Election 2012

[Super Dude]

It doesn't matter, really. I mean, even if he somehow managed to win the primary and by some impossible chance actually beat Obama, he'd have more trouble getting anything done than his predecessor has. And if the Republicans seem wary of him, just wait until the Democrats get a whiff.

[rumborak]

So, apparently Romney warns against the Soviet threat. Amazing.

rumborak

[Sigz]

Apparently it was his national security advisors not him. But still, wtf.

"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.

[rumborak]

I'm really more reacting to the language. "Soviets", seriously? I guess that includes Poland and Moldova?
The Soviets haven't existed since 1991.

rumborak

[Sigz]

Also on the note of countries that no longer exist,

"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.

[rumborak]

Jeez, what decade does the guy live in?

rumborak

[Super Dude]

The one where he can get all the conservative votes. This may be hard to believe, but there are many Americans in this country who still wanna nuke the shit out of the "Soviets" like so:

[rumborak]

But it's a hell of a dangerous territory to tread on, because immediately the Palin comparisons will come up.

rumborak

[snapple]

there is a definite slant of political ideology on this forum. I'm pretty sure Romney is going to run away with the election. I don't have to argue anything other than people are sick of Obama. Well, if the 2010 elections are still to be looked at, anyway.

[Scheavo]

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.

[skydivingninja]

Even if people were sick of Obama, they can take just one look at all the nutty Republicans that the media is shoving in their faces and turn the hell around back to him.  Obama's got it easy unless Mitt Romney somehow turns our poop into gold, and brings Jesus back to Earth.

[Super Dude]

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.

[snapple]

Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".

[Scheavo]

Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".

Conservative aren't nutty. Modern day Republicans are. Why? Because they're running from legislation and policies they use to hold, simply becuase a Democrat and a black man are proposing them.

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.

FDR had his fireside chats. The problem is, our media is irresponsible, scandal and tabloid driven. You'll only hear about the President if he says something you can possibly pick apart, or if an opponent says something bad about the President, regardless of it's true. This is also easily a problem on too many choices - too many channels to watch, too much internet, etc. People watch what they want more than just whats on.

The best I can see that we have of this now are the debates. In the debate, Obama will make a fool of Romney. He's more personable, MUCH more personable, and it's an environment he finds himself completely comfortable in. It's funny, cause Republicans used to attack him for using a teleprompter, but I've always felt Obama is at his best when he's just speaking the contents of his mind. He knows a lot of facts, and I don't think he's going to let Romney distort his record, to the extent Romney has been distorting his record.

[TL]

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?".

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.

[skydivingninja]

Republicans aren't "nutty". Just because you disagree with them doesn't qualify them as "nutty".

Not saying all Republicans are nutty.  Heck, I identify more as a conservative than not, but when the media shoves people like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney in our faces, I can see a lot of normal people getting fed up with them.  Who do you pick?  The serial adulterer?  The uber-right man of God who shoves his religion in your face (losing pretty much every single Jewish and Muslim vote in the process), or the man who can't seem to make up his mind on what he does or doesn't support.  Republicans aren't even excited about these guys.  There's also the whole "stop everything democrats and Obama are trying to do because fuck them that's why" thing in Congress that I think people are starting to notice.  I have a feeling that most people don't like the fact that the government is so divided across party lines, and its easy to see that Republicans are largely to blame for that.  It doesn't help that this uber-right agenda people like Perry and Santorum have been pushing sullies general opinion of them even more. 

So yeah, lots of mainstream Republicans, in my mind, are pretty nutty, and I think a lot of moderates can't get behind them for many of the reasons I just outlined.  If someone like Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson was in the forefront though, believe me I'd be on the front lines campaigning for them. 

TL: I don't think Huntsman has officially left yet.  I'd be surprised if he did, actually.  Third party candidates are doomed from the start, even if it would be great if they existed. 

[Super Dude]

And it doesn't help that when confronted with their faults by Republican constituents, the stock response basically boils down to, "At least I'm better than Obama!" It's fine if you don't like Obama, but a candidate being not Obama should not be the only reason you vote for someone. Heck, it shouldn't be the main reason for choosing someone else, particularly when the alternative is most likely worse.

[snapple]

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.

Don't forget about Lincoln...

There are a lot of you guys here who agree with each other, and I notice the lack of right side participation in discussions tends to lead more of a one sided talk where the comments "repubz r dum LLLLLL" come out. Actually, it's rarely that stupid. But, I was just wanted to say "hey, they're not nutty".







Ron Paul and Santorum are, however. 

[skydivingninja]

Obligatory "well that's just, like, your opinion, man"

[rumborak]

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

[Scheavo]

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

It's also somewhat bizarre to have factual argument labeled as "leftist." Of course, in our society, scientific economics is labeled socialism, so that really tells you something.

[Scheavo]

https://news.yahoo.com/romney-tells-obama-back-off-bin-laden-issue-120710947.html

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."

I think Obama played this card too early, personally, but it's really funny to see Romney squirm with this one. Who are we to believe, the you now who says you would've ordered the raid, or the you in 2008 who said you would not attack inside Pakistan, which is exactly what Obama said he would do and did?

I think this is a valid criticism, considering Romney's stated stance on the issue, and what Obama specifically did to get this done.

It's really funny to see Romney bitching and moaning so earlier. It's "unfair" that Romney's foreign policy sucks, and was wrong.

[snapple]

Obligatory "well that's just, like, your opinion, man"

yeah, I know 

[rumborak]

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

[Super Dude]

Sad but true.

[Scheavo]

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

It really paints him as a sore loser.

[kirksnosehair]

Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all.  It would have come up in the debates organically. 

[antigoon]

Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all.  It would have come up in the debates organically. 

Agreed.

[Scheavo]

Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all.  It would have come up in the debates organically. 

Agreed.

Well, it'll still come up in the debates anyways.

What I think it says more, is that Obama is planning on running on his foreign policy. That's a record Romney can't touch, and somewhere where Obama has much more experience.

[kirksnosehair]

Queue complaints (somewhat justified, imo) of Obama now gloating about killing Osama Bin Laden

[rumborak]

Actually, I think Obama made a mistake by bringing it up at all.  It would have come up in the debates organically. 

Agreed.

Would it? Not any time soon though. Debates are looong away still, and would not have had the same impact as reminding people right now.

rumborak

[antigoon]

Huh? I'm sure the news would have taken care of it for him. They love anniversaries and shit like that.

[antigoon]

Anyway, Since Bin Laden's death:

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.

Go team.

[Scheavo]

I'm against most of the policies in place, but it feels as if that person is trying to make War unconstitutional, or unlawful, or something. Specifically:

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.”
...

[antigoon]

What is objectionable about those things being objectionable?