• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney Predicted to win November election[W:172]

The economy tanked with a Democrat Congress in 2007-2008 as they were more interested in regaining the WH than doing the job for the American people.

Yes because the financial collapse was based on their actions and had nothing to do with the legislation and business practices for the past 5 years and nothing to do with the repeal of the GSA. :roll:

That is one of the most ignorant arguments this forum has ever seen,.

The Bush budget was. not passed by the Congress, you know the budget that you claim had over a trillion dollar deficit. I will put the Bush average economic results for his term against the average Obama results for his term and take Bush in a heartbeat over the incompetent in the WH right now.

So you are comparing a period of artificial growth boosted by overleveraging in all aspects of the economy to an economy coming out of a financial recession coupled with the deleveraging of the very same debt that boosted growth as the benchmark period and you want to call yourself honest?

You have got to be kidding me.

I always knew you were a waste of time, you don't believe it, I couldn't care less. The apology was made to Sheik sometime well over a year ago.

No, I have no reason to trust anything you say considering your posting history.

If you cannot link, it never happened.
 
Yes because the financial collapse was based on their actions and had nothing to do with the legislation and business practices for the past 5 years and nothing to do with the repeal of the GSA. :roll:

That is one of the most ignorant arguments this forum has ever seen,.



So you are comparing a period of artificial growth boosted by overleveraging in all aspects of the economy to an economy coming out of a financial recession coupled with the deleveraging of the very same debt that boosted growth as the benchmark period and you want to call yourself honest?

You have got to be kidding me.



No, I have no reason to trust anything you say considering your posting history.

If you cannot link, it never happened.

Although I could tell you what to do with your post and opinions it would result in an infraction.Bye
 
Although I could tell you what to do with your post and opinions it would result in an infraction.Bye

I thought you had me on ignore?

Go figure.

Anyways, it's incredibly dishonest to compare a period that was consuming far more then it could produce to a period that is paying for the excesses of that time period.

Of course the Bush years prior to the collapse will look better. People were saving at a -1.7% rate. With that much consumer spending times were relatively good. Couple that with virtually unlimited government spending on the military, Bush's medicare D which was horribly overpriced and record low interest rates and you're going to see growth in virtually every sector. That however, cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Eventually the bill for economic excess will be paid. Which we are doing now. You cannot HONESTLY or REASONABLY say that because the slow growth in a period that is paying for the excess of the prior period is proof that leadership has failed.

This again shows me that you really have no grasp of economics and your posts are nothing more then partisan hitjobs, especially how you deliberately ignore how the GSA, stupid private banking practices, over leveraging and other aspects all played a role, all of which occurred PRIOR to 2007. Did the Democrats make AIG issues CDS that were far in excess of their assets? Nope, but you seem to have no problem arguing that the damage they caused was the Democrat's fault.
 
Love your obsession with me, but I have been married for 40 years. I have taken responsibility for my predictions, when will liberals take responsibility for their vote for the incompetent in the WH now and acknowledge that his economic results were a disaster?

The majority of Americand got it right. They also believe correctly that it is the republicans who hold the responsibility for the economy.

What's beautiful is that the extremists such as yourself don't listen. Meanwhile you lost yet another election.

Go figure...
 
you dont lie very well, everyone reading your posts know your pissed....a question though, when texas turns blue, and it will, probably in the next 3 or 4 presidential elections, where will you move to? as for ohio, we are doing fine, thanks...economy gaining steam, adding jobs...good place to be.

There's always Pakistan. I understand from reading news articles that the only foreign country that supported Romney was Pakistan.

Of course there's always Oklahoma.
 
oh boy!!! another blog!!!! that proves absolutely nothing!!!! step back from the ledge con, the country will be just fine.

Why is it when the Far Right wants proof of how right they are, they always cite another FAR RIGHT blogger?
 
You think your sarcasm isn't noticed here? Obama has sent more jobs to China that Romney ever did, ask GM, GE, Chrylser? Your comments are out of ignorance.

Yeah, like closing that Jeep plant in Ohio....oh, wait a minute......never mind.
 
Yeah, like closing that Jeep plant in Ohio....oh, wait a minute......never mind.

Because restarting production in China is actually taking away jobs from Ohio. Let's ignore the fact that it makes little economic sense or profit to keep shipping Jeeps from Ohio to China, especially when you have demand for America Jeeps in America that actually generates profit.

My time here has taught me the loudest people are often the least grounded in facts.
 
Because restarting production in China is actually taking away jobs from Ohio. Let's ignore the fact that it makes little economic sense or profit to keep shipping Jeeps from Ohio to China, especially when you have demand for America Jeeps in America that actually generates profit.

My time here has taught me the loudest people are often the least grounded in facts.

Then some make up facts to match the agenda that they happen to be pushing at that time.
 
I thought you had me on ignore?

Go figure.

Anyways, it's incredibly dishonest to compare a period that was consuming far more then it could produce to a period that is paying for the excesses of that time period.

Of course the Bush years prior to the collapse will look better. People were saving at a -1.7% rate. With that much consumer spending times were relatively good. Couple that with virtually unlimited government spending on the military, Bush's medicare D which was horribly overpriced and record low interest rates and you're going to see growth in virtually every sector. That however, cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Eventually the bill for economic excess will be paid. Which we are doing now. You cannot HONESTLY or REASONABLY say that because the slow growth in a period that is paying for the excess of the prior period is proof that leadership has failed.

This again shows me that you really have no grasp of economics and your posts are nothing more then partisan hitjobs, especially how you deliberately ignore how the GSA, stupid private banking practices, over leveraging and other aspects all played a role, all of which occurred PRIOR to 2007. Did the Democrats make AIG issues CDS that were far in excess of their assets? Nope, but you seem to have no problem arguing that the damage they caused was the Democrat's fault.

Unlike you, I DO have Conservative on ignore and only read his commentary whenever he is quoted by another poster (or if I enter a thread w/o first loggin in). In one respect, he's no different than any other poster here in that he tends to use data or quote sources that support his argument. The problem is his data is usually skewed, his sources clearly partisan and his arguments don't always measure up to today's reality. In short, he's all about partisan rhetoric and talking points, and not about the facts or absolute truth. Oh, there are sprinkles of the truth here or there, but when you start digging alittle deeper you find that his commentary is mostly :spin:.

Case and point, he loves to speak of times when Democrats controlled Congress and that time is usually 2007-2010 or somewhere there about. But he conveniently omits those times when Republicans held the majority. Even I have said to him time and time again that it's been the economic policies of Republicans from 1980 onward that helped place this country on its current debt and deficit path. For the last 32 years, we have been on a fast track to being a debtor nation and the bill has grown higher and higher with each subsequent presidency/Congress. Even former President Clinton stated his regret for signing the Financial Services Moderization Act of 1995 into law because he became accutely aware that it torn down the walls of Glass–Steagall that prevented investment companies, commercial banks and insurance companies from participating jointly in such financial services. But folks ignore this one fact, yet champion deregulation without wholely considering how deregulation in this instance has hurt our national economy, not helped it.

I said it at the height of the financial meltdown that began in 2007 and hit its zenith in the Fall of 2008 that "Corporate America could not fix itself," and I stand by that statement because the evidence is overwhelming in this regard. But folks like Conservative, instead of accepting facts they bend and twist them to suit their purpose which in this case is only to show that a Democrat Congress or a Democrat President and "their policies" are the sole blame for where we are now as a nation. I say BULL! Both parties are to blame, but it's hardly President Obama's policies that are bringing this country down. To put it in perspective, we could've been well on our way into a strong recovery if Republicans hadn't been so obstructionist. They've tried every dirty trick in the book to ensure that President Obama was a 1-term president, but their efforts failed. And now, they're stuck walking this political tight rope between attempting to show a united front within their party versus trying to show they are a more tolerate party of the People.

We'll see how things go beyond the lame duck session assuming both sides can find common ground on taxes, the debt and deficit. It's unfortunate that it took Republicans to lose their latest bid for the WH to accept one reality - that taking their economic ball and running with it and all but insisting that things go their way or no way at all was no way to heal a nation. He's hoping they learned their lesson and realize that compromise doesn't have to be a dirty word.
 
The Universary of Colorado has been accurate in predicting all Presidential elections the past 32 years and this time predicts Romney will win and it is do mostly to the economic conditions in this country today which show trillion dollar deficits for each of Obama's four years, 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans, and 1.5% GDP Growth which is a decline for the third year in a row.

University of Colorado analysis predicts Romney win in presidential race - Arlington Conservative | Examiner.com

Has President-Elect Romney announced any cabinet appointments yet? The Mainstream Media, as usual, has said nothing about it.
 
Unlike you, I DO have Conservative on ignore and only read his commentary whenever he is quoted by another poster (or if I enter a thread w/o first loggin in). In one respect, he's no different than any other poster here in that he tends to use data or quote sources that support his argument. The problem is his data is usually skewed, his sources clearly partisan and his arguments don't always measure up to today's reality. In short, he's all about partisan rhetoric and talking points, and not about the facts or absolute truth. Oh, there are sprinkles of the truth here or there, but when you start digging alittle deeper you find that his commentary is mostly :spin:

After his whole blow up on regression, BLS cumulative data, not understanding real/nominal/chain, I don't take anything he says seriously.
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

What you fail to recognize is that the Universary of Colorado Analysis has been right ever Presidential election for the last 32 years. Now not sure what polls you are looking at but Gallup and Rasmussen has Romney ahead in the popular vote and all the swing states are within the margin of error with normally all undecideds going for the challenger especially this late in the game.

You really need to get out more and actually do some research to find out how bad things really are. Notice the lack of enthusiasm at college campuses? How about the high unemployment rate for college graduates? How about 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans, and trillion dollar deficits for four years in a row?

I know this is hard for you to understand but the sources you read have been lying to you. What is it about Obama that causes people like you to ignore actual results and to continue to support this empty suit? Maybe had he spent more time learning the job rather than enjoying the perks of the jobs the results would be better. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that this analysis is wrong this year and it won't be close. The economic numbers don't warrant a close election and people always vote their pocketbooks

Well, there's always a first time for screwing up, and the screw up this year was a dandy. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

Well, there's always a first time for screwing up, and the screw up this year was a dandy. :mrgreen:

Well your man won.
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

So has Romney won yet?
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

So has Romney won yet?

Just waiting on those hanging chad recounts in FL.......
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

Well your man won.

Actually, it is your man who won. Yes, I am accusing you of being the secret Obama supporter.
 
Re: Romney Predicted to win November election

Actually, it is your man who won. Yes, I am accusing you of being the secret Obama supporter.

A POE in disguise?:shock:
 
The price of leadership, you own it. Wonder when Obama will start blaming himself for the mess he inherited his second term?

Enjoy it, all you Democrats: YOU OWN IT.

Wow, nice list of Republican stereo-typical talking points of the ills of democrats. Could the Granite Kook be any less imaginative? This did bring back some classics that we have not heard in awhile, including everyone's favorite " .... if you elect Obama we will be hit again...". Then, of course, the fears of run-away inflation, Sharia law, Mexicans crossing the borders, bowing to other leaders and he is going to take away our guns.... Oh, no! Oh, my!

Some things are worthy of a cross-link as we are all that much more informed for having spent the time reading it (whether we agree or not). Then there are links that we are just that much dumber for wasting our time on. You can be the judge as to which one this falls under (clue... its not the first)...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom