## American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Games_Bond » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:11 am

Ok, enough is enough.
As someone has pointed out on at least one other thread here, the JIF forum has become cluttered with mini-topics that all have a common denominator: the American Presidential Election
So, I propose that we ecompass the entire debate right here. Let's get it all in one place. This can be the official Presidential Election Topic. No need for another thread. If you've got something to say, get it in here, and don't let the topic "die". The rules are simple:
1. Be respectful and polite
2. Be relevant
3. (not really a "rule", but anyway) - Please in your original post state who you are supporting, or if you are undecided. JUST IN CASE we don't know I use the word "supporting" as opposed to "voting for" to cater for those that can't vote.
I only intend to create this thread to give Americans a chance to air their views. Unless I see a real call to do so, I do not really want to get involved in the debate, as I am Scottish and therefore this is not my fight. That's not to say other non-Americans can't join in if they want to. I will put my cards on the table and say if anything I'm in the Obama camp. Let's see if the Republicans can get me to change my mind
Let the hustings commence!

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:55 am

Although this idea has merit, I'm not sure if it will work well. Perhaps if a sub-forum is created, under which various aspects of the election campaigns can be discussed, that might work a little better. Ongoing discussions include Obama's gift registry gaffe, Romney's fund raiser that took in several million dollars, the "Fast and Furious" scandal, and other topics. Each deserves its own thread, as each is a different aspect of the campaigns.
It's something to consider.
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Chris12 » Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:38 am

No it isn't.
Why should American politics get its own subpage? Its sure not any more complex or interesting then that of other nations!, it only has more people here and adding something because of that doesn't seem completely fair. Also JIF hasn't been the most active place to begin with and i noticed that in all of this mess it got even more quit, it where mostly the same people that posted (the same things!). In other words not enough people care enough about it to get its own subforum.
All those things do not deserve their own thread because they are all part of a single topic, American politics, or in this case the election. And....they all end up the same anyway! so this saves a lot of space.
Also i'm glad my complaints where heard by you Bond!

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:29 pm

Chris, I'm not sure if you understood my suggestion, so let me clarify a bit:
First, there is the "Jump in the Fire" forum. Under that, the sub-forum of "American Presidential Politics," and under that, the various topics concerning the aspects of the campaign. Those that don't want to be bothered with the discussions, can just skip right over the sub forum and its topics. See the "General Chat" forum, where there are sub-forums listed at the top of the page:
JUMP IN THE FIRE (Forum)
.....American Presidential Politics (Sub-forum)
..........Tacky, Tacky, Tacky (Topics)
..........Mittens, the Great Outsourcer
..........Etc.
..........Etc.
Putting everything under one topic or thread, is, I think, unworkable.
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:54 pm

I hate to say it but I agree with Drawscore. Now I need to take two aspirins!

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:28 pm

Hopefully by the end of the year we can all find something more constructive to discuss here.
As for me, I'm sort of sick of the subject myself; that's why *I* haven't been chiming in as usual... and usually it's just the same few people going over the same old thing over and over and over again. It's getting old.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:50 pm

Here's a photo of the Romney's jet skiing over the weekend. How nice for them.

Attachments
    The family that jet ski's together.....

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:59 pm

Could be worse, considering how someone else made news lately because of being on jet skis.
http://news.yahoo.com/former-nasa-astro ... 26334.html
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:26 pm

How nice for Romney and his jet ski. Did you manage to get some pics of Obozo on the golf course?
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Kyle » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:30 pm

Tell me people are not seriously getting on the candidates for how they spend their down time.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:43 pm

This from The Week
The 'Romney Olympics': Mitt's bizarre, regimented vacation
Holiday getaways are a pretty serious business in the Romney clan, with family members forced to complete a mini-triathlon and other feats of strength
posted on July 2, 2012, at 3:40 PM
Oh, sure, Mitt Romney and his family look relaxed now, sitting on the beach in front of their New Hampshire vacation home. But the grown-ups will also spend part of their vacation competing in a mini-triathlon.
Republicans have long criticized President Obama for his dozens upon dozens of rounds of golf and numerous Hawaiian vacations (see Drawscores derogatory remark above), but even conservatives may have to admit that Obama's idea of vacation sounds a lot more relaxing than Mitt Romney's. This weekend, members of Romney's sizable family began their annual vacation at his lakeside home in Wolfeboro, N.H., where they are expected to follow a "highly orchestrated, highly competitive regimen of sports and games known as the 'Romney Olympics,'" says Philip Rucker at The Washington Post. The family's activities offer "a rare window into the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's rhythms and proclivities," says Rucker, and the Post's expose has undoubtedly given Romney "a taste of what it's like to have your holiday plans publicly critiqued," says Margaret Hartmann at New York. Here, a guide to the Romney Olympics:
What are the Romney Olympics?
The games have "long included a mini-triathlon of biking, swimming, and running that pits Mitt and his five sons and their wives against one another," says Rucker. But these days, "they also compete to see who can hang onto a pole the longest, who can throw a football the farthest, and who can hammer the most nails into a board in two minutes."
How competitive is Romney?
Very. The nail-hammering, football-chucking, and pole-hanging were all added to the Romney Olympics because the family's patriarch "once nearly finished last" in the mini-triathlon "behind a daughter-in-law who had given birth to her second child a couple months earlier." That caused "the ultra-competitive and self-described unathletic" Romney to expand "the games to give himself a better shot," says Rucker.
Are the Romney Olympics optional?
No. Everyone has to participate, according to Romney's oldest son Tagg. Tagg reportedly tried to skip the Romney Olympics one summer, using his job at the Los Angeles Dodgers as an excuse. Mitt forcefully objected, and Tagg tells Rucker that he "had to beg forgiveness from my bosses at the Dodgers."
Are there other activities?
Yes. Romney's grandchildren, 18 in all, put on a talent show on a stage that Mitt built in the backyard. They also participate in treasure hunts and roast s'mores. "At night, the adults gather for family meetings," says Rucker, "with each evening focused on a frank and full discussion of a different son's career moves and parenting worries." Each family member also has to pick a chore from a so-called "chore wheel," so everyone's duties are equally split up.
Does Romney's family like the Romney Olympics?
Yes. Tagg tells Rucker that it's everyone's favorite week of the year. Then again, says Hartmann, it sounds like "the first and second rule of the Romney family vacation is, 'You do not talk about how much you hate the Romney family vacation.'"
Sources: New York, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Post
Read more political coverage at The Week's 2012 Election Center.
And of course we also have this: http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2012/06/ ... trian.html
.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Kyle » Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:10 pm

It sounds pretty much just like a politician, adding things in to help himself win.
That's actually not a bad idea. I'd think about asking to do something like it at the next family reunion but somebody would probably die of a heart attack.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by skybird137 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:19 am

He should be careful about this, otherwise people will start nicknaming him:
'The Great Romnini'

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:27 pm

Things You Might Want to Know About Mitt Romney
Personal Information:
· His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
· He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
· His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
· He was Raised in: Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
· He is Married to: Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children
Education:
· B.A. from Brigham Young University ,
· J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University
Religion: Mormon ? The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
Working Background:
· After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
· After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.
· In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .
· In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
· He was President and C.E.O. of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
· In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.
Some Interesting Fact about Romney:
· He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
· Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
· Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
· He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
· He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years.
· He was an unpaid bishop and stake president of his church for ten years.
· He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
· He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
· Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy and has Nothing to Hide
· He will show us his high school and college transcripts.
· He will show us his law degree.
· He will show us his birth certificate
· He will show us his social security card.
· He will show us his draft notice.
· He will show us his medical records.
· He will show us his income tax records.
· He will show us he has nothing to hide.
Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader.
He has the background and record to become an excellent President of the United States .
I will forward a similar detailed statement for Obama when I receive one.
Oh, and he won't use "executive privilege" to cover the asses of incompetent cabinet members, as Obama did to cover Attorney General Eric Holder's ass.
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:05 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts
and then there are the other things you may also want to know about Mitt Romney!

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:09 pm

> drawscore wrote:Things You Might Want to Know About Mitt Romney Drawscore

Spoken like a good little brainwashed conservative lackey.
No doubt your 'fact file' about Obama will be all negative rather than anything even remotely balanced or fair.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:15 pm

>>>http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts
and then there are the other things you may also want to know about Mitt Romney!<<<
Gee, Jack, how about links to Move On, Democrats.com, or maybe MSNBC. They'd be just about as objective as Think Progress.
Here's one from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
>>>Spoken like a good little brainwashed conservative lackey. <<<
Personal Attacks again, Jason? Despite our disagreements, at least Jack has the intelligence and courtesy to address the issues, and refrain from personal attacks.
>>>No doubt your 'fact file' about Obama will be all negative rather than anything even remotely balanced or fair.<<<
If you search long enough, you can find something good to say about even the most reprehensible people. Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, and Hitler built the Autobahn in Germany. As for Obama, he isn't totally useless. He can always be held up as a bad example. And as for the "Things you didn't know about Romney," do you have anything to show that they are not accurate?
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:31 am

> drawscore wrote:
> Personal Attacks again, Jason? Despite our disagreements, at least Jack has the intelligence and courtesy to address the issues, and refrain from personal attacks.
> Like you say, if it walks like a duck... etc. Besides which, it's no more a personal attack than when you call me or anyone else a liberal - considering what you mean by the word. You've used the term brainwashed yourself before too, don't forget. However, I will take back the term lackey as being a bit too strong, even if I still think the term is reasonably accurate. But you can't deny you are a conservative, and you certainly talk with all the utter self-righteous conviction of the liberal 'brainwashed' that you harp on so much about; you are no more objective than the people you criticize for their 'liberalism'. As for personal attacks... what about yours against Obama? Emporer Obama this and Obozo that. Practice what you preach!!!
> And as for the "Things you didn't know about Romney," do you have anything to show that they are not accurate?

Not my point, nor do I care. Praise Romney to the skies all you want; I have no problem with that part of it whatsoever. My point is that as usual you intend to be your usual bombastic self portraying Obama in the most unflattering terms possible, and it's getting rather old.
Under Romney's bio though, why didn't you point out that as governor of Massachusetts he pushed through a health care bill, complete with a stipulation forcing people to buy in or pay hefty penalties, very similar to Obama's. The act that he opposes Obama's health care plan strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:38 am

http://doonesbury.slate.com/#mutable
Here's a great summary of Mr. Romney's philosophy made into practice.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:39 pm

Jack, you need to understand that if you cite liberal or progressive sites to make liberal or progressive points, they will not really be credible. They are up there to promote the liberal/progressive agenda, and are not above "twisting the facts" to fit their political outlook. (But it's a common practice. Newsmax and World Net Daily do the same thing for conservatives.)
Garry Trudeau was, earlier this year, pumping up the candidacy of Elizabeth "Fauxcahontis" Warren in Massachusetts. Now that her claim of American Indian heritage has been shown to be bogus, it's unlikely he will return to that story line. (Yes, we get "Doonesbury" in our local paper, too.) And Trudeau's claims about Romney outsourcing US jobs were refuted by, of all media entities, the Washington Post, which is certainly NOT a conservative/Republican leaning publication. (See the link in my last post.)
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:51 pm

>>>Spoken like a good little brainwashed conservative lackey.<<<
There are some that would take the label of "liberal" as a complement. And, I use it as a description of your political outlook, but there are those that use it as an epithet.
But "brainwashed lackey" is a lot different than calling someone a "conservative" or "liberal." It's a personal attack, just as much as if I said you were a "liberal lemming," and would follow Obama right over the cliff.
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:13 pm

> drawscore wrote:>>>Spoken like a good little brainwashed conservative lackey.<<<
> There are some that would take the label of "liberal" as a complement. And, I use it as a description of your political outlook, but there are those that use it as an epithet.
> But "brainwashed lackey" is a lot different than calling someone a "conservative" or "liberal." It's a personal attack, just as much as if I said you were a "liberal lemming," and would follow Obama right over the cliff.
> Drawscore

Except that would be a lie, whereas if people like Jack are 'brainwashed' to be leftist then it follows you are 'brainwashed' to be rightist. And I don't normally resent being called a liberal, but considering what you mean by the term (and comparing me to types like Jane Fonda) I definitely DO resent it from you. I would NOT follow Obama (or any liberal/Democrat candidate) blindly, whereas you quite evidently would follow any conservative candidate opposing Obama blindly like a lemming off a cliff yourself. You keep saying crap about people on the left, but you're just as bad if not worse when it comes to the right.
As for the lackey part of it... well, I *had* considered the word 'stooge' but Moe, Larry, and Curly changed the meaning of *that* word forever. And 'puppet' is also a tad too strong. But the fact that all you *ever* do is parrot the hard conservative line makes me doubtful that you ever do much analytical thinking on your own. You just go right along with Limbaugh and Beck and repeat the same BS they apparently do... as far as I can tell from the limited amount of what I know of them at all (I never listen to them any more than I listen to (name any liberal commentator you like - or rather don't like - here).
As for your post above castigating Jack and his sources, the fact that you yourself quote only from biased conservative sources (regardless of how balanced and unbiased *you* think they are) weakens your argument considerably.
Oh, and one more thing about Romney's bio that you left out... how about that bullying incident?
Oh, I know... he was just a kid then and he's much different now. Bu there's still one thing about this that bothers me. He denies remembering that it ever happened. Now, how the Hell do you forget something like that? I remember every spiteful thing I ever did to someone from the time I was 5 years old! There aren't too any such memories though... not because I don't recall them but because I was never a particularly spiteful person. But I still remember slugging some older kid when I was only seven when he pelted me with a snowball too hard, and have felt bad about it ever since. If I can remember a minor incident like this, why can't Romney remember something as spiteful as pinning a kid down with some cronies and shaving off his hair? If *I* had ever done such a thing, I'd *never* forget it. If Romney has forgotten (or, about as bad, merely claims to have forgotten), what does that say about the man? Nothing good, I think!
I think since you like to call the President such pet names as Obozo (talk about personal attacks!), maybe I should nickname his opponent Rom-meanie (or has someone else already thought of that?) Or Rommel. Or Rummy. Hmmm...
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jack Roper » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:58 am

Drawscore,
I believe your primary error is confusing the message with the messenger, and thus you see the easiest debate tactic to attack the messenger--in this case President Obama, instead of focusing on the message and whether it is true or not. In the spirit of only using a source that "you" might trust see the Wall Street Journal editorial from today's paper. Hopefully you don't feel the WSJ is a liberal source.
Cheers! JR
WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Updated July 5, 2012, 10:46 a.m. ET
.
Romney's Tax Confusion
The candidate's response on the ObamaCare mandate reveals larger campaign problems..
If Mitt Romney loses his run for the White House, a turning point will have been his decision Monday to absolve President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. He is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts's ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.
Appearing on MSNBC, close Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was asked by host Chuck Todd if Mr. Romney "agrees with the president" and "believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?"
"That's correct," Mr. Fehrnstrom replied, before attempting some hapless spin suggesting that Mr. Obama must be "held accountable" for his own "contradictory" statements on whether it is a penalty or tax. Predictably, the Obama campaign and the media blew past Mr. Fehrnstrom's point, jumped on the tax-policy concession, and declared the health-care tax debate closed.
For conservative optimists who think Mr. Fehrnstrom misspoke or is merely dense, his tax absolution gift to Mr. Obama was confirmed by campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul, who tried the same lame jujitsu spin. In any event, Mr. Fehrnstrom is part of the Boston coterie who are closest to Mr. Romney, and he wouldn't say such a thing without the candidate's approval.
In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama's claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.
Why make such an unforced error? Because it fits with Mr. Romney's fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, as if that is worse than confusing voters about the tax and health-care issues. Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we've said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.
Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama's spending ambitions are so vast that they can't be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.
Democrats would point to the Massachusetts record, but Mr. Romney could reply that was before the Supreme Court had spoken, that he had promised Bay Staters not to raise taxes, and so now the right policy is to repeal the tax along with the rest of ObamaCare. The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President.
Perhaps Mr. Romney is slowly figuring this out, because in a July 4 interview he stated himself that the penalty now is a "tax" after all. But he offered no elaboration, and so the campaign looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.
This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.
The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.
Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.
***
All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney's main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.
The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.
Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.
A version of this article appeared July 5, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Romney's Tax Confusion.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by skybird137 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:08 am

Given the latest twist in the Megaupload scandal, I'm waiting to see the reaction from the Republican side. This incident is too good to miss, given that Joe Biden is now implicated.
http://news.yahoo.com/megaupload-kim-dotcom-joe-biden-bed-mpaa-172057845.html
Should there be nothing but silence from the Republicans, it will show that the MPAA and the RIAA have them by the balls, and they are the real power in the USA. Then it doesn't matter who you vote in.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:22 am

>>>I would NOT follow Obama (or any liberal/Democrat candidate) blindly, whereas you quite evidently would follow any conservative candidate opposing Obama blindly like a lemming off a cliff yourself. You keep saying crap about people on the left, but you're just as bad if not worse when it comes to the right.<<<
Perhaps you missed it when I said earlier in the primary season, that Newt Gingrich should not be elected dogcatcher, and that Michelle Bachmann was unelectable.
>>>Oh, and one more thing about Romney's bio that you left out... how about that bullying incident?<<<
I generally don't bother with youthful indiscretions that happened or were committed before someone reaches voting age, as this one supposedly did, but if that's the way you want to go, we can also talk about Obama's "Choom Gang," with whom he smoked pot and did cocaine in high school, and that he had Fido for dinner. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... choom+gang
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:36 am

This might surprise you, Jack, but I tend to agree with the WSJ's assessment; that Romney can't be giving Obama a pass in the issue of raising taxes on the middle class. I also agree that Romney needs to find some senior campaign people that a "taste for red meat," and who can "smell the Democrats' blood in the water." Politics is not a game for wimps, and despite what I think of him and his policies, he is damn well not a wimp when it comes to politics and elections.
Of course, Romney may wish to stay "above the fray," and let the super PAC's tackle that issue, which I'm sure they will do with zest and vigor. After all, there is that disclaimer that reads something like "This ad is not approved by any candidate or candidate's committee."
Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Chris12 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:37 am

It could be just me but isn't bullying a lot worse then pot and cocaine?

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:56 am

Both incidents occurred while Romney and Obama were in high school. Since they happened before either reached the "age of consent," I'm willing to give both a pass, and call it "youthful indiscretion."
As for which offense is worse, the decision is in the hands of legislators. If the legal penalty for the use and possession of illegal drugs is greater than the legal penalty for simple assault, or assault, consummated by battery, then it's fairly obvious that the lawmakers/politicians that passed the laws and set the penalties, thought that the possession/use of illegal drugs, is more serious than assault. In short, the decision has already been made, and if I don't like it, then I should be working for the election of a legislator who will change it.
Drawscore

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:36 pm

> drawscore wrote:Both incidents occurred while Romney and Obama were in high school. Since they happened before either reached the "age of consent," I'm willing to give both a pass, and call it "youthful indiscretion."
> Drawscore

That's fine as far as that goes, but you quite clearly missed my point. I said myself that perhaps Romney has changed since that incident. My concern was not the incident itself, but that he claims not to remember it. What kind of person forgets doing crap like that?
Someone *I* don't want to vote for!
[quote="drawscore"
Perhaps you missed it when I said earlier in the primary season, that Newt Gingrich should not be elected dogcatcher, and that Michelle Bachmann was unelectable.
Drawscore[/quote]
No, I didn't miss it; but you said this while there were still other viable candidates available. Now they're out of the picture, apparently.
But tell me, and be honest: If Romney lost the nomination and Gingrinch won and selected Bachmann as his running mate, how would you vote on Election Day?
And before you turn it around on me, *I* would vote Republican if you had a reasonable moderate candidate running. Even Reagan. It's not that I like Obama so much as that I see him as the lesser of two evils. The same was true in 2008 as well, actually.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: American Presidential Election Topic

Post by drawscore » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:22 pm

>>>My concern was not the incident itself, but that he claims not to remember it. What kind of person forgets doing crap like that? <<<
Some others involved with the so-called "incident" also have "faulty memories," including some family members of the allegedly bullied classmate. It's funny that the media will jump all over the incident and slam Romney for it, but will not research it completely and get both sides, or report that there are those that knew Romney at the time, and deny the incident ever took place.
I don't know whether it did or did not occur, and as for forgetfulness, I forgot what I had for lunch yesterday. Yes, if it happened, it should be something that Romney should remember. If it's bullshit dreamed up by the Obama campaign, or by one of the super PACs that support him, then, of course he would not remember it.
And despite misgivings over a Gingrich-Bachmann ticket, I would vote for it because, like you, I would see it as the lesser of two evils. But I would never forget that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Drawscore