeared cursory. For example, health department deputy counsel Wiesenberg e-mailed Brian Leske and Nielsen on Dec. 23, 2004, to ask permission to issue a certificate regarding one birth: “Birth at UMass Memorial Medical Center. Facts (married mother, same sex spouse, anonymous donor) are similar to 23 other cases that Mark has reviewed . . . [and] instruct[ed] the hospital to list mother & same sex spouse as the second parent on the child’s birth certificate.”

Leske e-mailed back: “You are authorized to inform the Medical Center that may list the same sex spouse as a second parent on the birth certificate.”

In one instance, in which a couple asked that the handwritten alteration for the second parent say “wife” instead of second parent, the request was denied. In another, Leske refused to allow a birth certificate to be issued listing a same-sex couple as the parents because they were not married.

...

Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president.

“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’

TL;DR - unable to prevent the marriages actually happening, or to impede the citing of the second parent on the certificates, he settled for making them jump through extra hoops for the privilege of getting their basic paperwork approved.

So while the measure ultimately didn't make a whole lot of difference to the end result for gay couples with kids, it did make their lives unnecessarily difficult, complicated hospital bureaucracy and it damaged data integrity considerably, for no reason anybody could discern beyond spite.

bnt

I thought Ron Paul had some good ideas, but he's missed the boat: at 77, he's just about as old, now, as Ronald Reagan was when he left office. He would have become the oldest President ever halfway through his first year in office. No, I'm not ageist, but Reagan's last few years showed the real toll the office can take on someone who's past their best.

When it comes to Romney, I think Robert Reich is just about right. Reich was Secretary of Labor under Clinton, and makes no apologies for being a Democrat. I suggest folks read his summary of what he thinks a Romney Presidency would mean a.k.a. Romneyism. Extract:

By now, in these last remaining days before the election of 2012, we have learned enough about the beliefs of the Republican presidential candidate to see them as a worldview all its own – a kind of creed that explains Mitt Romney. Those who say he has no principles are selling him short.

Despite its contradictions and ellipses, Romneyism has an internal coherence. It is different from conservatism, because it does not intend to conserve or protect any particular institutions or values. It is also distinct from Republicanism, in that it is not rooted in traditional small-town American values, nationalism, or states’ rights.

mikemac1

Brian Schweitzer
2016 Democratic nominee
25/1

Place a bet and you have to wait 4 years of course but I like the odds

Ladbrokes has 9 Democrats ahead of him but he has a great shot

Dark horse

Very off topic

pickarooney

I can never figure out why or how they make a relatively irrelevant state like Ohio so important in this whole show.

Benny_Cake

pickarooney wrote: »

I can never figure out why or how they make a relatively irrelevant state like Ohio so important in this whole show.

Most of the states are foregone conclusions, whereas Ohio is almost evenly divided and carries a good number of votes in the electoral college. It will be very hard to win the election without taking Ohio, especially for Romney.

speedboatchase

pickarooney wrote: »

I can never figure out why or how they make a relatively irrelevant state like Ohio so important in this whole show.

Really? It's a hugely important swing state and has backed every winner since 1964. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. That's why Romney has visited nearly 50 blimmin' times this year alone.

coffee_cake

Father Damo wrote: »

Any person voes for Romney= should not be allowed a vote.

Honestly, race aside, if a voter believes Romney is the anwser to a better America, and refuses to concede that Obama has only failed because the house GOP will not play ball, and even despite that he has had limited success in getting the US on the right track and will continue to do so, if one cannot see that, one should not be allowed a vote, it really is that simple. Romney is a classist and a proven liar, a completely contemptous capitalist gangster. His food drive for the hurricane was cringe worthy, as if he gives a flying fcuk about any of those in need. If I was in NYC and had not been able to access food or water for days I would sooner go hungry than accept donations from that two faed kunt.

Yeah! If someone votes a way I don't like, they should be denied a vote altogether!

Father Damo

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah! If someone votes a way I don't like, they should be denied a vote altogether!

If I was a politician who publicly advocated immediate execution for minor crimes and putting gays in concentration camps, if by some miracle I was allowed to run for office, I would receive a substantial amount of votes, because there are large number of the Irish population who are trigger happy and couldnt give a swinging sh1te about what the rest of the world thinks is right Look at the crowds turning up for the Quinn rallies. Look at the amount who went to Alan Ryans funeral. This country is full of clowns who will hop on any anti establishment ride you can give them.

Should the people inclined to vote for execution without trial and gay internment be allowed a vote?

While Romney is not as extreme as the above he still has a reprehensible background. My biggest worry during the 08 elections was that McCain, while not my own choice, seemed like a good, honourble man. The main problem in my mind was that voting for him, being of advanced years, there was the risk he could die in office and be replaced by VP Sarah Palin. McCain was right wing, but a good man, and people were entitled to vote for him if they so wish. Bush was right wing, but again a good (if we excuse his probable complicity in stealing the Florida election), if maybe misguided man. Romney and Palin are on a Nazi level, minus the genocide, and overt racism is no longer allowed in public of course. They quite simply are a pair of truly horrible people. Do you think anyone who would think Hitler would solve the current crisis in the US should be allowed to vote? Tea Party members should be allowed a vote?

Rigol

I cannot believe I didn't get thousands of thumbs up for the Obama Vs romney epic rap battle video I posted 1 or 2 pages back.
Whats wrong with you people?


shame on you all. :mad:

Sulla Felix

Father Damo wrote: »

Should the people inclined to vote for execution without trial and gay internment be allowed a vote?

I'm a bit worried that I have to say this, but yes, yes they should be allowed a vote.

Just out of idle curiosity, under your ideal system, who decides what points of view are to be held legitimate. Do the people who decide that get elected or how otherwise are they chosen?
Are you allowed change your mind? Say if I was homophobic in my twenties but realised the error of my ways in my thirties, am I barred for life from voting? If I'm not, how do you establish that I am not just saying I've changed? What if I've never expressed an opinion at all, but secretly hate gays. How do you stop me voting? Am I to be examined at the voting booth? Administration of sodium pentothal? Use of a polygraph?

Principal Skinner

Father Damo wrote: »

If I was a politician who publicly advocated immediate execution for minor crimes and putting gays in concentration camps, if by some miracle I was allowed to run for office, I would receive a substantial amount of votes, because there are large number of the Irish population who are trigger happy and couldnt give a swinging sh1te about what the rest of the world thinks is right Look at the crowds turning up for the Quinn rallies. Look at the amount who went to Alan Ryans funeral. This country is full of clowns who will hop on any anti establishment ride you can give them.

Should the people inclined to vote for execution without trial and gay internment be allowed a vote?

While Romney is not as extreme as the above he still has a reprehensible background. My biggest worry during the 08 elections was that McCain, while not my own choice, seemed like a good, honourble man. The main problem in my mind was that voting for him, being of advanced years, there was the risk he could die in office and be replaced by VP Sarah Palin. McCain was right wing, but a good man, and people were entitled to vote for him if they so wish. Bush was right wing, but again a good (if we excuse his probable complicity in stealing the Florida election), if maybe misguided man. Romney and Palin are on a Nazi level, minus the genocide, and overt racism is no longer allowed in public of course. They quite simply are a pair of truly horrible people. Do you think anyone who would think Hitler would solve the current crisis in the US should be allowed to vote? Tea Party members should be allowed a vote?

What absolute sensationalist nonsense, any logical person reading your point would disregard your entire argument because of that one idiotic comment....

Wouldnt be a big Palin fan myself but I do not get all this nonsense touted about Romney. Loads of people are saying they'd be terrified if Romney was in office but never give a reason why. Why is "Romney on a Nazi level"? Obamas already screwed up for four years at least if you vote for Romney theres a chance you might get something different

Benny_Cake

Father Damo wrote: »

If I was a politician who publicly advocated immediate execution for minor crimes and putting gays in concentration camps, if by some miracle I was allowed to run for office, I would receive a substantial amount of votes, because there are large number of the Irish population who are trigger happy and couldnt give a swinging sh1te about what the rest of the world thinks is right Look at the crowds turning up for the Quinn rallies. Look at the amount who went to Alan Ryans funeral. This country is full of clowns who will hop on any anti establishment ride you can give them.

Should the people inclined to vote for execution without trial and gay internment be allowed a vote?

While Romney is not as extreme as the above he still has a reprehensible background. My biggest worry during the 08 elections was that McCain, while not my own choice, seemed like a good, honourble man. The main problem in my mind was that voting for him, being of advanced years, there was the risk he could die in office and be replaced by VP Sarah Palin. McCain was right wing, but a good man, and people were entitled to vote for him if they so wish. Bush was right wing, but again a good (if we excuse his probable complicity in stealing the Florida election), if maybe misguided man. Romney and Palin are on a Nazi level, minus the genocide, and overt racism is no longer allowed in public of course. They quite simply are a pair of truly horrible people. Do you think anyone who would think Hitler would solve the current crisis in the US should be allowed to vote? Tea Party members should be allowed a vote?

I'm sorry, but this is simply ludicrous. How do you suggest we decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to vote? To equate Romney and Palin with the Nazis is crazy. As objectionable as I find Romney and his politics, I find the notion that those who support him should be disenfranchised even more objectionable. I hope Obama wins, although he hasn't been half as left-wing as his detractors suggest (or as I would like him to be), but I'm not anticipating an American Reich if he doesn't.

K-9

Romney while he has come out with some bloomers has a record of being a moderate Republican. I'd rate him ahead of Bush tbh.

seligehgit

Defo staying up to see the states turn red or blue.Think it will a tad anti climactic as although the media are talking up the national poll been neck and neck Obama holds all the aces in the swing states,especially Ohio.It could be all over fairly early.:(

mikemac1

I want to see Gary Johnson break 5%

3% would be good too

To win New Mexico would be achievement also

I don't think any of these things will happen though

Benny_Cake

mikemac1 wrote: »

I want to see Gary Johnson break 5%

3% would be good too

To win New Mexico would be achievement also

I don't think any of these things will happen though

A reasonable showing by him in New Mexico would probably help Obama over the line there, although Obama probably won't need the help as it's an increasingly blue state. I don't see third party candidates making any headway this time.

Johro

K-9 wrote: »

Romney while he has come out with some bloomers has a record of being a moderate Republican. I'd rate him ahead of Bush tbh.

Hmmm... he's still a Republican. Tbh, I'd rate me ahead of Bush too. In fact I'd rate most people ahead of Bush ffs. Bush was a total disaster for America and the world.

seligehgit

The Radiator wrote: »

Why isn't there a poll?

Yeah let's have a poll!

Lollers

For what's worth Paddy Power are already paying out on an Obama win

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/paddy-power-pays-out-on-obama-victory-572945.html

take everything

K-9 wrote: »

Romney while he has come out with some bloomers has a record of being a moderate Republican. I'd rate him ahead of Bush tbh.

That was before his moderate liberal phase and after his extreme republican phase, wasn't it.
Wait i mean after his extreme liberal phase and before his centrist phase...
No, wait...

mikemac1

Well according to the Redskin rule he has

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

Briefly stated, there is a high correlation between the outcome of the last Washington Redskins home football game prior to the U.S. Presidential Election and the outcome of the election:

when the Redskins win, the party which won the popular vote in the previous election wins the electoral vote for the White House;

when the Redskins lose, the non-incumbent party wins.

Redskins lost to the Panthers today

Romney wins!

Nonsense you say?
The rule has been correct 18 times and incorrect just once since 1940

Bobeagleburger

For a country of 1/4 of a billion people to have just two parties is ridiculous.