Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama trending down in most Gallup demographic categories!

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Assumptions....that is all I see are assumptions. Again, I kindly ask you to prove the article title was NOT written by Romney. No circumstantial evidence. Show me hard facts. Otherwise, I'm done with you.

Prove it! Proof is not difficult when you have truth and facts on your side, no?
edit on 24-10-2012 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


please don't use the word "trending" any more.

that word is going to end up on everybody's most annoying and overused word list at the end of year.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


When something is unfavorable of your guy, its always because the reporting outlet is swayed to the other side you oppose with you people. This is a perfect example. I swear, when the elections come up for president, the loyalists come out in droves. How many people are actually looking to the betterment of the country instead of being 100% behind your guy because he is a republican/democrat and so are you?! Yay! That's a great way to choose our countries leader.

In other news, to play along with it all, Obama has a lot working for him and a lot working against him. If Romney keeps opening his mouth and saying idiotic things, he will just hand the election right over. Honestly, ai don't even think these "candidates" are even trying anymore. Seems like all these jackals are just phoning it in because they already know the outcome.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
You seemed to have left out the biggest trend in the recent gallup polls

www.gallup.com...
10/14-20/2012 Romney +7
10/15-21/2012 Romney +6
10/16-22/2012 Romney +5
10/17-23/2012 Romney +3

Looks like Romney's most favorable poll is showing him losing ground, and losing it quickly.


Actually, those numbers are still good for Romney. Even in the +3 poll, he's still getting 50% of the vote.

This is what I thought might happen about a month ago. Even when Obama was leading, he was unable to break out of the mid/upper 40s, and its always been his biggest vulnerability. Now, Romney appears to be hitting the 50% mark fairly consistently. At this point, I think its highly unlikely that Obama will win the popular vote, although he may yet win the electoral vote.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by buster2010
And Romney pretty much screwed himself with the let the car companies go bankrupt comment. .

He didn't say 'let the companies go bankrupt' .. he said to use restructuring that is available through the use of chapter 11 bankruptcy. That is different from 'let the companies go bankrupt and liquidate'. One (the restructuring) keeps the companies in business and they are healthier .. the other (liquidate) makes them go bye-bye.



Seeing your post, I took the time to look up Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article and read it for myself. While reading the article, I read something that stood out to me...


I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.


www.nytimes.com...

The reason the above quote stood out to me is because this is exactly what Obama did and then Romney chose to attack Obama on this during the debates. I'm not going to go find the transcript of the debate; but it went something like this... Romney: "blah, blah, blah....Solyndra...blah, blah, blah....out of business...blah, blah, blah".

Anyway, I read the article and I encourage others to read it too.



Patently false. Romney wanted to spend money on RESEARCH. Such as that done by universities. What Obama did was to throw money at COMPANIES, who were not doing Research, they were selling a product. Romney was right to attack Obama, and your own post says Romney wants research at universities, and Obama gave money to Solyndra, not a university. Thanks for trying though.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't know about these demographic categories ... It doesn't seem to matter. He's still ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If he gets those two, he wins. Romney has Florida but has to topple Obama out of Ohio. It's all coming down to Ohio .....


And Romney pretty much screwed himself with the let the car companies go bankrupt comment. And you know Obama isn't letting them forget that. I'm surprised Romney isn't spending more time in Ohio.



One would think Romney screwed himself......save for all the folks that have gone bankrupt over the last 4 years and the many that lost homes and so on.

Many americans are not taking any confort that the two big to fail got help. What happened in Detroit is seen for what it is by many and has limited political force.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by buster2010
And Romney pretty much screwed himself with the let the car companies go bankrupt comment. .

He didn't say 'let the companies go bankrupt' .. he said to use restructuring that is available through the use of chapter 11 bankruptcy. That is different from 'let the companies go bankrupt and liquidate'. One (the restructuring) keeps the companies in business and they are healthier .. the other (liquidate) makes them go bye-bye.



Seeing your post, I took the time to look up Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article and read it for myself. While reading the article, I read something that stood out to me...


I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.


www.nytimes.com...

The reason the above quote stood out to me is because this is exactly what Obama did and then Romney chose to attack Obama on this during the debates. I'm not going to go find the transcript of the debate; but it went something like this... Romney: "blah, blah, blah....Solyndra...blah, blah, blah....out of business...blah, blah, blah".

Anyway, I read the article and I encourage others to read it too.


Thank you for posting this op-ed...it was very instructive. I had not read it before.

First, what is written in this piece is exactly what Romney said during two of the debates, in response to Obama's claims that Romney's plan was to shut down the auto industry. Reading this article now, I can clearly see just how fundamentally dishonest Obama's "attack" on Romney was.

The key difference between Obama and Romney on this issue is that Romney says that Governments should invest in education and scientific research...thereby indirectly, over time, conferring technology development benefits than can be exploited by American industry - but should not invest in technology-based companies directly. Romney says, don't try to pick the Corporate "winners and the losers".

In the article, he says that the energy research budget should go from $4 billion to $20 billion, a five-fold increase, but only amounting to an additional $16 billion. On Solyndra alone (since you mentioned it) Obama gambled and lost over $500 million of the tax payer's money - and anyone who understands the solar industry could have told Obama this company was not going to be able to fly (their tech was noncompetitive even before the Chinese slashed PV prices).

Romney's position was that the Big 3 should go through a controlled bankruptcy process (this does not mean they go out of business...it means it allows them to fend off creditors while they get reorganized). After they have got their ships righted, then provide Federal Loan Guarantees so that they can find the debt financing needed to implement the new strategies.

In other words, protect the Companies through a legal bankruptcy process...which will force them to deal with the internal and external problems that got them to Chapter 11's door...and then give them some support. His position was that to simply write them a check, was only going to "feed them for a day" - and would not force them to restructure.

How that equates to Romney advocating for the Auto industry to be simply cast adrift and allowed to completely fail is beyond me.

What it really is, is a very dishonest attempt to bamboozle the American public by making a false statement that would resonate with the vast majority of Americans who do not understand the nuances associated with taking Companies through the Chapter 11 process - which is designed to keep them in business, not the other way around.

In my opinion, Obama would have been much father ahead to have simply said that Romney had recommended a different course on the Auto industry...and we will never know for sure if it would have worked or not...because Obama tackled the problem in another way - and these industries are healthier today as a result.

Romney would then have been in the difficult position of having to argue against success. Instead, Obama took the low road, and left himself exposed to criticism for having twisted his opponents words.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
reply to post by timetothink
 


Assumptions....that is all I see are assumptions. Again, I kindly ask you to prove the article title was NOT written by Romney. No circumstantial evidence. Show me hard facts. Otherwise, I'm done with you.

Prove it! Proof is not difficult when you have truth and facts on your side, no?
edit on 24-10-2012 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)


Isn't the burden of proof on the person presenting the article? Otherwise anyone can post anything and by your logic it's all true until proven false. In 2011 Obama claimed that the Earth is the center of the universe, the moon was made of cheese, and the sun is not the source of light during the day, Niburu is, but it's behind the sun so we can't see it. Prove he didn't say all that. I want hard facts, or I am done with you!

With that said, a title is suggested by the op-ed write, and it's possible this is Mitt's title. The final say in what title is actually used is up to the paper, so this may not have been Mitt's title. The title itself on this article is not at all damning, as that is exactly what Romney wanted. A government guaranteed bankrupcy that allowed the companies room to restructure and be profitable.
edit on 25-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by FlyersFan

He didn't say 'let the companies go bankrupt' .. he said to use restructuring that is available through the use of chapter 11 bankruptcy.


Puhleeese...Maybe what Romney chose to Title his Op-Ed will shed some light on the matter..



Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

Published: November 18, 2008


www.nytimes.com...

Or perhaps he will offer us a glimpse of his judgement? His prediction?


IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.


How did that work out?


Did he title it Let's Liquidate Detroit? No. Personally, a plan somewhere in the middle of what Romney proposed and what actually happened would have been better.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Puhleeese...Maybe what Romney chose to Title his Op-Ed will shed some light on the matter..

Puhleese ... The Left Wing New York Times chose the title of the Op-Ed.
The article obviously is about RESTRUCTURING under the protection of Chapter 11.


Originally posted by LeatherNLace
The reason the above quote stood out to me is because this is exactly what Obama did and then Romney chose to attack Obama on this during the debates.

Yes ... Obama did what Romney called to do in the article.
And yet Obama nails Romney for it. Typical politics ...



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Romney owns all the voting machines in Ohio. He therefore could care less about polls.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 3chainz
 


Obama will not win OHIO



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
romney did not title the op-ed "let detroit go bankrupt"
the new york times gave it that title.

huffpo

In his infamous New York Times op-ed, titled by the paper "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," he did say that government money should be made available for automakers if they needed help emerging from bankruptcy.


there is your proof obamaroids.

and here is some more proof.

nydailynews

In an op-ed entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” a title chosen by the editors and not Romney (a frustration every writer shares),





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join