Mitt Romney
- Thread starter FTM
- Start date
I don't think you have much to worry about - no matter how close the countrywide polls are, it's all about the electoral college:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Looking at the leads Obama has in polling in Ohio (4.2%) and Virginia (3%), Romney-Ryan have a ton of work to do to get close to the 270 they need. Especially as the best that they can throw up in response to Romney's foot-in-mouth gaffe is a 14-year old Obama clip saying that he is in favour of redistribution to give everyone a fair shot - heresy!
It's going to be a lollercaust on Fox News though if Obama gets re-elected, I honestly wouldn't put it past them to run a headline of Romney-Ryan being elected and broadcast them doing a victory speech - it's not like they normally let silly things like facts and reality intrude on their right-wing reality
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,165
- Location
- 3rd rock...
I think we should
We seem to follow America into wars it starts. So who knows whats next...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,643
I can't wait for the debates. Obama is such a confident and careful speaker, I just don't see Romney being able to compete. Also, the fact-checkers are bound to have fun.
I think we should
We seem to follow America into wars it starts. So who knows whats next...
You shouldn't care about things you can't do anything about, it's quite bad for your health.
There's a difference between caring and obsessing.
I think I've met you at several parties.
October 3rd, in Denver. It's going to be a train wreck for Mitt, I can't wait.
October 3rd, in Denver. It's going to be a train wreck for Mitt, I can't wait.
LOL
And i remember i was getting constantly flamed for supporting Ron Paul.
And this guy is the "Better choice?".
The sad thing is, yes, he is still a better choice than Ron Paul. But then my cat is probably a better choice than Ron Paul and she has been dead 2 years.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 156
- Location
- Manchester
Only in the good old USA,
the land of the free and the home of the brave!
or stupid
the land of the free and the home of the brave!
or stupid
This kind of idiot is the reason why I'd favour a technocracy over a democracy.
The population are incredibly stupid & will vote for idiots like him.
For anybody who is interested.
Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists.
In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems, in counter distinction to the traditional economic, political, or philosophic approaches.
According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment.
In such an arrangement, concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions into the indefinite future.
Technical and leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary.
Some uses of the word technocracy refer to a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. Other applications have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather administration by discipline-specific science, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.
The word technocracy has also been used to indicate any kind of management or administration by specialized experts ('technocrats') in any field, not just physical science, and the adjective 'technocratic' has been used to describe governments that include non-elected professionals at a ministerial level.
Always liked this idea personally.
In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated, and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in amount to an appropriate national energy budget, which could be divided equally among all members of a North American continental technate. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.
The population are incredibly stupid & will vote for idiots like him.
For anybody who is interested.
Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists.
In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems, in counter distinction to the traditional economic, political, or philosophic approaches.
According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment.
In such an arrangement, concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions into the indefinite future.
Technical and leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary.
Some uses of the word technocracy refer to a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. Other applications have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather administration by discipline-specific science, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.
The word technocracy has also been used to indicate any kind of management or administration by specialized experts ('technocrats') in any field, not just physical science, and the adjective 'technocratic' has been used to describe governments that include non-elected professionals at a ministerial level.
Always liked this idea personally.
In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated, and proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent in amount to an appropriate national energy budget, which could be divided equally among all members of a North American continental technate. The group argued that apolitical, rational engineers should be vested with authority to guide an economy into a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment and debt.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
There is a rather fundamental issue to why meritocracies or technocracies could never work: you need the support of the people. Simply saying that we're doing the best for you isn't enough to keep people on side and that's how revolutions start. As much as I hate this, governments need some level of popularity to stay in power for any length of time, no matter how retarded they are.
Well... I thought that it was. Obviously the lies, half truths and sweating was overlooked by everyone else. But, I concede, the most important part was how it was immediately received by the media, and they decided that Romney won, and thus... It has come to be.
Mitt is 1.5 per cent ahead in the national polls, but Obama still has a pretty decent lead in most of the swing states (which are the only ones you should be interested in).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Last edited: