Obama Climbs Ten in the RCP Map Average

[NCRAVEN]

Then why is Mitt consistently getting Tue majority of the Independant vote?

Make no mistake, voting 3rd party is voting for Obama.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

:word

Might as well just not vote.

[AirFlacco]

Voting 3rd party is how Clinton got in. All the conservatives voted for Perot or many of them did.

They punished Bush for raising taxes.


Well, why was that wrong but Ok for Reagan to raise taxes 13 times?

[Ravenous1]

:word

Might as well just not vote.

Yup with that attitude all we will ever have are these two loser parties leading us into oblivion .... time for a change

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[StingerNLG]

Yup with that attitude all we will ever have are these two loser parties leading us into oblivion .... time for a change

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

When you can show me how a third party has done something other than simply take votes away from candidate and hand the election to his opponent, then maybe ill listen. Until then, voting 3rd party will insure Obama's re-election, and this is come hard fact.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[wickedsolo]

When you can show me how a third party has done something other than simply take votes away from candidate and hand the election to his opponent, then maybe ill listen. Until then, voting 3rd party will insure Obama's re-election, and this is come hard fact.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Unfortunately Stinger, this is one of the biggest reasons why a 3rd party will never make an impact. This type of thought process that you're showing here is case and point of how the gubberment has Americans by the balls with this 2-party system. Take a handful of issues, toss it out on the table, and then categorize them into 2 sections. Continuously dumb everything down for the 'Mericans who are too lazy and too apathetic to really go out and do their own research and vote for a CANDIDATE that is in alignment with their social, economic, and governmental view points. The 2 party system is antiquated and ineffective. More often than not the President (good or bad) can't get much at all accomplished in 4 years because the Reps and the Dems refuse to work with each other on most things. Bills (good bills that could do some good) sit on the House or Senate floor for months and even years with no movement because it's one big dick-measuring contest in the House and Senate. There have been more filibusters in the past 5-6 years than there were in the previous THIRTY years. Hello! Is anyone paying attention here???????

Fiscally conservative? Republican.
Pro Military? Republican.
Overly Religious? Republican.
Pro-Life? Republican.
NRA member? Republican.
Big Business? Republican.
Pro-choice? Democrat.
Defense cuts? Democrat.
Social programs? Democrat.
Gun control? Democrat.
Pro-environment? Democrat.

Etc, etc, etc.

It's a shame because some of the 3rd party candidates who didn't win the Republican or Democratic nomination are more qualified and would be better for this country rather than the same old trolls that the DNC and GOP trot out to the podium each year. I mean, did you pay attention to who the GOP put out this year?

Michelle Bachman? She's bat-shit crazy and a liar to top it all off.
Rick Perry? He's practically the same person as "W" without the pedigree and is way more of a religious nut job.
Herman Cain? Jesus, he is a walking sexual harassment case. I guess the Republicans wanted their own "Clinton/Lewinsky" situation in the White House?
Rick Santorum? The dude wears sweater vests like they're going out of style. Oh, and he wasn't even liked by his own constituents in Pennsylvania...yet the GOP thought he had a shot as President? Give me a break. This guy is a clown and should be nowhere near public policy.
Mitt Romney? Well...he's the richest. So I guess that's good...right? He's a terrible speaker, he says dumb shit all of the damn time, and he's got an absurd amount of fiscal skeletons in the closet. The dude is pretty shady in a lot of ways.

Ron Paul was the only guy who had anything intelligent to say during the GOP nomination run, but he's closing in on 100 years old and in some ways is far too socially radical for mainstream *coughmediacough* American citizens. Plus, he's for scaling back the Federal Gubberment and they can't have that now can they?

Dems did the same thing in 08 and 04. John Kerry? Please. What a joke.

The American Presidency has evolved into a big effin' joke. No wonder the rest of the world hates us and is constantly trying to take us down a peg or two.

Finally, if Ravenous 1 wants to "throw his vote away" and vote for a 3rd party candidate that is HIS RIGHT and who are you to shit on him or tell him differently for wanting to do that? If that's how he feels, then so be it.

[wickedsolo]

Voting 3rd party is how Clinton got in. All the conservatives voted for Perot or many of them did.

They punished Bush for raising taxes.


Well, why was that wrong but Ok for Reagan to raise taxes 13 times?

Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in a long time.

Oh, and Reagan was a movie star. :D Duh...

[NCRAVEN]

Unfortunately Stinger, this is one of the biggest reasons why a 3rd party will never make an impact. This type of thought process that you're showing here is case and point of how the gubberment has Americans by the balls with this 2-party system. Take a handful of issues, toss it out on the table, and then categorize them into 2 sections. Continuously dumb everything down for the 'Mericans who are too lazy and too apathetic to really go out and do their own research and vote for a CANDIDATE that is in alignment with their social, economic, and governmental view points. The 2 party system is antiquated and ineffective. More often than not the President (good or bad) can't get much at all accomplished in 4 years because the Reps and the Dems refuse to work with each other on most things. Bills (good bills that could do some good) sit on the House or Senate floor for months and even years with no movement because it's one big dick-measuring contest in the House and Senate. There have been more filibusters in the past 5-6 years than there were in the previous THIRTY years. Hello! Is anyone paying attention here???????

Fiscally conservative? Republican.
Pro Military? Republican.
Overly Religious? Republican.
Pro-Life? Republican.
NRA member? Republican.
Big Business? Republican.
Pro-choice? Democrat.
Defense cuts? Democrat.
Social programs? Democrat.
Gun control? Democrat.
Pro-environment? Democrat.

Etc, etc, etc.

Agreed. All good points.

It's a shame because some of the 3rd party candidates who didn't win the Republican or Democratic nomination are more qualified and would be better for this country rather than the same old trolls that the DNC and GOP trot out to the podium each year. I mean, did you pay attention to who the GOP put out this year?

Michelle Bachman? She's bat-shit crazy and a liar to top it all off.
Rick Perry? He's practically the same person as "W" without the pedigree and is way more of a religious nut job.
Herman Cain? Jesus, he is a walking sexual harassment case. I guess the Republicans wanted their own "Clinton/Lewinsky" situation in the White House?
Rick Santorum? The dude wears sweater vests like they're going out of style. Oh, and he wasn't even liked by his own constituents in Pennsylvania...yet the GOP thought he had a shot as President? Give me a break. This guy is a clown and should be nowhere near public policy.
Mitt Romney? Well...he's the richest. So I guess that's good...right? He's a terrible speaker, he says dumb shit all of the damn time, and he's got an absurd amount of fiscal skeletons in the closet. The dude is pretty shady in a lot of ways.

Couple of things here. Socially Bachman is bat shit crazy, when it comes to other matters she is actually okay.
Perry I could take or leave.
The sexual harassment crap about Herman Cain, notice how that all stopped once he dropped out? And I don't mean JUST by the media even the women who claimed it went away, it was a bunch of BS.
Santorum, wasn't wanted by the GOP, he was wanted by the family value social conservative crowd, the inside the beltway GOP was totally against him.

I know you're not a fan of Romney, and while I don't think he is a great speaker he's not a terrible one... he's just a tad stiff. But that can't be a automatic disqualifier. What dumb shit has Mitt said?

I am not a huge Mitt fan, but he has grown on me the more I've learned/researched, plus he's the only guy that can put an end to absolutely one of the worst Presidents EVER.

The American Presidency has evolved into a big effin' joke. No wonder the rest of the world hates us and is constantly trying to take us down a peg or two.

Agreed, I blame the media. But I don' think that's why the "rest of the world" hates us.

Finally, if Ravenous 1 wants to "throw his vote away" and vote for a 3rd party candidate that is HIS RIGHT and who are you to shit on him or tell him differently for wanting to do that? If that's how he feels, then so be it.

IMO, Sting wasn't shitting on him, he was simply stating a fact, voting 3rd party is basically the same as writing in for Dog the Bounty Hunter.

I would like to see a 3rd or even 4th party or no party's, but this year isn't the year to do it.

I am not being over dramatic or hyperbolic here, Barack Obama is arguably one of the worst President's ever (if you'd like to get into why that's fine) and like it or not, the only guy that we have to vote for to take his spot is Mitt Romney, voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate is voting for a continuation of a President who has said he doesn't like the constitution and has several times gone around it, dude has got to go.

[wickedsolo]

Couple of things here. Socially Bachman is bat shit crazy, when it comes to other matters she is actually okay.
Perry I could take or leave.
The sexual harassment crap about Herman Cain, notice how that all stopped once he dropped out? And I don't mean JUST by the media even the women who claimed it went away, it was a bunch of BS.
Santorum, wasn't wanted by the GOP, he was wanted by the family value social conservative crowd, the inside the beltway GOP was totally against him.

It's just a shame to me that these are the only knuckleheads that the GOP can scrounge up. There are some decent options out there, but the Republican Party (and the Democratic Party for that matter) have completely lost their way and what they are supposed to stand for. Furthermore, the Presidency has been allowed to become a bidding process and the person with the biggest bank accounts tend to have the upper hand. It's corrupt and out of touch.

I know you're not a fan of Romney, and while I don't think he is a great speaker he's not a terrible one... he's just a tad stiff. But that can't be a automatic disqualifier. What dumb shit has Mitt said?

I am not a huge Mitt fan, but he has grown on me the more I've learned/researched, plus he's the only guy that can put an end to absolutely one of the worst Presidents EVER.

The flip-flopping, the uncertainty in his campaign message(s)...it's not that I dislike him (I like him better than Obama)...I just see the same old same old. It's the same tired message from the same tired candidates claiming to represent the same tired "party". The reality is neither party really have a firm grasp on what Americans really want and really need. It's all about them and their egos.

Agreed, I blame the media. But I don' think that's why the "rest of the world" hates us.

It's not the main reason, but it certainly is a reason and adds to the already disrespectful perspective of the US.

IMO, Sting wasn't shitting on him, he was simply stating a fact, voting 3rd party is basically the same as writing in for Dog the Bounty Hunter.

I would like to see a 3rd or even 4th party or no party's, but this year isn't the year to do it.

I am not being over dramatic or hyperbolic here, Barack Obama is arguably one of the worst President's ever (if you'd like to get into why that's fine) and like it or not, the only guy that we have to vote for to take his spot is Mitt Romney, voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate is voting for a continuation of a President who has said he doesn't like the constitution and has several times gone around it, dude has got to go.

Ravenous1 said he knew that voting 3rd party would essentially be throwing his vote away, but that's not the point. Maybe I took it the wrong way, but Stinger's comments made it seem like he was chastising Ravenous1 for even considering not voting for one of the Big 2. IMO, Stinger's comments are exactly what is wrong with this whole process. Americans can't really vote for who they want. They have to pick the lesser of two evils.

[NCRAVEN]

It's just a shame to me that these are the only knuckleheads that the GOP can scrounge up. There are some decent options out there, but the Republican Party (and the Democratic Party for that matter) have completely lost their way and what they are supposed to stand for. Furthermore, the Presidency has been allowed to become a bidding process and the person with the biggest bank accounts tend to have the upper hand. It's corrupt and out of touch.

I think the real reason this was the best we could get, was for two reasons. A year to two ago, no one thought BHO was beatable.

Second and even more is everyone knew what would happen to them if they went up against a candidate the media bought into so heavily (with no vetting).

Just this year we've had the war on women, war on dogs, Romney is a racist, a bully, a wimp, an insensitive asshole, a bigot, a homophobe. No one wants the job anymore and it's why we get what we get nowadays, which is why I blame the media.

The flip-flopping, the uncertainty in his campaign message(s)...it's not that I dislike him (I like him better than Obama)...I just see the same old same old. It's the same tired message from the same tired candidates claiming to represent the same tired "party". The reality is neither party really have a firm grasp on what Americans really want and really need. It's all about them and their egos.

I think overall his campaign has actually been pretty good, some staffers here and there have said a few wrong things, they botched the healthcare ruling (for now). But the same tired message criticism (while it's true) I don't get, the message is the same because it's what works and it's what BHO is against.

Free Market
Economic Freedom
Low taxes
Individual Freedom
Strong Military

Ravenous1 said he knew that voting 3rd party would essentially be throwing his vote away, but that's not the point. Maybe I took it the wrong way, but Stinger's comments made it seem like he was chastising Ravenous1 for even considering not voting for one of the Big 2. IMO, Stinger's comments are exactly what is wrong with this whole process. Americans can't really vote for who they want. They have to pick the lesser of two evils.

I get what you're saying and don't disagree. I think what Sting is saying or at least what I take away from it, is this isn't the year to throw away your vote.

I mean just look at what's going on right now, less than 100 days out from the election we can't even get the President to try to bring everyone together and try to get shit done, he's going with the divide and conquer technique.

[PeterB58]

But the same tired message criticism (while it's true) I don't get, the message is the same because it's what works and it's what BHO is against.

Free Market
Economic Freedom
Low taxes
Individual Freedom
Strong Military

Problem #1: I am unaware of anything in regards to specific positions that Romney has on any of these issues.

Problem #2: Even if he does have specific positions, I don't believe him for one second that he would hold true to them.

Neither has earned my vote.

[NCRAVEN]

Problem #1: I am unaware of anything in regards to specific positions that Romney has on any of these issues.

Problem #2: Even if he does have specific positions, I don't believe him for one second that he would hold true to them.

Neither has earned my vote.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

If you don't believe him, not much I can do for you there. But I would say a man who built a private equity firm believes in the free market and economic freedom at the very least.

[PeterB58]

http://www.mittromney.com/issues

Thanks for making my point.

So if I go to that website and find on a banner on every single webpage the claim (paraphrasing): "We have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to not take in more than we spend." (emphasis theirs) And then go to the "Spending" page, I find out that his plans listed are (I assume in priority order):
> Repeal Obamacare...which hasn't spent a dime, yet. Isn't this like the false cuts in projected spending growth of which the Republicans are always critical of Democrats proposing?
> Privatize Amtrak (saving $1.6 billion)....REALLY!!! That is #2 of how to get to a smaller government?
> And it gets worse, #3 is cutting the NEA funding of $600 million...fidling while Rome burns.

So even if I take him at face value, we will still be spending (trillions) more than we take in. Does he have more serious proposals for reducing the amount of spending down to the level that matches revenues. And if so, what are they? More troubling (for you), why are they not listed? So much for "moral responsibilities".

How about, eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, HHS, etc. How about ending the "War on Drugs" (declare "victory" and move on)? How about ending Ethanol subsidies? How about ending the home mortgage deduction? How about restricting Social Security to those who really need it (via a needs test) and let the wealthy retirees take care of themselves? How about taking a realistic assessment of a national defense strategy that has US forces in over 100 countries; do we really need 1000s of troops each in Spain, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iceland, etc. etc. (Romney actually advocates spending more on defense...so much for that moral argument).

Or if you want future cuts along the lines of "ending Obamacare", how about pledging that the next time a Wall Street firm or fortune 500 company is in danger of failing, he'll let it fail? As opposed to (like Bush) letting his Republican Treasury secretary bail out his Wall Street cronies, or (like Obama), letting his Democrat Treasury secretary bail out the autoworkers' union. (don't hold your breath on that one)

When you bring "moral responsibility" into the argument, you could actually argue that Obama's higher taxes is actually the higher moral position, if you will; at least by raising taxes today we are shifting more of the tax burden of today's spending onto today's wage earners (and voters), and not their children's or grandchildren's generation, who of course don't have a single vote in how their future earnings are already being claimed by folks who will be long gone when the bill comes due.

Let me know when a serious candidate discussing serious solutions for serious issues gets nominated by either major party.