Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[UNT90]

Well look who's Mr Snarky now that I was off in one of my predictions. Need I go back through this thread to contrast all the times I was correct, and you weren't?

I'll make sure to bring up the part of your quote that I bolded in a couple of weeks. A southern 'conservative' won a very southern conservative state against a more moderate candidate. A rejection of South Carolina would be a win in my book, personally.

Dude. It's not all about you.

I was commenting on the national media love for Romney. It really had nothing to do with you.

But, if you wanna make predictions around here. You better be prepared to take some jabs when you are wrong. I've taken plenty in the past and I'm sure will take plenty in the future, as I am smart enough to realize that I can't predict the future.

I guess when you are a self-described political pundit like yourself you tend to forget that you can't predict the future;-)

Edited January 22, 2012 by UNT90

[Coffee and TV]

Dude. It's not all about you.

I was commenting on the national media love for Romney. It really had nothing to do with you.

Ok bro. If you say so.

But, if you wanna make predictions around here. You better be prepared to take some jabs when you are wrong.

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, I just don't need anybody to be c-nty when I am.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Go find the most conservative woman you know and ask her if she would vote for Newt. I've done this several times (only when the opportunity presented itself, religion and politics, don't you know) and every time these highly conservative women have said they would vote for Pres Obama over Newt if that was the choice that was presented.

Not that they wouldnt vote in the election, bit that they would vote FOR Pres. Obama.

Kind of funny you mention it, because I just had this conversation with a few conservative women today. None of them liked Newt, and one of them said she would consider not voting if Newt got the nomination. More said they would not vote at all if Ron Paul got the nomination. But none of them would consider voting for Obama under any circumstances.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Gingrich is a real puzzle to me and I think a GOP problem... He does come across as the the most informed of all GOP candidates but his history is completely opposite of the image that the GOP brags about.... family values .. and their claim to be the most moral party (which doesn't hold water either... maybe not worse but not any better). He is getting more votes than I expected but there are a lot of women who would vote for anyone but him or just not vote at all. Gingrich even left office because the GOP wanted to go after Clinton's infidelity... and he was far worse and their own.

---I thought it a bit odd how much Newt was bragging about when he was Speaker that the budget was balanced for four years [only time in recent history or past 30 years] but not mentioning that the White House was occupied by Clinton and that Gore was in charge of the Senate (VP). He was also claiming the national debt was under control then [ true ... it grew less than 2% per year in Clinton years... so much for the liberal spending claims ] That could come back to bite him later if he gets the nomination... that and the fact his wives couldn't trust him.

---Meanwhile Romney has been claiming that the private sector is the area that creates jobs and not government... which is true ... government can do a few things to encourage job growth but not create many of them. That comment could eventually haunt him as well since that is where the GOP has been attacking Obama. Having off-shore accounts is not going to help him any either.... they are obviously there to avoid paying more income tax... and he is paying 15% now which is less than what many pay that go to work every day.

---The extreme T-Party folks have pretty much disappeared... most people realize you can't maintain a decent government without collecting a reasonable amount of taxes... that is why we have the large debt now that has appeared since 2001... almost triple now of 2000 numbers and not getting better. Spending does need to be cut and most "earmarks' (very common from 2001 to 2009, Santorium was one of the worse ) need to disappear... but at the same time some taxes that were cut need to be reinstated... Those with high "earned income" are paying 30% or more while Wall Street types just pay 15%... that just isn't right. The rich are not being soaked as some love to claim. It amazes me that some here defend that.... they, the high income working people, are the ones being hit the worse .... not people worth 100's of millions. No problem with exempting an amount, maybe first $50,000.. ( retirement? income accounts ) for 15% but not the millions or 100's of millions that the super wealthy make yearly..

..

Edited January 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[untgirl04]

--- Gingrich is a real puzzle to me and I think a GOP problem... He does come across as the the most informed of all GOP candidates but his history is completely opposite of the image that the GOP brags about.... family values .. and their claim to be the most moral party (which doesn't hold water either... maybe not worse but not any better). He is getting more votes than I expected but there are a lot of women who would vote for anyone but him or just not vote at all. Gingrich even left office because the GOP wanted to go after Clinton's infidelity... and he was far worse and their own.

---I thought it a bit odd how much Newt was bragging about when he was Speaker that the budget was balanced for four years [only time in recent history or past 30 years] but not mentioning that the White House was occupied by Clinton and that Gore was in charge of the Senate (VP). He was also claiming the national debt was under control then [ true ... it grew less than 2% per year in Clinton years... so much for the liberal spending claims ] That could come back to bite him later if he gets the nomination... that and the fact his wives couldn't trust him.

---Meanwhile Romney has been claiming that the private sector is the area that creates jobs and not government... which is true ... government can do a few things to encourage job growth but not create many of them. That comment could eventually haunt him as well since that is where the GOP has been attacking Obama. Having off-shore accounts is not going to help him any either.... they are obviously there to avoid paying more income tax... and he is paying 15% now which is less than what many pay that go to work every day.

---The extreme T-Party folks have pretty much disappeared... most people realize you can't maintain a decent government without collecting a reasonable amount of taxes... that is why we have the large debt now that has appeared since 2001... almost triple now of 2000 numbers and not getting better. Spending does need to be cut and most "earmarks' (very common from 2001 to 2009, Santorium was one of the worse ) need to disappear... but at the same time some taxes that were cut need to be reinstated... Those with high "earned income" are paying 30% or more while Wall Street types just pay 15%... that just isn't right. The rich are not being soaked as some love to claim. It amazes me that some here defend that.... they, the high income working people, are the ones being hit the worse .... not people worth 100's of millions. No problem with exempting an amount, maybe first $50,000.. ( retirement? income accounts ) for 15% but not the millions or 100's of millions that the super wealthy make yearly..

..

Jumping into the frying pan on this one, but oh well. About me: 25-30 yr old female, Moderate Conservative, typically vote Republican.

-- Newt Gingrich fascinates me too. I don't honestly believe that any party at this point has the moral high ground, so to me, I'm most concerned with who can handle the growing Iranian/Israeli diplomatic hornet's nest (another term suits this better, but it's a PG board) and who can get our debt under control. Newt's wives aside, I think it's possible he's learned a lot since his Speaker days, and right now, he's probably the best candidate. If he makes a smart choice for his running mate, I think he could also take the women's vote. Now, if he makes a bone-headed decision like McCain did, all bets are off. I ended up voting for Obama in the last election because of that mistake. Of all the qualified, intelligent women in Washington, he has to go pick a backwards idiot who makes me embarrassed for my entire gender. But I digress...

-- I haven't paid attention to every debate, but ultimately, I would give Gingrich more credit for fiscal spending and balanced budget than I would Clinton. It's the House that controls Ways and Means. I think part of the reason spending went down during the Clinton years was that Congress and the White House could never agree enough to get things passed through. That's the beauty and sometimes the frustration of a separation of powers.

-- I've seen several reports lately stating that it's not the tax cuts that have cost us so much, but that it's tax evasion (thinkprogress.org is one source). We agree somewhat, about the need for taxation to run the government, but I think we should take a hard look at what we're taxing and why. Ultimately though, I'm not in favor of raising any taxes until Congress shows me it can be responsible with the money I already give them.

[Coffee and TV]

[UNT90]

Jumping into the frying pan on this one, but oh well. About me: 25-30 yr old female, Moderate Conservative, typically vote Republican.

-- Newt Gingrich fascinates me too. I don't honestly believe that any party at this point has the moral high ground, so to me, I'm most concerned with who can handle the growing Iranian/Israeli diplomatic hornet's nest (another term suits this better, but it's a PG board) and who can get our debt under control. Newt's wives aside, I think it's possible he's learned a lot since his Speaker days, and right now, he's probably the best candidate. If he makes a smart choice for his running mate, I think he could also take the women's vote. Now, if he makes a bone-headed decision like McCain did, all bets are off. I ended up voting for Obama in the last election because of that mistake. Of all the qualified, intelligent women in Washington, he has to go pick a backwards idiot who makes me embarrassed for my entire gender. But I digress...

-- I haven't paid attention to every debate, but ultimately, I would give Gingrich more credit for fiscal spending and balanced budget than I would Clinton. It's the House that controls Ways and Means. I think part of the reason spending went down during the Clinton years was that Congress and the White House could never agree enough to get things passed through. That's the beauty and sometimes the frustration of a separation of powers.

-- I've seen several reports lately stating that it's not the tax cuts that have cost us so much, but that it's tax evasion (thinkprogress.org is one source). We agree somewhat, about the need for taxation to run the government, but I think we should take a hard look at what we're taxing and why. Ultimately though, I'm not in favor of raising any taxes until Congress shows me it can be responsible with the money I already give them.

Very thoughtful thoughts.

I should of included that the women I talked to were all married or divorced. I wonder if that makes a difference.

I give Clinton credit for working with congress to get some things done. They obviously didn't agree on everything, but it was pretty apparent Clinton learned a hard lesson from the health care attempt, a lesson our current President completely ignored. Clinton moderated by his second term, something Pres. Obama will never do.

Too bad Pres. Clinton was extremely flawed personally and ended up committing a felony while In office. I fear Newt will take the republicans down the same path if elected.

[UNT Five&Dime]

I am smart enough to realize that I can't predict the future.

Clinton moderated by his second term, something Pres. Obama will never do.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Jumping into the frying pan on this one, but oh well. About me: 25-30 yr old female, Moderate Conservative, typically vote Republican.

-- Newt Gingrich fascinates me too. I don't honestly believe that any party at this point has the moral high ground, so to me, I'm most concerned with who can handle the growing Iranian/Israeli diplomatic hornet's nest (another term suits this better, but it's a PG board) and who can get our debt under control. Newt's wives aside, I think it's possible he's learned a lot since his Speaker days, and right now, he's probably the best candidate. If he makes a smart choice for his running mate, I think he could also take the women's vote. Now, if he makes a bone-headed decision like McCain did, all bets are off. I ended up voting for Obama in the last election because of that mistake. Of all the qualified, intelligent women in Washington, he has to go pick a backwards idiot who makes me embarrassed for my entire gender. But I digress...

-- I haven't paid attention to every debate, but ultimately, I would give Gingrich more credit for fiscal spending and balanced budget than I would Clinton. It's the House that controls Ways and Means. I think part of the reason spending went down during the Clinton years was that Congress and the White House could never agree enough to get things passed through. That's the beauty and sometimes the frustration of a separation of powers.

-- I've seen several reports lately stating that it's not the tax cuts that have cost us so much, but that it's tax evasion (thinkprogress.org is one source). We agree somewhat, about the need for taxation to run the government, but I think we should take a hard look at what we're taxing and why. Ultimately though, I'm not in favor of raising any taxes until Congress shows me it can be responsible with the money I already give them.

..I think most sourses give 40% of the debt to the tax cuts.... 40% of the debt to war... mostly Iraq which had zero to do with 9-11 and had no WMD... and the remaining 20% to whatever.. including interest. In all other wars I believe that Congress and the President increased taxes to cover war costs but in 2001 the opposite happened.... they were not conservative at all... Conservatives make sure income and expenses are very close together. You are likely right about a lot of much tax evasion but I doubt it is a big contributing factor.... oddly I think less money is now spent than before by the Treasury Dept. to collecting these taxes..... In some areas cutting expenses just doesn't make sense. Sorta like not changing a cars oil to save money... bad in the long run.

[Coffee and TV]

If you want Obama to stay in the White House, vote Newt in the primaries. You can quote this and keep it in your signature until election day.

[KRAM1]

If you want Obama to stay in the White House, vote Newt in the primaries. You can quote this and keep it in your signature until election day.

Unbelieveable, but we agree on this point. Pigs can fly I guess.

[UNT90]

Clinton had already moderated by the time of the primaries of his re-election campaign. I guess Pres. Obama could have an epiphany in the next 9 months, but he has exhibited no such capacity so far.

[UNT90]

If you want Obama to stay in the White House, vote Newt in the primaries. You can quote this and keep it in your signature until election day.

I tend to agree. But again, EVERYTHING depends on whet the economy is doing this coming October.

You can put that in your signature line if so inclined.

Edited January 23, 2012 by UNT90

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-blames-congress-romneys-15-155000898.html

Note-- Buffett does state that many of his employees pay a higher rate than he does... The ultra wealthy should be very concerned about the national debt and what it could lead to. They could be hurt the worst in the long run...

Edited January 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[forevereagle]

I should of included that the women I talked to were all married or divorced. I wonder if that makes a difference.

Oh, she's married.

[untgirl04]

..I think most sourses give 40% of the debt to the tax cuts.... 40% of the debt to war... mostly Iraq which had zero to do with 9-11 and had no WMD... and the remaining 20% to whatever.. including interest. In all other wars I believe that Congress and the President increased taxes to cover war costs but in 2001 the opposite happened.... they were not conservative at all... Conservatives make sure income and expenses are very close together. You are likely right about a lot of much tax evasion but I doubt it is a big contributing factor.... oddly I think less money is now spent than before by the Treasury Dept. to collecting these taxes..... In some areas cutting expenses just doesn't make sense. Sorta like not changing a cars oil to save money... bad in the long run.

Apparently, you didn't look at the link. Most of these sources who quote the source of the deficit as being tax cuts and wars are looking only at the GDP and percentages, and are often partisan links. That's fine, everyone has their own spin. However, more recent studies suggest that aside from our GDP numbers, there's a large sum of money that is legally owed to the government, which people choose not to pay. That money that the government is expecting based on reported income isn't coming in (kinda like budgeting paycheck to paycheck only to find out that your salary got cut without you knowing it). The source I referenced has the lost income sitting at between $400B and $500B. I think that's still a statistically significant number.

I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense to cut IRS funding when we have a lot of money that needs collecting. Of course, if people were just honest, this wouldn't be an issue. But that's utopia, and we don't live there.

[CMJ]

It's almost inevitable at this point there will be an HBO miniseries/TV movie about this race (like they have with Recount and the soon to be aired Game Change), but I think the appropriate format to tell the story would be as a BROADWAY MUSICAL.

Featuring such showstopping numbers as:

Cain Train - A rousing gospel number sung by Herman Cain.

Why Don't They Like Me - a tragic lament spoke/sung by Mitt Romney

Sunglasses for My Doggie - Marcus Bachmann's big number, featuring Michelle Bachmann and a chorus line of male dancers

The Candidates Debate - The big song of the musical, reprised seventeen times throughout the show.

Dreams of Iran - featuring all the candidates, with a solo by Ron Paul, and a special appearance by John McCain

The Fate of Civilization, and My Role Therein - a long-winded soliloquy by Newt Gingrich, accompanied by sci-fi music cues, bizarre light displays, and at the end, a giant statue of Gingrich that sings!

I'm Not Lazy, I'm Just Texan - a rousing country song drawled out by Rick Perry, in bits and pieces as he keeps getting distracted.

Golden - sung by a chorus of young people, with a befuddled guest appearance by Ron Paul

A Surge of Santorum's - Rick Santorum starts a big number, but is interrupted by first a glitterbomb, then various other distractions.

The Elephant's Soul - a clash of different choruses: the Tea Party, the Establishment, the Moneymen, the Libertarians, and the Evangelicals.

Edited January 23, 2012 by CMJ

[FirefightnRick]

I highly doubt "very conservative" women (or men) would vote for Obama over Newt Gingrich. Moderates, maybe. But not conservatives.

And I believe the hindsight of history has shown us that many of our presidents, even the great ones, have possessed deep flaws along with admirable qualities.

According to Edison Research doing exit polling for the AP last Saturday, Gingrich won 36% of the women's vote in S.C.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/21/gingrich-won-womens-vote-in-sc-primary-exit-polls-show/

Rick

[UNTflyer]

http://finance.yahoo...-155000898.html

Note-- Buffett does state that many of his employees pay a higher rate than he does... The ultra wealthy should be very concerned about the national debt and what it could lead to. They could be hurt the worst in the long run...

Well, what he doesn't tell people is that 99.99% of his income is dividends and capital gains on long-term etransferies INVESTMENTS which is taxed at 15%. Wanna raise that? Then you raise taxes on seniors' 401K and pension earnings.

But if Buffet really feels he is not paying enough, he can send a check to the Treasury Department.

Edited January 24, 2012 by UNTflyer

[UNTflyer]

Well, what he doesn't tell people is that 99.99% of his income is dividends and capital gains on long-term etransferies which is taxed at 15%. Wanna raise that? Then you raise taxes on seniors' 401K and pension earnings.

But if Buffet really feels he is not paying enough, he can send a check to the Treasury Department.

Why is the board making the word "etransferies" look like "etransferies"??

Seriously, I've tried to correct it three times... very weird.

[UNTflyer]

Why is the board making the word "etransferies" look like "etransferies"??

Seriously, I've tried to correct it three times... very weird.

e-t-r-a-n-s-f-e-r-i-e-s

[UNTflyer]

e-t-r-a-n-s-f-e-r-i-e-s

WTF?!?!

[UNTflyer]

WTF?!?!

I Transfer give up.

[UNTflyer]

I Transfer give up.

Besides, if we didn't have the super wealthy, Robin Leach- who was a controversial but frequently mentioned fan consideration for head coach at North Texas, would have to Transfer his day job.

Edited January 24, 2012 by UNTflyer

[Mean Green Matt]

e-t-r-a-n-s-f-e-r-i-e-s

How about eckwitties?