Latest Rasmussen...Obama leads Romney, and everyone else

The data you're talking about was completed around 2 weeks before the election.

Let’s wait until Mitt Flip has been properly introduced to alll of the American people in a general election.

But all conservatives have permission to keep deceiving themselves if it makes them feel better.

 

Which people? You favor giving the majority the power to rule over the minority?

I have confidence that Japan had no interest in conquering Hawaii. It was responding the embargo the US government imposed upon it. Unless you think, like the hawks think about 9/11, that they attacked the United States just because that's what bad guys do in Hollywood movies.

As for the atomic bombings, they weren't necessary to defeat Japan, even if you make the extraordinary ethical leap that killing 100,000 innocent people is just retaliation for killing 2500 innocent people. The Japanese government knew it was losing and would most probably have been willing to accept some kind of peace agreement; the main bone of contention was that their emperor could remain on the throne. But the US wouldn't accept anything other than unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender over a brokered peace agreement was, apparently, worth more than 100,000 lives to the Truman administration.

Let's compare the depression of 1920 to the depression of 1929. The 1920 depression, at the beginning, was even more severe to that of 1929. The response of Congress and the Harding administration was to drastically reduce spending and to reduce taxes and otherwise remain out of it. The Fed was too new to really do anything. That recession lasted about a year and two and then we had the Roaring Twenties.

With the 1929 crash, on the other hand, Congress and the Hoover administration raised taxes and pressured businesses to keep prices and wages high. The Roosevelt administration was even more meddlesome, attempting to regiment the entire economy in an almost Mussolini-type fashion. That depression, the Great Depression, dragged on for 17 years, only truly enter after WWII had come to end and Congress, once again, lifted most economic controls and drastically reduced the budget.

 

Give these GOP Candidates 10 Months and it's a sure bet they will say something Stupid!

 

Yep, especially if they visit all 57 states including Asia, the 57th.

 

They usually only need a few days, if that.

 

no, I prefer a constitutional democracy where the rights of the minority groups are protected as well as those of the majority.

well under you vision hawaii would have never been a state.....of course we cant ahve states because that implies a govt which implies some sort of ruling over people

well I dont disagree with you there, I think killing japanese women and children with radiation was a pretty extreme reaction.

for a non-conventional republican you sure have mastered the anti-new deal talking points.

 

Of course you do. You back crooks and blindly follow the right-wing flavor of the week like an obedient partisan hack.
Does that mean that you are nothing but a troll?

 

Well Blackie McBlackman is in the lead...and the US economy is on the rebound.

OBL is dead...Troops are out of Iraq...ALL Americans have healthcare...Wall Street just had a banner year...

And the Republican T-Baggers are in a dog-fight over Mitt 'I'll FIRE your ass' Romney.

Life couldn't get much sweeter...have a nice day T-Baggers...LOL

 

All Obama needs to do is sit back and watch the GOP Freak-Show

 

Well, that idea, taken further, leads away from Obama's wars and taxes and towards Ron Paul's radical libertarianism. Taken even further, it leads to market anarchism.

Well, the coercive annexation of Hawaii was wrong too. What's your point? That is they hadn't stolen Hawaii the world would have fallen off its access?

Well, yeah That's kind of the point. Excuse Ron Paul, Smedley Butler, and me for proposing a "out-of-the-mainstream" philosophy that doesn't require the incineration of cities. Likewise, applied to today, it reveals Bushbama's Genghis-Khan-like policies to be an immoral, unjustifiable catastrophe.

Which you say nothing to refute. I thought you asked for evidence that limited government works.

And conventional Republicans haven't been anti-New Deal since about 1956.

 

The aggressive wars have expanded into Pakistan and a half-dozen other countries...Obama claims the power to assassinate and imprison Americans with no due process...self-described progressives cheer as we're all forcibly conscripted to be customers of big insurance companies...

 

so what happens when the people decide they want a little war and taxes?

suddenly Paulistas cant follow declarations about what might have been in an alternate reality?

its ludicrious to compare targetted attacks on enemy leaders that can/do result in innocent suffering....to leveling an entire city with radiation

are you saying the post ww2 tax rates showed a limited govt???

 

nobody can force you into a contract with any insurance company, you have nothing to fear

 

Which people? Eleven people out of a group of twenty? Then all you have is eleven criminals and their nine victims.

I'm willing to look at might-have-beens if they're plausible, but I don't know what you're saying. If the United States hadn't annexed Hawaii, then what? How does it prove any point you're trying to make?

Innocents are still being killed. Even assuming these enemies you speak of bore any responsible for 9/11--which is far from certain given that you're talking about scattered bands of "insurgents" from various groups, ten years after 9/11 took place, and given that there haven't been any, you know trials--how precisely does killing a bunch of other people in attempt to get those guys fulfill any kind of justice? It doesn't restore the lives of the people who died in the towers. Indeed, many more people have died in the so-called "War on Terror," equivalent to many 9/11's. And it doesn't make anybody safer from terrorism; it just encourages even more resentment and retaliation from the families and friends of the who were caught in your thresher: the cycle of violence.

I'm saying government was ratcheted down at the end of WWII from what it was during WWII. WWII was garrison economy with rationing, after all. This also includes government revenue, as you can see from this chart:

 

well I guess we can stop pretending RP supporters care about the constitution

Zacarias Moussaoui?

killing a guy plotting to kill americans doesnt make americans safer?

as long as we agree you can have a robust economy, a ratcheted down federal govt....

and a 90% top tax rate

 

About 80% of the undecideds do, you are correct though, I doubt it will be a walk in the park...
[That's if those bums ever leave the parks]

Gas will go up, and all the predictions say so will unemployment...I do not know of any economists that paint a good picture before the election, he has run out of time, and that's why they will go after the challenger any way they can, he has nothing to smile about...

''I stink but the other guy ''MAY'' be worse'' is no way for an incumbent to campaign, the economy will dictate the winner. The proof he is weak is every time he gets a bump it ...''VANISHES'',,,real fast....It never holds.

That tells us people will give him a thumbs up for something accomplished, but they are not willing to approve of him as a good President, otherwise his numbers would stick....
This is why they say anything under 48-50% [comes time of election] points to him losing...
If they run to Clinton for Vice President it will be out of desperation, and people will know it....

 

Bush = Obama = Romney

Pass the koolaids along Demopublican

 

It would be hard for the Dems to talk about flipping with Obama as President...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100083104/the-u-turn-president-barack-obama-top-ten-flip-flops/

1. Keeping Guantanamo open

Undoubtedly Obama’s biggest flip-flop, his decision to keep the Guantanamo detention facility in operation has outraged his liberal supporters and ‘shocked’ European governments, who, needless to say, had overwhelmingly declined to take large numbers of dangerous terror suspects off the hands of the US government.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama had condemned President Bush for supposedly “running prisons which lock people away without telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with”, and signed an executive order shutting the facility down immediately upon taking office. Two years later Guantanamo still holds 172 detainees, and plays a vital role in the long war against Islamist terrorism.

2. Bringing back military tribunals for terror suspects

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was a firm opponent of the Bush administration’s military tribunals, which he said “failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capacity to ensure swift and certain justice.” But, as The New York Times reported last week, “President Obama on Monday reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, permitting military trials to resume with revamped procedures but implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp”, paving the way for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators to face trial at Guantanamo.

3. Continuing renditions of terror suspects

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Senator Obama gave a strong indication that he would end the Bush administration practice of rendition of terror suspects:

“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people… This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

But, as The New York Times reported in August 2009, the Obama administration’s Interrogation and Transfer Task Force announced that it would retain renditions, but with what The Times referred to as “more oversight”.

4. Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorisation

President Obama has shown a striking lack of consistency with regard to the question of Congressional authorisation and the use of force. In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator Obama declared:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

However, as president in March 2011, Barack Obama authorised military action against the Libyan regime without consulting Congress, a decision which drew heavy fire on Capitol Hill.

5. Dropping Third Site missile defences in order to appease the Russians

In his Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama pledged to move forward with the Bush-era plans for Third Site missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.

Just six months later however, the Obama administration surrendered to Russian demands, and dramatically dropped plans for Third Site. As I noted at the time, "this was a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on."

6. Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide

In 2004, Senator Obama was a prominent supporter of a “humanitarian intervention” to halt state-sponsored mass killing in Darfur, declaring in a speech that “we cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let the genocide continue.” He advocated tough UN sanctions against the brutal regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, which “should freeze the assets of the Sudanese government, its leaders and business affiliates; outlaw arms sales and transfers to Sudan; and prohibit the purchase of Chinese oil.”

However, as president, Obama dramatically changed his tune, extending the hand of friendship to Bashir, despite the fact the Sudanese government and its proxy Janjaweed Arab militias had butchered hundreds of thousands of people. As Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration put it, describing the new strategy of appeasement:

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

7. Backing a federal Europe after defending national sovereignty

In July 2009 the president made a striking defense of the principle of national sovereignty in a speech he gave at the New Economic School in Moscow. President Obama spoke in eloquent terms of:

“America’s interest in an international system that advances cooperation while respecting the sovereignty of all nations. State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy.”

His administration, however, has done all it can to advance the pooling of national sovereignty in Europe, and the rise of a European superstate. In her meeting with EU Foreign Policy chief Baroness Ashton in January, Hillary Clinton described the Lisbon Treaty, a blueprint for a European federal superstate, as “a major milestone in our world’s history”, and Obama's Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, told a group of MEPs in Brussels that “all key issues must run through Europe.”


These are but a few of his favorite ''flips''....There are plenty more, and I'm sure Mr Romney has studied them all.
I believe the thing is this, there are enough people that want Obama out! and when debate time comes Romney will have enough ammunition to bury this guy,,,four times over.
Last election Obama had the independents and won, Romni is killing him with independents...and it will only get worse for Obama, he can not hide his record and he has no hard facts on Romni that can seriously hurt him, only opinion. Hell, he even chose Romni's Health plan as a model....

 

Well done more like it.........

 

I'm not Ron Paul's spokesman. I care about the Constitution in that the state should be following its own stated rules at a bare minimum. That doesn't mean it's not flawed. Of course, you avoid addressing the fact that rule by numbers is simply rule by numbers because it would mean facing the moral anemia of your philosophy.

We are talking about the detainees in GITMO. Moussaoui is a good argument for the absurdity of not giving trials to the others.

No, because it just means ten more will rise in his place. But the point is that killing innocent people in pursuit of a killer of innocent is both unjust and blatantly hypocritical.

So all you care about is the top marginal federal income tax, one tiny piece of the puzzle? The portion of the economy sucked up by the government sector (i.e. the parasitic sector) is more important, which is why that statistic was specifically the one I chose. Sure you can have a 90% top income tax rate, so long as you include very generous deductions and lenient tax avoidance policies with it. In 1950, the federal government's revenue was about 15% of GDP, about the lowest in the past 60 years.

 

its not rule by numbers if the rights of those with smaller numbers are legally protected....by the document you seem to want to get rid of.

no we were talking about trials for 911....

interesting that showing where your wrong just produces another good argument opposed to an accepting of a mistake

its also the only way any war has ever been fought in history.

I think I see why you cant answer a question about ww2....

so again the point you didnt have proves some other point?

 

Obama can't even get double digits above the republicans as they fight it out and destroy each other? He's looking at landslide defeat.

/thread