Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Soxbadger]

People have flipped once they got into power. Romney seems like a guy who will put anything next to his name if he thinks it will get him further in his career. Part of me thinks the only reason he went Republican to start is that it gave him a chance to put his name in lights against Kennedy, where as if he was a Democrat he just would have been another guy.

 

Im not overly concerned, I also dont have any real role in what happens. My state will go Obama, so my vote in essence is meaningless

[StrangeSox]

People have flipped once they got into power. Romney seems like a guy who will put anything next to his name if he thinks it will get him further in his career. Part of me thinks the only reason he went Republican to start is that it gave him a chance to put his name in lights against Kennedy, where as if he was a Democrat he just would have been another guy.

 

Im not overly concerned, I also dont have any real role in what happens. My state will go Obama, so my vote in essence is meaningless

 

He grew up as the son of a prominent Republican politician and went on to become a wealthy financier. While I agree that he's willing to claim any stance to get ahead, I don't think being a Republican was one of those choices. The man has convictions that he lets slip out every now and then, he's just willing to claim they're something else publicly.

 

Which is part of why he's so dangerous. If he's willing to sign on to whatever nutball idea the GOP comes up with next, it could be disastrous.

[Y2HH]

Romney may not focus on the social issues himself, 1) but he won't do anything to stand in the way of a GOP-controlled House and Senate.

 

Plus potential SCOTUS appointments, 2) and the court already has a bunch of young, hard-right conservatives.

 

1) I don't see the GOP gaining control of both houses anyway, so unless they did, not to mention the required vast majorities, it wouldn't matter anyway...and the odds of that happening are next to zero.

 

2) And no, the court doesn't. The youngest member of that court was born in 1960, and it's Kegan. The next youngest is Roberts (1955), and then Sotomayer (1954).

 

The rest were born between 1933 and 1950. The court is pretty even weighted in terms of age.

[Soxbadger]

If he was such a hardcore Republican due to his old man, why in 92 was he an Independent who voted for Tsongas?

 

It wasnt until he ran against Kennedy that he found his "Republicanism".

 

And what does wealthy have to do with it? The super rich are more likely to be Democrats.

[StrangeSox]

1) I don't see the GOP gaining control of both houses anyway, so unless they did, not to mention the required vast majorities, it wouldn't matter anyway...and the odds of that happening are next to zero.

 

I think that if there's enough Republican support for Romney to win, that means they'll be doing well down-ticket and take the Senate.

 

2) And no, the court doesn't. The youngest member of that court was born in 1960, and it's Kegan. The next youngest is Roberts (1955), and then Sotomayer (1954).

 

The rest were born between 1933 and 1950. The court is pretty even weighted in terms of age.

 

 

Young is relative for SC justices. Barring some unforeseen illness, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will be there another 20 years. Kagan and Sotomayor will be there for decades, but Ginsburg and Breyer are both getting up there in age along with Scalia and Kennedy. They'll try to time their retirements strategically, but even being able to replace Kennedy with a young conservative justice can tip the balance down the road. SC appointments can be the longest-lasting legacy for a President.

[StrangeSox]

If he was such a hardcore Republican due to his old man, why in 92 was he an Independent who voted for Tsongas?

 

It wasnt until he ran against Kennedy that he found his "Republicanism".

 

And what does wealthy have to do with it? The super rich are more likely to be Democrats.

 

I don't think he's a hard-core Republican, but I'll admit that this is just guessing at his "true" feelings.

[Soxbadger]

Its just basically best case scenario for Democrats. Even if Obama should lose, Romney is far more palatable than Santorum or Gingrich.

[Balta1701]

1) I don't see the GOP gaining control of both houses anyway, so unless they did, not to mention the required vast majorities, it wouldn't matter anyway...and the odds of that happening are next to zero.

 

2) And no, the court doesn't. The youngest member of that court was born in 1960, and it's Kegan. The next youngest is Roberts (1955), and then Sotomayer (1954).

 

The rest were born between 1933 and 1950. The court is pretty even weighted in terms of age.

Anthony Kennedy was the Swing vote in the early 90's that upheld Roe v. Wade, and will turn 76 this summer. Although he comes up as one of the most pro-big-business votes in the Court's history...if a modern Republican nominee replaces him, there's every reason to believe that Roe v. Wade and probably Griswold v. Connecticut (which established the legal basis for a right to privacy) would be overturned.

[Balta1701]

Its just basically best case scenario for Democrats. Even if Obama should lose, Romney is far more palatable than Santorum or Gingrich.

If you believe Romney's current campaign proposals though, George W. Bush was far more palatable than Rmoney (See: the Paul Ryan budget).

[Y2HH]

Anthony Kennedy was the Swing vote in the early 90's that upheld Roe v. Wade, and will turn 76 this summer. Although he comes up as one of the most pro-big-business votes in the Court's history...if a modern Republican nominee replaces him, there's every reason to believe that Roe v. Wade and probably Griswold v. Connecticut (which established the legal basis for a right to privacy) would be overturned.

 

While I understand this...what does it have to do with my post where I simply pointed out the fallacy that is the SCOTUS is full of young republicans...when it isn't?

 

Edit: And if anything, IMO, Kennedy is the only "balanced" justice on the supreme court...and it will be sad to lose him when the time comes. The other 8 are party voters.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

While I understand this...what does it have to do with my post where I simply pointed out the fallacy that is the SCOTUS is full of young republicans...when it isn't?

I'd say that was mostly in reply to your point 1, which I read as minimizing the importance of the next Supreme Court appointee in terms of how completely it could overhaul perhaps the most divisive social issue in the country.

[Y2HH]

I'd say that was mostly in reply to your point 1, which I read as minimizing the importance of the next Supreme Court appointee in terms of how completely it could overhaul perhaps the most divisive social issue in the country.

 

I wasn't really talking about that, but if I was talking about it, I'd agree.

[Jenksismyhero]

That issue is so overblown.

[Balta1701]

That issue is so overblown.

As long as the court decision exists you're correct. The moment it is overturned, if that ever happens, that will be the stampede.

[Jenksismyhero]

As long as the court decision exists you're correct. The moment it is overturned, if that ever happens, that will be the stampede.

 

No way. It'll be the same as it is now, just reversed. 80% of the country doesn't give a s***, 10% really wants it to be legal, 10% doesn't (people that would actually talk about it publicly versus just their wish in a perfect world).

[Soxbadger]

If you believe Romney's current campaign proposals though, George W. Bush was far more palatable than Rmoney (See: the Paul Ryan budget).

 

I care much more about preventing a social conservative than a fiscal conservative. At the end of the day Romney has been successful with budgets, etc, so in reality reasonable people can have reasonable differences.

 

That issue is so overblown.

 

Agreed. What is the worst case scenario? The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade? Im pretty sure if that were to happen every liberal state would immediately pass a law that allowed for abortions, while conservative states would pass laws making it illegal.

 

Im tired of trying to convince people that we are trying to protect them. Im at the point where if some states want to turn themselves into backwards s***holes, why should I care? I mean its just so tiresome to fight with people who dont want your help. And to that end, let them kill the federal govt, Illinois being a donor state will be fine, we actually give more money to the federal govt than we get back. Its all those small conservative states that are going to get railroaded.

 

So if it happens, it happens.

[Jenksismyhero]

I care much more about preventing a social conservative than a fiscal conservative. At the end of the day Romney has been successful with budgets, etc, so in reality reasonable people can have reasonable differences.

 

 

 

Agreed. What is the worst case scenario? The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade? Im pretty sure if that were to happen every liberal state would immediately pass a law that allowed for abortions, while conservative states would pass laws making it illegal.

 

Im tired of trying to convince people that we are trying to protect them. Im at the point where if some states want to turn themselves into backwards s***holes, why should I care? I mean its just so tiresome to fight with people who dont want your help. And to that end, let them kill the federal govt, Illinois being a donor state will be fine, we actually give more money to the federal govt than we get back. Its all those small conservative states that are going to get railroaded.

 

So if it happens, it happens.

 

Lol, yes because if history has shown us anything, it's that the government/people with authority know best.

 

And how is allowing women to abort babies protecting people? Seems to me it's doing the opposite since X millions of potential lives are not brought into the world because of it.

[Balta1701]

(Apologies in advance for making that into the thread topic).

[Soxbadger]

Lol, yes because if history has shown us anything, it's that the government/people with authority know best.

 

And how is allowing women to abort babies protecting people? Seems to me it's doing the opposite since X millions of potential lives are not brought into the world because of it.

 

I wasnt referencing abortion with that comment. But the point remains the same, I am just tired of fighting over something that people are always going to disagree on.

 

You want to disallow abortions, great, I disagree. You want to get rid of govt subsidies, great. You want to get rid of govt funding for public works, great.

 

Like I said, I just dont care enough to worry about other people. What is the worst that will happen to me? Republicans get in office and lower taxes for my family?

 

Im fine with state rights, I live in a state with a similar ideology as me. If it ever changed, Id leave.

[Steve9347]

Thats what he meant. (imo)

It's funny how less than 24 hours ago the story was the exact opposite. Now it's ok to understand what someone meant, but yesterday the world was ending. You guys are a cult.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Steve9347

[Soxbadger]

Wait what?

 

Im really confused by the above comment. How is me agreeing with Jenks and disagreeing with StrangeSox about what George Bush said have any relevance to any other argument?

 

 

[Steve9347]

Ill be voting for Obama, but Romney would probably be okay too. Really doesnt matter to me as Romney is a businessman so I assume he understands how to put all of the social aspects of the Republican party to the background and focus on what really matters.

 

Who knows.

In the end, nothing gets done either way.

[Steve9347]

Wait what?

 

Im really confused by the above comment. How is me agreeing with Jenks and disagreeing with StrangeSox about what George Bush said have any relevance to any other argument?

Oh, I absolutely mis-read your statement and got confused. Carry on, but only after you call me a twit.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol, you two are becoming Balta - SS2K5 part deux.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

haha

 

It happens to the best of us. If you go through enough of these threads youll find that Ive probably disagreed and agreed with every poster at some point. I just thought it was funny you picked a time where I agreed with Jenks.