Mitt Romney is a quack and a political peon

[UConn James]

But Rubio won't accept the VP nomination.

 

My guess is that Romney wins the nomination easily, then picks VA Governor Bob McDonnell

 

I'm a big fan of the job Susanna Martinez is doing as governor of NM.

 

I'd say she's as energizing as Sarah Palin + 120 IQ points, and puts NM & Colorado into play and locks up Florida.

 

 

Also, Juror 8... WTF'd with the cloak and dagger crap? You say you've read the opp research. Well, what's in it? Give us a taste. I seriously doubt it's fouler than Obama Soup.

 

There's an article out today about how Bain Capital bought out a company, boosted profits, broke them apart to core competencies and people were laid off. Yeah. So what? That was the '90s. That was the age of "Pretty Woman." Forcing companies to concentrate on what they do best and remove dead weight probably helped businesses become what they were by the late '90s when the American economy was booming. Having companies that make everything from paperclips to jet engines doesn't strike me as efficient.... You talkin' about this, or what? Saying you know something and then not even dropping a morsel is disingenuous. As far as I'm concerned, you've got/know nothing unless you prove it.

[Magox]

Bingo. Many independents like me no longer support Barry and will vote for any Republican challenger just so that Barry and his socialist vision for the country doesn't get further implemented (not that it will since Congress will likely be mostly Repub, meaning nothing will get done).

 

And excellent point about Barry leading the field of Repubs. Once it's down to one Repub candidate...

When I see these commentators cite these polls that show Obama leading some of these candidates attempting to make the point that despite the terrible economy obama is still winning in the polls without prefacing the fact that during primary season favorability ratings for the candidates go markedly lower and that this is typical it just shows one of two things. Which is that they are making an intellectually dishonest argument or that they simply don't have the mental capital to connect these dots.

 

I'm a big fan of the job Susanna Martinez is doing as governor of NM.

 

I'd say she's as energizing as Sarah Palin + 120 IQ points, and puts NM & Colorado into play and locks up Florida.

 

 

Also, Juror 8... WTF'd with the cloak and dagger crap? You say you've read the opp research. Well, what's in it? Give us a taste. I seriously doubt it's fouler than Obama Soup.

 

There's an article out today about how Bain Capital bought out a company, boosted profits, broke them apart to core competencies and people were laid off. Yeah. So what? That was the '90s. That was the age of "Pretty Woman." Forcing companies to concentrate on what they do best and remove dead weight probably helped businesses become what they were by the late '90s when the American economy was booming. Having companies that make everything from paperclips to jet engines doesn't strike me as efficient.... You talkin' about this, or what? Saying you know something and then not even dropping a morsel is disingenuous. As far as I'm concerned, you've got/know nothing unless you prove it.

I suspect that jurors poonana is still sore simply because I called out his knowledge of what his "in-the-know" contacts told him... Let me the first to tell you your contacts don't know ****.

[Juror#8]

And really, what independent gives a **** what hard line right winger Eric Ericsson has to say?

 

 

Where juror8 shows his willful ignorance is that the independents will decide who will win the 2012 elections, Period!

 

And considering how the right loathes Obama much like the left did with bush they will simply show up to vote against him....and considering how Obama has lost independents since the health insurance bill debacle and no matter what he has done to try to recapture them, he hasn't been able to move the needle.....even in the polls now, half of them have Romney winning, and this is during the looney primary season, when just about every candidates favor ability ratings go down.. Wait until the primaries are over, they will coalesce around Romney, and his polling numbers will consistently be anywhere from 2 -5% higher than Obamas.....and if Rubio accepts the vp nomination, "turn out the lights, party's over" Romney wins in a landslide election, recapturing nc, fl, Virginia,ind and Ohio

 

 

And what is "amateur hour" is ur citings of any polls of how romney is losing against Obama during loony primary season...the fact that he is up in just about half the polls when during primary seasons where many voters are so committed to their candidates that they can't bring themselves to voting for Romney for this hypothetical matchup speaks volumes... Once the hypothetical matchup turns into the actual matchup, those numbers will change in his favor....

 

 

Which is it? Are you so beholden to your illogical perspective that you just can't change your hardened view?

 

Or are you simply incapable of reason?

 

 

It's one of the two

 

MAGOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I missed you! You have to let a brotha know if you plan to take a sabbatical. I've had to correspond with OCin Buffalo who, while pleasant, lacks that je ne sais quoi that you exude like pheromones and bug nymphs.

 

Good thing is, like OC, you're arguing with yourself so it makes it easy for me to counter-point you:

 

1. I plainly said that polls are about as useful as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at this juncture of the political season.

 

2. Your third sentence (first full paragraph) is basically you opining and spitting declarative statements as if they're fact(s). While I've opined considerably too, the difference between you and me is that I realize that I'm offering an opinion. I actually believe that you feel that you can affect the course of political events by just saying so.

 

Magox: "Mitt will pick Rubio."

Political wind: "Make it so."

 

Magox: "When Mitt picks Rubio, he will win by ___."

Political wind: "Make it so."

 

3. "Amateur hour" was a reference to OC's frequent utilization of the straw man tactic. Please go back and read when I tossed out that gem of passive-aggressiveness.

 

4. And then you ended with a false dichotomy. You're in rare form today. OC is the king of the straw men. You're eating with Morton's fork.

 

I missed you.

 

Bingo. Many independents like me no longer support Barry and will vote for any Republican challenger just so that Barry and his socialist vision for the country doesn't get further implemented (not that it will since Congress will likely be mostly Repub, meaning nothing will get done).

 

And excellent point about Barry leading the field of Repubs. Once it's down to one Repub candidate...

 

Did you vote for Obama in 08?

Edited November 14, 2011 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

When I see these commentators cite these polls that show Obama leading some of these candidates attempting to make the point that despite the terrible economy obama is still winning in the polls without prefacing the fact that during primary season favorability ratings for the candidates go markedly lower and that this is typical it just shows one of two things. Which is that they are making an intellectually dishonest argument or that they simply don't have the mental capital to connect these dots.

 

 

I suspect that jurors poonana is still sore simply because I called out his knowledge of what his "in-the-know" contacts told him... Let me the first to tell you your contacts don't know ****.

 

1. I believe that if you look at the polls in the aggregate, Obama is leading all the candidates - most outside the margin of error. I wish Gingrich was held in higher esteem. His intellectual conservatism is actually what this country needs right now as a counter-agent.

 

2. It is somewhat humorous how you feel that poll trends are boiler-plate. It is naive, but also cute (in the tea-cup chihuahua sense of "cute").

 

3. Not sure what knowledge you called out. If I remember correctly, you hummed on my balls numbly about how the WH was worried about Mitt. I was contrarian (with respect to the entire forum as a choir in your corner) and provided my reasons for intellectual disagreement with you. Your belief was predicated on unidentified polls of independents 12 months ahead of the election. I pointed out the flaw with your reasoning. You countinued humming. I enjoyed the moment.

 

As an aside, it's funny how you either discount or accentuate polls based on whether or not you need them to augment your thesis.

 

4. I've been very direct in saying that I HAVE NO CONTACTS of consequential moment or significance. I have some good conversations with people whose job it is to be slightly ahead of pedestrian traffic with respect to WH/political strategy and logistics.

 

5. Happy Monday folks.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Juror#8

[Magox]

 

 

2. Your third sentence (first full paragraph) is basically you opining and spitting declarative statements as if they're fact(s). While I've opined considerably too, the difference between you and me is that I realize that I'm offering an opinion. I actually believe that you feel that you can affect the course of political events by just saying so.

 

Magox: "When Mitt picks Rubio, he will win by ___."

Political wind: "Make it so."

 

To the underlined part referenced above. Did YOU just say that? Why don't you reread your original post and tell me how many absolutes you wrote.

 

and if Rubio accepts the vp nomination, "turn out the lights, party's over" Romney wins in a landslide election, recapturing nc, fl, Virginia,ind and Ohio

 

I think you missed the words "if" and "accepts", but I get what you were trying to do

 

But to the broader point, Rubio will be Mitt's top pick if he wins the primaries, which I believe he will, it's just a matter of Rubio accepting.

 

In regards to your belief that the W.H isn't worried about Mitt, well....

 

 

 

 

You're just wrong

[Doc]

Did you vote for Obama in 08?

I'm ashamed to admit I did. Fool me once...

 

Now it's "ABO: Anyone But Obama." I've seen Comrade Obama's vision for the US and I want no part of it.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm ashamed to admit I did. Fool me once...

 

Now it's "ABO: Anyone But Obama." I've seen Comrade Obama's vision for the US and I want no part of it.

Unfortunately, we're in this mess because prior to "Anyone but Obama" it was "Anyone but Bush."

[Doc]

Unfortunately, we're in this mess because prior to "Anyone but Obama" it was "Anyone but Bush."

Not exactly. Bush couldn't run again and electing a 72-year old man and a dimwitted Barbie doll wasn't exactly an appealing choice.

[Juror#8]

To the underlined part referenced above. Did YOU just say that? Why don't you reread your original post and tell me how many absolutes you wrote.

 

I was opining. I've acknowledged that I was opining on myriad occassions. I did, however, mention that I felt that you believed that what you were saying was factual and not of the variety of "opinion." 52% of that is my actual belief, 41% is an effort at being sardonic, and the other 7% is still undecided.

 

 

 

I think you missed the words "if" and "accepts", but I get what you were trying to do

 

But to the broader point, Rubio will be Mitt's top pick if he wins the primaries, which I believe he will, it's just a matter of Rubio accepting.

 

In regards to your belief that the W.H isn't worried about Mitt, well....

 

 

 

 

You're just wrong

 

 

I saw the "if" and other conditioned statements. My point about your style and the mock narrative that you *were* having with "the political wind" was not based on whether or not you conditioned the statement about Rubio. I was making a broader point about our effort towards dialectic.

 

And concerning your belief that the WH is concerned about Mitt...you're still wrong. But we can agree to disagree. I'll just disagree more right than you.

[Juror#8]

I'm ashamed to admit I did. Fool me once...

 

Now it's "ABO: Anyone But Obama." I've seen Comrade Obama's vision for the US and I want no part of it.

 

He did tout universal healthcare on the campaign trail. In fact, he advocated what can be described as a single-payer system during debates and on the stump.

 

Also, during the months leading up to Nov, 2008, he was discussing to everyone who would listen a billion-dollar stimulus plan (I believe that it went from 100, to 175, to 400 billion on the trail) that centered on a tax rebate. Granted, it ballooned waaaaay beyond the original projections, but the construct was the same.

 

What makes him less palatable now, that you weren't aware of then?

[Juror#8]

I'm a big fan of the job Susanna Martinez is doing as governor of NM.

 

I'd say she's as energizing as Sarah Palin + 120 IQ points, and puts NM & Colorado into play and locks up Florida.

 

 

Also, Juror 8... WTF'd with the cloak and dagger crap? You say you've read the opp research. Well, what's in it? Give us a taste. I seriously doubt it's fouler than Obama Soup.[/b]

 

There's an article out today about how Bain Capital bought out a company, boosted profits, broke them apart to core competencies and people were laid off. Yeah. So what? That was the '90s. That was the age of "Pretty Woman." Forcing companies to concentrate on what they do best and remove dead weight probably helped businesses become what they were by the late '90s when the American economy was booming. Having companies that make everything from paperclips to jet engines doesn't strike me as efficient.... You talkin' about this, or what? Saying you know something and then not even dropping a morsel is disingenuous. As far as I'm concerned, you've got/know nothing unless you prove it.

 

 

I've heard about more than I've seen. It is characterized as "voluminous" in description. What I've seen is a lot of Bain Capital stuff; a lot of Ted Kennedy stuff; his flip-flops on his abortion stances; and no one has touched the surface of his health-care flip flops...

 

et cetera

 

Essentially, it is enough to suppress turnout....considerably. I'm not sure why people are so numb to that. They think that it's trivial. It's not.

 

Erikson put it best:

 

"Ive been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself."

 

And read some of George Will's points on Romney just for fun.

 

Good thing is is that Romney has Yvan Yost as his research guru. Yost is probably the best there is. He accumulated the opp research on Romney for McCain. Cunning move Williard.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Juror#8

[Doc]

He did tout universal healthcare on the campaign trail. In fact, he advocated what can be described as a single-payer system during debates and on the stump.

 

Also, during the months leading up to Nov, 2008, he was discussing to everyone who would listen a billion-dollar stimulus plan (I believe that it went from 100, to 175, to 400 billion on the trail) that centered on a tax rebate. Granted, it ballooned waaaaay beyond the original projections, but the construct was the same.

 

What makes him less palatable now, that you weren't aware of then?

The fact that his "universal healthcare" cut-out the major drivers of cost, imposed an unconstitutional "mandate" on people, and used budget trickery to claim that it will save money, when it will likely exceed the other 2 entitlements in short order. And he did this when he should have been focusing on how to create jobs, considering the massive unemployment. But only now, after losing the majority in congress, and with re-election hopes (and changes) fading, is it a priority.

 

What makes him as palatable, or more, in your eyes? The country is far worse off than when he took over, with NO hope (and change) in sight.

[OCinBuffalo]

So basically this thread is about:

 

1. We are supposed to listen to the people who haven't got a single political call right in over 3 years. (Not convinced yet? Wait till the end of this post)

2. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 saying strawman 50 times in a thread as a mitigation of #1

3. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 quoting polling that is clearly not good for Obama, is actually good for Obama, and that not only does it mean that Obama will easily beat Romney, it also mitigates #1.

 

"F'ing Retarded"^TM

 

Let's just end Juror#8's argument now, with something from Karl Rove, a so-called "talking head" Yes, as if Karl Rove doesn't have any political skills or experience, and is simply some guy on TV:

"the number of people who approved of Obama's ability to deal with Congress has dropped from 49 percent to 38 percent. And while just 44 percent disapproved of his dealings with Congress six months ago, that number has since risen to 58 percent."

And you know what? The first time I heard this was from Rove, but, looks like The Washington Post has picked up on this reality as well.

 

This means that Obama's political strategy for the last year has backfired. Rove said, and only an idiot misunderstands: "the single biggest asset of a President is the belief in him as a leader". Almost 60% of people now believe Obama isn't effective at the #2 job for a President. This poll shows that Obama's own stupid staff has, once again, proven they have no clue what they are doing. Yes, yes, "run against a do nothing Congress" there, Barack Truman...and in doing so, destroy your #1 asset.

 

Which, as promised, brings us back to #1 above. Why should we believe that-->specifically these people...are capable of beating Richard Simmons in an election, never mind Romney? Show me something that mitigates #1, Juror#8, or STFU and stop wasting our time.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

What is amazing here is the lack of humility that is readily apparent from the people Juror#8 says he knows. We should expect them to be humble, to acknowledge their mistakes, and redouble their efforts. What do we have instead? Talking schit about Romney? Why? I have seen this in organizations before, and what I ultimately ended up finding was: massive insecurity being cloaked in false bravado. "Of course the new product line is going to work, we said it was going to work, and therefore it will. We aren't afraid of the competitive advantages our competition already has in place, that the new line has no answers for, because we will ignore those advantages, talk schit about competitors, and kick their ass!"

 

Consider: if they weren't insecure, they'd be humble, and say something like "we are obviously concerned about every candidate the Republicans field". But, instead we get "Romney doesn't scare us, he's a political hack and we can kick his ass".

 

The funny part is: I don't even support Romney

 

But, I simply cannot abide Obama staffers/politicos saying "Obama can easily beat Romney". It's "F'ing Retarded"^TM, and that's all there is to it.

Edited November 23, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I wish Gingrich was held in higher esteem. His intellectual conservatism is actually what this country needs right now as a counter-agent.

 

2

Lol, last night he said we were going to confront Iran by making all this energy here (oil?) and then telling Europe not to buy Iranian oil (buy ours instead) and then the problem will be solved. The Iranians would be out of a source of revenue and President Newt would be able to dictate his terms. Very intellectual!

 

This was so stupid on so many levels and CNN of course took it serious and actually analyzed it in a really screwed up way while totally missing the point that it will never happen, but what ever, Newt's really a genius to some people. Wow!

[Adam]

He did tout universal healthcare on the campaign trail. In fact, he advocated what can be described as a single-payer system during debates and on the stump.

 

Also, during the months leading up to Nov, 2008, he was discussing to everyone who would listen a billion-dollar stimulus plan (I believe that it went from 100, to 175, to 400 billion on the trail) that centered on a tax rebate. Granted, it ballooned waaaaay beyond the original projections, but the construct was the same.

 

What makes him less palatable now, that you weren't aware of then?

It would take a few hundred years to bring about the change of a single-payer system, given our system of legislation. Things don't change that fast, and that's not a bad thing. Both parties and all of the American people need to start understanding that concept.

[Jim in Anchorage]

It would take a few hundred years to bring about the change of a single-payer system, given our system of legislation. Things don't change that fast, and that's not a bad thing. Both parties and all of the American people need to start understanding that concept.

Why do I always picture you tossing both hands in the air and saying "it's hopeless" after reading your posts?

[Adam]

Why do I always picture you tossing both hands in the air and saying "it's hopeless" after reading your posts?

You would be wrong if you thought that. The ability to make small steps over time is far from hopeless. Wanting massive change and wanting it now, is hopeless and impractical.

[Jim in Anchorage]

You would be wrong if you thought that. The ability to make small steps over time is far from hopeless. Wanting massive change and wanting it now, is hopeless and impractical.

A few hundred years to change a law? That is hopeless.

[Adam]

A few hundred years to change a law? That is hopeless.

Depends on how much you want to change it. Massive change takes a lot of time.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Depends on how much you want to change it. Massive change takes a lot of time.

Changing a law just means "ayes" outnumber "nyes". Just that quick. Like they do in the real world where things need to be done right now. Not in the next session, not after the elections,right now.