|
Replies: 40
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
why are undecideds undecided
Oct 17, 2012, 10:14 AM
|
|
I see a lot of people claiming victory for their man in the debate, but most of us wouldn't vote for the other guy if a gun was held to our head.
What is important is what the undecideds are thinking.
I personally think that the reasons anybody could possibly be undecided at this point can be summed up in two questions last night.
1) There are people who like Obama but see the last four years as not very good. An African American gentleman asked: "Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive."
2) There are true independent voters who are unsure about Romney. Romney has been portrayed as an aloof, out-of-touch rich man. A gentleman at the end asked this question: "Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using
specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?"
I think a third question asked by a lady midway through the debate speaks to both of these issues as well: "Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter, because I'm disappointed with the lack of progress I've seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration.
Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?"
I don't think abortion, birth control, gun control, etc. are going to make much of a difference with these undecideds. I believe how they view the response to these questions is what will determine the winner.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [34159]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33700
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Great analysis.***
Oct 17, 2012, 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
I think we're gonna see that undecided are
Oct 17, 2012, 10:21 AM
|
|
decidingly turning to Romney. At the end of the day... Obama has nothing to offer from the last four years.
I actually think the election may not even be close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I personally think Romney has done much better answering....
Oct 17, 2012, 10:25 AM
|
|
these questions as well, but I am biased. I don't believe a word that comes out of Obama's mouth.
The important thing are the swing states not the national poll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
I agree... I just think Romney continues momentum and
Oct 17, 2012, 10:28 AM
|
|
wins Fl, Virg., OH, Nevada, and maybe Michigan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I think a LOT more people quietly support Romney but
Oct 17, 2012, 10:35 AM
|
|
keep quiet b/c of how crazy and rabid and aggressive the Barry kool aid drinkers, hardcore liberals, and a lot of blacks are. They are threatening riots if Barry loses, Romney supporters are constantly attacked and threatened. Liberals cry about the right suppressing votes, but it's the left that is out threatening people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Exactly and Romney is a candidate, everything he says is
Oct 17, 2012, 10:31 AM
[ in reply to I personally think Romney has done much better answering.... ] |
|
based on theory and personal success. Barry is the president lying and distorting his record of failed policies and broken promises.
It's really simple ...
Big gubment vs. smaller gubment.
What made America great vs. what has been hurting America post Reagan/GHW Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's really simple ....
Oct 17, 2012, 10:27 AM
[ in reply to I think we're gonna see that undecided are ] |
|
Ether you like big government and quasi-socialism, or you like less government, more freedom, and prefer what made America great. It's not about nuance, but philosophy. Anyone undecided after the past 4 years is a moron.
Let's be honest, it's a mathematical fact that 50% of the population has below average intelligence. And anyone within 1 standard deviation above average intelligence is not very bright either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Uhhhh, if you like option B you listed, it's not like
Oct 17, 2012, 10:32 AM
|
|
Romney is your white knight either.
This election is a nose holder, and I pretty much resent having to check the box for a guy who has promised to keep the "good parts" of Obamacare, promised to keep Medicare and SS going, promised to invest beaucoup dolores into the military, amongst other "me too" statements he's made....but I'm going to anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
watching the debate last night....
Oct 17, 2012, 10:34 AM
|
|
I told my wife, "Listen to Romney, he's 10,000 times better than John McCain."
The more I hear Romney, the more I like him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I completely agree. It was the same nose holder in 2008,
Oct 17, 2012, 10:36 AM
|
|
and I couldn't pull the trigger for McCain...just couldn't.
I'm not as enthusiastic about Romney as you are, but I think...no, I know...that it would be preferable for me and my family, and hopefully the country, to have Romney for the next 4 than Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 11/9/04
|
I would consider myself one of these people and
Oct 17, 2012, 10:29 AM
|
|
I think we're screwed. Either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
you quite possibly are right...
Oct 17, 2012, 10:32 AM
|
|
we may have gone too far already...and I'm not blaming that on one party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I will, it falls squarly on FDR, LBJ, and Carter. All
Oct 17, 2012, 10:40 AM
|
|
greatly expanded the federal government and did everything they could to seize more power for the feds. And Clinton's policies created the stock market and housing bubbles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
do you not think Reagan and the Bushes added to the problem?
Oct 17, 2012, 10:43 AM
|
|
has Congress added to the problem?
Message was edited by: franc1968®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not Reagan or GHW Bush, but Dubyah did to a degree with
Oct 17, 2012, 10:51 AM
|
|
the Patriot Act, which we needed in many ways, but it went too far. What it should have done is clear out a lot of communication barriers and streamline and make things more efficient. Instead it created an even bigger bureaucracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
deficits really began to rise significantly under Reagan...
Oct 17, 2012, 10:56 AM
|
|
problem is the government never readjusted when the economy went well. W created a huge cash cow with his Medicare program. If we think our debt is a problem, we can't leave out Republicans.
I'm pretty partisan, but I cannot make that jump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
deficits really began to rise significantly under Reagan
Oct 17, 2012, 11:04 AM
|
|
which ended the cold war, but Reagan also greatly increased revenues and the highest revenues in history were under Dubyah. We do not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem. Reform tax policy, dramatically cut spending, remove all Barry's outrageous regulations and economic growth will cure the debt issue. Also, much of the debt is in entitlements, which dems refuse to reform, despite the dramatic changes in society and demographics. Social security was created in 1935 when life expectancy was 65 and by the mid to late 80s you had the start of baby boomers retiring creating the start of more people taking money out for longer periods than those paying into the system. It's not sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I pretty much agree with all of that...
Oct 17, 2012, 11:08 AM
|
|
but Republicans have had several opportunities to change many of those policies throughout the years but have not done so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They can't do it alone and dems refuse to help despite
Oct 17, 2012, 11:31 AM
|
|
everyone knowing its a broken system. Look how they demonize Ryan's ideas. The ones hurting kids and old folks are the dems. We can reform it now and make some cuts and adjustments, or we can wait till the ship is sinking and have to hurt a lot of people in the process. Honestly I do think progressives want major financial collapse so the feds can step in and nationalize multiple industries and of course banking and finance. Just as FDR used WWII as an excuse to greatly inflate government power. Before WWII the fed gov' was virtually nonexistant. Yet America was strong and growing rapidly. Government didn't build it, industrialists and entrepreneurship did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
But one huge difference I had with Reagan is his foolish war
Oct 17, 2012, 10:58 AM
[ in reply to Not Reagan or GHW Bush, but Dubyah did to a degree with ] |
|
on drugs. Not that I'm pro-drugs per se, but you can not cure social ills with government policy. More money and government intervention will never solve social problems, which liberal believe, but history soundly refutes. And you can not legislate morality. Prohibition made the mob much more powerful, just as the war on drugs has made cartels rich and powerful and fueled violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connoisseur [352]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 211
Joined: 10/5/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No, I'm saying the overwhelming driver of the size and scope
Oct 17, 2012, 10:54 AM
|
|
of today's federal government is largely due to 3 very liberal democrats, which is factually correct. Also, no federal program has ever made a social issue better, much less solve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56365]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31725
Joined: 8/27/02
|
You'd think Congress would have played some role in
Oct 17, 2012, 11:32 AM
|
|
passing the legislation, too. People like to pretend that Congress doesn't exist and presidents are responsible for everything that happens during their administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
FDR used WWII and a highly dem centric congress to
Oct 17, 2012, 11:37 AM
|
|
greatly expand government. Most of what obama has done has skirted congress. Liberal presidents have disdain and contempt for the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [356]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 879
Joined: 6/3/08
|
Re: FDR used WWII and a highly dem centric congress to
Oct 17, 2012, 6:38 PM
|
|
FDR used threats against revamping the make-up of the Supreme Court and lawyers finally found the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution to greatly expand the federal government. Much of the expansion was done pre-WWII.
Much of his early legislation was over-turned due to it being unconstitutional under the then understood commerce clause. Because of the shift in interpretation of the commerce clause by Cardozo's dissent in the Carter Coal case, the Court came around and allowed the NRLB Act in 35 which greatly expanded the power of the commerce clause.
This new method of assessing commerce allowed the government to make a variety of claims under the commerce clause and pass a lot of legislation, including things like the Civil RIghts Act of 64, and wasn't reigned in until the mid 90s with the Lopez gun free school zone case.
Since then, the Court has had a much stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was recently seen in the ObamaCare case.
Basically, regardless of what Congress wanted, it was a shift in the thinking of the Supreme Court that allowed FDR to greatly expand government, not WWII.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
FDR used the Depression AND WWII to greatly expand
Oct 17, 2012, 11:53 PM
|
|
the federal government. LBJ used Kennedy's death and and a dem congress to make the 2nd huge expansion. Nixon realized most of the "Great Society" would lead to the welfare and entitlement state we have today, but the dem congress prevented him from needed reforms. Carter then ushered in the 3rd expansion, primarily with the depths of interior and education. The feds have no business in education, but it used that to create national teachers unions and education has been in a free fall in America ever since.
There are 3 notable republican contributions as well. Civil rights, the EPA, and Bush's prescription drug plan.
Civil rights passed thanks to republicans, but it has been abused and expanded well beyond its original mandate.
Nixon had the right idea and noble intentions with the EPA, but it too has grown well past its mandate and intended purpose, as all federal programs do. The EPA, however, has become a political pawn of the uber left and liberal organizations. The EPA today is a joke and highly anti-business.
When most people think "sustainability" they think the Webster's definition ...
1. capable of being sustained
2. a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged
b : of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods
But the EPA long ago under liberals pushed well beyond it's Congressional mandate. The EPA may be the most dangerous threat to business in America today.
THIS is straight from the EPA's website ...
"Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations."
"Sustainability has emerged as a result of significant concerns about the unintended social, environmental, and economic consequences of rapid population growth, economic growth and consumption of our natural resources.
In its early years, EPA acted primarily as the nation’s environmental watchdog, striving to ensure that industries met legal requirements to control pollution. In subsequent years, EPA began to develop theory, tools, and practices that enabled it to move from controlling pollution to preventing it.
Today EPA aims to make sustainability the next level of environmental protection by drawing on advances in science and technology to protect human health and the environment, and promoting innovative green business practices."
Seriously?
That is social engineering via overt wealth redistribution by a huge unelected and largely unchecked bureaucracy. That is light years beyond anything Nixon, nor Congress intended when creating the EPA.
If the average American knew what the EPA was up to they would be shocked and angered, but the left demonizes the attempts by the right to reel in the non-mandated power of the EPA with nonsense like "republicans hate clean air & water". The EPA is crushing American business & industry and is out of control.
Bret Baier recently did a shocking and revealing hour long expose shedding light on how radical the EPA has become and it's overt social engineering, including its mission to right past social wrongs and use of college campuses to indoctrinate our youth.
America is lost. No republican will ever reel in the enormous power now wielded by non-elected federal government bureaucracies. America is on the decline, its already a nanny state, and is well on its way to being a European socialist country.
Regarding Bush's prescription program. All he had to do was make Medicare supplemental plans available for purchase by EVERYONE getting Medicare, not just retires. That would be self-funding and solve not just the prescription problem, but fill other holes in Medicare.
Message was edited by: Lowcountry_Raconteur®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [356]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 879
Joined: 6/3/08
|
Re: FDR used the Depression AND WWII to greatly expand
Oct 18, 2012, 12:20 AM
|
|
Wow, you really went off on a tangent there. FDR's expansion of the government was a response to the great depression, and occurred before WWII. WWII wasn't an American concern until early in FDR's third term. The only thing WWII had to do with FDR is that it gave him a fourth term, not the expansion of government.
I'm glad the Supreme Court didn't allow Truman to seize the steel companies in the early 50s, you know, those #### libs destroying business and what not. If that had happened you might have had half an argument there, even thought Truman's executive order was related to the Korean War, it would show a clear expansion of government power afforded because of WWII.
You're right Eisenhower didn't use any federal money or government expansion to build the highway system, which greatly helped to create a middle class from coast to coast.
The Congress that passed the 1964 Civil RIghts Act was predominately Democratic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_United_States_Congress. Please explain the Republican contribution here.
The EPA was formed under Nixon, due to the great pressure of Congress, which was predominately Democratic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_United_States_Congress. Please explain the Republican contribution here as well.
I don't think "sustainability" means what you think it means.The first definition you posted is "capable of being sustained" and "sustained" means:
1.
to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.
2.
to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).
3.
to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.
4.
to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.
5.
to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.
Please note #1, #2, #4 and #5 above.
What is your hate with the EPA? I don't understand it? For a guy who is so pro-business and growth, what is wrong with an agency that makes sure there is a sustainable (yes, sustainable) future and environment that is not only capable, but one that supports and ensures business growth in the future? Without the EPA, the cesspools that industry was allowed to create in this country until the 1980s would destroy communities across the nation. Just look at the list of places that are Superfund cites.
Are you against all government regulation, and think that the market will take care of the future at the expense of immediate profit? If you are, that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But I don't agree with that premise, corporations only care about one thing, making shareholders happy, and the way to do that is to maximize profit now.
But hey, you know what they says about opinions and ########.
Not a shot at you, just saying I'm not understanding your position, please, tell me how and why the EPA is bad, and why the potential ills that you see outweigh the good that the regulations do. Not the short term or immediate, but the long term, sustainability of the environment and business environment that is needed to preserve jobs for the long term.
What is your proposed solution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [281]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 849
Joined: 10/29/08
|
Re: I will, it falls squarly on FDR, LBJ, and Carter. All
Oct 17, 2012, 5:33 PM
[ in reply to I will, it falls squarly on FDR, LBJ, and Carter. All ] |
|
You do realize that Republican presidents have presided over two balanced budgets since 1969? Yeah, they're for small government.
But you're half right, Clinton AND BUSH's policies led to the stock market and housing bubbles. But, ironically it was due in large part to deregulation, i.e. the smaller government you worship, that allowed the mortgage companies to run amok. Obama pushed through legislation to hopefully prevent this all from happening again. And, of course, Romney wants to repeal it.
> greatly expanded the federal government and did
> everything they could to seize more power for the
> feds. And Clinton's policies created the stock market
> and housing bubbles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Republicans are not for NO regulation, but fair and common
Oct 17, 2012, 5:56 PM
|
|
sense regulation. The prime culprit of the stock and housing bubble was hyper liquidity created by Clinton and Greenspan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [281]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 849
Joined: 10/29/08
|
Re: Republicans are not for NO regulation, but fair and common
Oct 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
|
|
I disagree with you about the culprit, but let's assume that you are correct. Bush II continued those same policies for 8 years. How is he not just as culpable as Clinton, other than the R beside his name?
> sense regulation. The prime culprit of the stock and
> housing bubble was hyper liquidity created by Clinton
> and Greenspan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
Id vote for the other guy if a gun was to my head***
Oct 17, 2012, 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
^^^undecided voter^^^***
Oct 17, 2012, 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23693]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36824
Joined: 8/19/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30523]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 62669
Joined: 10/4/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
how many chambers are there***
Oct 17, 2012, 11:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30523]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 62669
Joined: 10/4/99
|
6***
Oct 17, 2012, 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
I'd still vote for the other guy
Oct 17, 2012, 3:45 PM
|
|
but I would think about it for a minute
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1660]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 3659
Joined: 9/16/07
|
Re: why are undecideds undecided
Oct 17, 2012, 6:00 PM
|
|
I just hate to waste my vote to vote against someone.
I will, but I wish I had someone to vote for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16343]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25417
Joined: 10/10/06
|
i was an undecided...
Oct 18, 2012, 1:34 AM
|
|
in which i was trying to decide rather to vote for romney or not vote at all.but after watching these two debates.they guy gets it on the real issues being the economy, the tax situation and the deficit.stuff like abortion doesnt really concern me.i am against it for people who just throw their legs up without protection then get knocked up and have dozens of abortions and what not.but if a lady is raped she should be able to get one if she so wishes.truth is there are many more like me who do not like obama but were or still are on the fence about rather to vote for romney though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 40
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
