Politico : Professors Study Predicts Mitt Romney Win -Study Predicts Romney 300 + Electoral Votes!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Utah seems to be doing alright Detroit on the other hand could use some good old Morman help




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The Carter administration created 10.3 million jobs in one term It took Reagan two terms to create 16.1 million. So you can say Reagan only created 8.5 million jobs per term so term wise Carter did create more jobs. And Clinton blew both of them away with 22.7 million for both terms. Something else that really helped Reagan was giving amnesty to all the illegals so you could say he was also the world's greatest coyote.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Utah seems to be doing alright Detroit on the other hand could use some good old Morman help


Yes I agree they are actually great at management, but not really going to be thinking of constitution and separation of Church and state. there will be interest in ridding us of vice like drinking and cigarettes and gambling.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I have issue with this. The unemployment rates of 2009 (9.3) are considered to be the result of the events of late 2008 and shouldn't really be seen as the Obama administration's fault. Since then the rate has gone down, though not by much.

How about FDR?

He was elected in 1932 when the unemployment rate was 23.6. Reelected in 1936 with a national rate of 16.9. This is a substantial increase and reelection was justified.

But then he was elected to an unprecedented third term with the national unemployment spiking to 19% in 1938, and then decreasing to 14.6 as the war effort started in 1940.

So Obama admin has taken the rate steadily from 9.3 to 8.2 and shouldn't be reelected, while FDR goes from 16.9 to 19 to 14.6 and gets a third term and 38 out of 48 states...
unemployment rates table

All this leaves out the basic truth that the executive is far from being ultimately responsible for unemployment rates....

Consumer patterns have essentially "reelected" financial giants who nearly crashed the world economy, and now want to toss out the administration that may have prevented collapse.

Anyone see that the AIG bailout has turned an 18 billion dollar profit and stands to make more when the treasury sells stock? AIG bailout profit
edit on 23-8-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


When people are angry at the ECONOMY, blame goes all the way to the TOP. And, OBAMA will get a taste of his own medicine. Just like BUSH, OBAMA will go down.
edit on 23-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Bush didn't lose and Obama probably won't either.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Who are you kidding? Can you look at yourself in the mirror and say you were BETTER OFF NOW THAN 4 YEARS AGO? It you can't face the truth, then don't tell lies! I'm strong in economics. Produce some OBAMA UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING PRE-RECESSION ECONOMIC EQUATIONS. DON'T TELL LIES MAN!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Lie #1: Don't Pretend To Defend Obama, When You're Actually Supporting Him.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Lie #2: When You Finally Got The Calculations Right, The Real Unemployment Number Was Higher Than Bush. OMG, BB (Blame Bush)...oops I meant blame the Republican Congress. LOL (ACTUALLY BUSH HAD A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES)
edit on 23-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by RELDDIR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Bush didn't lose and Obama probably won't either.


ALWAYS LEAVING OUT CRITICAL INFORMATION...LIES, BUSH WAS NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION DURING A BAD ECONOMY, OBAMA IS.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


My point was that Obama being reelected wouldn't be the first time an incumbent won in a bad economy, so I pointed out FDR.

I'm probably not as strong in economics as you claim to be, so can you explain how the republican plan would decrease unemployment and increase GDP without using such an attacking tone?


Btw, yeah I'm better off right now than four years ago but that doesn't have as much to do with national politics as my own initiative.
edit on 23-8-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
No thanks, let Obama win and go to war to pay for his Socialist Programs. Just like Roosevelt. Have a good day.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


I haven't even decided who I'm voting for or if I am voting at all. You're clearly just picking fights, which is okay because I enjoy them a bit as well.

I'm for a smaller federal government..not socialism

All I said is Obama would probably win, which is true. He's leading in Florida and Pennsylvania. He'll probably get Virginia and Ohio anyway so he doesn't even need Florida. Bush didn't even win Wisconsin in 2004, it's typically a blue state. Maybe Ryan can get that for Romney. Romney will probably flip North Carolina, but will need Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin and either Ohio or Virginia...it's just not probable



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Vote your conscience. Live with the outcome.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
When I attended college, I really felt "suppressed" by my LEFTIST professors. Ever, since the Vietnam war, our education system has been infiltrated by the LEFT. Can you believe this? My economist professors called me a LOSER in front of my classmates. I disagreed vehemently with their theory. They all prescribed to the LIBERAL ECONOMIC TRADE THEORY, which is why our country doesn't have jobs. If you look CONSISTENTLY at the history of how they've been CALCULATING ECONOMIC DATA, you'll understand my anger. hint: they've changed the CPI (Consumer Price Index) several times over the years to justify their policies. another hint: UNEMPLOYMENT DATA has always been calculated to produce a lower number than in actuality, so that Government Revenues can remain high.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
my motto: live by welfare(the government), then die by welfare(the government). the hand that feeds you, is also the hand that can kill you.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Anyways PatrickGarrow17, have a good day man. Sorry, I blew up. I got tired of the FDR $H!T. I always here it in every LEFTIST arguement.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


No problem, I'm not the type to feel much offense in these types of discussion...

And I experienced a similar frustration with overly liberal professors.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
FDR began the New Deal and President Obama has expanded upon it. Suggesting he is going to loose because the do nothing congress did nothing, for makes little sense. Presidents are not kings they cannot order congress to do what they want them to do based upon some penalty if they do not.

The economy is not the presidents fault the problem is with congress.

Willard Mitchel Romney evaded taxes when he placed his money into of shore accounts, not only on the money he put in, also the interests he earned. Clearly he is hiding that, with respect to the only year he has provided in taxes? He did not submit the form related to his of shore accounts, he had to have received amnesty, meaning he is guilty of tax evasion. This could actually justify reasoning for impeachment, meaning he would resign and guess who becomes president.??? Personally I do
not feel at all comfortable with electing a person into office who would be in prison if it were
not for the issue of him being really rich.

I feel it is really silly to consider Willard a viable candidate for the highest office in the United States but not because he is Republican.

Ron Paul won in Iowa, why did it take so long for that information to be accurately presented in the press? They insisted that Romney had won well into the primaries. Despite the fact that it was not true, which makes little sense under the circumstances. Ron Paul is the kind of person who would expose the problems with the system while Willard is not.

For the record I am an independent.

Any thoughts?




edit on 23-8-2012 by Kashai because: midified content



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, again you are missing my point in that even though they supposedly have the free will to choose they never do, they instead do as they are instructed to do. This is why they choose them. Its the good ole buddy system, and they know how cunning their associates are and would never count on their vote from their district being anonymous.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join