Shortline Bus Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share #51 Posted July 5, 2012 With just the GOP Convention rapidly closing in, Mitt Romney according to sources has "vested" into a raising star within the party that "Anti-Sarah Palin." NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte who is only 44 years old as Romney tries to attract the critical Womans vote nationwide. Looks like Sen Rubio from Fla., Gov. Christie and couple of others may have some company. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/veepstakes-mitt-ayotte-a-lot-article-1.1107973 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 5, 2012 Share #52 Posted July 5, 2012 Why are people still voting for Rangel? The guy is a criminal. If he was GOP he'd be locked up in prison now. That's how f'ed up the double standards are. What double standards? If he were GOP, he'd been running for president right now. Just check Mitt Romney and his offshore bank accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share #53 Posted July 5, 2012 What double standards? If he were GOP, he'd been running for president right now. Just check Mitt Romney and his offshore bank accounts. Rangel is sounding just like the guy he replaced Adam Clayton Powell Jr in 1970 MHV. He about 80 and has lost touch. This is why IMO i support term limits i.e 12 years for either Congress or the US Senate. Whether it's late Robert Byrd, Storm Thurman or Charles Rangel, they resprent the corruption and poster boys for term limits. FYI. MHV. Rangel was censured in Congress and lost his chairman post in a powerful cabinet post. So he no angel in this either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted July 7, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 7, 2012 The US government system was meant to have way more than 2 parties... Good ol GW warned us to steer clear of political parties and military alliances... look what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share #55 Posted July 12, 2012 Anyone seen the news today about Romney? At the NAACP annunal convention in Houston, the former Mass. Gov. was "booed" when he mentioned his plan to appeal "Obamacare." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/republican-presidential-pick-mitt-romney-hears-boo-birds-speech-naacp-article-1.1112091 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 12, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 12, 2012 I could be reading into it too much, but do you think it's possible Mitt went to the NAACP and aggravated everybody just to distance himself from the black vote? It's not like he was going to get any support from them, so his move clearly wasn't for the campaign. I think he either went there to try to look like he's "standing up" to the NAACP or to distance himself from the black vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 12, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 12, 2012 About the group: Why is it so hard for a candidate just to visit to try to gain their support? If Romney didn't meet with the NAACP, then it'll look like he doesn't care about the black vote. If it were any politician, it should be viewed the same regardless of the party. http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-romney-naacp-20120712,0,7868764.story That said, the LA Times article* pretty much summed up the main points about it being a good thing Romney visited, but otoh it seems like most of the crowd are already set in their views and the visit was for nothing. As for the ending of the tax cuts: what is this fixation with $250k? Do these politicians not know how high taxes are on the coasts especially NYC and SF? If anything $1 mil should be the bare minimum on non small business owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted July 13, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 13, 2012 About the group: Why is it so hard for a candidate just to visit to try to gain their support? If Romney didn't meet with the NAACP, then it'll look like he doesn't care about the black vote. If it were any politician, it should be viewed the same regardless of the party. It was pretty much a no-win situation for Romney. If he didn't show up, he'd be criticized for not trying to appeal to black voters and basically blowing off a large group of voters in the Bible Belt. He went and was booed by the folks attending. At least he's making the effort, even though most black voters are still going to vote for Obama this November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share #59 Posted July 13, 2012 It was pretty much a no-win situation for Romney. If he didn't show up, he'd be criticized for not trying to appeal to black voters and basically blowing off a large group of voters in the Bible Belt. He went and was booed by the folks attending. At least he's making the effort, even though most black voters are still going to vote for Obama this November. As usual great comments Lance. IMO if i was Romney he made the right call go to the NAACP meeting as the 'challenger' to an incumbent President. With that said, if i was his campaign manager I would have avoided discussing the Obamacare and instead focus on his plan to improve the economy with a special emphais to Black Voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 13, 2012 Share #60 Posted July 13, 2012 That's probably true, otoh, if Romney had not brought up Obamcare, then he'd be labeled a hypocrite for not talking about that issue to that group. At least he remains consistent on something instead of trying to appease different groups with different statements. I'm agreeing more about it being a no win situation, but at least trying to make an effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 13, 2012 Share #61 Posted July 13, 2012 I honestly doubt he would go just to "make an effort." He knows he's not gonna get support. His campaign managers aren't stupid (not too stupid at least), he wouldn't go there for nothing. There are two possible motives I see: 1) Look ballsy by "standing up" to the black vote --> gets more (racist) white supporters, the types who don't think he's Conservative enough 2) Alienate the black vote further --> proves he's not pandering, gets more white supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted July 13, 2012 Share #62 Posted July 13, 2012 I think its a case of a damned if you do, damned if you dont type of thing, if he went there and tried to be like oh obamacare isnt that bad and tried to present a different message just becasue he didnt want to get booed or he wanted the crowd there to like him, people woulda said hes pandering and flip flopping. I think its good that he kept on message there even if he did get booed since it means hes being consistent. I dont know if he was invited to speak there or not, if he was invited and he didnt go, because he thought he wasnt going to change anyones mind there about him or something, it would still look bad cuz people would say oh hes too good for us and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom909 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #63 Posted July 15, 2012 I honestly doubt he would go just to "make an effort." He knows he's not gonna get support. His campaign managers aren't stupid (not too stupid at least), he wouldn't go there for nothing. There are two possible motives I see: 1) Look ballsy by "standing up" to the black vote --> gets more (racist) white supporters, the types who don't think he's Conservative enough 2) Alienate the black vote further --> proves he's not pandering, gets more white supporters why wouldnt romney get support from the NAACP? could it be that blacks are racist against romney? joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #64 Posted July 15, 2012 No, more that the NAACP tends to have more liberal stances, the Republican party hasn't always been so kind to the black community, and that the NAACP is more likely to support the country's first black president in the same way that the Catholics supported Kennedy, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom909 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #65 Posted July 15, 2012 No, more that the NAACP tends to have more liberal stances, the Republican party hasn't always been so kind to the black community, and that the NAACP is more likely to support the country's first black president in the same way that the Catholics supported Kennedy, etc. so they support obama with his 14.4% unemployment rate in the black community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #66 Posted July 15, 2012 You mean to say that if Romney'd been in office it'd be any better? Don't buy that for a second. Clinton gave you all a surplus, then you sent Bush in and through his unsustainable tax policies and outrageous military spending he threw us into the worst recession in decades. Obama's just been cleaning up the mess for the past four years -- or trying to, if Republicans would only let him spend a little to stimulate the economy. Numbers mean absolutely nothing without context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom909 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #67 Posted July 15, 2012 You mean to say that if Romney'd been in office it'd be any better? Don't buy that for a second. Clinton gave you all a surplus, then you sent Bush in and through his unsustainable tax policies and outrageous military spending he threw us into the worst recession in decades. Obama's just been cleaning up the mess for the past four years -- or trying to, if Republicans would only let him spend a little to stimulate the economy. Numbers mean absolutely nothing without context. clinton had a surplus with the help of a republican congress who reigned in spending. bush spent too much, i agree, but the recession was caused by the community re investment act of 1977 and the repeal of the glass steagall act of 1933 in 1999. BOTH parties are at fault, so if you want to blame bush for adding 4.8 trillion in debt in 8 years, you have to be fair and blame Obama for his 5.2 trillion of debt in 3.5 years. He got his 787 billion dollar stimulus which has done nothing. his obamacare he said would cost $940 billion over 10 years, the CBO has recalculated it to $1.76 trillion over a decade. His new tax plan will raise $5.1 billion a year, that pays for 11 hours of government spending. His policies don`t Work, he likes to say he`s like Reagen which is laughable, why doesnt he do what JFK did in 1961 to get the economy rolling. JFK did what Reagen did in 1981,so why doesnt obama do it? And if the Naacp supports obama cause hes black, that sounds pretty racist to me joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share #68 Posted July 15, 2012 clinton had a surplus with the help of a republican congress who reigned in spending. bush spent too much, i agree, but the recession was caused by the community re investment act of 1977 and the repeal of the glass steagall act of 1933 in 1999. BOTH parties are at fault, so if you want to blame bush for adding 4.8 trillion in debt in 8 years, you have to be fair and blame Obama for his 5.2 trillion of debt in 3.5 years. He got his 787 billion dollar stimulus which has done nothing. his obamacare he said would cost $940 billion over 10 years, the CBO has recalculated it to $1.76 trillion over a decade. His new tax plan will raise $5.1 billion a year, that pays for 11 hours of government spending. His policies don`t Work, he likes to say he`s like Reagen which is laughable, why doesnt he do what JFK did in 1961 to get the economy rolling. JFK did what Reagen did in 1981,so why doesnt obama do it? And if the Naacp supports obama cause hes black, that sounds pretty racist to me joe People now wish our country had returned to the mid/late 1990's with the great economy then . The Monica scandal overshadowed and ended it but both Clinton and a Republican controlled congress led by Speaker Newt "compromised" in period between 1996-'99(when the Monica scandal broke) and ended their uneasy alliance. Being fair Joe is right in his statement. Both the Clinton White House and Bob Dole(then US Senate Majority Leader) and Newt's led congress deserve credit for what might be years from now from one of the best economic periods in modern US History. Something the next President either Obama or Romney and Congress needs to take a page from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted July 15, 2012 Share #69 Posted July 15, 2012 Bush Bashing has no place in this election. This has completely to do with Obama's record in office the last four years. Don't you dare blame it on the Republican-controlled congress either. Because the Democrats had control from 2006 onward, more than enough time to unravel the work of 15 years of good fiscal management. Another thing, quite harking back to the days of the Clinton Administration. It is irrelevant. We have a FAR different economy right now, both domestic and global. China is a far bigger economic power than it was in 1993, we're in a massive (global) recession, we have very high and consistent employment. Achievements from 20 years ago have no place in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 16, 2012 Share #70 Posted July 16, 2012 why wouldnt romney get support from the NAACP? could it be that blacks are racist against romney? joe I think it's more any major 'rights'/union groups are deep in the support of the Democrats. If Colin Powell was running for the GOP side, I kinda doubt they'd throw their support for him even if he was better than Obama. Anyone not affiliated with the Democrats are 'uncle toms' or 'parrots'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 16, 2012 Share #71 Posted July 16, 2012 I think it's more any major 'rights'/union groups are deep in the support of the Democrats. If Colin Powell was running for the GOP side, I kinda doubt they'd throw their support for him even if he was better than Obama. Anyone not affiliated with the Democrats are 'uncle toms' or 'parrots'. I believe Colin Powell would be treated with utmost respect by the NAACP. He'd certainly garner more support at the NAACP than at a present-day (2012) GOP convention in my opinion. Contrary to popular opinion there are members of both parties who are on the rolls of the organization. The image of the NAACP skews toward the Dems because of the perceived indifference of the GOP, especially after the "southern strategy" the Republicans started in the late sixties. The myth of monolithic support of the Democratic party or the NAACP by Blacks became a fact because of the indifference of the GOP toward certain segments of the black community back then. Today's GOP are descendants of the southern Democrats of the civil rights era in the opinion of many black folks. Some of us are old enough to remember that it was Republican votes that led to the passage of the early "civil rights" legislation of the sixties while the southern Democrats fought against it. LBJ, a master politcian, saw the split coming and spoke about it back then. The present GOP represents the southern Dems to many blacks and, to many in the GOP, present day NAACP and it's black supporters are the agitators of that era. I look at some of the Tea Party members of the GOP and see the same rhetoric and actions I saw from the southerners who were the most vocal people against those who marched back then. If there was a Republican or Democratic candidate who had the cojones to denounce the fringes of either party, including the gangbangers in the inner city, fringe Tea Partiers, and the meth heads elsewhere I'm sure the NAACP would support that person, black or white Mitt Romney could have done so if he had a pair. He could not or would not. Denounce Romneycare/Obamacare ? To many who lack healthcare ?Therefore his reception was as to be expected.C'mon. Just my opinion. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 18, 2012 Share #72 Posted July 18, 2012 So this tax thing is massive. Absolutely everybody from ever party is coming at Romney about this, and they're all right. The only reason you stash money offshore and refuse to admit your taxes is to hide something or to cheat taxes, and there's a decent chance now that Romney committed a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 18, 2012 Share #73 Posted July 18, 2012 :sigh: And this is reason for Obama to avoid speaking about his record? It's like the Swiftboat crap with John Kerry all over again... This is why politics is so vile and disgusting. How about debate the actual topics and leave out the personal crap, which have nothing to do with the issues? Ftr, I saw the birth certificate controversy as a bunch of nonsense as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share #74 Posted July 18, 2012 :sigh: And this is reason for Obama to avoid speaking about his record? It's like the Swiftboat crap with John Kerry all over again... This is why politics is so vile and disgusting. How about debate the actual topics and leave out the personal crap, which have nothing to do with the issues? Ftr, I saw the birth certificate controversy as a bunch of nonsense as well. Claps in agreement w/ Concourse . Unless the canadiate commited a major felony i.e murder/manslaughter, rape or abusing his/her kids, this other stuff is useless. Half of the politicans in DC and Governors around the country would be out of office if we found the truth on how they got rich from tax breaks to insider trading on wall street. I am not condoning it, but there a reason many Congressman in office "for life" *cough cough* Charlie Rangel leave office as Millionaries. Fixing the economy/putting Americans to work, fixing and improving "Obamacare," education, the federal budget, and to smaller degree, national security/international issues including the mideast and terrorism should be the only issues for rest of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 18, 2012 Share #75 Posted July 18, 2012 Half of the politicans in DC and Governors around the country would be out of office if we found the truth on how they got rich from tax breaks to insider trading on wall street. WTF; that doesn't make it acceptable behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.