Mitt Romney: "I want to be president"

[Navy 495]

No, not really. Yes, the original concept originated in 1984 when Ronald Reagan, a republican, was in office. But it was buried, and not yet a significant line item in the budget. It did however balloon to its current expenditure when George W. Bush, yet another republican, expanded its reach. Either way, Obama had nothing to do with it, so try something else.

No Obama had a lot to do with it. When Obama went into office it went from 819 million to now over 2 billion. That's a huge difference. There's actually a lot I could say as far as trying something else, but clearly you must like Obama so arguing with you about it is pointless.

[Disregard 50]

No Obama had a lot to do with it. When Obama went into office it went from 819 million to now over 2 billion. That's a huge difference. There's actually a lot I could say as far as trying something else, but clearly you must like Obama so arguing with you about it is pointless.

 

I don't give a **** about Obama. Clearly I could call you white trash for having nonsense like Iggy in your sig but I don't need to resort that that since your actual words are proof enough of your youthful ignorance, New recruits are not a signifier of the failure of the program you are trying to stick to a president who did not create it. On its own laurels, it is a program which goes against everything supposed conservatives are against and yet they only developed a problem with it once somebody else was in power.

[Navy 495]

I don't give a **** about Obama. Clearly I could call you white trash for having nonsense like Iggy in your sig but I don't need to resort that that since your actual words are proof enough of your youthful ignorance, New recruits are not a signifier of the failure of the program you are trying to stick to a president who did not create it. On its own laurels, it is a program which goes against everything supposed conservatives are against and yet they only developed a problem with it once somebody else was in power.

I'm white trash because I like Iggy Azalea? I stopped reading at that line, I have no interest in what you have to say :wtf:

[Disregard 50]

I'm white trash because I like Iggy Azalea? I stopped reading at that line, I have no interest in what you have to say

 

Translation: What you said hit too close to home and I feel uncomfortable now.

[Navy 495]

Translation: What you said hit too close to home and I feel uncomfortable now.

You don't even know me though. Nothing someone on an online forum says to me is going to make me feel uncomfortable or hurt my feelings. I don't know you, your opinion doesn't affect me. Get over yourself.

[Disregard 50]

You don't even know me though. Nothing someone on an online forum says to me is going to make me feel uncomfortable or hurt my feelings. I don't know you, your opinion doesn't affect me. Get over yourself.

 

What you choose to represent yourself reflects certain aspects of what you're willing to accept, small as they may be. You believe a lack of support for a rich white man and his aspirations for the presidency somehow means I co-sign everything the current president does, and throw in irrelevant policies that didn't even originate from him as some sort of proof that one must be an idiot if you don't think some inefficient ****wit could do a better job. Don't wanna be linked to some messiness based on who is in your sig? Then don't associate with it. Travel outside this forum full of 14 year old white kids and see how far your opinions will reach with people who have actually lived in the real world.

[Economy 52,844]

You obviously must be a well-off kid to have such an ignorant view of welfare. I'm not saying that there aren't people who abuse the system, but the majority of people on food-stamps are barely getting by. "Get up and get jobs" it isn't that easy. There are people in this country with Bachelors Degrees in their fields who can't find a job. Hell, half of the people with degree's can't find a low-wage job because they're over-qualified and the managers won't hire them.

If you have more money, you should pay the exact same percentage that every other middle class-men plays. That way, less money has to be taken from the hard working middle class.

i agree with this. Many ppl as i said in my comment legitely need the help

Thays why when navy called them lazy i said its not always the case and capitalism shoukdnt be taken to a total extreme

That being said... Understand that socialism discourages entre-preneurship and business investment which leads to higher unemployment, less oppurtunities and lower wages

The whole point of socialism is to reduce poverty but u end up creating more. Then u need to keep up the taxes cuz with a weaker economy u need to keep helping the poor cause there will be more of them

Makes more sense to me to focus on economic growth and eliminate as much poverty as possible that way and making the economy productive rather than taxing the rich, giving money away and turning the economy stagnant, uncompetitive and unproductive

Again, the Countries that have the most competitive economies are all right-winged.

Even prosperous socialist Coutries like Norway would be a mess without low population and the oil they have cuz their manufacturing sector is extremely uncompetitive and their non-energy private sector is soffucated with such high taxes

Public sector soending with oil revenue is what keeps their economy going

[MahoganySnitch 67]

its annoying cuz most ppl criticise my thinking with things they dont understand

They legitly think that me supporting right-winged governments means i only support the rich

Also, the entire political system doesnt revolve around LGBT issues but thats all LGBT pays attention to

Im part of the LGBT myself and i personally would still go Republican cuz to me the economy will make a bigger difference in my life than technical symbolic rights like allowed to get married

Now for some ppl they dont think that way and thats fine. But my point is social issues dont revolve soley around LGBT issues

But apart from the symbolism, what about all the economic benefits afforded to man-woman unions that are not completely afforded to same-s-x unions? As in marriage, not civil unions? While being a symbolic victory in and of itself, there's economic factors to consider, are they not? Considering you appreciate that field, I ask that. 

[RAMROD 117,021]

Of course he want to.

But we will have to see the other candidates.

If theur visions are radical or even weak, maybe this is the year for Romney to be US1. :FAN:

[No Angel 128]

This asshole has made it clear that he feels the presidency is something that he is actually entitled to. It kills him that it's basically the only thing that he has failed to achieve. He wasn't even a successful governor, and you braindead teenagers think he would do a better job just because you're unhappy with the current president? Your homework is overdue.

 

...

[ARTPOPisaChoice 946]

If Hilary Clinton runs there is NO hope for him. Many of my deeply conservative family members have expressed a liking of Hilary. (Imo though I would much prefer Emily Warren aka FDR 2.0 as the first female president.)

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

its annoying cuz most ppl criticise my thinking with things they dont understand

They legitly think that me supporting right-winged governments means i only support the rich

Also, the entire political system doesnt revolve around LGBT issues but thats all LGBT pays attention to

Im part of the LGBT myself and i personally would still go Republican cuz to me the economy will make a bigger difference in my life than technical symbolic rights like allowed to get married

Now for some ppl they dont think that way and thats fine. But my point is social issues dont revolve soley around LGBT issues

I don't think that LGBT people are that shallow and uninformed as that...   Its a matter of priorities and self-interest, not that all we care about is same-s-x marriage. Some people REALLY value the right to marriage, and see it as a battle of "what should come first? Basic rights or ___"? which imo has just a little merit in its roots (though to most intelligent people, obv. things like the economy and what not are just more objectively important.. especially if they are bad or deteriorating... but everyone has the right to vote and that is that, lol)

 

I would argue that not liking or voting for a candidate because of their stance on the subject is valid and acceptable. A candidate who is against rights for certain people and doesnt believe on the emotional, albeit sometimes romanticized concepts of "America" hardly deserves to be president to most people. Yes, you can be entirely factual, and the economy might be more immediately important, but if he doesnt uphold standards, he may or may not have support and might be more likely to end up an inefficient president..

 

For example,media is huge in painting a candidate -- it can dictate how a president or candidate will be seen by the general public for the entirety of their presidential career --- or attempt at one. Like with Obama, lol.

 

For real, media has managed to spin things that are semi or pseudo-conservative concepts proposed by Obama into negative ones, simply because he was associated with him. It got so bad that even Democrats didn't want to be associated with his name because there is such biased vitriol for him and anything he supports... SIMPLY because he is who he is. He could have been the best president ever behind the scenes and people would STILL hate him. His achievements aside, he did have the country stacked against him at the end of the day, and a vast majority of people don't even know why they hate him so much... its become popular to do so, without researching the impact or reality of his contributions to the country.

(Personally, I think hes meh )

 

You also forget to include the fact that modern social conservatism or belief in traditional values IS sometimes heavily problematic or adversely religious motivated... Its not that Republicans (generally) don't believe in or want Same-Sex Marriage alone, but they are sometimes practical to a fault --- not because they arent intelligent about the economy and what not, but because their intelligence is often clouded by hypocritical, backwards concepts. If we could find people with a good mixture of social liberalism and economic/governmental conservatism, we'd be set in theory... This is why the Republican party is experiencing a "bit" of a crisis at the moment.

 

Tbh, Obama's negative press has won them soo many points, but it capitalizes on such a basic, flawed human notion. "The Democrats are doing bad, therefore ANY popular republican will do bad, sans all of their flaws". It's flawed because its presumptuous. 

 

So my point is that many people, not just LGBT people and minorities, are against Republicans because not all of them believe in equal rights for everyone, or some are incredibly s-xist and uneducated/misinformed when it comes to social issues IN GENERAL. Some people might be as basic (no shade intended ) as to only care about Same-Sex Marriage, or gay rights because they are self-absorbed, or its the only topic they know about, etc etc. But again, its up to your own priorities. I just think more people don't like the party and its candidates for a combination of similarly related reasons.

 

As for me, I personally identify as conservative leaning economically, but almost entirely liberal socially, and I feel like my vote will depend on what I feel is more important for me and the country in the moment-- as well as who I honestly think will simply do a better job. So its entirely possible I will vote for Republican one, Democrat another. 

 

Tbh, If I was 18 in 2008, I would have voted for Hilary personally. Romney seemed weak and malleable to me. More in it for the prestige and an ego trip than to actively want to improve the country -- or improve it based on a confused vision of what it actually needs help in (other than the economy). He seems like the kind of president who would let his advisers and the GP basically run the presidency for him. That's the sense I get from him. I didnt just rely on biased media sources to come to that conclusion, but it was my perception regardless, lol. 

 

Finally just for fun, any educated tumblr user can send you a myriad of links on what Obama has done "good" for the country. Its all guessing ofc, but I still think Romney would have been worse as a president than Obama

[Luiz 4,253]

What you choose to represent yourself reflects certain aspects of what you're willing to accept, small as they may be. You believe a lack of support for a rich white man and his aspirations for the presidency somehow means I co-sign everything the current president does, and throw in irrelevant policies that didn't even originate from him as some sort of proof that one must be an idiot if you don't think some inefficient ****wit could do a better job. Don't wanna be linked to some messiness based on who is in your sig? Then don't associate with it. Travel outside this forum full of 14 year old white kids and see how far your opinions will reach with people who have actually lived in the real world.

i'm not done reading the thread but i have to stop here and say that lucy set is lovely

[Dunk96 2,526]

[Bordeciel 323]

the majority of people who understand economics well and politics and studied it (id say 70% or more) prefer republicans and right winged Governments.

Its just that all average people can understand is that Obama taxes the rich and cares for the environment and supports LGBT and they only understand those issues superficially

Especially when it comes to the economy, i dont think many people understand fully just how much a socialist approach tends to backfire and create the opposite effect its intended to create

If u discourage business investment and unemployment rises, wages stagnate A LOT because theres no competition. Theres also less productivity. And no amount of taxes on the rich will make up for that. The middle class ends up worse off most of the time

Really, only small Countries with many natural resources (Like Norway) have successfuly pulled off Socialism

Ppl dont really understand that Capitalism is suppostu generate wealth for everyone, people have a tendency to associate it with benefits for the rich only. Of course anything to the extreme is no good which includes capitalism. But were no where near the extreme