Clinton's Speech

[shu09]

It was an interesting two weeks of conventions. I thought Mitt Romney's speech was fantastic, as was Clinton's. They get A's in my book.



Michelle Obama and Ann Romney did well but Obama was the best between them. A-minus and B respectively.


Paul Ryan was good but all the lies in it knock him down. B-minus. Joe Biden was not very good. C+.



As I said above, I'd give Romney an A. As for Obama, he was heavy on hope and short on substance. Not what he needed. I give him a C.



I don't think any of these speeches will move the needle much in either direction except Clinton's. Obama may see a nice bounce from that but it will be offset by his mediocre job last night and the bounce will eventually disappear as we get further away from the conventions.
This post was edited on 9/7 5:34 PM by shu09

 

[HALL85]

All of these "inspirational speeches" are yesterday's news. Disappointing jobs report today....no spin required.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

So Clinton called Christie--------------


WOW!!


How impressive Sec 112, insider information, I believe ya, I believe ya LOL

 

[cernjSHU]

SPK, you say that taxing Capital gains over 20% is inherently unfair. Since 1942, the capital gains tax has been at 25% or above for almost all of its history until the Bush tax cuts. This includes the Clinton years in which Capital gains were taxed at 28%. Funny how during that time that the economy was roaring. It's amazing that multi-millionaires and billionaires were able to survive that time.


Lest not forget about the maximum tax bracket is at its lowest point since 1932. The top rate during most of the Reagan years was 50%. During the Clinton years it was 39%. Yet, we have complaints that the rich pay too much in taxes. Bump up the highest bracket to 39% like it was under Clinton on income over $500,000. This is where Obama is wrong. You can't go back to 1994 and tax the highest bracket at 39% and keep the income level at 1994 level of $250,000. Personally, I would like to adjust all the brackets and make more tax brackets to deal with the differences in the well-off, rich, wealthy and the super wealthy.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by cernjSHU:

SPK, you say that taxing Capital gains over 20% is inherently unfair. Since 1942, the capital gains tax has been at 25% or above for almost all of its history until the Bush tax cuts. This includes the Clinton years in which Capital gains were taxed at 28%. Funny how during that time that the economy was roaring. It's amazing that multi-millionaires and billionaires were able to survive that time.

Inherently unfair in the context of my overall tax plan as presented here. Don't lose sight of that. Also, every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, capital gains tax revenues have gone up as you control when you pay capital gains taxes.

Originally posted by cernjSHU:


Lest not forget about the maximum tax bracket is at its lowest point since 1932. The top rate during most of the Reagan years was 50%. During the Clinton years it was 39%. Yet, we have complaints that the rich pay too much in taxes. Bump up the highest bracket to 39% like it was under Clinton on income over $500,000. This is where Obama is wrong. You can't go back to 1994 and tax the highest bracket at 39% and keep the income level at 1994 level of $250,000. Personally, I would like to adjust all the brackets and make more tax brackets to deal with the differences in the well-off, rich, wealthy and the super wealthy.

I note you use that same tired Clinton-era tax rates. What you fail to mention or grasp is 1) that ALL tax rates were higher under Clinton. You can't lose sight of that fact. There is absolutely no way any progress on either closing the deficit or helping the economy can come from jealous, divisive, class-warfare tax policy, and 2) federal spending under Clinton was at 18% of GDP. You want to bring up Clinton, then bring him up: Higher tax rates for all and much, much lower federal spending.

I also forgot one other important part of my tax plan: A war tax. If Congress believes war is to be waged, there should be a 1-2% war tax to pay for it on ALL incomes. I use ALL income as this would/should make Congress much less likely to declare war unless it really is in the best interest of ALL Americans.

 

[cernjSHU]

I do not think there needs to be higher taxes on all Americans. It is just taxing those that have benefited the most. Obviously we will not agree about that issue. However, I do agree with you that federal spending must be much lower. Starting with getting out of Iraq and now Afghanistan and less military spending.

 

[Section112]

Muggsy, I knew you would not beleive me and its ok. Here is another thing you won't believe. Clinton has called Christie multiple times and not the other way around. Hey believe what you want. I would not have posted if it did not come from an extremely reliable source but whatever. You would be surprised at a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes...

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:
Muggsy, I knew you would not beleive me and its ok. Here is another thing you won't believe. Clinton has called Christie multiple times and not the other way around. Hey believe what you want. I would not have posted if it did not come from an extremely reliable source but whatever. You would be surprised at a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes...

If that were true, why isn't Christie on the ticket?

Having Christie on there with a Clinton endorsement would pretty much seal the deal in this election.
Not saying your are 100% wrong, but it seems a bit unlikely.

 

[Section112]

Christie has said a million times he does not want to be #2. Did you see his speech at the Repub convention? Do you think that speech was to support Romney? Common Merge I thought you were smarter than that! lol


And even though Clinton called him, that does not mean Clinton would ever endorse him. In fact that was discussed on the call and the Clinton endorsement was not ever a possibility. Clinton does not like BO. The phone call happened last fall by the way.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:


Christie has said a million times he does not want to be #2. Did you see his speech at the Repub convention? Do you think that speech was to support Romney? Common Merge I thought you were smarter than that! lol

And even though Clinton called him, that does not mean Clinton would ever endorse him. In fact that was discussed on the call and the Clinton endorsement was not ever a possibility. Clinton does not like BO. The phone call happened last fall by the way.

Who said anything about #2?


Christie should be headlining the ticket. He would have a FAR better chance than Romney.
Clinton may not like Obama, but his speech is what has pushed Obama ahead by a fair margin right now.

 

[Section112]

Christie has said a million times he is not a good # 2 (meaning the VP) - that is what I was referring too. I agree he would be a far better candidate than Romney. Clinton is a good soldier for his party, so how can you be surprised at how good his speech was. I'm not at all.

 

[HALL85]

Washington Post poll this morning of likely voters....Obama 49/48, essentially a dead heat. I would hate to be living in a battleground state...TV ads, traffic due to the security for speeches, air traffic delays....I would leave town for the next two months.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Washington Post poll this morning of likely voters....Obama 49/48, essentially a dead heat. I would hate to be living in a battleground state...TV ads, traffic due to the security for speeches, air traffic delays....I would leave town for the next two months.

Obama lean right now in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa.
If he takes one of Virginia, Ohio or Florida, he wins.
If he loses all three of those and wins Colorado and Iowa, he still wins.


Romney is going to have to have a hell of a performance at the debates to turn this around. Based on his performances during the republican debates, I don't see it happening.

This post was edited on 9/11 9:17 AM by Merge

 

[HALL85]

Merge, I tend to agree with the leans, however I don't think the debates will determine the election. As I've said before, it will come down to voter turn-out in those battleground states. I am very pessimistic this time around and sense we could have the lowest turnout in a while. And if the negative campaigning amps up in those states, the independant vote might be further supressed to come out.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Merge, I tend to agree with the leans, however I don't think the debates will determine the election. As I've said before, it will come down to voter turn-out in those battleground states. I am very pessimistic this time around and sense we could have the lowest turnout in a while. And if the negative campaigning amps up in those states, the independant vote might be further supressed to come out.

Indeed. Turnout will be interesting.

Youth turnout increased significantly (about 18%) in 2004 compared to 2000, and then increased again 8% in 2008.
Is this a trend?

2004 was not an exciting election at all, and the 18-29 year old demographic voted for Bush 55-44 percent.
In 2008 that group voted for Obama 68-32 percent.

I expect that group is more engaged because of the internet and we will see about 50% of the youth vote turnout again.

The other interesting demographic will be Hispanic voters. I think Obama positioned himself very well here, and Romney has gone way too far right on immigration.

Hispanic voters increased by 29% from 2000 to 2004, and 28% from 2004 to 2008.
Assumptions expect that number to increase another 26% up to 12.2 million in 2012.

Most of that increase will come in California and Texas, but if a decent portion of the increase in Hispanic voters comes from Florida... Election over.

 

[Section112]

Let's see how today's continuation of the US apology tour resides with voters. Again the first statement that came out recognized other religions? This is constant bullshit from the apologists in office. They should have been strong and denounced any killing of Americans and on our soil and said there will be retribution. That is how you deal with these extremist animals and their planned protest on 9/11.

And its time we get out of Afghanistan and the Middle East totally.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Let's see how today's continuation of the US apology tour resides with voters. Again the first statement that came out recognized other religions? This is constant bullshit from the apologists in office. They should have been strong and denounced any killing of Americans and on our soil and said there will be retribution. That is how you deal with these extremist animals and their planned protest on 9/11.

What a load.


There was nothing wrong with what Obama said. You don't miss a beat though from the conservative spin...


"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. "


Then you have Romney, just mere hours saying he wouldn't politicize 9/11... comes out and politicizes this? With a smirk on his face no less. I have never seen someone so happy to denounce the murder of a US Ambassador.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:

Merge, I tend to agree with the leans, however I don't think the debates will determine the election. As I've said before, it will come down to voter turn-out in those battleground states. I am very pessimistic this time around and sense we could have the lowest turnout in a while. And if the negative campaigning amps up in those states, the independant vote might be further supressed to come out.

Indeed. Turnout will be interesting.

Youth turnout increased significantly (about 18%) in 2004 compared to 2000, and then increased again 8% in 2008.

Is this a trend?

2004 was not an exciting election at all, and the 18-29 year old demographic voted for Bush 55-44 percent.

In 2008 that group voted for Obama 68-32 percent.

I expect that group is more engaged because of the internet and we will see about 50% of the youth vote turnout again.

The other interesting demographic will be Hispanic voters. I think Obama positioned himself very well here, and Romney has gone way too far right on immigration.

Hispanic voters increased by 29% from 2000 to 2004, and 28% from 2004 to 2008.

Assumptions expect that number to increase another 26% up to 12.2 million in 2012.

Most of that increase will come in California and Texas, but if a decent portion of the increase in Hispanic voters comes from Florida... Election over.

Ya think 9/11 may have had something to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004?????

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Ya think 9/11 may have had something to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004?????

Not really, no..........

The number one issue for the young voters in 2004 was "Moral Values", second was the "economy and jobs."
There was a higher percentage of young voters who listed taxes or education as their top issue than the national polling, and less for Iraq or terrorism than national polling.

I believe it is a trend and young issues are more involved in the political discussion because of the internet and the information that is available and presented to them on various websites.

In 1996 and 2000 we saw 40% turnout for the youth vote, and I believe it is because that group (which I was a part of) was really not nearly as involved as they are today.

This post was edited on 9/12 8:55 PM by Merge

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Section112:

Let's see how today's continuation of the US apology tour resides with voters. Again the first statement that came out recognized other religions? This is constant bullshit from the apologists in office. They should have been strong and denounced any killing of Americans and on our soil and said there will be retribution. That is how you deal with these extremist animals and their planned protest on 9/11.

And its time we get out of Afghanistan and the Middle East totally.

What did you expect from an administration that openly and overtly supported the rise in power of the Muslim Brotherhood?

You reap what you sow..............

 

[Section112]

Agree Steve. I guess Merge likes the apology tour and the close ties with the guys that are trying to kill us. And yes Merge Bush has lots to blame for this too (figured I'd beat you to the punch because its true).

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Agree Steve. I guess Merge likes the apology tour and the close ties with the guys that are trying to kill us. And yes Merge Bush has lots to blame for this too (figured I'd beat you to the punch because its true).

A. I do think it is important to understand why the guys who are trying to kill us are trying to kills us. (Hint: It has nothing to do with our freedoms as conservatives would have us believe)


B. There is nothing wrong with what Obama said. Condemn the attack, explain that the US does not support "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".


You can make fun of how Obama has handled foreign affairs all you like... you are about to vote for the guy who has managed to piss off China, Russia and London for no reason within a matter of weeks.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Agree Steve. I guess Merge likes the apology tour and the close ties with the guys that are trying to kill us. And yes Merge Bush has lots to blame for this too (figured I'd beat you to the punch because its true).

salon.com said it better than I did.


http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/



"The foolishness of Romney's reaction is glaring. Pretending that the statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo was anything other than a completely understandable and reasonable attempt by its occupants to save their own lives borders on disgraceful. Romney's implication that the statement was issued at the height of the attacks is also false; it was actually released earlier in the day, a preventive measure aimed at keeping the protests from turning violent.
But this hasn't stopped other Republicans ? including Sarah Palin ? from echoing the Romney line. Again, it probably shouldn't be surprising. This is the kind of nonsense you'll get when one party spends four years convincing itself that a president is something he isn't."

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Merge:

A. I do think it is important to understand why the guys who are trying to kill us are trying to kills us. (Hint: It has nothing to do with our freedoms as conservatives would have us believe)

You're absolutely right but nobody wants to listen to Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Merge:


B. There is nothing wrong with what Obama said. Condemn the attack, explain that the US does not support "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".

But don't lose sight of who committed these attacks, why the did it, and who helped them achieve power.

Originally posted by Merge:


You can make fun of how Obama has handled foreign affairs all you like... you are about to vote for the guy who has managed to piss off China, Russia and London for no reason within a matter of weeks.

The London thing was silly of Romney to do at THEIR Olympics but is really meaningless in the whole scheme of things. But do you really think China and Russia are to be taken at face value? They are acting in their own interest and may not like what a Romney presidency would mean for them. I could give a rat's ass what China and Russia think and I'm not voting for Romney.

 

[Section112]

When a US president is not pissing anyone off, that is when its time to worry IMO.

The world knows we are an easy mark right now. Two wars which have reduced our readiness, wimpy Pres.

I'd like to see Obama say no to the Egypt bailout now after what has happened - then I'd start to gain some respect for his foreign policy. But we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again as a country. These folks burn our flag and spit on us and we don't do anything and still send more aid money. Ridiculous!

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:

You're absolutely right but nobody wants to listen to Ron Paul.
The London thing was silly of Romney to do at THEIR Olympics but is really meaningless in the whole scheme of things. But do you really think China and Russia are to be taken at face value? They are acting in their own interest and may not like what a Romney presidency would mean for them. I could give a rat's ass what China and Russia think and I'm not voting for Romney.

I was happy when Paul spoke up at the debate about why we were attacked and horrified at the response from the other candidates and the crowd.


You can vote for whomever you like, as can section112. I just find it rather silly when someone can make jokes about the "apology tour" and then vote for Romney, who has shown himself to be arrogant and rather ignorant on the campaign trail when it relates to foreign affairs.


I

 

[Section112]

Help me understand how our current Pres had any foreign policy experience before he became President? He had nothing unless you count his Community Organizing in a diverse Chicago neighborhood as foreign policy. Your argument has no basis. I'm not saying Romney is great either but at least he actually ran something in the private sector and something in the public sector as Governor. Based on that he is far more qualified than the current Pres ever was to take office and apply foreign policy.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Help me understand how our current Pres had any foreign policy experience before he became President? He had nothing unless you count his Community Organizing in a diverse Chicago neighborhood as foreign policy. Your argument has no basis. I'm not saying Romney is great either but at least he actually ran something in the private sector and something in the public sector as Governor. Based on that he is far more qualified than the current Pres ever was to take office and apply foreign policy.

Help me understand where I said that foreign policy experience was a prerequisite to be president?

All I am saying is that you criticize the president's foreign policy because you don't like the president, but at the end of the day, foreign policy is really not important to you because you are going to vote for the guy with no foreign policy experience and who has shown a general sense of ignorance regarding foreign affairs.

That's fine that it is not that important to you, it wasn't important to me 4 years ago... then again... I didn't pretend it was.

I am not sure what that has to do with the private sector, but since you brought it up... Romney doesn't seem to care about that either since the biggest decision he has had to make this year was picking a running mate and managed to find the one possibility with less private sector experience than Obama!

All of these arguments are nonsense. I will vote for someone with 0 business experience or 100% business experience if I believe they will promote the issues that I care about. The arguments are tailored to fit whatever candidates are running at the time and are just complete nonsense.

 

[Section112]

I'll let you have the last word - too bad the choices/candidates are not better again...
This post was edited on 9/12 4:30 PM by Section112

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:

Ya think 9/11 may have had something to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004?????

Not really, no..........


The number one issue for the young voters in 2011 was "Moral Values", second was the "economy and jobs."

There was a higher percentage of young voters who listed taxes or education as their top issue than the national polling, and less for Iraq or terrorism than national polling.

I believe it is a trend and young issues are more involved in the political discussion because of the internet and the information that is available and presented to them on various websites.

In 1996 and 2000 we saw 40% turnout for the youth vote, and I believe it is because that group (which I was a part of) was really not nearly as involved as they are today.

What does 2011 have to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004? Because you believe it, it must be true.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:

Ya think 9/11 may have had something to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004?????

Not really, no..........


The number one issue for the young voters in 2011 was "Moral Values", second was the "economy and jobs."

There was a higher percentage of young voters who listed taxes or education as their top issue than the national polling, and less for Iraq or terrorism than national polling.

I believe it is a trend and young issues are more involved in the political discussion because of the internet and the information that is available and presented to them on various websites.

In 1996 and 2000 we saw 40% turnout for the youth vote, and I believe it is because that group (which I was a part of) was really not nearly as involved as they are today.

What does 2011 have to do with the increase from 2000 to 2004? Because you believe it, it must be true.

Actually, that was my mistake. I meant 2004.
That information was from an exit poll in 2004.

I am not suggesting what I believe to be truth. I am merely posing a hypothesis and backing it up with data from previous elections.

Not sure why your assumption of the turnout was related to 9/11 is any more valid than my assumptions?

 

[HALL85]

Thanks for getting your facts straight, assuming they are right this time. That may be how they ranked the issues, but doesn't necessarily explain the increase in overall voting numbers (ie. those stats explain how the pie is split up, but not how the pie got bigger). If you recall, there was a swell in patriotism and a recognition regarding not taking for granted things we may have historically, aka voting. If you read my post, I was suggesting that you might consider that 9/11 might have been a factor, but didn't suggest it as fact.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Thanks for getting your facts straight, assuming they are right this time. That may be how they ranked the issues, but doesn't necessarily explain the increase in overall voting numbers (ie. those stats explain how the pie is split up, but not how the pie got bigger). If you recall, there was a swell in patriotism and a recognition regarding not taking for granted things we may have historically, aka voting. If you read my post, I was suggesting that you might consider that 9/11 might have been a factor, but didn't suggest it as fact.

I do remember the swell in Patriotism. I don't remember it lasting 3 years, and it had no impact on the youth turnout in the 2002 midterm election where the youth vote stayed at 20%. from 1998.
It was higher in 2006 (23%) but back down to 20% in 2010.

 

[SPK145]

Didn't that patriotism last like 3 months?

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Didn't that patriotism last like 3 months?

That's how I remember it.

 

[SPK145]

Well I guess this won't help Obama will it. Disgraceful if true:


According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had
credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in
Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be
targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert
and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.


Nice Going

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Well I guess this won't help Obama will it. Disgraceful if true:

Indeed. We'll see what comes out, the white house is denying it as expected.

The sad thing is that the same people in the media who defended Bush after 9/11 and the intel reports that Bin Laden was determined to strike are now jumping after Obama, and the people who jumped all over Bush are defending Obama...

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Merge:

The sad thing is that the same people in the media who defended Bush after 9/11 and the intel reports that Bin Laden was determined to strike are now jumping after Obama, and the people who jumped all over Bush are defending Obama...

That's been going on now since 2000. Sad but the sheeple do nothing about it.

 

[Section112]

Sad for the Ambassador and folks that were killed. We have had issues like this will most of the past administrations (from both parties). We just simply need to do a better job of protecting our folks in these countries and especially on 9/11. The muslim countries are so different than ours. I've traveled in a number of them. Have to do a better job of risk management to protect or folks or simply get out. No in between. Easier said than done but it has to be handled better. Libya is clearly a country with serious problems right now and not much stability and those folks should have been protected better.

 

[SPK145]

Maybe we should just mind our own business and protect the homeland of America rather than be involved overseas in silly foreign entanglements?