Reason for Obama Victory is Mirrored Here

[saturneptune]

Since the first of the primary season and before, there has been an obvious rift on this board and nation wide splitting Constitutional conservatives and the establishment, liberal Republican Party. It was seen in the primaries in the choice of a Republican nominee, and quite heavily debated on this board. Personally, I have gone from despising Romney to voting for him with great regret.

The debate still goes on, and I can fully understand the sentiments. It is a total impossible situation to justify either way. Romney's belief about Christ, plus his record on abortion, gun control, and gay rights while governor of MA is horrible.

The factor that changed my mind is the disorganization and disinterest of the third parties in really winning. Another factor is the fact that this is a secular office, so it comes down to his record in MA. I look at it this way. There is a chance Romney has changed his attitude on aboriton, gay rights and gun control. There is no chance Obama will change his mind. Also, Romney could do no worse on the economy. It comes down to this is all we have.

The question is, do you think the rift on the right will win out in Obama's favor, or do you think the horrible unemployment numbers will win out in Romney's favor?

 

[carpro]

I believe there is more to it than just unacceptable unemployment numbers. There is a fundamental, and real, difference between approach to the economy.

Obama obviously has no clue what drives the economy. He has spent his entire term demonizing the very people that would have to lift us out of this prolonged recession, prolonging it more. Primarily small businessmen.

Romney will not do that.

As long as Obama is president, there will be no complete recovery. He won't let it happen. Businesses are flush with cash, but they are , in a sense, on a capital strike. Seeing the inevitability of massive tax hikes , including Obamacare and it's massive employer cost, they will simply not invest the money they already have in long term capital improvements. I wouldn't either.

If Romney will kill Obamacare and just get out of the way, this country and this economy will right itself. It will not happen with Obama as president.

BTW, I agree with you about Romney. I just arrived at your eventual destination a lot sooner than you did. I didn't want him either, but his record for running large businesses is sterling. What I didn't like was the uncertainty of his epiphanies.

Obama simply has to be fired. With his record for flouting the constitution, and lawlessness in general,...and unrestrained by having to run for another term, he is positively dangerous to the well being of this nation and could do more harm than can be undone.

Romney is worth the risk and he's the only game in town that has a chance.

 

[OldRegular]

Well I got there before either of you did. I simply hope that others will do the same. I could name perhaps half dozen men I had rather have as a candidate than Romney but we have what we have. [ I felt the same way about McCain.] Sadly a lot of Conservatives will have a pity party and stay home on election day. They could lose the election for Romney.

My opinion is that four more years under Obama will in all likelihood destroy the economy. I personally believe that is his goal.

It is also my opinion that the federal government can do little to improve the economy but they can sure do a lot to destroy the economy. Obama has demonstrated that to be true.

carpro you say:

Businesses are flush with cash, but they are , in a sense, on a capital strike. Seeing the inevitability of massive tax hikes , including Obamacare and it's massive employer cost, they will simply not invest the money they already have in long term capital improvements. I wouldn't either.

If Romney will kill Obamacare and just get out of the way, this country and this economy will right itself. It will not happen with Obama as president.

I agree with both points other than agreeing that business should not invest. Perhaps that is good though. If the economy is bad enough perhaps people will wake up.

Another point I would make. If the Republicans gain control of the Senate I hope they boor the senior Senator from Kentucky from leadership. But that is wishful thinking!

 

[billwald]

What drove the economy for the first 20 years after WW2 when the working class did a little better every year was heavy manufacturing. We have been going down hill ever since those jobs started going off shore thanks the Romney and friends.

 

[OldRegular]

What drove the economy for the first 20 years after WW2 when the working class did a little better every year was heavy manufacturing. We have been going down hill ever since those jobs started going off shore thanks the Romney and friends.

Bull bildwald. It was Clinton who signed NAFTA.

I believe that the primary reason that business is going overseas is Federal Government regulations, particularly EPA rather than either taxes or wages. However, the cost of benefits of union labor may impact that decision. Salary and benefits for government union employees is certainly bankrupting cities and states. The only reason the Federal Government is not bankrupt is they can print money and sell bonds to China.

You and some others think all business people are conservative Republicans, I would remind you that the two richest men in the country are Obama"s.Wall Street was Obama's in 2008 and may be again. A lot of business swills at the government trough, just like Obama has all his life, and they will continue to support big government.

 

[saturneptune]

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate I hope they boor the senior Senator from Kentucky from leadership. But that is wishful thinking!

I am from Kentucky, and I agree 100%. McConnell did everything he could during the primary a couple of years ago to defeat Rand Paul. He is an establishment puppet, and has no leadership ability.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Bull bildwald. It was Clinton who signed NAFTA.

Bush Sr signed NAFTA in December 1992, just before leaving office.

Clinton only signed off on the final version approved by the Senate.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Roger, I think that mey be wrong. I know Bush was involved in the intitial debates, but the agreement made in 1992 had to be ratified by the three governments, Bill Clinton was in office before the final negotiations took place.

I HATE to use WIKIPEDIA....but...

...With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger, I think that mey be wrong. I know Bush was involved in the intitial debates, but the agreement made in 1992 had to be ratified by the three governments, Bill Clinton was in office before the final negotiations took place.

I HATE to use WIKIPEDIA....but...

...With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Same source -

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

From what I remember Bush led the negotiations and did the initial signing, it was modified to suit each government and a year after the initial signing the ironed out version was signed, this time by Clinton. I would argue that Bush gets the credit (or takes the blame) for NAFTA since it was under him that the agreement was first signed. Clinton, who also supported NAFTA, merely signed off on by what was, by then, a fait accompli.

It appears that this was a bi-partisan effort with the blame (or credit) going to both Bush and Clinton. I would put more of the blame (or credit) on Bush because he agreed to the initial deal, all Clinton did was sign what Congress had ratified. I am not sure Clinton really had an option.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well, I would agree that is was both parties.

Also, remember, Clinton had a pretty sizable democrat majority in botrh congressional houses, when this was signed.

Another point people may not like, but Rush Limbaugh supported NAFTA, and still does.

A bi-partisan boot in the posterior.

 

[saturneptune]

A bi-partisan boot in the posterior.

Which is exactly what this nation needs. It is too late for it to happen this year, a decent nominee of at least one of the parties, or a strong third party.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Let me shamelessly plug Gary Johnson, Libertarian, for president. Two-time Governor of New Mexico, leaving the state better than he found it.

 

[InTheLight]

What drove the economy for the first 20 years after WW2 when the working class did a little better every year was heavy manufacturing. We have been going down hill ever since those jobs started going off shore thanks the Romney and friends.

Do you EVER reply to a thread without an off-topic comment?!

It's quite annoying.

 

[InTheLight]

I look at it this way. There is a chance Romney has changed his attitude on abortion, gay rights and gun control. There is no chance Obama will change his mind. Also, Romney could do no worse on the economy. It comes down to this is all we have.

That's about it for me too, plus the Supreme Court nominees the next President will have.

The question is, do you think the rift on the right will win out in Obama's favor, or do you think the horrible unemployment numbers will win out in Romney's favor?

The VP candidate could win over some right wingers that are hesitant to vote for Romney. I keep hearing that Tim Pawlenty is the front runner. He is an evangelical Christian from a blue-collar upbringing. This could help bring some others back into the Republican tent.

The economy is not going to pick up for Obama. It seems that business owners are sitting on their hands (and their cash) in protest of Obama. They don't want to help him out by hiring people, and there is no need to hire people anyway because there isn't a lot of demand for products and/or services.

My brain says there is no way Obama can win but my heart says that his advertising money and propensity to lie can dupe a lot of Americans, so unfortunately at this time I really have no read on the election.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So C4K, just curious, but sincere, would you consider blaming Clinton for Nafta, on par with blaming Bush for Iraq ?

I guess I would. Clinton signed the regieme change papers, Bush just finalized everything.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So C4K, just curious, but sincere, would you consider blaming Clinton for Nafta, on par with blaming Bush for Iraq ?

I guess I would. Clinton signed the regieme change papers, Bush just finalized everything.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama - They have really just, in so many ways, just carried on each other's agendas.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Let me shamelessly plug Gary Johnson, Libertarian, for president. Two-time Governor of New Mexico, leaving the state better than he found it.

If he is on the Alabama ballot I may actually go the embassy and register for my absentee ballot.

 

[carpro]

Same source -



From what I remember Bush led the negotiations and did the initial signing, it was modified to suit each government and a year after the initial signing the ironed out version was signed, this time by Clinton. I would argue that Bush gets the credit (or takes the blame) for NAFTA since it was under him that the agreement was first signed. Clinton, who also supported NAFTA, merely signed off on by what was, by then, a fait accompli.

It appears that this was a bi-partisan effort with the blame (or credit) going to both Bush and Clinton. I would put more of the blame (or credit) on Bush because he agreed to the initial deal, all Clinton did was sign what Congress had ratified. I am not sure Clinton really had an option.

Why does it matter? It's no secret that Bush I and Clinton were noted internationalists.

Bush negotiated it. Clinton could have refused to sign it into law if he disagreed. He didn't.

Neither had the best interests of the U.S. in mind.

 

[carpro]

Let me shamelessly plug Gary Johnson, Libertarian, for president. Two-time Governor of New Mexico, leaving the state better than he found it.

He could be the best candidate out there. At this point it doesn't matter.

A vote For Johnson will help put Obama back in office.

Johnson would then have 4 years to make a name for himself. Carter came out of nowhere to nab the democrat nomination. If Johnson has a message worth hearing, he could be the man of the future. But not today.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama - They have really just, in so many ways, just carried on each other's agendas.

Yep. For all the people calling Obama a "socialist", he pretty much governs from the center, not unlike his Republican and Democratic predecessors.