You make some good points but I disagree with your outcomes Romney has no chance in Ca imbama has no chance in Texas Obama takes new mexico imo Close but Obama takes Colorado imo.latest polls has Obama up by 2 over Romney .The Hispanic vote is just what he needs and he won that state by 9 in 2008 Nevada is all Obama imo I think Romney takes Arizona I think the Mormon issue hurts Romney more then it helps,especially when the super pacs starts attacking it as non christian,a cult,the magic underwear,multiple wives etc 18 % of Republicans ,19 % of independents wont vote for a Mormon in 2012 PRINCETON, NJ -- Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967. The question is mainly relevant to the Republican and independent vote in 2012, given that the current Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, and that another Mormon, former Utah Gov. and former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, may enter the race for the GOP nomination as early as next week. The new Gallup poll, conducted June 9-12, finds nearly 20% of Republicans and independents saying they would not support a Mormon for president. That is slightly lower than the 27% of Democrats saying the same. The largest differences in opposition to voting for a Mormon for president are by educational level, with adults who have not attended college more resistant than those with some college experience or college graduates. This educational pattern is seen in attitudes about voting for someone from almost all of the specific religious or demographic groups tested in the poll. There are no significant differences on this question by gender, age, region of the country, or religious preference. Additionally, the views of Americans who attend their place of worship weekly are no different from those of less frequent attenders or non-attenders. Opposition to Mormon President Among the Most Common Voting Bias At 22%, Americans' resistance to electing a Mormon president, even one nominated by their own party, is exceeded only by their opposition to electing someone who is either gay or lesbian (32%) or an atheist (49%). By contrast, less than half as many, 10%, say they would not vote for a Hispanic, and fewer than 10% would not vote for a nominee who is Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, female, or black.
hmmmm... I see your point, but imo those making that argument are missing the entire point of capitalism and investment. The point that I'm about to make is why his Bain history is so easily defended. It's not just about how many jobs were created in the companies Bain was involved in. Their business model was to try to save companies that would likely fail without them, not because the product wasn't viable, but because the business was poorly run. The point is that without companies like Bain, almost 100% of these companies would either fail or downsize dramatically. So if we take that angle even a few companies succeeding after Bain involvement are jobs saved. During Bain involvement, only a handful filed bankruptcy, meaning it was by any measure a huge success for job preservation/creation. Then, as I've said before, the indirect jobs created all along the supply chain simply add to that success. Add to that the increases in NAV for all the retirement, pension, and endowments which creates wealth for literally thousands of regular people. So it is really easily argued that companies exactly like Bain are perfect examples of how effective and positive this form of capitalism is.
Just a comment, not patronizing in any sense whatsoever. I would like to congratulate the posters on this thread for putting up good, solid discussion points. Nice to see the intellect outweigh the attitude once in a while. Of course we all disagree on much of this, but so what? Kudos to all of you. For whatever that's worth, thanks. I learned a lot. c
+ 1 i want to thank Epic for a respectful good debate . i'll check you guys later my tablets battery is dead and its a pain in the ass typing on my phone
Sure, I was focusing only on areas where mormon populations are heavy and there is much less anti-mormon bias there. Even though many of the attacks you cite are basic political propoganda and scare tactics, much like Obama's radical pastor, there is absolutely a large anti-mormon bias. But a really large portion of those saying they wouldn't vote for a mormon are in the bible belt, which Obama would have a really hard time winning. You might be right about Colorado, I would bet money on Nevada for Romney. In either case the point remains that the Hispanic vote is not the deciding factor. I actually think it will be the female vote, and Romney will get destroyed if Hillary replaces Biden.
I'm not sure that I can say that I have a preferred outcome for this election yet. I don't think that most issues are quite as critical as other people think they are. And the failures of congress right now are much more egregious to me than those of the president. I simply don't believe that Obama or Romney have anything more than a minor ability to make things better. The market will simply follow a normal recovery cycle, regardless of the president. There are positive and negative externalities to every policy change.
+1, yep. Can't give blame when you cannot give credit. Many talk about the 'record' of Obama. Which record? Without hyperbole? Maybe not credit for OBL, but also not blame for much of the deficit. Blame for recess appointees, but not credit for doing only a fraction of his predecessors. And, I hope they don't start with that socialism crap. I did a little research today, and the real socialists don't want anything to do with Obama's policies. c
I would exclude AK47 from this. His reliance on polls to support his argument is intellectually shallow. The only polls I would allow are from Intrade where there is money on the line.
Now I'm conflicted a bit. I advocated for posters to bet or at least preditct their choices, much like INtrade. But I have to say that posting real data does tend to show facts vs. bias. I have no problem with facts, but I do like to see personal rhetoric to support the points being discussed. c
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist Jerry Bowyer, Who needs Molotov when we've got Alinski? Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists. Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well. Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be. That's Obama's world. He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski? So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy. As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans. The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created. It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs. The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand "accountability" and a "voice" for the taxpayers? The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers' multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking. A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern--equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez's of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that's their job. It's not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers "hoarding" capital. "Hoarding" is a word we've heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we're told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace. Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They're not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression. So why don't they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there's the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this? Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal. The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet. You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society