The 2012 Election Thread

[liteman]

[7th Angel]

Presidential Approval Rating after 1,122 days in office

Eisenhower - 75%
Nixon - 56%
Reagan - 54%
Clinton - 53%
Carter - 52%
Bush 43 - 51%
Johnson - 47%
Obama - 45%
Truman - 39%
Bush 41 - 39%

WOW! It's hard to believe obama's approval is that high! Did they ONLY poll Chicago?

[kbohip]

WOW! It's hard to believe obama's approval is that high! Did they ONLY poll Chicago?

Really? I still can't believe he won the presidency!

[Dutchcedar]

Rand Paul as Romney's V.P. candidate.

Ya think?

[Keven]

Rand Paul as Romney's V.P. candidate.

Ya think?

I keep hearing and reading Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia as a potential Romney running mate. Not that I have any preference at this point or problem with Rand Paul.

I just LOL whenever I see these Ron Paul fanatics say they want a Ron Paul-Rand Paul 2012 ticket.

[kbohip]

I just LOL whenever I see these Ron Paul fanatics say they want a Ron Paul-Rand Paul 2012 ticket.

Lol, yeah that's nutty. Of course it was only one pres. that separated two Bushes so it's not totally off the wall I suppose.

[Invictus]

What kind of logic is that? In 1976, Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford, who lost to jimmy carter. In 1980, the guy, who lost to the guy, who lost to carter, was elected in a landslide, defeating an inept incumbent. Romney is NO Ronald Reagan, but obama IS the second coming of jimmy carter!
Do I actually think Romney has a chance??? If he's nominated, he WILL beat obama.

The logic is sound is the point is not misconstrued. Romney has no excitement behind him. And Obama is far far worse then Jimmy Carter.

You seem to be choosing the lessor of two evils based on a branch not controlled by the executive branch. Congress oversees the supreme court. Its the lack of oversight by the House our Representative in not impeaching judges that rule unconstitutionally . As well as the senates failures in confirming justices like sotomayor.

Lets imagine a scenario where the self admitted progressive Romney cant get a conservative judge confirmed by the Democratic controlled senate. Who is to say he doesn't compromise and send a "moderate" judge. One who could vote either way on issues.

But in the end voting for Romney requires one to completely ignore the breeches on our civil liberties that will occur as well as the destruction of our economy. A pill i cant swallow. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

[Invictus]

Mitt Romney Just Spoke To An EMPTY Stadium In Detroit

Mitt Romney "unveiled" his economic plan — again — to about 1,200 members of the Detroit Economic Club this afternoon.
For a speech about taxes, that's a pretty good turnout. So good, in fact that the campaign had to find a bigger venue.
Their solution? Ford Field Stadium, the 65,000-seat football arena.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the Romney campaign spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to make the stadium look full for television cameras:
About 100 news media representatives and 50 or so TV cameras will set up behind the guests, so that it will be clear Romney is speaking to a crowd....They scrapped three earlier plans: one to have Romney stand in the end zone, speaking up to guests seated in the stands; another to have him on the sidelines near midfield, speaking to guests seated in the stadium's middle sections, and an initial plan to hold the event at the Westin Book Cadillac, which quickly became oversold.
Steve Grigorian, chief operating officer for the Economic Club, said the two earlier Ford Field plans were changed because camera angles would have made it appear there was no one in the stadium but Romney.
Their plan worked — kinda. CSPAN coverage actually did not look too bad — the audience, made up mostly of men in suits and ties, filled the screen whenever the cameras panned back.
But this is the 21st century. Reporters at the event immediately began tweeting photos that showed that Romney was, in fact, speaking to an empty stadium.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-...m-rally-2012-2



And for comparison


And at a stop today in Oklahoma

[Keven]

^

Don't be doing an Obama now, Invictus. You had to pay to go to that Romney event, it was a luncheon. Those Paul events were probably free rallies.

[7th Angel]

The logic is sound is the point is not misconstrued. Romney has no excitement behind him. And Obama is far far worse then Jimmy Carter.

You seem to be choosing the lessor of two evils based on a branch not controlled by the executive branch. Congress oversees the supreme court. Its the lack of oversight by the House our Representative in not impeaching judges that rule unconstitutionally . As well as the senates failures in confirming justices like sotomayor.

Lets imagine a scenario where the self admitted progressive Romney cant get a conservative judge confirmed by the Democratic controlled senate. Who is to say he doesn't compromise and send a "moderate" judge. One who could vote either way on issues.

But in the end voting for Romney requires one to completely ignore the breeches on our civil liberties that will occur as well as the destruction of our economy. A pill i cant swallow. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

LOL!!! "Voting for Romney requires one to completely ignore the breeches on our civil liberties that will occur as well as the destruction of our economy. A pill i cant swallow."
You, sir, don't have much choice. You can either gag trying to "swallow" a Romney pill, or gag having to "swallow" round 2 of the obama pill. As an American, you certainly have the right not to vote for "the lesser of two evils", but you WILL have to "swallow" a pill... Might as well do like me, and gag voting for the lesser of two evils.

Also, "Lets imagine a scenario where the self admitted progressive Romney cant get a conservative judge confirmed by the Democratic controlled senate. Who is to say he doesn't compromise and send a "moderate" judge. One who could vote either way on issues."

Assuming that the democrats will maintain control of the Senate is quite presumptuous. Also, with obama, you know for a FACT that the judges he will appoint will be liberal activists. There will be NO doubt which way obama's appointees will vote on issues!

[Dutchcedar]

Might as well do like me, and gag voting for the lesser of two evils.

That's what we're always left with, it seems.

[Invictus]

LOL!!! You, sir, don't have much choice. You can either gag trying to "swallow" a Romney pill, or gag having to "swallow" round 2 of the obama pill. As an American, you certainly have the right not to vote for "the lesser of two evils", but you WILL have to "swallow" a pill... Might as well do like me, and gag voting for the lesser of two evils.

Its because of voters who do as you suggest that our country is on a path of self destruction.

Assuming that the democrats will maintain control of the Senate is quite presumptuous. Also, with obama, you know for a FACT that the judges he will appoint will be liberal activists. There will be NO doubt which way obama's appointees will vote on issues!

Your seem to be missing the point. Why must one compromise when its not necessary? You can elect a man that will only appoint justices that will strictly follow the constitution while protecting your personal liberties and starting us on the path to having debt free money.

You seem to be worried about only the supreme court and that should be a concern. But not at the risk of losing the buying power of your money or the loss of your personal freedom. We need a president who stands up for the people and not special interests.

Ill never consider a vote anyone makes for something they believe in to be wasted.

[Invictus]

^

Don't be doing an Obama now, Invictus. You had to pay to go to that Romney event, it was a luncheon. Those Paul events were probably free rallies.

I read about 10 articles on the speech. Not one mentioned it being a paid event. If i missed that then i retract and offer this picture.

[kbohip]

Might as well do like me, and gag voting for the lesser of two evils.

An angel...voting for evil? Say it ain't so!

[kbohip]

That's what we're always left with, it seems.

Yep, and it's what we'll always be left with as they know people are more than happy to vote for the "lesser of two evils" instead of "throwing their votes away" on a third party candidate.