A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change. We'll still be meddling in the Middle East, and we'll still have the Patriot Act.Basically this. I can see a shift back to the Republicans, but we'll still have a massive deficit and we'll still be stuck in two wars we can't afford. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but so far I'm not impressed by any of the leading GOP candidates.
Practically speaking, even given all of Obama's faults, I still think he has a better chance of winning than not. The GOP field is very weak, and he'll be the lesser of two evils.
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.
and if not his billion-dollar campaign probably won't hurt.
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change. We'll still be meddling in the Middle East, and we'll still have the Patriot Act.Yeah. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who would have the balls to make substantial changes to any policy. Naturally, neither has a chance in the general election, or even the primary for that matter.
It would be interesting for a strong progressive primary challenger to come out against Obama. If for nothing more than to call him out on everything he didn't/hasn't/won't fight for.This. This. This. That would be sweet.
You know, a lot of candidates have been signing pledges...how about we elect someone who signs a pledge stating he will only serve one term? Go fuck shit up in Washington, expose everything, die a political death, and then bow out after four years. I can dream, can't I? :p
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change.
You know, a lot of candidates have been signing pledges...how about we elect someone who signs a pledge stating he will only serve one term? Go fuck shit up in Washington, expose everything, die a political death, and then bow out after four years.
Romney and Perry will slaughter each other in the primaries, though I'm no sure who'll win. I'd probably bet on Perry (better religion)
Still, I think Perry will do better based on appearance. He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him. While Romney looks presidential, Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy. The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected. Sadly, he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods.
Still, I think Perry will do better based on appearance. He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him. While Romney looks presidential, Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy. The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected. Sadly, he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods.
Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or to stupid to have been given the right to vote.
Kennedy vs Nixon comes to mind.
Yes and no. There are plenty of people who'll vote for Perry because he's a handsome guy, but they're the exception and probably about in line with the people who'll vote for Obama because he's [sort of] black. They're all pointless like you said. But, appearance is still important. Remember that absolutely nothing that any of these people say will have any substance whatsoever. A lot of what people will be judging them by is the quality of their bullshit, and that's based largely on appearance. Kennedy didn't win out because he was a more handsome fellow than Nixon. He won out because he was cool and laid back while Nixon was stiff and analytical.Still, I think Perry will do better based on appearance. He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him. While Romney looks presidential, Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy. The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected. Sadly, he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods.
Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or too stupid to have been given the right to vote.
Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or too stupid to have been given the right to vote.
So in other words, the US population is too cynical and the right to vote should be severely restricted?
$14 million? It'll probably be well over a billion dollars spent on this campaign. Wasn't it close last time? And that was before corporations could spend as much as they want.
I'm pretty sick of the two party system in general. The money in politics is disgusting.
Hell, 14 million is probably what somebody running for city council would spend. I've been seeing references to Obama's billion dollar war chest, and with free-flowing corporate money, the GOP will blow that much as well.$14 million? It'll probably be well over a billion dollars spent on this campaign. Wasn't it close last time? And that was before corporations could spend as much as they want.
I was just stating about one person in particular who raised that, at least when I heard the figures weeks ago.
How did she end up getting in office?
Was she rich or something?
Bachmann: I'll Bring Back $2 Gas
https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/economy/bachmann_gas_prices/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
I don't think it'll be that close. Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election. He's too much of a cowboy. Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading. A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last.
Plus, things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it. He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for.
No correlation. Bush was a moron, but he wasn't particularly fanatical. Furthermore, The landscape has changed quite a bit since then. Strangely, Bush would be considered far too moderate to compete within the current incarnation of the GOP. Perry is leading by appealing to those maniacs.I don't think it'll be that close. Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election. He's too much of a cowboy. Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading. A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last.
Plus, things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it. He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for.
I've got one word for ya: Dubya :lol
No correlation. Bush was a moron, but he wasn't particularly fanatical. Furthermore, The landscape has changed quite a bit since then. Strangely, Bush would be considered far too moderate to compete within the current incarnation of the GOP. Perry is leading by appealing to those maniacs.I don't think it'll be that close. Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election. He's too much of a cowboy. Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading. A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last.
Plus, things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it. He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for.
I've got one word for ya: Dubya :lol
Plus, W hurts Perry a great deal since most people still have a very sour feeling about electing hare-brained Texas governors.
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade :\
edit: If Mitt Romney or Rick Perry get elected, I'll shit a brick.Romney could actually beat Obama. He just can't beat Perry to get there. The tea party won't back him because he's sane, and the GOP won't support him because of the M next to his name, and the fact that he deigned to give poor people insurance.
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade :\
I agree with this, but probably for a different reason. Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right. Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected.
Frankly, Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically. The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.
SCOTUS appointments are an interesting thing. They don't always turn out quite the way you expected. Look at Souter. In Bush's case, Roberts might actually turn out to be halfway sane. No hope for Alito. Either way, the problem with any upcoming appointments is that they won't alter the ideological landscape much. The GOP wing of the court is quite young. The liberal side is quite a bit older, so the best Obama can do is maintain what little balance there is. Personally, I'd bet on Ginsberg being the next to skidaddle, and you're not going to find anybody more liberal then her. In Kennedy's case, you could certainly move his slot to the left a bit, but he's actually one of the rational right leaning justices, so I'm not sure I'd like that a whole lot either.He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade :\
I agree with this, but probably for a different reason. Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right. Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected.
Frankly, Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically. The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.
Well, maybe....but consider Obama's supreme court appointments. Bush would have never appointed two liberals to the court. To ME, that is pretty much the only reason I have to vote for Obama again. In the next term, he may have another opportunity to make another appointment to the court, and the balance will finally start shifting back to the left a bit. Some of the rulings to come out of "Dubya's Court" in the last few years have been absolutely fucking ridiculous (I'm thinking Citizens United for example)
SCOTUS appointments are an interesting thing. They don't always turn out quite the way you expected. Look at Souter. In Bush's case, Roberts might actually turn out to be halfway sane. No hope for Alito. Either way, the problem with any upcoming appointments is that they won't alter the ideological landscape much. The GOP wing of the court is quite young. The liberal side is quite a bit older, so the best Obama can do is maintain what little balance there is. Personally, I'd bet on Ginsberg being the next to skidaddle, and you're not going to find anybody more liberal then her. In Kennedy's case, you could certainly move his slot to the left a bit, but he's actually one of the rational right leaning justices, so I'm not sure I'd like that a whole lot either.He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade :\
I agree with this, but probably for a different reason. Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right. Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected.
Frankly, Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically. The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.
Well, maybe....but consider Obama's supreme court appointments. Bush would have never appointed two liberals to the court. To ME, that is pretty much the only reason I have to vote for Obama again. In the next term, he may have another opportunity to make another appointment to the court, and the balance will finally start shifting back to the left a bit. Some of the rulings to come out of "Dubya's Court" in the last few years have been absolutely fucking ridiculous (I'm thinking Citizens United for example)
As I've said before, I'd rather have 9 O'Connor's* than an equal mix of Thomas's and Breyer's.
*even though that woman did quite a lot to fuck us all before leaving.
El Bart, have you seen any W interviews post-presidency? He's not as stupid as you all make him out to be. It'd be nice if you laid off the name calling of conservatives and things relating to Republicans. You're not the only one with an opinion and this megaphone called the Internet.He isn't a retard, I'll give you that, but what intelligence he does have he has zero interest in actually using. My guess is that the guy can probably work the hell out of a sudoku puzzle, something that confounded me the one time I took a look at one, but he lacks both the bandwidth and the interest to take on complex matters. He's, quite simply, a very simple man, which I suspect is largely by choice and by design.
Here's what I don't get. Do Perry's supporters really think he stands a chance in a general election? If I were a republican I'd be horrified right now. You really don't have to be Kreskin to see how this is going to unfold.
Bachmann promises Jesus will return in her second term (https://www.totallyboguslink.com)
rumborak
Everyone is talking about <Republican candidate> vs. Obama. Have the Ds already pushed in all their chips with Obama for 2012? Is no one going to bother to campaign against him?
Everyone is talking about <Republican candidate> vs. Obama. Have the Ds already pushed in all their chips with Obama for 2012? Is no one going to bother to campaign against him?That would actually be one way to land ourselves with President Perry. Obama still has some support from the base, and a new guy would lose some of that. He also has the trappings of the office, which are great for campaigning. Incumbents have a distinct advantage that a new candidate would lack. More importantly, challenges to the incumbents never work. It's been tried on several occasions, and only twice have they been even moderately successful
I really don't see Obama being a second term president.I wouldn't either if the Republicans could come up with a decent candidate. So far they haven't found one that is going to appeal to the moderate, undecided voter, IMO.
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.
The MA bill has been a abysmal failure
Yeah, I was just going to say that. It's been quite successful and the people there sure seem to like it.The MA bill has been a abysmal failure
:lol
I am sure in your favorite literature it is.
Romney's biggest problem is that it is so successful.
rumborak
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.
A state can mandate purchasing insurance if their state constitution allows it. The US Constitution cannot mandate that you or I purchase anything. The MA bill has been a abysmal failure, and Obamacare will be even worse... until the SCOTUS strikes it down.
Absolutely I only want spending cuts. The government is out of control with spending. Obama and his congress have blasted our deficit higher in his 3 years than the entireity of it in the last 200 years. If you cut all the crap out that Obama has socialized thus far, put it back in private sector hands, let a free market economy progress then America will prosper.
That character is what drew people to my father, whether or not they agreed with his politics. That character is what we are starving for, that many of us had hoped we would find — but are now disappointed that we are not — in President Obama. I think my father, if he were here, would also be disappointed in this administration. But here is the important part: he would never have expressed that with anger and vitriol and snarky soundbites. The Republican candidates tonight appeared to be auditioning for a reality show, not for the lofty position of leading America through and out of these terribly troubled times.
Ironically, the one man on stage who did comport himself with dignity, John Huntsman, is now being dismissed as having not made an impact. The moment he brought the discussion back from airport security to the sweeping poverty and economic panic that is gripping this country was, I thought, profound. It was something my father would have done. But that moment isn't making the news. The zingers like Perry's Ponzi-scheme comment, in reference to Social Security, are getting more attention. Maybe the candidates should have wandered over to my father's gravesite before going on stage. Maybe they should have lingered over the words carved in stone there.
The moment that would have broken my father's heart was the moment when applause broke out at the mention of more than 200 executions ordered by Rick Perry in Texas. It was stunning and brought tears to my eyes. This is what we've come to? That we applaud at executions?
I remember the first time my father ordered an execution when he was Governor. He and a minister went into a room, got down on their knees and prayed. The real shame of our times is that there doesn't seem to be anyone on the political horizon with that compassion in his or her heart.
Read more: https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2092425,00.html#ixzz1XOFfJqOX
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.
Absolutely I only want spending cuts. The government is out of control with spending. Obama and his congress have blasted our deficit higher in his 3 years than the entireity of it in the last 200 years. If you cut all the crap out that Obama has socialized thus far, put it back in private sector hands, let a free market economy progress then America will prosper. I think that the rich and middle class and the poor should be taxed by an equal percentage. The Fair tax would solve much of our nations taxation problems and be fair to everyone.
Well, Romney wouldn't be too bad really. If it comes down to that showdown, I'd be happy.
rumborak
One of the main problems with American politics right now is that so many people seem to have lost the ability to conduct themselves like adults. As Bob Dole said during the 1996 election, "President Clinton is my political opponent, not my enemy". People you disagree with politically aren't all crazy radicals who want to destroy the country, they're fellow citizens with different opinions and views.Dole's was a reasonable position, and it's also exactly what Patti Davis was referring to in the editorial I cited earlier. That said, a lot of the people they're fielding actually are crazy radicals. There are some reasonable candidates, but they're invisible next to the more popular whack jobs.
I find it pretty disheartening that Rick Perry is taken so seriously. He just seems like a ghost of GWB. It seems like the guy wasn't that well known until the media started telling everybody that he was a frontrunner. Like...before he even entered the race, his name is all I read in the news about "GOP frontrunners".Well, obviously I'm familiar more familiar with that guy, but I do share your bewilderment into how these people suddenly become the front runners. It seems a bit far fetched to assume that it's entirely the media who's responsible, but they're certainly the ones to bring people straight to the front of the pack. Something else that feeds that problem is that Iowa and New Hampshire have so much bearing in who gets nominated. What makes them so special?
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.
I've become convinced that the Republican Party and the more fervent among its supporters dream of returning to:(https://static-l3.blogcritics.org/11/04/20/157865/loud-family.jpg?t=20110420181252)
(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2008/06/a5fatherknowsbestcast.jpg)
Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee, Obama will not have a primary challenge, but he's a weak candidate because the economy has not turned around fast enough and even though it's really not his fault he's still going to receive the brunt of the blame for it.
I think the presidential election will be very, very close. It's difficult to unseat an incumbent president. I hold up George W. Bush as an example. His favorability ratings at this point were 5 to 7 points lower than Obama's and he beat John Kerry fairly handily. Granted, John Kerry is about as charismatic as a fucking brick, and Obama's going to have to go up against Rick Perry, who, despite his faults, is a seasoned campaigner......but the problem is, political insiders are not in vogue right now, and Perry, despite the strong economy in Texas, carries a lot baggage.
It's definitely going to be a very interesting election cycle.
How about some background on that, Bartoman.
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.
A state can mandate purchasing insurance if their state constitution allows it. The US Constitution cannot mandate that you or I purchase anything. The MA bill has been a abysmal failure, and Obamacare will be even worse... until the SCOTUS strikes it down.
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund. The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.
Right. And, from my limited knowledge, what we got instead was more or less a giant handout to the healthcare industry with some goodies thrown our way. It seems that any meaningful healthcare reform would need to wholly eliminate the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund. The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.
It's important to note, that single-payer does not mean single administration, etc. Conservatives always make that jump, which is annoying.
uh, no. The MA law has NOT been an abysmal failure. In fact, despite my general distaste for the personal mandate in the MA law and in the Obama law, the facts are clear: It has been extremely successful. You can read more about the success of the MA healthcare law here: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html)And here we agree completely. I actually can understand why a few people might have gotten it worse under RomneyCare, but overall it certainly appears to have been quite successful.
Romney is just parsing words with his criticism of Obama's law, mostly because he doesn't have any choice if he wants to get elected.
Frankly, I think Obama's health care law sucks, but that's because I wanted a SINGLE PAYER system.
Right. And, from my limited knowledge, what we got instead was more or less a giant handout to the healthcare industry with some goodies thrown our way. It seems that any meaningful healthcare reform would need to wholly eliminate the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.
HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?
They've both done essentially the same thing as far as I can tell, so I don't see how one is better than the other. The shit just hadn't quite hit the fan yet under Greenspan (though he contributed to it doing so).HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?
Compared to Bernanke? I would agree with that statement.
Herman Cain is really disturbing to me. He's never going to win the primary though, which is a good thing.
9-9-9 is simply laughable and.. seriously. HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund. The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you just called me "insane" in that post :coolio
Administrative costs are 4 times higher (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747566) here in the US than they are in Ontario, Canada where they have a single payer system.
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you just called me "insane" in that post :coolio
Administrative costs are 4 times higher (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747566) here in the US than they are in Ontario, Canada where they have a single payer system.
Well as Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results. Most Americans support trying to fix these problems through government intervention and we keep getting deeper and deeper into the mess. So in that respect, many people are insane. I want a new solution, one that suggests that government IS the problem.
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund. The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.
haha you think its going to reduce administrative costs? as compared to what our current socialist system or a private system?
People are insane, you hand out free health care, what do you think is going to happen? What happens to demand when you drop the price of something to zero? This is simple stuff.
Who's going to watch Cain and Romney verbally fellate themselves tonight? I figure it would make for some fun TV.Since they won't be able to ignore Cain this time around, I might check it out. I understand he actually tries to stay on topic, so I'd actually like to see that.
I'm curious how they'll address the Occupy movement.That's an easy one. They'll blame Obama. "These people are angry, and given the state of things, they have every right to be. The solution to theirs, and all of our problems is to get rid of Obama and elect me so I can turn this nation around and give them the opportunity to work and prosper!"
This is so funny. :lol
Watching Rick Perry getting owned gave me a laugh.
I can't tell who's worse: her, Cain, or Perry?I loved when Perry answered the question about Texas's 1,000,000+ uninsured children by accusing Romney of hiring illegal aliens.
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.
No offense, but Bill Maher is an idiot. Jon Stewart is infinitely more wise and tactful.
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.
No offense, but Bill Maher is an idiot. Jon Stewart is infinitely more wise and tactful.
I don't need tact. As for wise, I just dig Bill Maher because we are very similar in our political beliefs and other more secular ones. If I may ask, why do you dislike him so?
edit: The only major issue Maher and I disagree upon is the death penalty. I'm set in stone on that one.
I think Maher is mostly a blowhard but there are sometimes good conversations on his show.
Maher is too much of a snobby ass for me to take his political discussion seriously, yet not quite funny enough for me to enjoy his show strictly as a comedy either. Not a fan.
Holy shit. If Rick Perry doesn't hang it up after this debate, I'll be shocked.
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:
Holy shit. If Rick Perry doesn't hang it up after this debate, I'll be shocked.
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:
Why is Romney (who has clearly come out as the Wall Street Candidate (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1319033138-q3WcXFHM9MujRFkZjPgtuA)) any more palatable than the rest of them?Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:
You see, my thought is that if Obama somehow loses to the Repubs, I'd much rather that Repub be Mitt than, say, Perry. Or Bachmann. Or Cain. Or any of those guys, really; most of them don't give me good vibes at all, hence, Mitt would be least bad.
Why does everyone ignore Ron Paul? I mean seriously he's probably the only honest politician on that stage.
Why does everyone ignore Ron Paul? I mean seriously he's probably the only honest politician on that stage.
Ron Paul is, in a word: "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
My guess is the Republican establishment sees him for what he is-- a (albeit noble) poser trying to hijack the party from the inside.Ron Paul. A poser? What is he posing as? You're saying he's not honest?
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.Ron Paul is, in a word: "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.Ron Paul is, in a word: "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.Ron Paul is, in a word: "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
That's just sad. He would make a great president.
That's what I mean. Who do you think was the last president who was honest as Ron Paul is today?
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.
rumborak
Ron Paul. A poser? What is he posing as?
Ron Paul money bomb is today. Donate.
A Republican.
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.
rumborak
I'd say the neo-conservatives are posing as republicans.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.Ron Paul is, in a word: "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
That's just sad. He would make a great president.
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.
rumborak
He is, but I think he's putting the cart before the horse. His idea, i.e. the idea of Libertarianism, is that a process can be trusted more with the welfare of beings than the action of the beings themselves. And I think that notion makes him patently unelectable.
A friend of mine the other day said he's essentially the court jester. It's a very good analogy; he's really good at putting the mirror in front of other people. But he himself would be a disastrous president. And that's why he,once his role if fulfilledonce he's had a bunch of "money-bomb" donations to fund his next House of Representatives election campaign heas the court jesterdrops out of the running.
rumborak
Should we all just vote for Huntsman?
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "integrity" now doesn't it?
Here's the problem I see with Ron Paul.
Contrast his "Plan To Restore America (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)" which calls for a trillion dollars in spending cuts.
with....
The fact that he is the Republican who has introduced MORE Pork-Barrel spending (https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill) than ANY other in the House
Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician, just like every other politician in the American political system, and that includes the liberals in my party too.
Don't be fooled.
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "integrity" now doesn't it?
Here's the problem I see with Ron Paul.
Contrast his "Plan To Restore America (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)" which calls for a trillion dollars in spending cuts.
with....
The fact that he is the Republican who has introduced MORE Pork-Barrel spending (https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill) than ANY other in the House
Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician, just like every other politician in the American political system, and that includes the liberals in my party too.
Don't be fooled.
But the in the link you posted he completely explains the reason why. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch... It's not like the money will not get spent if it is not earmarked. At least some of the federal tax money his constituents pay will be returned to hopefully benefit them, all the while he is fighting against those taxes, as well as voting against budgets that use those taxes in unconstitutional ways. I don't see any other way to handle this.
And of course you look at the rest of his record. He doesn't take part of the congressional pension, hasn't voted to raise congressional salary, lobbyists never even bother going to his office because he doesn't give them the time of day, he's never taken a government paid vacation, and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician
I was only responding to the following accusation:QuoteRon Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician
I wasn't trying to convince you to vote for him.
As for his age, I don't really know why that matter so much if he is in good health.
He's going to choose a smart running mate that hold nearly the same views as himself, so if he'd die or anything - it'd be fine with a younger bright VP taking his spot. The ideas are stronger than the person himself, so I hope his age doesn't hold anyone back.
I meant further back than Reagan.
I'm not sure what you don't get. RP supporters have no problem admitting and pointing out that he's the black sheep of the Republican Party, but is it really that tough to figure out why? He doesn't run on the GoP's platform, and then he claims that he runs on what the "true" platform of the GoP is, even though he can't factually point to a time when the majority of the GoP shared in his ideology and backed it up with their actions.Ron Paul is much closer to the Old Right, like Robert Taft, than most of the candidates out there.
People (like most of my family) who've been voting GoP most of their lives see him as a pretender. And, to be brutally honest, that's what he is. In fact, most RP supporters I've met have been people who are anything but actual Republicans. This includes people I know who are left of most democrats, libertarians(not REPUBLICANS for a reason!), and teenagers getting out of their Michael Moore phase. But very few people who actually are card-carrying GoP members.
Some of us just like the fact that he's not on the take and he doesn't give a shit about party loyalty. That makes him truly unique in a system full of crooked assholes.
Ron Paul is much closer to the Old Right, like Robert Taft, than most of the candidates out there.
Filling up bills with a shitload of pork so you have further grounds to vote them down later is pretty scummy.
Actually where the study of the presidency is involved, it's said the president is never solely focused on the job. It's called the perpetual campaign; even the legislation he proposes/passes into law somehow go back to his effort towards re-election.
Well sure, but that's where it's all aimed at; it's why political scientists call it the perpetual campaign.
Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.
...
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
...
Small businesses rate "poor sales" as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the "political climate."
....
The candidates have said little about another national problem: depressed home prices, as well as the high numbers of foreclosures and borrowers who owe more than their houses are worth.
The only thing needing to be banned is the obsession with the Fed. It's getting to the level of a witch hunt.
If you want to legislate something, legislate something like the EU passed a few days ago: increasing the mandatory bank cash reserve to 9%. One of the major causes of the financial collapse was that banks couldn't deal with the shock to the system that the collapse of the housing market brought.
rumbrak
To me I think its clear that Gengrich is the most well spoken, coherent of all the candidates. Along with Ron Paul, I think he's the only that seems to have some sort of moral philosophy from which he derives his political beliefs. While I think that any of them would be better than Obama, I think that Gengrich & Paul are the only ones that will bring me to the polls election time.Did we watch the same debate? Or the same Gingrich in that debate?
This pretty much sums up Rick Perry's debate performance tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg
I didn't find huntsman impressive at all... He didnt make much sense at all when he talked about the Fed. Gingirch does two things I like - he asnwers the questions coherently, and then yells at the moderators when they try to cut him off :lolJust so you know, answers aren't incoherent just because you disagree with them. Huntsman by far gave the most coherent and intelligent answers of the night.
Just so you know, answers aren't incoherent just because you disagree with them. Huntsman by far gave the most coherent and intelligent answers of the night.
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory. Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states. The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him. When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. :lol
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory. Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states. The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him. When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. :lol
Perry doens't seem to sharp on the draw. But i dont think that Gingrich vs. obama would be an easy victory, if they were to set up some debates that were actually debates (not those telivised mini speeches they have now) Gingrich would sway a good amount of the American people.
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory. Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states. The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him. When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. :lol
Perry doens't seem to sharp on the draw. But i dont think that Gingrich vs. obama would be an easy victory, if they were to set up some debates that were actually debates (not those telivised mini speeches they have now) Gingrich would sway a good amount of the American people.
Gingrich has too many moral skeletons in his closet to win the nomination anyway. I mean, this is a guy who was going after Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished while he was cheating on his wife. You know, his second wife, the one who had just been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Now he's on to wife #3. Not exactly the "family values" narrative that carries conservative votes.
He's a bright guy, I'll give you that. But he's lacking in the charisma area, and since when has intellect carried conservative votes?
I really though Perry was going to be formidable. He's not very bright. Folksy. Likes guns. Comes from Texas.....all he had to do was not say....."oops!" :lol
Romney STILL polls the best against Obama in a head up race and he has a very good command of the facts, he's just got more positions than Karma Sutra
Hey, I'm a liberal registered Democrat, but let me tell you something: Obama is not going to "crush" anyone. He's got a very difficult re-election campaign ahead of him. I think he has a decent chance of winning, and I want him to win because I don't want any more right-wingers appointed to the SCOTUS, but the facts are pretty clear.....this election is going to be a close call.
Hey, I'm a liberal registered Democrat, but let me tell you something: Obama is not going to "crush" anyone. He's got a very difficult re-election campaign ahead of him. I think he has a decent chance of winning, and I want him to win because I don't want any more right-wingers appointed to the SCOTUS, but the facts are pretty clear.....this election is going to be a close call.
I posted this in the "is Christianity bad for the US" thread, but it is hilarious seeing these debaters criticizing Obama's foreign policy from the right. They come off as psychopaths.
Also, I'm glad Ron Paul pointed out the glaring hypocrisy that is "not trusting the government," yet fully supporting due process free assassinations of Americans, just 'cos some secret panel at the White House said he was guilty.
Also, I'm glad Ron Paul pointed out the glaring hypocrisy that is "not trusting the government," yet fully supporting due process free assassinations of Americans, just 'cos some secret panel at the White House said he was guilty.
I mean...all of them. They're all anti big government unless it involves war or corporate welfare.Excuse me? Ron Paul is pro-war and pro-corporatism?
edit: except Huntsman.
Ron Paul had like four minutes of speaking time. I'm calling BS on that entire debate. It was all Romney acting like the boss, Hermain Cain making an idiot out of himself on being "clear" about the Pakis, Perry fumbling with his words as usual.
Everyone was war-mongering, and they didn't even let Paul speak out against it that much. Huntsman is also the guy on the stage with real experience in the field, though he can't talk sense into the ignorants in the crowds.
It's sad.I mean...all of them. They're all anti big government unless it involves war or corporate welfare.Excuse me? Ron Paul is pro-war and pro-corporatism?
edit: except Huntsman.
No, see my post before that one.Should've read up.
Ron Paul had like four minutes of speaking time. I'm calling BS on that entire debate. It was all Romney acting like the boss, Hermain Cain making an idiot out of himself on being "clear" about the Pakis, Perry fumbling with his words as usual.
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".
I think I posted a while back about incumbents who faced competition in the primaries, and it's almost always a gift to the opposition party. Obama's weak enough as it is. Any opposition would almost guarantee a Republican president in '12, and their only real candidates are total whackjobs. I can't stand Obama's silly ass, but the thought of Presidents Perry or Cain is just mind-numbing.
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".
Politics in the US... sad business.
He was second. Within 1% of Bachmann, who allegedly bought 2000 votes. In the Iowa poll that is. Paul is being ignored here, no doubt.
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".
Politics in the US... sad business.
I'm not talking about challenging him for the sake of actually trying to win, but get him closer to his base. It'd make people not to casually accept Obama just because he's a dem.He was second. Within 1% of Bachmann, who allegedly bought 2000 votes. In the Iowa poll that is. Paul is being ignored here, no doubt.
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".
Politics in the US... sad business.
Challenging an incumbent is a recipe for disaster. See: Jimmy Carter
No good would come of it for the Democrats, and you might as well hand the white house to the Republicans.
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.
rumborak
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.
rumborak
They are? I haven't really been paying attention to the GOP stuff, what's been happening?
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.
rumborak
They are? I haven't really been paying attention to the GOP stuff, what's been happening?
How the hell is Gingrich gaining so much ground?
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?Never.
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?
Ron Paul is actually polling pretty good in Iowa, New Hampshire and California of all places, but, no, he's probably not going to make it too far past the South Carolina primary. He's way too sane.
I think most straw polls require that you attend the event and pay a fee to be able to vote.
https://www.politico.com/2012-election/He does extremely well. He has won pretty much half or more than half of every major straw poll held since the campaigning began.
lol@Herman CainI think most straw polls require that you attend the event and pay a fee to be able to vote.
Yes, this. The fact RP has done well in a couple straw-polls is very promising for him, imo.
“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”
Quote“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”
Oh Rick Perry.
From what I understand most straw polls are online polls. Which is probably why the GOP believes the results of those as much as we believed that Nickelback's drummer is the best rock drummer.Straw Polls are not the same as "log on now to Fox News or CNN and vote for your favourite candidate".
I don't even need to look online to know that RP's forum will have "let's vote for RP in this poll" threads, with the more internet-savvy guys using their knowledge to give their voice a bit more Oomph than normal.
rumborak
Quote“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”
Oh Rick Perry.
I've been compiling most of his major gaffes here: https://www.governorgoodhair.org
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.
It's a pretty bad idea to run against an incumbent president from your party. Never really turns out well for anyone. There are probably Democrats out there who don't like Obama, but they probably like him a whole lot more than any of the Republicans.Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.
I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.
I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
It's a pretty bad idea to run against an incumbent president from your party. Never really turns out well for anyone. There are probably Democrats out there who don't like Obama, but they probably like him a whole lot more than any of the Republicans.Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.
I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/2/
This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.
Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most.
Today, that bomb goes off.
Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.
As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.
Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.
So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?
Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.
Whether you are a believer in the benefits of single-payer health coverage or an opponent, mark this day down on your calendar because this is the day seismic shifts in our health care system finally get under way.
As someone that used to be a health insurance agent and currently does administrative work for a few health insurance companies, I can tell you this sounds incredibly significant.Interesting. I'm hoping to read or hear more about this since I've only seen that one opinion piece.
And Herman Cain is officially out of the race! Good riddance, USA.Aww, that sucks. He was pure comedy gold.
And Herman Cain is officially out of the race! Good riddance, USA.Aww, that sucks. He was pure comedy gold.
Who do y'all think will the next to lose?
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues? No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues? No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.
I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit at Tiffany's with the countries budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well :lol
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues? No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.
I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit, at Tiffany's, with the country's budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well :lol
No, no. I agree with you. I would just like to see some honesty come out for once. No falsehoods and empty promises.
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues? No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.
I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit at Tiffany's with the countries budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well :lol
No, no. I agree with you. I would just like to see some honesty come out for once. No falsehoods and empty promises.
Somewhat unrelated, but I thought it was kinda funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8CGeC2M_U&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8CGeC2M_U&feature=related)
From a Michelle Bachmann stand.
In all seriousness I thought so too, I just thought her reaction was funny. Not the sorta thing you'd expect from someone well aware that the cameras are always watching.
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:
Have they not realized that shit like that makes them look like Aryan Nation members? OR is that the whole point
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:
I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest :lol
Is this what our system has become?
A freaking monster-truck ad? :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol
:\
Wait, why is that funny again?
:|
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png)
So everything with black, white and red makes you a Nazi?
Really? I see it more like a "Dat azz" kinda face :lol(http://)
Oh no, can't be unseen: Look at his mouth, looks like his teeth are over his lower lip, like a mentally challenged kid would do :lol
rumborak
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:
I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest :lol
Is this what our system has become?
A freaking monster-truck ad? :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol
:\
Wait, why is that funny again?
:|
Not that I'm saying it's a good ad, it's actually a terrible ad imo - but nowhere did the ad claim that eliminating 4 agencies (they cited five by the way) was the way that the 1 trillion was cut.Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:
I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest :lol
Is this what our system has become?
A freaking monster-truck ad? :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol
:\
Wait, why is that funny again?
:|
I forgot to mention the other GLARING factual stupidity in the ad. The claim in the ad is that by eliminating the 4 agencies cited, he'll trim $1 Trillion from the budget.
Anyone who believes this is even remotely close to being feasible is an idiot.
That ad is almost as bad as his fake debate with Obama on Fox News.LOL. I just did some research on this again, it was MEANT as a fake debate. It wasn't a guy actually trying to be Obama and them making a real attempt at it. It's hilarious now that I see it again, Ron Paul has some humor lol.
Ugh. Who is in charge of producing this crap? Right now, ronpaul.com seems to have a good black, white and red theme going. Have they not realized that shit like that makes them look like Aryan Nation members? OR is that the whole point?
I mean, seriously?
This
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png)
Looks like it's begging to be put somewhere with this logo:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a01AVJotTRE/SuowgNyJvYI/AAAAAAAAAAw/kHC1UAAg8bE/s320/nsalp.jpg)
Nice troll
Again, there is no "colors theory". I am not trying to say Ron Paul is a Nazi. I am simply asking, while every other politician is trying to convince you they piss red white and blue, Ron Paul is gearing his campaign in such a way that seems to cater to monster-truck fans who might or might not be skinheads, too. I'm not making any claims that need defending here, I'm just asking for a rationale. Apparently supporters are willing to just brush this silliness off, but am I really the only one that thinks it's weird this is actually how he's marketing himself to outsiders?
Again, there is no "colors theory". I am not trying to say Ron Paul is a Nazi. I am simply asking, while every other politician is trying to convince you they piss red white and blue, Ron Paul is gearing his campaign in such a way that seems to cater to monster-truck fans who might or might not be skinheads, too. I'm not making any claims that need defending here, I'm just asking for a rationale. Apparently supporters are willing to just brush this silliness off, but am I really the only one that thinks it's weird this is actually how he's marketing himself to outsiders?
I don't think those X-Treme ads were meant to cater to anyone but the red meat Spike TV crowd.
But yes, they are silly.
He actually was pressed on that point quite a bit during the Huckabee forum, and he didn't really seem to be able to back-up the claim. He just kept saying stuff like "well, we do, you just have to look at it, but the real issue is" aka averting the question to talk about something else, as per usual.
Maybe it's just because I've followed him more than any other living politician, but I feel like because I know him and his rhetoric and his way of dodging questions better than the others, he's starting to seem especially annoying to me.
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Yeah, right, because he definitely wasn't telling that audience exactly what he knew they wanted to hear. Nope, Ron Paul is the second coming of George Washington.Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
The thing with Ron Paul is he's always been a typical politician.RP has been the sole NO vote on bills more than any other congressman ever. He has been talking about the monetary system since he joined congress and been the lone voice for returning to a gold standard. He never was a "team player" when it came to GOP vs Dems. So yeah, he's definitely a typical politician.
The mythology about him that he has some higher moral standards than any of the others really just comes from a couple of issues he's been vocal about, particularly his stance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which flew directly in the face of Bush & Company's neoconservative war-for-profit model of governance.Again, he's been the lone NO vote more than enough times to disprove this.
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist,LOLNO. Non-interventionism =/= Isolationism. An isolationist wants to restrict foreign trade and protect domestic markets as much as possible, as well as not involving oneself at all abroad. Ron Paul wants to have free trade all around the world and wants the LOWEST tariffs possible. How is that isolationist? Just because he doesn't want to bomb, but use diplomacy he's suddenly an isolationist.
he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected,Remember the debate a few months back, when people booed him? They were discussing the motives for terrorists, and he said it's because of a century of interventionist and occupationist foreign policy in the region. He was BOOED for speaking the truth, and his response was "I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was (for 9/11)".
and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.Well, this is purely subjective, and I must say it's very hard for him to articulate his positions so that as many as possible can understand his positions. It's too difficult to in one minute or thirty seconds, articulate a position that is so against the status quo.
It's not just silly, it's factually bankrupt. You can't cut $1 Trillion from a $1.3 Trillion budget especially when almost $600 Billion of that budget is the military. If "people who failed 4th grade mathematics" is a good constituency, then he's right on the money :tuphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget)
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.
Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA
:lol
Come on, man. He's a politician, just like the rest of them. Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.
He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either. They all do the same thing.
It's not pointing to discretionary spending. That's false.
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.
Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
:lol
Come on, man. He's a politician, just like the rest of them. Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.
He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either. They all do the same thing.
Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?
Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.
I can overlook all that momentarily and try to find out: which Republican candidate is better than Ron Paul? I'm wondering what the anti-RP crowd are thinking.
Cause if the argument is that they're all just as bad then this really wouldn't solve anything, they're still gonna have a candidate and about half the nation are still gonna vote for that candidate and he'll have as much chance of winning as the Democratic candidate. Reach across the aisle people :lol
I don't wanna beat Obama... :sadpanda:
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.
Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!
I don't doubt that. I don't doubt it one bit. And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul. But he's a politician. Look at that ad! It's intelligence-insulting bilge. A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something. Which is precisely my point. He's a politician, that's what these guys do. He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)Ok. Feels like we're just debating the definition of isolationism.
And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. (https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/)
I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.
Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA)
:lol
Come on, man. He's a politician, just like the rest of them. Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.
He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either. They all do the same thing.
Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?
Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.
I don't doubt that. I don't doubt it one bit. And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul. But he's a politician. Look at that ad! It's intelligence-insulting bilge. A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something. Which is precisely my point. He's a politician, that's what these guys do. He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)
I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.
What the hell are you talking about? He was telling them the polar opposite of what they wanted to hear.Yeah, right, because he definitely wasn't telling that audience exactly what he knew they wanted to hear. Nope, Ron Paul is the second coming of George Washington.Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Nosehair, please.
What are you talking about? "Guys stop" When did I say that? Semi-spammy (are you, for some reason, still talking about your Nazi remark?) ??? Nosehair was making some crazy conjectures, I politely called him off; Perpetual Change, why don't you let people politely call people off? Do you always need to instigate trouble around here, you've been warned here lots of time, you know.Nosehair, please.
Em, why are people not allowed to criticize Ron Paul? If you don't like what nosehair or I have to say, then either argue with us about it or stay out of the topic. I don't see how just making these short, semi-spammy posts like "guys stop" is helping you make your point at all.
And what is a "crazy conjunction"? :biggrin:I dunno, but it is crazy!
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.
Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!
I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.
We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.
Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!
I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.
We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.
He still didn't have to appoint all those wall street goons to his administration. And nothing was new about the speech except that he was slightly more sharp-tongued, which made establishment types like Reich wet in the nether regions for whatever reason. And I think it's a combination of the two things you mentioned, not only his sliminess.
It's just like...he didn't HAVE to appoint people like Summers, Geithner, and all those other Wall Street goons who paid for his election.
edit: That Rick Perry ad. Almost makes me want to vote for Obama :lol
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.
I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.
I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
We've just grown accustomed to this system which keeps digging the hole deeper.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.
I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.
Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.
I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.
Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.
I don't know that he's a complete fraud, and obviously I can't prove it; it's just a gut feeling I have. His speeches, especially ones where he puts on the populist hat just ring empty to me. We need more of that when he's not trying to rally the base for votes. I know I rag on the president here like it's my day job, but I want to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He just hasn't earned that from me yet. And you know what? He won't have to.
I don't doubt that. I don't doubt it one bit. And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul. But he's a politician. Look at that ad! It's intelligence-insulting bilge. A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something. Which is precisely my point. He's a politician, that's what these guys do. He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)Ok. Feels like we're just debating the definition of isolationism.
And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. (https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/)
I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.Quote from: WikipediaNonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
But whatever, as a matter of public policy, Ron Paul has got foreign policy RIGHT.
And, yeah - the cabinet level departments are discretionary spending - but NOWHERE in the ad did it suggest that the 1 trillion in cuts came only from those cabinet level departments. Did you even read this?:See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)
This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:
(https://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/graph1.png)
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.
But the entire ad, which I cited here word for word says exactly that! Here it is again.If that's what it suggests to you, that's what it suggests to you. But that's not the message he's trying to convey with the ad though. I never saw it in that light, but I do agree that the ad is terrible and trying to appeal to monster truck fans - but if that's what's needed for him to win the Iowa caucuses, then so be it.
What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years. Budget crisis? No problem! Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T. Department of Education? Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats! That's how Ron Paul rolls. Wanna drain the swamp? Ron Paul! Do it!
If that is not implying that he's going to cut $1 Trillion from the budget by eliminating those agencies, then, I don't know what else it is implying.
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. And stupid monster-truck ads like this one prove it. He's not going to cut $1 Trillion from any budget in one year. NO ONE IS. That's a fucking fantasy.What about Gary Johnson? He has PROMISED to propose a balanced budget in the FY 2013, his first FY, if he becomes president. You don't take his word on that? His record as governor speaks for itself.
But the entire ad, which I cited here word for word says exactly that! Here it is again.If that's what it suggests to you, that's what it suggests to you. But that's not the message he's trying to convey with the ad though. I never saw it in that light, but I do agree that the ad is terrible and trying to appeal to monster truck fans - but if that's what's needed for him to win the Iowa caucuses, then so be it.
What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years. Budget crisis? No problem! Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T. Department of Education? Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats! That's how Ron Paul rolls. Wanna drain the swamp? Ron Paul! Do it!
If that is not implying that he's going to cut $1 Trillion from the budget by eliminating those agencies, then, I don't know what else it is implying.
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. And stupid monster-truck ads like this one prove it. He's not going to cut $1 Trillion from any budget in one year. NO ONE IS. That's a fucking fantasy.
What about Gary Johnson? He has PROMISED to propose a balanced budget in the FY 2013, his first FY, if he becomes president. You don't take his word on that? His record as governor speaks for itself.
Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.
@Scheavo: Yes, replacing the entire Congress would be great, but the President is the one person who has the most power to shape public opinion and the terms of the debate through the bully pulpit. And I know, advice and consent, but he didn't have to pick the safest, most entrenched people around.
Never said he was a liberal. I'm just saying a lot of progressives can find lots they like in him.Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.
Oh, make no mistake, I've looked him up. He seems like a decent guy. I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all, but the problem is as a candidate he's nobody. They won't even let him into the debates. I'm not saying I agree with that, just making an observation.
How is it that the Republican primaries are so full of extremists? Is that really what the GOP is comprised of, or is the tail wagging the dog there?
rumborak
Never said he was a liberal. I'm just saying a lot of progressives can find lots they like in him.Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.
Oh, make no mistake, I've looked him up. He seems like a decent guy. I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all, but the problem is as a candidate he's nobody. They won't even let him into the debates. I'm not saying I agree with that, just making an observation.
I have serious disagreements with him, being a liberal and all
@Scheavo: Yes, replacing the entire Congress would be great, but the President is the one person who has the most power to shape public opinion and the terms of the debate through the bully pulpit. And I know, advice and consent, but he didn't have to pick the safest, most entrenched people around.
And I'm just asking that you pay attention to how the president is trying to shape the current public opinion. Listen to his speeches. I never heard him really sway off track, I just never heard him when I would have liked to - there were some issues he dropped / ignored / switched on, but it's a continuation of bureaucratic policies in essence. Now that it's campaign season, he not only has a reason to bring up these issues, but the media also has a greater reason to pay attention to them.
Besides, as I already pointed out, the people with the most power to shape public opinion is the Media.
As for the entrenchment, I think part of it could have to do with Obama's inexperience as President (Cabinet members would probably have the most experience in the matter), and experience is something you can't just ignore, even if you disagree with it. I hope the issue comes up in the campaign, and that Obama will change up his cabinet in some area's.
Just missing a comma...QuoteI have serious disagreements with him, being a liberal and all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgAQuoteI'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.
lol
Rick Perry is blatantly pandering to Evangelicals because they make up a large swath of Republican primary voters and his handlers know that.Absolutely. I don't think anyone who is really a devout Christian in the sense that they try to emulate Jesus in all aspects of their life would ever go into politics. There's too much ego involved.
Rick Perry is blatantly pandering to Evangelicals because they make up a large swath of Republican primary voters and his handlers know that.Absolutely. I don't think anyone who is really a devout Christian in the sense that they try to emulate Jesus in all aspects of their life would ever go into politics. There's too much ego involved.
So yeah. All that stuff is happening at my school. Cool stuff.Don't see it having relevance to this election, but it was sad.
This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:[/quote]
(https://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/graph1.png)
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.
If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran. The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters. This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."
Yeah, I got the impression too. I only saw about 10 minutes, and here's my highly in depth analysis of the candidates based on months of following the race:
Bachmann: Die Obamacare!!
Santorum: Came across as a reasonable and nice guy.
Romney: "I worked the private sector". Something about his personality irks me.
Gingrich: "I worked the private sector too Mitt!" (Referring to consulting with Freddie Mac, lol)
Paul: Not as articulate as he used to be.
Perry: Same as Romney regarding personality.
Yeah, I got the impression too. I only saw about 10 minutes, and here's my highly in depth analysis of the candidates based on months of following the race:
Bachmann: Die Obamacare!!
Santorum: Came across as a reasonable and nice guy.
Romney: "I worked the private sector". Something about his personality irks me.
Gingrich: "I worked the private sector too Mitt!" (Referring to consulting with Freddie Mac, lol)
Paul: Not as articulate as he used to be.
Perry: Same as Romney regarding personality.
You think it's "reasonable" to force a rape victim to carry the baby to delivery?
Because that's Rick Santorum's position. No abortion, ever, under any circumstances of any kind. Period.
So, let's say you were married, and through an unfortunate series of events, your wife was violently raped by "Bubba" the 280 lb African American career criminal.....in Rick Santorum's world, your wife would have no choice but to deliver Bubba's baby.
Still think he's "reasonable" and "nice" now?
RON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth." THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.As much as I hate giving George W. Bush credit for anything, T.A.R.P. was successful.
Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.
Read more: https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI (https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI)
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas made questionable and misleading claims (https://factcheck.org/2011/09/cnntea-party-debate/) about taxes in his state since Perry became governor, saying that “our taxes [in Texas] have doubled.” We could find no evidence that taxes for Texas residents had doubled under Perry. Paul also said: “Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly triple.” After adjusting for inflation and population growth, the spending increase was 21 percent, not a doubling. The debt claim is a reference to the state bond debt, which has nearly tripled in real dollars. That’s not the same as running a deficit; the state has a balanced budget requirement.
Read more: https://factcheck.org/2011/12/debate-watch/
He doesn't have what it takes to bring out enthusiasm in people. But he still might end up surging as the other candidates implode.
I have Newt max 7 more days until he begins dropping.
Why would you hope I'm wrong? I'm saying that Newt's poll numbers should begin to drop substantially within 7 days.
QuoteRON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth." THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.As much as I hate giving George W. Bush credit for anything, T.A.R.P. was successful.
Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.
Read more: https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI (https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI)
An Associated Press article purporting to correct the errors of the candidates in last weekend's GOP presidential debate includes the following passage:QuoteRON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth."
THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.
Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.
A necessarily speculative counterfactual claim made by some economists is scarcely a "fact," and we might wonder about the value of a consensus among economists in the first place in light of their rather unimpressive performance in understanding the economy over the past ten years. David Stockman, on the other hand, notes that "30 months after the fact, evidence that the American economy had been on the edge of a nuclear-style meltdown [at the time TARP was passed] is nowhere to be found."
On the "TARP money was repaid" front, I note the comments of Dean Baker:QuoteWe are also supposed to feel good that the vast majority of the TARP money was repaid. This is another effort to prey on the public's ignorance. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain.
It is important to remember that the economy would be no less productive following the demise of these Wall Street giants. The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy's output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output.
Instead, we have the same Wall Street crew calling the shots, doing business pretty much as they always did. The rest of us are sitting here dealing with wreckage of their recklessness: 9.6 percent unemployment and the loss of much of the middle class's savings in their homes and their retirement accounts. And the lackeys of the Wall Street crew are telling us that we should be thankful that we didn't have a second Great Depression. Maybe we don't have the power to keep the bankers from picking our pockets, but we don't have to believe their lies.
And finally, Ron Paul never said the Fed got money from the Treasury; presumably we can trust that a guy who's written as much as Ron Paul has on the Fed knows something as elementary as this. The point, rather, is that when the Fed qualitatively degrades its balance sheet, as when it swaps decent assets for lousy ones, it harms holders of dollars. The mechanism works like this: When the Fed wants to withdraw money from the economy it sells assets — but if its assets are lousy and won't fetch many dollars, it has a more difficult time reversing its earlier expansionist monetary policy, and the likelihood of price inflation is now all the greater.
We are also supposed to feel good that the vast majority of the TARP money was repaid. This is another effort to prey on the public's ignorance. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain.
[...]The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy's output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output.
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.
If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran. The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters. This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."
Wrong. He doesn't have to say those things and you've missed my point. But thanks for playing :corn
It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?
It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?
Many people don't. There's still plenty of debate over that to this day.
I'm kind of torn on Ron Paul. I agree with a lot of what he says, but he suffers from the same delusions that many Libertarians do, which is that political ideology has to be pure to work. Hell, Republicans and Democrats both occasionally get things right.
I do think he has integrity. I also think it's worth noticing that it's an easy thing to have when you know there aren't any consequences. He can vote against spending bills because his general philosophy says to, but he also knows that they'll pass anyway. He certainly understands the game. Attach expenditures and earmarks for your district, and then vote against the bill! :lol
What I really do appreciate about him is something I read a while back from a former Republican Whip, who said that there was a general understanding that you could crack any heads necessary to get a bill to pass, but leave RP the hell alone. Nothing you're going to do will persuade him, so spend your efforts elsewhere. I wish there were 500 more people like that in Congress.
I think he's just playing the game well. :lolI'm kind of torn on Ron Paul. I agree with a lot of what he says, but he suffers from the same delusions that many Libertarians do, which is that political ideology has to be pure to work. Hell, Republicans and Democrats both occasionally get things right.
I do think he has integrity. I also think it's worth noticing that it's an easy thing to have when you know there aren't any consequences. He can vote against spending bills because his general philosophy says to, but he also knows that they'll pass anyway. He certainly understands the game. Attach expenditures and earmarks for your district, and then vote against the bill! :lol
What I really do appreciate about him is something I read a while back from a former Republican Whip, who said that there was a general understanding that you could crack any heads necessary to get a bill to pass, but leave RP the hell alone. Nothing you're going to do will persuade him, so spend your efforts elsewhere. I wish there were 500 more people like that in Congress.
Just a note on earmarks. He supports them because his interpretation of the constitution is that only the Congress has the power to appropriate funds. If earmarks weren't in place, the President could spend the money however he/she saw fit. I hear you on the ideological front, many people like the idea of a Paul-Nader, Paul-Sanders, or vice-versa ticket, to add some balance.
On another note, it's nice to see you are still on here El Barto.
It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?
Many people don't. There's still plenty of debate over that to this day.
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.
If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran. The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters. This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."
Wrong. He doesn't have to say those things and you've missed my point. But thanks for playing :corn
Your argument wasn't missed, it's simply nonsensical. Your claim is almost laughable considering that Paul is one of the most consistent politicians of our day. Even those who disagree with him will admit he votes in accordance with what he says.
You tell me when he last pandered. Whenever he actually does something the crowd likes, at least he doesn't sacrifice his principles when doing it.
You tell me when he last pandered. Whenever he actually does something the crowd likes, at least he doesn't sacrifice his principles when doing it.
Well, let's make sure we have the definition of pandering (in the realm of politics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_%28politics%29) out here, because I know not everyone here is a native English speaker.
Now, with that out there, because he's Ron Paul, I know that many (maybe even most) who support him here are still going to refuse to acknowledge that -like every politician in office- he panders (https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html) to whatever constituency he deems necessary to get him elected. And he's never sacrificed his principles, except when he did. (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html)
Well, he does some sausage to his district, but that's as far as it goes. As pointed out, he's giving his constituents back their tax money :) .
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
I said more liberals would get convinced.I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
I said more liberals would get convinced.I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
Nah, they'd just get convinced to actually make an effort and go vote in the primaries/caucuses.
Not many, but maybe a few.
RON PAUL ON EARMARKS:
Kirk, you ought to read this:
https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/ (https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/)
Or there's my scenario. Paul votes for choice B, but knows that A is inevitable, so he tacks on Amendment D which says that his family gets 15% of the stolen bread. Once again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. Only that it casts a pall of uncertainty over his integrity.
The only remaining argument is that Paul truly wants Choice A with Amendment C to be chosen, i.e., he makes a safe bet. This is of course an improvable assumption.
Anyway, RP @ Jay Leno. He's going to lose Iowa due to the last remarks on the candidates, but he's going to catch fire in other states from non-fundamentalists. Those remarks do not fly well with the evangelical base in Iowa too.
The next few days are going to be REALLY important, how this is handled.
Also, I'm really worried about momentum after the last debate on Iran.
For one thing, my amendment D is different from your amendment C. Also, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he really doesn't want A to happen at all.Or there's my scenario. Paul votes for choice B, but knows that A is inevitable, so he tacks on Amendment D which says that his family gets 15% of the stolen bread. Once again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. Only that it casts a pall of uncertainty over his integrity.
I actually addressed that:QuoteThe only remaining argument is that Paul truly wants Choice A with Amendment C to be chosen, i.e., he makes a safe bet. This is of course an improvable assumption.
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.I'm sure that Romney will, or already has.
rumborak
No matter what happens, I don't think he's getting the nom. At best he'll declare his candidacy for a third party ticket.Nah, he clearly stated on Leno that those kind of comments happen because he's rising on the polls. I think there's no way he'll leave the Republican Party.
Unless I'm totally missing the point of that article, in which case just ignore me.
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.I'm sure that Romney will, or already has.
rumborak
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.
rumborak
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, December 19, 7:12 PMIt's not Newt's position that intrigues me; we all know he's a loon. It's that Romney is wanting to remove judges and reverse their decisions if he disagrees with them, and he's coming off as the reasonable sort. This is actually exactly what's been happening in American politics for a while. The right keeps foisting maniacs out to represent them, and the effect is to slide the fulcrum a little to the right. That's why we have a Republican president who's mascaraing as a democrat, and half the country no longer recognizes that he's essentially the second coming of their patron saint, Lord Reagan.
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says rival Newt Gingrich’s idea to send Capitol Police or U.S. marshals to bring judges before lawmakers to explain their decisions is neither practical nor constitutional.
Romney says the answer to out-of-control judges is not to tear up the Constitution and say that Congress is the ultimate power in the country. Instead, he says the Constitution should be followed when it comes to removing judges or reversing judicial decisions.
Romney made the comments Monday night on the Fox News Channel.
Over the weekend, Gingrich leveled wide-ranging criticism at the judicial system and suggested that as president he could ignore some Supreme Court decisions and would seek to abolish left-leaning courts. He also said Congress should subpoena judges to explain their decisions to lawmakers.
:therearenowords:I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
And I'm equally sure that very few actual liberals would ever vote for a guy who will pack the courts with more right-wingers. His position on abortion alone disqualifies him as someone I can vote for and I know most of my liberal friends feel the same way.
And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".
I don't get it either. It says a lot about "Dr." Ron Paul and his supposed adherence to reason.
Not only that, but Obama "believes" in Empire? He "believes" in corporate wars? I think that picture kinda illustrates the level of discourse in a significant portion of Paul's following.
rumborak
Ron Paul is pro-life, yet still he wants that each State to decide whether it's legal to practice it or not - pretty reasonable. (I'm hugely pro-life yet if someone is pro-choice and still proposed and had a record like Paul, i.e. being consistent for a great amount of time, I wouldn't doubt to vote for him. It actually seems pretty fucking stupid not to vote for a guy just because his stance on abortion is contrary to mine. Each person has his views, sure, it doesn't make them less stupid when there are bigger issues at stake.)
jsem, even if most Libertarians are pro-choice it doesn't matter in the individual level.And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".
Not that I think you should vote for Ron Paul or anything, but why do you always bring up that classification, "liberal," like it's some cookie cutter mold that people fall neatly into? Hell, one could consider a lot of my views "liberal" (although I probably wouldn't label myself as such) and I'm *considering* voting for the man.
It's just that in the current political climate, social issues - especially ones that don't directly affect me - aren't as important to me right now.
Emindead, you just have to get over the fact that for some people, the question of abortion is so important that they cannot in their mind support a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate at all.
There is no "Republican party's position". Everyone has their own views, and RP doesn't compromise his views to fit into the party.
Plus, Paul is the only one who is consistently pro-life - against the warfare.
Huh. I was always of the belief that there was no official party position, just positions of different people within the party.
The two party system in the US must go.
The two party system in the US must go.
As I've been watching the midterm circle jerk, I've been more and more inclined to think that this noble experiment of ours has turned out to be a resounding failure. As much as we like to blame the two party system, and we all know it sucks, I think that it's actually just an inevitable consequence of a bigger problem. People don't seem to realize that what they tout as the biggest strength of a democratic government is actually it's biggest weakness. The system will inevitably steer towards electioneering rather than governing. The simple truth is that you can't govern if you don't get elected, but once you actually get into office, how you govern is merely a function of maintaining electability. Nobody has ever held onto an office while telling an unpopular truth. Right or wrong is no longer relevant.Quote from: James E. CarterI'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation. . . .Quote from: George H. W. Bush"it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform."
The problem as I see it is that getting yourself elected requires selling yourself to the masses, and as I'm so fond of pointing out, the masses are fucking stupid. As Turdblossom demonstrated with such extraordinary success, the more you boil things down to the simplest, black and white components, the more people you can get to rally behind your cause. It's campaigning to the lowest common denominator. A politician who even suggests that an issue is complicated and needs to be carefully considered will get clobbered in two years by an empty suit that says "IT'S US VS. THEM!!!" The Romans figured this out 2000 years ago.
Rather than suggesting that Americans should build a fire and put on a damn sweater, Carter should have told them to crank up the heat and buy a big V8 Cadillac because he'll take care of obtaining more oil. After all, we deserve it. Instead of raising taxes, Bush should have made up some of his own voodoo economics, lowered taxes, and told everybody that we're doing better than ever (until the next president comes along to inherit the problem). "That extra $50 on my tax return is worth a helluva lot more than those imaginary problems that nobody can understand!"
This is the only result that can be obtained in a system derived off of popularity.
Unfortunately, with great ignorance comes great arrogance. The people who are convinced that we control the government for the better are the same people who believe this to be the greatest and most free nation on Earth. With those beliefs, it is inconceivable that they could ever accept that the system has failed. Convinced that our way is right, we go out and force our ways onto others whether they want it or not, completely refusing to consider that perhaps there could be a better option. Alas, the inevitable outcome is that Americans will never resolve the problems with the government, and in that refusal, we will eventually force ourselves into irrelevance; much like the Romans before us.
The two party system in the US must go.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=26382.msg1109414#msg1109414
https://www.americanselect.org/
I'm really excited to see where this goes in the next 6 months.
Judges who would continue to bring us wonderful things like the Citizens United case which brought us corporate personhood.
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play. There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play. There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.
This is unfortunately true. The sad thing is, I've always thought that if all the people who say "I'd vote for a third party but won't because that would be giving a vote away to the Dems/Reps" actually voted third party, you'd have possibly over half the country voting for third parties, and that'd be a huge turning point.
Ouch. Ron Paul is really dropping the ball on owning up to his racist newsletters.
"How could you vote for someone who..."
Isn't that a thorny formulation? I'm sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We're all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity? Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?
And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that -- just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who've deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality.
In voting for "the lesser of two evils," there is still evil there -- we're just better at ignoring certain kinds in this fallen world. A national security policy that results in the regular deaths of innocent foreigners in order to maybe make us marginally safer from terrorism is one evil we are very good at ignoring.
[...]
Figuring out what flaws to accept in a candidate is a brutal calculus. I wouldn't begrudge someone who, having pondered the matter, decided that as best as they could tell -- we're all guessing about character judgments -- the racist newsletters are reason enough to refrain from supporting Paul. In some ways, it would be easiest for me to reach that conclusion: to establish as a litmus test that I'll never vote for anyone even remotely associated with what is poisonous drivel.
What I find harder, but compulsory, by my code, is at least comparing candidates all of whom stand for something poisonous, immoral or idiotic. Should I stay home? Does that not make me complicit in a different way? These quandaries are inescapable in a large democracy, especially one that is a global hegemon. My tentative conclusion: among the candidates who could win, Paul is least complicit in needlessly killing innocents abroad; he is least likely to deprive innocent foreigners of their God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; he is most committed to civil liberties and drug legalization at home. The contrary policies, which I regard as abhorrent, are easily ignored by most voters, because they are the status quo.
It is easiest to evade the moral implications of policies already in place.
Should Paul continue to perform well in the polls, or even win the Iowa caucuses, national media attention is going to focus intensely on his newsletters as never before, and it won't represent a double-standard: published racism under any candidate's name would rightly attract press attention! Paul ought to stop acting aggrieved. He is not a victim here. Voters ought to do their best to understand the controversy, gauge Paul's character, and render judgment about his likely behavior were he elected to the presidency, relative to his competitors.
I must still say that I feel I can get most of the good things Paul stands for (emphasis on diplomacy, upholding the rule of law, drug legalization) without the loopy bits (destruction of 5 state departments) by plain reelecting Obama.In what world does Obama stand for upholding the rule of law and drug legalization?
rumborak
Eh, is anyone really surprised by this? RP has a million skeletons in his closet, but because he was such a fringe candidate none of the big contenders saw it worth attacking him. Now that he's leading in Iowa they started to hone in on him, and he will go straight down. His racist stuff, his stance on Iran, his "destroy 5 state departments", that's all welcome canon fodder. It would also be a cinch to tie him to some really loopy Libertarian characters (think Jeremiah Wright).
rumborak
I must still say that I feel I can get most of the good things Paul stands for (emphasis on diplomacy, upholding the rule of law, drug legalization) without the loopy bits (destruction of 5 state departments) by plain reelecting Obama.In what world does Obama stand for upholding the rule of law and drug legalization?
rumborak
Right, and then he put some stances in parentheses that I figured he was ascribing to both people. I disagree either way.
I suppose so.I have to agree. My only concern would be judicial appointments, and I don't think that'll get much worse. If it looks like Obama will get bounced, and he won't, then Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy would announce their retirements so he'd be the one to replace them. Thomas will be the first to retire from the right, but he won't do that until there's a Republican to replace him; much like O'Connor. With a President Paul, that might happen sooner than later, and it's not like Paul would find somebody as equally obtuse. I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if Roberts were to drop dead one morning, but it's certainly not something I'd bet on.
It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily, and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin.
edit:It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily, and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin.
edit:It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily, and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin.
You think its that obvious? I guess I don't have that much of a feel of everyone's political leanings towards all the candidates.
Dude. Do you even know the story about that Obama imposter? It was on Stossel, and the context is important. It wasn't MEANT to be an actual Obama, it was a joke debate that Paul participated in: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html)Eh, is anyone really surprised by this? RP has a million skeletons in his closet, but because he was such a fringe candidate none of the big contenders saw it worth attacking him. Now that he's leading in Iowa they started to hone in on him, and he will go straight down. His racist stuff, his stance on Iran, his "destroy 5 state departments", that's all welcome canon fodder. It would also be a cinch to tie him to some really loopy Libertarian characters (think Jeremiah Wright).
rumborak
Don't forget the monster truck ad, and the debate against the Obama imposter.
Here's a better question to all of you calling Paul a racist: What can he do to save himself in your eyes?
Ah well, I guess this video is just going to prove your point about Paul actually being a racist, I mean - it's in his rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0)
Ah well, I guess this video is just going to prove your point about Paul actually being a racist, I mean - it's in his rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0)
That allegedly racist newsletter is never late.
Exactly. Because his actual views are represented in that video. Especially as a matter of public policy, he's the best choice for all races.
Yes. And no-one is saying Paul's a racist now.Except tons of pundits on TV discrediting his entire run for the presidency.
So, I guess it comes down to his racist ghost writer, but is that better though?No. But if this person were to come out and apologize it himself would be better
Mitt vs Paul in Virginia.
Both Newt and Perry failed to get on the ballot with the 10K signatures needed. With all the hate Mitt has, this is maybe what Paul needs.
They're going to align themselves behind whoever is the candidate, because they want to beat Obama over all.
Paul has leverage though, because if he runs 3rd party he could split the vote and guarantee an Obama win. This leaves me to think that whoever the candidate is going to be is going to have to adopt a more humble foreign policy, and challenge the monetary system, to earn the backing of Paul supporters.
It's also his home state, Newt that is.
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
Oh. Well, I heard it was his home state, didn't bother checking it up. It's still pretty embarrassing.
Edit: No, actually:
Residence
Carrollton, Georgia (1979–1993, while in office)
Marietta, Georgia (1993–1999, while in office)
McLean, Virginia (1999–present)[1]
Guess I was correct.
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.
rumborak
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.
rumborak
I see Ron Paul as one of those candidates that would never be elected (let's face it, he's unelectable as POTUS) but he has a productive impact on the debates leading up to the election because while he's got some positions that are sheer lunacy (see: The Monster Truck Ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSNk4981DI) for example) and have zero chance of ever being enacted, those positions DO serve a purpose by dragging the dialog in a certain direction.
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.
They have been upping the ante lately against Paul. Just think of how the media would handle an Iowa win.Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.
rumborak
I see Ron Paul as one of those candidates that would never be elected (let's face it, he's unelectable as POTUS) but he has a productive impact on the debates leading up to the election because while he's got some positions that are sheer lunacy (see: The Monster Truck Ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSNk4981DI) for example) and have zero chance of ever being enacted, those positions DO serve a purpose by dragging the dialog in a certain direction.
I totally agree, his "services" as a court jester who shows the ridiculousness of the other attendants was invaluable. But, that's a lot of money dumped into being a court jester. I mean, RP and his clan truly believe he could be a good president, and that's what really surprises me. I really have the impression that many of his followers believe that, once he's in power, international relations will just become trade negotiations.
EDIT: Just looked at CNN for news. So it begins, the guns have been positioned: https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
rumborak
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
rumborak
My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.
But yeah, Romney might, ya know, bomb another country, expand our overseas presence, domestic surveillance, etc. But hey! He looks "presidential".
Not a trade off I'm really willing to make, personally.
I don't think it really matters. I know you don't like non-interventionism and all, but I don't think he will just go to some diplomatic event and basically give everyone the finger or something.
Another tradeoff could be a cabinet position and the best would by far be Secretary of State, but that would NEVER happen.He would be an awful Secretary of State.
The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”
Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.
Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.
Even if a Republican topples Obama next year (I'd say Romney has a 50/50 shot at it) Ron Paul will not be SoS. He's articulated a position on foreign policy that is pretty much 180 degrees in opposition to Republican foreign policy orthodoxy. None of them would put Ron Paul in that position.Another tradeoff could be a cabinet position and the best would by far be Secretary of State, but that would NEVER happen.He would be an awful Secretary of State.
To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.
rumborak
To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.
I agree rumborak. I also think David Frum's article on CNN is basically a moderate Republican establishment hit piece that has essentially leveraged Ron Paul's "fringe vacuuming" propensity and used it against him.
Call me crazy but I'm sure this exact thing happened four years ago. A reporter asked him on camera if he like these kind of supporters and without hesitation he said: "No."To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.
I agree rumborak. I also think David Frum's article on CNN is basically a moderate Republican establishment hit piece that has essentially leveraged Ron Paul's "fringe vacuuming" propensity and used it against him.
It's also the reason why he won't completely own up to it. Because if he whole-heartedly disassociated himself from those former views, he would lose part of his die-hard supporters, the guys who stand in the pouring rain somewhere in Iowa trying to get Paul elected.
rumborak
Call me crazy but I'm sure this exact thing happened four years ago. A reporter asked him on camera if he like these kind of supporters and without hesitation he said: "No."
I don't understand. So people ignored these issues back in '08 because he had no chance, but now, even if answered or refuted (circling? that's not only unfair but false) those issues somehow have to haunt him again.
Last time I checked he's doing really well, #1 spot and still rising (God, sometimes I miss The Daily Show just to see how Stewart would handle this event.)
Obama is going to have a field day on the Republicans when the time comes based on the fact all he will have to say is...
You couldn't even decide who was best to lead your party, how can you believe he can lead a nation?
Eh, that's not much of an attack when you consider that the Democratic primaries in 2008 were just as volatile, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008) if not more so.
Eh, that's not much of an attack when you consider that the Democratic primaries in 2008 were just as volatile, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008) if not more so.
Yes, four years ago, I was convinced the Democrats couldn't win since their base seemed so divided at the time.
In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.
From CNN.com
(https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/in-early-book-rep-ron-paul-criticized-aids-patients-minority-rights-and-sexual-harassment-victims/?hpt=hp_bn3)QuoteIn his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.
Another item in a growing list of reasons why Ron Paul isn't going anywhere as a candidate for president, regardless of where he finishes in Iowa.
His own toxic words are going to eat him alive from the inside out.
Really? I'm surprised how well Santorum is doing.
rumborak
Ugh :facepalm:
Does Romney bring anything to the table other than piles of cash?
They haven't even started counting Jefferson county, the only county Paul won on 08. Also nothing in from Scott County - which is Ames, a college campus site.
I can't wait to go to bed, but I know I couldn't sleep - too exciting.
Ugh :facepalm:
Does Romney bring anything to the table other than piles of cash?
He is the only one IMHO who has a chance to beat Obama.
rumborak
People are too stupid to understand all of Paul's positions,
On to New Hampshire.
Well. It's well within the realms of the delegate process, it's about depth of support really.
You may see it as undemocratic, and the caucus system really confuses me and is a bit undemocratic, but it's the way it is.
Ron Paul may as well end up with an unproprtionally large number of delegates.
The caucus system is designed for this, it's for depth of support. Primary states speaks more about breadth of support. This is how the game is played.Well. It's well within the realms of the delegate process, it's about depth of support really.
You may see it as undemocratic, and the caucus system really confuses me and is a bit undemocratic, but it's the way it is.
Ron Paul may as well end up with an unproprtionally large number of delegates.
Your statement right there pretty much cements my belief of what's wrong with RP's base. I mean, you'd be plain willing to override the public vote just to have it your way.
rumborak
I'm smelling a recount :lol
rumborak
RP will end @ about 20% in NH tooI wouldn't be surprised if RP did pretty well in NH. Romney will get the first spot, but I'd predict Paul will get #2. We have a lot of anti-government people in NH. But the more populated areas are very close to Mass. and many of them commute to work in Mass., so I think Romney will have little problem winning.
Why?
I don't get why NH is such a big primary state. Isn't it going to go liberal, anyway?Not necessarily. They don't seem to vote consistently one party or the other. But they're only 4 electoral votes anyway, which is pretty much negligible. NH is a big primary state because they're the second primary, that's it. There's really no significance to the state otherwise. I'm sure they have an early primary just so they matter for a while.
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.
I can't undestand how anyone would wish to support a politician who thinks of admitting the existence of evolution or not denying the global warming as a reproachful act.I can't understand how anyone would wish to support a politician who's secret drone wars kill innocent men, women, and children - Someone who supports the assassination of American citizens abroad and has codified into law the ability of the government to indefinitely detain US citizens.
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.
Eh, it's plenty true. Someone has to pay for their re-elections. Those people like government money or money created by government programs/regulations etc.
I can't undestand how anyone would wish to support a politician who thinks of admitting the existence of evolution or not denying the global warming as a reproachful act.I can't understand how anyone would wish to support a politician who's secret drone wars kill innocent men, women, and children - Someone who supports the assassination of American citizens abroad and has codified into law the ability of the government to indefinitely detain US citizens.
It's easy to play this game; I could go on for days. I don't mean to trivialize very reasonable and logical concerns with someone like Paul's positions, but frankly, I'd like for the rule of law to be somewhat re-established before addressing that stuff.
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.
Eh, it's plenty true. Someone has to pay for their re-elections. Those people like government money or money created by government programs/regulations etc.
What government money? Donors are primarily corporate or private.
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).
Democrats are just as bad.
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).
Ron Paul will probably be gone by or right after Super Tuesday. The only question that remains is will he mount a disgruntled independent challenge, effectively ensuring an Obama victory in the General Election or will he simply take his ball and go home?
Bachmann will probably announce that she's out this week. Maybe even today.
Yup, she's out. Even though she still said yesterday she'd stay in the race.
rumborak
And it's got NOTHING to do with her ideology. She's just an idiot.
I think Paul would do alright in a general election. I don't think anybody they pick is really going to energize the base, and RP certainly won't. The difference is that RP can get a ton of independent support that Romney or Santorum can't. There are plenty of people like me who would generally support the democrat but think that Obama is a worthless pile of dog-doo. While I wouldn't vote for an establishment Republican, I would vote for one with an independent streak like Paul. I'm starting to think the votes gained from independents might be greater than the votes lost by apathetic republicans should Paul get the nomination.
He wants laws to be passed by the legislative branch, so he'd undo a LOT of what many previous administrations have done.
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.
rumborak
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.
rumborak
Why not just limit the money, and then let that dictate the amount of time they can run? Trying to set the amount of time seems weird to me, especially considering it still wouldn't deal with corruption in the political system.
The problem with making it money-based is, the value of money changes, the value of time doesn't. So, you'd be in a constant battle over how much money is an appropriate amount, over and over again, just like Congress salary increases. When going by time, that wouldn't be an issue.
rumborak
So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.
rumborak
So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.
rumborak
Wow, hadn't seen the Gingrich dip in SC yet in the polls. Yeah, that was it for him. No candidate has managed to recover from a dip so far.
It's interesting how Paul just trudges on with his 10-20% in the various states, despite the massive fluctuations of the other candidates. He really polarizes people; either pople stand to him no matter what, or they consider him patently unelectable. Unless he manages to generate major momentum soon, I think Florida and SC will break his back though. In both states he's not exceeding 10%.
rumborak
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.Yep, this is going to be just like 2004. A president ready for defeat, but the other party couldn't come up with a good candidate. For the record, I don't think Romney is too bad, but is anyone out there really all that excited about him? I like that he's moderate, but beyond that there's not much to get excited about.
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.
I think whatever goes down this year will easily decide the election. If for example the economy continues to pick up (and not just the occasional slight updrift), Obama will look good. If Iran goes apeshit, Romney will be favored.
rumborak
The republicans. They can't rally enthusiastically between anyone. The only reason Romney is leading is because of his supposed "electability".They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.
They? Who is "They?"
Romney is a formidable opponent. And Obama hasn't exactly been the rock star as President Obama as he was as Candidate Obama. Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to hurt him and his support among independents as well as progressives has slid.
If it comes down to Obama or Romney I definitely want Obama to win but it's certainly not going to be the cakewalk on easy street that some people are making it out to be. Not against Romney.
Here's the current polling (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) in a General Election match-up. Well within the margin of error. It's basically a tie at this point.
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Holy crap, what a bad wording. Romney says he "like being able to fire people":
https://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-says-like-being-able-fire-people-new-hampshire-event/DSLNx9xGGR7KhEiyXEHVJI/index.html?p1=News_links
Obama definitely had his DVR running on that one.
rumborak
When Kushner held an impromptu news conference after the event had finished, the Romney campaign instructed the individual operating the music to increase the volume to a decibel so loud, nobody could hear the woman speak.https://news.yahoo.com/romney-likes-being-able-fire-people-174752665--abc-news.html
It will happen, mark my words.I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
It will happen, mark my words.I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
One thing I found rather humorous is how apparently at RP rallies, people break into "Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul" chants. Not a discredit to the profession, but he's a physician, for crying out loud.
rumborak
Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.lol
It would also come across as someone who actually wants a second term from Obama.
Here's the current polling in South Carolina (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)Santorum was polling dead last a week before the caucus. Jon Huntsman was polling at about 10% a week ago, ended up 18%.
No way Perry's going to climb out of that hole in 10 days. Although, it is true that the Evangelical vote in South Carolina is quite strong and Perry has a lot more money and resources than Santorum. Watch for Rick Perry to go after Santorum and Gingrich in a bid for third place. Ron Paul.....eh.....he'll probably come in third or fourth.
Here's the current polling in South Carolina (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)Santorum was polling dead last a week before the caucus. Jon Huntsman was polling at about 10% a week ago, ended up 18%.
No way Perry's going to climb out of that hole in 10 days. Although, it is true that the Evangelical vote in South Carolina is quite strong and Perry has a lot more money and resources than Santorum. Watch for Rick Perry to go after Santorum and Gingrich in a bid for third place. Ron Paul.....eh.....he'll probably come in third or fourth.
Meanwhile, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are stepping in it by violating Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment "thou shalt not attack another Republican" by going after Romney (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/perry-donor-defects-to-romney-citing-bain-attacks/) for the work he did with Bain Capital. I've always thought that was a bad strategy. Bain Capital is actually a very, very well respected company in the business community and they give generously to lots and lots of charities.
I mean frankly that's not such a hard choice.
Anyway, lol of the day: according to Paul Krugman, Romney defended his actions at Bain Capital by likening it to Obama's auto industry bailout, a presidential act he had previously condemned. I can't find another article atm confirming this, but still lol.
lolamericanpolitics (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16549624)I just came in here to post that article.
Oh man that Colbert crap is hilarious.
If liberals can just rally around him, he could potentially win South Carolina because it's an open primary.
That would be HILARIOUS.
You mean he's not on the ballot?
Perry: Marines in video are 'kids,' not criminals
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press – 56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry on Sunday accused the Obama administration of "over-the-top rhetoric" and "disdain for the military" in its condemnation of a video that purportedly shows four Marines urinating on corpses in Afghanistan.
Perry's comments put him at odds with Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said the images could damage the war effort.
"The Marine Corps prides itself that we don't lower ourselves to the level of the enemy," McCain said when asked about Perry's position. "So it makes me sad more than anything else, because ... I can't tell you how wonderful these people (Marines) are. And it hurts their reputation and their image."
No one has been charged in the case, but officials in the U.S. and abroad have called for swift punishment of the four Marines. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week that he worried the video could be used by the Taliban to undermine peace talks.
A military criminal investigation and an internal Marine Corps review are under way. The Geneva Conventions forbid the desecration of the dead.
Texas Gov. Perry said the Marines involved should be reprimanded but not prosecuted on criminal charges.
"Obviously, 18-, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often. And that's what's occurred here," Perry told CNN's "State of the Union."
He later added: "What's really disturbing to me is the kind of over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military."
Later appearing on the same show, McCain said he disagreed.
"We're trying to win the hearts and minds" of the Afghanistan population, he said. "And when something like that comes up, it obviously harms that ability."
No, not only Romney and Paul. Where did you get that? Why would Santorum, Gingrich and Perry be holding events there then?You mean he's not on the ballot?
The ONLY people on the ballot in South Carolina are Romney and Paul. I mean, the amount of coverage this doesn't exist makes me think that this isn't the case in primaries, or there's some exception, or there's a loophole, or something. Probably though, people just assume you can write in a candidate, becuase why the fuck can't you write in a candidate in a democracy? Maybe if we voted for parties, but we don't.
*edit*
Oh, and so it's clear, I think it's great what Colbert and Stewart are doing.
No, not only Romney and Paul. Where did you get that? Why would Santorum, Gingrich and Perry be holding events there then?You mean he's not on the ballot?
The ONLY people on the ballot in South Carolina are Romney and Paul. I mean, the amount of coverage this doesn't exist makes me think that this isn't the case in primaries, or there's some exception, or there's a loophole, or something. Probably though, people just assume you can write in a candidate, becuase why the fuck can't you write in a candidate in a democracy? Maybe if we voted for parties, but we don't.
*edit*
Oh, and so it's clear, I think it's great what Colbert and Stewart are doing.
I can't wait til November, man. This shit is so drawn out it's painful.
Whatever.
I can't wait til November, man. This shit is so drawn out it's painful.
He endorsed Romney in his speech.
Prediction: if Romney somehow wins (I have a hard time seeing this happening)
He endorsed Romney in his speech.
Oh what the fuck! >:(
After all that shit about how this campaign was nothing more than pointless slandering not worthy of the American people, he goes and picks the worst offender.
Yeah, I don't see how people are so upset about Huntsman doing that. Endorsing anyone else would have been stupid. Without a major deal breaker from Romney's side, the nomination is essentially over.
rumborak
I don't know whether I read it that way. I perceived it as a statement of "for all those that supported me: Romney is closest to my own views". Besides, Huntsman would indeed be a good VP IMHO, with all his foreign relations knowledge.
rumborak
I don't know whether I read it that way. I perceived it as a statement of "for all those that supported me: Romney is closest to my own views". Besides, Huntsman would indeed be a good VP IMHO, with all his foreign relations knowledge.
rumborak
"ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future- about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having."
He's going to endorse Newt.Eyeh, Newt's doomed :lol
Oh, not to mention the pure amount of dirt on Newt. Obama can afford to play nice again, cause all that shit will come up on it's own.
Too much media coverage is expended on the cadidates' personalities, who they sleep with, and how much money they make
Where?QuoteToo much media coverage is expended on the cadidates' personalities, who they sleep with, and how much money they make
So first of all, there's a typo (I didn't notice that myself until I pasted, lol);
I agree with you on the who they sleep with, but I think the other two aspects are perfectly apt in a Presidential debate. Personality is insanely important when picking a President - for instance, I don't want a psychopath in the White House - and how much money they make can show you how little the person is capable of understanding your issues. When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through. He's not running for Representative, but he is still supposed to represent the American people. Doing so isn't demonizing them as a person, or anything at all that can be considered an "attack" on being wealthy.They're all fair game. But they shouldn't be discussed at the expense of more substantive issues.
Cadidates, sorry.Fuck. Yeah, I was in a hurry.
I agree with your general verdict of the American media, I just think Newt's past, and his apparent personality, is rather important aspect of his bid to become President. I mean, him wanting to have an open marriage doesn't bother me at all; it's his hypocrisy on the issue recently, and how he's tried to run. It's also his ethics scandal, and what he did when he was Speaker (politically motivated impeachment). It's more then fair to ask if the man has the temperament and personality to be President, and it's not insubstantive or somehow fallacious.I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view.
I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view.
I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view.
Ron Paul aside, who in the Republican field is actually capable of this? I'll agree with the problem, but I don't think it's the media bringing up some of the problems with Newt, it's that Newt is given a stage in the first place. Did you see the standing ovation he got for demonizing poor people?
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.
In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.
It absolutely blows my mind that SC Republicans would choose a guy with a marital history that gives US Magazine a hard-on, over a guy whose main fault is being Mormon.Do you really thing that is the primary thing against Romney?
rumborak
It absolutely blows my mind that SC Republicans would choose a guy with a marital history that gives US Magazine a hard-on, over a guy whose main fault is being Mormon.Do you really thing that is the primary thing against Romney?
rumborak
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.
In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.
Yeah, that's only about 12 hours of operations in Afghanistan.
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.
In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.
Yeah, that's only about 12 hours of operations in Afghanistan.
And this means what? That collectively we all have more money than individually? You're simply starting a truism. We're talking about personal income here, and him saying that 375k is not that much, which for him is not. Even though 375k a year is enough to make you the top 1% of Americans, Romney thinks it's "just a little." That's because he's extremely rich and extremely out of touch with the American experience.
Is that really factual though? Is it that view really that wide spread among Evangelicals?
I guess I just don't care what a politician's income is. The fact that they are a politician to me means they are probably out of touch, not because of their level of income. Someone who has knowledge and experience on large amounts of money would probably know how to budget and fight the deficit better than someone in my economic level.
It said that 1/3 don't consider LDS as being Christians. Wow.
But to say that most evangelicals consider Romney a cultist goes beyond that. I don't really think that can be the case.
National polls taken in recent months show how far anti-black prejudice has subsided compared to anti-Mormon prejudice. In a Gallup survey (https://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx), 5 percent of adults said they wouldn’t vote for their party’s presidential nominee if he were black. Six percent said they wouldn’t vote for a woman, 7 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, 9 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Jew, and 10 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Hispanic. But 22 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. Gallup reported:Maybe "most" is too strong of a word, I don't know, I only say that because most of the evangelicals I know (probably 15 or 20 people give or take a few) have told me they believe Mormonism is a cult. Combine that with all of these fairly high-profile pastors coming out and saying it's a cult, and you've got a pretty wide swath of these folks that simply won't vote for the guy based on his religion. Which, to me, personally, is kind of silly. But then I also think not voting for a guy because he's rich is silly too.
The stability in U.S. bias against voting for a Mormon presidential candidate contrasts markedly with steep declines in similar views toward several other groups over the past half-century, including blacks, women, Catholics, and Jews. The last time as many as 22% of Americans said they would not vote for any of these groups (the same level opposed to voting for a Mormon today) was 1959 for Catholics, 1961 for Jews, 1971 for blacks, and 1975 for women. As noted, opposition to voting for each of these has since tapered off to single digits.
In a Pew survey (https://people-press.org/2011/06/02/section-2-candidate-traits-and-experience/), 7 percent of adults said they’d be more likely to support a presidential candidate if he were black. Only 3 percent said they’d be less likely. (Among whites, 3 percent said more likely; 4 percent said less likely.) But while 5 percent said they’d be more likely to support a presidential candidate if he were Mormon, 25 percent said they’d be less likely. In the four years since Pew’s last survey on this topic, taken in August 2007, the percentage of respondents who said they’d be less likely to support a black, Hispanic, or female candidate shrank. But the percentage who said they’d be less likely to support a Mormon didn’t change (https://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-02-11%202012%20Campaign%20Release.pdf).
Thirty-one percent of Republicans said Mormonism is a cult, as did 25% of Democrats and 25% of independents.
Wow. As a LDS myself, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that stat. There are many other reasons to not support Romney's bid for presidency :lolWe're all just jealous of all the hot wives you get to have :D
And those polls you showed earlier shows the obscenity of US politics. Especially that anti-black sentiment. What is wrong with people?
I guess I just don't care what a politician's income is. The fact that they are a politician to me means they are probably out of touch, not because of their level of income. Someone who has knowledge and experience on large amounts of money would probably know how to budget and fight the deficit better than someone in my economic level.
Well, it's not just about income, it's about their life experience, and other factors in the income. Someone as rich as Romney has never had to seriously "budget" in his life. What he made his career doing what basically sure money, something anyone could do if they had the resources. Buy out a company, leverage it out, take money, earn money no matter what happens to the company you bought out. Seems to me a person who as at least been poor in their lifetime is going to be better at it (and knowing most people who lived through the Great Depression is testament to that). They're going to have a lot of experience budgeting, and getting rid of things that are personally important for the necessity of reducing the budget. Seeing as how the real issue with the American deficit is the Bush Tax Cuts, and our Wars in Afghanistan, Romney policies would drive us off the roof . At this point, I'd almost like this to happen, just so people can finally get over the delusion of the Republican message.
Which is entirely besides the point, because neither Obama or Romney as President has any real control over the budget. True control is in the House, everyone else just adds to the debate, and has political power to pressure people.
Someone who's never known want will never truly be able to sympathize with the plight of average Americans, and it will reflect in his/her platform and policies.This. I don't care if someone has built themselves into a success and now makes a zillion dollars a year. But someone who has never bought his own groceries or fretted over making a mortgage payment simply won't be able to empathize with the vast majority of Americans.
Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29
CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32
PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34
Lol, look at Gingrich's favorability numbers.
But the presidency is not about likeability. The presidency is about are you capable of doing the job?
Wow. As a LDS myself, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that stat. There are many other reasons to not support Romney's bid for presidency :lol
And those polls you showed earlier shows the obscenity of US politics. Especially that anti-black sentiment. What is wrong with people?
But, Paul 4th, what is wrong with SC.
But, Paul 4th, what is wrong with SC.Nothing really, that's about accurate.
Only 9% of electorate 18-29. And only 31% for Paul. I'm disappointed there.
I know you're disappointed, but the reality is what it is. Ron Paul has never had a chance in the Republican party. His foreign policy views are way too far outside of today's conservative orthodoxy for him to ever achieve anything more than around 15% of the vote. I'm not trying to rub it in, jsem, I know you like the guy, I know you support him. I just think in the United States of 2012, Ron Paul just ain't going anywhere, neither is libertarianism in general.
Newt isn't going to contest for 500 delegates. Ron Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all 50 states, if Newt continues this streak - winning Florida and such - a brokered convention might just end up happening.
As a RP supporter, I thought he did the best in this debate. No one really went after him, though. Romney handled himself well, again (with the exception of a few questions where I wanted to smash my head into the top of my desk).
Yes, it was. Too bad the majority of Republicans are all set on "KILL CASTRO, KILL EVERYTHING" mode.As a RP supporter, I thought he did the best in this debate. No one really went after him, though. Romney handled himself well, again (with the exception of a few questions where I wanted to smash my head into the top of my desk).
RP's stance on Cuba was really well presented.
Ron Paul won't be the nomination, but he'll have a definite say in the platform.Newt isn't going to contest for 500 delegates. Ron Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all 50 states, if Newt continues this streak - winning Florida and such - a brokered convention might just end up happening.
I don't want to pound on this unnecessarily, but given you've mentioned this twice now and given your exclusive support for RP, am I right to assume you see a brokered convention as a chance for him to get the nomination after all?
If so, I would have to add another dose of reality: While there is the somewhat "mathematical" possibility that with a constant back and forth between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum the delegates might be so fractured that Ron Paul might actually end up with a big enough chunk of delegates to look equally eligible for president, the GOP base would essentially boycott the RNC if RP got the bid. Because all he would have done is to game the shoddy nomination system. Reality is that only about 10% want RP; the rest just can't make up their mind about either Romney or Gingrich.
rumborak
Watching the debate.... Mitt's response in regard to the space program just made me facepalm for a good ten minutes.
Watching the debate.... Mitt's response in regard to the space program just made me facepalm for a good ten minutes.
I want to bitch about this in a little more depth. Mitt verabally assaulted Obama, saying that he does not care enough scinence and space exploration. Obama isn't the one who tried to cripple the James Webb telescope, we have the house of representatives to thank for that. He went on to say how Obama has set no goals for the future of space exploration. This angers me because Obama has said more than enough times that he wants to have humans on Mars by 2030.
Mitt was also talking about how the private sector needs to get in the game. I personally believe that SpaceX is going to take over the duties of NASA, at least in regards to human space flight. Anyway, Mitt kept saying how the government needs to offer cash rewards to the private sector for the completion of specific goals. The problem I see with this is that the government can't benefit a whole lot from this. The government sponsors the DARPA competition every year, mainly because they get the rights to use any of the technology displayed in the competition. DARPA is more or less free research and developement for our miltary. I don't see how a competition to get to Mars will make us stronger as a country.
I did like the fact that all the candidates seemed to agree that space research is important. However, I don't think any of them know enough about it to discuss it as a topic.
Romney Wrong on NASARomney went too far when he claimed that Obama has “no plans” for NASA. Obama in 2010 set in motion a plan to build a heavy-lift launch vehicle to go beyond the Earth’s orbit. The president’s plan calls on NASA to land astronauts on an asteroid by 2025, orbit Mars by the mid-2030s and, ultimately, land on Mars.
<blockquote>Romney: His plans for NASA, he has no plans for NASA. The space coast is — is struggling. This president has failed the people of Florida.</blockquote> Some background: President Bush announced (https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm) in January 2004 that he would retire the Shuttle program and return to the moon by 2020. The Shuttle program ended (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html) last year, leading to job losses (https://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-07-01-space-coast-business_n.htm) along the so-called “space coast.” The question facing Obama early in his administration was whether he would continue Bush’s plan for NASA or come up with his own. Obama proposed a new course.
In February 2010, Obama’s proposed budget for NASA called for killing (https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agzQHt17aPXI) Bush’s plan to return to the moon. In an April 15, 2010, speech in Florida, Obama unveiled (https://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html) his proposal for a deep-space exploration plan that included the goals of landing on an asteroid by 2025 and orbiting Mars by the middle of the 2030s — with the ultimate goal of landing on Mars. The proposal caused a rift among some of NASA’s most famous astronauts, with Neil Armstrong opposing it and Buzz Aldrin supporting it, as the Los Angeles Times reported (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/houston-we-have-a-problem-no-one-likes-obamas-space-plan.html) at the time.
Nevertheless, Obama’s plans are moving forward. NASA announced (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html) a design for the heavy-lift launch vehicle that would make it possible to go beyond the Earth’s orbit. In making the announcement on the design plans, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said: “President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that’s exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow’s explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars.”
It's pretty sad really. What's the point of listening to the debates if they at this point all just flat-out lie?
rumborak
I would love to have a debate where they did fact checking on the fly and called them on it later in the debate so they had time to clarify. Of course, the candidates would never agree to such a thing.
I would love to see that.I would love to have a debate where they did fact checking on the fly and called them on it later in the debate so they had time to clarify. Of course, the candidates would never agree to such a thing.
Paul would. Gingrich would probably be vain enough to think he was right, or attack the moderator in some fashion. Romney would basically be stuttering.
I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.
I like the realtime fact check idea. My suggestion would be to let Bill O'Reilly moderate the democratic debates and Bill Mahr the GOP debates. The biggest problem with them now is that the moderators are just tossing them softballs as lead ins to their scripted spiels and diatribes. I'd like to see these things happen with moderators who are actually trying to grill them.
I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.
^ I had the impression everybody here collectively hate Bill Maher!
I was neutral until he expressed some support for SOPA and then I realized it's dumb to dislike because of that. I might start watching the show.
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.The reasons I picked O'Reilly and Mahr was because I think they could be hard-assed without being hostile. The trick is to get somebody who refuses to accept bullshit, but professional enough to be civilized. Mahr is the one of the two I'd be concerned about. I think O'Reilly is a pompous windbag, but he's certainly capable of being a professional when it suits his needs.
Sure, but there are plenty of opposite party people that would be more professional than O'Reilly or Mahr. It's possible either of them could restrain themselves and be professional, but there typical character is one who is hostile towards opposing views.I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.
Well you're not gonna get that in-party from either side, so...
Honestly, John Stewart proved what a badass he was in that interview on Fox, I'd go with Stewart and O'Reilly.
How about Michael Moore & Rush Limbaugh? :biggrin:
How about Michael Moore & Rush Limbaugh? :biggrin:
Michael Moore would be interesting. I know this goes against a lot of you, but I really like they guy. I'm not saying I agree with every word that comes out of his mouth, but I have to give the guy a lot of respect for what he does / stands for.
What is a "lair" ? :P(https://i42.tinypic.com/mc65iu.jpg)
I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.
Why not Colbert? I prefer him.
Obviously we're talking hypothetically here but I don't think Stewart would ever go for it. It would undermine his "I'm only a comedian" schtick.
WASHINGTON—Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign. "In my time, he shuts down the federal government for 28 days because his feelings get hurt over having to sit at the back of Air Force One. Gingrich gets our president impeached for lying about marital infidelities when, at the same time, Gingrich himself is engaged in his own extramarital affairs. And for God's sake, he divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Won't anyone listen to me?!?" When asked about Donald Trump, the time-traveler said he had no information on the man, as no one from 1998 cared about a "washed-up fake millionaire."
I think this would clearly take it to another level.Obviously we're talking hypothetically here but I don't think Stewart would ever go for it. It would undermine his "I'm only a comedian" schtick.
Then he wouldn't do such serious interviews with politicians.
After all these debates you would think Ron Paul would have thought of better answers to those standard questions. I mean, he doesn't seem to even care about assuaging the concerns of Republicans that his foreign policy is essentially nonexistent.My cousin-in-law is a big RP fan and loved his performance last night. I thought he came across as almost impotent.
rumborak
I didn't see, what was Romney's deal with immigration?
Again, Romney learned from previous debates. He first had an excellent line answering Gingrich's assertion that grandmothers and grandfathers were not likely to "self-deport." Romney came back: "Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers." Boom! It both mocked Gingrich's grandmother self-deportation argument while at the same time underscoring the vast issue of illegal immigration.
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.
Not a bad play, actually. I wonder if he'd buck for a position where he could really influence things, or a cush job with which to run out the clock. Ambassador to Thailand would probably be a great job to settle into.
Ron Paul will get played badly in a brokered convention if he is not the leader in delegates.
He's going to end up with about the same number of delegates as GingrichI sincerely doubt it.
He'll also win Washington, and perhaps Alaska. Which will also do him no good.
That headline belongs in the Onion :lol
I would just like to say that the winner/loser phase of the Florida primary bumped a keynote speech from Australia's Prime Minister discussing the economy, fiscal policy and industry policy from our two 24 hour news programs.I've been tired of this crap since November and we still have 6 months to go. Ugh.
I hope you guys and your celebrity political system are happy.
I would just like to say that the winner/loser phase of the Florida primary bumped a keynote speech from Australia's Prime Minister discussing the economy, fiscal policy and industry policy from our two 24 hour news programs.But how could we find the most qualified person for the job if we didn't do it this way?
I hope you guys and your celebrity political system are happy.
Here's a weird observation: How come there's no polls anymore for the upcoming states? Up until now there were several polls running per state, but the last polls for the upcoming ones are ancient and really have no meaning.Many stages of the US political system are more for show than anything. The GOP knew Romney was going to be their nominee before a single vote was cast. They just needed to make it look like they were still being democratic about the whole process until Romney gained enough ground that they could justify treating his nomination as inevitable.
rumborak
Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.
Now, why would you say that?Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.
I'm gonna go ahead an guess that most Latino's didn't vote in the Republican primary.
Now, why would you say that?Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.
I'm gonna go ahead an guess that most Latino's didn't vote in the Republican primary.
:lol
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/ron-paul-2012.jpg)Lol. This was a pretty predictable result though.
:biggrin:
Wow, I tried to watch Romney's victory speech tonight, and it's just amazing to me how much of a charlatan and demagogue the man is. Just spewing crap after crap that's either invalid or just completely lacking any evaluation. It was full of fucking lies, just pure lies, and a complete straw man of a President who does not exist. Of course, all the Republicans are responsible of this, but Romney seems to be staking his entire bid on complete lies. It's disgusting.
Wow, I tried to watch Romney's victory speech tonight, and it's just amazing to me how much of a charlatan and demagogue the man is. Just spewing crap after crap that's either invalid or just completely lacking any evaluation. It was full of fucking lies, just pure lies, and a complete straw man of a President who does not exist. Of course, all the Republicans are responsible of this, but Romney seems to be staking his entire bid on complete lies. It's disgusting.
It's really pretty astonishing how it works, isn't it? You're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. The man is a walking contradiction of himself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCmiFcRyIc)
But what is one supposed to do when both candidates are bs? I mean I'll vote third party, but...
Speaking of third parties, are there even any at this point? Haven't heard anything of the Green Party since Nader.
rumborak
I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).
You know, Ron Paul isn't cutting much at all out of Social Security and Medicare as of his current plans.
Well, there's America Elects (or whatever the internet thing is), but that's sorta been out of the news. I know there's still technically a Libertarian party, but again, no media coverage.Which is sad. The Libertarian Party could see some momentum behind it after this Paul campaign.
In the most recent 2012NevadaCaucus.com phone poll.....
Mitt Romney 34%
Ron Paul 24%
Undecided 19%
Newt Gingrich 14%
Rick Santorum 9%
Results are based on telephone survey from 1-31-12 to 2-1-12, with a random sample of 300 Republican registered voters, aged 18 and older, living in state of Nevada and are likely to vote in the 2012 Nevada Caucus.
Margin of error is ±5 percentage points.
Not to mention "we have a safety net there" isn't an excuse when a major component of the conservative platform is actually eliminating that safety net.First thing I thought as well. He is just so bad at hiding his true self.
And does anyone feel that any Republican candidate will be able to beat Obama? Not sure I do.
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.
The Dems already have a lot of hearts and minds. My whole mindset is that Obama was in office for the beginning of this mess, he is much or in tune with it than any of the current Republican candidates. I don't think it is wise to throw a new guy into the mix to try and correct something that they really aren't familiar with.
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.
The Dems already have a lot of hearts and minds. My whole mindset is that Obama was in office for the beginning of this mess, he is much more in tune with it than any of the current Republican candidates. I don't think it is wise to throw a new guy into the mix to try and correct something that they really aren't familiar with.
From a politically knowledgeable standpoint, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there are people in this country, people who even voted for Obama in 2008, who believe he alone is to blame for the current situation.
I might be misunderstanding your point though, so please notify me.
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?
Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.
#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."
#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.
And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate: What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently). So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between. Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor. But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new. His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it. It really makes him sound out of touch.
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?
Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.
#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."
#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.
And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate: What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently). So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between. Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor. But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new. His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it. It really makes him sound out of touch.
Very good post :tup
I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).You know, Ron Paul isn't cutting much at all out of Social Security and Medicare as of his current plans.
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.
rumborak
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.
rumborak
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.
I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.
It seems by design that the challenging party will rarely ever able to beat the incumbent. And I'm not just talking about the money disparity, either -- the candidate selection process has been pretty crap. Since Reagan:
Walter Mondale
Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney
I wasn't around for Mondale, but jeez talk about a lot of bland, uninspiring folks.
All I hear from the candidates, as well as voters, is that the biggest issue is who can beat Obama.Timewarp quote lol.
I personally get put off when the main platform or concern is to just beat the opponent of the opposing party, rather than what they can or will do to fix the country.
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.
I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.
But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?
I've not signed any contract.
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.
Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".
rumborak
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.
Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".
rumborak
unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.
Unless you wanna go live in the woods and be a Unibomber.
Or go to another country.
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.
unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.
I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to. And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.
I do not see why one would so harshly oppose some portion of their income going into SS. I mean, one may or may not end up needing it, but you cannot necessarily tell for sure until around the time you are eligible. Even if you don't end up needing your SS checks, they're still a nice bonus. It's the gov. doing something real beneficial for you; why be so opposed to it?
There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.
The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work.
Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.
Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.
Paul supporters were treated miserably at the state convention, because McCain robocalls had identified them by phone polling. That's why a lot of Paul supporters aren't answering to polls now. I don't know how true that is, but I believe Paul will end up second, far behind Romney.
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.
rumborak
Speaking of the Green Party, they declared their nominee: Roseanne.DDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/roseanne-is-running-for-president-not-a-joke/
rumborak
Nothing. He'll probably end up at around 50% this time too. I never made any claim that he'd lose votes.Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.
What's to stop him from doing so this time?
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.
rumborak
Well there is a way to change the constitution if it really is needed.
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.
I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.
But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.
I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.
But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?
Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?
It is moot. The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.
Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?
It is moot. The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.
So put the most invasive and controlling as close to the individual as possible. City, county, state. It is much easier to leave from under them, or change them this way.Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?
I've vowed to never argue with you again, but I'll say this one thing. Act's of war should only be done as a last resort under direct threat of attack, or actual attack, with declaration of congress, and with an exit strategy. I feel that those who want preemptive war with 3rd world nations should pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and fight it themselves.
That still doesn't have anything to do with tax money going toward purposes you as an individual don't agree with.
There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.
That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.
Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.
If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.
No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.I would think so. Not only with the unemployment info, but how well the stocks did today was also great news.
rumborak
According to Mitt, Obama has still made the economy worse. We should've been here two years ago, or something.
I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.At a glance they are ok (in terms of job creation), but the unemployment number is almost totally misleading at the moment. The US participation rate has dropped to its lowest level on record (records go back to 1948) to 63.7 per cent I think. This is a very, very low rate of workforce participation - on par with the socialist parts of Europe (who have structurally lower participation due to higher social welfare on average*). Prior to "The Great Recession" - which is a stupid name by the way, participation was about 66-67 per cent. A ~3 per cent fall doesn't sound like much...but:
rumborak
I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary. I read an article about that a month or so ago. There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage. A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary. I read an article about that a month or so ago. There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage. A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.
This has been going on here in Arizona for years. So many people just walk away from a house they bought for $300k that is now only worth $150k. Just pack up and move on, leave it empty. It's crazy to me to think about doing something like that.
As far as Romney saying we should have been here 2 years ago, blame congress, not the president.
When life hands you lemons, just say fuck the lemons and bail.
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.
rumborak
Hmm, good point. Even though, the article made it look as if the Paulites were using a technicality to push through (undeservedly?) delegates, in which case I could understand the GOP's stance on it.
BTW, so far I had been scratching my head at why Santorum would still remain in the race. But I just saw the Minnesota polls, and he's leading there. WTF?!
rumborak
For the record, Michelle Bachmann is disliked by most people in the state. She manages to win in a district that is very different politically than most of the state. And those district lines are being redrawn, so she may have a tougher time getting reelected. Why Santorum is popular there, I don't know.Hmm, good point. Even though, the article made it look as if the Paulites were using a technicality to push through (undeservedly?) delegates, in which case I could understand the GOP's stance on it.
BTW, so far I had been scratching my head at why Santorum would still remain in the race. But I just saw the Minnesota polls, and he's leading there. WTF?!
rumborak
Same state Michelle Bachmann in office. Kinda takes the edge off that "WTF" doesn't it? :lol
Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).
I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).
Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican. No one ever thought that was possible.....
Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican. No one ever thought that was possible.....
A mistake we intend to rectify this year :)
rumborak
Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).
I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).
They appear to "lean Obama" statewide, but the 2004 presidential election was very close there.....you just never know in politics. Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican. No one ever thought that was possible.....
Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).
I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).
They appear to "lean Obama" statewide, but the 2004 presidential election was very close there.....you just never know in politics. Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican. No one ever thought that was possible.....
Against an apparently rather weak Democrat. I'm not sure that fits Obama.
Because none of his Republican predecessors were strong corporatists.
Strong Corporitist.
Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.
Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.
Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.
3 GOP primaries tomorrow. It's weird to see how Romney now has to battle with Santorum, and Gingrich is back to being a side figure.It's almost like the country can't agree on who the "not Romney" candidate should be. If everyone would just rally around one or the other, they might actually have a shot.
I'm not certain about Obama's reelection either. One thing that might nip Romney in the bud however is the Romneycare thing. Unless the Democrats are stupid they will roll out the hypocrisy of his stance change, and the fact that even the Republican candidate saw it as a good thing to implement.
rumborak
young people who voted for Obama in the last election who are now turning to PaulNot sure if it's the same group of young people changing to Paul or if it's a new set of young voters, but this is kind of interesting. To me it says that young people see the need for radical change to the way things work. Obama was supposed to be a change, but he's basically more of the same in most cases. Paul (though at the opposite end of the spectrum politically) is a radical change from the status quo. It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.
It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.
Obama didn't do much bailing out, that's historically inaccurate.
The health care bill was written by Congress, it wasn't written by Obama, and Obama has voiced support in the past for a single-payer system, and was somewhat of an advocate for at least a public option.
Cap and trade isn't motivated by some corporate desire, it's motivated by something else, so it's hard to say he's a corporatist for that.
And I think it's equally as weird to claim that corporatism is responsible for why Obama is involved in the Middle East, which is to let the fact go that Obama has reduced our military involvement in the Middle East in a lot of ways
Assuming the economic recovery continues and unemployment goes down, I think Obama will win. Not by a huge margin, but at least a few percentage points. Anyone who either of the major parties nominates is a formidable candidate. There's so much money tied up in these elections, both the Reps and Dems could nominate a potato and it would get 40 percent of the vote.
Lol unklejman, are you seriously chalking up Syria to Obama?
rumborak
Obama didn't do much bailing out, that's historically inaccurate.
He wasn't president for all of the bail outs, but he was for some, and he voted for TARP while in the Senate.
The health care bill was written by Congress, it wasn't written by Obama, and Obama has voiced support in the past for a single-payer system, and was somewhat of an advocate for at least a public option.
But he did not veto it.
Cap and trade isn't motivated by some corporate desire, it's motivated by something else, so it's hard to say he's a corporatist for that.
His relationship with the CEO of General Electric, and the amount they would benefit from that legislation is more than eyebrow raising.
And I think it's equally as weird to claim that corporatism is responsible for why Obama is involved in the Middle East, which is to let the fact go that Obama has reduced our military involvement in the Middle East in a lot of ways
The Iraq draw down followed Bush's time table. Afghanistan escalated under the Obama administration. Libya. Now Syria and possibly Iran. And as to why it's corporatism... fist Oil interests and then there is this: https://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/
young people who voted for Obama in the last election who are now turning to PaulNot sure if it's the same group of young people changing to Paul or if it's a new set of young voters, but this is kind of interesting. To me it says that young people see the need for radical change to the way things work. Obama was supposed to be a change, but he's basically more of the same in most cases. Paul (though at the opposite end of the spectrum politically) is a radical change from the status quo. It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.
It was that CNN poll that pushed Santorum to surge a week or so before Iowa, and Public Policy Polling called the poll phony. Then Santorum wins Iowa.
And now he wins three more states - WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. How can people seriously vote for Santorum.
Man, RP supporters are the best. Just read this:
"The whole thing is rigged by the damn media and the companies that control them and the government."
rumborak
I don't know the intricacies of the delegate voting system, but I can tell you that the GOP will make sure a candidate who's been trailing in every single state will not be a nominee.
We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:
In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.
In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.
In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.
We are also seeing the same trends in Minnesota, Nevada, and Iowa, and in Missouri as well.
“We may well win Minnesota, and do far better in Colorado than yesterday’s polls indicate."
OK, somebody needs to explain to me then, how can it be that the delegates fly in the face of the public opinion? Isn't the point that the delegates represent their constituency?Pay dearly?
I may be going on a limb here, by if RP supporters just stick around long enough to be delegates and then intend to do whatever they please at the RNC, I'm pretty sure the RP movement will pay dearly.
rumborak
Do you really think RP would get away with being nominated when only having a 10% public support?
OK, somebody needs to explain to me then, how can it be that the delegates fly in the face of the public opinion? Isn't the point that the delegates represent their constituency?
I may be going on a limb here, by if RP supporters just stick around long enough to be delegates and then intend to do whatever they please at the RNC, I'm pretty sure the RP movement will pay dearly.
rumborak
They're the ones that stay behind and vote for delegates.So everyone votes for a candidate, many of them leave, and those who remain pick the delegates? Why aren't they compelled to vote for the winning candidate?
None of this matters anyway. Ron Paul has no more chance of winning the nomination than Ronald McDonald.Ron Burgundy!
Vermin Surpreme for president
Basil Marceaux for VP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnx-SqMYknI&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnx-SqMYknI&feature=related)
Here's a question: Does the current expenses for the candidates cut into the later funds when the nominee runs against Obama?
I wonder if in Virginia, all Santorum supporters and Gingrich supporters are going to vote for Paul. Romney is a bigger threat clearly.I could see that happening, especially if Paul does well in Maine tonight.
I do not envy the Republicans. I mean, overall the candidates are shit. You essentially got the choice between a hateful Bible thumper, the crazy uncle, the deathbed divorcer, and the crazy-religion Obama copycat.
rumborak
Here's a question: Does the current expenses for the candidates cut into the later funds when the nominee runs against Obama? A lot seems to come from public donations, and the longer the current struggle goes on, it strikes me the less money is left for the actual campaigning.
On another note, it seems Santorum misses no chance to spew his Christian hate.
rumborak
Apparently 10% of the caucuses in Maine aren't going to be counted because they're holding their caucuses after today. In a contest this close, that seems more than a bit fishy. Also, the vote seems to be holding around 95% reporting, and I wouldn't count on that hitting 100, seeing as Minnesota is still "95% reporting". The vote gap between Romney and Paul right now is about 195. That missing 5% of the vote that they actually are counting represents about 295 based on the current vote. They're just straight up not going to include it, even though it certainly could change the outcome.
Basically, the establishment has decided that they wanted Romney to win this one. I'm not even a Paul supporter, and I'm calling bullshit on this.
Again, I'm not a Paul supporter.
Regardless of what the Maine GOP agreed upon, the voters were not properly represented tonight. It's very possible that Romney legitimately won, but now we'll never know.
The Maine Republican Party is encouraging all municipal committees to hold their caucuses between February 4th and 11th
Here's a question: Does the current expenses for the candidates cut into the later funds when the nominee runs against Obama? A lot seems to come from public donations, and the longer the current struggle goes on, it strikes me the less money is left for the actual campaigning.
On another note, it seems Santorum misses no chance to spew his Christian hate.
rumborak
Hey rumby, I know you're not this way but, I feel I need to say this anyway
Please, don't let someone as stupid as Santorum represent Christianity in your mind. He's an idiot.
Thanks,
Christian (actually mah name)
He said that about metal? Really?
Why is it the people who campaign strongly against gay marriage dont say a peep on all the divorces or adultery going on? I mean in terms of sheer number I would have thought those two things threaten the covenant of marriage far more but I doubt they feature at all in the campaign material, and nobody seems in a hurry to outlaw them.
(Perhaps this isnt strictly relevant to the topic but it occurred to me when reading some santorum stuff.)
I get that. But, you know, politicians say/do/blow anything to get a vote. Especially if there is money behind said vote. He's against heavy metal and blames most of societies problems on it, too. I do believe Santorum is an idiot of colossal magnitudes.
I get that. But, you know, politicians say/do/blow anything to get a vote. Especially if there is money behind said vote. He's against heavy metal and blames most of societies problems on it, too. I do believe Santorum is an idiot of colossal magnitudes.
Theoretically, this is an insult to idiots.
I was just looking at the polls, man what a disaster. :lol Just about every state has a different guy leading (except RP who trailed in all).Ehh, it was a good run ( :facepalm: ).
rumborak
I was just looking at the polls, man what a disaster. :lol Just about every state has a different guy leading (except RP who trailed in all).Ehh, it was a good run ( :facepalm: ).
rumborak
There's always 2016. :sadpanda:
I was just looking at the polls, man what a disaster. :lol Just about every state has a different guy leading (except RP who trailed in all).Ehh, it was a good run ( :facepalm: ).
rumborak
There's always 2016. :sadpanda:
He's probably the healthiest of all the candidates.
But it's his mind that is not a clear as it used to be say 25 years ago.
If he had that fire now, he'd pwn the entire field.
Yup, it's sad. The ideas hadn't really caught up to the mainstream back in 1988.
four years and counting.Yup, it's sad. The ideas hadn't really caught up to the mainstream back in 1988.IMHO, the reason why RP enjoys the current popularity is because people turn to extreme solutions in bad times. I would say that once the economy starts showing solid progress, support for RP's stuff will dwindle again.
eeeeeh, yes it is very different.
four years and counting.
For every economist, there's another with different data to show his point.eeeeeh, yes it is very different.
Is it? Mind you, I am not equation the *consequences*.
The theory that the Fed has been the cause of economic woes is simplistic, and long been shown to be wrong by Economists. But, it is a perfect scapegoat for people wanting to get out of the economic crisis.
Libertarians have a desire for a "Revolution", and frankly, that's what Germans wanted in the 1930s. They too jumped on simplistic explanations of economic decline.
I also have to say, what I've seen on RP forums, they're not full of people with deep understandings of economics. All they do is regurgitate mantras they've been fed.
rumborak
eeeeeh, yes it is very different.four years and counting.Yup, it's sad. The ideas hadn't really caught up to the mainstream back in 1988.IMHO, the reason why RP enjoys the current popularity is because people turn to extreme solutions in bad times. I would say that once the economy starts showing solid progress, support for RP's stuff will dwindle again.
And in other news, Dave Mustaine endorses Rick Santorum. WTF.He claims he didn't actually endorse him:
rumborak
As a moderate Republican you somewhat have to stick to the facts. As a core Republican you can just make up shit.
rumborak
rumborak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yn-eejMcmuAChrist. That's insane. :rollin
tl;dr: Santorum says that people in the netherlands wear 'do not euthanize' bracelets, that 50% of those euthanized in the Netherlands are done so against their will, that 10% of all deaths there are from euthanasia, and that the elderly refuse to go to the hospital for fear that they'll be euthanized rather than treated.
I can't decide whether the guy is simply stupid or whether he just has no problem making shit up.
This begs a fascinating question. Does doing research and telling the truth actually help you anymore? Why bother when most people won't even notice?Dealin' with this every day.
Santorum went to my high school. Apparently they released a letter recently saying that they do not endorse or promote him. It's a Catholic school.I think that they legally cannot endorse or promote him.
Santorum went to my high school. Apparently they released a letter recently saying that they do not endorse or promote him. It's a Catholic school.I think that they legally cannot endorse or promote him.
"Santorum would so alienate voters, especially women…he would be lucky to carry a dozen states [in the general election]" one senior Republican told CNN
Apparently the GOP are a bit worried about if Santorum actually wins the nomination;
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/some-republicans-whisper-about-a-plan-b/?hpt=hp_t2 (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/some-republicans-whisper-about-a-plan-b/?hpt=hp_t2)Quote"Santorum would so alienate voters, especially women…he would be lucky to carry a dozen states [in the general election]" one senior Republican told CNN
Ron Paul's ads are pretty funny :lol
Have you seen this one? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOcrS6axnE) :lol
Eh, I've seen worse this election cycle. People don't take him seriously because he represents a fringe viewpoint, I don't really think it has anything to do with the ads.
Have you seen this one? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOcrS6axnE) :lol
The Rick Perry "Strong" ad still has my vote as most awesome.
Have you seen this one? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOcrS6axnE) :lol
Have you seen this one? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOcrS6axnE) :lol
Meanwhile, Ron Paul is attacking Santorum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8&feature=player_embedded)from the right. That's fucking rich. :lolWell, all those things in the ads are true. It's funny that he claims to be a social conservative, but he covered up the Ensign scandal and he boasted about funding Planned Parenthood.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul is attacking Santorum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8&feature=player_embedded)from the right. That's fucking rich. :lolWell, all those things in the ads are true. It's funny that he claims to be a social conservative, but he covered up the Ensign scandal and he boasted about funding Planned Parenthood.
The ad was pretty stupid though, I liked the Gingrich attack ads MUCH better.
You don't get it. He's a radical socialist marxist.
:neverusethis:
Born in Kenya!You don't get it. He's a radical socialist marxist.
:neverusethis:
Don't forget Nazi Muslim atheist!
Obama is a corporatist, just like Bush, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. Follow the money.
Obama is a corporatist, just like Bush, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. Follow the money.
Did anyone catch the end of the debate last night? The mod asked each candidate to describe a misconception about themself. MR went off on a totally unrelated answer. The mod repeated the question and MR said something along the lines of "You ask the questions you want to ask, but I'm going to answer the way I want to"... What a fucking dick.
Did anyone catch the end of the debate last night? The mod asked each candidate to describe a misconception about themself. MR went off on a totally unrelated answer. The mod repeated the question and MR said something along the lines of "You ask the questions you want to ask, but I'm going to answer the way I want to"... What a fucking dick.Yeah, that was pretty funny. Newt Gingrich liked it, anyway. :lol
Did anyone catch the end of the debate last night? The mod asked each candidate to describe a misconception about themself. MR went off on a totally unrelated answer. The mod repeated the question and MR said something along the lines of "You ask the questions you want to ask, but I'm going to answer the way I want to"... What a fucking dick.
One sign I saw last night that some of these conservatives might actually be coming to their senses is when the question came up about "Contraception" (an issue that has basically been settled in the US for about 35 years now, btw) the audience booed pretty loudly. PraXis is 100% correct that if the GOP continues to pound on these social issues, they're handing the election to Obama.
One sign I saw last night that some of these conservatives might actually be coming to their senses is when the question came up about "Contraception" (an issue that has basically been settled in the US for about 35 years now, btw) the audience booed pretty loudly. PraXis is 100% correct that if the GOP continues to pound on these social issues, they're handing the election to Obama.
Hard to say. My gut tells me you are correct, which is quite unnerving. However, my head tells me that, as in the past, the social issues are being discussed in such detail at this stage merely to try to differentiate the candidates, but once we have a Republican nominee, a lot of those issues will mostly fade into the background.
On the contraception issue, I actually loved Santorum's answer. Note that he did not say he wanted the government to step in at all. What he said was:
[paraphrase] The way we have looked at contraception in this country is creating lots of other problems that I believe are bad for the country. I think we need to talk about those issues and re-examine them. But I do not think it is the government's job to step in and make any changes.
I mean, really, what's wrong with that position? Although an issue may be "settled" in the minds of many, if there is a legitimate argument that there are problems, why not talk about them and keep a government "hands off" approach at the same time?
I worry that these endless GOP debates are helping to even further shift the national dialogue down the neoconservative path. Everyone up there is speaking in such extremes right now.
I feel physically ill every time they talk about war with Iran.
One sign I saw last night that some of these conservatives might actually be coming to their senses is when the question came up about "Contraception" (an issue that has basically been settled in the US for about 35 years now, btw) the audience booed pretty loudly. PraXis is 100% correct that if the GOP continues to pound on these social issues, they're handing the election to Obama.
Hard to say. My gut tells me you are correct, which is quite unnerving. However, my head tells me that, as in the past, the social issues are being discussed in such detail at this stage merely to try to differentiate the candidates, but once we have a Republican nominee, a lot of those issues will mostly fade into the background.
On the contraception issue, I actually loved Santorum's answer. Note that he did not say he wanted the government to step in at all. What he said was:
[paraphrase] The way we have looked at contraception in this country is creating lots of other problems that I believe are bad for the country. I think we need to talk about those issues and re-examine them. But I do not think it is the government's job to step in and make any changes.
I mean, really, what's wrong with that position? Although an issue may be "settled" in the minds of many, if there is a legitimate argument that there are problems, why not talk about them and keep a government "hands off" approach at the same time?
I don't know what "problems" there are? Mostly, I hear guys like Santorum pontificating a bunch of his religious-based views about "morality" and frankly, he's got zero business telling anyone what they should or should not be doing with respect to reproductive health decisions they make. Virtually every woman (99%) in the US have used one or more contraception methods (Pill, IUD, Diaphragm, etc) during their lives. I don't see what there is to talk about, ESPECIALLY by MEN.
I worry that these endless GOP debates are helping to even further shift the national dialogue down the neoconservative path. Everyone up there is speaking in such extremes right now.
I feel physically ill every time they talk about war with Iran.
Never even thought of that. That's a bit of a worrying prospect, although I'm not sure how, on the electoral stage, the conversation can be made more moderate. Even if Paul and Obama ended up on the stump together, perhaps the topics under discussion would be more reasonable, but I hardly think the prescribed solutions would be any different.
Obama is a corporatist, just like Bush, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. Follow the money.
He is a corporatist. I mean, Jack Lew is his COS for heavens sake. He's HARDLY a socialist. The only real progressive in the WH seems to be Michelle.
If the argument is that some of his policies go about to benefit corporations, my only question is so what, and isn't' that inevitable, under current economic and political conditions?
hard time? He barely tried, that's the problem.
hard time? He barely tried, that's the problem.
hard time? He barely tried, that's the problem.
Hard to get anything done when your ideals are not backed by your own party. you think he just sat around twiddling his thumbs or just couldn't get anything passed because the Dems just didn't like his policies? I think it's the latter.
THANK YOU! :lol
Why is it that everyone in the world except us realizes why our country is in such dire straits right now?
Lets cut income tax by 20% AND bring the budget deficit down.
That was really cynical of me. At least he's going to cut tax expenditures (concessions). I cant believe you guys have tax breaks for people earning over 200k! Thats asinine, no wonder your fiscal house is bent outta shape, the people with capacity to pay aint paying...
Well, I guess Super Tuesday is just around the corner. Should be interesting.
My projection would be: Total chaos between Romney and Santorum, with no clear winner. Gingrich will get Georgia, Ron Paul will get nothing.
rumborak
Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.You do know Paul is in it because he has a large forum to spread his message. If it were just for the presidency, his campaign would be a whole lot different. This is an educational campaign.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Michigan, please vote for Romney. God forbid we're viewed as a hick-state to someone out on the east coast.
Depends which Michigan.
I cant believe you guys have tax breaks for people earning over 200k!
Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.You do know Paul is in it because he has a large forum to spread his message. If it were just for the presidency, his campaign would be a whole lot different. This is an educational campaign.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.You do know Paul is in it because he has a large forum to spread his message. If it were just for the presidency, his campaign would be a whole lot different. This is an educational campaign.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Errrrr, when did that change happen? Last I remember he was in to become the POTUS.
rumborak
I assure you, Michigan is not viewed as a hick state on the East Coast.
I don't think Ron Paul has ever actually thought he could win.Yeah, with the news of the last few days I kinda retract my statements. I still think Santorum will get a hick state or two, but Romney will probably come out bruised but victorious.You do know Paul is in it because he has a large forum to spread his message. If it were just for the presidency, his campaign would be a whole lot different. This is an educational campaign.
Gingrich and Paul are still out of the race though. Was discussing that today with a coworker; for his sake Paul should call it a day after Super Tuesday's inevitable beating. If he keeps on going he will come across as someone who can't get a message.
rumborak
Errrrr, when did that change happen? Last I remember he was in to become the POTUS.
rumborak
Probably around the time it became so painfully obvious that he wasn't going to win that his extreme die hard fan base had to find some way to rationalize it without accepting defeat.
I think Romney would be good for Michigan.
Here's how I see it
Santorum - downgrade from Obama
Obama - stays the same
Romney - addition by subtraction of Obama
Newt - GOAT
I think Romney would be good for Michigan.
Here's how I see it
Santorum - downgrade from Obama
Obama - stays the same
Romney - addition by subtraction of Obama
Newt - GOAT
Serious question; how is Obama bad for Michigan? The bailouts that he and Bush both had a hand in basically saved the auto industry in Detroit. Romney is the guy who literally wrote an op-ed at the time titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
The auto companies themselves have basically said that Romney's plan at the time would probably have killed them.
In other matters, this Super Tuesday could be very interesting, in that we may not lose any candidates immediately afterward. Romney is obviously still in unless something crazy happens, Santorum will most likely still be in, unless he current slight decline turns into a freefall, Paul will probably stay in until the end like in 2008, and if he can afford it, Gingrich will stay in out of spite.
Oh, the same bailouts that helped the unions? Okay. If you knew what Michigan's problems were, it's not just the auto industry.
Oh, the same bailouts that helped the unions? Okay. If you knew what Michigan's problems were, it's not just the auto industry.
It might not just be the auto industry, but saving that did a great deal more good than you could imagine. If Detroit had been allowed to go bankrupt, as per Romney's wishes, we'd be complaining about a lot more than an economic recovery that only took two years.
The article I read regarding Romney's tax priorities seemed to imply that there were tax breaks. Note I'm being a nerd here and including government subsidies as well - all things that the government provides that reduce a) the amount of tax you pay and b) the amount of money you pay for other things (directly, ofcourse).I cant believe you guys have tax breaks for people earning over 200k!
??? We don't. Where did you get that from?
Those bankruptcies usually benefit from a functioning market around them who buys up pieces of the bankrupt company. At the time no automaker, domestic or foreign, would have bought anything, resulting in the necessity of massive layoffs.Which is why I said all along the best solution would have been a controlled bankruptcy with the government loans to keep them afloat.
Is he retarded or something?
rumborak
Pretty much, yeah. (https://www.ranker.com/list/most-outrageous-rick-santorum-quotes/pilgrimsprogressive)
[Rape victims should] make the best of a bad situation.
I feel like there should be a conspiracy Keanu about Santorum purposely sabotaging the Republican primary for Obama. :lol
Supposedly Michael Moore called on Democrats to go voting for Santorum in Michigan (where you don't need to register).Looks like Frothy is making the same pitch.
rumborak
The robocall going around Monday says Democrats should send "a loud message" to Romney by voting for Santorum. The message says it's supported by "hard-working Democratic men and women" and paid for by the Santorum campaign.
How brain-dead is his target audience?! The "only true conservative" is supported by Democrats? :lol
rumborak
Yeah, that's exactly how I see it. Honestly, the dude's working some pretty solid strategies. His problem is that he's too big an imbecile to actually take advantage.How brain-dead is his target audience?! The "only true conservative" is supported by Democrats? :lol
rumborak
Actually, it's a smart move by Santorum, because he knows that most Democrats want him to be the nominee because of his perceived weakness against Obama. Anything can happen between now and November.
The article I read regarding Romney's tax priorities seemed to imply that there were tax breaks. Note I'm being a nerd here and including government subsidies as well - all things that the government provides that reduce a) the amount of tax you pay and b) the amount of money you pay for other things (directly, ofcourse).I cant believe you guys have tax breaks for people earning over 200k!
??? We don't. Where did you get that from?
Yeah, that's exactly how I see it. Honestly, the dude's working some pretty solid strategies. His problem is that he's too big an imbecile to actually take advantage.How brain-dead is his target audience?! The "only true conservative" is supported by Democrats? :lol
rumborak
Actually, it's a smart move by Santorum, because he knows that most Democrats want him to be the nominee because of his perceived weakness against Obama. Anything can happen between now and November.
Yes, controlled bankruptcy was what Romney was advocating. However, controlled bankruptcy hinges quite a bit on a large influx of private capital. At the time, they could not reasonably expect to get such private capital. Many of the auto company execs have since said this.Oh, the same bailouts that helped the unions? Okay. If you knew what Michigan's problems were, it's not just the auto industry.
It might not just be the auto industry, but saving that did a great deal more good than you could imagine. If Detroit had been allowed to go bankrupt, as per Romney's wishes, we'd be complaining about a lot more than an economic recovery that only took two years.
Not that we can every really "know" for certain what would have happened, but something I feel necessary to point out: Are you aware that many corporate bankruptcy filings do not result in companies closing their doors, but instead are forced company reorganizations under an appointed trustee whose job it is to make sure the necessary changes are made to get the corporation back on sound financial footing? FYI, that is the type of bankruptcy some of the car companies were considering.
To this day I can not fathom that Kerry lost a public debate to GWB. I mean, wtf?Well, most importantly, debates in this country are little more than live advertisements. No thought is involved; merely a memory for your talking points. The other thing, and this is applicable to the Bush/Santorum comparison, is that Bush was a likable idiot. He related well to the masses (many of whom are idiots themselves). Neither Gore nor Kerry were particularly likable, and while they're both Einsteins compared to Chimpy, it really just made them seem arrogant in comparison. This is one of Frothy's problems. Yes, he's an imbecile, and as W demonstrated that can be a huge selling point, but unlike Bush he's not a particularly likable imbecile. And when it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, Mitt will have the same problem. Being brighter or having better ideas doesn't help you much if you just look like a conceited prick when you explain them.
rumborak
Holy crap, he might actually lose Michigan.
rumborak
Yeah, that win today might have been all it took for Romney to be finally locked in. Santorum was going down already, and this one, combined with Saturday's shoe-in for Romney in WA, will create a good amount of momentum for him.There were so, so many foot in mouth moments for Santorum this week. That had to be some kind of factor.
rumborak
So, last night should pretty much settle the Republican nomination. The only states that are going to be really competitive on Super Tuesday now are Ohio and maybe Georgia (Newt Gingrich's home state)I disagree. Last night went more or less exactly how it was expected to. Santorum will probably lose some momentum, but Super Tuesday is still going to be somewhat unpredictable. The real shakeup last night would have been if Romney had lost the popular vote in Michigan (and he may still lose the delegate count there).
As I've said from the beginning, Romney will be the nominee because it's his turn.
A candidate's cumulative score should gradually converge with reducing volatility towards his final result. This is an absolute mathematical law.
RP: "We're very pleased with our strategy"
https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-michigan-primary-20120228,0,779662.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+(L.A.+Times+-+Politics (https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-michigan-primary-20120228,0,779662.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics))
Not sure what that strategy is though....
rumborak
So, last night should pretty much settle the Republican nomination. The only states that are going to be really competitive on Super Tuesday now are Ohio and maybe Georgia (Newt Gingrich's home state)I disagree. Last night went more or less exactly how it was expected to. Santorum will probably lose some momentum, but Super Tuesday is still going to be somewhat unpredictable. The real shakeup last night would have been if Romney had lost the popular vote in Michigan (and he may still lose the delegate count there).
As I've said from the beginning, Romney will be the nominee because it's his turn.
Yes, Romney will eventually get the nomination, and will probably have the best results next week. However, last night only really indicates that he's having some difficulty, rather than being in severe trouble.
I have to say, in the long run I'm happier that Romney is the nominee. Despite the fact that of course Romney has a decent chance of becoming president as opposed to Santorum (who would have been a dud) and I would rather like to see Obama reelected, it's better for the national discourse to not have lunatics like Santorum get a public platform. Having him even just run against Obama would have given Santorum and his views legitimacy.
Romney is a pretty smart guy, so I would hope the debates benefit from that fact.
rumborak
Remember that Political Compass test that always pops up around here every so often? They did one with the current candidates. The link has a write-up about it, written by I'm-not-sure-who.I lost faith in that political compass LONG ago. I mean, some questions on there would for myself have no effect on public policy matter but would make me seem more socially conservative. And what about the astrology question, or arts? That doesn't affect public policy for a minarchist/an-cap in the slightest, might do for a radical theocrat-like creature like Santorum.
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php)
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Given that neither of those guys will have sat down and filled out the test, I find the chart rather questionable. in its accuracy.I'd think the opposite. If the values were supplied by outsiders based on the actions and statements of the candidates, I'd think it more accurate than if they were merely what the candidates like to think they are. I find it rather hard to answer some of those questions, but a group of people could probably answer them for a third party pretty accurately.
rumborak
Did you misread mine?So, last night should pretty much settle the Republican nomination. The only states that are going to be really competitive on Super Tuesday now are Ohio and maybe Georgia (Newt Gingrich's home state)I disagree. Last night went more or less exactly how it was expected to. Santorum will probably lose some momentum, but Super Tuesday is still going to be somewhat unpredictable. The real shakeup last night would have been if Romney had lost the popular vote in Michigan (and he may still lose the delegate count there).
As I've said from the beginning, Romney will be the nominee because it's his turn.
Yes, Romney will eventually get the nomination, and will probably have the best results next week. However, last night only really indicates that he's having some difficulty, rather than being in severe trouble.
Did you misread my post? I never wrote that Romney is in any trouble of any kind. What are you disagreeing with? ???
I don't have much good to say about Tennessee.I went on a mission trip and worked on houses there for a week, and I don't have anything good to say either. Obviously I was in an extremely run-down area, though. Contrary to rumborak's feelings, however, a lot of people say Nashville is great.
I have to say, in the long run I'm happier that Romney is the nominee. Despite the fact that of course Romney has a decent chance of becoming president as opposed to Santorum (who would have been a dud) and I would rather like to see Obama reelected, it's better for the national discourse to not have lunatics like Santorum get a public platform. Having him even just run against Obama would have given Santorum and his views legitimacy.
Romney is a pretty smart guy, so I would hope the debates benefit from that fact.
rumborak
That is precisely how I feel. I may have strong disagreements with Romney, and he's pretty socially and politically tone deaf because of his wealth, but......I have to admit that I begrudgingly respect the guy. I have less than no respect for Santorum.
Honestly, I don't think the primaries are mattering at all. Every new one is supposed to be the "end," so let's not kid ourselves, we have no idea who will actually be the nominee. One thing is clear, the partly is fractured. There's always been a rift between the social and fiscal conservatives, they just sorta agreed to terms... but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I just can't imagine a strong candidate after all of this. Obama and Hillary fought it out, but there really wasn't a whole lot different about them ideologically; there's a huge one between Santorum and Romney.
Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.
rumborak
Nope.
That was a good piece though. I'm a fan of Taibbi.
He was wildly popular. I'm surprised you'd never heard of him before.Nope.
That was a good piece though. I'm a fan of Taibbi.
I'm really surprised at some of the comments down below. Did people actually like this guy? 'Cause he sounds like a complete douchenozzle, irrespective of your political views.
Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.
rumborak
He's a politician. They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically. I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.
Case in point: didn't he recently do a 180* on some policy while being interviewed on the radio?
Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.
rumborak
He's a politician. They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically. I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.
And how long has it been called "Romneycare"? He also had a democratic legislature.
Also, saying that there is a difference of degree, not of kind, still doesn't meant hat there isn't, ya know, a large difference between Romney constantly taking opposing position, and downright lying about the state of things, and more honest politicians. C'mon, it's easy enough to tell who's playing the game, to play the game, and who's playing the game because, well, they have to in order to affect government.
One of the things necessary for me to "respect" someone, is to actually know where they stand on matters. With Romney, that's simply impossible. If he get's negative backlash, he immediately basically takes the opposing position, and tries to deny what he said.
Honestly, I don't think the primaries are mattering at all. Every new one is supposed to be the "end," so let's not kid ourselves, we have no idea who will actually be the nominee.The way I see it, there are basically three possible scenarios right now;
Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.
rumborak
He's a politician. They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically. I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.
And how long has it been called "Romneycare"? He also had a democratic legislature.
Also, saying that there is a difference of degree, not of kind, still doesn't meant hat there isn't, ya know, a large difference between Romney constantly taking opposing position, and downright lying about the state of things, and more honest politicians. C'mon, it's easy enough to tell who's playing the game, to play the game, and who's playing the game because, well, they have to in order to affect government.
One of the things necessary for me to "respect" someone, is to actually know where they stand on matters. With Romney, that's simply impossible. If he get's negative backlash, he immediately basically takes the opposing position, and tries to deny what he said.
Scheavo, you do know the stronghold dems have had in Mass except the Governor for some strange reason. Very weird indeeed.
Rumbo, it's a bit shocking to see how undecided the republican voters are. They don't like any of the candidates for various reasons all said here.
I don't believe that the delegate game was ever the true game. I personally think it was somewhat of a ruse to the grassroots movement, to keep them going. The real game will have been the same as Gingrich and Santorum, the hope that Paul would at some point become the "non-Romney du jour" and from there generate momentum.
(At least to me) foreseeably that never happened, and now the diehard supporters are dry and can no longer donate money.
rumborak
I can't believe Paul nearly made 25% of the WA vote. Unless WA is a particularly libertarian state and I just don't know any better.He got 21% in the WA caucus back in 2008, so it wasn't really unexpected.
Oh wow, I didn't even realize that. I just looked at the schedule, and there's only 8 more caucuses coming. All other states will be primaries (which I assume are winner-takes-all).Some of the primaries are proportional, but the delegate count for those are typically somewhat tied to the results. Few if any have the caucus loophole that could allow a candidate to get a bunch of delegates without actually doing well in the vote.
rumborak
Man, the lack of condemnation of Limbaugh's stunt there from the candidates is sad and depressing, I can definitely say that a McCain would have at least stood up and injected some class into the whole thing.
rumborak
What was the stunt?
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
To Limbaugh, though, Fluke was just promoting casual sex.
"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud...you would be?" he said. "Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."
He continued:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
Limbaugh's comments came on the same day that Fluke was mentioned during a debate in the Senate about the so-called "Blunt Amendment," which would override Obama's contraception rule. Sen. Barbara Boxer brought up Fluke's testimony, recounting what she would have said at the Congressional panel if she had been given the opportunity.
What was the stunt?
Tentacle porn will never become a campaign issue. Live with it, antigoon.
rumborak
Tentacle porn will never become a campaign issue. Live with it, antigoon.
rumborak
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_1781_1328301939.gif)
Tentacle porn will never become a campaign issue. Live with it, antigoon.Look man I've had enough of your pessimism. One day it will. You'll see. And when it does, I'll be like,
rumborak
I actually don't have a problem with some of those statements about federal money and disaster. There are some interesting thoughts behind it, once you get past the "how could he think that" sentiment.
I couldn't help but notice that they never mention the relation to Mitt. The only mention is "sharing common ancestry" for one of them. At this point I'm assuming they're talking second cousin removed or something.
rumborak
due to Santorum not filling out all of the proper paperwork (even if Santorum were to win Ohio in a landslide, he's literally ineligible to win at least a quarter of the state's delegates because of a clerical error).
due to Santorum not filling out all of the proper paperwork (even if Santorum were to win Ohio in a landslide, he's literally ineligible to win at least a quarter of the state's delegates because of a clerical error).
What's this? I never heard about that.
Oh, and another reason I think Obama will win this election was what he did today. He does play the game of politics well, and he's become very good at distracting attention away from Republicans.
At the end of the day, if Santorum or Romney win the nomination he will not have a chance against Obama.
Right?
At the end of the day, if Santorum or Romney win the nomination he will not have a chance against Obama.
Right?
I know it's way too soon to make a call in Georgia, but it's being interesting, isn't it?
I know it's way too soon to make a call in Georgia, but it's being interesting, isn't it?
How so? Gingrich has almost twice as many votes as Santorum, with about 73% reporting. Sounds like it's about over to me. :lol
EDIT: Never mind. I was looking at what percentage were reporting in VA. GA still has a long way to go. Carry on... :facepalm:
Gingrich winning in Georgia was more or less a given. The interesting thing there tonight will be seeing who takes 2nd.
Also, 5.1% of Tennessee has gone for 'Uncommitted' so far. Now, I will stress that only about 1% has reported there so far, and I'm expecting that percentage to drop dramatically, but if it doesn't, that would be interesting. For reference, 2% Uncommitted is typically considered high.
Also, I'm freaking myself out right now with my prediction in Virginia. In an election pool I have going with a few people, I picked 60/40 for Romney and Paul respectively. No one else placed Paul higher than 32. He's at 41.2 with 85% reporting.
Most estimates going in had Paul winning 28 to 32%.Gingrich winning in Georgia was more or less a given. The interesting thing there tonight will be seeing who takes 2nd.
Also, 5.1% of Tennessee has gone for 'Uncommitted' so far. Now, I will stress that only about 1% has reported there so far, and I'm expecting that percentage to drop dramatically, but if it doesn't, that would be interesting. For reference, 2% Uncommitted is typically considered high.
Also, I'm freaking myself out right now with my prediction in Virginia. In an election pool I have going with a few people, I picked 60/40 for Romney and Paul respectively. No one else placed Paul higher than 32. He's at 41.2 with 85% reporting.
Well, it's him or romney, so that probably distorts things a little.
This has been a really bad night for Paul. I'm basing that on what could have been reasonably expected for him. I definitely thought he would be at least closer in North Dakota, and Idaho was a runaway for Romney.
He also should have capitalized way more on Virginia. He just had to convince Santorum and Gingrich supporters that they'd be better off having those delegates go to Paul than Romney, but his campaign didn't really seem to make any kind of effort on that front.
I guess we'll see what happens in Alaska.
This has been a really bad night for Paul. I'm basing that on what could have been reasonably expected for him. I definitely thought he would be at least closer in North Dakota, and Idaho was a runaway for Romney.
He also should have capitalized way more on Virginia. He just had to convince Santorum and Gingrich supporters that they'd be better off having those delegates go to Paul than Romney, but his campaign didn't really seem to make any kind of effort on that front.
I guess we'll see what happens in Alaska.
Alaska is called for Romney too. From here on it's all winner takes all, which means show is over for Paul.
Wyoming yeah,wtf? Dud they forget how to count?
rumborak
Here are my projections for today's voting - these are the winners in each state:
Alaska:
Mitt Romney
Idaho:
Mitt Romney
North Dakota:
Mitt Romney
Georgia:
Newt Gingrich
Massachusetts:
Mitt Romney
Ohio:
Mitt Romney
Oklahoma:
Rick Santorum
Tennessee:
Rick Santorum
Virginia:
Mitt Romney
I mean, normally there are only five people in the state of Wyoming; I suspect those seven others tried to rig the system by coming from other states.
What are the predictions for the next major states (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi)?
What are the predictions for the next major states (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi)?
hmm, without looking at any polling at all, I suspect all three of those are at least "in play" for Santorum, considering their proximity to the bible belt. Lemme check the polling. *brb*
What are the predictions for the next major states (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi)?
hmm, without looking at any polling at all, I suspect all three of those are at least "in play" for Santorum, considering their proximity to the bible belt. Lemme check the polling. *brb*
I don't think it matters much at this point. Yeah, there's a long way to go. And after what Santorum was able to accomplish in Michigan, it seemed like yesterday could mark a massive shift if he could gain a bit of ground on Romney with all the delegates at stake. But given that he actually lost ground, I think it's pretty much over. He'll likely stay in it awhile longer to keep his name out there, but it seems pretty obvious to me who the nominee will be.
Delegates:
Romney: 429
Santorum: 169
Gingrich: 118
Paul: 67
Needed to win: 1144
Most of the remaining states allocate delegates proportionally, not winner take all. I don't think anyone can catch Romney.
So, all they're doing now in reality is helping Obama by beating each others heads in.
There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.
Obama's going to win EASILY.
There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.
Obama's going to win EASILY.
^Yes. VERY good site. And the guy who runs it is a class act.
My prediction isn't based on actual evidence. More of a general hunch.There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.
Obama's going to win EASILY.
Also, you should really keep your eye on this web site for polling data: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
They're the best in the business and they aggregate polls from all over the place and give an average, which I think is the most accurate reflection of what's really going on.
Right now they've got Obama leading Romney in a general election match up but it's not by any landslide type numbers like you seem to be implying, and is, in fact, very close to the margin of error.
Obama: 49.5%
Romney: 44.3%
Obama +5.2%
Margin: 4%
Gotta love YouTube - for all of the conservatives raging against Obama right now because of gas prices, they should look at this video first. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o&feature=player_embedded):lol
Maybe this deserves its own topic, but what is behind the fluctuation (increase) of pump prices? I was always under the impression that the price of gas had more to do with the speculation of oil futures than it did anything else.
I think the "X vs. Obama" polls are pretty meaningless tbh. Obama hasn't even run a single ad, i.e. the airwaves have been permeated with conservative fare for the last few months. I think the polls will shift quite a bit once it switches to "liberal vs. conservative".
rumborak
Any poll that has RP as the "most likely candidate to defeat Obama" as a result also has that giant red flag of "something's amiss here" waving over it.
rumborak
@Scheavo: Not sure I follow. Are you a) saying I missed that young liberals have flooded those polls with their idea that RP could defeat Obama or b) you're actually saying RP has a chance of defeating Obama?
rumborak
I wish there was some way to increase voter turnout. Like the Australian compulsory system or something.
Regarding ending the foreign involvement, you get that with Obama too, only at a much more reasonable level, not just shrugging your shoulders and walking away from genocide and nuclear ambitions like RP suggests.
Yes, RP has a fervent base, but his problem is that that's all he has. He can not garner any support from other people, as has been painfully obvious over the last few months. Ever candidate turned out to be shit, and yet RP got nowhere as Republicans turned from one bizarre person to the next in hope for that anti-Romney.
Also, I find RP hasn't even remotely been scrutinized as much as the other candidates, simply because everybody agree he's not gonna be the candidate. If the Democratic war chest focused all its efforts on exposing the faults of RP, his current semi-benign image of the half-senile crazy neighbor would switch to "this guy set out to destroy the fabric of society".
I wish there was some way to increase voter turnout. Like the Australian compulsory system or something.Factoring in the average intelligence and ignorance of the average voter - a compulsory system would be terrible.
Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.
Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.
Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.
It wasn't meant as a serious post. I wouldn't ever blame that on compulsory voting.Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.
Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.
Kinda had the same reaction to that post. Reminds me of Santorum claiming that Dutch elders run around with "do not euthanize" bracelets.
rumborak
Why are the colors flipped? LolThe site I happened to use has them that way. As it should be though. Every proper country represents the left wing party with red and right wing party with blue.
Dare I ask on what you base those projections?A combination of results from 2008, looking at certain factors in states that were close in either direction, and a bit of instinct.
That map is ridiculous :rollinI really don't think that projection is all that far fetched. What exactly do you disagree with, and why?
Go here for the best projections of electoral college voting:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Yup. The republicans used to be more to the left than Dems, before the progressive era.Why are the colors flipped? LolThe site I happened to use has them that way. As it should be though. Every proper country represents the left wing party with red and right wing party with blue.
That map is ridiculous :rollinI really don't think that projection is all that far fetched. What exactly do you disagree with, and why?
Go here for the best projections of electoral college voting:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
Yup. The republicans used to be more to the left than Dems, before the progressive era.Plus, the colors for the Democrats and Republicans weren't really standardized until the 1980s.
You've got Obama winning in what amounts to an electoral landslide. Ain't gonna happen.I have him winning a few more states than he did against McCain (and one state he won in '08 going back to the Republicans) against a weaker candidate than McCain, after a primary season that isn't doing the Republicans any favors. The Dakotas may stay in the Republican column, but even then, that's just 6 electoral votes.
The site I happened to use has them that way. As it should be though. Every proper country represents the left wing party with red and right wing party with blue.
I think the most far fetched part of my projection is Montana going for the Democrats.
I'm pretty much in agreement with the RealClearPolitics view right now. Obama will win, but he will not have any mandate.
I'm pretty much in agreement with the RealClearPolitics view right now. Obama will win, but he will not have any mandate.
Haha compulsory voting is good and bad, but I reckon it turns the Westminster system into a pseudo-presidential style system, where the layperson basically votes for the leader rather than their local member. I remember reading a book on Australia's social evolution that said ~60 per cent of voters didn't actually know they were voting for their local member as oppose to the leader of the party :lolIt wasn't meant as a serious post. I wouldn't ever blame that on compulsory voting.Kinda had the same reaction to that post. Reminds me of Santorum claiming that Dutch elders run around with "do not euthanize" bracelets.Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.
rumborak
On a more serious note though, Australia has relative economic freedom but the people are losing the civil liberties battle over there.
If PPP Polls is to be believed, the base is now finally falling in line with Romney. Apparently support for Santorum is collapsing. Given that of course Gingrich isn't going anywhere and Paul doesn't even get reported on anymore. So, this might be finally the end of the road.
rumborak
Is that what Romney would want though? His moderateness is already considered his fault somewhat in the GOP.The only real alternative would be Obama though. Unless there's a ultra conservative major third party candidate, Republicans are going to vote for Romney. He's the lesser of two evils. By selling his moderate side, he might pick up some undecided voters who aren't thrilled with Obama.
rumborak
Also, I dunno. Even though the GOP has essentially declared Romney the winner, there doesn't seem to be too much enthusiasm for any of the candidates anymore.Not really. This reminds me a lot of the Dems in 2004. There was no real excitement over Kerry then and an unpopular president was reelected.
I'm pretty much in agreement with the RealClearPolitics view right now. Obama will win, but he will not have any mandate.
I'm more and more convinced this is going to be a landslide for Obama. Wait till the presidential debates, it'll become very clear who is a better candidate.
I kind of think the same way except that there would be a small chance he would actually end up as president. Safer that he doesn't even get the nomination. I can live with Romney as president.I'm pretty much in agreement with the RealClearPolitics view right now. Obama will win, but he will not have any mandate.
I'm more and more convinced this is going to be a landslide for Obama. Wait till the presidential debates, it'll become very clear who is a better candidate.
I want Santorum to get the nomination just for the awesome entertainment that he will deliiver while trying to debate Obama.
I kind of think the same way except that there would be a small chance he would actually end up as president. Safer that he doesn't even get the nomination. I can live with Romney as president.I'm pretty much in agreement with the RealClearPolitics view right now. Obama will win, but he will not have any mandate.
I'm more and more convinced this is going to be a landslide for Obama. Wait till the presidential debates, it'll become very clear who is a better candidate.
I want Santorum to get the nomination just for the awesome entertainment that he will deliiver while trying to debate Obama.
I can't. Romney would put us back to where we were at the start of the crash.
Clever. :clap:I can't. Romney would put us back to where we were at the start of the crash.
Hey, any improvement is still progress.
I can't. Romney would put us back to where we were at the start of the crash.
Hey, any improvement is still progress.
Rush Limbaugh is the obvious choice for Romney as a running mate. :P
I can't. Romney would put us back to where we were at the start of the crash.
Hey, any improvement is still progress.
Y'know, I realize this was supposed to be a joke and all, but... :-\
Not sure whether that is the best strategy or not. Personally, I don't care if he picks Sonic the Hedgehog as his running mate if it gets Obama out of the White House.
The worst parts of those are due to Congress, not Obama, and there were numerous positive effects from the stimulus. Many economists have stated things would be worse without the stimulus. I mean, what are you going to try and argue, that infrastructure investment is bad? Let's also not forget that half of the $700 billion were tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, especially, helped us fall deeper into a hole.
Could you guys please explain to me what Obama has done that has been so unworthy of the Office? I've asked this question a lot, and I still just don't see it.
??? I didn't say a word about Solyndra or Bush.
It's not like Obama went to Solyndra and gave a speech about how they were going to be leaders in the industry.
Bush blaming is so 2008. Can't you guys come up with ANYTHING new? I don't need to explain why I don't like the guy. You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, and I don't feel like debating it. I've done my research. Or I could just say it's because he's black and take the easy way out ;) (no, it's not because he's black. that's just my go-to tactic to get people to shut up when they want to debate me over stupid shit).
Why is wartime spending an exception?Because obviously killing defenseless brown people half way around the world is good, but providing health care to your own citizens so they don't die of easily avoidable/treatable disease or go bankrupt from medical treatments is bad.
Nothing offensive, just nothing I agree with.
What I find sort of baffling is the fact that Obama has really been a very centrist president, yet, conservatives continue to despise the guy as if he's actually been able to move any truly progressive legislation through congress. The only thing that even comes remotely close to a liberal or progressive legislative achievement are the stimulus (which despite conservatives efforts to paint as something that's created no jobs has in fact created a lot of jobs) and the health care legislation, which the NON-Partisan CBO notes will be paid for.
He appointed a couple of liberals to the SCOTUS, I guess I can see why conservatives wouldn't like that, but it's not like the court isn't still tipped to the right.
I think conservatives should just take a deep breath and let it out slowly. :)
Yeah, I said something in a previous post that I thought I would have been warned for. While I think TL's post is asinine, I don't see what's particularly bad about it.
I was being a bitch last night. Getting hella lag in counter strike. Fucking up my kpd. But, I disagree with a lot of Obama's rhetoric. Being conservative, why should I like anything he says?
In the US, a single payer universal health care system was actually more or a Republican policy than a Democratic one until about a decade ago. Some Republicans oppose it now largely because the Democrats support it.
Heck, here in Canada, while the idea was conceived by the first leader of the NDP, it was first put into place nationally by Conservative PM John Diefenbaker.
I'm a European but I follow the 2012 election very closely. I always hope Santorum does well, not because I like him or his ideas, on the contrary, but because the pre-elections last longer that way. Here in Europe almost everyone I know hopes Obama gets re-elected instead of one of those crazy Republicans. Go Barack!
Also, I heard the actual delegate conventions were happening for Iowa and Wyoming, so Paul's claim that he has more delegates will actually be challenged today.Reading into it, it sounds like today is when the counties select delegates to go to the state convention, and then the state convention, which will take place later, will determine who Iowa's delegates officially go to. By the end of the day, we should have an indication of whether or not there's anything to Paul's caucus delegate strategy.
I think a leftist equivalent to libertarianism on the public stage would be healthy for national discourse. I mean, we've basically got a Reagan Republican in the White House and the GOP is posturing itself so far to the right of him. There's no balance.
Being labeled a socialist is like a kiss of death nowadays.
Well, some of us don't agree with some of the policies that Obama/other left leaning people want in place. To me, it's like that old saying there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for it somewhere.
There should be some degree of safety net (which I'll admit I'm a bit more moderate in that regard) but, healthcare for all via government scares me. In fact, my doctor installed a new plan that wouldn't accept insurance anymore so he could still make money from being a doctor. He actually went from about 400 patients to 50. He's an ADD specialist and is trying to find a way so that he can still see me and a few other patients. I've been going to him for nearly 7 years. He referred me to someone else, but fuck. 7 years is a long time to see the same doctor when you're almost 22. We had a trusting enough relationship where I could tell him that I didn't like a certain med/dosage and we could change it right then and there; no questions asked. But now, I don't get to see him. Yes - it was my doctor's choice and I don't blame him at all. He is trying to keep his job that makes his money.
The option to see him costs 1,500 a year. It's great for regular checkups, but at 22 I don't really need regular. I only need to see him about 3-4 times a year (which he would like to charge 40-60 per visit). So, yeah. You can see why 1,500 without any sort of insurance is a bit of a pain.
Well, some of us don't agree with some of the policies that Obama/other left leaning people want in place. To me, it's like that old saying there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for it somewhere.When all costs, such as insurance premiums, taxes, etc are taken into account, Canadians on average spend about half as much per capita on health care, compared to Americans. This doesn't include many additional costs you would pay in America at the time of actually receiving medical care.
I hardly call him Reagan. He openly states that he wants to tax the higher ups. I mean, sure it's not like he's Lenin or w/e, but that's not Reagan.Reagan raised taxes 11 times, including on businesses, and on the highest earners.
Yes it is. Reagan most certainly raised taxes on the highest earners. He said it was their obligation, exactly what Obama and Warren Buffett have said.I think a leftist equivalent to libertarianism on the public stage would be healthy for national discourse. I mean, we've basically got a Reagan Republican in the White House and the GOP is posturing itself so far to the right of him. There's no balance.
Being labeled a socialist is like a kiss of death nowadays.
I hardly call him Reagan. He openly states that he wants to tax the higher ups. I mean, sure it's not like he's Lenin or w/e, but that's not Reagan.
Any elected party would need to do things within the confines of the current system. If the Socialist Party of America somehow had their nominee for President elected, but they still had a congress made up of Democrats and Republicans, they would have to work with that congress on any laws they wanted to pass.
Also, it's important to make a distinction between socialism and communism. Many developed countries, including the United States and Canada, have many socialist policies in practice. There are even many developed, prospering countries that are socialist. When thinking socialism in modern times, don't think the Soviet Union; think Sweden. They're doing just fine. Socialism is simply a different, valid means of running a country.
Also, it's important to make a distinction between socialism and communism. Many developed countries, including the United States and Canada, have many socialist policies in practice. There are even many developed, prospering countries that are socialist. When thinking socialism in modern times, don't think the Soviet Union; think Sweden. They're doing just fine. Socialism is simply a different, valid means of running a country.
Woeful ignorance is just the epithet I'd use. It shocks and appalls me how unworldly Americans today can be, and what voting power that sector of society has.
"It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible."
Quote"It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible."
What in the fuck? The Quran definitely acknowledges and was without a doubt heavily based on the Bible.
The comments are really sad.It's Youtube, the comments are always sad.
Haha, gotta give it to Santorum on that one. That guy was a classic Ron Paul drone.
rumborak
Mitt Romney did not mention either of his GOP rivals on the day of a hard-fought pair of Republican contests, but instead kept his focus on President Obama and rising fuel prices at a Missouri rally.
Here's a different thought actually: I just saw some news snippet about the campaigning today, and they noted that the live music is distinctly different from the other states. It's all fiddle and steel guitar.
Here's the question: Don't Southerners feel "token" when this stuff happens? I mean, it's like as if I went to a rally here in Massachusetts, and the main speaker would sound like the mayor from The Simpsons.
rumborak
Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?
rumborak
Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?
rumborak
Here's the thing. As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant. I really don't see him dropping out at all. Santorum shouldn't drop out. I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144. Ron Paul is basically a meaningless senile old man and is pretty much irrelevant at this point. The GOP have formed a circular firing squad that is leading to a messy brokered convention. Their candidate is going to limp into the general election, and even under those circumstances, I still put Obama's chances at reelection at 50/50 at best.
Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?
rumborak
Here's the thing. As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant. I really don't see him dropping out at all. Santorum shouldn't drop out. I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144. Ron Paul is basically a meaningless senile old man and is pretty much irrelevant at this point. The GOP have formed a circular firing squad that is leading to a messy brokered convention. Their candidate is going to limp into the general election, and even under those circumstances, I still put Obama's chances at reelection at 50/50 at best.
Why is that? Personally I think the short decline in approval rating is a non-issue.
Here's the thing. As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant. I really don't see him dropping out at all. Santorum shouldn't drop out. I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144.
Also don't underestimate that all people have been hearing in the last few months is Republican thought. I think once the actual campaigning kicks in we will see some shifts going on.
rumborak
He'll have to carry the South sure, but he's still got the Democratic North, and I know what people say about Democrats being turned off by Obama but I hardly think even a disappointed Democrat would vote against his/her self-interest.
He'll have to carry the South sure, but he's still got the Democratic North, and I know what people say about Democrats being turned off by Obama but I hardly think even a disappointed Democrat would vote against his/her self-interest.
No, but what I think you have now with Democrats that you didn't have in 2008 is apathy. In 2008, everyone was so sick of Bush and so excited about the possibility of actually electing a black president, that I think a TON of people who might otherwise have just stayed home on election day actually went out and voted. And that pushed Obama over the top.
Now you've got a relatively weak economy, rising gas prices, an incumbent Democrat president with only moderate approval ratings who did NOT deliver on quite a few of his campaign promises.
The only incumbent president with an approval rating below 50% to ever win re-election (ironically) was George W. Bush (48% approval at the time of his reelection).
Also, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7% I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.
Look, I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy, but I'm also a pragmatist. This election will be no cakewalk for Obama.
Here's the thing. As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant. I really don't see him dropping out at all. Santorum shouldn't drop out. I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144.
But here's something that makes it even more interesting: If Gingrich isn't in the race and you are basically looking at a head-to-head race between Romney and Santorum, Santorum would likely be leading right now instead of Romney.
I'm not sure I follow that
Also, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7% I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.Statistics like this are meaningless bullshit that news networks use to fill airtime. Including the 1976 election, that's a sample size of 9 elections, each with very different circumstances. If we just look at races with an incumbent seeking re-election, it's down to 6.
It doesn't actually mean anything.It does if Fox says it does.
I agree with you guys that his foreign policy ought to be more nuanced. I just wish he wasn't the only anti-war candidate. I'd rather our country not be responsible for cluster bombing and drone killing children across the world.
I know, but I don't think it's that simple. I think a lot of delegates that Romney actually won because votes against him were split between Romney and Santorum, Romney would have actually lost to Santorum if not for those splits.
I know, but I don't think it's that simple. I think a lot of delegates that Romney actually won because votes against him were split between Romney and Santorum, Romney would have actually lost to Santorum if not for those splits.
If you meant to say Gingrich and Santorum, this makes sense, otherwise, not so much.
There's definitely a lot to that theory. There are a number of fairly significant states where Romney won, which could have been taken by Santorum had Gingrich not been splitting the vote. There's even talk that the wealthy donor who is more or less single handedly funding Gingrich's campaign at this point is doing so to stop Santorum.QuoteAlso, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7% I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.Statistics like this are meaningless bullshit that news networks use to fill airtime.
I know, but I don't think it's that simple. I think a lot of delegates that Romney actually won because votes against him were split between Romney and Santorum, Romney would have actually lost to Santorum if not for those splits.
If you meant to say Gingrich and Santorum, this makes sense, otherwise, not so much.
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry.
If you (generally speaking) are pissed about genocide in [insert third world garbage hole here], then travel there and buy some guns. We have zero obligation to anyone but ourselves. Ron Paul has said countless times that he is for defense, not offense, and that we'd probably have more military bases on our soil than in other areas around the world.
No. Statistics like "only X out of Y Presidents between the years E and F were re-elected when statistic A was at B%" are meaningless. The sample size as far as presidential elections go is just far too small, and the number of variables too great and differing, for any statistics like that to mean anything in that sort of context. I explained that in my post about this.There's definitely a lot to that theory. There are a number of fairly significant states where Romney won, which could have been taken by Santorum had Gingrich not been splitting the vote. There's even talk that the wealthy donor who is more or less single handedly funding Gingrich's campaign at this point is doing so to stop Santorum.QuoteAlso, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7% I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.Statistics like this are meaningless bullshit that news networks use to fill airtime.
The unemployment rate is "meaningless bullshit" as it applies to and impacts presidential politics? Wow. Um, ok. :|
I'm so fucking sick of hearing this shit about Romney putting his dog on the roof of his car. It's not different than letting a dog ride in the bed of a pickup truck.
But I disagree that it's a meaningless statistic. Not all statistics are just mental masturbation. I believe the unemployment rate has a strong impact on how people vote. Personally, I know people who are independents who voted for Obama last time, but are telling me they will not vote for him this time because he hasn't improved the job market. These are hard, unmitigated facts. Votes he previously received that he now will not receive.Again, I'm not saying all employment statistics are meaningless. Saying "no president in the last randomly selected number of years with less than an arbitrary number next to this statistic has ever been re-elected" is meaningless.
Obama is "War"?Um... yes? Where have you been the last four years. Oh, and his rhetoric is very bellical.
rumborak
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/425318_372832136071332_162379530449928_1263317_1691887264_n.jpg)NO FUCKING WAY!!! I want to smash his window so bad right now.
Obama is "War"?Um... yes? Where have you been the last four years. Oh, and his rhetoric is very bellical.
rumborak
God, I remembered that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. :rollin
It's not a *meaningless* statistic, it's just that the scarcity of evidence makes any trends statistically non-significant. We'd need a sample size of at least a hundred more elections to make even an educated guess about things like that.Maybe not 100...but yes you need a bigger sample.
There is no doubt that Shaye was reporting facts that both the Yemeni and US government wanted to suppress. He was also interviewing people Washington was hunting. While the US and Yemeni governments alleged that he was a facilitator for Al Qaeda propaganda, close observers of Yemen disagree. “It is difficult to overestimate the importance of his work,” says Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen scholar at Princeton University who had communicated regularly with Shaye since 2008. “Without Shaye’s reports and interviews we would know much less about Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula than we do, and if one believes, as I do, that knowledge of the enemy is important to constructing a strategy to defeat them, then his arrest and continued detention has left a hole in our knowledge that has yet to be filled.”
Oh ofcourse, and I think unemployment will be 7.x by November, so it will be well off its highs.
Also: from an outsiders perspective, I can't see what Obama has done wrong. Secondary to this, I can't see how America as a collective would allow any of the republican candidates except Romney get into office. In a battle between Obama and Romney, I see Obama winning, because as I said from an outsiders perspective I can't see what he has stuffed up so badly that he needs to be turfed. All I can see from the Obama is bad camp is that he isn't white and he isn't republican.
Can someone correct me?
No, of course a Republican president would. However there would have at least been some resistance to it by people pretending to care 'cos it wasn't "their guy" in the white house. I think Democratic presidents are more dangerous in that regard.
I'm not talking about OWS. I'm talking about people in power who would publicly decry what he did. That was valuable. Instead of all the Bush Administration crap being an aberration, it's now just the way we do things.
Oh ofcourse, and I think unemployment will be 7.x by November, so it will be well off its highs.
Also: from an outsiders perspective, I can't see what Obama has done wrong.
President Obama is likely to campaign in part on his repeated successes in killing various al-Qaeda members, Osama bin Laden foremost among them. It's perfectly legitimate for him to do so. But the various assessments of Obama's foreign policy record, whether offered by the mainstream media, the conservative press, or the Republican presidential candidates, almost invariably ignore the cost of waging undeclared, under-the-radar drone and missile wars in numerous Muslim countries. During the Bush Administration, the blowback critique was commonplace. It even persisted into the early days of current administration. Said Obama himself:
"Instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists than it ever detained."
But now that establishment Democrats have one of their own in office and are less inclined to advance the blowback critique, almost no one is doing it. Look at our sad loyal opposition: It's a political liability to be seen as overly apologetic to foreigners. A single press conference about American exceptionalism has generated critical mentions for years. But a bungled raid that kills dozens of innocents? Opinion polls positing that Obama is less popular in the Arab world than Bush? Aren't those major fails? Neither Republicans nor mainstream Democrats act like it.
I think that whoever becomes the Republican candidate will gain the majority support of whoever doesn't want Obama as president. So I would think so. If they're smart they'll vote for someone no matter who the candidate is.
I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.
I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.
I haven't heard much of this nonsense in a long time but I do live on a college campus.
I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.To be fair, if the people harping on that gave it up, they'd just pick another blatantly false thing to complain about. It's a crowd that can't be won over by things like 'facts' or 'reality'.
TL, are you sure tomorrow is Guam? I'm pretty sure the schedule said Puerto Rico, and that whole statehood discussion was about PR, not Guam. I don't think Guam wants to be a state, do they? (I think it would be ludicrous. The place is north of Australia, and has 150k people)I was in fact wrong. It is Puerto Rico.
rumborak
I personally reject PR statehood because I can't see where that additional star would go in the flag.
You'd almost think he was paid by Obama, yeah.
rumborak
Regarding Chris Christie, interestingly my sister was au pair for the guy, and she told me he was pretty despotic at home.
Which plays into your other comment about the anti-woman thing. There's a part of the GOP who want that stuff. And then there's the part that's socially progressive. And then there's the plain racists etc etc.
I think the biggest problem of the GOP is that it tries to harbor a too-wide range of individuals at this point. Every time it shifts into one direction, it leaves people behind on the opposite end.
IMHO, the real solution to the problem would be to allow parties to form coalitions. In parliamentary governments a party like the GOP would long have split up into more ideologically coherent sub-units. Assuming the Democrats would undergo a similar split, the two center parties could form a coalition, not having to deal with the extreme shit on both sides. The smaller extreme fringe parties would realize they have to become more moderate in order to have any importance, leading to all parties having to focus on the important issues. As it is right now, the tail is wagging the dog with all those fringe views dominating the Republican party, because the GOP (probably rightly) believes it can't ignore those views.
rumborak
What would be really interesting to see, and would never happen in a million years, is the US switching to a 538 seat parliamentary system. I think they would very quickly migrate away from the two party system in such a hypothetical.
What's really troublesome to me is the utter lack of public discourse about the shortcomings of whatever system the US is in. Look at the electoral system which really has nothing to do with fair elections, fair in the sense that every citizen has equal say in the future of the country.
rumborak
What's really troublesome to me is the utter lack of public discourse about the shortcomings of whatever system the US is in. Look at the electoral system which really has nothing to do with fair elections, fair in the sense that every citizen has equal say in the future of the country.
rumborak
This was done purposefully. The intent was to make sure heavy population centers didn't have the political ability to chose a president that would impose their political will on less populated areas. If we had a simple popular vote, why would you even campaign in, say, the Dakotas?
The winner-take-all system is maddening though. And congress is clearly a broken institution.
Lol. End the Mexican drug wars with just pot legalization? Wishful thinking if you'd ask me. If you want to solve the real problem you have to decriminalize HARD drugs.
And you don't mind paying the inevitable human price?The inevitable human price? Elaborate.
With your statement there and RP's I'm arriving at the conclusion that being Libertarian means being apathetic.
rumborak
And apathetic? Just because I don't want to use violence to solve a certain social problem, that of drug abuse, makes me apathetic. Yeah, I can definitely see the reasoning behind that. If a guy next door likes to do cocaine, I'm not going to go in there and hold a gun to his head, kidnap him and put him in a cage.
Ugh. What's the point.I'm sorry. I actually understand what you mean now - and what I said there just proves your point kinda.
rumborak
And you don't mind paying the inevitable human price?
With your statement there and RP's I'm arriving at the conclusion that being Libertarian means being apathetic.
rumborak
And you don't mind paying the inevitable human price?
With your statement there and RP's I'm arriving at the conclusion that being Libertarian means being apathetic.
rumborak
Why only meth?
I don't think any other drug is quite so horrible to you.
That's all ideologically convenient, but it misses the fact that a single misstep can render a person incapable to make any further rational decision regarding his life. I'm just not Libertarian enough to not care.
rumborak
That's all ideologically convenient, but it misses the fact that a single misstep can render a person incapable to make any further rational decision regarding his life. I'm just not Libertarian enough to not care.
rumborak
And this is prevented now? It would be one thing if prohibition works, but seeing as how it just makes the problem worse, this complaint is misguided and wrong.
Alcohol causes thousands of deaths a year, many from a simple misstep. If we want to take your principle concern seriously, we would have to ban alchohol if anything.
That's all ideologically convenient, but it misses the fact that a single misstep can render a person incapable to make any further rational decision regarding his life. I'm just not Libertarian enough to not care.I hope you read my previous post. I would definitely disagree. While I do agree that "rewarding" bad behavior creates the wrong incentives - we still have a MORAL personal obligation to help out when some one is in dire straits. At least in my opinion.
rumborak
That's all ideologically convenient, but it misses the fact that a single misstep can render a person incapable to make any further rational decision regarding his life. I'm just not Libertarian enough to not care.
rumborak
And this is prevented now? It would be one thing if prohibition works, but seeing as how it just makes the problem worse, this complaint is misguided and wrong.
Alcohol causes thousands of deaths a year, many from a simple misstep. If we want to take your principle concern seriously, we would have to ban alchohol if anything.
I think he was more referring to the concept of "Let them do what they want, but screw them if they need any help because of it".
Funny considering my best friend's girlfriend's Randian younger sister was just poo-pooing me about how libertarianism is the only correct system for the US. :lol
Yep, that's gonna happen right around the same time a giraffe crawls out of my ass and plays "Eruption" on a banjo while whistling Dixie in 7/8
Making all kinds of generalizations seems to be the way to go around here.
Yep, that's gonna happen right around the same time a giraffe crawls out of my ass and plays "Eruption" on a banjo while whistling Dixie in 7/8
Keep in mind that I don't mean to pry, and I'm only saying this because I care: Dude, you seriously need to think about changing your diet.
Libertarianism is DOA in American Politics, my friend. That may be a generalization, but it's also a fact.Yup. Political action rarely is a means to change the nature of government itself. Libertarians instead need to start practicing the NAP in their personal lives - then you'll see a change of philosophy occurring from the bottom up. Maybe then it'll be possible to also open people's eyes to the violence inherit in the state.
Making all kinds of generalizations seems to be the way to go around here.
Delegates:
Romney: 562
Santorum: 249
Gingrich: 137
Paul: 71
Romney has 8 times the delegates that Ron Paul has. Libertarianism is DOA in American Politics, my friend. That may be a generalization, but it's also a fact.
Ron Paul just doesn't want go around with a gun acquiring that money to help others.
I mean, is it right for you to go around with a gun, door to door, and asking for people's money to help the starving poor? If it's not, why is right to delegate that right to government?
It's Mitt Romney's platform. He's going to cap, balance and cut the budget, but he's also going to increase our military presence, and give out huge tax break.Uhm. He hasn't said anything about reigning in the military industrial complex afaik.
Of course, he's an etch-a-sketch.
It's Mitt Romney's platform. He's going to cap, balance and cut the budget, but he's also going to increase our military presence, and give out huge tax break.Uhm. He hasn't said anything about reigning in the military industrial complex afaik.
Of course, he's an etch-a-sketch.
What am I missing here...
All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics. None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.
All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics. None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.
We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we're in 100% congruity here. :hat
All in all, I'm pretty disgusted with American politics. None of the candidates on either side of the aisle ever seem to be good choices, and that goes for the Leg. branch as much as the Exec.
We may be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we're in 100% congruity here. :hat
Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington
Republican (probably Romney): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
Again, every state not called will be brought up for debate here. I'm just submitting some 'sure things' to save time later.
Michigan is a largely Republican state, except for a small circle of blue in Oakland County.
Actually according to the 2010 Census, that number is closer to 10%. :biggrin:
I do find that interesting; the most likely Republican nominee will almost definitely lose his 'home state'. To be fair, Romney has about 13 home states (only slightly exaggerating), but it would be shocking if the democrats lost Massachusetts, and they'll probably keep Michigan in their column in 2012. Obama has roughly a 10 point lead over Romney in Michigan right now.
Obama: California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington
Republican (probably Romney): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
Again, every state not called will be brought up for debate here. I'm just submitting some 'sure things' to save time later.
I know Mass is most likely going to be the Republican nominees home state, but I find it hard to believe they would vote Republican.
Quit posting the red as the democrats and the blue as republican. That's just asinine.I really do like that site, but I'll consider picking a site with the Dems as blue and the GOP as red, since you Americans have that silly inverse color scheme. ;D
QuoteQuit posting the red as the democrats and the blue as republican. That's just asinine.I really do like that site, but I'll consider picking a site with the Dems as blue and the GOP as red, since you Americans have that silly inverse color scheme. ;D
Anyhoo, most likely I will be using those projections from the previous page to save time. There's not exactly anything controversial in those pics. I mean, I didn't even call Massachusetts or Texas.
YOUR GAY PORNFirst thing I thought when I read it
DETERMINES YOUR DEATHSTYLE
:lol :lol :lolYOUR GAY PORNFirst thing I thought when I read it
DETERMINES YOUR DEATHSTYLE
I'm not sure whether or not I hope this is real:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303372_2518056130545_1827515045_1528236_1702048467_n.jpg)
I don't get the point of creating a fake image like that. Why make shit up and giving people the excuse to say "half of the stuff that's said about him isn't true!!", when the guy already said so much ridiculous stuff?
Romney's statement is unfathomably stupid.
rumborak
That wouldn't change much. We may be sitting on a good amount of oil, but not a ridiculous amount of oil. It's never going to be $20 to fill up your tank ever again, that I can promise you.
It's gonna be ok man.
That wouldn't change much. We may be sitting on a good amount of oil, but not a ridiculous amount of oil. It's never going to be $20 to fill up your tank ever again, that I can promise you.
That's the most asinine argument I've ever heard.
1.) Regardless of the amount of oil, it's irresponsible to not tap into it. Relying on someone else is always retarded. We all know how group work in college goes, so why should I trust someone from a different country with my lifeline?
2.) I didn't say fucking shit about $20 to fill up my tank. $4 is sustainable. I'm used to it at this point. I don't want to fucking pay $5+ for a fucking tank of gas.
While gas prices go up, we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses and not doing anything. There is no reason why we aren't drilling. We can drill and find alternatives. Let's quit throwing all of our eggs in one basket. This is why I think Obama's administration is completely fucktarded. "OOO ALT ENUR-G" Yeah, BUT FUCKING USE WHAT WE HAVE TO HELP GET THE ALTERNATIVE SHIT.
To my knowledge, the untapped resourcess in the US are also not those super-easy-to-get-to ones, but require significant processing, which rakes up the price. So, you might no longer be as much at the mercy of some obscure country, but the price will still be high.
And yeah, god forbid we have a president who actually looks toward the future and doesn't try to lull the gullible part of the population into a false sense of security that everything can stay the same as it was.
rumborak
And even if we do tap into it and say "DRILL BABY, DRILL!" the fact remains that U.S. oil has long since peaked, and it won't nearly be enough to tide us over with the impending global peak.
The problem is that the US-based drilling is also in ridiculously deep off-shore wells under the ocean. The Deep Water Horizon's spill was partially caused by the fact that it's getting more and more risky to drill in the depths it requires to get to the oil.
rumborak
So, you're fine with devastating whole shorelines of the United States for the few years of oil supply it gets you?
rumborak
With unlimited resources, sure. With limited resources, I'd rather spend the money on things that will last for decades than researching on how to not fuck up the shorelines of the US to get to oil that buys you a miniscule amount of time (and research has shown that it wouldn't make a significant dent in the oil price anyway).
rumborak
So, you're fine with devastating whole shorelines of the United States for the few years of oil supply it gets you?
rumborak
Canada actually gives us most of our oil. They don't hate us AS much as the other guys :P Plus Venezuela is a risky place to be. Chavez basically stole a shitton of Exxon assets from them, after all. The Saudis do have a lot of oil though. :PThat wouldn't change much. We may be sitting on a good amount of oil, but not a ridiculous amount of oil. It's never going to be $20 to fill up your tank ever again, that I can promise you.
That's the most asinine argument I've ever heard.
1.) Regardless of the amount of oil, it's irresponsible to not tap into it. Relying on someone else is always retarded. We all know how group work in college goes, so why should I trust someone from a different country with my lifeline?
2.) I didn't say fucking shit about $20 to fill up my tank. $4 is sustainable. I'm used to it at this point. I don't want to fucking pay $5+ for a fucking tank of gas.
While gas prices go up, we're sitting around with our thumbs up our asses and not doing anything. There is no reason why we aren't drilling. We can drill and find alternatives. Let's quit throwing all of our eggs in one basket. This is why I think Obama's administration is completely fucktarded. "OOO ALT ENUR-G" Yeah, BUT FUCKING USE WHAT WE HAVE TO HELP GET THE ALTERNATIVE SHIT.
Welcome to the first role of global economics: trade with the guy who has the comparative advantage. Right now that's either the Saudis or the Venezuelans.
With unlimited resources, sure. With limited resources, I'd rather spend the money on things that will last for decades than researching on how to not fuck up the shorelines of the US to get to oil that buys you a miniscule amount of time (and research has shown that it wouldn't make a significant dent in the oil price anyway).
rumborak
So, you're fine with devastating whole shorelines of the United States for the few years of oil supply it gets you?
rumborak
The US is the only country not milking the Gulf for its oil. There are multiple countries just off the US shores out in 'International Water' in both the Gulf and the Atlantic that are pumping out oil that are just as 'dangerous' to those shorelines. The fact that the US refuses to do the same is ridiculous.
Besides, what ever happened to technological progress and social development? Staying on oil brings us closer to neither, and it's really frustrating, even forgetting all the environmental stuff. That's the stuff of stagnation, and stagnation is what causes great civilizations to fall.Which was a disaster...definately....no argument. But even there due to ridiculous rules about drilling BP was forced to set up shop far out at sea doing deep water drilling. Which is as we've seen, way more difficult and open to 'disaster'. These rigs that are drilling at the moment are deep water drilling which is just as dangerous as the BP rig was.
Hmm...although, massive economic crash...waning international power...well, whaddya know! It's already happening.So, you're fine with devastating whole shorelines of the United States for the few years of oil supply it gets you?
rumborak
The US is the only country not milking the Gulf for its oil. There are multiple countries just off the US shores out in 'International Water' in both the Gulf and the Atlantic that are pumping out oil that are just as 'dangerous' to those shorelines. The fact that the US refuses to do the same is ridiculous.
Has everyone forgotten the BP Oil Spill disaster?
Too bad we don't tap into our own natural resources.
Screw that wildlife. I heard they're liberal
rumborak
Too bad we don't tap into our own natural resources.
What fantasy land to you live in where we aren't drilling more now than ever? Seriously, I want to know how it is you don't think we're tapping our own natural resources. Obama had a temporary ban on drilling, AFTER the BP oil spill, becuase there were and are legitimate safety concerns. Natural gas is going through a gigantic boom right now, and Obama simply wants to monitor and make sure safety isn't thrown out the window for profits - which oil companies do quite fucking often. That's not saying, "we're not going to drill."
Meanwhile, Obama's policies and investments have helped us reduce our demand for oil (56 mpg fleet standard, vastly increased our capacity to manufacture batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, and investments in solar and wind to help us power those vehicles. Meaning, he's actually doing something to help us ween ourselves of oil, which means maybe we can reasonably expect to leave the Middle East, and end the entire clusterfuck we're there for. We could drill everything we got, right now, and it still wouldn't be enough for us to ween ourselves of oil.
Too bad we don't tap into our own natural resources.
What fantasy land to you live in where we aren't drilling more now than ever? Seriously, I want to know how it is you don't think we're tapping our own natural resources. Obama had a temporary ban on drilling, AFTER the BP oil spill, becuase there were and are legitimate safety concerns. Natural gas is going through a gigantic boom right now, and Obama simply wants to monitor and make sure safety isn't thrown out the window for profits - which oil companies do quite fucking often. That's not saying, "we're not going to drill."
Meanwhile, Obama's policies and investments have helped us reduce our demand for oil (56 mpg fleet standard, vastly increased our capacity to manufacture batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, and investments in solar and wind to help us power those vehicles. Meaning, he's actually doing something to help us ween ourselves of oil, which means maybe we can reasonably expect to leave the Middle East, and end the entire clusterfuck we're there for. We could drill everything we got, right now, and it still wouldn't be enough for us to ween ourselves of oil.
I'd like to see your literature, I'm interested to know about whatever policies allowed him to enact this change and see how well it's working.
The cost of batteries for electric and hybrid cars is expected to fall in the next three years to levels where everyday consumers could consider them affordable
Much of the expected price drop is attributable to increased battery production, the administration said. According to the report, the U.S. had two factories making advanced batteries for cars in 2009.
“Since then, we have supported 30 new advanced battery and electric vehicle component plants that are opening across the country,” the report said.
He's not senile. He can think like he has always done. He just has never been the best at delivering the message. He has to explain a position completely contradictory to common belief in 60 seconds, and he has so much to say that he mumbles and puts his foot in his mouth way too often. Plus, the constant traveling is not a bonus for a man his age - he does get exhausted.
It was better when he was like 50, he had a flamethrower back then.
He's not senile. He can think like he has always done.He has to explain a position completely contradictory to common belief in 60 seconds
Eh, that awfully sounds like the "people don't vote for him because the message is too complex for them to understand" I've seen float around.It's not that the message is that complex, it's that it challenges most of the things believed by ordinary people. And people are reluctant to change their own views.
Which arguments do you think were not understood by the people? The isolationist one I think was pretty obvious. The "I will tear down half of the government in one year" too.
One of the weirdest aspects of the RP campaign were the ads tbh. They looked more like ads for The Biggest Catch than for a candidate whose message is the important thing.
rumborak
Why not just legalize other currencies to compete with the Fed's currency? I thought we had established that violent monopolies were bad, but no - not when it comes to currency is it.
Why do we even have the fed...
In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.
Eh. Political polls mean very little up until a few weeks before election.
So, yet another set of primaries tomorrow, and then a long stretch of no primaries. The story will be the usual, Romney winning, Santorum shortly behind, and Gingrich and Paul nowhere to be seen. Any bets on whether one of them will bail out after tomorrow?
rumborak
Any bets on whether one of them will bail out after tomorrow?The only one who might drop after today is Gingrich, and I doubt he will.
Which woman are you talking about?
Any bets on whether one of them will bail out after tomorrow?The only one who might drop after today is Gingrich, and I doubt he will.
Santorum will stay in at least until April 24th, when Pennsylvania has its primary.
Then again, there's a lot of Southern states yet to come up, and Santorum (maybe not incorrectly) banks on them giving him a late boost, at least enough to make it a brokered convention. Essentially the whole month of May could be good for Santorum, as long as he can scrape together enough momentum until then.
rumborak
Really? I would think that the oil and industrial wealth there would carry him.
(https://www.ronpaulforums.com/ammo.jpg)
:lol
rumborak
Then again, there's a lot of Southern states yet to come up, and Santorum (maybe not incorrectly) banks on them giving him a late boost, at least enough to make it a brokered convention. Essentially the whole month of May could be good for Santorum, as long as he can scrape together enough momentum until then.
rumborak
Texas is, I think, 155 delegates, and I just don't see Romney doing too well in that state.
Santorum vowed once again on Tuesday night to remain in the nomination fight, despite a trailing delegate count and falling national and state wide poll numbers. Romney currently has 648 delegates, well ahead of Santorum's 264, according to a CNN estimate. Romney must win 44% of the remaining delegates to reach 1,144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. Santorum needs to win 79% of the remaining delegates to do the same.
Then again, there's a lot of Southern states yet to come up, and Santorum (maybe not incorrectly) banks on them giving him a late boost, at least enough to make it a brokered convention. Essentially the whole month of May could be good for Santorum, as long as he can scrape together enough momentum until then.
rumborak
Texas is, I think, 155 delegates, and I just don't see Romney doing too well in that state.
Texas hands out their delegates proportionally. Most polling right now has Santorum and Romney running within 1 or 2 points of each other. None of this is going to matter. Rick Santorum isn't going to win anything. Romney's the nominee. It's not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" it gets decided.
I have to admit, though, the circular firing squad that the Republicans have formed is fun to watch :lol
From CNN.com: (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/mccain-santorums-irrelevant/)Quote from: CNN.comSantorum vowed once again on Tuesday night to remain in the nomination fight, despite a trailing delegate count and falling national and state wide poll numbers. Romney currently has 648 delegates, well ahead of Santorum's 264, according to a CNN estimate. Romney must win 44% of the remaining delegates to reach 1,144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. Santorum needs to win 79% of the remaining delegates to do the same.
Which brings up an interesting point: Has the GOP spread out too much to be united under a single person? With the creation of the Tea Party it seems there's a been an even further shift to the right, and also a sense of entitlement (i.e. "we are a force whose demands have to be met"). Romney is trying to achieve the ridiculous split of both housing Tea Partiers and Moderates under him, but it seems that no matter which direction he moves towards, he's losing people on the other end. Almost like a a too-small blanket you're sharing with your partner, where both remain cold :lol
rumborak
And now that fiscal conservatives have a political ideology of their own in which to articulate their views, namely in Tea Party Libertarianism, they don't really need the social side as they once did, is that what you're saying? Or am I totally off the mark?
I don't know that it's a matter of "uniting" or "forming a coalition." I would hope common sense would prevail and that people could just realize that, whether Romney sucks or not, he's not Obama. I would think it almost doesn't even matter who is on the Republican ticket. They should still be able to win by virtue of not being Obama.
Especially considering the alternative. was just reading yesterday how Romney has done a complete 180 on global warming in order to get the GOP bid. Same with pro-choice. Or healthcare.
Is there actually anything the guy stands for? Other than wanting to become the most powerful man in the world?
rumborak
It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"
It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"
I think that's a bit of a misread. I think antigoon is closer to the point. It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising). What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.
I can't shake the feeling that your opposition to Obama doesn't have at least certain visceral element to it, bosk.
rumborak
I can't help but think that there's a good amount of "I won't give a Democrat so much as a pinky" in this.
Yeah, almost as ludicrous as a president saying repeatedly, in his words, that it would be "unprecedented" for a federal court to overturn a piece of federal legislation that was approved in both houses. Because, you know, it's not like (1) that isn't the court's specific job, and (2) the court hasn't established over 150 cases worth of "precedent" of doing that very thing. But, eh, you know, truth is optional and should be discarded when more convenient lies can actually get people to vote for you.
It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"
I think that's a bit of a misread. I think antigoon is closer to the point. It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising). What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.
What's so incredible to me, is that people still want to blame the President for everything and anything that happens in the Government, while he is in office. Or that he even has the power to prevent all damage from happening. You think damage has been done while Obama has been President? Great - then vote out your congressmen and congresswoman.
It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"
I think that's a bit of a misread. I think antigoon is closer to the point. It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising). What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.
Couldn't have said it better myself.It's really kind of incredible that the argument against Obama that I seem to hear most often from conservatives is "we just want someone who is not Obama"
I think that's a bit of a misread. I think antigoon is closer to the point. It's not that any other candidates are great, but that they are better choices than him (although pretty much anyone who has run for president in the last century or so has been a better choice for president than Obama, so that is not surprising). What is incredible to me is that there are still many we are unwilling to acknowledge the damage that has been done under his watch.
It wasn't really directed at anyone here in particular, just a general observation. I rarely hear (or read) a compelling argument in support of all of this alleged "damage" that has been done under his watch. Damage to what, exactly? The guy before him conducted what is arguably the biggest blunder in United States Foreign Policy history (Iraq) and got us into a pattern of borrowing a billion dollars a week from Communist China to finance that along with tax breaks for rich people who don't need them. The end result of all of that after 8 years was an economy on the brink of collapse. Boy, he sure was good, eh? ::) Obama comes in and immediately engages economic policies that have now resulted in 25 consecutive months of economic growth, 17 consecutive moths of non-farm job growth, an improving economic picture all around. Meanwhile, he's extricated us from a costly and idiotic war we never should have gotten into and found and killed the guy responsible for the 9/11 attacks (a guy the the previous president said he "didn't think about much") but conservatives are wringing their hands about "damage" that they really never seem to be able to articulate in anything but vague partisan talking points memo type stuff.
Yeah, color me somewhat baffled by this.
I get that conservatives want a conservative as president, but the narrative about "damage" as it relates to Obama is kind of silly.
What's so incredible to me, is that people still want to blame the President for everything and anything that happens in the Government, while he is in office. Or that he even has the power to prevent all damage from happening. You think damage has been done while Obama has been President? Great - then vote out your congressmen and congresswoman.
I agree with all of that. But this thread has focused on the exec. branch, hence the comments relating to the presidency. And your post in particular was focused on a presidential candidate, hence my comments on the current president.
Why? If I think Romney would make a bad president, but I think Obama has made a terrible president, should I not validly prefer Romney?If you think that Romney would be better than Obama, while I disagree, it's a valid opinion. If you think both are bad choices, but that Romney is better comparatively, that's a valid opinion.
What I'm talking about is silly, hyperbolic statements like 'Obama is literally the worst choice for the presidency out of every major candidate in the past one hundred years'. He's not. To make a statement like that requires a staggering lack of perspective and objectivity.
massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse
See, it's funny, because you probably think you're being witty, or making a good argument.massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse
I know, but why are you even bringing Clinton into the discussion?
See, it's funny, because you probably think you're being witty, or making a good argument.massive tax cuts that caused a skyrocketing deficit, and removal of banking regulations almost causing an international economic collapse
I know, but why are you even bringing Clinton into the discussion?
Clinton had several budget surpluses under his watch, and, you know, didn't start two full scale wars.
Are you going to actually answer any of the questions people are asking you, or continue being evasive and hope no one notices?
I'm not trying to evade anything. There are no questions on the table, best I can tell.
What "damage" has he done?
I'm not trying to evade anything. There are no questions on the table, best I can tell.What "damage" has he done?
I'm not trying to persuade anybody, and I'm not really inclined to get into it in a whole lot of detail, because I don't see much to be gained from that.
I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't looking to judge or anything, I'm genuinely curious. It's interesting to see how people with views very different than your own think.
Obviously you're under no obligation to answer it but surely you realize that people will expect some follow up to a claim they find to be a bit...extreme?
Quote-Economics: I largely feel it is completely disingenuous to bring up economics, for the most part, because other than helping drive the creation of the budget and approving the budget, the White House is not directly responsible for the economy. However, since Obama so vocally ran on promises to right the ship and is quick to take credit whenever there are successes, it at least deserves mentioning that problems have only grown. The debt has never been so high. Never.
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall, was up 27% as of this time last year from when he took office (not sure what the overall rates are as of today).
-Government has grown by leaps and bounds with a record number of federal employees (not including military) topping 3 million. Which means, more debt.
Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.
-Bailouts: Ugh. Does this even need explanation?
-Military has been further reduced, making the U.S. weaker and more vulnerable, and an unprecedented amount of government land that was once military bases has been sold off, making it impossible to reopen those bases if we ever needed to expand again.
-Foreign policy is a mess because of a general attitude and policy of appeasement.
-Lies, lies, and more lies when addressing the American people.
Has there really been 27% unemployment at some point? I thought it hadn't reached 20% yet?He didn't say the rate was 27%. He said it was up 27% over where it had been.
I don't really expect you to respond
Quote-Government has grown by leaps and bounds with a record number of federal employees (not including military) topping 3 million. Which means, more debt.
This is just flat out false (https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/).QuoteThree years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.
Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan’s first three years.
Was there a time of negative unemployment at some point? :orly: I'm not sure how unemployment can increase by 27% without reaching the absolute value.
Was there a time of negative unemployment at some point? :orly: I'm not sure how unemployment can increase by 27% without reaching the absolute value.
First, it should be 23.7%, not 27%. Typo. My bad.
Second, ??? Where are you getting "negative numbers" from? In January 2009, the rate was 7.6%. Two years later, it was 9.4%. That is a 23.7% increase. /math
So, I think it's interesting that you purposely found the lowest unemployment rate we hit (which was caused largely by economic conditions that have nothing to do with Obama) to cite as "damage" supposedly caused by Obama.
So, I think it's interesting that you purposely found the lowest unemployment rate we hit (which was caused largely by economic conditions that have nothing to do with Obama) to cite as "damage" supposedly caused by Obama.
Barry, you can disagree with me, but don't accuse me of purposefully doctoring the numbers, because I wouldn't do that. When I was putting my post together, I did a quick google search, and those dates (the date Obama assumed office, and the first date two years later that data was publicly available) were in a comparison chart by the BLS in the very first link that came up. I'm just has happy to look at the numbers you gave as well. The present 8.3% unemployment rate is still an increase over the 7.6% rate when he took office--which was already at a problematic level. So, again, call me out of my facts are wrong. But don't accuse me of being dishonest with the facts because I wouldn't do that.
But at the end of the day, as I said in my first post leading into when I brought up that area, it's not even really fair to lay that at the president's feet. I don't even say that that fact alone is indicative of the damage being done to the country. Again, as I pointed out, the only reason I bring it up is because, from Obama's campaign up to the present, he has tried to take ownership of the issue and tried to portray it as something the White House can and does directly influence. I would much rather he (and his predecessors) was honest about it and just acknowledged that it is a problem, and not one the White House can directly impact for better or worse.
QuoteFederal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan’s first three years.
In other words, the number of federal jobs was up by a LOT in 2009 and up a LOT again in 2010. And despite cutbacks in 2011,1 it is still up over the entire term.
1. Assuming the numbers for 2011 are correct. I have not seen the final numbers for 2011. I know earlier in the year, the projections were looking like there was going to be more growth or simply a flatline. If the cutbacks for 2011 actually happened as that article suggests, then that mitigates my argument somewhat, and I apologize for overstating it (except that there really isn't much to apologize for, since I said more than once that I am not putting these points out there to argue or to prove a point, but simply because antigoon asked me if I wouldn't mind saying why I felt the way I did). But still, a 1.8% increase over his total term means he still added a net of 33,000-34,000 government jobs over 3 years to a government that was ALREADY bloated and huge thanks in large part to the prior two administrations. So, no, what I said is not "flat out false." I may have slightly overstated it, but it is 100% true. The numbers don't lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.
Still, that's new hires, not "new federal jobs," as Boehner said. Many of those hired presumably replaced people who had quit or retired. That would explain why, as Emily Long pointed out yesterday, Obama could propose to boost the size of the workforce by 15,000 employees in fiscal 2012, and still end up with 12,000 fewer workers than in fiscal 2010.
By the way, as for the whole economy thing and you thinking Obama is taking credit for it, that's also becuase he'd get blamed for anything that goes bad, and you know it. It's a double edged sword, and it's something I wish would fade from our political system. But it's only fair to imagine someones going to take credit for something good happening, if they're going to get blamed for something bad happening.
By the way, as for the whole economy thing and you thinking Obama is taking credit for it, that's also becuase he'd get blamed for anything that goes bad, and you know it. It's a double edged sword, and it's something I wish would fade from our political system. But it's only fair to imagine someones going to take credit for something good happening, if they're going to get blamed for something bad happening.
I know, which is why I hesitated to even bring it up and why I made several caveats, as I have said several times now.
Of all people, Santorum would have been the last I would have guessed.
rumborak
Santorum pulling out? I thought he was against birth control?
Santorum pulling out? I thought he was against birth control?
:rollin Fuck me, that was funny :rollin
Santorum pulling out? I thought he was against birth control?
Santorum pulling out? I thought he was against birth control?olol
Of all people, Santorum would have been the last I would have guessed.Word has it that his kid with the rare disorder was hospitalized, and that it doesn't look good.
rumborak
Of all people, Santorum would have been the last I would have guessed.Word has it that his kid with the rare disorder was hospitalized, and that it doesn't look good.
rumborak
I was hoping Santorum would drag out this process a bit longer, but it's understandable that he's getting out based on that.
So now, the rest of the primaries are basically for show. It could be interesting to see if Gingrich and Paul do well in a few upcoming races based on most voters assuming it's over (which it is in every way but the official one), and don't show up.
Also, here's the latest electoral map from RealClearPolitics. It has Obama ahead of Romney 280 to 181, with 77 unprojected;
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Actually, my best guess is that this is part of Santorum 2016. Him leaving now keeps the notion in people's mind that he was a strong contender. He probably sees that Obama stands a good chance of being reelected, so he'll be back in 2016 when there's a big unknown from the Democratic side.
rumborak
I was kinda thinking that too, actually. Not sure how far it'd take him, but it might help leverage his primary race.
Current polling is essentially meaningless. Now that Romney and the half dozen PACs that are aligned with him can aim their shit-cannons at Obama, you watch those numbers erode.
Current polling is essentially meaningless. Now that Romney and the half dozen PACs that are aligned with him can aim their shit-cannons at Obama, you watch those numbers erode.
All Romney has going for him is anti-Obama sentiment. He clearly wasn't able to get his base riled up, he clearly isn't the ideal candidate.
His speech yesterday also showed he's going to show how he's different than the Republican candidate.
Dangerous nonetheless to go negative. One of the things that I really liked about Obama's campaign 4 years ago was that he stayed away from negativity.
rumborak
Dangerous nonetheless to go negative. One of the things that I really liked about Obama's campaign 4 years ago was that he stayed away from negativity.
rumborak
Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates.
Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates. Come 2016, names like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush will be the ones to look out for. Santorum got his 15 minutes of fame, and now he has some good options, but I'm not sure if being an elected official is one of them. He can probably be a lobbyist or public speaker and make bank for the rest of his life. He is still pretty young in the political world.
Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates. Come 2016, names like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush will be the ones to look out for. Santorum got his 15 minutes of fame, and now he has some good options, but I'm not sure if being an elected official is one of them. He can probably be a lobbyist or public speaker and make bank for the rest of his life. He is still pretty young in the political world.
The others I can understand, but that one...I dunno. I could be wrong on this, but more than anything I think he would just be a constant reminder of his brother for the American people.
Like voting for a slogan......Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates. Come 2016, names like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush will be the ones to look out for. Santorum got his 15 minutes of fame, and now he has some good options, but I'm not sure if being an elected official is one of them. He can probably be a lobbyist or public speaker and make bank for the rest of his life. He is still pretty young in the political world.
The others I can understand, but that one...I dunno. I could be wrong on this, but more than anything I think he would just be a constant reminder of his brother for the American people.
His brother had two terms. His brother was RE-Elected AFTER we KNEW that the Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. Don't underestimate the general stupidity of the American electorate.
Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates. Come 2016, names like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush will be the ones to look out for. Santorum got his 15 minutes of fame, and now he has some good options, but I'm not sure if being an elected official is one of them. He can probably be a lobbyist or public speaker and make bank for the rest of his life. He is still pretty young in the political world.
The others I can understand, but that one...I dunno. I could be wrong on this, but more than anything I think he would just be a constant reminder of his brother for the American people.
His brother had two terms. His brother was RE-Elected AFTER we KNEW that the Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. Don't underestimate the general stupidity of the American electorate.
Santorum will never be a strong candidate for POTUS again. He was in the right place at the right time in a weak class of Republican candidates. Come 2016, names like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush will be the ones to look out for. Santorum got his 15 minutes of fame, and now he has some good options, but I'm not sure if being an elected official is one of them. He can probably be a lobbyist or public speaker and make bank for the rest of his life. He is still pretty young in the political world.
The others I can understand, but that one...I dunno. I could be wrong on this, but more than anything I think he would just be a constant reminder of his brother for the American people.
His brother had two terms. His brother was RE-Elected AFTER we KNEW that the Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. Don't underestimate the general stupidity of the American electorate.
Well sure, but right now he's only a governor. Could be a different story once he's propped up to the federal level.
I agree that George W probably ruined Jeb's chances with his incompetence, but many Republicans still list Jeb Bush on their short list of 2016 possibilities. I think Rubio is the favorite for the 2016 bid (assuming Obama wins 2012). He's young, sharp, diverse, a Tea Party favorite...basically everything the Republicans are looking for to energize their base. Romney will most likely ask him to be the VP, but most reports state that he will decline.
Hey guys, sorry to change the direction of this a bit. This has been on my mind for awhile:
I've been following Obama and Romney on Twitter for a year now. Despite what their policies and promises are, they are putting a very negative face forward. The amount of smear going on is embarrassing. It makes me feel sick that one of the most powerful men in the world and the person trying to become that want to portray themselves as 5 year olds fighting for a candy bar. I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood smear campaigns in the first place. A couple years ago Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat as a Republican. He used nothing but positive messages in his campaign. He made people feel comfortable about letting him be their representative. Meanwhile, his competitor (forget her name) ran nothing but smear campaigns and lost badly. There's something to be said about how a candidate wants to be perceived. I think it has more of an effect on the general public than actual policies and campaign promises. What do yo think?
Hey guys, sorry to change the direction of this a bit. This has been on my mind for awhile:
I've been following Obama and Romney on Twitter for a year now. Despite what their policies and promises are, they are putting a very negative face forward. The amount of smear going on is embarrassing. It makes me feel sick that one of the most powerful men in the world and the person trying to become that want to portray themselves as 5 year olds fighting for a candy bar. I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood smear campaigns in the first place. A couple years ago Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat as a Republican. He used nothing but positive messages in his campaign. He made people feel comfortable about letting him be their representative. Meanwhile, his competitor (forget her name) ran nothing but smear campaigns and lost badly. There's something to be said about how a candidate wants to be perceived. I think it has more of an effect on the general public than actual policies and campaign promises. What do yo think?
Hey guys, sorry to change the direction of this a bit. This has been on my mind for awhile:
I've been following Obama and Romney on Twitter for a year now. Despite what their policies and promises are, they are putting a very negative face forward. The amount of smear going on is embarrassing. It makes me feel sick that one of the most powerful men in the world and the person trying to become that want to portray themselves as 5 year olds fighting for a candy bar. I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood smear campaigns in the first place. A couple years ago Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat as a Republican. He used nothing but positive messages in his campaign. He made people feel comfortable about letting him be their representative. Meanwhile, his competitor (forget her name) ran nothing but smear campaigns and lost badly. There's something to be said about how a candidate wants to be perceived. I think it has more of an effect on the general public than actual policies and campaign promises. What do yo think?
Oh, so I thought of the worse Obama attack so far - his comment about Romney's wife not having to work. I think the point being made is valid, but it was horribly expressed. IT wasn't that being a stay at home wife is a bad thing - it's that for many, many, many people, that's not an option. I'm sure my own mom would have loved to raise me more, but our family needed the money, so she worked 12 + hours a day, and barely got to see me.
Hopefully that point doesn't get lost, because it's an important one.
Oh, so I thought of the worse Obama attack so far - his comment about Romney's wife not having to work. I think the point being made is valid, but it was horribly expressed. IT wasn't that being a stay at home wife is a bad thing - it's that for many, many, many people, that's not an option. I'm sure my own mom would have loved to raise me more, but our family needed the money, so she worked 12 + hours a day, and barely got to see me.
Hopefully that point doesn't get lost, because it's an important one.
When did OBAMA actually say that?
Oh, so I thought of the worse Obama attack so far - his comment about Romney's wife not having to work. I think the point being made is valid, but it was horribly expressed. IT wasn't that being a stay at home wife is a bad thing - it's that for many, many, many people, that's not an option. I'm sure my own mom would have loved to raise me more, but our family needed the money, so she worked 12 + hours a day, and barely got to see me.
Hopefully that point doesn't get lost, because it's an important one.
When did OBAMA actually say that?
Well, if want to use that logic, neither candidate is going to really get that negative. They'll have "third-party" super pacs do it. I should have been clearer, and said the Obama Campaign.
Cause if Obama did make that point, he wouldn't fuck it up so badly, me thinks.
Oh, so I thought of the worse Obama attack so far - his comment about Romney's wife not having to work. I think the point being made is valid, but it was horribly expressed. IT wasn't that being a stay at home wife is a bad thing - it's that for many, many, many people, that's not an option. I'm sure my own mom would have loved to raise me more, but our family needed the money, so she worked 12 + hours a day, and barely got to see me.
Hopefully that point doesn't get lost, because it's an important one.
When did OBAMA actually say that?
Well, if want to use that logic, neither candidate is going to really get that negative. They'll have "third-party" super pacs do it. I should have been clearer, and said the Obama Campaign.
Cause if Obama did make that point, he wouldn't fuck it up so badly, me thinks.
But she doesn't work for the Obama nor is she employed by the Obama campaign.
Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.There's really nothing provocative about that statement. Ann Romney got married at a very young age and yes, she did raise 5 kids, but she did not have to work WHILE raising those kids. She had the luxury of being a stay at home mom, something very few middle-class women get to do these days. THAT was her point. So while the Republicans genuflect and gesticulate wildly to try to pin this as someone from the "Obama Camp" trying to "Attack Ann Romney" it was nothing of the kind. It was simply an observation that Mitt Romney isn't really getting the inside scoop on "women's issues" from his wife who has led a sheltered and very easy life compared to most middle class women.
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN.
"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."
Hey guys, sorry to change the direction of this a bit. This has been on my mind for awhile:
I've been following Obama and Romney on Twitter for a year now. Despite what their policies and promises are, they are putting a very negative face forward. The amount of smear going on is embarrassing. It makes me feel sick that one of the most powerful men in the world and the person trying to become that want to portray themselves as 5 year olds fighting for a candy bar. I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood smear campaigns in the first place. A couple years ago Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat as a Republican. He used nothing but positive messages in his campaign. He made people feel comfortable about letting him be their representative. Meanwhile, his competitor (forget her name) ran nothing but smear campaigns and lost badly. There's something to be said about how a candidate wants to be perceived. I think it has more of an effect on the general public than actual policies and campaign promises. What do yo think?
First, let me start by saying that I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post. Negative ads are pretty sickening and the do make our politicians look petty and immature. Unfortunately, they run negative ads because they are -BY FAR- the most effective ads in political campaigns.
I live in MA and I am a registered Democrat. Martha Coakley was possibly the worst person to replace Ted Kennedy that I could think of. By the way, she didn't "lose badly" she lost by 5% (https://voices.yahoo.com/martha-coakleys-campaign-case-5310921.html) - hardly a landslide.
Martha Coakley lost because she ran a completely inept campaign and because the national Democratic Party never imagined that an upstart Republican who was a relative nobody would win Ted Kennedy's seat in the bluest of blue states. So they did not provide her with any funding early on. By contrast, Scott Brown had financial support from the RNC from day one. By the time the DNC realized that she was in trouble (about 10 days before the election) it was too late. But in a last ditch effort they funded, produced and aired a bunch of attack ads in that final week. This is why a lot of people believe that ALL she ran was attack ads. That's not true and I personally remember at least two or three ads she ran that were not negative at all. The problem was, they didn't air all that often because her campaign did not have the financial resources necessary to air them frequently.
Had the DNC backed Coakley from the beginning, I don't know if Brown would have won. He ran a brilliant campaign, though. Gotta give him credit for that.
One statement is negative, but at least it's true. One statement is negative - and totally made up.Exactly this.
I'm not sure how you are really comparing Obama factually pointing out that Romney pays a 15% tax rate, while a middle class family pays probably around double that. It's something Romney not only supports, but has lobbied for in the past publicly. That's a policy issue, a true one, and one that massively effects the budget. Obama has proposed a much fairer approach to the budget - Obama's proposed budget (https://news.yahoo.com/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-bipartisan-budget-015402181.html)
Romney's attacks on Obama for the job market and gas prices are false. Obama has improved the Job market, perhaps not enough, but not for a lack of his effort. It's false to say we're not exploring our energy policies, manufacturing is going up for the first time since Bush took over (partly due to incentive given by Obama, going after offshore tax havens / loopholes, as well as stimulus spending), and the stock market is doing rather well. Things can still get better, but the reason it's not getting better is because Senate Republicans, especially, won't let anything pass that would benefit Obama. The stimulus plan, by the vast majority of economists, created jobs. It just didn't do enough, partly becuase we later learned that the problem was much worse. If you listen to Romney, things aren't getting better, even though they are, and depending upon when you listened to him, things were actually getting worse, which they weren't. Our momentum started to change pretty quickly after Obama got into office.
As for gas prices, it's ridiculous to think Obama can influence gas prices *edit* domestically. It's a pure political statement, not based upon anything factual, but just a cheap attempt to make a scape goat of the President. Meanwhile, since Romney wants to attack Iran, he'd actually massively raise prices.
So that's what I mean. One statement is negative, but at least it's true. One statement is negative - and totally made up.
You addressed this in your last statement. It seems that you don't mind the negativity as long as it's true, which makes total sense to me. I, personally, don't agree with it whether true or false.
Yikes. Romney kicks off the presidential race by speaking in front of the NRA?
*shudders*
rumborak
The thing for me is, it's not even a question of 2nd Amendment or whatever, but I find the NRA one hell of a creepy organization.As a proud gun owner, I agree.
rumborak
The thing for me is, it's not even a question of 2nd Amendment or whatever, but I find the NRA one hell of a creepy organization.
rumborak
Yikes. Romney kicks off the presidential race by speaking in front of the NRA?
rumborak
Just out of curiosity PraXis, who is getting your vote? You hate Obama, you say Romney isn't getting your vote, but Paul ain't exactly an option.
Just out of curiosity PraXis, who is getting your vote? You hate Obama, you say Romney isn't getting your vote, but Paul ain't exactly an option.
I will write in Ron Paul or vote Libertarian (if I like the candidate). I refuse to participate in the false left-right paradigm presented by the Democratic and Republican parties. They are two sides of the same coin.
1
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2
: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : fraud, faker
Yeah, I don't think anybody has a particularly good feeling about Romney. I don't see how he really stands for anything.
rumborak
Scheavo, the feeling I'm getting is that Republicans will vote for Romney for the sole reason of: "any Republican is better than Obama". There seems to be no other prominent reason. It's not what Romney or whoever stands for, and it's not because they're somehow going to undo the last 4 years.
Scheavo, the feeling I'm getting is that Republicans will vote for Romney for the sole reason of: "any Republican is better than Obama". There seems to be no other prominent reason. It's not what Romney or whoever stands for, and it's not because they're somehow going to undo the last 4 years.
Ya I know, and my point is that such blind hatred is harmful.
I am sad that Huntsman got dropped so early in the process. I didn't agree with muchallof his points, but I think he was unfairly dismissed by the GOP. He was probably the best candidate they had.
I don't really agree with Praxis on much but I understand where he's coming from. I don't feel represented by anyone running for president.
I don't really agree with Praxis on much but I understand where he's coming from. I don't feel represented by anyone running for president.
This country was bought and sold years ago. Look no further than taxes. Every page of the 66,000+ page tax code was lobbied to give someone an edge over another...same with the various regulations in banking, health care, health insurance, etc.
There is NO difference in the two parties. Yea, they'll bicker back and forth about marriage or abortion on TV shows, but they still high-five each other when the cameras go away because of the power they keep taking away from us (not to mention, the money from future generations). What is really obvious is how Ron Paul has been predicting all these national/international messes the last 30 years, and many in the GOP will support his domestic policy.. but when he went into those debates and realistically described our imperial foreign policy, "oh it's just crazy Uncle Ron again!"... these same cvnts have hardons for a war with Iran, yet they don't say how they're going to pay for it..consider how they're always bitching about high taxes. How else will we fund the extended foreign invasions?
It was simply an observation that Mitt Romney isn't really getting the inside scoop on "women's issues" from his wife who has led a sheltered and very easy life compared to most middle class women
Not really sure what he's exactly claiming, but Romney is apparently warning of a " Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy", it was just on Cnn. This is just getting ridiculous.
Not really sure what he's exactly claiming, but Romney is apparently warning of a " Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy", it was just on Cnn. This is just getting ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure that he also doesn't know what exactly he's claiming.
So it's starting to look like there may actually be something to Paul's delegate strategy. No, he has no chance of catching Romney, but he could scoop up enough delegates (including some that many projections are currently crediting to Romney) to force this to the convention, no matter how much Romney pretends to already have the nomination.
Because of how convoluted the process is in caucus states, and because his campaign was the best organized for the actual caucus process, he will get at least half of the delegates in Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington state so far. It could be more, but he is absolutely guaranteed at least half of the delegates in those states. It's very likely this could be the case in most caucus states.
Just when you think the GOP nomination selection process can't get more hilarious, it finds a way.
Eh. Romney needs 300 more delegates to get to the absolute majority (and thus the nomination) and there's more than 900 delegates remaining. I don't know what Paul thinks he will get out of him going to the RNC, but it will be the most expensive RNC audience ticket ever, that's for sure.
rumborak
You seem unaware of the actual process. The system mirrors the electoral college, in that the people and their vote don't actually matter. The electors, or in this case delegates, are chosen by rules which vary state to state, and is separate from the primaries or caucuses. In this case, Paul has been claiming for a while that the delegates going to the convention to actually vote for Paul or Romney are much more in support of him than Romney. This completely changes the delegate math, and thus completely changes the actual election.
I mean, look at the last Presidential Election. Electorally, it was a landslide. In terms of popular vote, there wasn't that much difference. Or how about 2000, even ignoring debating the horrible Supreme Court decision, Gore won the popular vote nation wide, but lost the election.
The media, and most of the people reporting on the matter, don't actually get into the details.
Paul's goal right now is to get the 2nd most delegates, surpassing Gingrich and Santorum, which would give him a major speaking role at the Republican National Convention. This would be huge for libertarians and would be the exclamation point on this "liberty movement".
Another note is that Romney and Paul actually became good friends on the campaign trail, and it is likely that Romney would listen to Ron Paul with regards to certain spending cuts.
Another note is that Romney and Paul actually became good friends on the campaign trail, and it is likely that Romney would listen to Ron Paul with regards to certain spending cuts.
You seem unaware of the actual process. The system mirrors the electoral college, in that the people and their vote don't actually matter. The electors, or in this case delegates, are chosen by rules which vary state to state, and is separate from the primaries or caucuses. In this case, Paul has been claiming for a while that the delegates going to the convention to actually vote for Paul or Romney are much more in support of him than Romney. This completely changes the delegate math, and thus completely changes the actual election.
I mean, look at the last Presidential Election. Electorally, it was a landslide. In terms of popular vote, there wasn't that much difference. Or how about 2000, even ignoring debating the horrible Supreme Court decision, Gore won the popular vote nation wide, but lost the election.
The media, and most of the people reporting on the matter, don't actually get into the details.
True to form for the party, of course.
Another note is that Romney and Paul actually became good friends on the campaign trail, and it is likely that Romney would listen to Ron Paul with regards to certain spending cuts.
I don't see how Romney could get much information from RP regarding that. Romney would try to identify branches that could be cut with the best cost-benefit ratio. RP doesn't care, he just want to nuke the federal government. The conversation would go like this:
Romney: "Hey Ron, you looked at cutting spending. What did you identify as the most wasteful?"
Paul: "The federal government."
Romney: "No, I mean what parts? I assume you prioritized?"
Paul: "Dunno. Kill 'em all I say."
Romney: "K, Ron. Why don't you sit down and get another Slurpee. I'll be back in just a sec."
rumborak
Another note is that Romney and Paul actually became good friends on the campaign trail, and it is likely that Romney would listen to Ron Paul with regards to certain spending cuts.
I don't see how Romney could get much information from RP regarding that. Romney would try to identify branches that could be cut with the best cost-benefit ratio. RP doesn't care, he just want to nuke the federal government. The conversation would go like this:
Romney: "Hey Ron, you looked at cutting spending. What did you identify as the most wasteful?"
Paul: "The federal government."
Romney: "No, I mean what parts? I assume you prioritized?"
Paul: "Dunno. Kill 'em all I say."
Romney: "K, Ron. Why don't you sit down and get another Slurpee. I'll be back in just a sec."
rumborak
Hmm, that must have escaped me, and it's also a moderation that was neither in his ads nor amongst his followers. So, if he has actually inklings of moderation, he utterly failed on emphasizing on them.
rumborak
"We are seeing the Soviets pushing into the Arctic with no response from us. In fact the only response from us is to announce the early retirement of the last remaining ice breaker," Lehman said.
"You know, Russia is another example where we give and Russia gets, and we get nothing in return," he said. "The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia, yet Russia does nothing but obstruct us, or efforts in Iran and Syria."
Czechoslovakia split into two countries–the Czech Republic and Slovakia–in 1993.
Neither country served as a site for the proposed U.S. missile defense system. The U.S. wanted to put part of the system in the Czech Republic, but the country's prime minister canceled a vote in 2009 that would allow the move to take place.
1994 saw Bill Clinton lose a LOT of House Seats. 1996 saw Bill Clinton fairly easily win re-election. I believe at this time, Clinton even had lower approval ratings than Obama. I know for sure that Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama does when he won in 2004. Historically speaking, Obama is fairly comfortable in terms of approval ratings.
Maybe people are sick of Obama because they've heard nothing but negativity and slander about him from the media and the Republican candidates? Let's wait to see how people feel once the average person is reacquainted with the man.
Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".
1994 saw Bill Clinton lose a LOT of House Seats. 1996 saw Bill Clinton fairly easily win re-election. I believe at this time, Clinton even had lower approval ratings than Obama. I know for sure that Bush had lower approval ratings than Obama does when he won in 2004. Historically speaking, Obama is fairly comfortable in terms of approval ratings.
Maybe people are sick of Obama because they've heard nothing but negativity and slander about him from the media and the Republican candidates? Let's wait to see how people feel once the average person is reacquainted with the man.
I've noticed that about the presidential power of public image, by the way. I got it from learning about early medieval Europe actually, how for early Europeans the power and prestige of their king rested pretty much in their being able to see him regularly, so they could get an idea of who was running the realm. Even after almost 2000 years, nothing's changed.
Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".The problem is, many of the most vocal/visible Republicans currently out there aren't even Republicans anymore. Their goal is no longer to promote and implement certain policies or ideas; it's to disagree with the Democrats on everything, no matter what. The sheer amount of complete bullshit they throw at the Democrats and the President is something that any sane person should be ashamed to be associated with. It's why Jon Huntsman recently left the Republican party; he recounted being up on the debate stage, looking at his opponents, and thinking (to paraphrase, my wording), "What the fuck is going on?".
Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".
If Reagan were to run for the GOP nomination today, he'd be chased off stage and called a radical leftist. Eisenhower would be far too liberal for them. Teddy Roosevelt would be a socialist hippie in their eyes.
It's also somewhat bizarre to have the average opinion described as leftist here. Except a few people here, most I would describe as center. It's just that the American right has become so extreme lately. A fact Romney is struggling with.
rumborak
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is calling on President Barack Obama to not let the killing of Osama bin Laden become a "politically divisive event."
Romney says Obama can rightfully take credit for bin Laden's downfall. But he says it was "very disappointing for the president to try to make this a political item" by suggesting he wouldn't have ordered the raid, saying, "Of course I would have."
Obligatory "well that's just, like, your opinion, man"
Romney's whining about the bin Laden anniversary is pathetic, but to be expected. Suck it up, Romney, had it happened under your watch there would be parades and flyovers.
rumborak
Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all. It would have come up in the debates organically.Agreed.
Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all. It would have come up in the debates organically.Agreed.
Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all. It would have come up in the debates organically.Agreed.
In the wake of Osama bin Laden’s summary execution one year ago, many predicted that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. Here’s what has happened since then:
*With large bipartisan majorities, Congress renewed the once-controversial Patriot Act without a single reform, and it was signed into law by President Obama; Harry Reid accused those urging reforms of putting the country at risk of a Terrorist attack.
* For the first time, perhaps ever, a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA, on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.
* With large bipartisan majorities, Congress enacted, and the President signed, a new law codifying presidential powers of worldwide indefinite detention and an expanded statutory defintion of the War on Terror.
* Construction neared completion for a sprawling new site in Utah for the National Security Agency to enable massive domestic surveillance and to achieve “the realization of the ‘total information awareness’ program created during the first term of the Bush administration.”
* President Obama authorized the use of “signature” drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known.”
* The U.S. formally expanded its drone attacks in Somalia, “reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles.”
* A U.S. drone killed 16-year-old Pakistani Tariq Aziz, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed, three days after the older boy attended a meeting to protest civilian deaths from U.S. drones (another of Tariq’s cousins had been killed in 2010).
* NATO airstrikes continued to extinguish the lives of Afghan children; in just the last 24 hours, 5 more Afghan children were killed by the ongoing war.
* The FBI increased its aggressive attempts to recruit young Muslim-American males into Terror plots which the FBI concocts, funds, encourages, directs and enables, while prosecuting more and more Muslims in the U.S. for crimes grounded in their political views and speech.
For the first time, perhaps ever, a U.S. citizen was assassinated by the CIA, on orders from the President, without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield; two weeks later, his 16-year-old American son was also killed by his own government; the U.S. Attorney General then gave a speech claiming the President has the power to target U.S. citizens for death based on unproven, secret accusations of Terrorism.
...
President Obama authorized the use of “signature” drone strikes in Yemen, whereby the CIA can target people for death “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known.”
The U.S. formally expanded its drone attacks in Somalia, “reopening a base for the unmanned aircraft on the island nation of Seychelles.”
...
You see nothing wrong or unlawful about assassinating your own citizens without due process?
What is this assassination thing referring to?
rumborak
I'd love for Obama and Romney to be asked, "How do you end a war on terror?" at one of their debates.
https://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001-57What is this assassination thing referring to?
rumborak
You see nothing wrong or unlawful about assassinating your own citizens without due process?
When said person is committing treason, and activity engaging in what can most closely be called warfare, then ya, due process doesn't involve a court appearance. It's pretty ridiculous to say that this is "assassinating" an American "citizen."
Fuck, Lincoln was responsible for hundreds of thousands of American lives being killed. It's called War.
And I can understand that, its certainly nothing we've really faced as a country, but there are principles we need to stand by, and not shooting any citizen we think is a secret terrorist ought to be one of them.
That's a pretty good analogy Rumby
The article actually raises an interesting point: How come Paul isn't pro-choice? Seems to me the liberty of self-determination and responsibility for the woman should be paramount.
rumborak
Ron Paul spoke at my school yesterday. Apparently he wants us back on the gold standard - I never knew that. Yeah, I'm not voting for this guy.
Ron Paul spoke at my school yesterday. Apparently he wants us back on the gold standard - I never knew that. Yeah, I'm not voting for this guy.
Which is funny considering how in a TV debate with Paul Krugman he vehemently denied it. :lol
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency.SOURCE (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/)
Yeah, I just think he has no idea what he's talking about. Here's the video for those who are interested:
https://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/
The article actually raises an interesting point: How come Paul isn't pro-choice? Seems to me the liberty of self-determination and responsibility for the woman should be paramount.
rumborak
Isn't he actually? :lol
Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."
Lol, epic quote.QuoteAsked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."
Sigh.
QuoteAsked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."
Sigh.
I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.
QuoteAsked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."
Sigh.
Why that reaction?
I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.
Keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Prize, 12 days after assuming office no less. Who else has won a Nobel Prize? Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin… it's not some kind of gold standard. You wanna know why I trust Ron Paul on economics more than Krugman? Aside from his views on the Federal Reserve being correct, he predicted both the recession and the housing bubble. Krugman's predictions have been almost entirely wrong. Every time I see him on the news, he's espousing some kind of phony optimism about the economy, saying that we can just spend our way out of the recession.
People in this thread keep saying that Ron Paul is wrong about economics. I'm curious to hear what he's actually wrong about, because it seems like no one has brought up a specific example.
1) It says virtually nothing about his actual view on gun control policy, besides that he's presumably for personal ownership of guns in some sense. To take a page out of Barto's book, I could sleep with a bat'leth next to my bed and I'd bet anyone crawling through the window would be sorry. Doesn't mean I'm against gun control.
2) It only furthers the ridiculous rhetoric that always accompanies gun control discussions. Rather than just saying "I support personal ownership of guns" or "I think guns are an important aspect of defending yourself and your family", it's almost always focused on inflicting violence on others. I really don't need or want to hear a presidential candidate (or anyone for that matter) glorifying the hypothetical situation where they get to shoot someone who breaks into their house.
Was he a candidate for the Libertarian party? No, I don't think so. But I'm pretty sure that there was an implicit agreement that the whole Libertarian bloc would vote for Paul if he gets the nomination through the GOP. The fact that the Libertarian Party went on now and announces its candidate I think sends a clear message: Paul is dead, let's find another guy.Libertarian Party has always been around, and they were going to pick a candidate regardless of what Ron Paul did. Ron Paul is a strange figure for libertarians because he inspires a lot of people outside those who would normally vote LP, but they're probably not even going to vote third party anyway.
rumborak
Oh I know, but in the public eye he left on a high note. That is, he didn't let himself get beaten to pulp like Paul did.
rumborak
I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.
Keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Prize, 12 days after assuming office no less. Who else has won a Nobel Prize? Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin… it's not some kind of gold standard. You wanna know why I trust Ron Paul on economics more than Krugman? Aside from his views on the Federal Reserve being correct, he predicted both the recession and the housing bubble. Krugman's predictions have been almost entirely wrong. Every time I see him on the news, he's espousing some kind of phony optimism about the economy, saying that we can just spend our way out of the recession.
People in this thread keep saying that Ron Paul is wrong about economics. I'm curious to hear what he's actually wrong about, because it seems like no one has brought up a specific example.
Especially in the light of RP supporters chanting "Dr. Paul" to transfer his degree in gynecology into credibility elsewhere.FYI: There's no such thing as a degree in gynecology. Gynecology is a specialty for medical doctors (ie people who have a doctorate in medicine).
Especially in the light of RP supporters chanting "Dr. Paul" to transfer his degree in gynecology into credibility elsewhere.FYI: There's no such thing as a degree in gynecology. Gynecology is a specialty for medical doctors (ie people who have a doctorate in medicine).
America's labour force and the economy
The missing five million
May 4th 2012, 20:55 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
..THERE'S a short term and a long-term story in today's job numbers. The stock market did not like the short-term story, and fell sharply as a result. But the short-term news is not as bad as it looks, while the long-term news is actually quite disturbing.
Let me explain. The sharp deceleration in employment growth in the last two months probably does not point to a sudden slowing in economic growth but rather tells us that the more brisk pace of growth earlier this year was unsustainable because much of it was due to warm weather. A useful gauge is the number of people not working because of weather. Morgan Stanley says this tally was unusually low during the winter, but in April it returned to normal levels. This suggests the weather payback effect is largely over.
A second factor technical factor is that there were only four weeks between the March and April periods during which the Bureau of Labour Statistics counted the number of jobs, which often reduces the measured total of new jobs created. And finally, while the decline in employment as measured by the household survey was troubling, it does not portend weakness ahead; household employment has run well ahead of payroll employment in the last 12 months and some retracement was in store.
Now for the bad news. The fact that things were never so great simply reinforces the picture of underlying sluggishness. True, the slide in the unemployment rate – a full percentage point since September – owes mostly to rising employment (as measured by the household survey). But the decline in unemployment has been helped by the failure of the labour force to grow more quickly. After growing for several months, it shrank in April. While it has fluctuated considerably, the labour force is only slightly larger now than in December, 2007, when the recession began. Yet in January, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office reckoned it would be some 5m larger by now, or 159.5m (see chart). What happened to those 5m people? Why aren't they showing up as unemployed? Some are discouraged workers or other people who want to work but aren’t counted as unemployed; but I reckon they account for only one third of the missing 5m.
So what about the others? Is it early retirement? Disability? Returning to school? Illegal immigrants returning home (or failing to enter the country in the first place)? Or were they never there to start with - the labour force simply isn't growing as quickly as we thought it should, for demographic or other reasons? Whichever it is, it is a troubling sign that our economic potential could be a lot lower than we thought just a few years ago. And that's the real bad news from today’s report.
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.Source (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html)
"I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back," Romney told WEWS-TV (https://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/political/Mitt-Romney-says-manufacturing-can-come-back-to-Ohio-and-explains-how) in Cleveland. Speaking after a campaign stop at a metal stamping facility in nearby Euclid, Romney said the industry needed to enter a "managed bankruptcy" process in order to fully recover – and that was what eventually helped American automakers get back on their feet.Source (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/07/romney-ill-take-a-lot-of-credit-for-auto-industry-success/)
And in other news, Ron runs behind a guy who isn't even running anymore.
All RP is achieving is to get a good seat in the RNC.
rumborak
Just hours after President Barack Obama's re-election campaign tied Mitt Romney to the bankruptcy of a Missouri steel company, the Romney campaign is out with its own Web video highlighting a steel company it says Romney helped save.
The video, entitled "American Dream," zeroes in on Steel Dynamics Inc., an Indiana company that Bain Capital invested in when Romney worked at the venture capital firm.
And it also doesn't bring up the $37 million in government subsidies the company received that contributed to its survival.
Spose that makes Dr. Paul a hypocrite and all the other nasty things associated with politicians?
But he's miles ahead of almost any other politician out there in the US.
Yeah, I'm guessing heads rolled for that one :lol
What ever lead you to believe a Republican would be tough on Israel?
Use is not the same thing as consent. And correlation is not the same thing as causation.
Use is not the same thing as consent. And correlation is not the same thing as causation.
And social security - pension systems, in my mind would clearly exist without the government.
You anti-war liberals
And Obama actually did end a war. It was the one in Iraq, in case you were wondering.
You anti-war liberals
Generalize much?
BTW, while this thing was of course rampant hypocrisy, I found really more telling his rambling beforehand. If a babbling old man who's long past his prime is "the best we've go", well, I certainly don't agree with it.
Paulites like to blame everything under the sun; vote flipping, threats against RP, media blackouts, Rand-Romney deals, his campaign managers etc. etc. Just not Ron Paul, because Ron Paul does everything right.
Reality is, Ron Paul did himself in during the debates, and that's why he tanked after Iowa. He was just rambling on every time he got the mic, and soon enough he became the comic relief during debates. "Romney and Santorum have been going at it for a while; let's lighten it up and get the old man to fill the air a bit".
I'm sure he's under a lot of stress as well. Politicians are not in enviable position. Just look at how much W and Obama aged during their presidencies.
RP's days are over anyway. He's spent half his life in politics and it's impossible to be 100% clean - I mean, some backdoor deals happen in politics and he has to have made some to not be challenged by incumbents in his Texas district and the newsletters is a letdown even though he didn't write it.
Hopefully some new faces will pick up the flag in his place. It certainly won't be Rand though. He is an embarrassment to the movement that got him elected Senator. But everyone should've seen it coming. He was never like Ron, he's a statist. A "Tea Party" style libertarian that isn't anti-war at all either.
And Obama actually did end a war. It was the one in Iraq, in case you were wondering.
Yes but then he launched a full scale invasion and colonization of Libya.
RP's days are over anyway. He's spent half his life in politics and it's impossible to be 100% clean - I mean, some backdoor deals happen in politics and he has to have made some to not be challenged by incumbents in his Texas district and the newsletters is a letdown even though he didn't write it.
When did I ever say that Ron was ever right to do this? URGH.RP's days are over anyway. He's spent half his life in politics and it's impossible to be 100% clean - I mean, some backdoor deals happen in politics and he has to have made some to not be challenged by incumbents in his Texas district and the newsletters is a letdown even though he didn't write it.
Hopefully some new faces will pick up the flag in his place. It certainly won't be Rand though. He is an embarrassment to the movement that got him elected Senator. But everyone should've seen it coming. He was never like Ron, he's a statist. A "Tea Party" style libertarian that isn't anti-war at all either.
And yet when a Democrat does it, it's unequivocally wrong.
The interesting thing is, who actually thought he would have a chance? Clearly he did; but did the people surrounding him really think "Oh yeah, the two previous runs, when you were younger, wittier etc. were just bad luck. This year we're gonna sway the masses".Had he won Iowa, it would've been different. Not enough to carry him nationwide but still. Ron was never the best messenger of libertarianism, that's his biggest flaw. About his legislative record, there's not much to say. Classical liberalism has no place in the west anymore.
And his legislative record is abysmal; you can call it unswaying idealism, but what use is a politician who managed to get 1 bill approved of the 620 he proposed through his career? Obama is already struggling to get anything done across the aisles; RP might as well not even show up for work, it would be just as useful.
rumborak
Had he won Iowa, it would've been different.
About his legislative record, there's not much to say. Classical liberalism has no place in the west anymore.
Had he won Iowa, it would've been different.
When did I ever say that Ron was ever right to do this? URGH.RP's days are over anyway. He's spent half his life in politics and it's impossible to be 100% clean - I mean, some backdoor deals happen in politics and he has to have made some to not be challenged by incumbents in his Texas district and the newsletters is a letdown even though he didn't write it.
Hopefully some new faces will pick up the flag in his place. It certainly won't be Rand though. He is an embarrassment to the movement that got him elected Senator. But everyone should've seen it coming. He was never like Ron, he's a statist. A "Tea Party" style libertarian that isn't anti-war at all either.
And yet when a Democrat does it, it's unequivocally wrong.
Because he's cleaner. Way cleaner. At least AFAIK.
Still with Ron Paul? Really? :lol
I have no idea why people vote. Our votes don't matter. No one votes. I think that people in high levels of government choose the president. They are in it for themseleves and never for the people. People want to give Obama a break because it is hard to clean up the mess made by Bush, but people don't understand that all of this is planned that way. They want things a mess so we are easier to control. They steal all of our money, they steal all of our resources, they kill millions of us through senseless wars and poisons in many things we consume. Is this really a system by the people for the people or are they in it for their own self intrest? Politicans are power hunger, they always want power, the more we support them, the more power they have and the more they control us. I think all of us need to unite and figure out a way to get rid of this government and make sure it never comes back.
I have no idea why people vote. Our votes don't matter. No one votes. I think that people in high levels of government choose the president. They are in it for themseleves and never for the people. People want to give Obama a break because it is hard to clean up the mess made by Bush, but people don't understand that all of this is planned that way. They want things a mess so we are easier to control. They steal all of our money, they steal all of our resources, they kill millions of us through senseless wars and poisons in many things we consume. Is this really a system by the people for the people or are they in it for their own self intrest? Politicans are power hunger, they always want power, the more we support them, the more power they have and the more they control us. I think all of us need to unite and figure out a way to get rid of this government and make sure it never comes back.
I have no idea why people vote. Our votes don't matter. No one votes. I think that people in high levels of government choose the president. They are in it for themseleves and never for the people. People want to give Obama a break because it is hard to clean up the mess made by Bush, but people don't understand that all of this is planned that way. They want things a mess so we are easier to control. They steal all of our money, they steal all of our resources, they kill millions of us through senseless wars and poisons in many things we consume. Is this really a system by the people for the people or are they in it for their own self intrest? Politicans are power hunger, they always want power, the more we support them, the more power they have and the more they control us. I think all of us need to unite and figure out a way to get rid of this government and make sure it never comes back.(https://twilight.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/133990821617.jpg)
I have no idea why people vote. Our votes don't matter. No one votes. I think that people in high levels of government choose the president. They are in it for themseleves and never for the people. People want to give Obama a break because it is hard to clean up the mess made by Bush, but people don't understand that all of this is planned that way. They want things a mess so we are easier to control. They steal all of our money, they steal all of our resources, they kill millions of us through senseless wars and poisons in many things we consume. Is this really a system by the people for the people or are they in it for their own self intrest? Politicans are power hunger, they always want power, the more we support them, the more power they have and the more they control us. I think all of us need to unite and figure out a way to get rid of this government and make sure it never comes back.(https://twilight.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/133990821617.jpg)
All politicians want is power, we have to break this cycle by getting rid of them and putting new people in power.
All politicians want is power, we have to break this cycle by getting rid of them and putting new people in power.
The new people will eventually end up like the last ones.
@Breaking All Illusions
The whole 'your vote doesn't matter, why even bother' thing is just bullshit. Straight up.
I could give you dozens of examples from the last federal election here in Canada where a handful of votes in a few ridings could have seen a completely different party in power right now.
The 2000 US presidential election was ultimately decided by a few hundred votes in Florida.
There are also down-ticket races. There's congressional and senate elections. State senate elections. There are primary elections for most of these things. There are local level elections where your vote has a HUGE impact. There are ballot measures. With almost all of these things, there are people counting on low voter turnout so that they can rally their base and win. If people DID fucking vote, that wouldn't be a reliable strategy. Even better if people bother being even mildly informed first.
So yeah, whenever a first year college student acts like they've stumbled upon this whole notion of 'why bother voting', and acts all superior because of it, it's annoying. It's not profound. You're not the first to have this notion, but every person who has is completely wrong. It's a lazy cop out. "Well, I don't want to bother actually doing anything to try and fix the system, so I'll just pretend it can't be fixed".
@Breaking All Illusions
The whole 'your vote doesn't matter, why even bother' thing is just bullshit. Straight up.
I could give you dozens of examples from the last federal election here in Canada where a handful of votes in a few ridings could have seen a completely different party in power right now.
The 2000 US presidential election was ultimately decided by a few hundred votes in Florida.
Heard a nice quote from a German politician yesterday:
"There is no rocking chair when it comes to politics. As long as the head is clear you are responsible. "
rumborak
The whole 'your vote doesn't matter, why even bother' thing is just bullshit. Straight up.
Saying the high court had set “the stakes for the November election,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the only way to defeat what the RNC calls “Obamacare” is to elect a new president.
Priebus describes the Affordable Healthcare Act as a “budget-busting government takeover” and says up to 20 million Americans could lose their employer-funded coverage as a result of the act.
“A panel of unelected bureaucrats now has the unprecedented authority to come between elderly patients and their doctors. Meanwhile, the rules and regulations placed on job creators and small businesses make it nearly impossible to hire new workers at a time when Americans desperately need jobs,” Priebus wrote.
Wow, the SCOTUS validates the constitutionality of the Health Care law:
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77935.html (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77935.html)
That comes as a surprise for me, I thought they were gonna shut it down. Does that mean we can move to more important topics now?
rumborak
"Death panels" have existed since the beginning of medicine. They're called doctors, who will make judgment calls every day on who to give treatment to in the face of limited resources. Oh, and of course insurances who make the same call, at a different level.Yeah, the insurance companies are the ones with the death panels. Whether or not you get your transplant has always been a function of whether or not Aetna can find a reason to exclude you.
rumborak
Not directly related to the election, but Republicans are already screaming because now that the Supreme Court has upheld Obama's healthcare law, they are saying the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to unseat Obama.
And the chairman of the RNC is just basically making shit up (https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1):Quote
Saying the high court had set “the stakes for the November election,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the only way to defeat what the RNC calls “Obamacare” is to elect a new president.
Priebus describes the Affordable Healthcare Act as a “budget-busting government takeover” and says up to 20 million Americans could lose their employer-funded coverage as a result of the act.
“A panel of unelected bureaucrats now has the unprecedented authority to come between elderly patients and their doctors. Meanwhile, the rules and regulations placed on job creators and small businesses make it nearly impossible to hire new workers at a time when Americans desperately need jobs,” Priebus wrote.
1. There are NO death panels as this idiotic statement implies. The entire bogus claim was considered one of the "Whoppers of 2009" (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/) by Factcheck.org, yet these Republicans continue to regurgitate it at every opportunity.
2. The Healthcare law does not prevent "job creators" from hiring. That's another boneheaded lie, if it were true, then my company would not have hired 17 people since the law was passed.
So the quoted statement from Priebus about it is even more bullshit? Hmph.I believe the GOP rhetoric is that employers will abandon their health care programs because the costs will be greater than the penalty. I have no idea if that'll happen or not (although in your case, being a government employee, it certainly won't). My hunch is that if the exchange actually works, costs will go down, not up. In any case, unless the difference between insurance and the penalty is excessive, there's still something to be gained by offering a program.
Found this thread after nearly a year on DTF, thought I'd contribute. I haven't read all ~70 pages, so excuse if this has been said before.
The election isn't a two man race. Gary Johnson has been polling around 6-7% against Romney and Obama. In case you don't know anything about him (I wouldn't be surprised) I'll give you a brief rundown of who he is.
He started his own business and grew it into a multi-million dollar corporation employing over a thousand people. In 1992, he ran for Governor of New Mexico as a Republican and won 50%-40% against the Democratic incumbent in a state that was 2-1 democrat-republican. He vetoed 48% of all legislation that crossed his desk, a national record. Being pragmatic, he initially supported increasing education spending. When state-wide education failed to improve, he renounced his support for that legislation and moved to support school vouchers.
He was reelected 55-45 in 1996. In '99 he became the highest ranking government official to support marijuana legalization. His legacy included no tax increases while he was in office, turning the states budget deficit into a budget surplus, vetoing more legislation than the other 49 contemporary governors combined (1/3 of which were introduced by Republicans, and only 2 of the 750 vetos were overridden).
He's a prolific athlete, competing in numerous Iron Man competitions and he has summited Mount Everest.
He initial ran as a Republican contender for President in 2012, but after being only invited to 1 debate (despite polling higher than Santorum and Huntsman, who were both invited to numerous debates) he dropped out of the Republican race in December and announced his candidacy for the Libertarian ticket. The Libertarian party has ballot access in all 50 States, which means there should be only 3 names on the ballot across the nation (although Michigan may prove troublesome, as the Secretary of State (a Republican, who else sees a conflict of interest?) has declared that Johnson withdrew from the Republican race three minutes too late to be included on the ballot as a Libertarian).
So, that's Gary Johnson.
So the quoted statement from Priebus about it is even more bullshit? Hmph.
Here's my new prediction. My take on it is that Americans will grow tired of this subject very quickly. In a nutshell, the battle's over. Done. Kaput. There's no more fighting to be done, and any talk of repealing it is naive. If Myth wants to run on a platform that's nothing but repealing Obamacare, he's going to run out of support very quickly. People will get back to their real concerns, and misguided as it may be, all they'll care about hearing from him is that he'll created jobs, not go on fighting for a cause that they've already resigned. This is a very dangerous trap for the GOP. They'd be wise to move on, but since their only way of saving face is to spin this as an opportunity to defeat Obama, they'll fall right the hell into it.
President Obama said Thursday that his administration will proceed with implementation, saying "the highest court in the land has now spoken" and urging Republicans to "move forward." He said he won't "re-fight the political battles of two years ago."This will be a disaster for the GOP. It might rally up the base, but that doesn't matter. The people in the mid-ground won't be interested in going backward. Obama's going to sell the popular aspects of the plan, of which there are a few, and reiterate that the fighting is over, and most people will be content to accept it as a done deal. The Republicans will look like sore losers as they're tossed out.
He may have to.
On one track, Republicans plan to rally voters around presidential candidate Mitt Romney as he vows to make repealing the law his Day One priority if elected. On another track, Republicans in Congress will pick up the repeal push even before November -- starting with a repeal vote next month in the House. And that's to say nothing of the remaining legal challenges against the law, such as the multi-party challenge to the so-called contraception mandate.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and several other prominent Republicans said the ruling effectively turns back the clock on the political debate -- which recently has centered almost exclusively on job creation.
"In many respects, we're back where we were when I ran for office in 2010," he said. "This now becomes a central issue again."
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/republicans-claim-obamacare-ruling-could-help-push-to-repeal-it/#ixzz1z7yIxylt
QuotePresident Obama said Thursday that his administration will proceed with implementation, saying "the highest court in the land has now spoken" and urging Republicans to "move forward." He said he won't "re-fight the political battles of two years ago."This will be a disaster for the GOP. It might rally up the base, but that doesn't matter. The people in the mid-ground won't be interested in going backward. Obama's going to sell the popular aspects of the plan, of which there are a few, and reiterate that the fighting is over, and most people will be content to accept it as a done deal. The Republicans will look like sore losers as they're tossed out.
He may have to.
On one track, Republicans plan to rally voters around presidential candidate Mitt Romney as he vows to make repealing the law his Day One priority if elected. On another track, Republicans in Congress will pick up the repeal push even before November -- starting with a repeal vote next month in the House. And that's to say nothing of the remaining legal challenges against the law, such as the multi-party challenge to the so-called contraception mandate.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and several other prominent Republicans said the ruling effectively turns back the clock on the political debate -- which recently has centered almost exclusively on job creation.
"In many respects, we're back where we were when I ran for office in 2010," he said. "This now becomes a central issue again."
Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/republicans-claim-obamacare-ruling-could-help-push-to-repeal-it/#ixzz1z7yIxylt (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/republicans-claim-obamacare-ruling-could-help-push-to-repeal-it/#ixzz1z7yIxylt)
You know what, you're right, I was thinking of the repeal of a constitutional amendment.
Because frankly the GOP has very little else left to stand for at this point. It's the only way of uniting the diverse base they have, by creating a direct enemy to rally against. If they actually started to discuss the topic rationally, the threads would immediately unravel because they would find themselves actually arguing for the continuation of the abysmal status quo.
rumborak
Why the green? I thought it was pretty obvious that rumbo is a flag-burning atheist Nazi Communist.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmXOsuL7ey4
Because frankly the GOP has very little else left to stand for at this point. It's the only way of uniting the diverse base they have, by creating a direct enemy to rally against. If they actually started to discuss the topic rationally, the threads would immediately unravel because they would find themselves actually arguing for the continuation of the abysmal status quo.
rumborak
How do you reckon this modification of the parent's healthcare plan was a result of Obamacare? Those things happen pretty regularly. I just can't see how a requirement for people to have insurance would cause a provider to drop existing customers.
rumborak
Thing is, I can honestly say that this was the first time I've heard a rational argument against the bill. It's all to easy to become flippant about republicans because this kind of discourse is virtually absent. And yes, I do blame republicans mostly for this development because they decided a long time ago to become a haven for the willfully ignorant.
As a response to your argument, I find it somewhat contrived and unlikely. I can't see why a company who formerly already didn't go the cheap route of not offering insurance, would now switch over to the option. That just seems illogical.
rumborak
As a rule, smokers and fat-fucks cost less than healthy people due to their earlier death. Treating cancer an diabetes is expensive, but not as much as treating 15 years worth of slow death and geriatric disorders.
My real beef with health insurances is however that IMHO they still don't penalize unhealthy lifestyles anywhere near enough. Smoking and overeating should carry an increase in premiums. Anything that is chosen willfully essentially that is readily measurable and increases significantly your chance of developing costly health issues.
rumborak
I don't like universal healthcare because I think human nature prevents it from working.
The difference between the US and those countries mentioned above is that when a new law is passed like that, the following political energy is rather spent on arranging the different parties within this new framework. In the US, all energy is spent on neutering and sabotaging the law. That's how you end up with all these dead carcasses of well-meant laws.I think we have a winner here.
rumborak
They work because they have less people, or something.No, it works in those countries because the people in those countries don't flip their shit over reasonable taxation levels.
The difference between the US and those countries mentioned above is that when a new law is passed like that, the following political energy is rather spent on arranging the different parties within this new framework. In the US, all energy is spent on neutering and sabotaging the law. That's how you end up with all these dead carcasses of well-meant laws.I think we have a winner here.
rumborak
They work because they have less people, or something.No, it works in those countries because the people in those countries don't flip their shit over reasonable taxation levels.
QuoteI don't like universal healthcare because I think human nature prevents it from working.
Than why do so many other countries get it right? Ya, some liberals want to point to Cuba, but others want to point to Germany, Canada, Japan, France, England, and all those other countries.
But that's not a problem with universal health care. I won't deny that the current American system sucks, or that Republicans are basically being a bunch of near treasonous asshats.
The Republicans are saying the Democrats are being traitorous. Are you sure you want to use the same rhetoric they do?
Plus, preventative care and early diagnosis, which are far more prevalent in a universal system, save a ton of money in the long run, and lead to longer, healthier lives.They work because they have less people, or something.No, it works in those countries because the people in those countries don't flip their shit over reasonable taxation levels.
And because people actually take care of their damned bodies.
That's pretty weak. There are plenty of us here who now how to have a reasonable discussion, and you're a smart enough guy to be able to discuss things in general terms without having to right a freaking research paper.QuoteI don't like universal healthcare because I think human nature prevents it from working.
Than why do so many other countries get it right? Ya, some liberals want to point to Cuba, but others want to point to Germany, Canada, Japan, France, England, and all those other countries.
I'd rather not do this. Here's how this debate goes:
- I look up things on the internet and write a post, spending at least an hour of my life.
- I see reply telling me that all my facts are stupid.
- I look up even more things.
- Again, my facts are stupid and I am being insane.
For all I know I would actually be being stupid and insane. But why bother?
This does interest me:But that's not a problem with universal health care. I won't deny that the current American system sucks, or that Republicans are basically being a bunch of near treasonous asshats.
The Republicans are saying the Democrats are being traitorous. Are you sure you want to use the same rhetoric they do?
That's pretty weak. There are plenty of us here who now how to have a reasonable discussion, and you're a smart enough guy to be able to discuss things in general terms without having to right a freaking research paper.
The simple truth is that you should have said that it wouldn't work because of American nature, not the human variety. There are too many functional examples to suggest that humans aren't the problem.
Cept all the Republicans have is rhetoric. I have a full list of valid, rational complaints to levy against Republicans. Mitch McConnell has said his job is to prevent Obama, and thus anything good from happening. Republicans have backed away from so many of their ideas, because they can't let the other side do anything positive. They put partisanship way above the country, and I think the fact that Democrats are always bending over backwards to try and please Republicans is a sign that they actually want to do the right thing.
Besides, let's not forget, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal, yes, but I don't hold any love or appreciation for the Democratic party. As bad as they are, Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be worse, time and time again.
Virtually all politicians are self-interested liars who put their re-election and the preservation of the political process above what's good for the country.
My point is, it takes two parties to have an argument. If there's a political argument happening (and I'm pretty sure there is), then both people in the argument are responsible.
Or, here's another thing. The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care. That's pants-shittingly horrifying.
Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.
QuoteVirtually all politicians are self-interested liars who put their re-election and the preservation of the political process above what's good for the country.
Capt there are some who actually do some good, and propose actual good policies, in order to do this. It's also toxic to the political environment to be completely distrustful of anyone who wants to try and do some good. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy. There are more than enough examples through out history to prove that there are people who genuinely want to help other people and the society they live in, not everyone is a selfish, greedy power-hungry asshole.
The rest of it, I honestly don't know where you went off to. You brought up a bunch of stuff that at times feels inaccurate, at times feels irrelevant to what we're talking about now. I never said you have to agree with Obama's policies, and that if you disagree with Obama you are treasonous. Nothing of the sorts. I'm saying that Republicans in Congress are acting in a quasi-treasonous manner.
QuoteMy point is, it takes two parties to have an argument. If there's a political argument happening (and I'm pretty sure there is), then both people in the argument are responsible.
I'd disagree that this is what's going on, really. An argument implies participants willing to put forward logical arguments, and to answer in a logical way. The Democrats are the only one's attempting to do that at the moment, the Republicans insist on simply repeating talking points, playing politics and not moving this country anywhere.
Or, here's another thing. The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care. That's pants-shittingly horrifying.
But it's not the case. Health care is still provided by private entities. Why do you bring this argument?
rumborak
Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.
Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.
If Democrats made any effort to not look down on Republicans and conservatives as stupid bible thumpers, then maybe relations in government would be better.Every time I do that, some Republican goes out of his way to portray himself (and his party) as a stupid Bible thumper.
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.
Your healthcare is provided by the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals. These people have no affiliation with the government. Your insurance company does not provide your healthcare, just a means to help pay for it.Don't understand point.Or, here's another thing. The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care. That's pants-shittingly horrifying.But it's not the case. Health care is still provided by private entities. Why do you bring this argument?
rumborak
Like you can find no negative stories about healthcare in the US? I'd rather have a flawed heathcare plan that everyone can afford than a flawed healthcare system that is quickly becoming unaffordable to even middle class families.Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.
So you're saying that if I looked up negative stories about Canada's healthcare on Google I'd find nothing? Nothing at all?
Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence. You want this entity to be responsible for your medical care?
Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence. You want this entity to be responsible for your medical care?
Of course, I would also say that if Republicans made any effort to not look down on Democrats as socialist antipatriots, then maybe relations in government would be better.
I wish I could say this was one of the most insane things I've ever heard. I really wish I could.
Your healthcare is provided by the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals. These people have no affiliation with the government. Your insurance company does not provide your healthcare, just a means to help pay for it.
Like you can find no negative stories about healthcare in the US? I'd rather have a flawed heathcare plan that everyone can afford than a flawed healthcare system that is quickly becoming unaffordable to even middle class families.
Not sure if serious? But if so, this is a straw man. The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the government "being responsible for your medical care" - the government is not in the business of medical care. The Affordable Care act has the most impact on how insurance companies operate. It sets new guidelines on the level of care that is paid for, who qualifies for it, etc, and it prevents insurance companies from kicking people off their plans because they get sick or refusing to extend coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
Look, I'll be the first person to say that the law is far from perfect. Personally, I wanted a single payer system akin to Medicare, but Republicans managed to rip all of the good stuff out of this law with their idiotic "death panels" mantra, so we had to limp over the finish line with what we got, which has some damned good provisions in it.
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.
lol
I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government. If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.The insurance isn't provided by the government.
And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government. What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.
I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government. If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.The insurance isn't provided by the government.
And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government. What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.
It's still provided by private companies.
Yes, exactly, I'm glad we agree on this.I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government. If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.The insurance isn't provided by the government.
And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government. What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.
It's still provided by private companies.
It's not necessarily provided by the government.
But the government, at least in PA, sells insurance through programs like CHIP. It might be your only option to get government insurance.Well, yes, I can agree with this.
Medicaid will expand under the ACA and if someone is too poor to afford paying for their own insurance, then well, they get Medicaid. But Medicaid has been around for a while, so has Medicare, this just expands eligibility requirements, which is a good thing, yes?
Medicaid is probably the best insurance plan you can get on in terms of doctor choice, copays, etc.
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.
lol
Seriously. What country are you living in?
The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.
lol
Seriously. What country are you living in?
Hmmmm, still fits.The role of a corporation is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.
lol
Seriously. What country are you living in?
Try not paying for their goods. See what happens.
Hmmmm, still fits.
You can still move. I hear most of Africa's nice this time of year if you're looking for a land with a dearth of organized government.Hmmmm, still fits.
No. If I don't want to pay for something from a corporation, I can just not buy it. Corporations don't force you to buy their products, so when you steal from them it's theft.
Governments force you to live under them.
1. Play this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc
2. Call Romney out for being satisfied with those stats as opposed to wanting to do something to improve them.
The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end. You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc. Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them. The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal. The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry. The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things. In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization. Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan. We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years.
And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work. I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work.
1. Play this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc
2. Call Romney out for being satisfied with those stats as opposed to wanting to do something to improve them.
^ And that's why.
Hmmmm, still fits.
No. If I don't want to pay for something from a corporation, I can just not buy it. Corporations don't force you to buy their products, so when you steal from them it's theft.
Governments force you to live under them.
first world problems
Well, a common gripe is that the government often does far too much. It's perfectly conceivable that the inefficiency we've come to know and love from Uncle Sammy results in more coverage as apposed to less.The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end. You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc. Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them. The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal. The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry. The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things. In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization. Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan. We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years.
And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work. I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work.
Maybe. In general though humans do the least amount possible, and the government is made up of humans. Private companies are pushed by competition. The government is pushed by nothing.
Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition. A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end. You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc. Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them. The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal. The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry. The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things. In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization. Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan. We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years.
And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work. I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work.
Maybe. In general though humans do the least amount possible, and the government is made up of humans. Private companies are pushed by competition. The government is pushed by nothing.
Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition. A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.
A government, generally, has to keep a large percentage of its constituents happy
Sorry about that, I just misunderstood your comment.Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition. A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.
Look at what you just said:
"A private company... with the absence of competition... will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit."
Profit doesn't push companies. It makes them lazy.
So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?QuoteA government, generally, has to keep a large percentage of its constituents happy
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I know you added in the Citizens United thing, but that was still so preposterous.
first world problems
Not sure if serious.
Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition. A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.
Look at what you just said:
"A private company... with the absence of competition... will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit."
Profit doesn't push companies. It makes them lazy.
So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?
Bro I can guarantee you that a large portion of the world's population would love to be forced to live in the US. First world problems.
Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.
Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.
When potential voters are cheering the notion of letting people die at a presidential debate, you might as well be at some kind of Soviet political rally.
Yeah but the Coca-Cola Company provides absolutely nothing of value to society so I'm not sure what your point is here.
economic value ≠ value to society
I don't think the illusions are limited to my side of the fence on this issue.So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?
I've got no alternative. But let's not have any illusions about what government and its purpose are.
If coke disappeared tomorrow, we'd find something else shitty to drink. If all soft drinks disappeared? Yeah, maybe there'd be some problems, but I honestly think that no matter how foolish and ignorant we are, we'd find a way to cope... peacefully. Maybe that's a bit of optimistic naivety (sp?), but I really think the loss of soft drinks wouldn't be such a detrimental blow to our society.economic value ≠ value to society
Think that might be a relative opinion. *I* personally agree with you. But it's shocking to think what would happen to our society if all Coke products disappeared tomorrow. You know that old saying "Any civilization is three meals away from revolution"? As sad as I am to admit it...I honestly believe that the same is true of certain "brands" that people feel they can't live without.
If you remove something, and it causes anarchy (or close to it) then it is of value to *that* society. Now...what a particular society holds to be valuable...speaks volumes about that society.
On a different election topic, apparently Romney is accusing Obama to not think the US is exceptional enough. Apart from the ridiculousness of the topic (IMHO declaring yourself to be exceptional is just plain a arrogant; let others judge you), I was thinking, can Obama do anything but lose in this matter? He is presiding over an inexorable shift of global power towards Asia. How do you tell people that the days of being the only superpower in town are over?CNN is doing a series on that.
rumborak
Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.
I know this happens all the time, and I think Citizens United and the like should be reversed, but it really grinds my gears when people like you believe a company's first alternative is to lobby the government. What would Coke do if Pepsi came out with some new super-popular Pepsi variety? Petition Congress to make it illegal? Nope, they'd push Coke more and make a new variety to compete with it, and try and make that product better, or rely on Coke's incredible popularity and bank on people switching over just because they know and like most other Coke products. Marketing (it works, bitches)! Yeah you hear about a lot of companies lobbying Congress, but most of them just try to compete in the marketplace and make a better product/provide a better service. Especially small businesses.
Not that I mean to split hairs, but aren't Coke and Pepsi actually owned by the same conglomerate anyway?
This. Where did that come from?Not that I mean to split hairs, but aren't Coke and Pepsi actually owned by the same conglomerate anyway?
Nah, they're separate. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Company.
rumborak
And yeah, okay, I get your point. I meant more in the sense that we deal with in the realm of politics everyday: insurance companies on health, oil and energy companies on environmental issues, things like that. Instead of responding to changing times as it were, they simply lobby the government to make sure their industry remains relevant and profitable.
Lol. Excellent article.On a different election topic, apparently Romney is accusing Obama to not think the US is exceptional enough. Apart from the ridiculousness of the topic (IMHO declaring yourself to be exceptional is just plain a arrogant; let others judge you), I was thinking, can Obama do anything but lose in this matter? He is presiding over an inexorable shift of global power towards Asia. How do you tell people that the days of being the only superpower in town are over?CNN is doing a series on that.
rumborak
We're No. 1! We're No. 1! We're ... uh ... not? (https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/american-exceptionalism-other-countries-lessons/index.html)
As I've often said, we're slipping in plenty of areas. Where we really were tops was in individual freedoms, and over the last decade or so, those have been shot all to hell. Measured on the basis of proximity to a McDonalds and a Blockbuster, we certainly are the planet's utopia. In most other ways, we're hurtling towards abject failure with the demise of the last remaining exceptional virtue..
Texas GOP calls for abstinence only sex ed and corporal punishment:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html?fb_action_ids=10150926697415698%2C10150926692350698&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline
The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
QuoteThe position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
I actually don't mind the idea of corporal punishment in society. Jail is the dumbest idea ever. It's expensive, and prisoners have a habit of becoming bitter and picking up bad habits because they live around other criminals. Corporal punishment is quick and sends the message.Hard to argue that jails and prisons are poorly thought out, but the cost factor is a benefit, not a detraction. One of the problems with corporal punishment is that it's free, and therefore far too easy to administer cavalierly. Punishment should reflect the cost to society that it actually entails.
But schools should have no part of this. It creates a not-so-underlying adversarial relationship between the kids and the school.
Yeah, all those tinfoil hat types who've been saying that the upper class is just looking to create mindless drones are looking much more legitimate.QuoteThe position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
ಠ_ಠ
...but the cost factor is a benefit, not a detraction. One of the problems with corporal punishment is that it's free, and therefore far too easy to administer cavalierly. Punishment should reflect the cost to society that it actually entails.
As for it's application in schools, you can take my word that it's not very effective beyond the fear factor. If you've never experienced it, then it's somewhat worrisome. Afterward, it's pretty much a joke. This isn't Singapore.
QuoteThe position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
In fairness, this could be a trap. Just because you name a class "higher order thinking skills" doesn't mean it actually teaches any.
Might be my liberal alarm bells, but to me it reeks heavily of attempting to counteract the inevitable outcomes of understanding stuff like evolution etc. I wouldn't be surprised if kids came home to their parents and said "No mom, the Earth isn't 6000 years old" and thus the parents try to put the kabosh on those dangerous thoughts.
rumborak
Of course. Doesn't mean the notion is necessarily wrong.
rumborak
As a lifelong Texan, I can assure you that logical and critical thinking scare the living hell out of plenty of people down here. Lots of people want things to be simple and clear-cut. When others start viewing things from perspectives out of the norm, it makes them highly uncomfortable. Basically, when you're happy with your preconceptions, you really don't want people being encouraged to apply a critical mind to them.QuoteThe position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
In fairness, this could be a trap. Just because you name a class "higher order thinking skills" doesn't mean it actually teaches any.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
As a lifelong Texan, I can assure you that logical and critical thinking scare the living hell out of plenty of people down here. Lots of people want things to be simple and clear-cut. When others start viewing things from perspectives out of the norm, it makes them highly uncomfortable. Basically, when you're happy with your preconceptions, you really don't want people being encouraged to apply a critical mind to them.
I actually don't mind the idea of corporal punishment in society. Jail is the dumbest idea ever. It's expensive, and prisoners have a habit of becoming bitter and picking up bad habits because they live around other criminals. Corporal punishment is quick and sends the message.Except that corporal punishment usually ISN'T quick (those sentenced to it are often on death row for years, or even decades), and statistically, it isn't an effective deterrent.
I actually don't mind the idea of corporal punishment in society. Jail is the dumbest idea ever. It's expensive, and prisoners have a habit of becoming bitter and picking up bad habits because they live around other criminals. Corporal punishment is quick and sends the message.Except that corporal punishment usually ISN'T quick (those sentenced to it are often on death row for years, or even decades), and statistically, it isn't an effective deterrent.
Yes, the American prison system is horribly broken, but killing more people isn't the solution. Greater emphasis on rehabilitation when possible is a better route.
I gather we're not talking about specific classes, higher reasoning 101, but rather methods and practices of teaching a variety of subjects.As a lifelong Texan, I can assure you that logical and critical thinking scare the living hell out of plenty of people down here. Lots of people want things to be simple and clear-cut. When others start viewing things from perspectives out of the norm, it makes them highly uncomfortable. Basically, when you're happy with your preconceptions, you really don't want people being encouraged to apply a critical mind to them.
I'd imagine. I'm not saying these classes are being opposed for the right reasons.
But does anyone know what is even taught in these classes? Does anyone care? Or is it better to just keep buying into the narrative of "Republicans try to institutionalize ignorance again, and we're going to criticize this because it makes us feel good"?
I gather we're not talking about specific classes, higher reasoning 101, but rather methods and practices of teaching a variety of subjects.
Should we maybe wait for confirmation from other news stations? Yes.
Have certain states' GOPs declared open war on "new thoughts"? Yes.
rumborak
itt Reapsta fights everybodyA pleasant change of pace. He's actually one of the better proponents of his [somewhat whacky] point of view.
Something you should keep in mind is that this sort of thing has been going on 8 or so years down here. The Texas State Board of Education has been quite a battleground for a while now. It has become largely politicized, with a fair amount of turmoil. The history of which involves a good deal of whitewashing history and science to better fit a Republican agenda. While the newest allegations regarding what they call higher order learning aren't real clear as of yet, there is a great deal of easily verifiable history pointing towards the attitude that we're decrying.I gather we're not talking about specific classes, higher reasoning 101, but rather methods and practices of teaching a variety of subjects.
I Googled searched for it and after looking through four pages of results talking about the news story, this was the only thing on it I found, and it's not even helpful:
Higher order chart (https://wvde.state.wv.us/counselors/links/advisors/documents/10.14.2HigherOrderThinkingSkillsFIC.pdf)
Basically, if I want to read a news story that uses storytelling conventions to manipulate me into having an opinion, I can do that. But, if I want to actually learn about the issue, I can't. Charming.
What I'm saying is, why so quick to go with the narrative of "GOP acts dumb again." Why are they doing this? What's going on emotionally, below all the yelling? What's the solution. How is this best solved? Why does no one here seem to care?It is conservative, religion-based bureacracy. That's the way it always happens.
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
What I'm saying is, why so quick to go with the narrative of "GOP acts dumb again."
Why are they doing this?
Not sure that's all too relevant. They can talk to a shrink or something, meanwhile, they need to smarten the fuck up. Children are giving birth to children because of this stupidity. I know because most of my wife's family are (wait for it) Republicans.....and they ALL have kids who are under 18 years of age who have become pregnant. And wanna guess why? Because they go to church where they are taught that abstinence is the only solution to birth control. It's fucking absurd.
What's going on emotionally, below all the yelling?
(https://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=https://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/condom.jpg&sa=X&ei=yyzzT-3FEYPr6wH_0uGqCA&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEl1wf3Brfh6b2VkT9ewCtzch3UIA)
What's the solution.
Teach young teenagers that abstinence is the best solution but condoms are also helpful. It's not that difficult.
How is this best solved?
Plenty of people care. They're typically called liberals, progressives and/or Democrats or some combination thereof
Why does no one here seem to care?
Fascinating. I'd like to see some other variables so we can get the best idea of why that's the case. Are our citizenz more rebelious, or are our laws too strict? Are most of those imprisoned there for major offenses or some minor stuff? And then how is our crime rate compared to other countries where less of the population is imprisoned?
I have a feeling I know the answer to all these questions.
Should we maybe wait for confirmation from other news stations? Yes.
Have certain states' GOPs declared open war on "new thoughts"? Yes.
rumborak
We know the story's true.
What I'm saying is, why so quick to go with the narrative of "GOP acts dumb again." Why are they doing this? What's going on emotionally, below all the yelling? What's the solution. How is this best solved? Why does no one here seem to care?
Doubtful. Here in Texas pot doesn't even make the top 30. Burglary is the runaway winner. Here's the rundown on Texas prisoners:Fascinating. I'd like to see some other variables so we can get the best idea of why that's the case. Are our citizenz more rebelious, or are our laws too strict? Are most of those imprisoned there for major offenses or some minor stuff? And then how is our crime rate compared to other countries where less of the population is imprisoned?
I have a feeling I know the answer to all these questions.
~50% of it is for non-violent drug related crimes, mostly marijuana.
BURG HABIT 40019
AGG ROBBERY 22370
DWI 16498
AGG ASLT 13708
POSS C/S COCAINE 13572
AGG SEX ASLT CHILD 12816
ROBBERY 12684
POSS WIT DEL C/S COCAINE 10815
POSS C/S COCAINE 10110
INDECENCY W/CHILD 9489
BURG BLDG 9232
MURDER 7149
ROBBERY 7016
POSS C/S COCAINE 6304
POSS FIREARM BY FELON 5894
DEL CONT SUBS 5629
AGG ASLT 5582
MURDER 5580
AGG ROBBERY W/DEADLY WPN 5279
AGG SEX ASLT 5074
POSS C/S 4760
SEX ASLT CHILD 4652
AGG SEX ASLT 4195
UNAUTH USE MTR VEH 3753
AGG SEX ASLT CHILD 3435
DEL C/S COCAINE 3280
SEX ASLT 3232
BURG VEH 3135
THEFT 3069
AGG ASLT 3048
I have a really hard time believing that 13,000 people have sexually assaulted Texan children to warrant incarceration. Which seems to corroborate EB's notion of being "tough on crime".The definition of AGG SEX ASLT CHILD is pretty clear and unambiguous. We're not talking statutory rape for nailing your 16 year old girlfriend here. Those are the real deal.
rumborak
Reapsta, I would love there to be an actually good reason behind it. Unless proven otherwise, out of history I just have to assume that this is pandering to right-wing parents who don't appreciate their kids disagreeing with them.
rumborak
Show me some Democrats that are advocating "Abstinence Only" I won't hold my breath while you look.
My opinion: Ignorance
Not sure that's all too relevant. They can talk to a shrink or something, meanwhile, they need to smarten the fuck up. Children are giving birth to children because of this stupidity. I know because most of my wife's family are (wait for it) Republicans.....and they ALL have kids who are under 18 years of age who have become pregnant. And wanna guess why? Because they go to church where they are taught that abstinence is the only solution to birth control. It's fucking absurd.
What's going on emotionally, below all the yelling?
[condom picture]
What's the solution.
Teach young teenagers that abstinence is the best solution but condoms are also helpful. It's not that difficult.
How is this best solved?
Plenty of people care. They're typically called liberals, progressives and/or Democrats or some combination thereof.
Why does no one here seem to care?
You can draw a line directly from the number of incarcerated people in the US to our refusal to treat the underlying causes of the crimes they commit that put them there.
At this point, I simply don't take the GOP seriously enough to ask and/or answer these questions. I know that I should, but I can't bring myself to. It's at the point now, for better or for worse (probably for worse), that I read stories like these and my human nature makes me shrug and move on.
This is why I mentioned to Reapsta that imprisonment should be expensive. We've turned it into a profitable endeavor, and the results are horrifying.
I say we do it like Norway, jailing criminals in peaceful and relaxing homes.
Reapsta, I would love there to be an actually good reason behind it. Unless proven otherwise, out of history I just have to assume that this is pandering to right-wing parents who don't appreciate their kids disagreeing with them.
rumborak
It's not a matter of whether the reason is good or not. I'm inclined to believe that they're not just wrong, but dangerously wrong.
It's also irrelevant. You CANNOT simply dismiss, ridicule, and blow off nearly half the country's electorate and not expect them to be enraged. You're all doing it in this thread and then saying it's the Republicans' fault for having a completely natural reaction.
By talking about what's right and what's wrong, you're falling into the same intellectual limitations the Republicans are. Abstinence only education is what god would want, so it's right. No thinking required. You're saying "The Republicans are acting like idiots, so they must be wrong" and doing the same thing.
Do you think that if you ignore them they'll just go away? That's what the Republicans tried with the Democrats during Bush's presidency, and they paid for it in 2006 and 2008.Show me some Democrats that are advocating "Abstinence Only" I won't hold my breath while you look.
I can do this too:
Show me some Republicans who believe in "animal rights." Show me some Republicans who believe that Global Warming will cause the apocalypse. Show me some Republicans who are advocating legalized partial-birth abortion.QuoteMy opinion: Ignorance
Human motivation doesn't work that way. It's about your feelings wanting you to achieve a certain thing.QuoteNot sure that's all too relevant. They can talk to a shrink or something, meanwhile, they need to smarten the fuck up. Children are giving birth to children because of this stupidity. I know because most of my wife's family are (wait for it) Republicans.....and they ALL have kids who are under 18 years of age who have become pregnant. And wanna guess why? Because they go to church where they are taught that abstinence is the only solution to birth control. It's fucking absurd.
What's going on emotionally, below all the yelling?
I'm not going to talk about your personal circumstances because I don't know about them. They sound awful though.
It's not because they're Republicans though. That's the symptom. What's the underlying cause?Quote[condom picture]
What's the solution.
Genius.QuoteTeach young teenagers that abstinence is the best solution but condoms are also helpful. It's not that difficult.
How is this best solved?
Right. But how do we get there?QuotePlenty of people care. They're typically called liberals, progressives and/or Democrats or some combination thereof.
Why does no one here seem to care?
So you're saying the Republicans who are screaming about this until they're red in the face don't care? They're wrong, but lack of caring certainly isn't the issue.You can draw a line directly from the number of incarcerated people in the US to our refusal to treat the underlying causes of the crimes they commit that put them there.
Interesting. You seem to think that you can't properly deal with criminals unless you properly address why they're committing crimes. But with the Republicans, who generally aren't committing robbery, rape, assault, etc., you want them to just change their minds because they're wrong.At this point, I simply don't take the GOP seriously enough to ask and/or answer these questions. I know that I should, but I can't bring myself to. It's at the point now, for better or for worse (probably for worse), that I read stories like these and my human nature makes me shrug and move on.
Aaannnndddd there it is. They know you don't take them seriously, and that's why they're pissed. When the GOP returns to power (they will, if not during this election) they will remember how they were treated and act accordingly. And we'll all be screwed.
The solution is to stop the condescension now.This is why I mentioned to Reapsta that imprisonment should be expensive. We've turned it into a profitable endeavor, and the results are horrifying.
Private prisons are one of the worst ideas ever.I say we do it like Norway, jailing criminals in peaceful and relaxing homes.
Please. I'd rob a bank tomorrow if that were my "punishment."
I don't know about the others but these I can have for you by midnight tonight.
And by the way, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't hurt.
https://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=269&num=377872
https://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=653
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/25/despite-recent-shootings-norway-is-a-low-crime-nation/
I hate that argument. I hate for example when people say we can't have European-style healthcare because our way of life is different and we shouldn't try to change our way of life. That's like a doctor telling his morbidly obese patient, "If you keep going like this and don't try to eat right or exercise, you're going to die. But that's your way of life, and I don't have the right to tell you to change that."
When somebody legitimately believes that their way of life is being destroyed, it no longer matters if they're right or not. They'll act however they can to defend it, and they won't listen to the people they think are attacking it.
By discouraging critical thinking?When somebody legitimately believes that their way of life is being destroyed, it no longer matters if they're right or not. They'll act however they can to defend it, and they won't listen to the people they think are attacking it.
Stop destroying their way of life then.
"But this is politics, shouldn't they put their feelings aside and think rationally?"Directed at a person who time and time again, in this very forum, has demonstrated a willingness to take up positions outside of his personal beliefs, because reason and emotion rarely see eye to eye. The ability to see things from beyond your own narrow view is a skill that I see tremendous value in, and is exactly what scares the bejeezus out of the people who seek to discourage it down here.
That's an impossible thing to ask of any human in any situation.
Are you serious?When somebody legitimately believes that their way of life is being destroyed, it no longer matters if they're right or not. They'll act however they can to defend it, and they won't listen to the people they think are attacking it.
Stop destroying their way of life then.
I know what scares Christians who are against gay marriage more than anything else. The thing that haunts the deepest reaches of their brain. It's this headline, or the equivalent of it:
"9th Circuit Appeals Court Rules That Church Must Hold Gay Marriage Ceremony"
Every person who believes in gay marriage needs to be saying, as loud as humanly possible, "This is about them and their rights, not about you and your way of life. We don't agree with not letting them get married in your churches, but we'll respect that because it's not our business to say what you can and can't do."
It's not happening. I don't follow politics closely, but I don't ignore them. If I'm not hearing this message from the left, then they aren't advocating it loudly enough.
I hate that argument. I hate for example when people say we can't have European-style healthcare because our way of life is different and we shouldn't try to change our way of life. That's like a doctor telling his morbidly obese patient, "If you keep going like this and don't try to eat right or exercise, you're going to die. But that's your way of life, and I don't have the right to tell you to change that."
Two things:
- I sorta know what you mean. I think it would be a good thing to ask "What is the most desirable way to handle crime in this country" and work toward that rather than being intellectually imposed by any limitations. But you have to go through the process of figuring out how to make it work in this country rather than just doing it. For example, you might look at Japan and say "See? If nobody can own a gun, then the crime rate doesn't go up." But when you look at the experience of Britain, a country far more comparable to the US, the gun control experience isn't quite so rosy. In particular, the rate of hot burglaries (burglaries while occupants are home) is far higher than the US. I'm not saying these things are necessarily correlated, but it's far more likely they are than they aren't.
- In you doctor example, the doctor doesn't really have the right to tell him that. It's his life, even if he's probably not living it in the best way.
By discouraging critical thinking?
You're overlooking the middlemen in all of this. While it's all well and good to say that the democrats aren't allaying the fears of the Republicans, it's impossible to ignore that the people the Republicans trust most keep telling them that the democrats are evil and hell bent to destroy their way of life. If I say that I don't want churches to be forced to perform homosexual marriages, Rush Limbaugh will say that I do. Who is Elroy McDerrmott from Sugarland, Texas going to believe? Then you've got the elected assholes themselves. You think Myth can get elected by suggesting that the democrats are actually very reasonable, but just have different ways of doing things? No. His election is a moral imperative to undo the damage they continue to do.
Directed at a person who time and time again, in this very forum, has demonstrated a willingness to take up positions outside of his personal beliefs, because reason and emotion rarely see eye to eye. The ability to see things from beyond your own narrow view is a skill that I see tremendous value in, and is exactly what scares the bejeezus out of the people who seek to discourage it down here.
...What? Forget the political discussion, that's a doctor's job. They can't make you do anything, but you'd be a very bad doctor if you didn't recommend a change of lifestyle.
Are you serious?
Yes, I realize it's not the same thing as Republicans for the environment (not exactly, anyway) but it's a start. And certainly disproves your theory.
The government has never forced any American church ever to marry a couple that they didn't want to marry. If you know people who are worried about that, then you know some stupid people who need to get their shit together.Are you serious?
I know this from first-hand knowledge.
The government has never forced any American church ever to marry a couple that they didn't want to marry. If you know people who are worried about that, then you know some stupid people who need to get their shit together.
Now look where this thread has gone. "Well of course it makes sense that he'd act hateful in this situation. They earned it."I don't wonder at all. It's because a lot of conservatives believe a lot of things that aren't true. Like this example, or that Obama is a Socialist/Communist/not born here. People like that can't be reasoned with. People like that use bitterness as their argument. I simply don't see that kind of behavior on the liberal side.
You all wonder why there's such political bitterness in this country as you literally embody it. Come on now.
I don't wonder at all. It's because a lot of conservatives believe a lot of things that aren't true. Like this example, or that Obama is a Socialist/Communist/not born here. People like that can't be reasoned with. People like that use bitterness as their argument. I simply don't see that kind of behavior on the liberal side.Obama's socialism is pretty well-established. According to former roommate John Drew, Obama was an "ardent Marxist-Leninist" during his stay at Occidental College. Obama associated with Marxist professors and visited communist Frank Marshall Davis three times a week, as stated in his autobiography. Frank Marshall Davis may even be Obama's real father, as alleged in a new documentary. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo) Continuing, Obama's associations with communists Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Bernardine Dohrn are well known and he participated in the far-left Chicago New Party and Progressive Chicago in the 90s. Obama has now surrounded himself with socialist/communists, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Rick Bookstaber who defends the idea of class warfare (https://rick.bookstaber.com/) on his blog. And when you have a president saying things like "the free market doesn't work" and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" it's plain as day.
I'm not going to talk about your personal circumstances because I don't know about them. They sound awful though.
It's not because they're Republicans though. That's the symptom. What's the underlying cause?
Yes, he has talked with many people, including some who have non-capitalist tendencies. So what? None of his actual political activities are Socialist or Communist. In fact, actual Socialists and Communists pretty much laugh at this proposition. But don't let that stop the conspiracy theorists.I don't wonder at all. It's because a lot of conservatives believe a lot of things that aren't true. Like this example, or that Obama is a Socialist/Communist/not born here. People like that can't be reasoned with. People like that use bitterness as their argument. I simply don't see that kind of behavior on the liberal side.Obama's socialism is pretty well-established. According to former roommate John Drew, Obama was an "ardent Marxist-Leninist" during his stay at Occidental College. Obama associated with Marxist professors and visited communist Frank Marshall Davis three times a week, as stated in his autobiography. Frank Marshall Davis may even be Obama's real father, as alleged in a new documentary. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo) Continuing, Obama's associations with communists Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Bernardine Dohrn are well known and he participated in the far-left Chicago New Party and Progressive Chicago in the 90s. Obama has now surrounded himself with socialist/communists, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Rick Bookstaber who defends the idea of class warfare (https://rick.bookstaber.com/) on his blog. And when you have a president saying things like "the free market doesn't work" and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" it's plain as day.
"There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition."
- Forbes Magazine
Also hefdaddy, don't forget that just a few years ago, liberals were extremely bitter towards George W. Bush, as they should have been. Obama supporters just can't figure out that they're the new Bush supporters.They were bitter towards Bush because of things he actually said or did, not because of things they believed about him that were compete fabrications.
Now look where this thread has gone. "Well of course it makes sense that he'd act hateful in this situation. They earned it."I don't wonder at all. It's because a lot of conservatives believe a lot of things that aren't true. Like this example, or that Obama is a Socialist/Communist/not born here. People like that can't be reasoned with. People like that use bitterness as their argument. I simply don't see that kind of behavior on the liberal side.
You all wonder why there's such political bitterness in this country as you literally embody it. Come on now.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Out of curiosity: Has the left ever said anything about George W. Bush as ridiculous as some of the things that are said about Obama? I'm talking about things like "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is from Africa".
]None of his actual political activities are Socialist or Communist.
They were bitter towards Bush because of things he actually said or did, not because of things they believed about him that were compete fabrications.
How about socialized medicine and the bailouts?
I think Romney is going to win in 2012. [citation needed]
I don't have any real reason as to why, just a feeling.
Out of curiosity: Has the left ever said anything about George W. Bush as ridiculous as some of the things that are said about Obama? I'm talking about things like "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is from Africa".I said he was a psychopath and sported significant Oedipal issues, although I'd hardly consider that ridiculous.
That he stole the 2000 election?Yeah, it's unfortunate he gets blamed for all of those voters who intentionally disenfranchised themselves.
Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance? At least in theory, the government is the community's representative. Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?
Out of curiosity: Has the left ever said anything about George W. Bush as ridiculous as some of the things that are said about Obama? I'm talking about things like "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is from Africa".
That he stole the 2000 election?
Is that something that was talked about as much in as the "Obama is a Muslim" thing? I'm not being confrontational - I really don't know.
Anyone who calls Obama a socialist really needs to learn more about how socialism actually works, not just the dictionary definitions.
This post from a person who would absolutely LOVE IT if Obama WERE a socialist. Unfortunately, he's not even close.
Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance? At least in theory, the government is the community's representative. Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?
I don't think that makes it fair to call him a socialist though. There's a huge difference between "Obama does some things that are socialist to a degree" and "Obama is a socialist". :lol
Obama's socialism is pretty well-established. According to former roommate John Drew, Obama was an "ardent Marxist-Leninist" during his stay at Occidental College. Obama associated with Marxist professors and visited communist Frank Marshall Davis three times a week, as stated in his autobiography. Frank Marshall Davis may even be Obama's real father, as alleged in a new documentary. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo) Continuing, Obama's associations with communists Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Bernardine Dohrn are well known and he participated in the far-left Chicago New Party and Progressive Chicago in the 90s. Obama has now surrounded himself with socialist/communists, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Rick Bookstaber who defends the idea of class warfare (https://rick.bookstaber.com/) on his blog. And when you have a president saying things like "the free market doesn't work" and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" it's plain as day.
"There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition."
- Forbes Magazine
Also hefdaddy, don't forget that just a few years ago, liberals were extremely bitter towards George W. Bush, as they should have been. Obama supporters just can't figure out that they're the new Bush supporters.
as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.
as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.
If that's the case, then why are Obama's critics who call him a socialist wrong?
Ideal configuration doesn't matter. Are Obama's politics socialist, or at least socialistic, or not?
I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either socialism is a specific thing you can't accuse Obama of, or it's a broad thing that he's at least kinda doing.
The problem is that every politician supports socialistic policies. To single out Obama is dishonest.
The problem is that every politician supports socialistic policies. To single out Obama is dishonest.
Fair to say in a sense.
But, Obama's the one who's put himself out there as wanting to reinvent how things are done. If you're going to push for policies and attach yourself to them, haven't you earned the incoming criticism?
as you'll see from that, the word has a very broad general meaning.
If that's the case, then why are Obama's critics who call him a socialist wrong?
Ideal configuration doesn't matter. Are Obama's politics socialist, or at least socialistic, or not?
I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either socialism is a specific thing you can't accuse Obama of, or it's a broad thing that he's at least kinda doing.
0 <---- the amount of fucks I give if anyone calls Obama a socialist
Anyone who calls Obama a socialist really needs to learn more about how socialism actually works, not just the dictionary definitions.
Criticism on the specific policy for specific reasons, yes. Calling him a socialist with the negative connotation is just being dishonest.
We have socialist policies in place...Medicare and medicaid being two obvious ones. If people are so upset with Obama and his "socialist" health care policies, they should also be yelling for the end of Medicaid and Medicare too.
You can agree or disagree with Obama and his policies, but you need to criticize on the specific merits of the policy....calling him a Socialist is not only incorrect, it is lazy and dishonest.
I think we'd (maybe) under the right conditions, be able to build on (for example) the public school system, public library system, parks, roads, highways, etc, and grow into a democratic socialist state.....
0 <---- the amount of fucks I give if anyone calls Obama a socialist
What?QuoteAnyone who calls Obama a socialist really needs to learn more about how socialism actually works, not just the dictionary definitions.
I count at least one or two fucks here.
Until the government starts taking control of the means of production, it won't be socialist. By socialist standards, Obama's social legislation, most of which is simply meant to heighten the minimum standard of living, is extremely tame.
I think we'd (maybe) under the right conditions, be able to build on (for example) the public school system, public library system, parks, roads, highways, etc, and grow into a democratic socialist state.....
Kirk... my old friend.... could you elaborate on this? I am curious about your vision (and not to just shoot it down).
- Khan
The problem is that when many Americans think of Socialism, they think of the Soviet Union, which was actually more of an authoritarian dictatorship.
They should be thinking more of countries like Sweden, France, Canada, etc. You know, countries that are doing considerably better than the US in categories across the board.
Also, as has been pointed out, the US has a lot of socialist policies on the books, many of which people would revolt over if you tried to take them away. It, like basically every other developed nation on earth, is 'mixed market', which is a combination of socialism and capitalism.
Basically, anyone who actually thinks that Obama is going to try to turn the US into the Soviet Union is either lying, an idiot, or both. I mean, fuck, the man is at about the same point on the political spectrum as Ronald Reagan. By the standards of almost any other country, Obama is pretty conservative. The current Conservative party PM here in Canada, who is probably the most rightwing PM we've ever had, is to the left of Obama on many things. It's why when people in the US use socialism as a dirty word to try and discredit fairly conservative politicians, the rest of the developed world just laughs, and then goes back to their higher quality of life.
I'm probably simplifying things, but didn't the implementation of socialist ideas during the depression and the 60s by Dems play a HUGE role in the U.S. being able to develop a large middle class and comfortable standard of living?
Seems like dat evil COMMUNISM (as some like to refer to mild socialist ideas) has done plenty of good for the U.S., at least when it's actually been utilized.
Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class? Or are they just clueless?Basically, the Republicans have made it their agenda to oppose Obama on everything (I'm not kidding. For example, Mitch McConnell literally said in an interview that it was their goal to make Obama a one term president), and they use inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies to try and accomplish that. Part of it is stirring up the idiotic fear some Americans have of socialism, or rather what those people think socialism is.
I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.
Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class? Or are they just clueless?Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal.
I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.
Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class? Or are they just clueless?Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal.
I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.
@Reap
you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.
@Reap
you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.
How does decreasing one's exposure to developments equate to having a better sense for the outcome than someone who pays consistent attention? ???
Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance? At least in theory, the government is the community's representative. Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?
I don't think that makes it fair to call him a socialist though. There's a huge difference between "Obama does some things that are socialist to a degree" and "Obama is a socialist". :lol
What I'm trying to suggest though is that the claim isn't without basis in reality. People see socialism in Obama's policies and bring it up. They're told that they're being idiots. Then they see more socialism, and are again told they are being idiots. When you're prevented from having any logical recourse, you turn to name calling. It's like when a parent tells their child "you're going to do it because I told you so." When you tell them they're not allowed to think logically, they eventually don't bother.
This dynamic is happening in American politics. The left is trying to say it's beyond criticism, which is part of why the right has given up on trying to rationally offer any.
Doesn't this sound even a little bit with how Obama is working with big businesses who need government assistance? At least in theory, the government is the community's representative. Isn't any business regulation socialism to some degree?
I don't think that makes it fair to call him a socialist though. There's a huge difference between "Obama does some things that are socialist to a degree" and "Obama is a socialist". :lol
What I'm trying to suggest though is that the claim isn't without basis in reality. People see socialism in Obama's policies and bring it up. They're told that they're being idiots. Then they see more socialism, and are again told they are being idiots. When you're prevented from having any logical recourse, you turn to name calling. It's like when a parent tells their child "you're going to do it because I told you so." When you tell them they're not allowed to think logically, they eventually don't bother.
This dynamic is happening in American politics. The left is trying to say it's beyond criticism, which is part of why the right has given up on trying to rationally offer any.
Saying that there is socialism in Obama's policies absolutely has a basis in reality. Calling Obama a socialist does not.
In my experience, Republicans rarely say the former. They only say the latter. I'm not saying there are no stupid Democrats. On the contrary, I know a lot of really stupid Democrats. It's just that the Republicans I've met are typically much, much worse, and they're not worse because they're on the defensive. Usually, they're on the offensive. Hell, I just got back from a baseball game where my girlfriend's grand-ma yelled, "Give us our country back!" and half the stadium cheered. :rollin
@Reap
you brought up valid points about this is Obama's to lose. However, I've just got that feeling. I've been staying away from politics at the moment. Well, I'm up to speed on things but I try not to think about it or spend a lot of time on it.
How does decreasing one's exposure to developments equate to having a better sense for the outcome than someone who pays consistent attention? ???
Oh, I was just saying I had a feeling. Like, those ridiculous notions that something is going to happen. Nothing really formed with evidence.
Basically, the Republicans have made it their agenda to oppose Obama on everything (I'm not kidding. For example, Mitch McConnell literally said in an interview that it was their goal to make Obama a one term president), and they use inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies to try and accomplish that. Part of it is stirring up the idiotic fear some Americans have of socialism, or rather what those people think socialism is.
Basically, they're using kindergarten playground tactics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Like, any politician who actually states that as their goal should be voted the hell out of office the next time they're up.
In my experience, Republicans rarely say the former. They only say the latter. I'm not saying there are no stupid Democrats. On the contrary, I know a lot of really stupid Democrats. It's just that the Republicans I've met are typically much, much worse, and they're not worse because they're on the defensive. Usually, they're on the offensive. Hell, I just got back from a baseball game where my girlfriend's grand-ma yelled, "Give us our country back!" and half the stadium cheered. :rollin
Honestly, I'd say that describes the Democratic electorate more than the politicians themselves. :lol
Are the republicans who dislike Obama and Co. for being socialist aware of this and have an agenda against the middle class? Or are they just clueless?Keep in mind, most of those republicans would consider FDR one of the worst presidents of the modern era, specifically because of the new deal.
I'm genuinely interested in what's behind their POV.
What can I say? They're rich people who will do anything to stay rich, even if it means causing the country to collapse for their benefit.
Honestly, I'd say that describes the Democratic electorate more than the politicians themselves. :lol
What do you mean?
I know I'm being repetitive, but when half a stadium full of people acts this way, why aren't you listening and taking that seriously instead of making a rolling laughter face?
The problem is that when many Americans think of Socialism, they think of the Soviet Union, which was actually more of an authoritarian dictatorship.
They should be thinking more of countries like Sweden, France, Canada, etc. You know, countries that are doing considerably better than the US in categories across the board.
Also, as has been pointed out, the US has a lot of socialist policies on the books, many of which people would revolt over if you tried to take them away. It, like basically every other developed nation on earth, is 'mixed market', which is a combination of socialism and capitalism.
Basically, anyone who actually thinks that Obama is going to try to turn the US into the Soviet Union is either lying, an idiot, or both. I mean, fuck, the man is at about the same point on the political spectrum as Ronald Reagan. By the standards of almost any other country, Obama is pretty conservative. The current Conservative party PM here in Canada, who is probably the most rightwing PM we've ever had, is to the left of Obama on many things. It's why when people in the US use socialism as a dirty word to try and discredit fairly conservative politicians, the rest of the developed world just laughs, and then goes back to their higher quality of life.
The real danger for the US is that they waste so much of their political energy on these Pyrrhic battles, and what really needs to be done and decided falls by the wayside.
rumborak
First of all: Socialism =/= Communism,
it's quite a stretch to claim that Ayres, Alinsky and Dohrn are communists.
I would say they are proponents of certain socialist ideas, and most of the US are actually in favor of them.
That being said, none of them are going to ever be proponents of dismantling private property for the means of production.
Furthermore, I want to point out that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is arguably one of the most fierce anarcho-capitalists out there, and he earned his Ph.D in Philosophy under prominent Marxist Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt. So this guilt by association BS is not acceptable.
That's one guy. It seems like almost everyone Obama associates with has ties to radical socialism.
The resounding message from the government was that we (meaning the American people) had some kind of collective responsibility to prop up these failing businesses. That's public ownership of the means of production, is it not?
Ok, seems like you've made your mind up. Spreading the wealth around is a thought among MANY people, and that is a socialistic idea - I'll give you that. Appointing some guy like Van Jones as a political move was to bring in environmentalists to his camp as well, even though he's in bed with big oil as well. He doesn't want to alienate any voter block so he lets them have a voice in his administration even if it's just a front.First of all: Socialism =/= Communism,
Of course, although Marx said socialism was just a transition to communism. I'm not sure what to make of Obama's current ideology. I believe he's a socialist at the bare minimum ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"), but his willingness to appoint people like Van Jones makes me wonder if he harbors more radical views.
Ok, fine. I'll let you have that one, it's irrelevant to me anyway. It's realpolitik after all.it's quite a stretch to claim that Ayres, Alinsky and Dohrn are communists.
I'm not what to call Alinsky exactly, but Ayers and Dohrn were most certainly communists in their Weather Underground days. Ayers expressed communist sympathies as late as 1995. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Political_views)
Yeah, they are sharply divided about healthcare. But no one is talking about repealing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or other socialist ideas. The most ironic thing I heard during the healthcare debates a few years ago was some town hall meeting where some old fella shouted "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE". So there it is. Instead of calling it socialized medicine, you call it Medicare for all.I would say they are proponents of certain socialist ideas, and most of the US are actually in favor of them.
This may or may not be true. Polls show that Americans are sharply divided over healthcare (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/obamacare-polls-supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1646725.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012) and very opposed to the stimulus (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/122527-poll-two-thirds-think-stimulus-was-a-waste) and bailouts (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/bank-bailout-opinion-harris_n_1415647.html).
I don't know what to make of myself, if I'm a minarchist or an ancap. Can't really make up my mind about that, so that ought to clear up any confusion about that.That being said, none of them are going to ever be proponents of dismantling private property for the means of production.
What do you make of the bailouts? The resounding message from the government was that we (meaning the American people) had some kind of collective responsibility to prop up these failing businesses. That's public ownership of the means of production, is it not?
I have to say that I was wrong in expressing myself like that about guilt by association - I use it a lot myself, you've arrived at a different conclusion than me though - because he hasn't fought at ALL for socialist ideals, he's just busy getting himself reelected like any politician.Furthermore, I want to point out that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is arguably one of the most fierce anarcho-capitalists out there, and he earned his Ph.D in Philosophy under prominent Marxist Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt. So this guilt by association BS is not acceptable.
That's one guy. It seems like almost everyone Obama associates with has ties to radical socialism. Tell me jsem, would it be "BS" if I pointed out that everyone in Bush's company was a hawkish neocon? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Of course, I don't single out Obama as others are accusing me of. He's part of a broader picture of a totalitarian government encroaching on our liberties, both social and economic.
He's part of a broader picture of a totalitarian government encroaching on our liberties, both social and economic.I would agree 100% with this.
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?
That Obama is not a socialist, I guess.
That took 75 pages.
75 pages lol really? So what have we learned from 75 pages of ramble?Learned? This has been about the election all along, there was never anything to learn.
See, as has been brought up in multiple threads, multiple times, the problem is that people like MondayMorningLunatic aren't making a distinction between the Soviet Union and modern democratic socialism.
Every developed nation on the planet is 'mixed market' at this point, each with some balance of capitalism and socialism. Both of those philosophies don't work on their own. It takes a balance of the two.
Yes, Obama has some socialist policies. So did literally every other president over the past hundred years, at least. Democrat and Republican alike. Again, Obama is at about the same point on the political compass as Reagan. The US is just so radically right wing compared to the rest of the world, that any policy that's remotely progressive looks radically to the left. Heck, on many issues, Obama is to the right of our (Canada's) current very conservative Prime Minister.
Having a social safety net and providing health care to poor people isn't radical. It's basic human decency. Expanding medicare and enacting some stimulus spending when the economy is struggling isn't going to lead to a Soviet style dictatorship.
Nope. Giving taxpayer money to big corporations is the extreme opposite of socialism.
Which would have lost a huge number of jobs, and could have dealt an extremely damaging blow to the global economy.Nope. Giving taxpayer money to big corporations is the extreme opposite of socialism.
Says Michael Moore. This video summarizes my feelings succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXWoU0YqsU0
One thing that this is most certainly NOT is free market capitalism. Any champion of the free market would have let General Motors, Citibank, et al. fail.
It still would've been monumentally stupid to let GM go under. Although I would love to see your face if they had.
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression? I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?It still would've been monumentally stupid to let GM go under. Although I would love to see your face if they had.
You say businesses inevitably become corrupt, but refuse to let them tank when their corruption drives them into the ground. Hypocrisy ROFL.
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression? I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?
So you were in favor of high unemployment and depression? I thought libertarian values were supposed to solve our economic woes, not drive it into the ground?
By spending more money that it doesn't have and propping up failed businesses, in turn impeding the creation of more competent businesses, the government will exacerbate the recession and create more unemployment in the future.
It's funny how people try and have it both ways. The same people who bitch about the government being in bed with corporations are the same ones who turn around and support corporate welfare and protectionism. Orwell had a term for this...
No, libertarian values are about refusing to admit that government intervention in the economy might sometimes be a good thing, even when it is.Depends what you mean. Some people would see libertarian values being a rejection of the initiation of force.
It's funny how people try and have it both ways. The same people who bitch about the government being in bed with corporations are the same ones who turn around and support corporate welfare and protectionism. Orwell had a term for this...Reluctantly adopting the least damaging course of action is not the same as embracing what the action stands for.
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?
Meh. I think action was proper, due to it's larger economic consequences, I just wish we could've been more general to the car industry, and not just the big guys on the field.
What I mean is, there's a difference between GM lobbying for tax breaks and loopholes that allow them to have an advantage, and the government deciding GM needs bailing out because of it's economic consequences. The latter can still be corrupt, but it's not inherently so.
You don't believe bailing out GM was good, Scheavo?
Meh. I think action was proper, due to it's larger economic consequences, I just wish we could've been more general to the car industry, and not just the big guys on the field.
What I mean is, there's a difference between GM lobbying for tax breaks and loopholes that allow them to have an advantage, and the government deciding GM needs bailing out because of it's economic consequences. The latter can still be corrupt, but it's not inherently so.
What about that strikes you as not me?
It's equally liberal to say that government policies are corrupt when they support big corporations. Liberals are against big corporations.
What a horrible ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2UjLX3N2mo&feature=plcp
It's equally liberal to say that government policies are corrupt when they support big corporations. Liberals are against big corporations.
Well, it was humorous because he said that bailouts can be corrupted. It seemed as though he favored loopholes, given a choice between the two.
What a horrible ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2UjLX3N2mo&feature=plcp
I've got to admit, I found this pretty funny:
*snip*
What a horrible ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2UjLX3N2mo&feature=plcp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2UjLX3N2mo&feature=plcp)
what the fuck am i watching
I had so far written off the dog-on-roof story as some PETA level "Oh no, how terrible!!" stuff. But dang, he had the dog on the roof for 12 hours, during which it developed diarrhea, shitting all over the back window, only to put him back up after some cleaning-off? That's pretty cold.I don't guess I see the problem here. People transport animals in kennels in the backs of trucks all the time. Hell, plenty of people down here don't even bother with the kennel. Dogs seem to love air blowing by. In this case he also tried to protect him from the front by building some kind of windshield to keep him from getting too blown around. I have no idea whether the dog was miserable or loved every second of it, but there's no reason to assume the worst because he's already regarded as a sociopath.
rumborak
I had so far written off the dog-on-roof story as some PETA level "Oh no, how terrible!!" stuff. But dang, he had the dog on the roof for 12 hours, during which it developed diarrhea, shitting all over the back window, only to put him back up after some cleaning-off? That's pretty cold.I don't guess I see the problem here. People transport animals in kennels in the backs of trucks all the time. Hell, plenty of people down here don't even bother with the kennel. Dogs seem to love air blowing by. In this case he also tried to protect him from the front by building some kind of windshield to keep him from getting too blown around. I have no idea whether the dog was miserable or loved every second of it, but there's no reason to assume the worst because he's already regarded as a sociopath.
rumborak
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, though the fact that it had diarrhea would seem to indicate some kind of problem. But either way, drudging up some story of him possibly mistreating a pet almost 3 decades ago seems like a rather irrelevant attack.
Something about your empathy circuits has to be fundamentally damaged to take your dog on a road trip by strapping him/her to a crate on top of your car.I think it's a terrible thing to do to an animal, but it's also really far down the list of reasons that Mitt shouldn't be president.
Even more disturbing is that we live in a society where a person who does this could potentially be the president.