Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu

What party will win in 2012?

Started by Deagonx, September 05, 2011, 09:18:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: SmartyPants on January 09, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
While Republicans disagree on a bill because they don't think it is best for the country, the Democrats spin that as them being "obstuctionist".

Disagreeing with a bill is not obstructionist; that is merely disagreeing, and has to do with beliefs. I don't think any reasonable person could have a problem with that. The issue is tactical: Congressional Republicans have chosen to filibuster nearly every bill they disagree with rather than negotiating in good faith. That is pretty much the definition of obstructionism.


Romney's ads focus on Obama's bad economic numbers.  Obama will have a poor time defending his record with unemployment being so high. 

Obama's ads focus on Romney for being an evil capitalist by shipping jobs oversea.  Even though Obama's claims have been proven to be lies, Obama's unsubstantiated attacks are helping Obama in the polls.

Unless the mainstream media decides to report on Obama's lies, people will continue to believe Obama's false narrative of Romney.  Like in 2008, the media bais may hand Obama another election.


Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMSome of Obama's ads focused on Romney's bad economic numbers, but then they got tired of that, and moved on to a different topic to lambaste him on.
The Obama Campaign moved away from attacking Romney's economic numbers, because it would force Obama to talk about his terrible job numbers.

Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMAlso, maybe Romney's advertisements would be more convincing if they didn't take the one quotation from Obama they could use out of context for their purposes, "The private sector is doing fine," and repeat it every time they make a commercial.
I don't understand how "The private sector is doing fine" is out of context.  Obama believes that the slow economic growth is at an acceptable level.  He further explains that he wants to create more government jobs, since he belives the private sector is doing fine.

Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMIf Romney wanted the "media bias" on his side in this election, he would hire a better adverisement production committee.
How is a better adverisement production committee supposed to get rid of the media's liberal bias?


Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMYou don't have to talk about your own numbers on your own attack ads.
The ads set the tone of his debate.  Talking about Romney's economic numbers opens up questions about the economy that Obama doesn't want to answer.

Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMHe clearly doesn't think the private sector is doing fine -- it's doing fine in the process of its recovery for now, meaning that he can put more of a focus on government jobs.
That is not what he said.  Based on his statements, Obama wants to prioritize creating government jobs over private sector jobs, because he believes the growth of "the private sector is doing fine". 

Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMThe media has a liberal bias?
*In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
*A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
*Even liberal-leaning Saterday Night Live noticed a media bias against moderate Hillary Clinton.  (To put in context: 2008 Obama criticized Clinton for wanting to mandate everyone to buy health insurance.)


You are full of it.  The GOP is not limiting free press any more than any Democratic president.  In fact, the only modern presidents that have made strives in limiting free press is Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt (both Democrats).

If this is just a shot at Bush for having secrecy when it came to national security, then you should realize that Obama continued all the same policies.  The biggest difference in Bush's and Obama's national security policies is that Bush wanted terrorist captured and interrogated for information that will stop terrorist plots, while Obama prefers to kill everyone because he finds putting terrorist in Guantanamo Bay to be inhuman.


I am not familiar with press censorship in a time before I was born.  I do remember that during the last GOP presidency that the press was allowed to relentlessly and harshly criticise the war and the president without reprisal.  Do you really believe the conspiracy theory that the press's bias is the result of grudge from half a century ago?  More liberals get jobs as reporters and academics, while more conservatives get jobs as farmers and car salesmen.  Isn't it more likely that the media has a liberal bias because the media is made up of mostly liberals?

I can't make an opinion on the effectiveness of waterboarding, because there are few concrete facts and tons of contradictory opinions.  I do want to clear up the myth that everyone interrogated in Guantanamo was waterboarded.  Only three individuals including mass murder Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded.  Obama could have easily chose to capture terrorist and use non-waterboard interrogation techniques instead of killing everyone.  It is hard for Obama to pretend he has the moral highground when Obama believes that Americans are not entitled to judicial process.

Quote from: Duckling on July 11, 2012, 10:36:44 PMAs for Obama's extensive use of drones, I'm sure he would be trying to capture the terrorists alive if they had given us good information when it was our policy to interrogate.
How do you think the US gets the intelligence for Obama's kill list?   During the Bush adminstration, terrorist were captured and then interrogated.  Using the intelligence from captured terrorist, the US forces captured more terrorist and then interrogated them.  Obama is using Bush era intelligence to find and kill terrorist.  The issue is that dead terrorist don't provide any intelligence.  If Bush had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed in a drone attack instead of having him captured, then Obama would never had the intelligence that lead to finding and killing Osama.  Obama is killing off all the leads to stop terrorist plots and find more terrorist.  Whoever wins the 2012 will have hard time fighting terrorism due to Obama's four year killing spree.


Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMFirst off, it's not a conspiracy theory; conspiracies are organised acts done in concert by large numbers of people all to cover up a certain piece of information. My guess just happens to be that an industry is holding an understandable grudge.
So you think media bais is okay because they aren't highly organized?

Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMYours works, too, but my argument changes little. If the Republican Party was truly unsatisfied with and believed they could not overcome the liberal media bias, they would do something about it, like getting jobs in journalism.
What do you think Fox News is?  Conservatives were tired of the liberal spin in the media, so they created their own news network to cover news that the mainstream media was ignoring.  The issue here is that the media shouldn't be partisan with one conservative network and many liberal networks.  The media is suppose to inform the public in a nonbais way.  Conservatives shouldn't have to get jobs in the media to stop bais reporting.  It should be the liberal journalist who should have the integrity to report without being bais.

Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMThirdly, to my knowledge, the cases in which American citizens are assassinated are similar to police authorization to use deadly force, being that these are people who are acting violently against the country's interests during wartime.
The police's use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Obama's "kill list" doesn't even consider alternatives to killing such as capturing the terrorist alive.

Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMIf you would have me believe, as you will have an opportunity to clarify in your response, that the American federal government assassinates terrorism suspects on their way to the grocery store, I quit this debate, as one of the two of us has a crucial gap in his knowledge.
Has Obama had terroism supspects assassinated on the way to the store? Doubtful.  Does Obama believe he has the executive power to assassinate Americans on their way to the store? Yes.

In 2008, Obama ran on being the candidate who is humane and moral.  After his four years of ruthlessness, Obama can no longer pretend to have the moral highground.


Quote from: Duckling on July 18, 2012, 01:21:01 AMMedia bias is fine. Of course, it's not professional, so you can make lots of arguments about loss of professional attitude in journalism, but that's not the issue.
My whole point to media bias is that they give an unfair advantage to Obama.  In 2008, journalist refused to criticize Obama, and showered him with praise during ever interview.  In 2008, the media coverage of McCain was mostly negative, while most news outlets refused to question Obama's credentials.

Quote from: Duckling on July 18, 2012, 01:21:01 AMAnd yet, according to your video, no Americans are being killed intentionally, so these aren't assassinations of Americans.
You need to rewatch the video.  One American was intentionally targetted, while the other two Americans were considered aceptiable casualties.

You keep ignoring my point.  Obama believes that "due process" means that if members of the executive branch think you are guilty, then they can be your judge, jury, and executioner.  Obama has lost the moral highground that he ran on in 2008.

I actually did spell "bias" correctly last time, yet I decided to change it to "bais" before I posted, since I thought it was funny how much it was bothering you earlier.  I now regret doing so, because it seems to have caused you to have a nervous breakdown.


I really don't want to address who you prefer to win because that is not the subject of this topic. 

Also, I believe that Obama is more likely to win.  Obama knows how to manipulate the public into believing his lies.  The biggest reason that he is able to due this is because of the bias media won't call him out on it.   For example, Obama claims that Romney ships jobs overseas because Romney's company shipped jobs overseas when Romney stopped working there.  Romney doesn't have time to point out Obama's terrible jobs record, because Romney is busy defending himself from all of the slander coming from Obama.


I have removed all but three of my posts from this topic, because I had critically misunderstood the purpose of this thread -- to discuss who will win the 2012 presidential election, and not to discuss the policies of the incumbents except with respect to their election prospects.

I generally do not partake in speculation in long-term affairs, as I have found on more than one occasion that there is a good chance that one is wrong -- moreover, that one never had a good reason for one's original presumptive conclusion to begin with. This is not the topic for me.

That, and I've heard enough of your socially liberal, fiscally conservative diatribes to know what you stand for politically, and that we will never agree on many issues, and that I shall never have the last word. In that, at least, we are the same. [No criticism was conferred by design through this post. If any was recieved, there has been a fault in communication.]