Why I am voting for Romney
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Well dammit I can't help you, but I like this thread so...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
mitt romney 'pros':
*great hair
*whitest viable candidate
*shares your position on the issues, no matter what
*his wife is a cunt
*impeccable hair
*caucasian
*free haircuts
*has promised not to pretend to be a cop once he has control of the DEA
*marvelous hair
*not concerned about details such as family history, marriage has always been one man and one woman
*is bringing sexy back
*hair like a supermodel
*very white
*seriously great hair
*great hair
*whitest viable candidate
*shares your position on the issues, no matter what
*his wife is a cunt
*impeccable hair
*caucasian
*free haircuts
*has promised not to pretend to be a cop once he has control of the DEA
*marvelous hair
*not concerned about details such as family history, marriage has always been one man and one woman
*is bringing sexy back
*hair like a supermodel
*very white
*seriously great hair
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
It's really hard to say because are we getting Gov Romney, the republican who was able to work with one of the most liberal state senates and actually get shit done instead of blaming everyone but himself? He also was able to give his citizens what they were asking for yet leave the state with a rainy day fund and maintain full employment.
Is it Bain Romney whose sole purpose was turning a profit? The guy turned a potential nightmare in Utah with a 400 million deficit into a 100 million surplus that's been used to support future Olympians. Or is it candidate Romney who is suddenly very conservative and wants to repeal Obamacare yet still trumpets Romneycare? (ftr, yes I see the difference between state and country, citizens for and citizens against, still..)
Romney the man helped one of his employees search for a missing wife, he also went with his sons to a neighbors house after a storm to help rebuild and remove blown over trees.
Personally I'm sticking with Johnson who I feel is Ron Paul but with the ability to look at things from more angles than just Objectivism. My personal liberties are the most important aspect getting my vote and he's the candidate I trust for this reason.
For those who realize what our deficit does for our long term health, yet only recognize there is two parties he seems the logical choice. I believe he also subscribes to Keynesian ideals though so those people are going to be bummed.
Truthfully, once the OP took away the lesser of two evils as a reason, it became a difficult assignment.
Is it Bain Romney whose sole purpose was turning a profit? The guy turned a potential nightmare in Utah with a 400 million deficit into a 100 million surplus that's been used to support future Olympians. Or is it candidate Romney who is suddenly very conservative and wants to repeal Obamacare yet still trumpets Romneycare? (ftr, yes I see the difference between state and country, citizens for and citizens against, still..)
Romney the man helped one of his employees search for a missing wife, he also went with his sons to a neighbors house after a storm to help rebuild and remove blown over trees.
Personally I'm sticking with Johnson who I feel is Ron Paul but with the ability to look at things from more angles than just Objectivism. My personal liberties are the most important aspect getting my vote and he's the candidate I trust for this reason.
For those who realize what our deficit does for our long term health, yet only recognize there is two parties he seems the logical choice. I believe he also subscribes to Keynesian ideals though so those people are going to be bummed.
Truthfully, once the OP took away the lesser of two evils as a reason, it became a difficult assignment.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Let's hope he has the house but not the Senate, neither party has shown they can handle the holy trinity of government responsibly.
that was the bush approach. how'd that work out?
Nope, you are not correct. Although that was his strategy, that's not what caused the mess we are in. This mess was caused by the Dem's unleashing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pushing them (and therefore mortgage lendors) to make home loans to people that should have not gotten them. Then, in turn, those bad mortgages, went bad and were lumped together as good mortgages and resold numerous times to unsuspecting banks and investors, etc.- who took the loss. It's simplistic but the truth.
Buck, you are such a simpleton. I can't wait for your response......
canndo
Well-Known Member
No, this is factually incorrect SSHZ, the majority of bad loans and the majority of packaged loans were made by independent morgage lenders. No one
"forced" bad loans to be made The CRA is not the principle factor in the crash. To blame the poor or to blame government "force" is incorrect and it is a myth that is perpetuated over and over again.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
47th in job creation
and that rainy day fund came on the backs of the middle class and working poor: he increased fees on everything, which is an effective tax that hits the middle class and working poor especially tough.
can you cite for me where the people of MA called for fees on everything to increase? thought so.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You could expand on this and say the CRA put on steroids helped perpetuate the Fannie/Freddie fiasco. NAFTA hurt US business if you believe in protectionism and the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed these banks to gamble with protection of the tax payers while leveraging 40 to 1. You could place all of this blame squarely on Clinton or you could realize he was dealing with a republican house and Senate that pushed for this. I can't point at a party and place blame when I feel it's the system our apathy allowed to be created. A system where bribes are called donations and there is no such thing as a conflict of interest is our biggest problem. Well, an apathetic public when we are designed to be of, for and by the people is the culprit.
Our 4th estate has become more concerned with ratings and profit than truth telling, that hasn't helped.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll let shrub respond to this jumbling of history. remember how the senate and house were both in GOP control, and bush bragged about the "ownership society"?
LOL!
[video=youtube;ZVdTzPEYvH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVdTzPEYvH4[/video]
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
47th in job creation
He had full employment, kinda useless to create new jobs when there is nobody to fill them.
Nothing is free, if people want a bunch of shit it has to be paid for. Free healthcare is actually very very costly. I hope you are criticizing present leadership for the same.
I want free shit too, gimmie gimmie. Difference is I don't actually believe in a free lunch and my morals won't allow me to take from someone else so I can have it. I've been stolen from and it really sucks. Those people had no right to just come and take what I had worked for. I despise a thief, don't you? For this reason if I feel strongly enough about a want I have, I'm willing to make the sacrifices to make that happen.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I'm voting for whichever candidate's views and professed policy will be the closest to the absolute opposite of everything I hear and see from the current administration, AND has a actual shot in hell of winning. If that happens to be Romney this election, so be it. The thought of Obama getting another liberal scumbag on the SCOTUS is enough to turn my stomach.
It may not be answering by your guidelines, but I don't really give a shit about your guidelines.
The reality is he isn't Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Clinton, so he's the tits in my book. You could march Dan Quayle up to the podium as the Conservative candidate and I'd vote for him this year.
It may not be answering by your guidelines, but I don't really give a shit about your guidelines.
The reality is he isn't Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Clinton, so he's the tits in my book. You could march Dan Quayle up to the podium as the Conservative candidate and I'd vote for him this year.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I think I could vote for Quayle before Palin or Bachman. With the expansion of Executive powers the last 12 years the thought makes me ill.
I chuckled when I read that though, haven't thought of him in years.
Really! Is that your final answer?
bedspirit
Active Member
How exactly were mortgage lenders pushed into making loans they didn't want to make? Also, the CEOs of all the major banks have been called before congress multiple times to discuss the financial crisis and yet not one CEO ever said they were forced into doing something that was against their best interest. If there was such a law that was twisting their arm, don't you think they might have mentioned it?
The truth is they knew exactly what they were doing when they made those loans. They didn't care if they were going to be paid back, because they had no intention of keeping the loans. They bundled them and sold them as AAA investments.
The Democrats role in this was allowing Fannie and Freddie to have a leverage ratio of 60:1. The thinking was that real estate in America doesn't decrease in value. Oooops! But your accusation that there was some kind of law on the books or something that made the banks do what they did is completely false. It was put out there by a bunch of PR people for Wall Street banks desperately trying to improve their image. They will usually blame the Community Reinvestment Act, but it's not true. The CRA doesn't force a bank to do anything they don't want to do, also all the banks involved had such high CRA scores that they wouldn't have had to give out a bunch of bad loans just to get in good standing. Also, over 50% of the loans were given out by institutions that are exempt from the CRA.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I thought we were finished with this "taxes are theft" discussion. "The people" have a right to have you pay for services rendered just as they themselves paid.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
It wasn't just the poor, a lot of well off folks allowed themselves into being suckered into inflated home values and extremely low ARMs. Refis are as much to blame as new loans.
My loan manager told me herself that she had to hold good candidates approvals until they could find more sub-primes to keep the numbers in line because of political pressure. Threats were made with FDIC backing used as leverage. She says her bank had a 20% "unofficial" quota.
Still, personal responsibility is only a memory for our society, that's the true cause. The loan officer approving loans to people who couldn't afford it and people who couldn't afford it taking those loans share in the blame.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Seems to me Muy that you are ignoring the guidelines not because you don't "give a shit" but because you can't make a case for Romney on his own merits. So the only real merit you see for romney has nothing to do with his plans for an open government, a reasonable energy policy, an immigration policy that makes sense, health and tax reform, the economy, education reform, foreign policy that forwards our American causes, changes in regulations for various industries or anything of that nature.
You are selecting Romney because he is not Obama and that is is only qualification, right?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You missed the context. This was in reference to Buck saying fees were raised against people's wishes. I was explaining that is how people get shit they want. If they demand shit but don't want to pay for it then they have to take from others. It's not rocket surgery.
canndo
Well-Known Member
It was the poor, the government and the irresponsible then? Nothing having to do with lenders?