Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[chooka]

The Federal Treasurer/Deputy Prime Minister of Australia Wayne Swan, has declared that the Republicans are a bunch of Cranks and Crazies.

http://www.brisbanet...0921-26aos.html

There are probably over 300,000,000 Yanks that don't give a toss about what the Australian PM thinks. Count me among the many.

Sounds as tho the current Australian Government will not have any respect for the Republicans if they win the U.S election, won't be working to closely with the cranks and crazies that may very well be running the U.S. (Aussie Govn't description of them not mine) The politicians on both sides in Australia all have to many roos in the top paddock and none are worthy of running Australia.

[chuckd]

Joe Weisenthal's opinion on Romney's plan. Who is he? As usual, just another partisan hit piece.

The Wall Street Journal describes the plan without offering any spin. http://online.wsj.co...0044504690.html

Is Romney a bit thick or is it the team around him?

WASHINGTON—Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney published a broad set of goals on helping the housing market, saying his administration would relax regulations to spur more mortgage lending

Well isn't just exactly what caused the whole freaking mess in the first place?!

Here we go, more of the same, Republicans want their banker buddies to coin it again, causing another financial crisis, and probably still never being taken to task for it.

It beggars belief.

By the way, I'm not a WSJ subscriber, but it seems to say much the same thing:

A white paper released Friday criticized many of President Barack Obama's housing initiatives but drew fewer contrasts with the White House when it came to discussing what steps should be taken going forward.

In other words: He's going to do something, he just doesn't know what it is.

Your own WSJ link also says this, in the form of specifics:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mitt Romney's campaign on Friday rolled out a pledge to streamline foreclosure alternatives and work through the glut of government-owned homes..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I expect much of his focus will be in rescinding many of the following new regulations the Obama administration has put in place::

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate

September 20, 2012 | 8:51 am

Paul Bedard

Washington Secrets, The Washington Examiner

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From the article:

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

The wave of Obama regulations has become a huge sore point in the business world with groups as large as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce down to the International Franchise Association crying for fewer rules. The administration, however, argues that the rules and regulations pushed out under the president have made products and workplaces safer.

Below are some of the estimates from Crews' report:

Link for the estimates: http://washingtonexa...66#.PDGhIrJlSB0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ulysses G.]

Sounds as tho the current Australian Government will not have any respect for the Republicans if they win the U.S election,

Liberals will think they are "cranks". Conservatives will not. However, the Australian Government will work with them if they win. You can count on that.

[chooka]

Sounds as tho the current Australian Government will not have any respect for the Republicans if they win the U.S election,

Liberals will think they are "cranks". Conservatives will not. However, the Australian Government will work with them if they win. You can count on that.

Actually the ones claiming they are "cranks" are the current government. The Liberal Party are in opposition and the liberals actually support them. So quite the opposite of what you say.

The Australian P.M is an immigrant anyway, not the home grown product.

Edited September 23, 2012 by chooka

[chuckd]

The Federal Treasurer/Deputy Prime Minister of Australia Wayne Swan, has declared that the Republicans are a bunch of Cranks and Crazies.

http://www.brisbanet...0921-26aos.html

There are probably over 300,000,000 Yanks that don't give a toss about what the Australian PM thinks. Count me among the many.

Sounds as tho the current Australian Government will not have any respect for the Republicans if they win the U.S election, won't be working to closely with the cranks and crazies that may very well be running the U.S. (Aussie Govn't description of them not mine) The politicians on both sides in Australia all have to many roos in the top paddock and none are worthy of running Australia.

Yet, somehow, I suspect those same 300,000,001 who don't care about the Australian PM's opinion of Republicans will have the same response if Australia decides to cancel the defense treaty with the US and go it alone against China.

Chok dee, as they say.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. This isn't about Australia or China. Back on topic please.

[Ulysses G.]

To be honest, I have never realized the extent of it until this election. Either things have changed for the worse or awareness really does come with age.

[koheesti]

To be honest, I have never realized the extent of it until this election. Either things have changed for the worse or awareness really does come with age.

That might be because you are a Hillary supporter who usually votes for the Democrats. People don't see any bias when the media reports what you already believe to be true. You just take it as the media reporting the truth. But when you are on the other side, and see things happen and expect the media to pounce on it, then when they don't, and they ignore it, or limit to page 17 the bias becomes very clear.

Edited September 23, 2012 by koheesti

[Baloo22]

To be honest, I have never realized the extent of it until this election. Either things have changed for the worse or awareness really does come with age.

It's been going on for quite a while. Back in the 1990s, CNN became known as the "Clinton News Network". They would only report news negative to Clinton after all the other news media had done so and they basically had no choice anymore.

Every once and a while they really end up screwing themselves because of their bias. The classic example was "Rathergate" in 2004, where a political operative gave CBS documents, supposedly written in 1972-73, critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Normally, reputable news organization would have vetted such documents before using them. But it was election season and they thought that they could torpedo Bush's re-election. So due diligence and evidence contrary to the documents veracity went out the window! The documents were shown to be fake and a number of CBS execs and staff spent the next few months wiping egg off their faces.

[maidu]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47.

Here are some added stats re; that number, that is surely spooking the Romney camp as we speak:

5.5% of Americans earning 40 to $50k / year pay no taxes

5.3% of those earning over $50k pay no taxes.

How do they fit in with Romney's 47% whom he insinuates are slackers?

of the 47% which Romney says he doesn't 'worry about' 28.3% pay payroll taxes which funds Medicare and Social Security, and amounts to a large amount of tax revenue. Nearly all the remaining 18% either earn less than $20,000/year or are elderly on benefits..

[koheesti]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47.

Here are some added stats re; that number, that is surely spooking the Romney camp as we speak:

5.5% of Americans earning 40 to $50k / year pay no taxes

5.3% of those earning over $50k pay no taxes.

How do they fit in with Romney's 47% whom he insinuates are slackers?

They don't and they know it. But the media and Dems (same thing, I know) will keep trying to make people think these are the people (along with seniors and military) that Romney was talking about. He wasn't, and they know it.

[KKvampire]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47.

Here are some added stats re; that number, that is surely spooking the Romney camp as we speak:

5.5% of Americans earning 40 to $50k / year pay no taxes

5.3% of those earning over $50k pay no taxes.

How do they fit in with Romney's 47% whom he insinuates are slackers?

They don't and they know it. But the media and Dems (same thing, I know) will keep trying to make people think these are the people (along with seniors and military) that Romney was talking about. He wasn't, and they know it.

Really? Maybe these people "know it " they 'heard it' from his mouth and some of them are Conservatives. Everyone knows the real Romney.now.

[Ulysses G.]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47.

They don't and they know it. But the media and Dems (same thing, I know) will keep trying to make people think these are the people (along with seniors and military) that Romney was talking about. He wasn't, and they know it.

Of course they are lying about what Romney meant, but what is new? They have been doing it since the election started and there is no other way that Obama has any chance of winning after all his failures, so he and his promoters will continue with more of the same.

[maidu]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47. Here are some added stats re; that number, that is surely spooking the Romney camp as we speak: 5.5% of Americans earning 40 to $50k / year pay no taxes 5.3% of those earning over $50k pay no taxes. How do they fit in with Romney's 47% whom he insinuates are slackers?

They don't and they know it. But the media and Dems (same thing, I know) will keep trying to make people think these are the people (along with seniors and military) that Romney was talking about. He wasn't, and they know it.

Here is the paragraph of mine you deleted:

of the 47% which Romney says he doesn't 'worry about' 28.3% pay payroll taxes which funds Medicare and Social Security, and amounts to a large amount of tax revenue. Nearly all the remaining 18% either earn less than $20,000/year or are elderly on benefits..

You state "They don't and they know it." Could you please explain that? Who? and what do they not do? May I suggest you articulate a bit more.

[maidu]

I watched the two videos posted on this page. The first I agreed with, but then I'm biased in favor of the Obama campaign, though the video was not put together or distributed by his campaign.

The second video, which was put out by the Romney campaign, has a clip of former president Clinton saying "give me a break." It doesn't give any context for why Clinton was saying that at a public forum. So, showcasing Clinton saying that phrase on its own, signifies what? I assume the voice-over tries to tie that phrase in with the faltering US economy, but it's not clear. I think the Romney campaign needs a giant infusion of better ideas and more adept video makers, if it wants to gain back the voters who faded from the disingenius "47%" comments. Even if Romney himself is hobbled for good ideas, at least his campaign handlers should be able to do a better packaging job. That's what they're getting paid to do, isn't it?

[Ulysses G.]

The second video, which was put out by the Romney campaign, has a clip of former president Clinton saying "give me a break." It doesn't give any context for why Clinton was saying that at a public forum.

The ad is pointing out the fact that Clinton has harshly questioned Obama's honesty in the past and the quote specifically refers to Obama's dishonest campaign rhetoric.

[chuckd]

I watched the two videos posted on this page. The first I agreed with, but then I'm biased in favor of the Obama campaign, though the video was not put together or distributed by his campaign.

The second video, which was put out by the Romney campaign, has a clip of former president Clinton saying "give me a break." It doesn't give any context for why Clinton was saying that at a public forum. So, showcasing Clinton saying that phrase on its own, signifies what? I assume the voice-over tries to tie that phrase in with the faltering US economy, but it's not clear. I think the Romney campaign needs a giant infusion of better ideas and more adept video makers, if it wants to gain back the voters who faded from the disingenius "47%" comments. Even if Romney himself is hobbled for good ideas, at least his campaign handlers should be able to do a better packaging job. That's what they're getting paid to do, isn't it?

Mr. Maidu, try this one for clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rijb]

Will the election settle anything?

We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

[koheesti]

After this November's election in the US, I predict Romney's loss will be summed up in one number; 47. Here are some added stats re; that number, that is surely spooking the Romney camp as we speak: 5.5% of Americans earning 40 to $50k / year pay no taxes 5.3% of those earning over $50k pay no taxes. How do they fit in with Romney's 47% whom he insinuates are slackers?

They don't and they know it. But the media and Dems (same thing, I know) will keep trying to make people think these are the people (along with seniors and military) that Romney was talking about. He wasn't, and they know it.

Here is the paragraph of mine you deleted:

of the 47% which Romney says he doesn't 'worry about' 28.3% pay payroll taxes which funds Medicare and Social Security, and amounts to a large amount of tax revenue. Nearly all the remaining 18% either earn less than $20,000/year or are elderly on benefits..

You state "They don't and they know it." Could you please explain that? Who? and what do they not do? May I suggest you articulate a bit more.

The breakdown of the 47% includes military and seniors. They are not slackers,Romney knows it and they know it.

[koheesti]

Will the election settle anything?

We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

Obama has already shown that he cannot work with the other side. The examples are endless - from telling Republicans shortly after the election that he won and that they should get over it, to excluding them from just about everything, to not having Speaker Boehner's phone number during the debt crisis last year (the Speaker of the House is next in line for the Presidency after the Vice President). By contrast...

Romney as Gov of Massachusetts got a lot done because he was able to compromise with Democrats (Mass is an over-overwhelmingly Democratic state, so much so, Romney might even lose it). Romney compromised so much that until this year, Conservatives didn't believe he was one of them. Just over a year ago most on Fox News were against Romney - that's how un-conservative the guy was. Yes, he had to put on an act during the primaries to convince the Republican right wing base that he is one of them. But some not-too-savvy lefties think that makes him a staunch conservative - it doesn't.

In conclusion, will a Romney presidency automatically usher in a new era of compromise between the political parties so we can fix the country? I'm not sure, but I am 100% sure - based on his history - that another 4 years of Obama will stay as polarized as it is now.

[chuckd]

Will the election settle anything?

We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

Let me make an effort to counter far left wing opinion pieces with a right wing one of my own...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY LIBERALS BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO

August 15, 2012

My smash best-seller "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" has just come out in paperback -- and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The "root cause" of the Democrats' wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon's 1896 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind," was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon's study subjects.

.

http://www.anncoulte...2012-08-15.html

Edited September 24, 2012 by Scott
Edited for fair use

[cheeryble]

Average of many polls:

September 20, 2012

48.3 Obama

45.0 Romney Spread Obama +3.3

Hmmm, only 3.3, looks neck and neck.

......until you look at the odds real people are betting on at Intrade.

They interpret Obama's modest lead to a chance of winning or losing their hard earned money of:

Obama 70.9%

Romney 29%

Yes, you'll get three and a half times your money if you bet on Romney and he wins.

I guess it's not surprising given Romney stands on the bizarre platform that too many Americans are about to become insured for healthcare.

(I guess the missing 0.1% is the chance one of them will not make it through the election. Now who would one prefer for that position?

Hmmmm.........)

Edited September 24, 2012 by cheeryble

[KKvampire]

Will the election settle anything?

We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

Let me make an effort to counter far left wing opinion pieces with a right wing one of my own...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY LIBERALS BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO

August 15, 2012

My smash best-seller "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" has just come out in paperback -- and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The "root cause" of the Democrats' wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon's 1896 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind," was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon's study subjects.

http://www.anncoulte...2012-08-15.html

all dug up from that Right wing Nut job Coulter, jeez you're desperate and not gonna get many independents on side with lies from that!

[Ulysses G.]

Average of many polls:

September 20, 2012

48.3 Obama

45.0 Romney Spread Obama +3.3

Hmmm, only 3.3, looks neck and neck.

......until you look at the odds real people are betting on at Intrade.

Sorry, but Intrade is well know known for being wrong when it comes to political predictions. They gave the individual mandate a 77 percent chance of being struck down. Most of the people making bets on Intrade don't have access to better information than anyone else. You will have to do better than that.

[Chicog]

Ulssyes, it would be nice if you could offer your true prediction of the result rather than the one for which you wish.

At the moment, I would say Obama is edging it, and unless Romney stops with the constant criticism and starts offering some meaningful, explicit policy statements, backed up with explanations as to how he is going to effect them, I cannot see people actually wanting to vote for what is effectively a campaign of hot air.

Rasmussen is interesting today. You can Poll to death but at the end of the day it's getting people to actually vote that will win this election.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama and Mitt Romney each attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

When “leaners” are included, the candidates are tied at 48%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

Obama is supported by 89% of Democrats. Romney gets the vote from 85% of Republicans and holds a 12-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters are following the race on a daily basis, along with 47% of Democrats. Interest in the race is often a good indicator of turnout.

[chuckd]

Will the election settle anything?

We will make the country ungovernable unless you hand us every bit of legislative, executive and judicial power so we can do what we want.

Let me make an effort to counter far left wing opinion pieces with a right wing one of my own...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY LIBERALS BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO

August 15, 2012

My smash best-seller "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" has just come out in paperback -- and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The "root cause" of the Democrats' wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon's 1896 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind," was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon's study subjects.

http://www.anncoulte...2012-08-15.html

all dug up from that Right wing Nut job Coulter, jeez you're desperate and not gonna get many independents on side with lies from that!

When liberals post garbage opinion pieces, they should expect to get it back in return. My source is as reliable as the San Francisco Chronicle editorial page, the home of Nancy Pelosi.

This is rijb's hidden link: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Will-the-election-settle-anything-3888245.php

[rijb]

So what are the options?

1) Obama = stalemate with congress, fiscal cliff

2) Romney = Iran war, fiscal cliff

Wow! Can't wait to get to the polls!

[Chicog]

In fairness, if they can just hold on for another term, they should walk in now that Hillary's indicated she might run.

[Ulysses G.]

Ulssyes, it would be nice if you could offer your true prediction of the result rather than the one for which you wish.

I honestly do not know. There are still one and a half months, 4 debates and 2 jobs reports before the election. On top of that there are the riots in the Middle East and some possibility of war in Iran and Japan. There is just no realistic way to tell who is going to win this far away from the election and especially when things are so close.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Ulssyes, it would be nice if you could offer your true prediction of the result rather than the one for which you wish.

I honestly do not know. There are still one and a half months, 4 debates and 2 jobs reports before the election. On top of that there are the riots in the Middle East and some possibility of war in Iran and Japan. There is just no realistic way to tell who is going to win this far away from the election and especially when things are so close.

I think the debates will be the key factor. Do you know who gets to set the questions?

FYI it looks like they are on every news channel and streamed live at this website. Shame they're on at stupid o'clock for me.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/