USA Politics

Yeah, Romney is catching a rash of shit about his 47% comment. Earlier today he stated that he stood by the remarks but that they were stated inelegantly whatever that means. His campaign is starting break down and the GOP is starting to freak that he's still trailing in the polls. If he doesn't do well in the debates he's sunk.
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Yeah, Romney is catching a rash of shit about his 47% comment. Earlier today he stated that he stood by the remarks but that they were stated inelegantly whatever that means. His campaign is starting break down and the GOP is starting to freak that he's still trailing in the polls. If he doesn't do well in the debates he's sunk.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it is do or die in the debates ... polls have been trending his way though for the past week as the convention bump ended. He needs to do well in the debates, really start going after Obama in a much more direct way than he has been (which now would be the time to do it as they have been saving their cash for the end), and get as many GOP-leaning people out to vote as possible.

Personally I think the Obama ground game is a bit over hyped. Everyone was fired up about him in 2008, that level of enthusiasm is much lower today ... especially amongst those who regularly do not vote.
 
It means that Romney said what he thinks but didn't phrase it politely.

I dunno anymore. I used to think Romney was just putting it on to get the job, but I don't think that anymore. He's definitely going into freefall.
 
It's election time. Polls will say it's a neck and neck race, a point here, a point there. We'll all sit around and be thinking "I don't know anyone that is voting for that guy, what gives?" and when it all comes down to it, it'll be a 10-15% difference in vote and it will be over before 9pm at night. The youth vote will still not show. There will be between 38% and 42% voter turn out. The middle of the country will be fairly red and the edges will have some giant spots of blue. We'll all be sitting around waiting for 2-3 states so we really know the answer.

All in all, Obama will win. Like him or not. I really think that his Mormonism will somehow turn the 'swing voters' away from Romney; that seems how it works. Most people think 'well they aren't all that different on this or that, and I don't care about the other'... they just look for something that makes one stand out (good or bad).

That's just MHO....
 
Just when you think things cant get even stupider. Today the White House says that attack on the Libyan embassy was an act of terrorism instead of an unorganized, spontanious act. No shit Sherlock. At the same time there are actually disussions going on about possibly releasing Khalid Shiekh from Gitmo. If they do that Obama can kiss getting re-elected goodbye
 
There was one report I read today that one of the people involved in the embassy attack/possible lead it was a former detainee from Gitmo ... that would certainly not look good. BTW, I thought Obama was going to close that place down?
 
Honestly, it looks to me like the attack on the Libyan embassy was planned. Nowhere else did the crowds actually attack people, with a specific target. They exchanged fire with police, yes, but in Egypt? They burned the US flag. Not nice, but not lethal.

It's certainly possible that someone doing the attack was a releasee from Gitmo. The problem is that someone released from Gitmo probably hates the USA. They may or may not have been involved in Al Qaeda beforehand, but afterwards, sheesh. Obama tried to close it down, for reference, but both parties refused to fund alternate options, and then the idea of civilian trials polled badly, so he backed off.
 
I'll try to find the article, if it is true that the guy that was released was behind this, he was clearly with AL Qaeda before and terms of the release was the Libya was supposed to keep him in jail .. which clearly did not happen.

I get Obama tried to close it down, it was a bad idea and enought people in both parties called him on it (realistically he needed zero GOP support to close it down, he could not get an agreement solely from the Dems).
 
He didn't get agreement from either, I think the vote was like 90-9 against funding a replacement prison.

I think Gitmo is wrong, period.
 
Trying them for their supposed crimes or letting them go. And yes, some of them will be let go, and will commit crimes again, to which I say the following: so?
 
That really goes to what they are designated as ... I tend to see them more as POWs than crimals (though in some cases they can be both). If they are classified as POWs, they can stay exactly where they are. It would be nice however if the Tribunals picked up the pace on their trials.
 
I don't see how you could designate them as POWs, as they aren't soldiers of a foreign nation-state, and the USA also never declared a war (which takes a specific act of Congress) against any country where they took the people from.
 
There have been plenty of undeclared wars ... certainly we took prisoners in Korea and Vietnam without a declaration of war and they did as well. The same applies to Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Yes, prisoners which were later released once the fighting was done. I don't know. I don't have an easy solution to it, but it seems wrong to hold people the way they've been held at Gitmo. It seems somehow un-American.
 
That is what makes this more trickly, there in not an obvious end to the war ... there is no capital to be captured, etc. but even if there was, the more notorius Nazis were held for some time at the end of WWII by the West (much longer by the Russians .. common soldiers included).

It would seem the end of the line for the prisoners at GITMO are the tribunals, but those have been delayed by the defense as much as the prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top