The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Maybe Some of you were right about Romney ...

  1. #11
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post

    I just read an article a few days ago about Pennsylvania possibly changing its "winner take all" on electoral votes. If there are other states that might do the same, it could mean a difference in future elections. When the large cities so completely overshadow all the other voters in a state, it does make it seem that not all voters have an equal say in the outcome when many votes are totally negated by what could be a very slim majority overall.

    Pure unadulterated BS. Doing the vote by congressional districts means that the presidential vote can be gerrymandered. I have for years been quite taken back by the fact that many conservatives seem to think that congressmen represent land mass, showing maps of huge expanses of land colored bright red, with those small islands of blue that dictate how all those country folk must live. Yes, it is hard to accept that a lot of people live in cities and that their votes for Democrats "cancel" out those red votes out in the countryside.

    I know you all hate Maddow, but she did an interesting story on what gerrymandering did to the congressional outcome in many battleground states. Now that Democrats can garner the majority in a state overall and get slaughtered in the ratio of blue-to-red in the congressional delegation, you all want to extend that to the presidential election. No amount of outright and obvious underhandedness and cheating shames them.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908..._show#50182647
    Last edited by Buzz; 12-26-2012 at 01:36 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  2. #12
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Pure unadulterated BS.

    Would it not have been just as effective to simply say you disagreed?

    Doing the vote by congressional districts means that the presidential vote can be gerrymandered. I have for years been quite taken back by the fact that many conservatives seem to think that congressmen represent land mass, showing maps of huge expanses of land colored bright red, with those small islands of blue that dictate how all those country folk must live. Yes, it is hard to accept that a lot of people live in cities and that their votes for Democrats "cancel" out those red votes out in the countryside.

    I know you all hate Maddow, but she did an interesting story on what gerrymandering did to the congressional outcome in many battleground states. Now that Democrats can garner the majority in a state overall and get slaughtered in the ratio of blue-to-red in the congressional delegation, you all want to extend that to the presidential election. No amount of outright and obvious underhandedness and cheating shames them.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908..._show#50182647
    I never mentioned splitting the electoral votes by districts. Maybe you have a right to BS that suggestion ... but that is not what I stated.

    Actually, it seems quite fair to me to split the # of electoral votes simply as the popular vote splits, regardless of districting. The result could be rounded off to the nearest whole number. If 51% of the voters went for Obama, and 49% for Romney, and a given state had 40 electoral votes, what is so bad about giving each candidate his/her fair share of the electoral votes? Actually, in the case of 40 electoral votes, 51% is 20.4 & 49% is 19.6 ... so in this case each would get 20 electoral votes.

    What is so BS about doing that?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    I can’t agree with the contention that Romney worked across the aisle in MA. I know that’s what he claimed during the election, but the facts don’t support it. He vetoed 844 bills passed by the mostly Democratic state legislature. Even his Director of Legislative Affairs, John O’Keefe, said, “He [Romney] seemed to take great delight in vetoing bills. Some of the bills we would chuckle when we wrote the veto message.” That doesn’t seem like someone trying to work across the aisle.

    Maybe he was correct in vetoing those 844 bills? How many bills did he sign? It would be hard to assess without knowing what the bills were about. Were some of those bills worthy of chuckling? There are some pretty silly laws in many states; and even Federal ones.

    That MA voted for Dem candidates is not an unusual outcome.


    In addition, in the 2nd year of his term, he mounted a campaign to unseat 131 Democratic legislators. He assembled what he called his “Reform Team” of 131 Republican candidates, spent $3 million of Republican Party money, and hired a well know political strategist to mount his offensive. His efforts failed. None of his candidates were elected, but it did manage to alienate Democratic legislators, making them more difficult for him to work with.

    Isn't this common political practice ... for a governor to support candidates of his party; for a POTUS to campaign for and/or otherwise promote candidates in various state elections? You may recall that Obama had a "hand-picked" candidate here in PA in the last mid-terms. It was quite a to-do with the other candidate supposedly being offered a WH position in return for not contesting the primary. Obama's choice for candidate did not succeed.



    Further, his business experience didn’t translate into his fixing the MA economy. After 4 years, MA ranked 47th out of 50 states in job production. Unemployment remained higher than the national average his entire 4 years.

    We are willing to forgive Obama for record unemployment because the starting situation was so bad. I do not know what the starting point was in MA.


    He did balance the budget, but he did it by cutting state funding to cities and towns, which led to cuts in local fireman and police jobs, and led to most cities raising property taxes to make up the shortfall. The average property tax in the state went up by 22% during his 4 years.

    Has CA's deficit spending resulted in lower property taxes? Several CA cities are going bankrupt. Maybe balancing the budget was a bitter pill, but needed at the time? Obama has told us that we will all have to sacrifice to support his policies. We see some of that in our electric bills, gasoline prices, and food prices ... which are goods & services that impact those of lower incomes most.

    Plus, he raised corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million per year.

    I thought the liberal view was to eliminate "corporate welfare"? Is that what he was doing? However, there is no good answer to this without knowing the details.

    College and University fees for students increased by about $2,000 per year.

    Were they very low at the outset? Is it more fair for the students (or their parents, as the case may be) to shoulder more of the burden for these public institutions than it is for the entire base of taxpayers to do so? That is a philosophical question. I am of the opinion that these students should begin to learn about the facts of life for when they enter the real world. Others may feel differently.


    So, the fallout from his economic reforms landed squarely on the backs of the tax payers and residents.

    They always do! The way the Federal govt has progressed, that lesson is totally playing out. There is no way the budget deficits will be solved by "taxing the rich" ... it will ultimately HAVE to extend to everyone who pays any taxes ... as soon as middle-income taxpayers realize just how much will have to come from them, there might well be a change of heart about controlling spending.


    So, I’m not sure how valuable his business experience would have been.

    Lesson #1 of running a business: you must balance your budget. That can involve raising prices and also cutting production costs. I do think that one of the biggest problems of our govt officials is that they have NO CLUE about that simple fact. When programs' spending exceed revenue, they simply raise taxes. Private sector business does not have that simple choice. If price of the product gets too high, the business will go to competitors, and the company disappears. Govt is a monopoly. There is no competition, and they are mostly not held accountable for bad programs or bad decisions, they simply raise the taxes.

    I agree that SS & Medicare need to be fixed so they are viable, but I don’t think he was the one to do it.

    So far the new administration has made no viable proposals at all to fix these probelms. At least Ryan has a proposal that would be phased in without undue impact on present beneficiaries. Obama and the Senate are simply kicking it down the road ... till it's too late & both collapse?
    ...................
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Pure unadulterated BS. Doing the vote by congressional districts means that the presidential vote can be gerrymandered. I have for years been quite taken back by the fact that many conservatives seem to think that congressmen represent land mass, showing maps of huge expanses of land colored bright red, with those small islands of blue that dictate how all those country folk must live. Yes, it is hard to accept that a lot of people live in cities and that their votes for Democrats "cancel" out those red votes out in the countryside.

    I know you all hate Maddow, but she did an interesting story on what gerrymandering did to the congressional outcome in many battleground states. Now that Democrats can garner the majority in a state overall and get slaughtered in the ratio of blue-to-red in the congressional delegation, you all want to extend that to the presidential election. No amount of outright and obvious underhandedness and cheating shames them.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908..._show#50182647
    First off, let me say that I rather like the system we have. Obama won and Romney lost, so be it. Districts have been "gerrymandered" since the country was created, no matter what party controlled a state legislature. Today, along with the courts, inorder to consider racial, ethnic and socioeconomic considerations, districts tend to defy logic. You can be restasured that if the democrats control a state ligislature and lose a congressman, then 2 republicans will wind up in the same district. Make the republicans in control of the state legislature and then 2 democrats will wind up in the same district. When it comes to redistricting, one party is no different than the other. If you think this holds only to republicans, then you must be blind.

    I do not watch Rachael Maddow, nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh not because I hate either of them but because they bore me. Let me clue you in on a simple FACT. Just because one dissagrees with someone's policy position DOES NOT mean they HATE them. Using such language only shows outright and obvious underhandedness and shamelessness and is something I would not expect from you. It reeks of an effort to obscure a genuine difference of opinion.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Gerry,

    Your post strays from the point. The fact is Romney did not work with Democrats in MA. He vetoed almost everything they put in front of him. Eventually more than 700 of his vetoes were overridden (not exactly a sign they were working together).

    I fully expect a Governor to endorse candidates from his own party, but I have never heard of another Governor mounting an aggressive campaign on his own to replace 131 members of the other party. This was his campaign, with a strategist he hired. That does not demonstrate an ability to work across the aisle in my opinion.

    If Romney’s business experience couldn’t help him deliver on his campaign promise of “unprecedented job growth” at a state level, what makes you think his experience would have helped him deliver on it on a much more complex national level? MA’s unemployment rate would have been even higher, but 3.5% of the population left the state searching for work.

    I don’t know much about CA and their property tax situation. I just know that Romney said he balanced the budget without raising taxes, but most people ended up paying higher taxes and higher state fees as a result. So, in effect, he did raise prices, and the residents were worse off financially for it. That doesn’t sound like a good business plan to me. Perhaps that’s why his 1 term as Governor ended a 16 year Republican Governor reign in MA.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    Gerry,

    Your post strays from the point. The fact is Romney did not work with Democrats in MA. He vetoed almost everything they put in front of him. Eventually more than 700 of his vetoes were overridden (not exactly a sign they were working together).

    I fully expect a Governor to endorse candidates from his own party, but I have never heard of another Governor mounting an aggressive campaign on his own to replace 131 members of the other party. This was his campaign, with a strategist he hired. That does not demonstrate an ability to work across the aisle in my opinion.

    If Romney’s business experience couldn’t help him deliver on his campaign promise of “unprecedented job growth” at a state level, what makes you think his experience would have helped him deliver on it on a much more complex national level? MA’s unemployment rate would have been even higher, but 3.5% of the population left the state searching for work.

    I don’t know much about CA and their property tax situation. I just know that Romney said he balanced the budget without raising taxes, but most people ended up paying higher taxes and higher state fees as a result. So, in effect, he did raise prices, and the residents were worse off financially for it. That doesn’t sound like a good business plan to me. Perhaps that’s why his 1 term as Governor ended a 16 year Republican Governor reign in MA.
    It just amazes me that people think we would be better off with Romney when the sad truth is he is just as bad as Obama. Both a part of the problem and neither offers any real refrom to the corruption that runs this country.

    What this country needs is an intellectual awakening. I fear that people are so preoccupied that they would never recognize it if it slapped them in the face!
    “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” –Thomas Jefferson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •