DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on April 05, 2011, 04:45:56 PM
-
Obama officially announced his candidacy for 2012 as you will have heard.
Now, the real question of course is, who will run for the Republicans? And, can they distance themselves from the Tea Party enough to not lose the moderates? So far it seems they're hamstrung by the TPs.
rumborak
-
I actually have to write a paper on who might be the Republican nominee. My focus is on Tim Pawlenty, who apparently is a strong contender.
The worry for most people, of course, is that Sarah Palin has a shot at it. I like to think better of most Americans; she's hardly qualified to be the President, but we'll see.
Newt Gingrich is a strong contender as well, apparently
-
There's no way Palin will make it, she'll get eaten alive by the republicans in the primaries.
-
The worry for most people, of course, is that Sarah Palin has a shot at it. I like to think better of most Americans; she's hardly qualified to be the President, but we'll see.
I think the ones who really should be concerned about Palin running are the Republicans. I think there's a good amount of moderate Republicans who say "I'd rather have Obama than Palin".
rumborak
-
Donald Trump
-
The worry for most people, of course, is that Sarah Palin has a shot at it. I like to think better of most Americans; she's hardly qualified to be the President, but we'll see.
I think the ones who really should be concerned about Palin running are the Republicans. I think there's a good amount of moderate Republicans who say "I'd rather have Obama than Palin".
rumborak
The problem though is that a lot of them will still side with her JUST because she's republican. The partisanship of all of it is horrible. I mean, if Obama or a similar democratic candidate was that extreme (and, unfortunately, that stupid), I'd side with the other guy
-
I dunno. I think the really moderate Republicans are as likely to switch as the really moderate Democrats. I for one could definitely see myself voting Republican given the right candidate. For example, I thought McCain was actually a good candidate up to the moment where he started fucking up badly (choosing Palin, regurgitating the term "maverick", and suspending his campaign halfway in).
rumborak
-
One of my teachers at Uni said in an article that the Republicans wanted someone really radical to take the position as the Republican Nominee. McCain lost all chances. Palin... I don't know, really. There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
I hope Trump can't get near.
-
I consider myself a moderate republican and I would not vote for Palin.
-
One of my teachers at Uni said in an article that the Republicans wanted someone really radical to take the position as the Republican Nominee. McCain lost all chances. Palin... I don't know, really. There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
I hope Trump can't get near.
I don't think Trump nor Paul (Ron or Rand) would get the nomination.
-
There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
Ron Paul is not running for sure?
-
If Palin makes it through the primaries, I will officially lose every drop of hope I have in America.
-
If Palin makes it through the primaries, I will officially lose every drop of hope I have in America.
You haven't lost it already?
-
If Palin makes it through the primaries, I will officially lose every drop of hope I have in America.
You haven't lost it already?
No, there are a few drops left.
-
I heard Jesse Ventura might be running.
-
That Bachman chick said she was gonna run I think. God help us.
-J
-
John Huntsman seems interesting to me. He's a Morman, so maybe the right won't buy him, but he also knows Chinese and is a Dream Theater fan. In 2007, he proclaimed a "Day for Dream Theater" in the state he governs, Utah.
Though I'd disagree with anyone towing the Republican line, the above information already makes me able to relate with him moreso than any other presidential candidate.
-
John Huntsman seems interesting to me. He's a Morman, so maybe the right won't buy him, but he also knows Chinese and is a Dream Theater fan. In 2007, he proclaimed a "Day for Dream Theater" in the state he governs, Utah.
Is he running?
-
I'm not sure, but he's one of the names that have been thrown out there quite a bit.
-
I admit I know very little about American politics, but since it's 2011, when do the official nominees have to make themselves known?
Or....when do all of the important things happen? Seems not too far in the distance.
-
Most of them won't make it official until later this year, I think
-
There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
Ron Paul is not running for sure?
What I was trying to say was that Rand would like to run, he would be a viable candidate, but since his dad has much more popularity nation-wide, that he wouldn't compete against his dad. Ron Paul hasn't confirmed nor denied that he is going to run, but according to his statements it's likely that he will. That would mean that Rand Paul will not run.
-
And, can they distance themselves from the Tea Party enough to not lose the moderates? So far it seems they're hamstrung by the TPs.
rumborak
The Republican Party would disagree with you. From their perspective, they ran a moderate candidate in 2008 and got pounded. McCain was at his height when Palin was selected as his VP and before she revealed the public she isn't so smart. And then, when they ran a much harder conservative message in 2010, they killed the House vote and did very, very well in the Senate. Right or wrong, the lesson to the Republicans is don't run outwardly moderate candidates.
I'd be overjoyed if the Republicans ran a candidate who was serious about balancing the budget, had a more strategic foreign policy, understood economics, and let people live their own social lives without government interference. I'd also like someone to give me five million dollars tax free. I guess the Republican thing is more likely, but barely.
-
Most of them won't make it official until later this year, I think
This is kinda nice though. Last time, all the candidates started running almost right after the 2006 election. I dunno if the Politicians decided the public got too worn out on the race or that was just a weird year, but I hope it doesn't happen again.
-
The small candidates always have to get their names out early and try to generate some buzz. The bigger ones can wait.
-
There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
Ron Paul is not running for sure?
What I was trying to say was that Rand would like to run, he would be a viable candidate, but since his dad has much more popularity nation-wide, that he wouldn't compete against his dad. Ron Paul hasn't confirmed nor denied that he is going to run, but according to his statements it's likely that he will. That would mean that Rand Paul will not run.
Too bad Rand is pretty much just a neo-con.
-
There has been some rumours that Rand Paul would run, but considering how many like his parent it is probably not going to happen this time.
Ron Paul is not running for sure?
What I was trying to say was that Rand would like to run, he would be a viable candidate, but since his dad has much more popularity nation-wide, that he wouldn't compete against his dad. Ron Paul hasn't confirmed nor denied that he is going to run, but according to his statements it's likely that he will. That would mean that Rand Paul will not run.
Too bad Rand is pretty much just a neo-con.
What do you base this on? He's not as hardcore libertarian as his father, but he certainly leans pretty far in that direction.
-
And, can they distance themselves from the Tea Party enough to not lose the moderates? So far it seems they're hamstrung by the TPs.
rumborak
The Republican Party would disagree with you. From their perspective, they ran a moderate candidate in 2008 and got pounded. McCain was at his height when Palin was selected as his VP and before she revealed the public she isn't so smart. And then, when they ran a much harder conservative message in 2010, they killed the House vote and did very, very well in the Senate. Right or wrong, the lesson to the Republicans is don't run outwardly moderate candidates.
I think what he meant is that a lot of people were turned off because the Tea Party associated themselves so closely with the GOP. I felt that their campaign in 2008 was pretty conservative, but not to the extent the 2010 elections were.
And to add to my point above, a lot of Republicans gave in and supported the Tea Party backed candidates even though in the beginning they really didn't want to. Just goes to show how any Republican is better than any Democrat, and vice-versa.
If they didn't live in fear of being ostracized for supporting a different party they might not have had that problem
-
^Yeah that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. And it applies both inside and outside of the political arena.
-J
-
Isn't Ron Paul a libertarian?
-
Isn't Ron Paul a libertarian?
His political views are libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican Party.
-
Isn't Ron Paul a libertarian?
His political views are libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican Party.
Ah, okay.
-
Here's the big question. Does anybody actually think there's a single potential candidate that might be even remotely different than Bush/Obama? I find it difficult to muster up any giveafuck.
-
Here's the big question. Does anybody actually think there's a single potential candidate that might be even remotely different than Bush/Obama? I find it difficult to muster up any giveafuck.
Not really, no. That's the real shame, that it doesn't even really matter.
-
Here's the big question. Does anybody actually think there's a single potential candidate that might be even remotely different than Bush/Obama? I find it difficult to muster up any giveafuck.
Ron Paul. The only thing with him is, I can't really imagine him shaking hands and charismatically dealing with overseas biggies.
-
It would be nice if they put more emphasis on the smaller parties. I mean, they don't even invite anybody but the Dem and Rep candidates to public debates.
rumborak
-
My focus is on Tim Pawlenty, who apparently is a strong contender.
I don't think he really is, but stranger things have happened. He really didn't get a whole lot done in Minnesota when he was governor there and barely won the elections both times. I'm not sure he'd even carry his home state, which would say alot.
-
Good post by Glenn Greenwald on Salon about the issue
https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/05/democrats/index.html
One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic).
In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore -- and, when desirable, step on -- the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base). Anyone who pledges unconditional, absolute fealty to a politician -- especially 18 months before an election -- is guaranteeing their own irrelevance.
It was often said that Bush/Cheney used fear as their principal political weapon -- and they did -- but that's true of the Democratic Party as well. When it comes to their base, Democratic leaders know they will command undying, unbreakable support no matter how many times they kick their base, because of the fear that has been instilled in the base -- not fear of Terrorists or Immigrants (that's the GOP's tactic), but fear of Sarah Palin, the Kochs and the Tea Party...
It may be that this fear of Republicans is rational (or, given how many GOP-replicating policies and practices the Democrats embrace, maybe it isn't). But whatever else is true, one thing is for certain: dedicated partisans who pledge their unbreakable, eternally loyal support for any Party or politician are going to be steadfastly ignored (or worse) by that Party or politician, and rightfully so. If you spend two years vehemently objecting that certain acts so profoundly offend your principles but then pledge unequivocal support no matter what almost two years in advance to the politicians who engage in them, why would you expect your objections to be heeded? Any rational person would ignore them, and stomp on your beliefs whenever doing so benefited them.
The bolded part is why I can't support Obama. I just can't. Even against whatever whacko Republican ends up winning the primary. There is no good option.
-
Has the c-word ("compromise") become so evil at this point? He's trying to get stuff done.
rumborak
-
It's not just the congressional stuff. Even then though, I think there comes a point where he puts his foot down and goes down fighting. Hell at least he would have tried.
-
It's not just the congressional stuff. Even then though, I think there comes a point where he puts his foot down and goes down fighting. Hell at least he would have tried.
Tried to what? Do you know what happens when you go down fighting? You go down. Wouldn't it be better for no one to go down, and instead solve the problem?
-
Going down while trying might make for nice Hollywood movies, but when you're running a country martyrdom is rather misplaced. The last one doing that was Hitler, and that didn't go so well for anyone.
rumborak
-
Well yeah, obviously he can't do that every time. It's just frustrating when the middle is so right-of-center that the compromise becomes very unsatisfying.
-
Donald Trump
I hope.
-
Donald Trump
I hope.
I hope you're kidding
-
It's gonna be yoooge.
-
Idiot is spending time and money investigating whether Obama was born in the US :facepalm:
-
Funny. McCain was born in Panama or sumthin.
-
Funny. McCain was born in Panama or sumthin.
If you're born to parents of US citizenship you are an American citizen, no matter where you're born, I believe. Obama's trouble came because his father was Kenyan. He was born in Hawaii, which would automatically make him a citizen of the US (those born on US soil are US citizens). The birthers claim that no documents exist to prove this.
This is false. Hawaii has this thing where they won't give out the ACTUAL birth certificate to the media, but the certificate still exists. Or something like that
-
I think McCain was born on a US military base though, which would make him a natural US citizen.
-
Funny. McCain was born in Panama or sumthin.
If you're born to parents of US citizenship you are an American citizen, no matter where you're born, I believe. Obama's trouble came because his father was Kenyan. He was born in Hawaii, which would automatically make him a citizen of the US (those born on US soil are US citizens). The birthers claim that no documents exist to prove this.
This is false. Hawaii has this thing where they won't give out the ACTUAL birth certificate to the media, but the certificate still exists. Or something like that
Yeah I knew all of this. But I still thought it was funny when I found out that McCain was born in Panama.
-
The birther shit is still going on? Come on now...
-
It's gonna be yoooge.
:rollin
If you're born to parents of US citizenship you are an American citizen, no matter where you're born, I believe.
Interesting, I don't think I knew that.
But yeah the birth certificate garbage has been long since debunked I think. Disappointing that Trump is harping on it and bringing it back.
Part of me does wonder why Obama wouldn't just come out and show it, just to shut everybody up.
-J
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
-
I think McCain was born on a US military base though, which would make him a natural US citizen.
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[30]
-
The birther shit is still going on? Come on now...
They got nothing else, so they stocks to it. And tard Trump actually chips in.
rumborak
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
Sig'd. :lol
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
They elected Obama, didn't they? How could it get any worse?
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
They elected Obama, didn't they? How could it get any worse?
Have you seen the middle east lately? It could be much worse lol
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
They elected Obama, didn't they? How could it get any worse?
Oh please. That was hardly the worst decision America could have made
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
They elected Obama, didn't they? How could it get any worse?
McCain/Palin?
Seriously, I get chills down my spine and feel a gaping, sickening pit form in my stomach every time I remember that Sarah Palin was actually a heartbeat away from becoming the president of this country. As a nation we've done a lot of stupid things. But never, until the 2008 election, had we done something as insulting to our own intelligence as we came close to doing then.
-
McCain would have been an alright president. Not my cup of tea certainly but he was one of the better republicans to go for the office. Palin on the other hand should be banned from coming within 20 miles of the oval office.
-
:omg:
Ive met Donald Trump a few times, actually saw him the other night. Id vote for him .. no problem at all.
-
Really? I mean, he's a successful guy who knows how to handle money (or so it would appear, anyway), but I don't think he'd be right in the White House
He strikes me as a kind of Ross Perot. Except not nearly as crazy
-
The fact that he's an outsider is certainly appealing. The downside is that he seems to be too much of a cowboy, and continuing with this whole birther nonsense makes him look like a whack-job.
-
The fact that he's an outsider is certainly appealing. The downside is that he seems to be too much of a cowboy, and continuing with this whole birther nonsense makes him look like a whack-job.
Yep. If he wasn't a birther, I'd at least consider him.
-
Everyone brings up the fact that Trump is a (somewhat) successful businessman. But nobody mentions that most U.S. Senators outperform him on the stock market :P
-
I think he is a whack job. I mean there's something sort of likable about him, and I admire his "moxie" and disparaging of the current GOP, but I wouldn't vote for him. And he's way too polarizing to ever be elected anyway.
Not only that, but I'm not sure about his business success. He's not one of those entrepreneurs who started at the bottom and built himself a fiscal empire from the ground up. He started with a lot, and now he owns some casinos and shit. Also I'm pretty sure he's had several exploits that ended up in bankruptcy. I mean there's no question that he's a relatively savvy businessman, but I hardly think it elevates him to tycoon status as some seem to think, or that there's any chance of it translating to effective fiscal/monetary policy in office.
-J
-
Really? I mean, he's a successful guy who knows how to handle money (or so it would appear, anyway), but I don't think he'd be right in the White House
He strikes me as a kind of Ross Perot. Except not nearly as crazy
But Perot ended up being 100% correct.... I'd take a successful businessman over a community organizer any day... he's got no business experience whatsoever, and we see the results.
-
Trump must have at least enough knowledge about business in order to be where he is at today, I don't care where he started. Look at his next project.
https://money.cnn.com/2011/03/25/real_estate/trump_scotland_golf_course/index.htm
When completed, the facility will include two courses, a driving range, and a short-game practice area. There will also be a five-star hotel of 450 rooms, a mixed-use residential community of 950 condos, 500 single-family homes, 36 villas and staff accommodations.
One big factor in the project's favor is that it preserves much of the landscape as open space, leaving vegetation and wildlife habitat in place, while reshaping and re-purposing the rest for the great game of golf. Most local residents were left undisturbed.
"The community realizes that it will enhance the area and will also provide many jobs," said Trump. "There are no negatives. Sir Sean Connery came out in support of the development and we're moving ahead rapidly."
The course will be of the "links" type, like St. Andrews, the 500 year-old course lying about 80 miles southwest and celebrated as the birthplace of the sport. Links is a Scottish word referring to open lands, usually of coastal sand dunes.
Links courses, at least in Scotland, are especially challenging because of the harsh weather: The whipping winds can play havoc with approach shots. Links also have few trees or water hazards but often deep sand traps or bunkers.
The Open Championship, sometimes called the British Open, is always played on a links course, and you can be sure the Donald is savoring the idea of his new course hosting a major tournament.
-
Having Trump as president must be a lobbyist's wet dream.
rumborak
-
If Donald Trump ran as president with Oprah as his VP, I'd bet they win.
This will probably be the only time y'all ever see me type these words, but the American people are smarter than that.
They elected Obama, didn't they? How could it get any worse?
Oh please. That was hardly the worst decision America could have made
It's the worst so far, and we'll never know how bad it could've been, but I'm talking about how bad it is NOW. Even Jimmy Carter was better and that ain't saying much and I was alive during his era, were you?
-
I can't even argue with you. If you think Obama's one of the worst things that could happen to this country then I don't know how I could convince you otherwise
-
Carter was a pretty decent president IMO. Really I don't see how either president can be blamed for the economic crises they inherited.
-
Carter was a pretty decent president IMO. Really I don't see how either president can be blamed for the economic crises they inherited.
That's one of the points I wanted to make. Carter inherited one helluva mess, much like many presidents before him. At least Obama's trying. You can't fault him for that
-
Barack Obama - Either Doing His Best In One of The Most Difficult Times In American History, Or Hitler
Barack Obama, the first black president, proved to millions this year that he is either trying his best to lead the nation during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, or he is the modern-day incarnation of Adolph Hitler. One of the two.
In 2010, Obama made a number of political compromises while still trying to pursue many of the reforms laid out during his 2008 campaign. Also, he was a totalitarian monster comparable to the perpetrator of one of the worst genocides in history. He is either a president who passed a comprehensive health care measure despite staunch opposition from powerful private interests, or a radical-Islamist sympathizer bent on systematically dismantling American democracy and eradicating all human liberty. He either lowered taxes for most Americans while failing to communicate that effectively, or he is pure evil. Whichever.
Barack Obama, two of the most important people of 2010: the one who was elected to be president of the United States and execute laws to the best of his ability, and the one who murders senior citizens and hates all white people. Only history will say which he is for sure.
-
pretty much
-
It's the worst so far, and we'll never know how bad it could've been
You are seriously suggesting that Palin as VP would have been better.
rumborak
-
Carter got a bad rap in many ways. Fair or not, the president has a great deal to do with the mood of the country, and Carter certainly didn't make people feel warm and fuzzy. I don't think he was so much a bad president as a lousy cheerleader, which is what people seem to want. This is a guy who, when energy costs were sky-rocketing, told people to put on a damn sweater instead of cranking the heater up. That's not what people wanted to hear. You'll never succeed in politics by telling people the truth. The future model has been to just tell the people to turn the heat up to 80, and buy a Lincoln Towncar while they're at it. Then it's just a crapshoot as to whether or not you're a great president or a goat.
-
Having Trump as president must be a lobbyist's wet dream.
rumborak
This is what I'm thinking as well.
-
It's the worst so far, and we'll never know how bad it could've been
You are seriously suggesting that Palin as VP would have been better.
rumborak
No. I'm seriously suggesting that we don't know how bad it could've been. All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
-
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
-
Carter is the 2nd worst president in history. #1 is GWB, but Soetoro is going to be #1 soon enough.
-
Here's an idea: how bout you wait til he's finished his term(s) to make such judgements?
-
Here's an idea: how bout you wait til he's finished his term(s) to make such judgements?
He campaigned on "but but Bush!" yet he continues Bush's illegal wars and now we have a 3rd war in Libya (and Yemen might be next). GITMO is still open, still torturing. The fed gov't is still expanding and employs 22 million people while we have 11 million in agriculture, manufacturing, and mining combined. The stimulus bill (as expected) failed and was nothing but a handout to state employee unions. The real unemployment (U-6) is 18%. A record number of Americans are on food stamps. We all thought Bush's deficits were crazy and Obama tripled them. The big banks (i.e. got more powerful through bailouts and the financial regulation bill that gives Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve even more power. Where does it end?
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
-
Where I think he's being unreasonable is in the assumption that any other electable president would have been any different. He's a continuation of Bush, just like McCain would have been, and just like Huckabee, Clinton, Gingrich or Pawlenty would be.
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
He's another globalist puppet, so why bother letting him finish? He is only doing their bidding, just like Bush. Both parties are owned by the same people. They argue on tv about taxes or abortion, but they're high-fiving each other in the background. Everyone except Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Rand Paul is controlled by the bankers.
-
Obama has taught me that it likely one of these two things is likely true:
1) He's a gigantic liar and never intended to do what he said he was going to do. (Obviously he exaggerated, as all candidates do, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he did indeed intended to do what he promised to some degree)
2) Politics are much more complicated than he thought and he doesn't have the ability (or the guts) to do what he wants to do. (I think this is much more likely. Look at Gitmo. He announced it was going to close only to have the reality of the process of closing come back to bite him.)
or I guess I'll throw in
3) He truly does have a four or eight year plan and he simply hasn't gotten very far yet. (If this is the case, he sure hasn't communicated it well)
Obviously we need to wait at least a few year after he gets out of office before we can truly judge his presidency. I tend to cut him some slack because it's not like he started the giant mess he's in. He just hasn't made it a ton better at this point, the economy is obviously rebounding though jobs haven't been coming back yet. People in America want results right now or they scream failure. Everybody knew this was not going to be an easy climb out of the recession and it hasn't been. Things are getting better, but Obama seems to get no credit for this. People only criticize that it's not gotten better faster. Obviously the huge deficits are alarming, and it really bothers me that a guy who appears to be very intelligent doesn't seem to think it's a bigger issue.
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
He's another globalist puppet, so why bother letting him finish? He is only doing their bidding, just like Bush. Both parties are owned by the same people. They argue on tv about taxes or abortion, but they're high-fiving each other in the background. Everyone except Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Rand Paul is controlled by the bankers.
Ron Paul wouldn't be any different
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
He's another globalist puppet, so why bother letting him finish? He is only doing their bidding, just like Bush. Both parties are owned by the same people. They argue on tv about taxes or abortion, but they're high-fiving each other in the background. Everyone except Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Rand Paul is controlled by the bankers.
Ron Paul wouldn't be any different
They'd take him out like they did JFK.
-
Obama has taught me that it likely one of these two things is likely true:
1) He's a gigantic liar and never intended to do what he said he was going to do. (Obviously he exaggerated, as all candidates do, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he did indeed intended to do what he promised to some degree)
2) Politics are much more complicated than he thought and he doesn't have the ability (or the guts) to do what he wants to do. (I think this is much more likely. Look at Gitmo. He announced it was going to close only to have the reality of the process of closing come back to bite him.)
or I guess I'll throw in
3) He truly does have a four or eight year plan and he simply hasn't gotten very far yet. (If this is the case, he sure hasn't communicated it well)
Obviously we need to wait at least a few year after he gets out of office before we can truly judge his presidency. I tend to cut him some slack because it's not like he started the giant mess he's in. He just hasn't made it a ton better at this point, the economy is obviously rebounding though jobs haven't been coming back yet. People in America want results right now or they scream failure. Everybody knew this was not going to be an easy climb out of the recession and it hasn't been. Things are getting better, but Obama seems to get no credit for this. People only criticize that it's not gotten better faster. Obviously the huge deficits are alarming, and it really bothers me that a guy who appears to be very intelligent doesn't seem to think it's a bigger issue.
Pretty sure it's mostly 1.
Democrats are going to support him and vote for him no matter what. There's no real strategic reason to follow through on his liberal promises. What's most disappointing is that he's legitimized GWB practices and policies on terrorism and civil liberties that liberals used to rip him to shreds for.
-
I still say we should be blaming Congress for a vast majority of all this. The President doesn't wield ALL the power. He's only as strong as the Congress below him. And Congress has been squabbling over EVERYTHING since day one. He's compromised a lot more than I expected him too, which brought about some pretty 'meh' policies that could have been great, but the blame can't be placed on him.
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
He's another globalist puppet, so why bother letting him finish? He is only doing their bidding, just like Bush. Both parties are owned by the same people. They argue on tv about taxes or abortion, but they're high-fiving each other in the background. Everyone except Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Rand Paul is controlled by the bankers.
Ron Paul wouldn't be any different
They'd take him out like they did JFK.
They, didn't take out JFK. But They wouldn't let Paul get elected.
I actually think Paul would be a pretty decent president if it weren't for all those libertarian notions of his. To be clear, I think a lot of them are great, but like most Libertarians, he seems to think that it's an all or nothing deal, and that's just silly. I'd love to see a person like Paul get elected. I'd just prefer to have somebody that isn't convinced that there's a one size fits all solution to the mess that's been made.
-
True. Paul is not one who I see as being able to make compromises very easily.
-
I still say we should be blaming Congress for a vast majority of all this. The President doesn't wield ALL the power. He's only as strong as the Congress below him. And Congress has been squabbling over EVERYTHING since day one. He's compromised a lot more than I expected him too, which brought about some pretty 'meh' policies that could have been great, but the blame can't be placed on him.
Like
-
Sucks that the Prez can't introduce legislation.
-
I don't think things would be that different.
-
Obama is just another politician. Anybody who expected anything more was being completely naive.
What's more, he's trying to operate in a broken system. Any apparent differences with anyone else in office (including Jesus Ron Paul Christ...I'm not sure why some think he alone is magically exempt from this) would be purely superficial.
I don't dislike Obama. Perhaps I'M being naive, but he seems to have some integrity and level-headedness, qualities in which other politicians are horribly deficient. That pisses off the left because he's not a brainless partisan drone, and it pisses off the right for other reasons. I'm curious to see how he fares in the upcoming election, I really have no idea at this point.
-J
-
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
Well, not unless you count the great depression and that was caused by a stock market crash that spread across the world and lasted over a decade. Stick around. It will get a lot worse before it gets better and the current administration is only making it worse. The recession of the mid 70's was nothing compared to what's coming.
I still say we should be blaming Congress for a vast majority of all this. The President doesn't wield ALL the power. He's only as strong as the Congress below him. And Congress has been squabbling over EVERYTHING since day one. He's compromised a lot more than I expected him too, which brought about some pretty 'meh' policies that could have been great, but the blame can't be placed on him.
Of course the President doesn't have ALL the power or should take all the blame, but he should have the power of leadership. Obama doesn't lead, he listens to advise and signs whatever he agrees with. He also tries to please everyone, and in the real world that's impossible. A real leader has the knowledge and determination to do what's right and doesn't care what his critics think nor is influenced by party members that have their own agendas.
-
WHY DON'T YOU LET THE MAN FINISH, HUH? You pointed reasonable arguments but I think it's more reasonable to let the man finish. Maybe in the last month of his mandate he changes his mind and starts fixing things... OR maybe he wins the re-election and THEN he goes 180° on what he's doing at the moment and finally fixes the whole world at the last second, just to be a hero. You're being unreasonable, PraXis, you just won't let the man finish.
He's another globalist puppet, so why bother letting him finish? He is only doing their bidding, just like Bush. Both parties are owned by the same people. They argue on tv about taxes or abortion, but they're high-fiving each other in the background. Everyone except Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Rand Paul is controlled by the bankers.
BTW, I was being sarcastic. I'm a Libertarian as well.
-
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
Well, not unless you count the great depression and that was caused by a stock market crash that spread across the world and lasted over a decade. Stick around. It will get a lot worse before it gets better and the current administration is only making it worse. The recession of the mid 70's was nothing compared to what's coming.
I still say we should be blaming Congress for a vast majority of all this. The President doesn't wield ALL the power. He's only as strong as the Congress below him. And Congress has been squabbling over EVERYTHING since day one. He's compromised a lot more than I expected him too, which brought about some pretty 'meh' policies that could have been great, but the blame can't be placed on him.
Of course the President doesn't have ALL the power or should take all the blame, but he should have the power of leadership. Obama doesn't lead, he listens to advise and signs whatever he agrees with. He also tries to please everyone, and in the real world that's impossible. A real leader has the knowledge and determination to do what's right and doesn't care what his critics think nor is influenced by party members that have their own agendas.
Oh, I didn't realize you could see into the future. Could you possibly tell me the next winning Powerball numbers so I can get rich?
-
It is always interesting to see the lengths people go to to justify their plain dislike for someone. I mean, Obama was the "worst president ever" almost the day he got into office. I remember people complaining about him less than a month of him being in office.
rumborak
-
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
Well, not unless you count the great depression and that was caused by a stock market crash that spread across the world and lasted over a decade. Stick around. It will get a lot worse before it gets better and the current administration is only making it worse. The recession of the mid 70's was nothing compared to what's coming.
I still say we should be blaming Congress for a vast majority of all this. The President doesn't wield ALL the power. He's only as strong as the Congress below him. And Congress has been squabbling over EVERYTHING since day one. He's compromised a lot more than I expected him too, which brought about some pretty 'meh' policies that could have been great, but the blame can't be placed on him.
Of course the President doesn't have ALL the power or should take all the blame, but he should have the power of leadership. Obama doesn't lead, he listens to advise and signs whatever he agrees with. He also tries to please everyone, and in the real world that's impossible. A real leader has the knowledge and determination to do what's right and doesn't care what his critics think nor is influenced by party members that have their own agendas.
Oh, I didn't realize you could see into the future. Could you possibly tell me the next winning Powerball numbers so I can get rich?
You are so far off base it's not even funny. How does what I said have anything to do with predicting the future? I tried to explain to you how things should work NOW. C'mon man!! Seriously, what is your deal anyway?
-
here, I'll bold it for you:
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
Well, not unless you count the great depression and that was caused by a stock market crash that spread across the world and lasted over a decade. Stick around. It will get a lot worse before it gets better and the current administration is only making it worse. The recession of the mid 70's was nothing compared to what's coming.
So, I'm gonna ask you how you know what's coming.
Because I can't see the future and neither can you. And to say things are going to be that much worse is a little presumptuous. Never mind the small economic progress we HAVE had in the past two years. Things are evidently gonna be SO MUCH WORSE than in the past
-
Of course the President doesn't have ALL the power or should take all the blame, but he should have the power of leadership. Obama doesn't lead, he listens to advise and signs whatever he agrees with. He also tries to please everyone, and in the real world that's impossible. A real leader has the knowledge and determination to do what's right and doesn't care what his critics think nor is influenced by party members that have their own agendas.
You've made a few statements here, like this one, that are absolutely correct, and yet light years removed from anything having to do with American politics. If you want somebody to do what's right, opinions be damned, then start rewriting the Constitution to allow for a King. Hell, I'd back you up on it, but I doubt you'll get very far. In the mean time, you're going to have to deal with people who do exactly what Obama's done, and Dumbass before him, and all of the other guys going back 220 years.
-
I dont agree..
we have never had such a horrible incompetent 'jr Senator" who has no resume, and with the most radical associations as Obama...Im sorry,, that true..
Obama is destroying the USA from within..like Steve Forbes said " this President either by ignorance or agenda has made 100% wrong decisions on every decision" its uncanny how horrible Obama is on every single facet..oil spills, dealing with the mid east, dissing our allies, healthcare..how to conduct the ettiquete of the office, no off shore drilling, Emelt, Rezko, Holder, Gitmo, 65 rounds of golf, taxes, Biden falling asleep? ......Im runnning out of pixels
and look he set the record..in two years he is by far the worst President ever... Carter is off the hook..and dont forget Obama had all the houses.. and GWB had to deal with Pelosi for the last two years of his term, notice the timing, and GWB had tgo put up with total hostile media (Mapes and Rather phoney up fake docs of GWB's time in the National Gurard??, ummm did Obama serve at all?), Obama is fawned over...i throw up in my mouth by how kid gloved this "Obama?"is treated by the media..of course he wont go on FOX, oh the horror of a tough question...
Im sorry... But Obama is in whole other league.. I do not feel he loves the USA and everything points that he may not.. I love watching Obama supporters who cant point to one fact or anything to back up their proping up of this debacle his suppoerters call "Change??".... and for the record, History will tell us the future, hence why Id vote for Gingrich
-
EPIC, I actually find your (and many others') attitude to politics far more damaging than anything Obama has ever done. Anything you write is extreme polemics and an "we need to destroy the other side" attitude that polarizes the political side so much that we end up in situations like recently, where politicians feel the only way to serve their votership is to have the other side run against a brick wall.
rumborak
-
EPIC, I actually find your (and many others') attitude to politics far more damaging than anything Obama has ever done. Anything you write is extreme polemics and an "we need to destroy the other side" attitude that polarizes the political side so much that we end up in situations like recently, where politicians feel the only way to serve their votership is to have the other side run against a brick wall.
rumborak
thats just not true.. my "view/opinion" did not make the S & P downgrade the USA today.. we also are watching the dollar slip and may lose it that the worlds reserve...
I dont see this outcry when "kickin GWB is the subject" that seems to be fine around here, or mocking Palin..etc..
-
I dont agree..
we have never had such a horrible incompetent 'jr Senator" who has no resume, and with the most radical associations as Obama...Im sorry,, that true..
Obama is destroying the USA from within..like Steve Forbes said " this President either by ignorance or agenda has made 100% wrong decisions on every decision" its uncanny how horrible Obama is on every single facet..oil spills, dealing with the mid east, dissing our allies, healthcare..how to conduct the ettiquete of the office, no off shore drilling, Emelt, Rezko, Holder, Gitmo, 65 rounds of golf, taxes, Biden falling asleep? ......Im runnning out of pixels
and look he set the record..in two years he is by far the worst President ever... Carter is off the hook..and dont forget Obama had all the houses.. and GWB had to deal with Pelosi for the last two years of his term, notice the timing, and GWB had tgo put up with total hostile media (Mapes and Rather phoney up fake docs of GWB's time in the National Gurard??, ummm did Obama serve at all?), Obama is fawned over...i throw up in my mouth by how kid gloved this "Obama?" treated by the media..of course he wont go on FOX, oh the horror of a tough question...
Im sorry... But Obama is in whole other league.. I do not feel he loves the USA and everything points that he may not.. I love watching Obama supporters who cant point to one fact or anything to back up their proping up of this debacle his suppoerters call "Change??".... and for the record, History will tell us the future, hence why Id vote for Gingrich
(https://www.foxnews.com/images/236658/0_61_coulter_ann_2006.jpg)
-
I dont agree..
we have never had such a horrible incompetent 'jr Senator" who has no resume, and with the most radical associations as Obama...Im sorry,, that true..
Obama is destroying the USA from within..like Steve Forbes said " this President either by ignorance or agenda has made 100% wrong decisions on every decision" its uncanny how horrible Obama is on every single facet..oil spills, dealing with the mid east, dissing our allies, healthcare..how to conduct the ettiquete of the office, no off shore drilling, Emelt, Rezko, Holder, Gitmo, 65 rounds of golf, taxes, Biden falling asleep? ......Im runnning out of pixels
and look he set the record..in two years he is by far the worst President ever... Carter is off the hook..and dont forget Obama had all the houses.. and GWB had to deal with Pelosi for the last two years of his term, notice the timing, and GWB had tgo put up with total hostile media (Mapes and Rather phoney up fake docs of GWB's time in the National Gurard??, ummm did Obama serve at all?), Obama is fawned over...i throw up in my mouth by how kid gloved this "Obama?" treated by the media..of course he wont go on FOX, oh the horror of a tough question...
Im sorry... But Obama is in whole other league.. I do not feel he loves the USA and everything points that he may not.. I love watching Obama supporters who cant point to one fact or anything to back up their proping up of this debacle his suppoerters call "Change??".... and for the record, History will tell us the future, hence why Id vote for Gingrich
A couple of quick thoughts before I get back to work.
- GWB's resume was a resounding string of failure that would have prevented him from getting a job managing a Subway franchise.
- If memory serves, GWB had a friendly house when he took over, and lost it
- The dollar's been crashing for quite some time. If it's lost as the reserve currency, he'll get blamed but only for being at the wheel when it happens.
- The media was pretty kind to Bush before he fell asleep at the wheel. Remember that "Bush makes perfect carrier landing!" photo?
And honestly, most people here aren't too crazy about Obama anyway. Where you make a mistake is presuming that people are swooning over the guy just because they're not ready to pronounce him the worst leader in 3000 years. You also don't serve your own cause too well by trying to hold up Bush as a better example. Praxis here is pretty quick to rag on Obama, but at least he's equally appauled by the miserable failure that Bush was. A little bjectivity goes a long way.
-
GWB was the Govenor of TX? correct? ( executive experience)
served his country ...correct?
was an owner., exec of the Texas Rangers
I had , have no doubt of his love for this country, nor did I for Dick Cheney ( another person who I have no doubt loves the USA)
led us after 9/11...started Homeland Security, broke up the banking nexis that funded the terror. ( unlike Holder who just troday let CAIR go, and Peter King is fighting him TODAY on this)
Kept the unemployment rate after 9/11 at 5.5 to 6
sorry,..,...I am me...I am not comfortable w Obama, AT ALL
-
was an owner., exec of the Texas Rangers
A necessity for any Presidential Candidate.
-
was an owner., exec of the Texas Rangers
A necessity for any Presidential Candidate.
shows he had a business background...ran something. he also threw a strike at Yankee Stadium( you see Obama throw a baseball? youtube that!!! LOL..)
what has Obama run? and his time at Acorn does not count ..LOL
-
what has Obama run?
He's ran the Executive Office for two years.
-
Texas has a very weak governor. Lt. Gov. has all the juice. And frankly, other than mocking death row inmates, I can't think of a single thing he did or stood for.
He was the face of the Texas Rangers. He had nothing to do with their operation. Tom Hicks was the actual owner. This is actually a good thing since when other people handed him cushy jobs, he promptly sank the boat.
He served the country by occasionally showing up to fly a F-105 (I think). By all accounts he was a very good pilot, but that was during his partying days so he didn't fly much. And if he had, his primary role would have been to defend us from Mexico.
Let 9/11 happen. Started Homeland Security. I don't know which is worse.
And again, quite a few of us aren't comfortable with Obama. I think he's been a pretty bad president, thus far. The difference is that I don't think any person could do much better right now and within this system, and I certainly don't think a simple-minded hick with a significant personality disorder is an improvement.
-
El Barto. While I agree with everything you just posted, Clinton had full knowledge of Bin Laden and dropped the ball too so I blame all government in that case.
-
was an owner., exec of the Texas Rangers
A necessity for any Presidential Candidate.
shows he had a business background...ran something. he also threw a strike at Yankee Stadium( you see Obama throw a baseball? youtube that!!! LOL..)
what has Obama run? and his time at Acorn does not count ..LOL
I don't know how 'running' a baseball team (and i say that loosely because I doubt they really do anything) has much to do with running a country...
-
El Barto. While I agree with everything you just posted, Clinton had full knowledge of Bin Laden and dropped the ball too so I blame all government in that case.
Clinton's mistake was not having the cojones to flambé a playground that was near a potential Bin Ladin camp. Can you imagine the flack he would have caught if he had done that and Bin Ladin wasn't there? Hell, at that point, nobody outside of his administration even believed he was a problem. The occasions he did act, they ridiculed him over it.
Plus, I don't think that BL had actually been charged with a crime at that point. Extrajudicial barbecuing didn't really become fashionable until Bush took office.
Still, there was plenty of evidence that 9/11 was coming down the pike, due entirely to efforts that occurred during the Clinton administration, and Chimpy couldn't have been less interested.
-
i think one also always has to keep in mind that Obama had 2 wars and an economy in shambles to deal with, all of which were not his doing, but a Republican's. It was Bush who could have (and should have) pulled the reigns on the spending, because he had much more leeway. Instead he started 2 wars.
If anything, only now comes the time where you can really judge Obama on his presidency. Before that he had to deal with the mess of his predecessor.
rumborak
-
here, I'll bold it for you:
All we know is how bad it is now and it's never been worse. Period.
This just isn't true
Well, not unless you count the great depression and that was caused by a stock market crash that spread across the world and lasted over a decade. Stick around. It will get a lot worse before it gets better and the current administration is only making it worse. The recession of the mid 70's was nothing compared to what's coming.
So, I'm gonna ask you how you know what's coming.
Take a look around you. We're already in a recession. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this country is in deep, deep trouble. Gas prices are skyrocketing. The housing market is shit and has been for 4 or 5 years now. Homes foreclosing all over the place. Inflation and the national debt are at an all time high. It's happened before and it's happening again on a larger scale. I'm not using a crystal ball, but a magic wand would sure come in handy.
-
??? More people are getting jobs now than in the past 2 years, the housing market is leveling out, gas prices continue to be WAY less than anyone pays in Europe... We are on a rebound here, the bottom is not dropping out.
-
Wait, what? I'm been biting my tongue about the actual political issues being discussed, but I think you are mistaken on your facts.
-Jobs: The employment rate is still abysmal. It was even worse two years ago, so comparing it to two years ago misses the point. It is still far too low and is far from leveling.
-Housing: Housing prices everywhere in the country continue to fall. There have been short leveling-off periods in a lot of markets, but those have continued to be followed by more declines. The housing market is not anywhere near leveling out. If you bought a house at the peak, national averages say your house is probably worth around 40% of what you paid for it. Think about that: 40%. Even if you bought a few years before or after the peak, you probably took a huge hit. For example, mid-2004 values compared to present: 58%. So let's say you bought for $400,000. Your home that you still have to pay a $400,000 mortgage on is only worth $232,000. You've lost $158,000 of your home's value just by living there. There is no leveling off in this area.
-Gas: We may pay less than Europe, but that isn't really the issue. Prices are higher here than they've been, which impacts our standard of living. And they continue to rise, which is not a good thing.
I'm not sure how you see "rebounding" in any of this.
-
To be fair, gas prices rise and fall constantly, often due to matters beyond our control. If you want to blame somebody, blame Ghadaffi and the Earth's axis relative to the ecliptic plane.
As for the housing deal, I'm honestly not too sympathetic. A house shouldn't be an investment. I wouldn't spend 50k on a car that'll be worth 38k the day I sign the papers, and I wouldn't spend 400k on a house hoping that it'll hold it's value over the 30 years I tote the note.
-
I'm not necessarily implying fault on anyone's part regarding either gas prices or home values. Just saying that to argue we are leveling off and on the rebound is not correct by any stretch.
-
Yeah, I would have to agree, I find it hard to mount too much sympathy with the housing market. Right now the continuing fall of house prices is due to the delayed foreclosures of people who gambled on an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
rumborak
-
Gas prices are rising for two reasons: falling dollar and speculators.
The last time gas hit $4/gal, a barrel of oil was $180-200... oil hit around $107 today... and gas is at $4/gal... HI INFLATION!
Food prices have been rising steadily the past couple years... they gotta stop printing all this fucking money! All the printing and stimulus is like putting a small band aid on a large, hemorrhaging wound. The S&P just gave our rating another whack.
As for the housing market, it NEEDS to keep going down. Interest rates are still being held artificially low. They should be at least 10-15% right now so people who save can be rewarded for doing so. The age of easy credit is over. On the plus side, I'm saving, and as the housing market continues to collapse, I will buy a house on the cheap because I've been saving as much as I can. Instead of trying to do the whole 20% down, 30 year mortgage, I might be able to buy in cash or 80% on a much shorter term loan. I'm always looking at foreclosed properties, but haven't found "the one" yet.
-
Dick Cheney ( another person who I have no doubt loves the USA)
That must be a real special kind of love I haven't heard of before.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1R0S0v3-M
Ron Paul WILL run for 2012!!! He will be on the Colbert Report tonight.
-
You know, even though I disagree with the vast majority of his libertarian views I think a Paul presidency would be interesting. How could it be any worse than what we've had for the last 10 plus years?
-
You know, even though I disagree with the vast majority of his libertarian views I think a Paul presidency would be interesting. How could it be any worse than what we've had for the last 10 plus years?
anybody but Obama...Im all for a Sigz/antigoon ticket even!!
-
I'm guessing he goes nowhere. Honestly, he's too scary for either side. Shame, though. As I've said many times, his strict adherence to doctrine is super-annoying, but at least he's a real person and not some bogus politician.
-
I'm guessing he goes nowhere. Honestly, he's too scary for either side. Shame, though. As I've said many times, his strict adherence to doctrine is super-annoying, but at least he's a real person and not some bogus politician.
Yeah, the very last part.
-
Yeah, that was always his biggest asset, that he seemed genuine. But, his views often cross the loony line. Also, the guy has publicly uttered so many harakiri lines that it would Democrats 10 minutes to shred the guy to pieces.
rumborak
-
Very true, Rumby. I'm curious to see if he does any better among Republican voters this time.
-
As much as I wish Paul success, I don't have much optimism. Even though he seems to have much more exposure/popularity than he did in '08, I still think the vast majority of republican voters will just go for the slick, Romney/Boehner-esque politician, 'cause that's who Fox tells them to vote for.
-
Ron's got a better shot this year, though. No other serious contenders.
But on another note, he seems to have aged quite a bit in the last 2 years.
-
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with teabaggers. If they are what they actually claim to be, then they should be creaming themselves right now. If they're just the re-branding of the GOP, my assumption all along, then they'll be looking for reasons to get away from him. Factor in comments he's made critical to their "grassroots" nature and you should get a damned amusing hodgepodge of convoluted thinking.
I suppose one possibility is that he fractures the TP the way they've fractured the GOP.
-
Umless Obama gets amnesty approved..he will be gone...thankfully. like Carter a bad dream.
misery index dont lie
-
Umless Obama gets amnesty approved..he will be gone...thankfully. like Carter a bad dream.
misery index dont lie
By who?
This election, for the Republicans, will by like the election of 2004 for the dems. The Republicans, like the democratcs of that time, have spent the past couple years bitching and bitching about non-issues, people's personalities, birth certificates, and other issues which are, frankly, retarded. When it comes time to run the election, they will discover, as the democrats did in 2004, that there actually is no party platform. And they will discover, as the democrats did, that their party leadership are unelectable goons (just look at the pickins right now, Newt, Trump, etc., all slimeballs most with bad enough personal skeletons that they will never make it through a campaign without getting smeared to pieces). Knowing this, the RNC will have to pull a tired, uncharismatic old man like Mitt Romney from out of the woodwork, someone barely less sleepy and uninteresting then John Kerry. This new candidate, the only the RNC could muster up, will lose to an unpopular president who should not be able to win again and, thanks to the utterly stupid discorse perpetuated by the right over these last couple years, we will have 4 more years of Obama. Mark my words.
-
PC,
I agree.. If I had my way..id like Newt G with Rudy as his VP..
but, I really have no idea who it will be at this point. but I would vote for a toad over Obama, so just get me in the booth and get my hand on the lever on the right..LOL
-
The American people don't want to vote for someone who looks like the Pilsbury doughboy and cheated on his ex-Wife while she was going through chemo. Remember what that did to John Edwards?
Newt's led a shameful life; he won't get far before that becomes a topic of discussion.
Trump's got the same kinda baggage. I'm sure there are plenty of slimy personal and business relations just waiting to come out in the open, if they haven't already.
My ideal Republican ticket would probably, at this point, involve Mitt Romney or Ron Paul--- and that's only if we get gov. of Massachusetts Romney, not the wannabe grandstander from 2008.
-
Ron Paul is Toxic... I cant stand him ..
-
I disagree with him, sometimes vehemently so, but I was happy to support him in 2008 and will again.
Why don't you like him? Is it because he doesn't support the crusades in the middle east?
-
I disagree with him, sometimes vehemently so, but I was happy to support him in 2008 and will again.
Why don't you like him? Is it because he doesn't support the crusades in the middle east?
I just dont like him or his nasty supporters, they are blemish to the GOP, they conduct themsleves like goons..and I think they guy is a classless louse
-
Holy fuck. Of all of your claims, many of which were pretty outlandish, calling Ron Paul an classless louse might be the topper. You defend some real slimy bastards because they carry the GOP banner, and yet don't like the only guy in Washington who's a known pragmatist. I'm really surprised by that.
-
I disagree with him, sometimes vehemently so, but I was happy to support him in 2008 and will again.
Why don't you like him? Is it because he doesn't support the crusades in the middle east?
I just dont like him or his nasty supporters, they are blemish to the GOP, they conduct themsleves like goons..and I think they guy is a classless louse
I think this is total bunk, but the bolded part is hilarious, considering the fact that he's definitely attracting huge swaths of young, passionate voters to the GOP, which they seem to desperately need more and more nowadays.
-
Holy fuck. Of all of your claims, many of which were pretty outlandish, calling Ron Paul an classless louse might be the topper. You defend some real slimy bastards because they carry the GOP banner, and yet don't like the only guy in Washington who's a known pragmatist. I'm really surprised by that.
yeah... I don't necessarily like the guy, but that's a bit much
-
Ron Paul is Toxic... I cant stand him ..
What are you talking about!?
-
I think Paul also pigeon-holed himself too much. Not that many people will agree that every single issue can be traced back to either fiscal policy or the Constitution.
Will McCain try again?
rumborak
-
Personally I think it would be better if a non native born American ran. I think we should get rid of the prerequisite that one has to be born here.
Let's not forget that one of the most famous leaders of the 20th century wasn't born in the country he ruled.
-
Adolf Hitler?
-
Adolf Hitler?
Mentioning his name doesn't help the point I am trying to make and instead makes it look I was sarcastically arguing against what I am actually arguing for.
-
Well you can't deny he did a lot for his country, whatever else he did
And this coming from a Jew :P
-
Well you can't deny he did a lot for his country, whatever else he did
And this coming from a Jew :P
But I seriously believe that the president shouldn't have to be born here.
-
That Harry chap seems popular.
-
Personally I think it would be better if a non native born American ran. I think we should get rid of the prerequisite that one has to be born here.
Let's not forget that one of the most famous leaders of the 20th century wasn't born in the country he ruled.
Forgive me, but who?
-
I think Paul also pigeon-holed himself too much. Not that many people will agree that every single issue can be traced back to either fiscal policy or the Constitution.
Will McCain try again?
rumborak
I'm feeling a bit this way, too. Did anyone see Ron Paul on Colbert the other night? He seems to have lost a bit of his charisma. In 2008, he would come out and talk about the war. His fiscal policy would always be there in the backdrop, but only his most dedicated followers probably knew or cared about it.
On Colbert last night, Ron Paul came out immediately talking about the evils of paper money. Right or not (I don't want to get into it here), he just sort of comes across as a loon that way. Most people can't really take an idea that's so abstract and foreign to them very seriously, I'm afraid.
-
Mint Romney.
-
You know what I noticed about last night on Colbert? That SC agreed with Ron Paul on issues, didn't debate with he guy and finished the interview quickly. I was really excited to see that interview and after five minutes I said: YOU DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING AND NOW IT'S OVER!
I blame them both on that.
-
Do you watch Colbert regularly?
That's pretty much the show!
-
I was an avid fan four yeras ago until the show didn't appeal to me that much... but I have seen a lot of really good interviews coming out in the last segment.
-
I think Paul also pigeon-holed himself too much. Not that many people will agree that every single issue can be traced back to either fiscal policy or the Constitution.
Will McCain try again?
rumborak
I'm feeling a bit this way, too. Did anyone see Ron Paul on Colbert the other night? He seems to have lost a bit of his charisma. In 2008, he would come out and talk about the war. His fiscal policy would always be there in the backdrop, but only his most dedicated followers probably knew or cared about it.
On Colbert last night, Ron Paul came out immediately talking about the evils of paper money. Right or not (I don't want to get into it here), he just sort of comes across as a loon that way. Most people can't really take an idea that's so abstract and foreign to them very seriously, I'm afraid.
That's pretty disappointing. Not too surprising, but the Colbert Report seems like it would be a perfect opportunity for Paul to showcase his more liberal views.
-
I liked that one campaign video back around 2008 urging everyone to vote for McCain to avoid an imminent terrorist attack that Obama's presidency would rein in.
-
I liked that one campaign video back around 2008 urging everyone to vote for McCain to avoid an imminent terrorist attack that Obama's presidency would rein in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao
-
I liked that one campaign video back around 2008 urging everyone to vote for McCain to avoid an imminent terrorist attack that Obama's presidency would rein in.
This is by far the best campaign ad ever. Listen to it with the lights down and deep bass headphones on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
-
Do I need 3D glasses for the next presidency?
rumborak
-
Do I need 3D glasses for the next presidency?
rumborak
Well, at least 7.1 Surround System and the OST of Hans Zimmer to show how good of a patriot you are.
-
And the guy's done before he even officially declares.
Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1MCStAm4M)
I'm kind of mixed on the whole thing. I personally think the raid was kosher, although I don't get the seething hatred people had for the guy. I also don't think that Ron Paul's unwillingness to violate Pakistan's sovereignty should be a deal-breaker. I suspect that this is yet another instance where raw emotion is far more important than thoughtful consideration to the voters. Fucking democracy.
-
And the guy's done before he even officially declares.
Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1MCStAm4M)
Was thinking the same. I mean, he just lost a lot of conservatives with that statement.
rumborak
-
I don't recall a Congressional declaration of war to invade Pakistan.
-
I don't recall a Congressional declaration of war to invade Pakistan.
While I disagree about the importance of a congressional declaration of war, I get your point and actually agree with what you're implying. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, nobody on either side of the aisle gives a damn about right or wrong when there's an emotional stake. Ron Paul could make the greatest, most eloquent argument against taking action that's ever been given, but the guy who says "fuck that, he needed to be dead so I had him killed" will win out every time. People love logic and reason when it supports their view of things, but when it doesn't, they'll immediately fall back on whats "right."
-
I think Obama had the choice of a) capture/kill bin Laden or b) wait for a better opportunity that might never come. Paul's comment completely disregards this aspect. I dunno, I find Paul's comment increasingly removed from reality tbh.
rumborak
-
I don't recall a Congressional declaration of war to invade Pakistan.
6 guys on a mission for one man is an invasion? Don't we regularly have service people in Pakistan anyways?
-
I don't recall a Congressional declaration of war to invade Pakistan.
6 guys on a mission for one man is an invasion? Don't we regularly have service people in Pakistan anyways?
When it is approved by the Government or even if not by the whole government (Congress) and approved by the president and his staff, it is. As for the second part, you do. That doesn't mean it is correct.
-
The operation in Pakistan was a violation of sovereignty. Not an invasion.
rumborak
-
Interesting distinction. I wouldn't characterize it as an invasion myself, but I think it's fair to call it one, and certainly so in regard to the political component that Praxis was referring to. Are you're basing your interpretation on the fact that we didn't stick around?
-
An invasion is an unlawful entry into a country with hostile intent against said country, with the intention of (at least temporary) occupying the territory. Neither was the operation directed against Pakistan, nor was bin Laden a Pakistani, nor did the US Seals stay more than 2 hours.
The operation was not an invasion. Using the term in this context is unnecessary hyperbole.
rumborak
-
well Rumborak said what I couldnt haha
-
It's true. It's not an invasion. I can't believe how I forgot that we (my country) did the same thing in Ecuador and went all over to Venezuela to capture a bad guy.
-
https://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/05/many-have-said-now-hes-finished-gingrichs-gaffe-could-end-his-campaign.html
So Newt makes an honest remark that's almost certainly true, and the GOP's ready to lynch him for it. I've always maintained that anybody who actually wants to run for office is automatically unqualified for the job. Now it's looking like the only real qualification for getting elected is being the worst possible candidate. This whole charade seems to find a new way to amuse me every 2 years. I don't understand why there's any support left for this silly system we've created.
-
Wow. A sensible comment from Gingrich about the budget... I kinda respect him more than I used to
-
It's sad how people are so fixated on party lines, us vs. them.
rumborak
-
I for one think it's funny that Gingrich is demonized for simply saying what most establishment Republicans already lean toward anyways. Gingrich is demonized while other run-of-the-mill neocon Republicans like Santorum or Pawlenty who arguably favor status-quo spending are considered fair game for the GOP nomination.
-
Santorum is nasty :lol
-
Santorum is nasty :lol
Anything you'd like to tell us about, there? :lol
I kind of have to think that might really be a problem for the guy. He wouldn't be getting any of the gay vote anyway, but that's a whole different kind of stigma.
-
Santorum is nasty :lol
Anything you'd like to tell us about, there? :lol
I kind of have to think that might really be a problem for the guy. He wouldn't be getting any of the gay vote anyway, but that's a whole different kind of stigma.
I admit, I had no idea until Jon Stewart told me to google it :rollin
-
I hope you didn't use image search.
-
I just want to say, I don't think any Republican opponent has a snow balls chance in hell of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.
Sadly...
-
I hope you didn't use image search.
ewwwwww haha no I didn't
-
I just want to say, I don't think any Republican opponent has a snow balls chance in hell of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.
Sadly...
Which would really, really suck, but given how they reacted to Santorum's statement, they might also deserve. If they envision the party as so extreme and hardline that a moderate voice is declared "an embarassment for the party", they might not be fit to govern.
rumborak
-
Just found an editorial from Michael Medved really ripping into Ron Paul. Aside from the fact that he (Medved) appears to be a real jackass*, he's demonstrating one of the biggest problems with hard-core libertarians. Everybody has their limits! It's great to say that the government should stay the hell off of our backs, but like everybody else, that only extends as far as their own personal beliefs.
URL's are to damn long, nowadays (https://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110518/ts_dailybeast/14151_ronpaulhookersandherointhe2012presidentialcandidatesaddledtakeonpersonalliberty;_ylt=AnS7Zsd18x8D1jIhfpz9jTW9F4l4;_ylu=X3oDMTVmNHFkMm1pBGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMjAxMTA1MTgvMTQxNTFfcm9ucGF1bGhvb2tlcnNhbmRoZXJvaW50aGUyMDEycHJlc2lkZW50aWFsY2FuZGlkYXRlc2FkZGxlZHRha2VvbnBlcnNvbmFsbGliZXJ0eQRjY29kZQNvZmZnYjUwawRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNyb25wYXVsaG9va2U-)
*This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft.
Really now, does he really believe that's what Paul wants, which would render him stupid beyond credibility, or is he just bullshitting people, which would make him a liar.
-
Just found an editorial from Michael Medved really ripping into Ron Paul. Aside from the fact that he (Medved) appears to be a real jackass*, he's demonstrating one of the biggest problems with hard-core libertarians. Everybody has their limits! It's great to say that the government should stay the hell off of our backs, but like everybody else, that only extends as far as their own personal beliefs.
URL's are to damn long, nowadays (https://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110518/ts_dailybeast/14151_ronpaulhookersandherointhe2012presidentialcandidatesaddledtakeonpersonalliberty;_ylt=AnS7Zsd18x8D1jIhfpz9jTW9F4l4;_ylu=X3oDMTVmNHFkMm1pBGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMjAxMTA1MTgvMTQxNTFfcm9ucGF1bGhvb2tlcnNhbmRoZXJvaW50aGUyMDEycHJlc2lkZW50aWFsY2FuZGlkYXRlc2FkZGxlZHRha2VvbnBlcnNvbmFsbGliZXJ0eQRjY29kZQNvZmZnYjUwawRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNyb25wYXVsaG9va2U-)
*This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft.
Really now, does he really believe that's what Paul wants, which would render him stupid beyond credibility, or is he just bullshitting people, which would make him a liar.
Exactly. Liberty's lovely until people do things you don't like. And this is laughable:
The only possible argument for this constitutional interpretation would involve a sweeping expansion of the fictitious “right to privacy”—a whole-cloth invention of the Warren Court that conservatives (and originalists) generally hate. If the Constitution actually hints at a right to privacy so comprehensive that it protects a previously unrecognized right to sell sex, then how can it not guarantee the freedom to terminate your pregnancy? But Paul insists he remains fervently pro-life and speaks with (appropriate) contempt of Roe v. Wade.
This is the kind of progressive legal argument that Meved would usually go nuts over. Since when are we granted rights by anybody or anything? I thought they were God-given? Furthermore, his argument that the Founders didn't "intend to guard 'personal habits' from governmental regulation" could surely be used to crack down on smoking or soda consumption, and I'm confident radio legal expert man would oppose his own argument in those cases.
-
I thought he was a gung-ho, CATO type libertarian. Not sure where I got that from.
-
Obama is looking like a 2008 Republican (https://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/24/carville.obama.mideast/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)
I'm not a big fan of Carville, but he raises an interesting point. Since Obama is essentially every bit the Republican that McCain was, whoever runs against him will have to be every bit as far to the fringe as Palin. That's kind of a bummer.
-
Eh. While I can see some of the arguments there, Obama is also distinctively Democrat. The Middle East speech was something no Republican president would have done.
rumborak
-
Honestly, I'd consider him a better Republican than Bush. I think part of the deal is that the entire scale has shifted quite a bit to the right. A moderate democrat today is pretty close to the old-school Republican party. McCain pretty much fit the old GOP mold, and I can't honestly see how Obama is any different than him. That's part of the reason they're scraping the lunatic fringe for viable candidates to run against him.
-
I personally think he's driving exactly the pragmatic Democrat line I was hoping he would. Which of course partially overlaps with pragmatic Republican (which would have been McCain's line), but that's perfectly fine. Even though, McCain would not have held the same Middle East speech.
rumborak