Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney

09-18-2012 , 03:33 PM
Romney would be better off doubling/tripling down and really push the message he's about helping Americans help themselves while Obama is about giving out government handouts.

It's a long shot... but we're out of time.
09-18-2012 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jokerthief
I think there reaches a point of saturation when it comes to television ads where the marginal utility of more money spent is basically zero. I have the feeling that Romney's Super PAC advantage won't really mean much. Obama's ground game advantage is probably enough to offset whatever edge Romney has in advertising.
I completely agree with this. Obama has many more foot soldiers and offices in the important states than Romney. I don't see how he loses at this point unless he really does something egregious.
09-18-2012 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jokerthief
I think there reaches a point of saturation when it comes to television ads where the marginal utility of more money spent is basically zero. I have the feeling that Romney's Super PAC advantage won't really mean much. Obama's ground game advantage is probably enough to offset whatever edge Romney has in advertising.
Romney is creating more negative free advertising against himself with stuff like this than he could ever come close to buying airspace for.
09-18-2012 , 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Great so from now on you will shake your head in scorn every time you hear the line about the 47% who don't pay any income tax - since you realize at least 1/3 of them have paid into some kind of system all their lives - right?
Boy, folks are not reading some things I wrote I guess. It was a stupid comment, very untrue, and he should be held to task about it. Yes many folks have paid payroll taxes and SS for their lives but have been under the slaray level by which they pay additional Federal taxes.

Everyone satiated now????
09-18-2012 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miajag
Yeah, this. It's less the substance of Romney's statements than the Obama team's ability to pump out something like that less than a day later that should convince everyone who's going to win this election, and win it by a significant margin.

The Romney campaign right now reminds me of a line I recently read from a despondent French general in 1940 after the Germans had wafflecrushed them: "Inferiority of numbers, inferiority of equipment, inferiority of methods."
Exactly
09-18-2012 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
Romney would be better off doubling/tripling down and really push the message he's about helping Americans help themselves while Obama is about giving out government handouts.

It's a long shot... but we're out of time.
In case you haven't seen Fox News today, that's pretty much exactly what's going on. Also the bolded makes no sense to me.
09-18-2012 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Romney is creating more negative free advertising against himself with stuff like this than he could ever come close to buying airspace for.
Plus, we are getting into another news cycle that focusses on something dumb Romney did. He has limited time and needs to start hitting home runs.
09-18-2012 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Romney is creating more negative free advertising against himself with stuff like this than he could ever come close to buying airspace for.
And what's more, two of Obama's best TV advertisements have now been minimal embellishment on top of Romney being Romney at his own campaign events.
09-18-2012 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
Romney would be better off doubling/tripling down and really push the message he's about helping Americans help themselves while Obama is about giving out government handouts.

It's a long shot... but we're out of time.
The amazing thing is all he has to do is sit down and say "Look, here's what I meant to say... obviously all of those 47% are not freeloaders who see themselves as victims, nor do I think they're all going to vote for Obama. What I did was make an easy, lazy, off-the-cuff mis-characterization, and I regret that. But my over-arching point is still valid - democrats are expanding programs like food stamps, and relaxing wellfare-to-work requirements in a cynical attempt to create a dependent class that will continue to vote democrat far into the future. [Etc. ...]"

But of course for that he would need to be more human than cyborg.
09-18-2012 , 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Really? Wow I never knew that. Thanks!

It was a phrase I used to state "I pay way too much in tax for what I get back in representation for those dollars." I guess like Obama, I didn't phrase it well.
So, do you even understand how Obama's use of language was incorrect? Do you know anything other than the "didn't build that" line? Are you just accepting blindly what people are saying or do you actually understand how what he did and what you did are completely different things?
09-18-2012 , 03:44 PM
Just out of curiosity, for all those who have been critical of me for thinking I am taxed too much, how many of you pay more than what your tax return calculations require you to pay? I mean, out of the goodness of your heart I am sure. Anyone?
09-18-2012 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Just out of curiosity, for all those who have been critical of me for thinking I am taxed too much, how many of you pay more than what your tax return calculations require you to pay? I mean, out of the goodness of your heart I am sure. Anyone?
Yep, knew this line was coming.
09-18-2012 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
So, do you even understand how Obama's use of language was incorrect? Do you know anything other than the "didn't build that" line? Are you just accepting blindly what people are saying or do you actually understand how what he did and what you did are completely different things?
Well, whatever I would say would be ridiculed so why don't you please explain how you think they are completely different things.
09-18-2012 , 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Yep, knew this line was coming.
Not a fair question I guess? I mean no one would stop you from paying more. Or do you take advantage of the same deductions in the tax code like all the folks you are ridiculing? That would be hypocritical no?
09-18-2012 , 03:47 PM
lol yeah looking for some hard-hitting questions from Chubby Cavuto
09-18-2012 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
for all those who have been critical of me for thinking I am taxed too much
Who are those people?
09-18-2012 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Boy, folks are not reading some things I wrote I guess. It was a stupid comment, very untrue, and he should be held to task about it. Yes many folks have paid payroll taxes and SS for their lives but have been under the slaray level by which they pay additional Federal taxes.

Everyone satiated now????
Not until your party admits their talking point about the 47% who don't pay income tax is offensive to seniors and makes zero sense.
09-18-2012 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Wow, close to the line but I guess not over? Relax. His point (at least as I read it) was Social Security pays back to people what they put in. My point was that isn't true. My mother is one example of someone for who this isn't true.
I don't know your / your mothers situation but SS payments are not only based upon the payee, if a spouse passed the surviving spouse may elect to draw the others SS or their own (from my own mothers experience when she retired and never remarried after my father passed before drawing his SS*).

IIRC this also applied to divorced spouses who never remarry and simply retire.

obg
09-18-2012 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Well, whatever I would say would be ridiculed so why don't you please explain how you think they are completely different things.
If I do that, I don't know if I'm ridiculing the right thing, ldo.
09-18-2012 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Not a fair question I guess? I mean no one would stop you from paying more. Or do you take advantage of the same deductions in the tax code like all the folks you are ridiculing? That would be hypocritical no?
09-18-2012 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Not until your party admits their talking point about the 47% who don't pay income tax is offensive to seniors and makes zero sense.
For the last time I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.
09-18-2012 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Typical response. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
09-18-2012 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
I completely agree with this. Obama has many more foot soldiers and offices in the important states than Romney. I don't see how he loses at this point unless he really does something egregious.
And remember it was Obama's ground game that won him Indiana in 08. He wasn't supposed to win that state. Obama has way more offices in NC than Romney does. He's not supposed to win NC this time but who knows?
09-18-2012 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
If I do that, I don't know if I'm ridiculing the right thing, ldo.
Haha, touche.
09-18-2012 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
Romney would be better off doubling/tripling down and really push the message he's about helping Americans help themselves while Obama is about giving out government handouts.

It's a long shot... but we're out of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
Also the bolded makes no sense to me.
kind of sounds like some kind of government welfare.

I hate all this empty rhetoric. Unless you can actually say what you're specifically going to do to 'help Americans help themselves' then you're just blowing air out of your heinie.

It would be interesting to hear how Romney would propose to help Americans help themselves without actually using the government.

      
m