Thank you Kurai. I rest my case.
Santorum may think this is about separation between church and state, but it really seems to be about women's rights. And it's going to cost the GOP dearly.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Are women pulling away from the GOP? Let's see what we can find in some general election gender cross-tabs.
I will say there is a really obvious gender gap between Obama and every Republican nominee. Over time, it seems fairly clear that this gap is widening in per-candidate polls.Code:CNN/ORC (2/10 - 2/13) - Obama Gingrich M 50 47 F 66 31 Obama Paul M 46 52 F 58 38 Obama Romney M 44 53 F 61 36 Obama Santorum M 52 47 F 60 36 PPP (2/9 - 2/12) - Obama Gingrich M 49 42 F 55 39 Obama Paul M 44 46 F 53 36 Obama Romney M 46 43 F 53 41 Obama Santorum M 46 48 F 53 40 Pew Research (2/8 - 2/12) - Obama Romney M 45 50 F 59 38 Obama Santorum M 46 49 F 59 38 PPP (1/13 - 1/16) - Obama Gingrich M 43 49 F 36 49 Obama Paul M 41 50 F 52 34 Obama Romney M 43 49 F 53 40 Obama Santorum M 43 47 F 55 37 CNN/ORC (1/11 - 1/12) - Obama Gingrich M 49 43 F 58 40 Obama Paul M 44 49 F 56 40 Obama Romney M 45 49 F 53 45 Obama Santorum M 50 43 F 57 42
If we compare to McCain 2008 exit polls as a starting ballot, we find:
So we find a fairly dramatic divide between this result and the most recent Gingrich polling data. If the Romney/Santorum trend of fading support continues, there will be a serious demographic problem for their election potential.Code:Obama McCain M 49 48 F 56 43
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Thank you Kurai. I rest my case.
Santorum may think this is about separation between church and state, but it really seems to be about women's rights. And it's going to cost the GOP dearly.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Because it is about the separation between church and state. Now Obama has made a bid for women voters but at the risk of turning off Catholics ( a deciding group in the last few elections ) right now he is winning women according to Quinnipiac by 49/41 over Romney, but losing Catholics by a massive margin 35/56 a massive loss compared to that he won them 54/45 in 2008 over McCain.Originally Posted by Dark Sage
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, the polls that Kurai mentioned polled genders. Not religions. All religions, including Catholics, are included in those polls.
And they clearly show Obama with a big lead among women voters, sometimes with more than twice as many percentage points.
And might I add... The most recent US census revealed that women outnumber men in this country nowadays.
Now, if I were to average the pairs of genders in each of those polls, Obama would have a healthy lead against any of the four candidates.
Like I said Roy, I'll only state the facts from now on.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I know and Quinnipiac polled both, Romney loses Women by 9 ( and that is with all religions factored in ), but wins Catholics by a huge percentage ( and that is with both Genders factored in ). You honestly don't think these major polling firms wouldn't poll both do you?
Here is the problem, with gas prices rising there is a good chance that, that gap will probably be shrinking. Obama can try to placate them with reproductive policies. But it is the soccer moms who have to pay for gas when they take their kids out that will be hurting, as well as the young women just out of college and struggling to pay bills already.
As opposed to before where you only stated falsehoods?
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 23rd February 2012 at 07:22 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Ah yes, the rising gas prices. People can't believe that the price of gas is getting so high.
The only thing more surprising than the high price of gas is the fact that it's so surprising!
My dad (who is a very smart man) couldn't believe it when gas went above one dollar a gallon. And he was surprised again when it went above two dollars a gallon. Nowadays, when gas prices spike, he can believe it.
Republican Congressman Allen West complained today that it cost him $70 dollars to fill up his Hummer, and blamed Mr. Obama for it. Well excuse me, Mr. West, but when you drive a car that's known for being a gas guzzler, you should be prepared to pay through the nose to fill it up!
The cold fact is, the President has absolutely nothing to do with the high cost of gas, and is being used as a scapegoat for it.
And do you know what I think will happen if gas does reach $5 a gallon? Will we stop driving cards like we've been threatening to do for the decades that the price of gas has been rising? Will we assign blame to it?
No. We'll do what we've always done. We'll all Tweet some pretty rude things and grumble a lot, but we'll still pay it.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Really? Because Senator Obama blamed President Bush and Vice President Cheney as part of the reason for high gas prices back in 2008.
Now I have no doubt we will pay it and grumble about it, and if things continue to go up, we will be grumbling about it as we go to the voting booth on election day.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
The Quinnipiac (2/14 - 2/20) poll has some pretty neat questions, but lacks proper cross-tabs.
Q55) As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health-care rule regarding religiously affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision?
Q56) Do you think it is wrong or not wrong to use artificial birth control methods, also known as contraceptives?Code:Approve Disapprove M 47 47 F 53 38 Cath 46 48
Q57) Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases? (merged)Code:Wrong Not Wrong M 14 80 F 10 83 Cath 18 75
Q58) If you agreed with a presidential candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of abortion, do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?Code:Legal Illegal M 55 40 F 54 39 Cath 44 45
We find a 6% overall differential in Catholic favorability for contraceptives over the general population. Only a 5% difference exists on the outcome of the insurance controversy, which works out in a very intriguing manner. Interestingly, Catholics are evenly split on abortion, which is a more obviously inflammatory issue, but only 23% find it to be a sufficient wedge issue to change their presidential preference, compared to 34% among all women.Code:Yes No M 70 23 F 55 34 Cath 68 23
Of course, when translated to society at large (assuming consistent age distribution), 23% of Catholics converts to 18m people, while 34% of women works out to 53m. Negative rhetoric on women's rights might serve to engage a small proportion of devout Catholics (one can point to the 5-6%, around 4m people, as a good starting point), but it still brings a much greater demographic problem in the long run. The secondary issue of electoral mechanics then becomes more important: mobilization and geographic distribution of preferences, but this can not be known at this stage.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yet it all depends on which is more energized, Catholics who see this as a attack against their church are going to be far more energized about it than your everyday woman off the street.
More importantly Catholics made up a part of the 1980s, Reagan Democrats. If the Republicans are pulling over Democratic voters because of this, then it becomes even more harmful to Democrats.
Also to note the issue isn't being argued as negative rhetoric on women's rights, but one of separation of church and state.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Here's another thing to consider. I don't think that gas prices will skyrocket just yet.
As I'm writing this, on February 23rd at 8:50 PM, it is 42 degrees outside. At noon today, it was about fifty.
We've had an unusually warm winter, and that means costs for heating has been low, and that means demand for oil heat has been low.
This warm winter has cut demand for oil back, and as a result, the price might not go up as much as people may think. IMOHO, the crisis in Iran is simply causing the oil dealers to be nervous, but in a few weeks, the nerves will wear off, and gas will be back to where it was before.
Especially once Iran caves to international pressure, which they likely will pretty soon. They talk tough about their nuclear energy plan, but they can't eat uranium.
Edit: Good point Roy, the only problem is, Romney isn't half the man Reagan was.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
You do realize February does not tend to be a high mark on gas prices, that goes for the summer, right before the election. That is when they switch over to a different fuel formula.
Furthermore if Iran was going to cave to international pressure then they would have shown some willingness to show the UN it's secret facilities last week.
Doesn't need to be, you just need a Carter as a villain.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, I said that mobilization is important. But you can see from the polling data that women find women's issues more divisive than Catholics - it is more important in their voting preferences, and it is a much larger overall group, and so small changes have larger electoral effects.
Speculative worry over gas prices is not that complicated. Here is a graph:
We can see two things:
- upcoming seasonal shifts
- a gradual return to pre-crash values (then shifted upwards by commodity speculation), and coordinate retail price increases
Why the gradual rise? Overall economic recovery, probably. Blame Obama for that, if you want? Why the rush for this commodity now? Panic over Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. You can blame Obama for foreign policy blunders (though the population is evenly divided on his successes in the field), but unless one is expecting price controls or nationalization of the oil industry, nothing can immediately alleviate this problem on the consumer level (and neither of these things will happen).
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Except as noted this is not a simple women's issue but a direct attack on the Catholic church, if this was just a argument over abortion or contraception you would be right, however you are not.
The panic over Iran and the Straight of Hormuz is largely driving the prices that is for sure, as speculation about Israel's attack heightens. However Obama's reluctance to engage in domestic energy production can be faulted for some of this, as moving sources to more stable areas such as at home, instead of relying on the Middle East would mitigate some of that fear.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Even if it were a constitutional issue, we can see from the data provided that only a small proportion find that devotion to their church (and its doctrine) supercedes their personal preferences. I see no reason to believe that incentivizing action for a larger portion of a larger group is somehow disadvantageous compared to a smaller portion of a smaller group.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Thing is both groups are largely Democratic/Independent voters, by hurting one group, especially when it is something as personal as attacking religious beliefs, you are driving your own voters away. Again I bring up the Reagan Democrats. Women who vote based on reproductive rights are largely going to vote Democratic anyway. Women who vote based on how their family is doing are going to vote based on that. However Catholics who believe their church is under attack are going to be swayed away from Obama.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, if the GOP wants to blame Obama for the high price of gas, they're also going to have to come up with a feasable solution of their own.
Pardon me for being skeptical, Mr. Gingrich, but that's the same thing that every GOP candidate says every election year. We have yet to see any results."I've developed a program for American energy so no future president will ever bow to a Saudi king again, and so every American can look forward to $2.50-a-gallon gasoline," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in the Wednesday night GOP debate in Mesa, Ariz. He calls his strategy "Drill Here, Drill Now."
The truth is, neither Obama nor any Republican candidate can do a thing about the high price of gas, and only an idiot would think that a new President would bring the price down.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So I take it Obama was being a idiot in 2008 by believing that he could bring high gas prices down?
The GOP has already come up with a fesable solution, work on bringing more domestic energy in line over here, from Keystone to drilling both things would help shift us away from having to rely on Mid East oil.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
The overarcing implication of trading baseline Democratic catholics for trade-over/mobilized women is not problematic in current polling as far as Obama's chances go. We will see, as it develops.
As far as energy policy goes, the ramped up domestic production solution is not one appropriate to a "today" problem. It's also not a real criticism: domestic oil production is already on the rise. Without government intervention or industry nationalization, how is a greater rate of expansion supposed to be incentivized?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Mind you as many energy officials have pointed out the energy expansion going on today is inspite of Obama not with his help. He has even hurt the chances of expansion with his policies. As for how expansion is supposed to bring down prices? Again I have already explained it to you, the fear from Iran and the Strait of Hormuz is based on how much oil we get from there, if we were to begin to expand our own energy production to begin to give a alternate source of oil from the chaos plagued middle east, it would help allieve that fear.
Energy: Industry leaders gathered in Houston say rising fuel output comes in spite of, not because of, the president's policies and the pain at the pump will soon be excruciating.
Energy executives and other industry players gathered for the North American Prospect Expo (NAPE) in Houston shredded administration assertions that it is opening up areas for oil and gas exploration and that its policies are responsible for increased oil and gas production on President Obama's watch.
"These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I've ever seen in my career," Bruce Vincent, president of Houston oil and natural gas producer Swift Energy, told the Houston Chronicle.
"They've done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting," he added. "The Obama administration, unfortunately, has threatened this industry at every turn."
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I did not ask how expansion is supposed to bring down prices. That should be obvious. The question is how production should be expanded beyond current efforts.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Well we can open off shore oil wells, we can open up our own domestic areas to add to production, we can work on opening new refineries ( something our country is poorly lacking ) the list goes on and on and on. Again I point you to the edited article saying how Obama has hurt not helped the oil industry.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, pairing the complaints of oil executives against the assertions of the press secretary. These parties provide reliable testimony. Data demonstrates that production is on the rise, and consumer prices are nonetheless on the rise.
Let us set aside commodity speculation. Assuming you gave free rein for oil exploration and extraction under Obama, in order to become free of price agitation through foreign policy, you would have needed to double production over three years. When the oil was relatively easy to get to, ramping up to this degree originally took from between 1950 and 1970. Failure to execute this is not so terrible - it was never a "today" solution. Perhaps you would have some slight degree of price alleviation from an increase beyond current gains - but there is no way you would be free from the flux of international conflict. It's not reasonable to blame any one policy (or even any one president) for this problem. America never bothered to recover its production losses over the last 40 years.
I suppose as an aside I should mention that the current panic buying is from Europe and Asia (who actually get Iranian oil).
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Again that is despite Obama's policies as production is rising on privately owned land, if it was owned by the Government production wouldn't be rising on that land. Furthermore there is alot more we can produce and even help in terms of the Keystone pipeline to help raise production even more to offset fears.
Edit: Also it should be noted that oil production is declining on federal owned land.
Oil and natural gas production on federal lands has fallen by over 40 percent since 2000[2]
Since 2000, oil production on private and state lands has risen by 11 percent and natural gas production has riven by 40 percent[3]
When President Obama was elected, all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast
The Obama administration’s new five-year plan doesn’t allow oil and natural gas exploration or production on the vast majority of taxpayer-owned offshore areas
http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...federal-lands/
Oil is always a futures market, and while we already know where alot of oil already is at ( in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, you even have Cuba drilling at a angle into oil that we should be getting at ). Even pushing us toward much larger domestic production on Government land or at sea, would factor into oil futures. Just the same as allowing the Keystone Pipeline to go to the U.S. and not to China, where oil would be less likely to go onto the market and not nationalized.
Which means nothing as oil is a global commodity. And the fear over the Strait of Hormuz effects more than Iranian oil.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 23rd February 2012 at 09:08 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, it means nothing. Even though you just claimed the importance of speculative domestic gains in global commodity futures. Elaboration on the origin of the panic, rather than stating that "[it] is based on how much oil we get from there", merely demonstrates the continuity between foreign events and domestic prices.
An expansion of production is all well and good, but you are talking about something incremental. The assertion is that you would not be able to overcome your own consumption demands either way, and so you would remain necessarily linked to the global market (failing nationalization and price controls), which would mean price panics during crises. There was no reasonable way to achieve energy independence in one presidential term, and so panic/crisis will be an aspect of gasoline prices. Perhaps America could have avoided this state of affairs over the last decades.
I can alternately demonstrate through hyperbole.
Curse you, Obama! All this criticism does not address the key issue - a systemic failure to ensure domestic supply.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
And again as I point out that is all based on our dependence on getting oil from less friendly sources instead of exporting from more friendly first world countries like the U.S. and Canada.
Again either you are not grasping it or you are not reading my posts. In a future's market even beginning expanding of production will help adjust prices.
And again I point out what I said in my previous post, pay attention.
"When President Obama was elected, all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast
The Obama administration’s new five-year plan doesn’t allow oil and natural gas exploration or production on the vast majority of taxpayer-owned offshore areas"
http://www.instituteforenergyresearc...federal-lands/
Obama's policies have hurt, not helped, our domestic production.
Also it should be noted that the last oil refinery built in the U.S. was in the 1970s, just before our imports began to rise. Going to guess that has something to do with it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._shortage.html
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, you point out missed potential for incremental expansion of production. I haven't denied the merits of this.
You need more than this to be energy independent, and even more production on top of that in order to be able to exercise control over price spikes. This would take more than one term to accomplish, and has been a failure of American policy for decades.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
It no doubt has been, but even starting us on the journey to be energy independent would help the markets combat fears from the Middle East holding a sword to our neck. Yet however as I have noted not only with Obama scaling back domestic energy production, but also refusing the Keystone Pipeline and making Canada turn to China ( Where the oil more than likely wont end up on the market ) Obama has done little to make us energy independent, in fact he has made us more dependent on what goes through the Strate of Hormuz.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
The obvious problem is that Obama has not "scaled back domestic energy production", since domestic oil production has been on the rise. He has only denied the greater opportunity for expansion.
Of course, given that such expansion did not take place when "all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast", it does not make much sense to criticize such things. We are talking about locking a door that no one opens. This is not the first time that gasoline prices have risen, and yet these places were not exploited in the past. Perhaps the door should be unlocked, but this is a complaint over what was a non-issue - even if the previous state were to return, there is no indication of a consequent surge in production. It is only rhetoric.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
"When President Obama was elected, all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast
The Obama administration’s new five-year plan doesn’t allow oil and natural gas exploration or production on the vast majority of taxpayer-owned offshore areas"
I would consider that scaling back as he has taken lands that were previously available off the table.
That is a rather ignorant assertion, offshore drilling costs alot of money, especially in exploration where the likelihood of striking oil is low and cost is high. However that doesn't mean that new findings can open up previously unknown opportunities. For example the area that Cuba is now exploring near the Florida Strait is a area that supposedly holds more oil than Alaska.
And of course lets not forget that Obama's EPA has withheld permits to force Shell oil to stop drilling near Alaska.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25...illing-denial/
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, redefining terms allows you to consider "scaling back" to mean something that it does not mean.
I fail to see how an examination of the real process of exploration as it actually happened embodies ignorance. Your claim about its expense and profitability only serves to undermine the point that a wider field for production would be an immediate solution. It was not a solution in the past - it already failed to provide energy independence.
There is no reason to insist on partisan scapegoating on this issue. The sitting president is always blamed, and yet the same problems keep arising. Consider that current American oil production is simply not conducted in the interests of domestic consumer price advantage. It is unreasonable to blame Obama for a corporate failure to expand coastal production during the decades before he came to office - the profitability of the status quo had been perfectly fine without such expansion, and thus they never did so when the option was available. This appears as a crisis in a periodic fashion, as production simply can't fall into place immediately, but the time to scapegoat is always at hand.
The fundamental problem is the focus of American energy policy. Energy independence means a surplus of available production, which is not going to be immediately profitable, and thus has never been undertaken in advance. The material opportunity was wide open, but intentionally avoided, and now consumers pay the price.
It's not a partisan issue, and not one specific to any particular moment in time.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
"to reduce or make a reduction in the level of activity, extent, numbers, etc."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scale+back
By not allowing exploration he is reducing the level of activity. By using the EPA to deny permits off of Alaska, he is reducing activity. By denying the exploration of public land he is reducing the number of sites available. As a result of the 2010 moratorium and uncertainty about future permitting, 11 drilling rigs representing 14 projects have left the Gulf of Mexico since April 2010. Should I continue? All of these provide a reduction of domestic oil production through his policies. If you do not see that as representing scaling back, then it seems as if your view on what scaling back means, needs to be redefined.
You forget that there are already areas such as in Alaska's ANWR that we know contains oil that the Government forbids access to. The same goes with various "NO" zones off our coasts that have continued to be forbidden.
I have said that it was a problem before, however Obama also came into office on the tail end of extremely high gas prices, that in and of itself should be the imputes to work on making sure that we do not reach that level again. Not only has he refused to do that, but he has made it harder for oil companies, and he has hired a energy secretary that is decidedly against oil and wants higher prices. You can call it partisan scapegoating but the fact is that 2008 should have been a wake up call to progress on both our own energy and North American energy, instead we have regressed.
Yes actually it is, as not only Obama but the Democrats have held up energy exploration and the building of refineries for decades on end. Which has only driven us deeper into importing our oil.
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-7eec7d1fe167
If you wish to believe that Obama's policies have not hurt our progress to energy independents then feel free. However history nor facts are not on your side with this.
Edit: And Dark Sage, a interesting article on 15 questions the Mainstream Media would ask Obama if he were a Republican, care to elaborate?
1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been murdered with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware of Fast and Furious and if so, shouldn’t you resign?
2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost over $500 million on loans that your administration knew might never be paid off when you made them. How do you respond to citizens who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?
3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, unions gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost $14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special $45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?
4) Through dubious means you and your Democrat allies in Congress managed to force through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democrat Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower health care costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Congress has exempted themselves from the health care reform and instead has their own taxpayer-funded premium health care plan. Many large companies (that donate to Democrat political campaigns) have received special exemptions from the health care plan. Since the majority of the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?
5) When you took office, the national average for one gallon of gas was $1.89 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWAR, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon and rising and is expected to reach $5 per gallon by May of this year. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?
6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?
7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?
8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded after serving just one month in office?
9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush did, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?
10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?
11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?
12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?
13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?
14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. Many prominent economists have concluded the stimulus plan was a total failure. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?
15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?
http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/02/...-a-republican/
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 23rd February 2012 at 11:25 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
how could i have been so blind to obvious historical fact
it's all coming together
obama
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I tend to think that if Mr. Obama were a Republican, the whole "Birther" crap and the rumors that he was a Muslim and a socialist would have been dead issues before his first year in office, if they had even been brought up at all. He would have gotten the respect that someone holding his office deserves.
And by the way, that link you posted was written by a Republican and published in a Republican periodical.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yep I bet you are absolutely right, because if anything the past decade has shown that the Democratic party above all else has not engaged in idiotic theories about a President.
Hell I remember the minute the truther stuff came out, saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11 or that Bush knew about 9/11 it immediately became a dead issue, because dammit the Democratic party gives the respect to the office that it deserves.
Oh wait...
I have said it before, I used to pull this crap with Heald and I am now embarrassed by it, to attack the source as partisan and not dealing with the issue on hand, you succumb to the lowest standard of debating, you make yourself look like a fool.
By the way here are some more information about Obama's oil policy.
http://news.investors.com/article/60...rice-myths.htm
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...nergy-analysts
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, I never liked Bush, I didn't like his policies, and I would never in million years have voted for him. Having said that, I think the theories that say he was behind the 9/11 attacks or that he knew about them were even more ridiculous than the Birther stuff.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
And that we agree, I believe the Birther stuff is absolute lunacy and does a disservice to anyone that wishes to expose on it. Besides those Republicans and Independents that are for it need to step back and thing "Do you really want Joe Biden as President instead?"
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
In other news...
While the GOP candidates are campaigning in Michigan, about 250 auto worker marched to protest Romney, who as you know, wanted to let the auto companies go bankrupt. Almost all of them, when asked, say that they are supporting Obama. A lot of them say that Romney should have stayed in Massechusetts.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Romney will win the Michigan primary... But I would also guess that Michigan will turn from swing state to blue state, if it hasn't already.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I hate to double-post, but...
The President's stimulus program has been called by many to be "wasteful government spending" and "a failure".
Or is it?
http://cbo.gov/publication/43014
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
No it is still a unmitigated failure, the CBO has had a lot of trouble estimating how well or how poorly it has done because of how the Obama White House has screwed with the numbers so that even if a job received even a dime of money it was counted as created or saved.
That being said I do not know how anyone could not call it both a failure and wasteful government spending when you look at the cost, what was promised, and the piss poor results that followed.
By the way this alone should be what shows it is a unmitigated failure.
That metric alone makes gives it a F, Obama campaigned that passing the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% that if not it would rise above 8%. That was the reason that it must be passed. It failed.
Edit: Further information on how the CBO gauges how jobs are created with the Stimulus money.
Wow yeah 250 auto workers... yeah the UAW is really calling in the heavy guns now!
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 24th February 2012 at 05:28 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, people were saying that the country was at risk of slipping into a full-scale depression.
To compare an actual depression to the situation we have now, according to an online textbook I looked up, the unemployment rate in the United States averaged around 25% during the Great Depression. And it was worse in other countries, reaching 33% in some.
Now, call everything Obama has done a failure, but he has prevented such a crisis from happening.
Might I add, the DJIA has flirted with its highest close in years.
Posting Permissions
