DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Scheavo on August 10, 2011, 12:28:38 PM

Title: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on August 10, 2011, 12:28:38 PM
14 months out, what do people think is going to happen in the 2012 elections? A new poll (https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html) suggests a "change in power" in Washington, what would this actually mean? And will the voters actually vote in a way which changes power in Washington? People still seem to generally like their Representative or Senator. On top of that, our system creates a false dichotomy of Democrat of Republican, so unless people wise up and en masse vote for a different party and work on getting rid of our corrupt as fuck government, I'm not sure if it'll amount to much.

Practically speaking, even given all of Obama's faults, I still think he has a better chance of winning than not. The GOP field is very weak, and he'll be the lesser of two evils. Not sure what will happen in congress.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: PraXis on August 10, 2011, 01:03:28 PM
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change. We'll still be meddling in the Middle East, and we'll still have the Patriot Act.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on August 10, 2011, 01:06:34 PM
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change. We'll still be meddling in the Middle East, and we'll still have the Patriot Act.
Basically this. I can see a shift back to the Republicans, but we'll still have a massive deficit and we'll still be stuck in two wars we can't afford. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but so far I'm not impressed by any of the leading GOP candidates.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on August 10, 2011, 01:08:42 PM
Practically speaking, even given all of Obama's faults, I still think he has a better chance of winning than not. The GOP field is very weak, and he'll be the lesser of two evils.

Pretty much.  The GOP is a pretty weak contender as it stands right now.  They are in desperate need of more moderate views and, more simply put, better candidates.  They'd probably have a better shot if there were a more immediate foreign issue at hand, but with the recent killing of Osama among other things I don't think the focus will be on that.  Sure, there is growing discontent with Obama, but I believe he's still generally favored by the public, and if not his billion-dollar campaign probably won't hurt.  And, of course, he has the advantage of being the incumbent president.  As it stands, to me, there is a hell of a lot pointing towards a reelection.  
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on August 10, 2011, 01:12:55 PM
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Adami on August 10, 2011, 01:16:49 PM
One of the sides will be in power while the other side does everything possible to stop them from having any power.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on August 10, 2011, 01:18:43 PM
I'd bet on Obama toughing it out.  Romney and Perry will slaughter each other in the primaries, though I'm no sure who'll win.  I'd probably bet on Perry (better hair), but he wouldn't fair well in a general election.  For one thing,  despite the fact that they hated each other,  people will associate him with the last imbecilic Texan to hold the office.  Plus he'll be too far to the right to gain moderate support.  That prayer stunt the other day will help him with the crazoids who still worship Palin's silly ass, but that doesn't help you win nationwide elections.  The GOP is in a situation where the candidate more likely to win the primaries by appealing to whackjobs can't win the office.

As for congress, who the hell knows.  The conventional wisdom is that Obama's party will take a hit, but at the same time,  the GOP is pretty seriously fucked up right now.  The Tea Party fissure hasn't even started to get big yet, and will cause them a great deal of trouble for years to come.  The Budget issue reflects more poorly on both the GOP and the TP than the democrats.  S&P seemed pretty clear that it was their obstruction that caused the downgrade.  Add to that their inexplicable hard-on to screw with Medicair, which is instant death for a politician.  Last time around they were able to ride on an anti-Obamacare [alleged] mandate,  but that's less and less the attractive strategy as people become more accepting of the fact that it's a done deal.  

Honestly,  I don't really see things looking too different in 2013.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on August 10, 2011, 01:19:00 PM
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.

Even a lot of tea partiers don't want cuts to social welfare programs. They love their social security and their medicare.

and if not his billion-dollar campaign probably won't hurt.  

This election is going to be interesting in terms of advertisements... Super-pacs have never existed before, and it's already putting a lot of money into the political system (yay corruption, yay propaganda!).

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: juice on August 10, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
I hope someone other than Obama will be president but we'll see.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on August 10, 2011, 02:44:33 PM
It would be interesting for a strong progressive primary challenger to come out against Obama. If for nothing more than to call him out on everything he didn't/hasn't/won't fight for. 

You know, a lot of candidates have been signing pledges...how about we elect someone who signs a pledge stating he will only serve one term? Go fuck shit up in Washington, expose everything, die a political death, and then bow out after four years. I can dream, can't I? :p
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: William Wallace on August 10, 2011, 02:51:50 PM
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change. We'll still be meddling in the Middle East, and we'll still have the Patriot Act.
Yeah. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who would have the balls to make substantial changes to any policy. Naturally, neither has a chance in the general election, or  even the primary for that matter.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ResultsMayVary on August 10, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
It would be interesting for a strong progressive primary challenger to come out against Obama. If for nothing more than to call him out on everything he didn't/hasn't/won't fight for. 

You know, a lot of candidates have been signing pledges...how about we elect someone who signs a pledge stating he will only serve one term? Go fuck shit up in Washington, expose everything, die a political death, and then bow out after four years. I can dream, can't I? :p
This. This. This. That would be sweet.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: j on August 10, 2011, 05:18:56 PM
A new puppet will be elected and nothing will change.

Yup yup.  If the GOP can put up a halfway decent candidate, I'd probably bank on them, because the masses are so (largely unfairly) disgusted with Obama at this point.  But again, it doesn't matter at all.

You know, a lot of candidates have been signing pledges...how about we elect someone who signs a pledge stating he will only serve one term? Go fuck shit up in Washington, expose everything, die a political death, and then bow out after four years.

This is the stuff of my dreams.

-J
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on August 10, 2011, 06:27:02 PM
Hmm.. if Romney, Paulson, or Paul are the Repub. candidate, then I'd be voting Pub.

Otherwise, Obama, since he seems a good deal less threatening than Perry or others.

Though I'm not going to be able to vote in 2012. 

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on August 10, 2011, 06:31:42 PM
Romney and Perry will slaughter each other in the primaries, though I'm no sure who'll win.  I'd probably bet on Perry (better religion)

FTFY
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on August 10, 2011, 08:25:48 PM
It's weird.  Perry wasn't overtly religious until the last year or two, when he was building up his presidential resume.  He probably was privately, who knows, but certainly not like Bush was before him.  But yeah,  you're right about the electability of them based on that.  I'd guess that Mitt's the bigger bible thumper,  it's just the wrong version that he's beating on.

Still,  I think Perry will do better based on appearance.  He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him.  While Romney looks presidential,  Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy.  The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected.  Sadly,  he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on August 10, 2011, 08:28:51 PM
Still,  I think Perry will do better based on appearance.  He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him.  While Romney looks presidential,  Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy.  The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected.  Sadly,  he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods. 

Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or too stupid to have been given the right to vote.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on August 10, 2011, 08:38:20 PM
Still,  I think Perry will do better based on appearance.  He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him.  While Romney looks presidential,  Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy.  The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected.  Sadly,  he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods. 

Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or to stupid to have been given the right to vote.

Funny you should mention that...

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/candidate-looks-matter-less-informed-voters-133346843.html

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on August 10, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Kennedy vs Nixon comes to mind.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Adami on August 10, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Kennedy vs Nixon comes to mind.

Luckily that rule worked in our favor on that one.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on August 10, 2011, 08:51:22 PM
Still,  I think Perry will do better based on appearance.  He has what the French call, I don't know what, and it'll work well for him.  While Romney looks presidential,  Perry looks and acts like a good ole boy.  The same sort of thing that got Reagan and W elected.  Sadly,  he's equally dimwitted and twice as shallow as either of those nimrods. 

Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or too stupid to have been given the right to vote.
Yes and no.  There are plenty of people who'll vote for Perry because he's a handsome guy, but they're the exception and probably about in line with the people who'll vote for Obama because he's [sort of] black.  They're all pointless like you said.  But,  appearance is still important.  Remember that absolutely nothing that any of these people say will have any substance whatsoever.  A lot of what people will be judging them by is the quality of their bullshit, and that's based largely on appearance.  Kennedy didn't win out because he was a more handsome fellow than Nixon.  He won out because he was cool and laid back while Nixon was stiff and analytical.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dr. DTVT on August 16, 2011, 01:57:33 PM
Anyone who's voting for their nation's #1 figurehead based on appearance is either really cynical or too stupid to have been given the right to vote.

Read a history book Shake, it's happened already.  Warren G. Gangster Motherfuckin' Harding.

Bam.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on August 16, 2011, 01:59:47 PM
There's a reason the taller candidate nearly always wins. Appearances can go a long way to get a candidate elected.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on August 16, 2011, 02:05:52 PM
So in other words, the US population is too cynical and the right to vote should be severely restricted?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Adami on August 16, 2011, 02:09:28 PM
So in other words, the US population is too cynical and the right to vote should be severely restricted?

Considering how few people vote, restricting it would end up with like 4% of the population deciding everything.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on August 17, 2011, 11:52:40 AM
Heh.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-25SJvA_oy3w/TkqM8-dfo2I/AAAAAAAAAG4/5Tuou9wlqgg/s1600/vastleft.png)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on August 17, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
I'm pretty sick of the two party system in general. The money in politics is disgusting. $14million to campaign? That type of money could be much better used elsewhere. I'm hoping that americanselect.org (I started a thread on it, but has gotten little attention) turns out pretty decent and doesn't just spoil the Obama vote.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on August 17, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
$14 million? It'll probably be well over a billion dollars spent on this campaign. Wasn't it close last time? And that was before corporations could spend as much as they want.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on August 17, 2011, 12:57:32 PM
$14 million? It'll probably be well over a billion dollars spent on this campaign. Wasn't it close last time? And that was before corporations could spend as much as they want.

I was just stating about one person in particular who raised that, at least when I heard the figures weeks ago.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on August 17, 2011, 01:32:52 PM
Ahh
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Fuzzboy on August 17, 2011, 02:17:27 PM
I'm pretty sick of the two party system in general. The money in politics is disgusting.

Yep yep. It's all basically a game to see who can shell out the most cash. I'd pretty much only be happy if Paul wins, but that's what I said three years ago...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on August 17, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
$14 million? It'll probably be well over a billion dollars spent on this campaign. Wasn't it close last time? And that was before corporations could spend as much as they want.

I was just stating about one person in particular who raised that, at least when I heard the figures weeks ago.
Hell,  14 million is probably what somebody running for city council would spend.  I've been seeing references to Obama's billion dollar war chest, and with free-flowing corporate money,  the GOP will blow that much as well. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dublagent66 on August 17, 2011, 04:08:17 PM
I love what Dennis Miller said on O'Reilly a few weeks back.  I can't quote him word for word but it was something like, any candidate in 2012 could be successful as long as their name is "not Obama".  Well, at least the GOP has something to thank Obama for...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on August 18, 2011, 08:51:11 AM
I doesnt matter who makes president, we are still going to have a paid off congress. We are still going to have to deal with the fuck ups of both parties that have built up over the last few terms. I have no hope to be perfectly honest.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on August 18, 2011, 01:05:43 PM
Bachmann: I'll Bring Back $2 Gas

https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/economy/bachmann_gas_prices/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Why do politicians make promises like this? She would have no way of influencing a global commodity to that extent. It's blatent pandering to voters and sadly some people are stupid enough to fall for it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on August 18, 2011, 03:28:07 PM
This is the same woman who stated she was from the same city as John Wayne - which turned out to be John Wayne Gacy. Also the same woman who said Happy Birthday to Elvis when it was the anniversary of his death.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on August 18, 2011, 03:36:26 PM
How did she end up getting in office?

Was she rich or something?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on August 19, 2011, 06:12:51 AM
How did she end up getting in office?

Was she rich or something?

Why did Palin end up getting as far as she did?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: PuffyPat on August 19, 2011, 06:37:14 AM
Does Bachmann even know how the Government works? Did she ever take a civics class in high-school, or did she skip to many days to get credit? I hated civics, and even I could be a better president than her.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on August 20, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
Bachmann: I'll Bring Back $2 Gas

https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/economy/bachmann_gas_prices/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Bachmann promises Jesus will return in her second term (https://www.totallyboguslink.com)

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 01, 2011, 11:52:23 AM
Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee, Obama will not have a primary challenge, but he's a weak candidate because the economy has not turned around fast enough and even though it's really not his fault he's still going to receive the brunt of the blame for it.

I think the presidential election will be very, very close.  It's difficult to unseat an incumbent president. I hold up George W. Bush as an example.  His favorability ratings at this point were 5 to 7 points lower than Obama's and he beat John Kerry fairly handily.  Granted, John Kerry is about as charismatic as a fucking brick, and Obama's going to have to go up against Rick Perry, who, despite his faults, is a seasoned campaigner......but the problem is, political insiders are not in vogue right now, and Perry, despite the strong economy in Texas, carries a lot baggage.

It's definitely going to be a very interesting election cycle.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2011, 12:28:57 PM
I don't think it'll be that close.  Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election.  He's too much of a cowboy.  Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading.  A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last. 

Plus,  things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it.  He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for. 

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 01, 2011, 12:50:50 PM
I don't think it'll be that close.  Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election.  He's too much of a cowboy.  Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading.  A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last. 

Plus,  things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it.  He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for. 

I've got one word for ya: Dubya   :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El JoNNo on September 01, 2011, 01:29:34 PM
I feel sorry for you United Statesmen, nearly every candidate is an idiot.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2011, 02:05:27 PM
I don't think it'll be that close.  Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election.  He's too much of a cowboy.  Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading.  A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last. 

Plus,  things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it.  He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for. 

I've got one word for ya: Dubya   :lol
No correlation.  Bush was a moron, but he wasn't particularly fanatical.  Furthermore,  The landscape has changed quite a bit since then.  Strangely,  Bush would be considered far too moderate to compete within the current incarnation of the GOP.  Perry is leading by appealing to those maniacs. 

Plus,  W hurts Perry a great deal since most people still have a very sour feeling about electing hare-brained Texas governors. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on September 01, 2011, 02:12:20 PM
Why is it that both parties can't seem to come up with good candidates when it would be relatively easy to win the election? The Dems couldn't come up with anyone in 2004 when they should have easily beat Bush. No the Reps can't come up with anyone this time when Obama looks weak.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 01, 2011, 02:52:47 PM
I don't think it'll be that close.  Perry will clean up in the primaries, but far too whacked out to run in the general election.  He's too much of a cowboy.  Plus, the allegedly gangbuster Texas situation is somewhat misleading.  A helluva lot of people who aren't idiot rednecks actually care about education and healthcare, which are two areas we're pretty much dead last. 

Plus,  things don't have to improve that much for Obama to get a bump out of it.  He's got over a year to hope for even a marginal improvement in the economy, which he'll get to take the credit for. 

I've got one word for ya: Dubya   :lol
No correlation.  Bush was a moron, but he wasn't particularly fanatical.  Furthermore,  The landscape has changed quite a bit since then.  Strangely,  Bush would be considered far too moderate to compete within the current incarnation of the GOP.  Perry is leading by appealing to those maniacs. 

Plus,  W hurts Perry a great deal since most people still have a very sour feeling about electing hare-brained Texas governors. 

I hope you're right, but I'm not very confident in Obama's chances.  I'm not even a big fan of his to be honest, he's nowhere near as progressive as I thought or had hoped he would be and he's kinda been a bit of a fuckup on a few things.  Like putting entitlements on the table.   :facepalm:  He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade  :\
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2011, 03:12:33 PM
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade  :\

I agree with this, but probably for a different reason.  Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right.  Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected. 

Frankly,  Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically.  The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on September 01, 2011, 03:54:21 PM
I just looked at every one of the possible nominees for the spot on the 2012 bill and if I had to vote for any of them, it would be Fred Karger, but if we're talking about anyone with a semblance of a chance, it would be Ron Paul.

I'm going to read this thread now.

edit: If Mitt Romney or Rick Perry get elected, I'll shit a brick.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
edit: If Mitt Romney or Rick Perry get elected, I'll shit a brick.
Romney could actually beat Obama.  He just can't beat Perry to get there.  The tea party won't back him because he's sane, and the GOP won't support him because of the M next to his name, and the fact that he deigned to give poor people insurance. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on September 01, 2011, 05:43:29 PM
They are both fucking wacko.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 02, 2011, 06:30:49 AM
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade  :\

I agree with this, but probably for a different reason.  Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right.  Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected. 

Frankly,  Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically.  The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.

Well, maybe....but consider Obama's supreme court appointments.  Bush would have never appointed two liberals to the court.  To ME, that is pretty much the only reason I have to vote for Obama again.  In the next term, he may have another opportunity to make another appointment to the court, and the balance will finally start shifting back to the left a bit.  Some of the rulings to come out of "Dubya's Court" in the last few years have been absolutely fucking ridiculous (I'm thinking Citizens United for example)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2011, 08:59:28 AM
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade  :\

I agree with this, but probably for a different reason.  Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right.  Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected. 

Frankly,  Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically.  The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.

Well, maybe....but consider Obama's supreme court appointments.  Bush would have never appointed two liberals to the court.  To ME, that is pretty much the only reason I have to vote for Obama again.  In the next term, he may have another opportunity to make another appointment to the court, and the balance will finally start shifting back to the left a bit.  Some of the rulings to come out of "Dubya's Court" in the last few years have been absolutely fucking ridiculous (I'm thinking Citizens United for example)
SCOTUS appointments are an interesting thing.  They don't always turn out quite the way you expected.  Look at Souter.  In Bush's case,  Roberts might actually turn out to be halfway sane.  No hope for Alito.  Either way,  the problem with any upcoming appointments is that they won't alter the ideological landscape much.  The GOP wing of the court is quite young.  The liberal side is quite a bit older, so the best Obama can do is maintain what little balance there is.  Personally,  I'd bet on Ginsberg being the next to skidaddle, and you're not going to find anybody more liberal then her.  In Kennedy's case,  you could certainly move his slot to the left a bit, but he's actually one of the rational right leaning justices, so I'm not sure I'd like that a whole lot either.

As I've said before,  I'd rather have 9 O'Connor's* than an equal mix of Thomas's and Breyer's. 


*even though that woman did quite a lot to fuck us all before leaving.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 02, 2011, 10:09:06 AM
He's the best thing to happen to Republicans in a decade  :\

I agree with this, but probably for a different reason.  Obama's been a huge boon to the GOP (although they're far too blind to notice) because he's helped them shift the landscape quite a bit to the right.  Half the country willy rally around a democrat who's ideologically a helluva lot closer to a Reagan Republican the the GOP's own nominee will be, and they'll think they've won if he gets elected. 

Frankly,  Bush/Obama are essentially the exact same ideologically.  The GOP and the tea-party nimrods are fighting over who can be further right, and the democrats are filling the void left by the original republicans.

Well, maybe....but consider Obama's supreme court appointments.  Bush would have never appointed two liberals to the court.  To ME, that is pretty much the only reason I have to vote for Obama again.  In the next term, he may have another opportunity to make another appointment to the court, and the balance will finally start shifting back to the left a bit.  Some of the rulings to come out of "Dubya's Court" in the last few years have been absolutely fucking ridiculous (I'm thinking Citizens United for example)
SCOTUS appointments are an interesting thing.  They don't always turn out quite the way you expected.  Look at Souter.  In Bush's case,  Roberts might actually turn out to be halfway sane.  No hope for Alito.  Either way,  the problem with any upcoming appointments is that they won't alter the ideological landscape much.  The GOP wing of the court is quite young.  The liberal side is quite a bit older, so the best Obama can do is maintain what little balance there is.  Personally,  I'd bet on Ginsberg being the next to skidaddle, and you're not going to find anybody more liberal then her.  In Kennedy's case,  you could certainly move his slot to the left a bit, but he's actually one of the rational right leaning justices, so I'm not sure I'd like that a whole lot either.

As I've said before,  I'd rather have 9 O'Connor's* than an equal mix of Thomas's and Breyer's. 


*even though that woman did quite a lot to fuck us all before leaving.

Right, that's exactly my point. The liberal side of the court is going to be out of there long before any of the conservatives.  If a republican were to get elected in 2012, by the end of his/her first term, the court would likely be shifted to the right, where it would stay for quite some time.  And as far as I'm concerned the court is already way too far to the right as it is. 

I'm not expecting Obama to shift the court to the left at all - the numbers just don't work for that, I'm just hoping to maintain the status quo.   A Republican would most certainly replace Ginsberg with a conservative and then what's next?  Pretty soon you'll be able to buy an AK-47 at the supermarket, while you're picking up milk on the way home from work.  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on September 04, 2011, 09:51:51 PM
I turned on the TV and Talladega Nights was on, and it made me realize, Will Ferrell would do an incredible Rick Perry (be sorta like his Bush anyways).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 04, 2011, 10:06:33 PM
El Bart, have you seen any W interviews post-presidency? He's not as stupid as you all make him out to be. It'd be nice if you laid off the name calling of conservatives and things relating to Republicans. You're not the only one with an opinion and this megaphone called the Internet.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 04, 2011, 11:44:41 PM
El Bart, have you seen any W interviews post-presidency? He's not as stupid as you all make him out to be. It'd be nice if you laid off the name calling of conservatives and things relating to Republicans. You're not the only one with an opinion and this megaphone called the Internet.
He isn't a retard, I'll give you that,  but what intelligence he does have he has zero interest in actually using.  My guess is that the guy can probably work the hell out of a sudoku puzzle,  something that confounded me the one time I took a look at one,  but he lacks both the bandwidth and the interest to take on complex matters.  He's, quite simply,  a very simple man, which I suspect is largely by choice and by design. 

As for the name calling,  it's not like I'm any kinder to Obama or his ilk.  I've made it pretty clear that I think Obama's a jackass and a surprisingly bad president.  He's no less deserving of my criticism than Bush was, as far as I'm concerned.  No more or less than any of their minions that think guns are more important than medicine, or that making me drive a go-kart will save the Earth,  or that it's really cool that the government spies on us,  or that the government can solve every one of our problems.  Dickheads exist on both sides of the political spectrum,  and I'm quite content to continue calling the dickheads.   
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 05, 2011, 05:32:36 AM
I like this forum. I can't argue with a post like that. I  Am conservative myself. While conservative at heart and belief, I am much more moderate in reality. Ideally I'd like to see things happen a certain way, but I realize that won't be the case. My ideal candidate is more or less someone like Mike Huckabee. I know a lot of people are put off by his religious stances, but if you see how he got smeared in the 2008 primaries because of what he did as Gov. of Arkansas, you'll see that he's a tad more moderate.

I cannot stand Bachman or Perry. Romney will get my vote in the primary, but it's really the turd sandwich as opposed to the giant douche.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 05, 2011, 07:31:34 AM
Well, truth be told, I'm a liberal/socialist and I actually think Mike Huckabee is, at the very least, a sincere guy.  My problem with Dubya is two-fold.  First, I vehemently disagree with his supply-side economics.  Cutting taxes for the rich does not work.  All it does is create huge deficits, we learned that under Reagan.  These are facts that cannot be refuted.  A simple objective review of history proves it.  The deficit skyrocketed under Reagan, so much so that even though George H. W. "Read My Lips" Bush promised he would not raise taxes, he had no choice, just as some future president will have no choice but to eliminate Dubya's tax cuts.  They are the single biggest contributor to the current deficit.  Supply side has been fully and unequivocally debunked.  Not once, but twice.  But the American voting public seems to have the memory of a flea.

The second thing about Dubya that bugs me is, well, he belongs in prison and he's not there.  In my view, him, Dick Cheney and anyone else who was involved in the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country (which wasn't really a blunder but more of a scam to steer money to Halliburtan, et all, but I digress) all belong in the big house.

Other than that, I'm sure he's a swell guy.  :\
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 06, 2011, 08:59:37 PM
Here's what I don't get.  Do Perry's supporters really think he stands a chance in a general election?  If I were a republican I'd be horrified right now.  You really don't have to be Kreskin to see how this is going to unfold. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on September 07, 2011, 02:46:58 AM
Apparently Perry has made statements about Texas seceding. You know, if I were him and wanted to achieve this,  probably the best way of going about such a thing would be to steer the population against a brick wall covertly. That way they have the impression the democratic process is not working, and other options need to be considered.

/tinfoilhat

rumborak 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 07, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
Here's what I don't get.  Do Perry's supporters really think he stands a chance in a general election?  If I were a republican I'd be horrified right now.  You really don't have to be Kreskin to see how this is going to unfold. 

He's better than Bachman or Palin.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 07, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
I hardly see how that matters. 

They're going to nominate someone who can't beat Obama because he's a whackjob like they are, instead of a reasonable Republican who would actually match up well against Obama, but isn't insane enough to get the base riled up. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Adami on September 07, 2011, 03:21:25 PM
I've decided to not care in the slightest bit who's running until it's down to the two main candidates.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Cool Chris on September 07, 2011, 04:11:56 PM
Everyone is talking about <Republican candidate> vs. Obama. Have the Ds already pushed in all their chips with Obama for 2012? Is no one going to bother to campaign against him?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ddtonfire on September 07, 2011, 05:39:43 PM

Bachmann promises Jesus will return in her second term (https://www.totallyboguslink.com)

rumborak


I was REALLY hoping that would be an Onion article!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on September 07, 2011, 06:27:29 PM
Everyone is talking about <Republican candidate> vs. Obama. Have the Ds already pushed in all their chips with Obama for 2012? Is no one going to bother to campaign against him?

Course not, this is American politics, not a democratic process.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 07, 2011, 06:30:25 PM
Everyone is talking about <Republican candidate> vs. Obama. Have the Ds already pushed in all their chips with Obama for 2012? Is no one going to bother to campaign against him?
That would actually be one way to land ourselves with President Perry.  Obama still has some support from the base, and a new guy would lose some of that.  He also has the trappings of the office, which are great for campaigning.  Incumbents have a distinct advantage that a new candidate would lack.  More importantly,  challenges to the incumbents never work.  It's been tried on several occasions, and only twice have they been even moderately successful

The bigger problem is every time that it's been tried, the other party wins the general election.  Daddy Bush faced real competition from Buchanon, and went on to lose.  Carter had Teddy Kennedy on his ass, and went on to lose.  Ford had Reagan, and went on to lose.  Johnson had RFK and McCarthy; lost to Nixon.  Same story all the way back to Taft, Roosevelt and Wilson.  I figure the democrats are looking at the pragmatic approach, and a shitty candidate with an edge is better than a shitty candidate in a dead heat. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on September 07, 2011, 10:23:56 PM
Anyone catch the debate tonight? I caught part of it while cooking dinner, and for the most part, no one answered the question asked of them; the moderator called them on them a decent amount. I also remember a lot of self-contradictory statements by people. Romney, when asked, complained about how 51% of American's don't pay a federal income tax, especially in a time of war, but then went on to say the middle class has been hit too hard and anyone under $200,000 a year shouldn't pay anything, but that's 97% of all Americans!

Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman were the best in my opinion, Herman Cain was reasonable at times. It seems like Ron Paul hints that he'd be willing to negotiate on things. He brought up we pay $20 billion a year for air conditioning in the Iraq, and that if we took that away, we could put $10 billion to domestic programs, and $10 billion to debt reduction (as well as the troops not wanting to be there as much). While the actual example has some faults, he could very easily have said no money to domestic programs, like health care, or social security.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on September 07, 2011, 10:49:22 PM
I caught the end of it and I couldn't really listen. Most of the responses were so corny, predictable, and fake. Huntsman was surprisingly OK to me though. I hadn't heard much of him before. I don't think Paul was even given a chance to speak, at least while I was watching.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on September 07, 2011, 11:02:11 PM
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 08, 2011, 07:29:03 AM
I really don't see Obama being a second term president.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on September 08, 2011, 07:32:27 AM
I really don't see Obama being a second term president.
I wouldn't either if the Republicans could come up with a decent candidate. So far they haven't found one that is going to appeal to the moderate, undecided voter, IMO.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on September 08, 2011, 07:38:34 AM
I'm not surprised the Republicans can't get a good candidate together. The same right-win extremism that so successfully sabotaged Obama in many aspects, now gets them because they suddenly have to turn the whole party around to be more moderate. Which they can't.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: PraXis on September 08, 2011, 08:40:15 AM
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.

A state can mandate purchasing insurance if their state constitution allows it. The US Constitution cannot mandate that you or I purchase anything. The MA bill has been a abysmal failure, and Obamacare will be even worse... until the SCOTUS strikes it down.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on September 08, 2011, 08:58:53 AM
The MA bill has been a abysmal failure

:lol

I am sure in your favorite literature it is. For the rest of the population, it was rather successful, and that is actually Romney's double-edged sword.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 08, 2011, 09:01:17 AM
The MA bill has been a abysmal failure

:lol

I am sure in your favorite literature it is.
Romney's biggest problem is that it is so successful.

rumborak

Yeah, I was just going to say that.  It's been quite successful and the people there sure seem to like it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on September 08, 2011, 09:02:31 AM
It's been a heaven-sent for me, getting affordable insurance for my trip. And frankly, it makes me feel I live in a civilized state.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Orion1967 on September 08, 2011, 11:10:56 AM
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.

Absolutely I only want spending cuts.  The government is out of control with spending.  Obama and his congress have blasted our deficit higher in his 3 years than the entireity of it in the last 200 years.   If you cut all the crap out that Obama has socialized thus far, put it back in private sector hands, let a free market economy progress then America will prosper.  I think that the rich and middle class and the poor should be taxed by an equal percentage.  The Fair tax would solve much of our nations taxation problems and be fair to everyone.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on September 08, 2011, 12:17:20 PM
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.

A state can mandate purchasing insurance if their state constitution allows it. The US Constitution cannot mandate that you or I purchase anything. The MA bill has been a abysmal failure, and Obamacare will be even worse... until the SCOTUS strikes it down.

See, I think the state rights argument makes sense on some level... but then, pragmatically, you would still be forced to buy insurance. Are you really fucking telling me it matters to you if federal government forces you to do something over the state government? I call massive bullshit, as you'd be against it no matter who's mandating you buy health insurance.

Absolutely I only want spending cuts.  The government is out of control with spending.  Obama and his congress have blasted our deficit higher in his 3 years than the entireity of it in the last 200 years.   If you cut all the crap out that Obama has socialized thus far, put it back in private sector hands, let a free market economy progress then America will prosper.

Obama hasn't socialized anything, and most of the huge deficit and debt can be traced back to prior organizations and commitments (Bush Tax Cuts, Iraq/Afghanistan, TARP, Social Security/Welfare). Blaming Obama and "his" congress is ridiculous when the blame goes everywhere, especially when blaming one side only helps cement the corruption in place.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 08, 2011, 01:22:41 PM
Patti Davis penned a nice editorial concerning last nights GOP sham.  To be clear,  I think her old man was a senile twit, but she's absolutely right about some of his better character traits, and dead on about how far removed from the the right has become.  It's astonishing to me that the GOP has moved so far from their revered messiah that Obama is a much better approximation of him than any candidate they can create.

https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2092425,00.html

an excerpt:
Quote from: Patti Davis
That character is what drew people to my father, whether or not they agreed with his politics. That character is what we are starving for, that many of us had hoped we would find — but are now disappointed that we are not — in President Obama. I think my father, if he were here, would also be disappointed in this administration. But here is the important part: he would never have expressed that with anger and vitriol and snarky soundbites. The Republican candidates tonight appeared to be auditioning for a reality show, not for the lofty position of leading America through and out of these terribly troubled times.

Ironically, the one man on stage who did comport himself with dignity, John Huntsman, is now being dismissed as having not made an impact. The moment he brought the discussion back from airport security to the sweeping poverty and economic panic that is gripping this country was, I thought, profound. It was something my father would have done. But that moment isn't making the news. The zingers like Perry's Ponzi-scheme comment, in reference to Social Security, are getting more attention. Maybe the candidates should have wandered over to my father's gravesite before going on stage. Maybe they should have lingered over the words carved in stone there.

The moment that would have broken my father's heart was the moment when applause broke out at the mention of more than 200 executions ordered by Rick Perry in Texas. It was stunning and brought tears to my eyes. This is what we've come to? That we applaud at executions?

I remember the first time my father ordered an execution when he was Governor. He and a minister went into a room, got down on their knees and prayed. The real shame of our times is that there doesn't seem to be anyone on the political horizon with that compassion in his or her heart.

Read more: https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2092425,00.html#ixzz1XOFfJqOX
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on September 08, 2011, 01:32:00 PM
I agree with a lot of the stuff you quoted there, Barto. It seems like the majority of people in government are there strictly for their egos, and not for the well being of America. It sickens me. Take Linda McMahon For example. She has no business in politics. Nothing she says or does make me think she's in it to help Americans get through life as hassle free as possible,. What's her motive? Other than getting shit loads of attention, I don't see any.

I know it's not really plausible, but I'd love to see some ordinary person make a name for themselves using nothing more than the Internet as a medium. I'd like to see someone run a free campaign (mostly free) using nothing but a personal website, YouTube, twitter, etc... Keep all the bullshit of campaign donations out of the picture and do nothing but interact with Americans virtually, day in and day out. I think thats one of the very few ways we can get good and honest people in the seats of congress.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on September 08, 2011, 01:37:08 PM
I'll be more interested in how things go in congress. Will people be pissed at the Republicans for basically refusing to compromise on anything? From polls I've seen a large majority of Americans want tax loopholes closed and higher taxes on the rich. The Republicans refused to let these things happen. I don't think that most Americans want only spending cuts.

Absolutely I only want spending cuts.  The government is out of control with spending.  Obama and his congress have blasted our deficit higher in his 3 years than the entireity of it in the last 200 years.   If you cut all the crap out that Obama has socialized thus far, put it back in private sector hands, let a free market economy progress then America will prosper.  I think that the rich and middle class and the poor should be taxed by an equal percentage.  The Fair tax would solve much of our nations taxation problems and be fair to everyone.

The shitty part is, we could cut spending all day long and we will still be going into deeper debt. America's problem is at we don't produce anything. We offer very little to the rest of the world. Even with spending cuts and tax increases, we still won't be bringing new money in.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on September 08, 2011, 04:57:01 PM
It's really funny for any non-American when someone starts ranting about how left wing Obama is and how he's socializing everything.
In basically any other developed country, Obama would be a far-right conservative.

One of the main problems with American politics right now is that so many people seem to have lost the ability to conduct themselves like adults. As Bob Dole said during the 1996 election, "President Clinton is my political opponent, not my enemy". People you disagree with politically aren't all crazy radicals who want to destroy the country, they're fellow citizens with different opinions and views.

As for the upcoming election itself, the nominee will either be Romney, or someone who isn't in the race yet. It will be closer than 2008, but Obama will be re-elected.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 08, 2011, 08:40:24 PM
I think Romney is the most moderate of the pool of 'pubs at the moment.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on September 08, 2011, 08:53:02 PM
Well, Romney wouldn't be too bad really. If it comes down to that showdown, I'd be happy.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on September 08, 2011, 08:59:26 PM
Well, Romney wouldn't be too bad really. If it comes down to that showdown, I'd be happy.

rumborak

I agree. I'm conservative at heart, but I know and understand reality is in the middle. I think Romney can reflect that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 08, 2011, 09:12:17 PM
One of the main problems with American politics right now is that so many people seem to have lost the ability to conduct themselves like adults. As Bob Dole said during the 1996 election, "President Clinton is my political opponent, not my enemy". People you disagree with politically aren't all crazy radicals who want to destroy the country, they're fellow citizens with different opinions and views.

Dole's was a reasonable position, and it's also exactly what Patti Davis was referring to in the editorial I cited earlier.  That said, a lot of the people they're fielding actually are crazy radicals.  There are some reasonable candidates, but they're invisible next to the more popular whack jobs. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on September 08, 2011, 09:55:32 PM
I tried watching the debate just now. I really did. I got through a half hour and nearly puked. I think that they were all too busy taking shots at Obama, taking shots at each  other, and verbally fellating themselves to focus on what would actually work.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on September 08, 2011, 10:49:37 PM
I find most of the Repubs going for the Prez-ull to be far too conservative for a prog-con such as myself. 

Though, I wouldn't really feel too affected if Rom won the nomination and beat Bama.  If the Pubs keep their hold on the Legis, or (probably) even gain even more of a hold there, I doubt there'd be too much of a difference between more Bama, and 4 years of a Pub Prez. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on September 09, 2011, 07:20:30 AM
It took me 3 times to read that and understand it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on September 09, 2011, 06:59:23 PM
I find it pretty disheartening that Rick Perry is taken so seriously. He just seems like a ghost of GWB. It seems like the guy wasn't that well known until the media started telling everybody that he was a frontrunner. Like...before he even entered the race, his name is all I read in the news about "GOP frontrunners".
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on September 09, 2011, 07:08:33 PM
I find it pretty disheartening that Rick Perry is taken so seriously. He just seems like a ghost of GWB. It seems like the guy wasn't that well known until the media started telling everybody that he was a frontrunner. Like...before he even entered the race, his name is all I read in the news about "GOP frontrunners".
Well, obviously I'm familiar more familiar with that guy, but I do share your bewilderment into how these people suddenly become the front runners.  It seems a bit far fetched to assume that it's entirely the media who's responsible, but they're certainly the ones to bring people straight to the front of the pack.  Something else that feeds that problem is that Iowa and New Hampshire have so much bearing in who gets nominated.  What makes them so special?

As for him being Bush Jr., that's not quite the case.  For one thing they really disliked each other quite a bit.  It's also worth noting that Perry was Democrat for half of his career.  When Texas started moving from D to R, he jumped ship.  The man certainly knows when to jump on an opportunity.  Bush was many rotten things, but he wasn't superficial, and that's probably the most apt description of Perry I could conjure up. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on September 10, 2011, 02:36:13 PM
Just a little something for fun more than anything;

The most recent Republican debate in 45 seconds;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2011, 08:15:44 PM
So this Hermann Cain fellow is really picking up some steam.  I haven't factored him into my predictions,  and don't really know how to at this point.  From what I gather,  he's actually tried to be a good candidate at the debates, and was completely ignored for it.  Now I gather they can't ignore him any more,  so I might actually watch a debate to see how he comes across. 

The one thing I do know about him is that his 9-9-9 plan scares the hell out of me.  I'm at a point where it could conceivably bury me.  Thankfully,  I doubt he'd ever get it to happen, but just the idea spooks me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 13, 2011, 08:46:30 PM
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.

Not to mention he tried to push the exact same bill through the Legislature just before the '08 Election, isn't that true?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 13, 2011, 10:36:02 PM
I find the real shame with the Republicans is that they have become the party of unattainable promises. They seem to want to stand for a USA that existed 30 years ago, i.e. the only superpower in town, controlling its assets militarily across the globe, where Global Warming didn't exist and Evolution was heathen talk. The other day I heard some radio snippet of a prominent Republican (can't remember who) judging Chris Christie as too liberal since he acknowledged some element of human activity in Global Warming.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 13, 2011, 11:16:54 PM
I've become convinced that the Republican Party and the more fervent among its supporters dream of returning to:

(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2008/06/a5fatherknowsbestcast.jpg)

(https://in-and-around-columbus.com/images/oldsodafountain.jpg)

(https://instruction.blackhawk.edu/ghoffarth/sociology/institutionaldiscrimination.jpg)

(https://zeldalily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wifeDM1904_468x550.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on October 13, 2011, 11:19:40 PM
Hmm, it makes me wonder,

What is the median age of the Republicans in the Fed, as well as the median age of their voterbase, vs. those of the Democrats?

I'm betting that many of the Repubs in office probably grew up in that era. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2011, 11:27:31 PM
I've become convinced that the Republican Party and the more fervent among its supporters dream of returning to:

(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2008/06/a5fatherknowsbestcast.jpg)
(https://static-l3.blogcritics.org/11/04/20/157865/loud-family.jpg?t=20110420181252)
The real world equivalent.  Far from the Republican ideal,  this is what scares the hell out of them.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 14, 2011, 08:11:10 AM
How about some background on that, Bartoman.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 14, 2011, 11:25:13 AM
Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee, Obama will not have a primary challenge, but he's a weak candidate because the economy has not turned around fast enough and even though it's really not his fault he's still going to receive the brunt of the blame for it.

I think the presidential election will be very, very close.  It's difficult to unseat an incumbent president. I hold up George W. Bush as an example.  His favorability ratings at this point were 5 to 7 points lower than Obama's and he beat John Kerry fairly handily.  Granted, John Kerry is about as charismatic as a fucking brick, and Obama's going to have to go up against Rick Perry, who, despite his faults, is a seasoned campaigner......but the problem is, political insiders are not in vogue right now, and Perry, despite the strong economy in Texas, carries a lot baggage.

It's definitely going to be a very interesting election cycle.

Looks like I was jumping the gun here.  I didn't expect Perry to flame out that quickly.  It's looking more and more like Romney will be the nominee.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, Obama has an uphill battle.

As a liberal registered Democrat, I obviously can't support a Republican, but of the current crop of candidates, Romney is probably the one that I could live with the most, and he polls the best against Obama, but it's been looking like the Republicans want to maybe nominate someone to his right like Cain.

That would be GREAT, because he's, well, kinda nuts  :lol

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 14, 2011, 11:35:46 AM
How about some background on that, Bartoman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Family

I'm actually surprised something like that got on public TV at that time in our cultural history.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 14, 2011, 11:39:51 AM
What really blows my mind is how Romney defended MA's healthcare system while lambasting Obama's. Apparently it's okay to require people to have insurance in Massachusetts because there someone who doesn't have insurance can just go to a hospital and still get treated, unlike every other state.

A state can mandate purchasing insurance if their state constitution allows it. The US Constitution cannot mandate that you or I purchase anything. The MA bill has been a abysmal failure, and Obamacare will be even worse... until the SCOTUS strikes it down.

uh, no.  The MA law has NOT been an abysmal failure.  In fact, despite my general distaste for the personal mandate in the MA law and in the Obama law, the facts are clear:  It has been extremely successful.  You can read more about the success of the MA healthcare law here:  https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html)

Romney is just parsing words with his criticism of Obama's law, mostly because he doesn't have any choice if he wants to get elected.

Frankly, I think Obama's health care law sucks, but that's because I wanted a SINGLE PAYER system.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 14, 2011, 11:42:10 AM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 14, 2011, 11:49:13 AM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?

It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund.  The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 14, 2011, 11:55:01 AM
Right. And, from my limited knowledge, what we got instead was more or less a giant handout to the healthcare industry with some goodies thrown our way. It seems that any meaningful healthcare reform would need to wholly eliminate the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 14, 2011, 11:56:48 AM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?

It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund.  The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.

It's important to note, that single-payer does not mean single administration, etc. Conservatives always make that jump, which is annoying.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 14, 2011, 11:59:03 AM
Right. And, from my limited knowledge, what we got instead was more or less a giant handout to the healthcare industry with some goodies thrown our way. It seems that any meaningful healthcare reform would need to wholly eliminate the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.

The health-care law that the Obama administration got passed was a watered-down piece of crap.   So, yeah. 

A public, single-payer system would have DRASTICALLY reduced costs over the next decade.  Instead we got something that MIGHT just keep costs flat, if that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 14, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?

It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund.  The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.

It's important to note, that single-payer does not mean single administration, etc. Conservatives always make that jump, which is annoying.

Good point!  I oversimplified it out of laziness, but the Wiki on Single Payer is actually pretty decent:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 14, 2011, 12:04:57 PM
uh, no.  The MA law has NOT been an abysmal failure.  In fact, despite my general distaste for the personal mandate in the MA law and in the Obama law, the facts are clear:  It has been extremely successful.  You can read more about the success of the MA healthcare law here:  https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/mvf_healthcare_mass.html)

Romney is just parsing words with his criticism of Obama's law, mostly because he doesn't have any choice if he wants to get elected.

Frankly, I think Obama's health care law sucks, but that's because I wanted a SINGLE PAYER system.
And here we agree completely.  I actually can understand why a few people might have gotten it worse under RomneyCare,  but overall it certainly appears to have been quite successful. 

The fascinating thing about Obama's dogshit plan is under McCain we would have gotten an identical bill,  and the Republicans would be defending to their deaths. 

As for single payer,  I'd certainly prefer it for a nation that likes to boast of being the greatest nation on Earth,  but the bottom line is that as long as healthcare is so ridiculously overpriced (especially for what we get),  then it doesn't really matter who pays for it. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 14, 2011, 12:25:28 PM
Right. And, from my limited knowledge, what we got instead was more or less a giant handout to the healthcare industry with some goodies thrown our way. It seems that any meaningful healthcare reform would need to wholly eliminate the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.

As an economist...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 14, 2011, 12:53:21 PM
I can dig it. Hell, paint me pink and call me a socialist.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 14, 2011, 05:20:12 PM
Herman Cain is really disturbing to me. He's never going to win the primary though, which is a good thing.

9-9-9 is simply laughable and.. seriously. HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on October 14, 2011, 05:21:56 PM
HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?

Compared to Bernanke? I would agree with that statement.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: pogoowner on October 14, 2011, 05:51:55 PM
HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?

Compared to Bernanke? I would agree with that statement.
They've both done essentially the same thing as far as I can tell, so I don't see how one is better than the other. The shit just hadn't quite hit the fan yet under Greenspan (though he contributed to it doing so).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 14, 2011, 07:10:16 PM
Greenspan was a deplorable piece of shit.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on October 14, 2011, 10:08:51 PM
Herman Cain is really disturbing to me. He's never going to win the primary though, which is a good thing.

9-9-9 is simply laughable and.. seriously. HE THINKS GREENSPAN WAS GOOD? WHAT!?

What's even more disturbing is that merely a week before the financial crisis occured, he basically gave the economy a clean bill of health. (https://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc126.htm)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 14, 2011, 10:12:31 PM
It took the man his whole professional lifetime to realize that the market isn't infallible. That just blew me away.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on October 18, 2011, 09:48:50 AM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?

It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund.  The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.

haha you think its going to reduce administrative costs? as compared to what our current socialist system or a private system?

People are insane, you hand out free health care, what do you think is going to happen?  What happens to demand when you drop the price of something to zero? This is simple stuff.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 18, 2011, 12:24:06 PM
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you just called me "insane" in that post  :coolio

Administrative costs are 4 times higher (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747566) here in the US than they are in Ontario, Canada where they have a single payer system.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on October 18, 2011, 12:28:58 PM
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you just called me "insane" in that post  :coolio

Administrative costs are 4 times higher (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747566) here in the US than they are in Ontario, Canada where they have a single payer system.

Well as Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results.  Most Americans support trying to fix these problems through government intervention and we keep getting deeper and deeper into the mess.  So in that respect, many people are insane.  I want a new solution, one that suggests that government IS the problem.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: wasteland on October 18, 2011, 12:32:48 PM
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you just called me "insane" in that post  :coolio

Administrative costs are 4 times higher (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747566) here in the US than they are in Ontario, Canada where they have a single payer system.

Well as Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results.  Most Americans support trying to fix these problems through government intervention and we keep getting deeper and deeper into the mess.  So in that respect, many people are insane.  I want a new solution, one that suggests that government IS the problem.

Didn't this happen with Reagan 30 years ago?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 18, 2011, 02:51:07 PM
For those of us ignorant to the particulars of health policy, what is a single payer system?

It's basically health-care funded by a single public entity, from a single fund.  The advantages are that it dramatically reduces administrative overhead, which is currently the greatest contributing factor to skyrocketing health-care costs.

haha you think its going to reduce administrative costs? as compared to what our current socialist system or a private system?

People are insane, you hand out free health care, what do you think is going to happen?  What happens to demand when you drop the price of something to zero? This is simple stuff.

Look at every other modern country in the world, look at their health care systems, and compare costs. We spend more in the US than anyone.

Medicare, a single-payer style system, has lower administrative costs, and lower rising costs, than the private market place.

It's not free health care. It's universal health care. It's paid for by tax dollars, the only people it's free for are those who literally cannot afford it.

It's not demanding the price drop to zero, but rather that profits are capped / moderated. There are many non-profit organizations out there, whom all have employee's, pay them, and take in money. One possible role of government could to be to help set up trust funds (one time loans, which can be repaid) to set up non-profit health insurance co-ops, or health insurance companies (I believe something like this was in "Obamacare", but hasn't taken effect).

Back to Medicare - people love it, and can't wait to get on it. Threatening Medicare is very dangerous politically, but most Americans like it - they just don't know it's because of government involvement (which blows my mind).

Why is a single payer system, i.e. vouchers, a good way to deal with educational system, but it's a horrid way to deal with health care?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on October 18, 2011, 02:57:36 PM
Im confused how is a voucher system a single payer system? A voucher system you would have the individual go out into the market and choose an insurance plan for themselves from a bunch of competing companies. I might be misunderstanding the definition of single payer
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 18, 2011, 04:28:24 PM
Because the voucher is basically specialized money. You get a voucher, the government pays the voucher to the school for your kid to attend. Many single payer systems are similar, as a citizen goes to a health care provider, and than the government pays for that service rendered.

But ya, you could have a voucher system much like you describe, where people go to insurance companies, and the government subsidizes the costs. I think it would actually be somewhat close to Medicare / Medicaid, but I'm not precisely sure how closely they would be.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 04:55:24 PM
Who's going to watch Cain and Romney verbally fellate themselves tonight? I figure it would make for some fun TV.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 04:57:55 PM
What time/channel/etc. ?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 04:59:16 PM
8 eastern on CNN
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 18, 2011, 05:00:18 PM
I always watch the day afterwards, it's 1am now.

It'd be disastrous if Cain got anywhere.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2011, 05:01:19 PM
Who's going to watch Cain and Romney verbally fellate themselves tonight? I figure it would make for some fun TV.
Since they won't be able to ignore Cain this time around,  I might check it out.  I understand he actually tries to stay on topic,  so I'd actually like to see that.

This is assuming it's viewable to those of us with the good sense to not pay for cable. 


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
I'll check it out. I'm curious how they'll address the Occupy movement.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2011, 05:33:37 PM
I'm curious how they'll address the Occupy movement.
That's an easy one.  They'll blame Obama.  "These people are angry, and given the state of things,  they have every right to be.  The solution to theirs,  and all of our problems is to get rid of Obama and elect me so I can turn this nation around and give them the opportunity to work and prosper!"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 18, 2011, 06:23:54 PM
Ron Paul has been addressing the Occupy movement for some time actually. You see a bunch of "End The Fed" signs over there too.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
Literally none of this debate is productive. They say the same shit over and over.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 06:55:01 PM
This is so funny. :lol

Watching Rick Perry getting owned gave me a laugh.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 06:57:23 PM
This is so funny. :lol

Watching Rick Perry getting owned gave me a laugh.

I think attacking Mitt Romney backfired for him :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 06:58:27 PM
Agreed. No one is actually answering any questions that they're asked. I want them to start asking social questions. That should be some fun.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Why is Ron Paul so awesome?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 07:11:55 PM
Rankings!!!!!!!

Romney
Paul








The rest of them

edit:

Actually:

Some homeless dude






























































































































































































All of them
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 07:13:06 PM
Paul
Romney



Santorum


the rest



Herman Cain
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 07:17:33 PM
Faith and the right to bear arms are next. This is going to be gold.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 07:18:57 PM
I can't fucking wait to see what Jon Stewart does with this material.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 07:20:36 PM
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 07:27:08 PM
Michele Bachmann is a professional question avoiderer.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 07:28:14 PM
I can't tell who's worse: her, Cain, or Perry?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 07:52:03 PM
I'm going to laugh my fucking ass off when Obama gets reelected.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2011, 07:53:23 PM
I can't tell who's worse: her, Cain, or Perry?
I loved when Perry answered the question about Texas's 1,000,000+ uninsured children by accusing Romney of hiring illegal aliens. 

And I certainly loved hearing him get booed. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on October 18, 2011, 08:02:06 PM
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.

No offense, but Bill Maher is an idiot. Jon Stewart is infinitely more wise and tactful.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 08:10:45 PM
How anyone can possibly support Herman Cain is just beyond me. He's a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 08:15:26 PM
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.

No offense, but Bill Maher is an idiot. Jon Stewart is infinitely more wise and tactful.

I don't need tact. As for wise, I just dig Bill Maher because we are very similar in our political beliefs and other more secular ones. If I may ask, why do you dislike him so?

edit: The only major issue Maher and I disagree upon is the death penalty. I'm set in stone on that one.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 18, 2011, 08:22:44 PM
I think Maher is mostly a blowhard but there are sometimes good conversations on his show.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on October 18, 2011, 08:22:58 PM
I can't wait for Bill Maher to tear these dudes apart.

No offense, but Bill Maher is an idiot. Jon Stewart is infinitely more wise and tactful.

I don't need tact. As for wise, I just dig Bill Maher because we are very similar in our political beliefs and other more secular ones. If I may ask, why do you dislike him so?

edit: The only major issue Maher and I disagree upon is the death penalty. I'm set in stone on that one.

Eh, no point in explaining. I disagree with him and he's an absolute ass.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 18, 2011, 08:26:58 PM
I think Maher is mostly a blowhard but there are sometimes good conversations on his show.

I'd agree on both accounts, but the first point is just the comedian in him coming out. I enjoy the talks on his shows and he isn't afraid to bring on intense conservatives. He has Ann Coulter (sweet jesus) on a few weeks ago. That made for a good show.

Snapple:

Well, I can understand disagreeing with him, but I would like to know why. However, that is a conversation for outside this thread as it does not pertain to the thread. As for the ass part, yes, he is an ass.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on October 18, 2011, 08:30:00 PM
Maher is too much of a snobby ass for me to take his political discussion seriously, yet not quite funny enough for me to enjoy his show strictly as a comedy either.  Not a fan.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 18, 2011, 08:30:57 PM
Ann Coulter should not be on anybody's show :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 18, 2011, 08:31:07 PM
Maher is too much of a snobby ass for me to take his political discussion seriously, yet not quite funny enough for me to enjoy his show strictly as a comedy either.  Not a fan.

Yeah I agree with this.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 18, 2011, 10:06:45 PM
Holy shit. If Rick Perry doesn't hang it up after this debate, I'll be shocked.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on October 18, 2011, 10:09:36 PM
Holy shit. If Rick Perry doesn't hang it up after this debate, I'll be shocked.

I hope that's the case.  If he's out, that means one less scary Repub to worry about them nominating.

Of the current Repub field, Romney is the one I'd be least worried for the US's future if he became president. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 19, 2011, 05:15:19 AM
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 05:39:24 AM
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:

I still find Bachman more scary. Rick Perry is an idiot, but Michelle Bachman's platform amounts to "I understand nothing about the subtleties being discussed, but hey OBAMA SUCKS." I'm starting to think that she's just addicted to the guaranteed applause those kinda statements get.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: PlaysLikeMyung on October 19, 2011, 06:27:29 AM
I can't take Herman Cain seriously

He once made a comment that black voters vote democrat instead of republican, by and large, because they're 'brainwashed' (totally ad libbing; don't remember the exact quote)

It's like he's blaming his own lack of black support on the democratic party lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 07:43:58 AM
Holy shit. If Rick Perry doesn't hang it up after this debate, I'll be shocked.

He's got more than enough cash on hand to continue at least through the South Carolina primary, so I don't see him quitting anytime soon.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on October 19, 2011, 07:56:33 AM
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:

You see, my thought is that if Obama somehow loses to the Repubs, I'd much rather that Repub be Mitt than, say, Perry.  Or Bachmann.  Or Cain.  Or any of those guys, really; most of them don't give me good vibes at all, hence, Mitt would be least bad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 08:02:17 AM
The only two Republicans that are currently in the race that Obama could possibly lose to would be Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

The rest of them present no threat to Obama because even the Republicans understand that people like Michele Bachmann are unelectable at this level.


I think Romney will be the nominee, and I hope that it will produce some apathy in the Religious Right base of the Republican party resulting in 4 more years of Obama.  He's not really who I want in office (he's no where remotely close to being liberal enough for me) but he will continue to nominate liberals to the courts, which is the biggest impact any president ever has.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 19, 2011, 08:07:54 AM
Why does everyone ignore Ron Paul? I mean seriously he's probably the only honest politician on that stage.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 19, 2011, 08:09:07 AM
Well I'm looking for a scary Repub to get the nomination, so... :biggrin:

You see, my thought is that if Obama somehow loses to the Repubs, I'd much rather that Repub be Mitt than, say, Perry.  Or Bachmann.  Or Cain.  Or any of those guys, really; most of them don't give me good vibes at all, hence, Mitt would be least bad.
Why is Romney (who has clearly come out as the Wall Street Candidate (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1319033138-q3WcXFHM9MujRFkZjPgtuA)) any more palatable than the rest of them?

They're all reprehensible.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 08:34:30 AM
Why does everyone ignore Ron Paul? I mean seriously he's probably the only honest politician on that stage.

I'd guess it's because he's not speaking the same language as the other candidates at all. In fact, he doesn't even belong under the same tent. He sells himself as the "tr00 republican" who's more Reagan style than the current bunch, but he would have been on the fringe during Reagan's time too (and, in fact, he was). My guess is the Republican establishment sees him for what he is-- a (albeit noble) poser trying to hijack the party from the inside.

The thing that doesn't help is he seems to be losing some of his articulateness. He was great in 2008, but now he sounds like someone's crazy uncle. This is due, in all probability, to the fact that instead of reassessing his own platform he's spent the last 3 years listening to 17 year old boys reaffirm his positions for him. Compare that to Mitt, who has no-doubt spent every waking moment since losing last year's primary preparing for this moment. The difference in his confidence and preparedness since last time around is astounding, IMHO.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 08:48:16 AM
Why does everyone ignore Ron Paul? I mean seriously he's probably the only honest politician on that stage.

Well, first off, he's 75 years old.  I think that might be pushing the envelope a bit.  That would make him the oldest president ever elected by 5 years (Reagan was 70 when he was inaugurated)

Secondly, do you really, honestly believe that the Christian right is going to embrace a guy who thinks Heroin should be legal?  It ain't gonna happen.

Other things he says that are just kind of wacky are that he wants to abolish the IRA, end income taxes, eliminate 5 cabinet level positions/departments in the government, it's all pie in the sky nonsense that everyone knows is never going to get done.

Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 08:51:23 AM
He really is. Most of his base comes from outside of the Republican establishment, which is why Republican's don't dig him. I personally like a lot of his policies and am glad he's managed to get his views out there into the mainstream, but Republicans know better. They know that if they elect him they'll secretly be getting Noam Chomsky.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 19, 2011, 09:04:57 AM
Which is why he should have opted to run as a third party candidate years ago.  His loyalty to the GOP is misguided and more harmful than anything else.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 19, 2011, 09:18:22 AM
Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.

That's just sad. He would make a great president.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 19, 2011, 09:20:49 AM
My guess is the Republican establishment sees him for what he is-- a (albeit noble) poser trying to hijack the party from the inside.
Ron Paul. A poser? What is he posing as? You're saying he's not honest?

The reason he's running as a republican though is because of voter access. It's terribly hard to even get on the ballot is you're not a republican or a democrat, he has consistently voted for increasing the access for other parties to get on the ballots. He's not there to "infiltrate", he's simply there to spread his views of person liberty and responsibility.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 19, 2011, 09:20:58 AM
Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.

That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: zxlkho on October 19, 2011, 09:25:54 AM
Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.

That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.

That's what I mean. Who do you think was the last president who was honest as Ron Paul is today?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 19, 2011, 09:47:14 AM
Ron Paul money bomb is today. Donate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 19, 2011, 09:58:04 AM
Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.

That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.

That's what I mean. Who do you think was the last president who was honest as Ron Paul is today?

He has integrity, but he is also remarkably detached from the human populace.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 19, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
So are the other candidates.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 19, 2011, 10:05:59 AM
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general. Paul strikes me as someone who sees people's benefit as a secondary outcome to his ideologies.
When Paul was asked by Blitzer about that 30-year old without medical insurance, I thought Paul's response was very tell-tale. He evaded the answer because people are only a piece in the free-market equation.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 19, 2011, 10:11:35 AM
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.

rumborak

Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 10:23:59 AM
Ron Paul. A poser? What is he posing as?

A Republican.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 19, 2011, 10:24:10 AM
Ron Paul money bomb is today. Donate.

Donated.



A Republican.

I'd say the neo-conservatives are posing as republicans.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 19, 2011, 10:26:42 AM
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.

rumborak

Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.

He is, but I think he's putting the cart before the horse. His idea, i.e. the idea of Libertarianism, is that a process can be trusted more with the welfare of beings than the action of the beings themselves. And I think that notion makes him patently unelectable.
A friend of mine the other day said he's essentially the court jester. It's a very good analogy; he's really good at putting the mirror in front of other people. But he himself would be a disastrous president. And that's why he, once his role if fulfilled as the court jester, drops out of the running.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on October 19, 2011, 10:31:03 AM
I think that's a fair analysis, although I don't think the powers-that-be would let his presidency be disastrous. In any event, I'm glad he exists; if only to hold the mirror up.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 10:32:00 AM
I'd say the neo-conservatives are posing as republicans.

That's what Paul would have you believe, no-doubt. But even Ronald Reagan, for the demi-god he is today, was far from Ron Paul's staunch libertarianism, and I think you're fooling yourself if you can look at American History and honestly say that the current Republican party is further from its Reagan-platform days ideology-wise than Ron Paul is.

The fact is, there has never been a Republican who has run successively on a platform like Ron Paul's. If you disagree, I urge you to find one. But, for now, it seems like Ron Paul's rhetoric about the golden days of being what he calls a "conservative" in the US is just that.

And, sorry, Paul's victories in his Congressional district don't count as victories for his platform. Barely anyone ever runs against him. Sometimes Democrats don't even run for it. Other times, no-one other than him runs for it at all.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 19, 2011, 11:16:48 AM
I meant further back than Reagan.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 12:31:58 PM
Ron Paul is, in a word:  "Unelectable" when it comes to the presidency.

That's just sad. He would make a great president.
I don't know about that, but fuck at least he has some integrity.

Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "integrity" now doesn't it?

Here's the problem I see with Ron Paul.

Contrast his "Plan To Restore America (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)" which calls for a trillion dollars in spending cuts.

with....

The fact that he is the Republican who has introduced MORE Pork-Barrel spending (https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill) than ANY other in the House

Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician, just like every other politician in the American political system, and that includes the liberals in my party too.

Don't be fooled.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Ħ on October 19, 2011, 12:35:01 PM
Should we all just vote for Huntsman?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 12:36:25 PM
Nah. The other candidates might be liars, but I think they at least care for people's benefit in general.

rumborak

Maybe I'm just hopelessly cynical but I don't really think this at all. Maybe a little bit. Like, the minimum amount. I think Ron Paul, however misguided we think his economic/fiscal policy ideas are, thinks he's doing the right thing.

He is, but I think he's putting the cart before the horse. His idea, i.e. the idea of Libertarianism, is that a process can be trusted more with the welfare of beings than the action of the beings themselves. And I think that notion makes him patently unelectable.
A friend of mine the other day said he's essentially the court jester. It's a very good analogy; he's really good at putting the mirror in front of other people. But he himself would be a disastrous president. And that's why he, once his role if fulfilled once he's had a bunch of "money-bomb" donations to fund his next House of Representatives election campaign he as the court jester drops out of the running.

rumborak

 :)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 12:38:08 PM
Should we all just vote for Huntsman?

To be honest, I think it's a tragedy that he's not getting any respect, but then again, he's way, way, way too reasonable and not nearly anti-intellectual enough for today's RepublicanTea PartyTM
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 19, 2011, 01:06:27 PM
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "integrity" now doesn't it?

Here's the problem I see with Ron Paul.

Contrast his "Plan To Restore America (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)" which calls for a trillion dollars in spending cuts.

with....

The fact that he is the Republican who has introduced MORE Pork-Barrel spending (https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill) than ANY other in the House

Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician, just like every other politician in the American political system, and that includes the liberals in my party too.

Don't be fooled.

But the in the link you posted he completely explains the reason why. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch... It's not like the money will not get spent if it is not earmarked.  At least some of the federal tax money his constituents pay will be returned to hopefully benefit them, all the while he is fighting against those taxes, as well as voting against budgets that use those taxes in unconstitutional ways. I don't see any other way to handle this.

 And of course you look at the rest of his record. He doesn't take part of the congressional pension, hasn't voted to raise congressional salary, lobbyists never even bother going to his office because he doesn't give them the time of day, he's never taken a government paid vacation, and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 01:38:16 PM
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "integrity" now doesn't it?

Here's the problem I see with Ron Paul.

Contrast his "Plan To Restore America (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)" which calls for a trillion dollars in spending cuts.

with....

The fact that he is the Republican who has introduced MORE Pork-Barrel spending (https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill) than ANY other in the House

Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician, just like every other politician in the American political system, and that includes the liberals in my party too.

Don't be fooled.

But the in the link you posted he completely explains the reason why. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch... It's not like the money will not get spent if it is not earmarked.  At least some of the federal tax money his constituents pay will be returned to hopefully benefit them, all the while he is fighting against those taxes, as well as voting against budgets that use those taxes in unconstitutional ways. I don't see any other way to handle this.

 And of course you look at the rest of his record. He doesn't take part of the congressional pension, hasn't voted to raise congressional salary, lobbyists never even bother going to his office because he doesn't give them the time of day, he's never taken a government paid vacation, and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Most of that stuff is insignificant fluff.  He doesn't need the congressional pension because he's loaded.  He doesn't need the congressional salary because he's loaded.  I'll give the lobbyist thing, they don't like him, but he takes plenty of donations from PACs (https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00005906&newMem=N&cycle=2012) which isn't that much different, he just doesn't talk to their representatives.  I don't really care that he returns part of his office budget to the treasury.  More meaningless fluff.  What I care about is would a Ron Paul presidency represent my views.  The fact is, in terms of foreign policy, I actually like quite a bit of what he has to say.  I just don't agree with him on much, especially domestically, and you have to admit he's said some downright cooky things.

And he's freaking 75 years old!  I'm sorry, but that's TOO old.  He'd be almost 80 by the end of his first term.



Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 19, 2011, 01:44:23 PM
I was only responding to the following accusation:

Quote
Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician

I wasn't trying to convince you to vote for him.

As for his age, I don't really know why that matter so much if he is in good health.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 01:52:42 PM
I was only responding to the following accusation:

Quote
Ron Paul is a typical, duplicitous, conniving, lying, two-faced hypocritical politician

I wasn't trying to convince you to vote for him.

As for his age, I don't really know why that matter so much if he is in good health.

I don't want ANYONE to vote for him.  I think 75 is too old to be President.  I'd think the same thing if he were a Democrat.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 19, 2011, 02:17:05 PM
He's going to choose a smart running mate that hold nearly the same views as himself, so if he'd die or anything - it'd be fine with a younger bright VP taking his spot. The ideas are stronger than the person himself, so I hope his age doesn't hold anyone back.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on October 19, 2011, 02:29:05 PM
He's going to choose a smart running mate that hold nearly the same views as himself, so if he'd die or anything - it'd be fine with a younger bright VP taking his spot. The ideas are stronger than the person himself, so I hope his age doesn't hold anyone back.

I seriously doubt he'll make it far enough to choose a running mate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 19, 2011, 06:53:35 PM
I meant further back than Reagan.

Like who?

Ford? No. Nixon? Definitely not. Eisenhower? FAR from a libertarian. Hoover? Yeah, he believed in poor people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but what about prohibition?

How far back do we have to go before we realize that Paul's on the fringe, and would be no matter which Republican primary he was taking part in? This thing where he pretends to be the sole guardian and heir of tru republican principles is a lie, typical of the kinds of lies politicians tell all the time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 20, 2011, 10:02:53 AM
Why are you comparing to only presidential candidates, and specifically the ones who won? Barry Goldwater comes to mind.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 20, 2011, 10:26:11 AM
I'm not sure what you don't get. RP supporters have no problem admitting and pointing out that he's the black sheep of the Republican Party, but is it really that tough to figure out why? He doesn't run on the GoP's platform, and then he claims that he runs on what the "true" platform of the GoP is, even though he can't factually point to a time when the majority of the GoP shared in his ideology and backed it up with their actions.

People (like most of my family) who've been voting GoP most of their lives see him as a pretender. And, to be brutally honest, that's what he is. In fact, most RP supporters I've met have been people who are anything but actual Republicans. This includes people I know who are left of most democrats, libertarians(not REPUBLICANS for a reason!), and teenagers getting out of their Michael Moore phase. But very few people who actually are card-carrying GoP members.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 20, 2011, 11:04:59 AM
It's true he is trying to change the republican party. The system is set up against a third party. I don't see any problem with RP running the the one of the two he closer identifies with.

I actually used to listen to and agree with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O. back in the early 2000's.  In fact I watched the first bombing of Iraq practically with popcorn.  That was in 2003, but within a year I was questioning Bush, the republicans by the next year and by 2007 I was a full on non-interventionist strict constitutionalist. That is the story with a lot of Paul supporters. But you are right, there are some liberals who are on board as well because of the foreign policy and anti-corporatism site of RP's platform combined with his record.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 20, 2011, 11:52:27 AM
Some of us just like the fact that he's not on the take and he doesn't give a shit about party loyalty.  That makes him truly unique in a system full of crooked assholes. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on October 20, 2011, 02:35:45 PM
I'm not sure what you don't get. RP supporters have no problem admitting and pointing out that he's the black sheep of the Republican Party, but is it really that tough to figure out why? He doesn't run on the GoP's platform, and then he claims that he runs on what the "true" platform of the GoP is, even though he can't factually point to a time when the majority of the GoP shared in his ideology and backed it up with their actions.

People (like most of my family) who've been voting GoP most of their lives see him as a pretender. And, to be brutally honest, that's what he is. In fact, most RP supporters I've met have been people who are anything but actual Republicans. This includes people I know who are left of most democrats, libertarians(not REPUBLICANS for a reason!), and teenagers getting out of their Michael Moore phase. But very few people who actually are card-carrying GoP members.
Ron Paul is much closer to the Old Right, like Robert Taft, than most of the candidates out there.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on October 20, 2011, 06:42:47 PM
Some of us just like the fact that he's not on the take and he doesn't give a shit about party loyalty.  That makes him truly unique in a system full of crooked assholes.

All fine and dandy. But that's not what we're talking about. Or, at least not what I thought we were talking about. Which is why Republicans don't like Ron Paul and see him as an intruder.

For what it's worth, though, I don't see him as the White Knight you seem to make him out to be. Filling up bills with a shitload of pork so you have further grounds to vote them down later is pretty scummy. And he's never owned up to his bigoted newsletter.

Quote
Ron Paul is much closer to the Old Right, like Robert Taft, than most of the candidates out there.

How?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on October 21, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
Filling up bills with a shitload of pork so you have further grounds to vote them down later is pretty scummy.

No it isn't and I've already discussed why with no response from any one.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 28, 2011, 01:21:03 AM
BTW, the thing that blows my mind about American politics is that less than 3/4 of the presidential term is over, and the politicians are already on the campaign trail again. I think that's one reason why it's so slow-moving, because there's only a small time window during which the president actually solely focuses on his job.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 28, 2011, 05:46:45 AM
Actually where the study of the presidency is involved, it's said the president is never solely focused on the job. It's called the perpetual campaign; even the legislation he proposes/passes into law somehow go back to his effort towards re-election.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 28, 2011, 06:22:20 AM
Well, that part is obviously alright. It's the "driving around the country for rallies" that serves no purpose other than election.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 28, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
Actually where the study of the presidency is involved, it's said the president is never solely focused on the job. It's called the perpetual campaign; even the legislation he proposes/passes into law somehow go back to his effort towards re-election.

There's a difference between campaigning, and getting elected on how you ran a country.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 28, 2011, 07:16:56 PM
Well sure, but that's where it's all aimed at; it's why political scientists call it the perpetual campaign.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on October 28, 2011, 07:19:38 PM
This perpetual campaigning has made me wonder:

What effect would a (hypothetical) amendment banning any sort of multiple terms in the Fed have on the political ecosystem?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on October 28, 2011, 09:35:59 PM
The only thing needing to be banned is the obsession with the Fed. It's getting to the level of a witch hunt.
If you want to legislate something, legislate something like the EU passed a few days ago: increasing the mandatory bank cash reserve to 9%. One of the major causes of the financial collapse was that banks couldn't deal with the shock to the system that the collapse of the housing market brought.

rumbrak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 28, 2011, 09:40:41 PM
Well sure, but that's where it's all aimed at; it's why political scientists call it the perpetual campaign.

I'm saying this logic is cynical, not that it's wrong. It means you can't distinguish between someone who actually has the country at heart, and is ruling how he thinks is good, and getting elected because he does a good job, and someone who's policies are purely aimed at re-election. It's like the argument for human selfishness, you can spin any story to show how someone is being selfish even in an act of altruism.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 28, 2011, 11:21:17 PM
I don't think it's supposed to reflect any sort of cynicism (I'm not, at least), although I can see why coming to that conclusion about the presidency might lead to it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on October 30, 2011, 01:46:00 PM
news.yahoo.com/studies-challenge-wisdom-gop-candidates-plans-124434243.html

Quote
Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.
...
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
...
Small businesses rate "poor sales" as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the "political climate."
....
The candidates have said little about another national problem: depressed home prices, as well as the high numbers of foreclosures and borrowers who owe more than their houses are worth.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on October 30, 2011, 02:29:41 PM
In other news:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/316248_285129958176378_113544412001601_940736_1873646651_n.jpg)

:lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: 73109 on October 30, 2011, 02:30:52 PM
:rollin
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on October 30, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
An account would be quite the juicy bit.   :lol

What I'd really like to see is a full set of pics. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on October 30, 2011, 02:36:47 PM
A million dollars? 

Hot damn, all I need are some semen samples. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on October 30, 2011, 03:03:55 PM
I believe that's been a standing offer for any Republicans for years.  Nothing new here except that he's singling out a specific Republican (and not increasing the bounty).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on November 09, 2011, 10:14:19 PM
This pretty much sums up Rick Perry's debate performance tonight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on November 09, 2011, 10:15:44 PM
Yeah, he's not getting that nomination.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on November 09, 2011, 10:18:11 PM
The only thing needing to be banned is the obsession with the Fed. It's getting to the level of a witch hunt.
If you want to legislate something, legislate something like the EU passed a few days ago: increasing the mandatory bank cash reserve to 9%. One of the major causes of the financial collapse was that banks couldn't deal with the shock to the system that the collapse of the housing market brought.

rumbrak

The problem with that is that when you raise reserves, you basically can't do as much banking.  You're going to hear in a couple weeks about BNP and SocGen doing massive layoffs.  Its basically because of the cost of debt is raising, and their reservce requirement through the BASIL acts are locking up their cash.  To try to get around this banks will basically take things off balance sheet, but it still isnt enough to negate the cost of regulation.

Edit: What I think is that auditors aren't doing their jobs.  If you are going to have regulartory accounting, there needs to be more description in the financials concerning the securities & derivatives that the banks holds.  There are some stress tests but they dont go far enough and should be more explictly descirbed in the finacial statements.  Sooner or later though the shareholders need to really understand what the hell is going on in their company.  There's no excuses why shareholders should be shocked that they have billions of exposure on anything.  Shareholders need to take accountability too, they need to know what they are investing in.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on November 09, 2011, 10:24:08 PM
To me I think its clear that Gengrich is the most well spoken, coherent of all the candidates.  Along with Ron Paul, I think he's the only that seems to have some sort of moral philosophy from which he derives his political beliefs.  While I think that any of them would be better than Obama, I think that Gengrich & Paul are the only ones that will bring me to the polls election time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on November 10, 2011, 12:03:21 AM
To me I think its clear that Gengrich is the most well spoken, coherent of all the candidates.  Along with Ron Paul, I think he's the only that seems to have some sort of moral philosophy from which he derives his political beliefs.  While I think that any of them would be better than Obama, I think that Gengrich & Paul are the only ones that will bring me to the polls election time.
Did we watch the same debate? Or the same Gingrich in that debate?

The best performance in tonight's debate was easily John Huntsman. He doesn't have a chance at the nomination though because he isn't willing to say crazy things to pander.

With Perry, that was just... wow. Watching it live, you could actually feel his campaign dying.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 10, 2011, 12:27:15 AM
So what do people make of last nights election results? Wasn't very good for Republican policies, at least a lot of the mainstream stuff you hear by Republican candidates who stand a chance in the primaries. They've all had to pander and say some crazy things thus far, Romney basically backtracks on everything, and the reasonable one's seem to never get attention. I think the two party system is basically going to ensure Obama's reelection.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on November 10, 2011, 12:35:10 AM
I think Romney's going to get the nom because he hasn't become a nutty flavor of the month like Bachman/Perry/Cain, and he isn't hopelessly obscure to the average Joe like Huntsman or Paul (not like Paul'd get it if he was more well-known; it seems like some view him as a threat or something).

Honestly I fail to see what would be drastically different about a GOP gov 13-17 vs a Dem gov.   Seems either way, the GOP gets its way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 10, 2011, 12:36:53 AM
This pretty much sums up Rick Perry's debate performance tonight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

 :lol

I remember hearing he had back surgery, or some sort. I'm really thinking the mans high on painkillers...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 10, 2011, 08:06:31 AM
Perry is finished as a candidate. 

I really think Romney is going to end up with the nomination. 

I also think Obama is going to be re-elected

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 10, 2011, 08:47:17 AM
LOLPERRY!

I sincerely also hope Gingrich does not get the nomination.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on November 10, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
I didn't find huntsman impressive at all... He didnt make much sense at all when he talked about the Fed.  Gingirch does two things I like - he asnwers the questions coherently, and then yells at the moderators when they try to cut him off  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 10, 2011, 10:48:32 AM
Gingrich just wants to be a smartass and try to evade questions. Truth to this is also that NO ONE answers the questions properly, especially not Cain. He always tries to tie everything to 666.

Huntsman is a very reasonable candidate too, it's sad that most of the electorate won't even consider him because he's not a tr00 conservative.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on November 10, 2011, 10:52:52 AM
I didn't find huntsman impressive at all... He didnt make much sense at all when he talked about the Fed.  Gingirch does two things I like - he asnwers the questions coherently, and then yells at the moderators when they try to cut him off  :lol
Just so you know, answers aren't incoherent just because you disagree with them. Huntsman by far gave the most coherent and intelligent answers of the night.

Gingrich is that kid in the class who thinks he's way smarter than he actually is, and feigns arrogance to cover it up.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 10, 2011, 11:27:32 AM
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination.  That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory.  Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states.  The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him.  When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball.  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 10, 2011, 11:36:58 AM
Lol. The best Perry had to say was "oops".

I was cracking up there. It must've been SO embarrassing for Perry.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on November 10, 2011, 12:40:02 PM
Just so you know, answers aren't incoherent just because you disagree with them. Huntsman by far gave the most coherent and intelligent answers of the night.

Ah is that how it works? That must be right, because as you know Im incapable of saying I disagree with things... Thats something as you know Ive struggled with...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: livehard on November 10, 2011, 12:44:32 PM
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination.  That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory.  Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states.  The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him.  When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball.  :lol

Perry doens't seem to sharp on the draw.  But i dont think that Gingrich vs. obama would be an easy victory, if they were to set up some debates that were actually debates (not those telivised mini speeches they have now) Gingrich would sway a good amount of the American people.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 10, 2011, 12:55:08 PM
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination.  That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory.  Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states.  The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him.  When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball.  :lol

Perry doens't seem to sharp on the draw.  But i dont think that Gingrich vs. obama would be an easy victory, if they were to set up some debates that were actually debates (not those telivised mini speeches they have now) Gingrich would sway a good amount of the American people.

Gingrich has too many moral skeletons in his closet to win the nomination anyway.  I mean, this is a guy who was going after Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished while he was cheating on his wife.  You know, his second wife, the one who had just been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  Now he's on to wife #3.  Not exactly the "family values" narrative that carries conservative votes.

He's a bright guy, I'll give you that.   But he's lacking in the charisma area, and since when has intellect carried conservative votes? 

I really though Perry was going to be formidable.  He's not very bright.  Folksy.  Likes guns.  Comes from Texas.....all he had to do was not say....."oops!"  :lol

Romney STILL polls the best against Obama in a head up race and he has a very good command of the facts, he's just got more positions than Kama Sutra
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 10, 2011, 01:04:27 PM
I'd be thrilled if Gingrich got the nomination.  That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory.  Gingrich doesn't poll very strongly in any of the battleground states.  The BEST chance of beating Obama is Romney, and even Romney is a crap shoot because of his Mormonism which will prevent a wide swath of the Christian right from voting for him.  When Perry first got in, I really thought he was going to be a formidable candidate, I had no idea he was about as sharp as a bowling ball.  :lol

Perry doens't seem to sharp on the draw.  But i dont think that Gingrich vs. obama would be an easy victory, if they were to set up some debates that were actually debates (not those telivised mini speeches they have now) Gingrich would sway a good amount of the American people.

Gingrich has too many moral skeletons in his closet to win the nomination anyway.  I mean, this is a guy who was going after Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished while he was cheating on his wife.  You know, his second wife, the one who had just been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  Now he's on to wife #3.  Not exactly the "family values" narrative that carries conservative votes.

He's a bright guy, I'll give you that.   But he's lacking in the charisma area, and since when has intellect carried conservative votes? 

I really though Perry was going to be formidable.  He's not very bright.  Folksy.  Likes guns.  Comes from Texas.....all he had to do was not say....."oops!"  :lol

Romney STILL polls the best against Obama in a head up race and he has a very good command of the facts, he's just got more positions than Karma Sutra

I'm going to have to use this in a political conversation some time. :D
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 10, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
If you do make sure you spell it right, I just noticed that I spelled it wrong  ::)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 10, 2011, 03:54:58 PM
None of the likely candidates for Republican could really beat Obama. Obama's gonna demolish all of them on their rhetoric, and the American people are mostly behind the kind of "class warfare" things that Republicans are opposed to. Americans don't consider Corporations people, they think the Rich should pay more in taxes, they want our wars done away with (Obama got shit from Republicans for the Iraq war coming to some sort of end... according to Bush's timeline), and I think Obama's gonna ride the fact that Republicans have been obstructionists his entire term to re-election. He's going to point to all the things he's doing that he has the legal authority to do (foreign policy, student loans, foreclosure statuses, etc) and say your beef isn't with me, it's with the Republicans in Congress. Romney's flipflopped on too many things, Cain would be destroyed by Obama in any debate, Gingrich said you can't quote him or you're lying, Paul won't get the nomination, Huntsman won't get the nomination, and who's left?

I think the American people will actually hear this argument. If we had a better system in place, I don't know if Obama would get reelected, but he's going to be the lesser of two evils.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 10, 2011, 04:01:06 PM
Hey, I'm a liberal registered Democrat, but let me tell you something:  Obama is not going to "crush" anyone.  He's got a very difficult re-election campaign ahead of him.  I think he has a decent chance of winning, and I want him to win because I don't want any more right-wingers appointed to the SCOTUS, but the facts are pretty clear.....this election is going to be a close call.


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 10, 2011, 04:07:48 PM
Register republican before it's too late and vote for Paul in your primary/caucus.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on November 10, 2011, 04:10:57 PM
I agree that Paul's a solid choice.

However, it seems he's doomed to merely be a spreader of ideas, as the Republican Party seems to view him as a dissident of sorts. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 10, 2011, 04:16:39 PM
The two party system is designed to destroy all potential uprisings. Paul has to adopt to the system to spread his views, it's quite sad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 10, 2011, 04:26:51 PM
Hey, I'm a liberal registered Democrat, but let me tell you something:  Obama is not going to "crush" anyone.  He's got a very difficult re-election campaign ahead of him.  I think he has a decent chance of winning, and I want him to win because I don't want any more right-wingers appointed to the SCOTUS, but the facts are pretty clear.....this election is going to be a close call.

All the Republicans running have basically supported ballot measures that got crushed by 2/3's of the population. Romney supported Ohio's collective bargaining, which got crushed. Supported Mississippi's person hood amendment, which got crushed.

The worst thing going for Obama is the economy, and I honestly think the American people are going to listen to him when he blames it all on the Republicans in Congress.

Oh, and by crushed, I mean like 55% of the vote. It's not going to be a slim margin, I don't think. Obama's a good debater.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2011, 08:20:21 PM
Yeah,  I'm starting to see this as a bigger Obama victory than I had previously thought.  Romney's the guy who could do well against him,  but with the Republicans trying their damnedest to avoid nominating him,  he's going to go into the general election pretty lame.  If it had just become a Romney vs. Perry fight,  it'd have been ugly,  but people would be rallying behind him right now.  Instead,  he'll get the anti-Obama vote,  which will be strong,  but very little support of his own. 

Hey, I'm a liberal registered Democrat, but let me tell you something:  Obama is not going to "crush" anyone.  He's got a very difficult re-election campaign ahead of him.  I think he has a decent chance of winning, and I want him to win because I don't want any more right-wingers appointed to the SCOTUS, but the facts are pretty clear.....this election is going to be a close call.

The only two justices who might come up for replacement are Ginsburg and Kennedy.  I think Kennedy's got quite a lot of judging left in him,  and Ginsburg will probably retire after this term.  Looking back,  supreme court justices like to retire when their side is in office.  Souter retired when their was a Republican to replace him*.  Same thing with O'connor.  She was quite clear that she wanted to retire under a Republican president (which might actually have been a factor in Bush v. Gore).  If it looks like Obama might not get reelected,  you'll see Ginsburg hang it up.  If he's a shoe in,  as I suspect he will be,  she might tough it out a bit longer,  but health's going to force her out pretty soon.  Either way,  she won't be around for another term if it means retiring under a GOP president.

*Despite their hatred of him,  Souter remained a die-hard republican.  He was just an old-school type,  rather than the right-wing whack job that the GOP seems to crave, nowadays. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 13, 2011, 08:11:11 AM
lolbachmann on why China is better than the US "welfare state":

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/michele-bachmann-us-china-socialist_n_1090688.html
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 13, 2011, 08:38:27 AM
I posted this in the "is Christianity bad for the US" thread, but it is hilarious seeing these debaters criticizing Obama's foreign policy from the right. They come off as psychopaths.

Also, I'm glad Ron Paul pointed out the glaring hypocrisy that is "not trusting the government," yet fully supporting due process free assassinations of Americans, just 'cos some secret panel at the White House said he was guilty.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 13, 2011, 08:44:57 AM
I posted this in the "is Christianity bad for the US" thread, but it is hilarious seeing these debaters criticizing Obama's foreign policy from the right. They come off as psychopaths.

Also, I'm glad Ron Paul pointed out the glaring hypocrisy that is "not trusting the government," yet fully supporting due process free assassinations of Americans, just 'cos some secret panel at the White House said he was guilty.

I think I get the context of that one (the guy killed in Yemen), but who is he describing in the not trusting the gov't part?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 13, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
I mean...all of them. They're all anti big government unless it involves war or corporate welfare. 

edit: except Huntsman.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 13, 2011, 09:35:05 AM
Oh, I thought he was referring to the constituency, my bad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on November 13, 2011, 10:11:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vm7yNWYyRw

OMG, Rick Perry is an idiot frothing at the mouth.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 13, 2011, 12:52:12 PM
 
Also, I'm glad Ron Paul pointed out the glaring hypocrisy that is "not trusting the government," yet fully supporting due process free assassinations of Americans, just 'cos some secret panel at the White House said he was guilty.

I remember when Obama was running for President, and someone for his campaign was at our school; there was a pic in the school newspaper of a conservative asking a question of why government should be trusted, etc... he was wearing an "ARMY" t-shirt.  :facepalm:

Jon Stewart got Bill Krystal at one point to admit that the US government gives it's soldiers the best health care system in the world, through the VA, at a time when Krystal was attacking any idea of having the government involved with health care becuase it would give worse results.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 13, 2011, 03:05:23 PM
Ron Paul had like four minutes of speaking time. I'm calling BS on that entire debate. It was all Romney acting like the boss, Hermain Cain making an idiot out of himself on being "clear" about the Pakis, Perry fumbling with his words as usual.

Everyone was war-mongering, and they didn't even let Paul speak out against it that much. Huntsman is also the guy on the stage with real experience in the field, though he can't talk sense into the ignorants in the crowds.

It's sad.

I mean...all of them. They're all anti big government unless it involves war or corporate welfare. 

edit: except Huntsman.
Excuse me? Ron Paul is pro-war and pro-corporatism?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 13, 2011, 03:32:13 PM
Ron Paul had like four minutes of speaking time. I'm calling BS on that entire debate. It was all Romney acting like the boss, Hermain Cain making an idiot out of himself on being "clear" about the Pakis, Perry fumbling with his words as usual.

Everyone was war-mongering, and they didn't even let Paul speak out against it that much. Huntsman is also the guy on the stage with real experience in the field, though he can't talk sense into the ignorants in the crowds.

It's sad.

I mean...all of them. They're all anti big government unless it involves war or corporate welfare. 

edit: except Huntsman.
Excuse me? Ron Paul is pro-war and pro-corporatism?

No, see my post before that one.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 13, 2011, 04:06:02 PM
No, see my post before that one.
Should've read up.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 13, 2011, 04:14:31 PM
Ron Paul had like four minutes of speaking time. I'm calling BS on that entire debate. It was all Romney acting like the boss, Hermain Cain making an idiot out of himself on being "clear" about the Pakis, Perry fumbling with his words as usual.

It was actually like 90 seconds.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 15, 2011, 08:23:42 AM
Even worse actually. And Jon Huntsman should've been asked all questions FIRST about China.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on November 15, 2011, 09:15:58 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/romney-two-way-race-is-now-four-way-republican-dead-heat-in-iowa-caucuses.html

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 15, 2011, 02:06:42 PM
I wonder how the mainstream media is going ignore Paul here too. It's like the Iowa straw Poll, when he came in like third, and every single organization just passed over his standing, and never talked about him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 15, 2011, 03:48:24 PM
He was second. Within 1% of Bachmann, who allegedly bought 2000 votes. In the Iowa poll that is. Paul is being ignored here, no doubt.

What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".

Politics in the US... sad business.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 15, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
He is the lesser evil. I'd rather stay in one place (which I don't think we have) than take one step back, and then another, followed by another, rinse and repeat.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 15, 2011, 05:11:12 PM
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".

Ya, two party politics sucks. I'm glad no one did though, becuase it would only have weakened Obama, and made it more possible for a Republican to win the office.

There is no real left/progressive party in this country anymore. Obama really is more of a conservative, he's not pushing for any new radical American values, despite what the right tries to say about the matter. We've had socialized medicine for a long time now, social security is hardly new, nor are big infrastructure and stimulus projects.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on November 15, 2011, 06:13:06 PM
I think I posted a while back about incumbents who faced competition in the primaries,  and it's almost always a gift to the opposition party.  Obama's weak enough as it is.  Any opposition would almost guarantee a Republican president in '12,  and their only real candidates are total whackjobs.  I can't stand Obama's silly ass,  but the thought of Presidents Perry or Cain is just mind-numbing. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kingshmegland on November 15, 2011, 06:18:50 PM
I think I posted a while back about incumbents who faced competition in the primaries,  and it's almost always a gift to the opposition party.  Obama's weak enough as it is.  Any opposition would almost guarantee a Republican president in '12,  and their only real candidates are total whackjobs.  I can't stand Obama's silly ass,  but the thought of Presidents Perry or Cain is just mind-numbing.

In the long run both would not make it.  Have you ever seen these kinds of politicians get further along in any primaries except Ross Perot? 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 15, 2011, 06:30:51 PM
But who does that leave? Romney? Gingrich? Romney flip flips so much, I don't trust any position he actually holds to be his true one, and imagine he has some secret agenda's in mind. Gingrich is just as bad; remember, you can't quote what he said, or you're lying.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 15, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Romney's for sure gonna win primaries though, considering he isn't totally out there like a lot of them.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 15, 2011, 08:04:46 PM
What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".

Politics in the US... sad business.

I agree. He does not deserve to get off so easily.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 16, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
He was second. Within 1% of Bachmann, who allegedly bought 2000 votes. In the Iowa poll that is. Paul is being ignored here, no doubt.

What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".

Politics in the US... sad business.

Challenging an incumbent is a recipe for disaster.  See: Jimmy Carter

No good would come of it for the Democrats, and you might as well hand the white house to the Republicans. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 16, 2011, 12:40:53 PM
He was second. Within 1% of Bachmann, who allegedly bought 2000 votes. In the Iowa poll that is. Paul is being ignored here, no doubt.

What I cannot believe is that no one challenged Obama in the primaries. I mean, at least Kucinich could've rallied the base a little and made Obama follow up on some of those promises to protect civil liberties. Real progressives out there have to just go for Obama because he's supposed to be the "lesser evil".

Politics in the US... sad business.

Challenging an incumbent is a recipe for disaster.  See: Jimmy Carter

No good would come of it for the Democrats, and you might as well hand the white house to the Republicans. 
I'm not talking about challenging him for the sake of actually trying to win, but get him closer to his base. It'd make people not to casually accept Obama just because he's a dem.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 16, 2011, 01:19:22 PM
Irrelevant, I'm afraid.  A primary challenge is damaging to an incumbent.  Doesn't matter WHY you do it, it matters THAT you do it.  And when it is done, it weakens the incumbent.  Again, I refer you to Jimmy Carter. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on November 16, 2011, 09:31:03 PM
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 16, 2011, 10:06:12 PM
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.

rumborak

They are? I haven't really been paying attention to the GOP stuff, what's been happening?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 16, 2011, 10:08:09 PM
It's why Romney is having such a hard time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on November 16, 2011, 10:15:11 PM
How the hell is Gingrich gaining so much ground? I thought people had already realized that he was a terrible choice.

It's mind numbing that Huntsman can't seem to get more support. I guess that's what happens when you don't say batshit crazy things just to pander and get attention.

As has been pretty clear for a while now, Romney is going to get the nomination. Out of the current field, he is one of the better choices, and while I don't really like him, I can at least say that the idea of a Romney presidency isn't actively terrifying.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 16, 2011, 10:53:42 PM
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.

rumborak

They are? I haven't really been paying attention to the GOP stuff, what's been happening?

Romney supported the Union killing bill in Ohio, and the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi. Both failed horribly.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on November 17, 2011, 01:42:14 AM
What "base" does Obama need to get closer to? Appeasing to the hardcore lefties is a lost cause, and is exactly what the GOP is struggling with right now on their side with the hardcore right-wingers.

rumborak

They are? I haven't really been paying attention to the GOP stuff, what's been happening?

In general I mean. Over the years the GOP has schmoozed so much with their hardcore right-wingers (and the Tea Partiers), that now any sign of being moderate is viewed as weak and back-paddling. They essentially wrote the anti-Climate Change and anti-Evolution on their banner, and now they have to put up with the loony presidential candidates who will push for that stuff.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 17, 2011, 08:00:27 AM
How the hell is Gingrich gaining so much ground?

He's the chosen "Not Romney Flavor of the Week" right now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on November 17, 2011, 11:10:18 AM
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: pogoowner on November 17, 2011, 12:11:54 PM
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?
Never.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 17, 2011, 12:35:58 PM
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?

Ron Paul is actually polling pretty good in Iowa, New Hampshire and California of all places, but, no, he's probably not going to make it too far past the South Carolina primary.  He's way too sane.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 17, 2011, 02:00:55 PM
He's starting to advance in the polls. But no, he won't be a "flavor of the week". He will not lose his supporters that easily.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on November 18, 2011, 07:01:20 PM
Will Ron Paul get to be a flavour of the week?

Ron Paul is actually polling pretty good in Iowa, New Hampshire and California of all places, but, no, he's probably not going to make it too far past the South Carolina primary.  He's way too sane.

Apparently the mans not ruling out a third party bid, which I actually think would be interesting. Some talk about him gaining traction in the Republican party as well, which is interesting. Just the presence of Paul at the debates, in the national spotlight, would probably have an effect on how this country moves forward. There's some area's where I massively disagree with him, but he's actually hinted at some reasonable compromises that I think most liberals can get behind.

Obama still present's somewhat of an enigma. He hasn't done very well in the past, but recently he really has gotten better at the job; and I think his message against congress is dead on. He still strikes me as an incredibly intelligent person, and is one reason I think Paul could affect the election whether he wins or not. It would be very interesting to see the two of them debate. I'd find myself in an interesting dilemma, I know that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on November 18, 2011, 07:18:13 PM
I think people grossly underestimate Obama's policy successes. The only reason his policy failures get more attention is because they're failures.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on November 18, 2011, 10:13:04 PM
From what I understand most straw polls are online polls. Which is probably why the GOP believes the results of those as much as we believed that Nickelback's drummer is the best rock drummer.
I don't even need to look online to know that RP's forum will have "let's vote for RP in this poll" threads, with the more internet-savvy guys using their knowledge to give their voice a bit more Oomph than normal.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 19, 2011, 04:20:24 AM
I think most straw polls require that you attend the event and pay a fee to be able to vote.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on November 28, 2011, 05:41:17 PM
https://www.politico.com/2012-election/

lol@Herman Cain

I think most straw polls require that you attend the event and pay a fee to be able to vote.


Yes, this. The fact RP has done well in a couple straw-polls is very promising for him, imo.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 29, 2011, 01:05:20 PM
https://www.politico.com/2012-election/

lol@Herman Cain

I think most straw polls require that you attend the event and pay a fee to be able to vote.


Yes, this. The fact RP has done well in a couple straw-polls is very promising for him, imo.
He does extremely well. He has won pretty much half or more than half of every major straw poll held since the campaigning began.


And lolCain.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 29, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Cain is done. 

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2011, 06:05:45 AM
Quote
“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”


Oh Rick Perry.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 06:30:33 AM
Quote
“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”


Oh Rick Perry.

I've been compiling most of his major gaffes here:  https://www.governorgoodhair.org

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on November 30, 2011, 08:49:12 AM
From what I understand most straw polls are online polls. Which is probably why the GOP believes the results of those as much as we believed that Nickelback's drummer is the best rock drummer.
I don't even need to look online to know that RP's forum will have "let's vote for RP in this poll" threads, with the more internet-savvy guys using their knowledge to give their voice a bit more Oomph than normal.

rumborak
Straw Polls are not the same as "log on now to Fox News or CNN and vote for your favourite candidate".
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2011, 09:30:51 AM
Quote
“Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support,” Perry said, eliciting a few chuckles from the crowd.” Those who won’t be, just work hard. Because you’re... counting on us.”


Oh Rick Perry.

I've been compiling most of his major gaffes here:  https://www.governorgoodhair.org

He actually said "November the 12th". I don't know why, but I freaking hate when people say dates like that. Who does he think he is, George Bush the second?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 10:11:20 AM
If that's true (that he said "November the 12th") then several news agencies have misquoted him.  Not that it matters much, he's a fucking idiot either way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 10:13:13 AM
OK, yeah, you're right, the quotes all have it wrong.  I just found several videos where it's documented and he did say "November the 12th"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 10:30:29 AM
Pretty funny that he stepped in it again while defending his latest stupidity
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/30/while-defending-himself-perry-steps-in-it-again/


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on November 30, 2011, 11:14:08 AM
How easy are they trying to make things for Obama? yeesh
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2011, 11:26:13 AM
I actually know very little about who is in the running for the Democrats. So much focus in on the Republican party and how much of a joke the candidates are, people don't seem to be giving the democrats any attention.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on November 30, 2011, 11:27:39 AM
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2011, 11:30:04 AM
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.

I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on November 30, 2011, 11:38:04 AM
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.

I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
It's a pretty bad idea to run against an incumbent president from your party. Never really turns out well for anyone. There are probably Democrats out there who don't like Obama, but they probably like him a whole lot more than any of the Republicans.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 11:44:00 AM
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.

I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.

There is not going to be another candidate on the Democratic side. 

Can I ask you two questions?  I mean no dis-respect at all, I am just curious.

1. How old are you?

2. Are you a US citizen?

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: KevShmev on November 30, 2011, 11:56:42 AM
Hint: it's a certain black President from Chicago who's up for reelection.

I get that, but a lot of people are not satisfied with the job he has done. I figured there would be a bunch of people interested in alternate options on the democratic side.
It's a pretty bad idea to run against an incumbent president from your party. Never really turns out well for anyone. There are probably Democrats out there who don't like Obama, but they probably like him a whole lot more than any of the Republicans.

This.  Sadly, this reminds me of 2004, but flipped.  Bush was horrible and should have been beatable, but the Democrats had no one worth a crap to beat him (John Kerry? :lol), and we got stuck with Bush for another four years.  Same thing now with Obama, who has also been horrible (not comparing his horribleness to Bush, just saying) and the GOP not having anyone worth a crap to beat him.  Odds are, we are gonna get stuck with Obama for another four.  Yippee.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on November 30, 2011, 12:37:19 PM
Howard Dean should've been the democratic choice in 04, just like Ron Paul should be the one now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 12:57:28 PM
Actually, I thought John Kerry was massively better suited for the office than Dubya, and of course, we'll never know how a Kerry presidency would have gone, but it certainly couldn't have been any worse than the unmitigated disaster of George W. Bush, easily the worst president in a generation.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2011, 01:25:31 PM
I didn't dislike Kerry all that much. Then again I was much younger when he was in the running, so I probably didn't understand most of it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 02, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this, but I saw this Forbes article via Reddit today about a provision of Obamcare that's supposedly going into effect which I thought was interesting.   

Quote
the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time.  Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most.

Today, that bomb goes off.

Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.

As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.

Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.

So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?
 
Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

Whether you are a believer in the benefits of single-payer health coverage or an opponent, mark this day down on your calendar because this is the day seismic shifts in our health care system finally get under way.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/2/

Is this guy just bloviating or is this actually significant? I can't tell.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 03, 2011, 08:40:02 AM
As someone that used to be a health insurance agent and currently does administrative work for a few health insurance companies, I can tell you this sounds incredibly significant.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 03, 2011, 10:27:22 AM
Ron Paul's attack ad against Newt Gingrich was the best I've probably ever seen. It's gained so much fire now and it's gone viral - just as Gingrich is surging. It's a good thing, Gingrich should not win.


Edit:
The ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 03, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
As someone that used to be a health insurance agent and currently does administrative work for a few health insurance companies, I can tell you this sounds incredibly significant.
Interesting. I'm hoping to read or hear more about this since I've only seen that one opinion piece.

and post the ad here jsem
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 03, 2011, 12:54:44 PM
And Herman Cain is officially out of the race! Good riddance, USA.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 03, 2011, 01:08:25 PM
And Herman Cain is officially out of the race! Good riddance, USA.
Aww, that sucks. He was pure comedy gold.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 03, 2011, 01:13:12 PM
I am actually disappointed.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on December 03, 2011, 04:08:12 PM
Who do y'all think will the next to lose?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 03, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
And Herman Cain is officially out of the race! Good riddance, USA.
Aww, that sucks. He was pure comedy gold.

I guess in the end he gave that woodchuck a tuna melt, or a metal skull crusher.

Who do y'all think will the next to lose?

I would think the next suspensions of campaign will wait until the Ohio primaries are in. Thing is, Cain had never been subjected to public scrutiny, whereas the remaining candidates have all been around long enough to not have egregious skeletons in their closet.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 03, 2011, 10:52:26 PM
Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn't Know China Has Nuclear Weapons (https://www.theonion.com/articles/rumors-of-extramarital-affair-end-campaign-of-pres,26801/)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 04, 2011, 05:50:05 AM
Yeah, looks like Newt Gingrich is the new "Not Mitt Romney"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 04, 2011, 08:20:08 AM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kingshmegland on December 04, 2011, 08:58:03 AM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.

Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues?  No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 04, 2011, 11:17:37 AM
Newt is just such an opportunist scumbag.

edit: I realize you could apply that description to anyone running for POTUS.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on December 04, 2011, 12:28:25 PM
Really, it's reflective of both the incredibly messed up state the Republican party is currently in, and how terrible most of the candidates are, that Newt fucking Gingrich is even taken seriously as a candidate, let alone a frontrunner. I like one explanation I heard for his current success; "He is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like".

Seriously. If a political party is celebrating people like Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann, while ignoring people like Jon Huntsman, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 04, 2011, 01:14:51 PM
It's pretty goddamn telling that Herman Cain gets cut down not because of his actual platform or cluelessness on various issues, but some alleged extramarital affair.

All the more reason why I feel like it's not even worthwhile to argue or even care about politics anymore if the bulk of voters are this stupid. I know that sounds elitist, but eh.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 04, 2011, 02:21:19 PM
It's true. It's saddening that people who are clueless go and vote.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 04, 2011, 02:41:21 PM
I'm wondering why this affair, which was supposedly consensual, was the one to bring him down.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 04, 2011, 02:47:16 PM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.

Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues?  No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit at Tiffany's with the countries budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 04, 2011, 02:47:57 PM
Because the woman had proof to back up her claims (phone records and such), and his poll numbers were already slipping quite drastically. Honestly, I think the media helps us think people are stupider than they are, becuase the media focuses on the scandal; but I think a lot of voters saw the mans response to Libya, and didn't know China has nuclear weapons, and that's why his poll numbers dropped.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kingshmegland on December 04, 2011, 04:55:31 PM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.

Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues?  No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit at Tiffany's with the countries budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well  :lol

No, no.  I agree with you.  I would just like to see some honesty come out for once.  No falsehoods and empty promises.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 04, 2011, 09:12:53 PM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.

Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues?  No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit, at Tiffany's, with the country's budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well  :lol

No, no.  I agree with you.  I would just like to see some honesty come out for once.  No falsehoods and empty promises.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 04, 2011, 11:13:57 PM
I sincerely hope people understand that Newt ought to be unelectable after his affairs and his hypocrisy.

Not that I would vote for him but wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone running for office be candid about his or her past and move on the the real issues?  No one is squeaky clean and I find it repulsive that most lie about their past.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust a guy who ran up a 500,000 dollar line of credit at Tiffany's with the countries budget. Let's not all forget the fact the Ali G made him look like a complete tard as well  :lol

No, no.  I agree with you.  I would just like to see some honesty come out for once.  No falsehoods and empty promises.

Then Gingrich is definitely not your man. People usually don't change drastically from like 40+, in fact they usually become more entrenched, so we know who Gingrich is, and he's a hypocritical politician out for fame and money.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 04, 2011, 11:27:32 PM
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich in a climate change advocacy commercial from 2008 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154)

what the fuck?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 04, 2011, 11:28:20 PM
Honestly, I don't see how Gingrich's Tiffany's credit-line is of any relevance. If Obama's proven anything, it's that he's an utterly inept politician who allows those "entrenched" insiders to make his every decision for him, whether it be about the economy or the wars.  There are two areas, at least, where I think Gingrich could do better than Obama:

1.) Making his own decisions: Obama's proven again and again that he's just not capable of challenging economists, generals, and other advisers on domestic and foreign issues. Gingrich, however, has been around longer than most, and he probably would do a lot better job at cutting through the bullshit to press his own objectives (does Obama even have personal objectives anymore, or is it just his aids and advisers running the show like W.'s did?). Gingrich's sense of arrogance would probably make him harder to push around then Obama, who in contrast likes to think of himself as being "above the debate" but is actually the guy getting trampled by it.

2.) Leveling with the American people: This is one area where Obama has been beyond horrendous. American people don't understand what he's doing, and since he's so terrible at explaining it to them conservatives easily taint the discussion at the earliest stage, just like they did with Obamacare. Sure, he's got a good vocabulary, but that's not worth anything if you can't make a compelling case for anything you're doing in office. Obama may have seemed like a good debater 3 years ago, but that was when he was up against McCain and Palin, neither of whom are capable of making coherent statements. Gingrich, by comparison, is a much more competent orator than anyone in the running now, and one who seems to do a better job of sounding smart while breaking ideas down to a level normal people can understand.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 04, 2011, 11:43:58 PM
I agree with your analysis of Obama, the first part at least. But just because Newt might be better at "being president" doesn't mean he'll do anything good.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 04, 2011, 11:47:07 PM
Oh, I know. I am a far shot from being under the Newt fan tent. But he is probably the most competent person in the running, which is the most terrifying part of it all. I expect Romney will crack soon. He's managed to stay away from the media while they have basically already granted him the nomination, but the more he opens his mouth the less I'm confident he actually knows more about the issues than he did last time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 05, 2011, 12:37:46 AM
Obama is easily the most competent person running this time around. I think your analysis is somewhat out-of-date, and also directed falsely at Obama, instead of Executive bureaucracy and, most importantly, the Legislative Branch.. There's a reason incumbent President's often win, and it's becuase of experience. If the Republicans manage to nominate someone who isn't a complete fool, I think he could lose, and the rational will be the one you've given (though like I said, I think it's wrong).

He's been much more promising lately, and a lot of what has happened is still not his fault. He's only the President, he doesn't write laws, he doesn't pass laws, he doesn't control congress.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 05, 2011, 12:44:56 AM
Yes, he doesn't control those things, but do you honestly think he's done a good job communicating what he's done to Americans?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 05, 2011, 03:08:46 AM
Depends who you listen to.

Also, wait until he actually has an opponent to run against. We've all seen the Republicans, what they offer, etc, because they've been given the camera time, for obvious reasons.

I also think it's rather weird to vote for President based upon his ability to communicate to the people what he's done, instead of just actually voting for him based upon what he's done. I'm guessing we both get pre-filtered news, as well, so his ability is also up to other peoples ability, and our media isn't the most competent at times.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
I'm soooo glad Cain is done!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 05, 2011, 09:25:51 AM
Somewhat unrelated, but I thought it was kinda funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8CGeC2M_U&feature=related

From a Michelle Bachmann stand.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 09:32:56 AM
Yeah, Newt Gingrich, he's really "articulate"

“I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” [Address to Cornerstone Church in Texas, March 2011 (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52023.html)]

And that's just one example of some of the absolute buffoonery that falls out of this guys mouth. 

Newt Gingrich is to reasonable, rational, substantive debate what Milli Vanilli is to excellent vocals  ::)

Can you imagine what kind of whack-jobs this guy will nominate to the federal bench and the SCOTUS?  :eek
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 09:35:56 AM
Somewhat unrelated, but I thought it was kinda funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8CGeC2M_U&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8CGeC2M_U&feature=related)

From a Michelle Bachmann stand.

Yeah, you know something?  Even though I vehemently disagree with Michelle Bachmann on, well, everything in existence.....*I think it's in pretty poor taste to use a kid like that to set her up. 



































*They should have used a kid with a louder voice and a better camera!  :P
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 05, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
In all seriousness I thought so too, I just thought her reaction was funny. Not the sorta thing you'd expect from someone well aware that the cameras are always watching.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 05, 2011, 10:05:37 AM
I can't watch it, it's making me too uncomfortable :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2011, 10:47:16 AM
In all seriousness I thought so too, I just thought her reaction was funny. Not the sorta thing you'd expect from someone well aware that the cameras are always watching.

I'm glad a kid said it. Had the mother gone up and said it, she would have had some sort of preplanned response. I am sure she gets that kind of stuff all the time. It's the fact that she had no response to a child in regards to his gay mother that makes it perfectly clear how stupid it is to be against something so insignificat.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 02:40:54 PM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 05, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
I love it! It's great that he's playing this political game.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on December 05, 2011, 03:02:40 PM
I've liked Newt from the beginning! Go get 'em Tiger!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2011, 03:36:24 PM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

 :metal

It's cheesy, but I like it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 05, 2011, 04:11:12 PM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 05, 2011, 05:24:00 PM
Ron Paul is, sadly, a pretty disappointing candidate this year (as opposed to in 08, when he was constantly on fire).

In my opinion, the fact that he's actually sitting in debates and getting a decent bit of media exposure is really starting to reveal the flaws in his positions. I mean, did anyone watch his 10 minutes on the Huckabee forum? He spent a decent 3rd of it struggling how to define a "terrorist attack" out-loud, had problems hearing reporters' questions, and burned his final minute of camera time up by radomly launching into an incoherent discussion on the "principle of seccession." How much more out of touch could he be?

Honestly, I would genuinely be surprised if anyone other than his core supporters is even able to figure out what he's going-on about half the time. I don't like admitting it, but he really is starting to sound like a nutty academic who has lost his grip on reality. It's really time for him to move out of the way and let the next guy come forward.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 05:28:02 PM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:

I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest  :lol

Is this what our system has become?

A freaking monster-truck ad?   :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol

 :\

Wait, why is that funny again?
 :|
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 05, 2011, 05:41:17 PM
Ugh. Who is in charge of producing this crap? Right now, ronpaul.com seems to have a good black, white and red theme going. Have they not realized that shit like that makes them look like Aryan Nation members? OR is that the whole point?

I mean, seriously?

This
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png)

Looks like it's begging to be put somewhere with this logo:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a01AVJotTRE/SuowgNyJvYI/AAAAAAAAAAw/kHC1UAAg8bE/s320/nsalp.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 05, 2011, 06:02:59 PM
What I find most offensive in that poster is that they use the world "love" (in reverse). No offense, but Libertarians are the closest party to "heartless" that I can think of in the American political landscape. For them the words "altruism" and "social" have negative connotations. Not much love there.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on December 05, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
Honestly, I'd be surprise if anyone of either major party would make an ideal president, Ron Paul or not. 

The people who would best benefit the nation through their governing it are those who don't seek the sort of power and prestige found in politics in the first place.

Paul seems to be the least worst in that regard, but that could be false, I dunno. 

Just putting a thought out there. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 05, 2011, 07:13:54 PM
It's my personal belief that the person who would best serve the nation's interest does not exist. Such an ideal figure, public or private, is subject to our personal beliefs and desires, and the fickleness and other hypocrisies (sp?) upon which we blame human nature.

The 'best man for the job' is a mythical Mr. Smith who does not exist, never has and never will. Yet our constant expectation as a nation that any single individual can hope to live up to his ever-growing repertoire of paradoxical qualities, ranging from the innocence of being "outside the political game" to his need to still somehow be an expert in policy and the game of politics, will only continue to set us up for disappointment and outrage. And I'm not saying we should take any old guy (or gal) who puts his (or her) name on the ticket. Just saying that we shouldn't keep waiting for Mr. Smith to go to Washington. The best man to serve the nation's interest will be someone who is skilled enough and honest enough, and that's about the best we can realistically ask for.

Whew, sorry. Rant over. It was actually meant for something completely different, entirely different forum actually, but Cup's comment got me thinking about it again.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 05, 2011, 07:20:01 PM
Have they not realized that shit like that makes them look like Aryan Nation members? OR is that the whole point

So everything with black, white and red makes you a Nazi? Most of Ron Paul fervent supporters are < 30, young kids are the least racist generation yet, so they're not making that connection.


Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:

I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest  :lol

Is this what our system has become?

A freaking monster-truck ad?   :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol

 :\

Wait, why is that funny again?
 :|

I think, or maybe I hope, it's satire.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 05, 2011, 07:31:58 PM
Yeah PC, I'm not really seeing the Nazi correlation.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 05, 2011, 09:07:05 PM
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png)

Oh no, can't be unseen: Look at his mouth, looks like his teeth are over his lower lip, like a mentally challenged kid would do :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 05, 2011, 09:13:59 PM
Quote
So everything with black, white and red makes you a Nazi?

Where did I say that?

I'm just saying that these are some weird choices he's made in terms of how he markets himself. While most candidates are trying to show they're as red white and blue as possible, Ron Paul goes with the colors of Nazi Germany, not really the best pick for a guy who has some questionable white-supremacist ties in his closet and gets endorsed by well-known anti-semites like Pat Buchanan and, futhermore, gets snubbed by his own party all the time for not being proud enough of America. Plus, he releases ads that look like they belong on SpikeTV. I'm not saying he IS a Nazi, I'm saying that him getting as much of the spotlight as he's been getting is really starting to highlight the weakness of his campaign-- mainly, that his advertising sucks and that he's not really even coherent as an orator (at least anymore, he's pretty old though so I will cut him a little bit of a break).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 05, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
I personally haven't gotten that white supremacy vibe from him, but I'm fully onboard that his public addresses (at least from what I could see from the debates) are pretty incoherent these days. He gets asked a question, and occasionally you can discern what his stance is, but many times he just rambles on with no beginning or end. His die-hard followers don't care because he can do no wrong, but for the rest of us it's like listening to Abe Simpson.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 05, 2011, 10:29:38 PM
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=c595fd0ce28b8820a8efad32ff16a37e)

Oh no, can't be unseen: Look at his mouth, looks like his teeth are over his lower lip, like a mentally challenged kid would do :lol

rumborak

Really? I see it more like a "Dat azz" kinda face :lol

Nazi? Nah.

To be honest "Altruism" and "social" are negative in Objectivism philosophy not in Libertarianism.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 06, 2011, 12:24:38 AM
To be perfectly honest, I find the two hard to separate, since its adherents heavily overlap.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 06, 2011, 08:05:48 AM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:

I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest  :lol

Is this what our system has become?

A freaking monster-truck ad?   :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol

 :\

Wait, why is that funny again?
 :|

I forgot to mention the other GLARING factual stupidity in the ad.  The claim in the ad is that by eliminating the 4 agencies cited, he'll trim $1 Trillion from the budget.

Anyone who believes this is even remotely close to being feasible is an idiot.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 06, 2011, 08:11:23 AM
I'v been thinking.... I bet the Democrats would love to have Newt get the nomination. I'm willing to bet that they have some crazy dirt on that guy that they aren't releasing just yet. As soon as he gets the nomination they are going to unleash fury.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 06, 2011, 12:45:35 PM
We don't need dirt on him, there's already enough dirt on him readily available as part of the public record.    Of the candidates remaining in the race that have a realistic chance of winning the nomination, Newt Gingrich is the most favorable candidate for Obama to go up against.

Never mind the debacle about his marriages and serial cheating on wives.

When he was speaker of the house he was basically a scandal factory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/ethics.htm)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 06, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Different area of the "Election 2012" topic, but I had to post this Ron Paul ad here to see what people think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

I'll post my thoughts after a few others comment on it.

I know he's just "playing the game" but...I just went :lolpalm:

I almost peed myself laughing at the "pro-wrestling" vibe to be honest  :lol

Is this what our system has become?

A freaking monster-truck ad?   :facepalm: :lol :mehlin :lol

 :\

Wait, why is that funny again?
 :|

I forgot to mention the other GLARING factual stupidity in the ad.  The claim in the ad is that by eliminating the 4 agencies cited, he'll trim $1 Trillion from the budget.

Anyone who believes this is even remotely close to being feasible is an idiot.
Not that I'm saying it's a good ad, it's actually a terrible ad imo - but nowhere did the ad claim that eliminating 4 agencies (they cited five by the way) was the way that the 1 trillion was cut.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
I think you need to watch the ad again and listen to the verbiage very carefully.  I know English isn't your native language, but the way that ad is worded, he claims he's going to cut $1 Trillion dollars, then next he cites 4 agencies he'll cut, which very, very strongly implies that the cutting of those agencies is the means to and end for getting that $1 Trillion out. 

The problem is our entire discretionary spending budget here is $1.3 Trillion and about $550 billion of that is military spending.   NO ONE is going to cut a trillion bucks out of our budget in one year.  Just like I'm not going to get a reach-around from Cleopatra while surfing down a volcanic lava flow on a banana peel.   Of course, none of that really matters to the mouth-breathers this ad is aimed at.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 06, 2011, 01:42:43 PM
That ad is almost as bad as his fake debate with Obama on Fox News.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 06, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
I know, it's a ridiculous ad.

Here's a transcription of what the narrator says:

What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one.  That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later bureaucrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!


And I was wrong, he cites 5 agencies he'll get rid of, implying in the sentence previous to that one that it will cut $1 Trillion from our budget.  A budget that totals $1.3 Trillion with over 1/3 of it being military spending.

The only thing he DIDN'T say in this ad is "I won't _________ in your mouth"


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 06, 2011, 03:54:33 PM
That ad is almost as bad as his fake debate with Obama on Fox News.
LOL. I just did some research on this again, it was MEANT as a fake debate. It wasn't a guy actually trying to be Obama and them making a real attempt at it. It's hilarious now that I see it again, Ron Paul has some humor lol.

Here's the fake debate: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html). It even has Paul debates "Obama" in those exact quotation marks.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 06, 2011, 06:13:39 PM
I just watched the ad. Is he intentionally making himself unelectable? I mean, who doesn't get the impression from the ad that Ron Paul's solution to saving money is by destroying the fabric of the country?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Rathma on December 06, 2011, 06:40:19 PM
Ugh. Who is in charge of producing this crap? Right now, ronpaul.com seems to have a good black, white and red theme going. Have they not realized that shit like that makes them look like Aryan Nation members? OR is that the whole point?

I mean, seriously?

This
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZOoT1QPTBM/Thf41XCDwvI/AAAAAAAAJ3E/-3lSwd2jJXk/s1600/ron-paul-revolution.png)

Looks like it's begging to be put somewhere with this logo:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a01AVJotTRE/SuowgNyJvYI/AAAAAAAAAAw/kHC1UAAg8bE/s320/nsalp.jpg)

Nice troll
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 06, 2011, 08:10:37 PM
Quote
Nice troll

So are you going to answer any of the legitimate points I've made, or are you just going to insult me because of one post you decided to take out of context?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on December 06, 2011, 09:32:42 PM
PC You might have noticed I usually land on your side of thing and we have a lot of similar opinions but I think you're way off about Ron Paul. Whether was it your colors theory or your opinion of the man himself.
I think he's the most honest and straight forward of the GOP candidates, he talks less like a Politician than any of them, you can always spot if a campaign ad or slogan is a product of his thinking or campaign managers executing advertising ideas they think would help him, like the love/revolution thing. Which I find cheesy but not horrible.
And again I might not agree with a lot of his plans; I still find him most certainly the least "Nazi comparable" of all the republican candidates. Even though I don't think the current American right wing leading figures/candidates are at all comparable to Nazi leading figures cause unlike the Nazis; these people are not struggling/fighting/lying for the sole glory and prosperity of their own people, so I think we're seeing something worse. Materialistic Nazis  :eek
Judging from the debates we've seen so far I think Ron Paul was never deceptive nor misleading. He doesn't seem as stiff and worried about his image as the others. Frankly right now I like him more than Obama, I never would have imagined myself leaning towards a right winger, ever, so that's gotta tell ya something heh
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 06, 2011, 11:08:31 PM
Again, there is no "colors theory". I am not trying to say Ron Paul is a Nazi. I am simply asking, while every other politician is trying to convince you they piss red white and blue, Ron Paul is gearing his campaign in such a way that seems to cater to monster-truck fans who might or might not be skinheads, too. I'm not making any claims that need defending here, I'm just asking for a rationale. Apparently supporters are willing to just brush this silliness off, but am I really the only one that thinks it's weird this is actually how he's marketing himself to outsiders?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 06, 2011, 11:39:17 PM
Again, there is no "colors theory". I am not trying to say Ron Paul is a Nazi. I am simply asking, while every other politician is trying to convince you they piss red white and blue, Ron Paul is gearing his campaign in such a way that seems to cater to monster-truck fans who might or might not be skinheads, too. I'm not making any claims that need defending here, I'm just asking for a rationale. Apparently supporters are willing to just brush this silliness off, but am I really the only one that thinks it's weird this is actually how he's marketing himself to outsiders?

I don't think those X-Treme ads were meant to cater to anyone but the red meat Spike TV crowd.

But yes, they are silly.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 07:50:55 AM
Again, there is no "colors theory". I am not trying to say Ron Paul is a Nazi. I am simply asking, while every other politician is trying to convince you they piss red white and blue, Ron Paul is gearing his campaign in such a way that seems to cater to monster-truck fans who might or might not be skinheads, too. I'm not making any claims that need defending here, I'm just asking for a rationale. Apparently supporters are willing to just brush this silliness off, but am I really the only one that thinks it's weird this is actually how he's marketing himself to outsiders?

I don't think those X-Treme ads were meant to cater to anyone but the red meat Spike TV crowd.

But yes, they are silly.

It's not just silly, it's factually bankrupt.  You can't cut $1 Trillion from a $1.3 Trillion budget especially when almost $600 Billion of that budget is the military.  If "people who failed 4th grade mathematics" is a good constituency, then he's right on the money  :tup
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 07, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
He actually was pressed on that point quite a bit during the Huckabee forum, and he didn't really seem to be able to back-up the claim. He just kept saying stuff like "well, we do, you just have to look at it, but the real issue is" aka averting the question to talk about something else, as per usual.

Maybe it's just because I've followed him more than any other living politician, but I feel like because I know him and his rhetoric and his way of dodging questions better than the others, he's starting to seem especially annoying to me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 09:01:41 AM
He actually was pressed on that point quite a bit during the Huckabee forum, and he didn't really seem to be able to back-up the claim. He just kept saying stuff like "well, we do, you just have to look at it, but the real issue is" aka averting the question to talk about something else, as per usual.

Maybe it's just because I've followed him more than any other living politician, but I feel like because I know him and his rhetoric and his way of dodging questions better than the others, he's starting to seem especially annoying to me.

The thing with Ron Paul is he's always been a typical politician.  The mythology about him that he has some higher moral standards than any of the others really just comes from a couple of issues he's been vocal about, particularly his stance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which flew directly in the face of Bush & Company's neoconservative war-for-profit model of governance. 

Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: slycordinator on December 07, 2011, 09:42:46 AM
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 07, 2011, 10:01:47 AM
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 07, 2011, 12:13:53 PM
I don't know if anyone's seen this Rick Perry ad yet, but it's really amazing how 'no holds barred' electoral politics has gotten lately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 12:29:41 PM
I saw that ad this morning.   (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/smilies/puke.gif)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 12:33:40 PM
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Yeah, right, because he definitely wasn't telling that audience exactly what he knew they wanted to hear.  Nope, Ron Paul is the second coming of George Washington.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 07, 2011, 12:55:26 PM
Nosehair, please.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 12:58:09 PM
Please what?  Bow at the Paultard temple?  No thanks. 


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 07, 2011, 01:14:38 PM
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 07, 2011, 01:24:21 PM
Let me address this point by point:
The thing with Ron Paul is he's always been a typical politician.
RP has been the sole NO vote on bills more than any other congressman ever. He has been talking about the monetary system since he joined congress and been the lone voice for returning to a gold standard. He never was a "team player" when it came to GOP vs Dems. So yeah, he's definitely a typical politician.

The mythology about him that he has some higher moral standards than any of the others really just comes from a couple of issues he's been vocal about, particularly his stance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which flew directly in the face of Bush & Company's neoconservative war-for-profit model of governance. 
Again, he's been the lone NO vote more than enough times to disprove this.

The only thing I can see justifying this kind of a claim is the earmarks he pushed for in a spending bill a few years back. He ended up voting against the bill in the end though, since it was a govm. stimulus bill.

But he doesn't do this because of money he gets from lobbyists. He's actually doing it for his constituency, which is more than you could say about almost any other congressman. Not that it was right, but that's as much you could find on him public policy wise.

Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist,
LOLNO. Non-interventionism =/= Isolationism. An isolationist wants to restrict foreign trade and protect domestic markets as much as possible, as well as not involving oneself at all abroad. Ron Paul wants to have free trade all around the world and wants the LOWEST tariffs possible. How is that isolationist? Just because he doesn't want to bomb, but use diplomacy he's suddenly an isolationist.

he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected,
Remember the debate a few months back, when people booed him? They were discussing the motives for terrorists, and he said it's because of a century of interventionist and occupationist foreign policy in the region. He was BOOED for speaking the truth, and his response was "I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was (for 9/11)".

and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
Well, this is purely subjective, and I must say it's very hard for him to articulate his positions so that as many as possible can understand his positions. It's too difficult to in one minute or thirty seconds, articulate a position that is so against the status quo.

It's not just silly, it's factually bankrupt.  You can't cut $1 Trillion from a $1.3 Trillion budget especially when almost $600 Billion of that budget is the military.  If "people who failed 4th grade mathematics" is a good constituency, then he's right on the money  :tup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget)
It's not 1.3 Trillion, it's about 3.8 Trillion and the revenue is about 2.2 Trillion. Yup, there's a 1,6 Trillion HOLE in the budget. It's about time some one puts a cap on that spending. Hate to say it, but your statement is factually bankrupt.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
Um, I was referring to discretionary spending - which the ad I posted was referring to:

ItemObama administration request
 (February 2011)Department of Defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense)$553.0 billion (+0.7%)Overseas Contingency Operations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism)$118.0 billion (-26.0%)Department of Health and Human Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services)$79.9 billion (-1.8%)Department of Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education)$77.4 billion (+6.2%)Department of Veterans Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs)$58.8 billion (+3.1%)Department of Housing and Urban Development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development)$49.8 billion (+0.5%)Department of State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State) and Other International Programs$50.1 billion (-0.9%)Department of Homeland Security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)$43.2 billion (-0.9%)Department of Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy)$29.6 billion (+4.2%)Department of Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice)$28.2 billion (-7.2%)Department of Agriculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture)$23.8 billion (-7.1%)National Aeronautics and Space Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration)$18.2 billion (-6.7%)Department of Transportation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Transportation)$13.4 billion (-4.1%)Department of the Treasury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury)$14.0 billion (+0.8%)Department of the Interior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior)$12.1 billion (+0.3%)Department of Labor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Labor)$12.8 billion (-8.3%)Department of Commerce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce)$8.8 billion (-2.3%)Army Corps of Engineers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers)$4.6 billion (-6.2%)Environmental Protection Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)$9.0 billion (-10.3%)National Science Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation)$7.8 billion (+4.6%)Small Business Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Business_Administration)$1.0 billion (-1.0%)Corporation for National and Community Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_National_and_Community_Service)$1.3 billion (-11.1%)Disaster costs$6.0 billion (+200%)Other On-budget Discretionary Spending$44.9 billion (-3.9%)Total$1.344 trillion (-3.1%)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
You see, those departments that the absurd Ron Paul ad cites (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA) are all part of the discretionary spending portion of the budget.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 07, 2011, 01:34:26 PM
It's not pointing to discretionary spending. That's false.

See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)

I thought we already went though why he's not just "saying thing in order to appeal". He's not saying it IN ORDER to appeal, he's using his positions without compromising his values, and still trying to get as much out of it as possible.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 07, 2011, 01:47:37 PM
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 01:52:24 PM
It's not pointing to discretionary spending. That's false.


Wrong.

Here's a full transcript from the advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA) I posted above - these are the things Ron Paul claims he will cut in the first year:
What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one.  That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!

Now, here's the Discretionary Spending Budget with those agencies highlighted:
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/disc_spending.jpg)

The data I have cited is correct.  The TOTAL Discretionary spending budget for 2011 was $1.3 Trillion - Ron Paul is pandering to probably the Tea Party crowd with this advertisement because the claims he makes in it are patently absurd.  The DOD portion of the budget alone (also highlighted in line one) is $553 Billion, as I cited previously.  Ron Paul, first of all has as much chance of being President as Donald Duck. But even if he were, by some freak accident, elected President, he's got less than no chance of enacting a ridiculous budget like the nonsense spewed in that stupid Monster Truck ad - and that ad is precisely why I am saying he's no different than any other politician. 

I know people like the guy, and yes, he does have some principles like standing strong on cutting spending (except for earmarks for Texas  :lol )
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on December 07, 2011, 02:04:46 PM
I can overlook all that momentarily and try to find out: which Republican candidate is better than Ron Paul? I'm wondering what the anti-RP crowd are thinking.
Cause if the argument is that they're all just as bad then this really wouldn't solve anything, they're still gonna have a candidate and about half the nation are still gonna vote for that candidate and he'll have as much chance of winning as the Democratic candidate. Reach across the aisle people :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 02:11:12 PM
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.

I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)

And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. (https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/) 

I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 02:17:24 PM
I can overlook all that momentarily and try to find out: which Republican candidate is better than Ron Paul? I'm wondering what the anti-RP crowd are thinking.
Cause if the argument is that they're all just as bad then this really wouldn't solve anything, they're still gonna have a candidate and about half the nation are still gonna vote for that candidate and he'll have as much chance of winning as the Democratic candidate. Reach across the aisle people :lol

Out of the group running now the only one I think is got some relative sanity is either Ron Paul (but he's unelectable and too weird on some stuff) or John Huntsman (also unelectable, mostly because he's not crazy enough for the Tea Party crowd)

If you want to BEAT OBAMA (and that's the point, isn't it?) I think Mitt Romney stands the greatest chance of doing it.  He was Governor here in my state for 4 years and I really can't say that I thought he was a bad governor, despite having plenty of policy disagreements with him.  I could never vote for him because he'll put conservative judges on the federal bench.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 07, 2011, 02:29:58 PM
I don't wanna beat Obama... :sadpanda:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 07, 2011, 02:42:09 PM
I don't wanna beat Obama... :sadpanda:

Nor do I.  :)

If Gingrich is the Republican nominee, this could be a landslide similar to how Reagan beat Mondale with Obama carrying a larger vote than he did last time. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 07, 2011, 03:02:28 PM
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 07, 2011, 03:15:43 PM
I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)

And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. (https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/) 

I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

Ok. Feels like we're just debating the definition of isolationism.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.

But whatever, as a matter of public policy, Ron Paul has got foreign policy RIGHT.


And, yeah - the cabinet level departments are discretionary spending - but NOWHERE in the ad did it suggest that the 1 trillion in cuts came only from those cabinet level departments. Did you even read this?:
See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)

This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:
(https://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/graph1.png)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 07, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA)

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.

I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)

I don't have time to entirely dig through the articles you posted but what's funny is the author doesn't even really refute Ron's positions, just merely tries to smear him by making some connection to white supremacists ('Look! A commenter on a white nationalist website supports Ron!'...seriously?), even though he in no way endorses those groups or their ideology. I mean, I don't support Hate Crimes laws, or foreign aid (not just Israel's exclusively), but not because of anything that has to do with racial preference...So I just think that's a ridiculous connection to make. Even if you disagree with his positions, it's fine to debate the policies themselves; but don't merely demonize him because of unsavory folks that associate themselves with those views.

Quote
I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

But look, I agree the ad is silly and so are a lot of the die-hard supporters. I hold many of his positions but I agree he's not the greatest spokesperson for libertarian positions. But it's the first time a libertarian candidate has had some major exposure, so I think many are just motivated to take advantage of that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 07, 2011, 03:22:47 PM
If we would've had the RP from 1988 today, he would've smoked the entire field. He was way more articulate back then, he is becoming older and slower now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 07, 2011, 03:36:22 PM
*sigh*

Anyway, Mitt Romney decided to bail Donald Trump's debate!
(https://i.qkme.me/35fgjq.jpg)

Have I mentioned my love for Jack Cafferty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25HxU7O4lmg
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 07, 2011, 03:52:04 PM
Yeah. I saw that clip. Cafferty is a great commentator.

I also think it's good Romney is distancing himself from that debate. Let clowns be clowns with Trump.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: slycordinator on December 07, 2011, 06:01:27 PM
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Yeah, right, because he definitely wasn't telling that audience exactly what he knew they wanted to hear.  Nope, Ron Paul is the second coming of George Washington.
What the hell are you talking about? He was telling them the polar opposite of what they wanted to hear.

If you aren't following, he told a Mexican interviewer that he doesn't agree that a child of an illegal immigrant born here in the US should automatically become a citizen and was asked how he expected to get 35% of the Hispanic vote with supporting such a stance, since it's clear that most of them don't agree with him. Then he said he thought that he shouldn't cowtow to special groups and change his message.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 07, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
Nosehair, please.

Em, why are people not allowed to criticize Ron Paul? If you don't like what nosehair or I have to say, then either argue with us about it or stay out of the topic. I don't see how just making these short, semi-spammy posts like "guys stop" is helping you make your point at all.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 07, 2011, 06:23:40 PM
I can see where people are coming from with the 'principled' complements, and I'd generally agree with them for the most part. It's just irrelevant because I find many of the guy's views to be a ways to the right on the "sane/batshit insane" meter.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 07, 2011, 07:28:59 PM
IMO, I don't think it's unreasonable to accuse the status quo of being batshit insane either. (I mean in the general sense, not solely Obama) We've just grown accustomed to this system which keeps digging the hole deeper.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 07, 2011, 07:32:32 PM
Nosehair, please.

Em, why are people not allowed to criticize Ron Paul? If you don't like what nosehair or I have to say, then either argue with us about it or stay out of the topic. I don't see how just making these short, semi-spammy posts like "guys stop" is helping you make your point at all.
What are you talking about? "Guys stop" When did I say that? Semi-spammy (are you, for some reason, still talking about your Nazi remark?) ??? Nosehair was making some crazy conjectures, I politely called him off; Perpetual Change, why don't you let people politely call people off? Do you always need to instigate trouble around here, you've been warned here lots of time, you know.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 07, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
Em, I am referring to the fact that you are just saying things like "sigh" and "please" when people criticize Ron Paul, instead of actually joining in the discussion. Why is that? Is it laziness, or do you just love Ron Paul so much that you consider meeting his critics in debate to be beneath your dedication to him?

And what is a "crazy conjunction"? :biggrin:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: yeshaberto on December 07, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
a "crazy conjuction" is when a "crazy" mod comes on and urges a "conjunction" between two or more users to avoid getting heated and move back to discussion
 :biggrin:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 07, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
And what is a "crazy conjunction"? :biggrin:
I dunno, but it is crazy!

When I say "sigh" or "please" it's a reply to his toooooooooooooooooooone. I don't care if he dislikes "the magnificent, can-do-no-wrong-let-him-be-heard" Dr. Ron -saviour of the world economy and instigator of peace- Paul. I would participate if comments like that could be avoided.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 07, 2011, 08:59:19 PM
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.

He still didn't have to appoint all those wall street goons to his administration. And nothing was new about the speech except that he was slightly more sharp-tongued, which made establishment types like Reich wet in the nether regions for whatever reason. And I think it's a combination of the two things you mentioned, not only his sliminess.

It's just like...he didn't HAVE to appoint people like Summers, Geithner, and all those other Wall Street goons who paid for his election. 

edit: That Rick Perry ad. Almost makes me want to vote for Obama :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 07, 2011, 09:10:30 PM
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech (https://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/) yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.

He still didn't have to appoint all those wall street goons to his administration. And nothing was new about the speech except that he was slightly more sharp-tongued, which made establishment types like Reich wet in the nether regions for whatever reason. And I think it's a combination of the two things you mentioned, not only his sliminess.

It's just like...he didn't HAVE to appoint people like Summers, Geithner, and all those other Wall Street goons who paid for his election. 

edit: That Rick Perry ad. Almost makes me want to vote for Obama :lol

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories. That's why health care reform, in the end, also had to heavily cater to corporate interests in the insurance industry. Because otherwise they won't back him, or they'll screw him later. And from the look of the last two years, they've opted with the latter.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 07, 2011, 09:25:44 PM

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 07, 2011, 09:54:54 PM

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 07, 2011, 10:29:20 PM
We've just grown accustomed to this system which keeps digging the hole deeper.

Or from another perspective, people have gotten accustomed to not wanting to pay for the services they enjoy. What almost defines the right-wing side of arguments is the illusion that all those nice things they currently enjoy will reemerge magically, without any penny needed from the citizen.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 08, 2011, 12:31:07 AM

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.

I don't know that he's a complete fraud, and obviously I can't prove it; it's just a gut feeling I have. His speeches, especially ones where he puts on the populist hat just ring empty to me. We need more of that when he's not trying to rally the base for votes. I know I rag on the president here like it's my day job, but I want to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He just hasn't earned that from me yet. And you know what? He won't have to.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 08, 2011, 12:49:06 AM
Well really, I think the more important issue is going to be who we elect to congress. You could put the best person in as President, and he'd still fail with what we're given. Remember that the President also has to get Senatorial approval for all of his appointees, at least the big ones like Geithner (?). The reason we don' have a Senate Republicans are filibustering a lot of appointees, for no good reason, and in some cases you could argue it's better to have a corrupt head of some department, then no head at all. But the opposite would apply if we had a Senate that wouldn't approve the nomination of someone like Geithner.

That's true with a Republican President as well.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 08, 2011, 07:50:34 AM

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.

I don't know that he's a complete fraud, and obviously I can't prove it; it's just a gut feeling I have. His speeches, especially ones where he puts on the populist hat just ring empty to me. We need more of that when he's not trying to rally the base for votes. I know I rag on the president here like it's my day job, but I want to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He just hasn't earned that from me yet. And you know what? He won't have to.

I mean, given that American politics is about the perpetual campaign, that's technically not even possible in the first place. And you know what? Over the course of his term so far, I've heard plenty of people (here at DTF mostly, but other places too) criticizing him for his non-electoral speeches too, for the same reasons you've given. So he can't really win either way, 'cause everyone is like to criticize him whatever the case.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 08, 2011, 08:08:43 AM
I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too. (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/16/372364/-Because-Ron-Paul-Is-Nuts,-Thats-Why)

And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. (https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/13/news/ron-paul-isolationist/) 

I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

Ok. Feels like we're just debating the definition of isolationism.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.

But whatever, as a matter of public policy, Ron Paul has got foreign policy RIGHT.


And, yeah - the cabinet level departments are discretionary spending - but NOWHERE in the ad did it suggest that the 1 trillion in cuts came only from those cabinet level departments. Did you even read this?:
See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)

This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:
(https://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/graph1.png)

But the entire ad, which I cited here word for word says exactly that! Here it is again.

What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!

If that is not implying that he's going to cut $1 Trillion from the budget by eliminating those agencies, then, I don't know what else it is implying.

Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.  And stupid monster-truck ads like this one prove it.  He's not going to cut $1 Trillion from any budget in one year.  NO ONE IS.  That's a fucking fantasy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 08, 2011, 08:10:59 AM
FWIW, I LOVE his ideas on Foreign Policy!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 08, 2011, 08:40:02 AM
@Scheavo: Yes, replacing the entire Congress would be great, but the President is the one person who has the most power to shape public opinion and the terms of the debate through the bully pulpit. And I know, advice and consent, but he didn't have to pick the safest, most entrenched people around.

@SD: It's pretty clear he's back in actual campaign mode though, because he's been saying the right things again. 

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 08, 2011, 09:15:21 AM
Of course, but can you blame him? It's campaign season.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 08, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Not really, I just don't know why people are getting all excited
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 08, 2011, 09:24:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Quote
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.


lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 08, 2011, 09:32:07 AM
YEAH THE TRUTH IS FUNNY HUH
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 08, 2011, 09:40:44 AM
But the entire ad, which I cited here word for word says exactly that! Here it is again.

What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!

If that is not implying that he's going to cut $1 Trillion from the budget by eliminating those agencies, then, I don't know what else it is implying.
If that's what it suggests to you, that's what it suggests to you. But that's not the message he's trying to convey with the ad though. I never saw it in that light, but I do agree that the ad is terrible and trying to appeal to monster truck fans - but if that's what's needed for him to win the Iowa caucuses, then so be it.

Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.  And stupid monster-truck ads like this one prove it.  He's not going to cut $1 Trillion from any budget in one year.  NO ONE IS.  That's a fucking fantasy.

What about Gary Johnson? He has PROMISED to propose a balanced budget in the FY 2013, his first FY, if he becomes president. You don't take his word on that? His record as governor speaks for itself.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 08, 2011, 12:57:16 PM
But the entire ad, which I cited here word for word says exactly that! Here it is again.

What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one. That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!

If that is not implying that he's going to cut $1 Trillion from the budget by eliminating those agencies, then, I don't know what else it is implying.
If that's what it suggests to you, that's what it suggests to you. But that's not the message he's trying to convey with the ad though. I never saw it in that light, but I do agree that the ad is terrible and trying to appeal to monster truck fans - but if that's what's needed for him to win the Iowa caucuses, then so be it.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?  :lol   We AGREE!  Beers are on me!  :metal

Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected.  And stupid monster-truck ads like this one prove it.  He's not going to cut $1 Trillion from any budget in one year.  NO ONE IS.  That's a fucking fantasy.

What about Gary Johnson? He has PROMISED to propose a balanced budget in the FY 2013, his first FY, if he becomes president. You don't take his word on that? His record as governor speaks for itself.


A balanced budget by FY 2013?  (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/tardlol.gif)


In case that's unclear, NO, I don't take his word on it.  Besides Gary Johnson has as much chance of becoming the next President as Charles Manson
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 08, 2011, 01:28:29 PM
Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 08, 2011, 01:53:14 PM
Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.

Oh, make no mistake, I've looked him up.  He seems like a decent guy.  I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all, but the problem is as a candidate he's nobody.  They won't even let him into the debates.  I'm not saying I agree with that, just making an observation.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 08, 2011, 07:38:54 PM
How is it that the Republican primaries are so full of extremists? Is that really what the GOP is comprised of, or is the tail wagging the dog there?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on December 08, 2011, 08:30:32 PM
More publicity.

Moderates don't make for interesting headlines.

The American popular media can't stand for a lack of headlines.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 08, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
@Scheavo: Yes, replacing the entire Congress would be great, but the President is the one person who has the most power to shape public opinion and the terms of the debate through the bully pulpit. And I know, advice and consent, but he didn't have to pick the safest, most entrenched people around.

And I'm just asking that you pay attention to how the president is trying to shape the current public opinion. Listen to his speeches. I never heard him really sway off track, I just never heard him when I would have liked to - there were some issues he dropped / ignored / switched on, but it's a continuation of bureaucratic policies in essence. Now that it's campaign season, he not only has a reason to bring up these issues, but the media also has a greater reason to pay attention to them.

Besides, as I already pointed out, the people with the most power to shape public opinion is the Media.

As for the entrenchment, I think part of it could have to do with Obama's inexperience as President (Cabinet members would probably have the most experience in the matter), and experience is something you can't just ignore, even if you disagree with it. I hope the issue comes up in the campaign, and that Obama will change up his cabinet in some area's.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 08, 2011, 11:08:20 PM
Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.

Oh, make no mistake, I've looked him up.  He seems like a decent guy.  I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all, but the problem is as a candidate he's nobody.  They won't even let him into the debates.  I'm not saying I agree with that, just making an observation.


Never said he was a liberal. I'm just saying a lot of progressives can find lots they like in him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 09, 2011, 04:33:40 AM
Rick Perry ad parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NtFzuGeCfkc
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
How is it that the Republican primaries are so full of extremists? Is that really what the GOP is comprised of, or is the tail wagging the dog there?

rumborak

I think it's because the primaries (on both sides) attract the most partisan elements of each party.  So, right now, you have the hard-right dominating the race because it's mostly the hard-right that will vote in the primary elections and caucuses.  The minute one of these people gets the nod, you'll see them bolt straight to the political center and only occasionally toss a hunk of red meat (gay marriage ban, low taxes for rich people, prayer in school, etc) out to the extremists.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 08:50:13 AM
Gary Johnson doesn't scare off people like RP does. It's sad he has to deal with the social conservatives in the party. Even lots of progressives could agree with him on so much they'd abandon Obama.

Oh, make no mistake, I've looked him up.  He seems like a decent guy.  I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all, but the problem is as a candidate he's nobody.  They won't even let him into the debates.  I'm not saying I agree with that, just making an observation.


Never said he was a liberal. I'm just saying a lot of progressives can find lots they like in him.

Right.  I was talking about ME.  I have serious disagreements with him being a liberal and all (<--referring to myself there)

I probably could have worded it better.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 09, 2011, 09:25:36 AM
Just missing a comma...
Quote
I have serious disagreements with him, being a liberal and all
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 09, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
@Scheavo: Yes, replacing the entire Congress would be great, but the President is the one person who has the most power to shape public opinion and the terms of the debate through the bully pulpit. And I know, advice and consent, but he didn't have to pick the safest, most entrenched people around.

And I'm just asking that you pay attention to how the president is trying to shape the current public opinion. Listen to his speeches. I never heard him really sway off track, I just never heard him when I would have liked to - there were some issues he dropped / ignored / switched on, but it's a continuation of bureaucratic policies in essence. Now that it's campaign season, he not only has a reason to bring up these issues, but the media also has a greater reason to pay attention to them.

Besides, as I already pointed out, the people with the most power to shape public opinion is the Media.

As for the entrenchment, I think part of it could have to do with Obama's inexperience as President (Cabinet members would probably have the most experience in the matter), and experience is something you can't just ignore, even if you disagree with it. I hope the issue comes up in the campaign, and that Obama will change up his cabinet in some area's.



These are all fair points; however, I still don't believe him when he talks about accountability and economic equality. And about his cabinet, I've read a lot about how poor of a manager of people he is, or at least was at the start of his presidency. I would like to think he's improved since then, but how can we really know if he keeps the same power players around? It would be very nice indeed if he changed it up.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 11:19:23 AM
Every president who has had a second term since I can remember (going back to Nixon) has shaken up their cabinet for their second term.  I see no reason to believe that Obama would be any different. Hillary Clinton, for example, has already stated many times that she will not serve a second term as Secretary of State (which is a damned shame, I think, because she's probably the best cabinet member he's got)


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 11:20:07 AM
Just missing a comma...
Quote
I have serious disagreements with him, being a liberal and all

Yeah, you're right.  Pure laziness too.  Or should I write:  Pure laziness, too.  :P
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: sonatafanica on December 09, 2011, 11:54:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Quote
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.


lol

oh those poor, poor christians. always the victims.

so brave of him to admit he's a christian in a predominantly christian country



Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on December 09, 2011, 01:22:13 PM
The interesting thing about America is that in general we look down on people who do not claim to be Christian, but also look down on people who are "too Christian." In order to really fit in, you basically need to be someone who goes to church on a semi-regular basis, believe in the vague notion of a god, but don't really let it get in the way of your daily life all that much outside of giving a little bit of money to your church and maybe saying grace before dinner. Basically what I think Perry is trying to say is that he's not ashamed to say he's in with the people that are "too Christian" for your average American.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
Rick Perry is blatantly pandering to Evangelicals because they make up a large swath of Republican primary voters and his handlers know that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on December 09, 2011, 01:33:48 PM
Rick Perry is blatantly pandering to Evangelicals because they make up a large swath of Republican primary voters and his handlers know that.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone who is really a devout Christian in the sense that they try to emulate Jesus in all aspects of their life would ever go into politics. There's too much ego involved.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 01:45:42 PM
Rick Perry is blatantly pandering to Evangelicals because they make up a large swath of Republican primary voters and his handlers know that.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone who is really a devout Christian in the sense that they try to emulate Jesus in all aspects of their life would ever go into politics. There's too much ego involved.

That's a very good observation and one I wholeheartedly agree with.   :hat
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 09, 2011, 03:18:04 PM
Especially in Iowa. Iowa has a huge evangelical electorate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on December 09, 2011, 03:33:10 PM
So yeah. All that stuff is happening at my school. Cool stuff.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 09, 2011, 03:39:26 PM
So yeah. All that stuff is happening at my school. Cool stuff.
Don't see it having relevance to this election, but it was sad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on December 09, 2011, 04:05:03 PM
Sorry. I think I was half asleep when I posted that.

I meant that the debate tomorrow night was happening at my school. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get tickets to it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 09, 2011, 04:08:36 PM
Oh, really? That bares some significance then. I hope it's dealt with in the best possible way.

Edit:

Wait a minute. LOL. I'm misreading everything, thought you meant in the first post that you were a student at Virginia Tech.

Nvm, disregard all my comments.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 09, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:
(https://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/graph1.png)
[/quote]

To quote Beverly Crusher, "When you got a patient who just got stabbed, you don't pull out the knife. That'll do more damage than leaving it in."

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 11, 2011, 12:40:40 AM
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. 

If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran.  The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters.  This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."




Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on December 11, 2011, 02:07:57 AM
So I saw about 5 minutes of the debate. It seemed like the republicans were just fighting over who hated Obama the most because apparently whoever does hate him the most wins.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Fiery Winds on December 11, 2011, 02:57:47 AM
Yeah, I got the impression too.  I only saw about 10 minutes, and here's my highly in depth analysis of the candidates based on months of following the race:

Bachmann:  Die Obamacare!!

Santorum:  Came across as a reasonable and nice guy.

Romney:  "I worked the private sector".  Something about his personality irks me.

Gingrich:  "I worked the private sector too Mitt!" (Referring to consulting with Freddie Mac, lol)

Paul:  Not as articulate as he used to be.

Perry:  Same as Romney regarding personality.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 11, 2011, 06:17:02 AM
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. 

If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran.  The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters.  This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."

Wrong.  He doesn't have to say those things and you've missed my point.   But thanks for playing  :corn
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 11, 2011, 06:21:10 AM
Yeah, I got the impression too.  I only saw about 10 minutes, and here's my highly in depth analysis of the candidates based on months of following the race:

Bachmann:  Die Obamacare!!

Santorum:  Came across as a reasonable and nice guy.

Romney:  "I worked the private sector".  Something about his personality irks me.

Gingrich:  "I worked the private sector too Mitt!" (Referring to consulting with Freddie Mac, lol)

Paul:  Not as articulate as he used to be.

Perry:  Same as Romney regarding personality.

You think it's "reasonable" to force a rape victim to carry the baby to delivery?

Because that's Rick Santorum's position.  No abortion, ever, under any circumstances of any kind.  Period.

So, let's say you were married, and through an unfortunate series of events, your wife was violently raped by "Bubba" the 280 lb African American career criminal.....in Rick Santorum's world, your wife would have no choice but to deliver Bubba's baby.

Still think he's "reasonable" and "nice" now? 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 11, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
Santorum is actually well-spoken, and actually seems sincere about his opinions. He doesn't pander like the others. He might even surge soon because all other panderers implode. But it's actually going to end up being Romney vs. Paul vs. Gingrich


Edit: watched the debates and all. I think RP might surge after this. Also, Newt handled himself extremely well but is eventually going to implode anyway.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 11, 2011, 03:05:04 PM
I feel like Newt has a chance to ruin Romney.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on December 11, 2011, 04:58:11 PM
That 10,000 dollar bet comment made Romney look like a real asshole.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Fiery Winds on December 11, 2011, 05:21:32 PM
Yeah, I got the impression too.  I only saw about 10 minutes, and here's my highly in depth analysis of the candidates based on months of following the race:

Bachmann:  Die Obamacare!!

Santorum:  Came across as a reasonable and nice guy.

Romney:  "I worked the private sector".  Something about his personality irks me.

Gingrich:  "I worked the private sector too Mitt!" (Referring to consulting with Freddie Mac, lol)

Paul:  Not as articulate as he used to be.

Perry:  Same as Romney regarding personality.

You think it's "reasonable" to force a rape victim to carry the baby to delivery?

Because that's Rick Santorum's position.  No abortion, ever, under any circumstances of any kind.  Period.

So, let's say you were married, and through an unfortunate series of events, your wife was violently raped by "Bubba" the 280 lb African American career criminal.....in Rick Santorum's world, your wife would have no choice but to deliver Bubba's baby.

Still think he's "reasonable" and "nice" now?

Like I said, I'm not very familiar with any of the candidates right now other than what I saw last night. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 12, 2011, 06:22:54 AM
^fair enough, and you're right that Santorum does come off as a nice person, but when you dig a little bit under the surface, it's not too surprising that he's never polled above about 5%

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 12, 2011, 06:28:46 AM
He doesn't have what it takes to bring out enthusiasm in people. But he still might end up surging as the other candidates implode.

I have Newt max 7 more days until he begins dropping.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 12, 2011, 07:25:08 AM
Quote
RON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth."  THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.
 Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.
Read more: https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI (https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI)
 
As much as I hate giving George W. Bush credit for anything, T.A.R.P. was successful.
Quote
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas made questionable and misleading claims (https://factcheck.org/2011/09/cnntea-party-debate/) about taxes in his state since Perry became governor, saying that “our taxes [in Texas] have doubled.” We could find no evidence that taxes for Texas residents had doubled under Perry. Paul also said: “Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly triple.” After adjusting for inflation and population growth, the spending increase was 21 percent, not a doubling. The debt claim is a reference to the state bond debt, which has nearly tripled in real dollars. That’s not the same as running a deficit; the state has a balanced budget requirement.

Read more: https://factcheck.org/2011/12/debate-watch/


More of that famous "principled" politicking  ::)    If he'd quit saying stuff like this, resorting to distorting facts to score cheap points in debates and running monster truck ads full of monstrous amounts of hyperbole, maybe he wouldn't be stuck at 8% to 10% in most of the polls.   Or maybe I'm wrong and he needs to dial the nonsense UP instead of down? 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 12, 2011, 07:29:09 AM
He doesn't have what it takes to bring out enthusiasm in people. But he still might end up surging as the other candidates implode.

I have Newt max 7 more days until he begins dropping.

Santorum isn't going anywhere in the polls, just like Bachmann isn't going anywhere, and Huntsman neither.  I'd be astonished if any of them make further than the Florida primaries.

I hope you're wrong about Gingrich, but Mitt Romney completely blew it with that ridiculous $10,000 bet thing.   And according to most Evangelicals (who make up a huge portion of Republican primary voters) he's in a cult, so they'd rather embrace Gingrich, the serial adulterer than a guy in a cult.  I guess you can "repent" from adultery, but being in a cult is a no-no.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 12, 2011, 01:19:16 PM
Why would you hope I'm wrong? I'm saying that Newt's poll numbers should begin to drop substantially within 7 days.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 12, 2011, 01:29:08 PM
Why would you hope I'm wrong? I'm saying that Newt's poll numbers should begin to drop substantially within 7 days.

Why would I say I hope you're wrong?  Because Obama polls strongest against Gingrich in a general election match-up.  So, I want Gingrich to win the Republican Primaries and be their nominee, because frankly, I think Obama will landslide him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 12, 2011, 01:29:58 PM
Quote
RON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth."  THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.
 Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.
Read more: https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI (https://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12006138449283/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gKVSRFsI)
 
As much as I hate giving George W. Bush credit for anything, T.A.R.P. was successful.

Read this (https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/100489.html) actually right before I read your post.
Quote
An Associated Press article purporting to correct the errors of the candidates in last weekend's GOP presidential debate includes the following passage:

Quote
RON PAUL: "We have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped onto people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth."

THE FACTS: The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by Congress in 2008 to help rescue banks and other imperiled financial institutions. Nearly all of the money has been paid back, with interest.

Most economists credit the program with keeping the financial system from freezing up and helping to prevent the worst recession in 30 years from becoming another Great Depression. The Federal Reserve does not operate on taxpayer money and does not receive any operating funds from the Treasury. In fact, it makes money every year from its banking operations, and turns over profits to the Treasury.

A necessarily speculative counterfactual claim made by some economists is scarcely a "fact," and we might wonder about the value of a consensus among economists in the first place in light of their rather unimpressive performance in understanding the economy over the past ten years. David Stockman, on the other hand, notes that "30 months after the fact, evidence that the American economy had been on the edge of a nuclear-style meltdown [at the time TARP was passed] is nowhere to be found."

On the "TARP money was repaid" front, I note the comments of Dean Baker:


Quote
We are also supposed to feel good that the vast majority of the TARP money was repaid. This is another effort to prey on the public's ignorance. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain.

It is important to remember that the economy would be no less productive following the demise of these Wall Street giants. The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy's output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output.

Instead, we have the same Wall Street crew calling the shots, doing business pretty much as they always did. The rest of us are sitting here dealing with wreckage of their recklessness: 9.6 percent unemployment and the loss of much of the middle class's savings in their homes and their retirement accounts. And the lackeys of the Wall Street crew are telling us that we should be thankful that we didn't have a second Great Depression. Maybe we don't have the power to keep the bankers from picking our pockets, but we don't have to believe their lies.

And finally, Ron Paul never said the Fed got money from the Treasury; presumably we can trust that a guy who's written as much as Ron Paul has on the Fed knows something as elementary as this. The point, rather, is that when the Fed qualitatively degrades its balance sheet, as when it swaps decent assets for lousy ones, it harms holders of dollars. The mechanism works like this: When the Fed wants to withdraw money from the economy it sells assets — but if its assets are lousy and won't fetch many dollars, it has a more difficult time reversing its earlier expansionist monetary policy, and the likelihood of price inflation is now all the greater.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 12, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
Hmm, yeah, Dean Baker and the CEPR?  Nah, I'll stick with FactCheck.org.  And I'm a liberal.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 12, 2011, 02:49:20 PM
We are also supposed to feel good that the vast majority of the TARP money was repaid. This is another effort to prey on the public's ignorance. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain.

[...]The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy's output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output.

It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 12, 2011, 07:21:26 PM
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. 

If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran.  The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters.  This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."

Wrong.  He doesn't have to say those things and you've missed my point.   But thanks for playing  :corn

Your argument wasn't missed, it's simply nonsensical.  Your claim is almost laughable considering that Paul is one of the most consistent politicians of our day.  Even those who disagree with him will admit he votes in accordance with what he says.   
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 12, 2011, 07:38:54 PM

It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?


Many people don't. There's still plenty of debate over that to this day.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 12, 2011, 09:18:01 PM

It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?


Many people don't. There's still plenty of debate over that to this day.

Murray Rothbard's explanation for the Great Depression is the closest inline with Paul's. https://mises.org/Rothbard/AGD.pdf
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2011, 09:45:39 PM
I'm kind of torn on Ron Paul.  I agree with a lot of what he says,  but he suffers from the same delusions that many Libertarians do, which is that political ideology has to be pure to work.  Hell,  Republicans and Democrats both occasionally get things right. 

I do think he has integrity.  I also think it's worth noticing that it's an easy thing to have when you know there aren't any consequences.  He can vote against spending bills because his general philosophy says to,  but he also knows that they'll pass anyway.  He certainly understands the game.  Attach expenditures and earmarks for your district, and then vote against the bill!   :lol

What I really do appreciate about him is something I read a while back from a former Republican Whip,  who said that there was a general understanding that you could crack any heads necessary to get a bill to pass,  but leave RP the hell alone.  Nothing you're going to do will persuade him,  so spend your efforts elsewhere.  I wish there were 500 more people like that in Congress.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 12, 2011, 10:00:26 PM
I'm kind of torn on Ron Paul.  I agree with a lot of what he says,  but he suffers from the same delusions that many Libertarians do, which is that political ideology has to be pure to work.  Hell,  Republicans and Democrats both occasionally get things right. 

I do think he has integrity.  I also think it's worth noticing that it's an easy thing to have when you know there aren't any consequences.  He can vote against spending bills because his general philosophy says to,  but he also knows that they'll pass anyway.  He certainly understands the game.  Attach expenditures and earmarks for your district, and then vote against the bill!   :lol

What I really do appreciate about him is something I read a while back from a former Republican Whip,  who said that there was a general understanding that you could crack any heads necessary to get a bill to pass,  but leave RP the hell alone.  Nothing you're going to do will persuade him,  so spend your efforts elsewhere.  I wish there were 500 more people like that in Congress.

Just a note on earmarks.  He supports them because his interpretation of the constitution is that only the Congress has the power to appropriate funds.  If earmarks weren't in place, the President could spend the money however he/she saw fit. I hear you on the ideological front, many people like the idea of a Paul-Nader, Paul-Sanders, or vice-versa ticket, to add some balance.

On another note, it's nice to see you are still on here El Barto. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2011, 10:10:33 PM
I'm kind of torn on Ron Paul.  I agree with a lot of what he says,  but he suffers from the same delusions that many Libertarians do, which is that political ideology has to be pure to work.  Hell,  Republicans and Democrats both occasionally get things right. 

I do think he has integrity.  I also think it's worth noticing that it's an easy thing to have when you know there aren't any consequences.  He can vote against spending bills because his general philosophy says to,  but he also knows that they'll pass anyway.  He certainly understands the game.  Attach expenditures and earmarks for your district, and then vote against the bill!   :lol

What I really do appreciate about him is something I read a while back from a former Republican Whip,  who said that there was a general understanding that you could crack any heads necessary to get a bill to pass,  but leave RP the hell alone.  Nothing you're going to do will persuade him,  so spend your efforts elsewhere.  I wish there were 500 more people like that in Congress.

Just a note on earmarks.  He supports them because his interpretation of the constitution is that only the Congress has the power to appropriate funds.  If earmarks weren't in place, the President could spend the money however he/she saw fit. I hear you on the ideological front, many people like the idea of a Paul-Nader, Paul-Sanders, or vice-versa ticket, to add some balance.

On another note, it's nice to see you are still on here El Barto.
I think he's just playing the game well.   :lol 

And more power to him.  As long as he's voting his conscience,  and I think he is,  I have no problem with him hedging his bets for the benefit of his constituents.  Hell,  most of his colleagues are doing neither. 

And thanks.  I was happy to see you pop back up.  Been a while. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 12, 2011, 11:04:04 PM

It's hard to imagine a more retarded argument than that. I guess he doesn't like the Great Depression as a data point, does he?


Many people don't. There's still plenty of debate over that to this day.

What I mean is, I think it's not exactly up to debate that people were piss-poor at the outcome of the Great Depression. The guy makes it sound as if banks are big silos of money, and once they explode everybody can just pick up dollar bills from the wreckage.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 12, 2011, 11:10:35 PM
Not if it's fractional reserve anyway :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 13, 2011, 12:25:22 PM
Regardless of that, my ENTIRE POINT was that as I have stated here, Ron Paul is a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected. 

If this were true he'd say that gays are inhuman, drug prohibition is great, the patriot act is constitutional, and that we should bomb Iran.  The advertisement emphasizes a position he strongly believes in and fights for, which also concurs with the position of many voters.  This is certainly not the same as, "saying whatever he needs to say in order to get elected."


Wrong.  He doesn't have to say those things and you've missed my point.   But thanks for playing  :corn

Your argument wasn't missed, it's simply nonsensical.  Your claim is almost laughable considering that Paul is one of the most consistent politicians of our day.  Even those who disagree with him will admit he votes in accordance with what he says.

Right, he's never pandered to any political constituency.   He's Ron Paul.   ::)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 13, 2011, 12:38:43 PM
You tell me when he last pandered. Whenever he actually does something the crowd likes, at least he doesn't sacrifice his principles when doing it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 13, 2011, 01:17:44 PM
You tell me when he last pandered. Whenever he actually does something the crowd likes, at least he doesn't sacrifice his principles when doing it.

Well, let's make sure we have the definition of pandering (in the realm of politics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_%28politics%29) out here, because I know not everyone here is a native English speaker.

Now, with that out there, because he's Ron Paul, I know that many (maybe even most) who support him here are still going to refuse to acknowledge that -like every politician in office- he panders (https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html) to whatever constituency he deems necessary to get him elected.  And he's never sacrificed his principles, except when he did. (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html)

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 13, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
I don't want to defend Paul to the grave, but I can't see how he sacrificed his principles there. He was going to vote against it anyway, so you might fill it up with grease to help your constituents. He at least represents his district well, compared to most other congressmen.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 13, 2011, 01:57:00 PM
You tell me when he last pandered. Whenever he actually does something the crowd likes, at least he doesn't sacrifice his principles when doing it.

Well, let's make sure we have the definition of pandering (in the realm of politics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_%28politics%29) out here, because I know not everyone here is a native English speaker.

Now, with that out there, because he's Ron Paul, I know that many (maybe even most) who support him here are still going to refuse to acknowledge that -like every politician in office- he panders (https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html) to whatever constituency he deems necessary to get him elected.  And he's never sacrificed his principles, except when he did. (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html)

That doesn't seem to being pandering so much as pragmatic to me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 13, 2011, 02:18:08 PM
Pandering to your current audience is very pragmatic.  They all do it.  And it's easy to see why.    Some do it more than others, and some do it in direct conflict with their stated political positions.  Paul is not someone who does it very often, and for that I give him credit.  But it just triggers my  ::) reaction when Paulbots claim he's like the second coming of Jesus and can do no wrong.  You don't stay in congress as long as Ron Paul has stayed in congress without making some sausage.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 13, 2011, 02:46:55 PM
Well, he does some sausage to his district, but that's as far as it goes. As pointed out, he's giving his constituents back their tax money :).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 13, 2011, 02:49:10 PM
Well, he does some sausage to his district, but that's as far as it goes. As pointed out, he's giving his constituents back their tax money :) .

Right, and he does that out of one side of his mouth while condemning the very same practice out of the other side.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 13, 2011, 03:08:44 PM
PAUL: But — but, Neil — Neil, you're — you're missing the whole point.

The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to — it's like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.




MAJOR EDIT:
Found this video with Ron Paul himself explaining this earmarks thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgvrXFehWok (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgvrXFehWok)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 15, 2011, 08:19:26 PM
Iowa debate right now. https://live.foxnews.com/ Ron Paul doesn't talk as smoothly as others, he stutters a lot, but he answers the questions he's been asked.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 15, 2011, 09:15:21 PM
Man, Megan Kelly would probably be able to convince me to become a Republican  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 15, 2011, 10:48:39 PM
Dear FOX, please do not use the Google Chat message sound for the you're-talking-too-long sound. Some people may have Gmail open, you know.

Didn't last longer than 15 minutes in, couldn't stand the verbal masturbation those things are. So, no idea who was good and who wasn't. Too many candidates in the fold, too much blablah.

EDIT: Huh, hotel TV has it on too just now. Haha, Paul is almost the Democrat in the group! :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 16, 2011, 12:01:58 AM
I've just watched a few clips. The warmongering is absolutely horrifying. I'm really glad Paul is there if for that reason only https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dKp6Ej7I2E
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 16, 2011, 12:36:44 AM
Yeah, I definitely agree. It was disturbing to hear the thinly veiled warmongering, and refreshing to hear Paul talk sense (for the most part). Not that he really has a supportable foreign policy himself, but he calls out the other candidate on their ridiculous stances.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on December 16, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
It's like my friend says. I might not agree some of Ron Paul's points, but it seems like he's the only one up there making any sense at all.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 16, 2011, 05:47:24 AM
I don't like how RP handled himself on Iran this time around, even though he is right on the issue.

Not good among Republican voters. I hope that debate performance doesn't hurt him in the Iowa caucus.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 16, 2011, 06:04:11 AM
Pretty much what everyone else has said: I can't abide by his FP, but I'm really glad he came out and said that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 16, 2011, 03:46:33 PM
RON PAUL ON EARMARKS:

Kirk, you ought to read this:

https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/ (https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: pogoowner on December 17, 2011, 10:14:56 AM
Leno actually let Ron Paul talk for quite some time in his recent interview. Pretty good stuff.

https://ronpaulflix.com/2011/12/ron-paul-with-jay-leno-dec-16-2011

Edit: Well, I see this was already posted in the chat thread.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 17, 2011, 10:22:23 AM
I hate Jay Leno's guts but it was good that he let Paul actually speak.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 17, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 17, 2011, 12:15:13 PM
That was the best part :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 17, 2011, 12:54:01 PM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 17, 2011, 02:56:41 PM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
I said more liberals would get convinced.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 17, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.
I said more liberals would get convinced.

May be what you meant, but what you said is that more liberals would be exposed to his views, which implies that they are not already aware of his views.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 17, 2011, 03:04:16 PM
Nah, they'd just get convinced to actually make an effort and go vote in the primaries/caucuses.

Not many, but maybe a few.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on December 17, 2011, 03:34:40 PM
Nah, they'd just get convinced to actually make an effort and go vote in the primaries/caucuses.

Not many, but maybe a few.

Eh, they'd have to register republican to do so.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 17, 2011, 04:02:49 PM
RON PAUL ON EARMARKS:

Kirk, you ought to read this:

https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/ (https://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/)

Your effort to explain the difference between earmarks and pork is apparently futile.  Somehow perception has been swayed into confusion; I admire your tenacity.  I'll try one last analogy for others:

We have choice A, B and amendment C.

Choice A: Allows Jones to steal Smith's bread.  (Lose)
Choice B: Does not allow Jones to steal Smith's bread. (Win)

Amendment C: Restricts Jones to only stealing 70% of Smith's bread if Choice A is chosen.  (Lose Win)

Ron Paul chooses Choice B with Amendment C just in case.  He votes for Choice B, but he includes amendment C in the worst case scenario that Choice A is chosen.

He doesn't support the spending bill, but if a spending bill is to pass then the best case scenario is that he has a say in how the money is delegated, otherwise the President can spend it however he/she sees fit.

The only remaining argument is that Paul truly wants Choice A with Amendment C to be chosen, i.e., he makes a safe bet.  This is of course an improvable assumption.

 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 17, 2011, 04:24:20 PM
Or there's my scenario.  Paul votes for choice B,  but knows that A is inevitable,  so he tacks on Amendment D which says that his family gets 15% of the stolen bread.  Once again,  I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Only that it casts a pall of uncertainty over his integrity.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 17, 2011, 04:34:46 PM
Abraham, I see your point, but the earmarking is done for transparency reasons as I read Paul's statements. It puts it in the hands of the congress.


Anyway, RP @ Jay Leno. He's going to lose Iowa due to the last remarks on the candidates, but he's going to catch fire in other states from non-fundamentalists. Those remarks do not fly well with the evangelical base in Iowa too.

The next few days are going to be REALLY important, how this is handled.


Also, I'm really worried about momentum after the last debate on Iran.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 17, 2011, 04:46:32 PM
Or there's my scenario.  Paul votes for choice B,  but knows that A is inevitable,  so he tacks on Amendment D which says that his family gets 15% of the stolen bread.  Once again,  I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Only that it casts a pall of uncertainty over his integrity.

I actually addressed that:

Quote
The only remaining argument is that Paul truly wants Choice A with Amendment C to be chosen, i.e., he makes a safe bet.  This is of course an improvable assumption.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: abrahamclark on December 17, 2011, 04:48:37 PM
Anyway, RP @ Jay Leno. He's going to lose Iowa due to the last remarks on the candidates, but he's going to catch fire in other states from non-fundamentalists. Those remarks do not fly well with the evangelical base in Iowa too.

The next few days are going to be REALLY important, how this is handled.

Also, I'm really worried about momentum after the last debate on Iran.

He's still doing just as well.  The polls haven't dropped.  His core support has quadrupled this election and his core doesn't leave.  I didn't like his comment on Bachman either, but it was overall a great interview and his comment was more or less supposed to be a joke.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 17, 2011, 04:53:42 PM
Except that it's true, so there's that as well :p
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 17, 2011, 05:11:54 PM
Or there's my scenario.  Paul votes for choice B,  but knows that A is inevitable,  so he tacks on Amendment D which says that his family gets 15% of the stolen bread.  Once again,  I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Only that it casts a pall of uncertainty over his integrity.

I actually addressed that:

Quote
The only remaining argument is that Paul truly wants Choice A with Amendment C to be chosen, i.e., he makes a safe bet.  This is of course an improvable assumption.
For one thing,  my amendment D is different from your amendment C.  Also,  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he really doesn't want A to happen at all. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 18, 2011, 09:50:50 PM
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

December 18, 2011
Paul leads in Iowa

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa.  He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row.  His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%.  And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa.  22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa.  Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest.  Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.  He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.  Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Romney's vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul.  Among voters who say they're not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul.   It's particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he's the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul.

In addition to having more support right now Paul also has firmer support (73% solidly committed) than Romney does (68% solidly committed.) But at the same time Romney appears to have more room for growth, which could allow him to overtake Paul in the last two weeks.

Two other notes on Romney: he's now winning the electability primary- 25% of voters think he would have the best chance to defeat Obama compared to 17% for Gingrich and 16% for Paul. And he also leads Paul 24-18 among voters who watched the Sioux City debate on Thursday night, confirming general perception that he had the stronger performance.

The rest of the field isn't getting much traction. Among the three candidates tied at 10%, Santorum has gained a couple points compared to last week, Perry has moved up a single point, and Bachmann is down a point. There is some indication that Iowans are warming up to Perry a little bit. He's gone from a -4 (43/47) favorability to a +8 (48/40).

With six candidates in double digits there are still a lot of different things that could happen the final two weeks in Iowa. But it looks like Paul and Romney have emerged as the clear front runners.

Full results here: https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf

:dangerwillrobinson:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 18, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
No matter what happens, I don't think he's getting the nom. At best he'll declare his candidacy for a third party ticket.

Unless I'm totally missing the point of that article, in which case just ignore me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 19, 2011, 01:50:24 AM
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 19, 2011, 04:24:08 AM
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.

rumborak
I'm sure that Romney will, or already has.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 19, 2011, 05:35:01 AM
No matter what happens, I don't think he's getting the nom. At best he'll declare his candidacy for a third party ticket.

Unless I'm totally missing the point of that article, in which case just ignore me.
Nah, he clearly stated on Leno that those kind of comments happen because he's rising on the polls. I think there's no way he'll leave the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 19, 2011, 07:34:51 AM
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.

rumborak
I'm sure that Romney will, or already has.

He has today, but what about tomorrow? :P (kidding, btw)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 19, 2011, 09:21:42 AM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.

And I'm equally sure that very few actual liberals would ever vote for a guy who will pack the courts with more right-wingers.  His position on abortion alone disqualifies him as someone I can vote for and I know most of my liberal friends feel the same way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 19, 2011, 09:27:12 AM
He's not gonna get the nomination in the end. What I hope it does though is to force the other candidates to assume some of his stances, and that is good.

rumborak

It's the same as any other primary election.   Once the nominee is "picked" (most likely Romney, but still up for grabs) and they are running directly against Obama, they'll head straight for the political center, just like George W. "We shouldn't use our troops for nation building" Bush did.  Then if/when they are elected,  it's amnesia time.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 19, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
This is interesting:  Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-says-gingrichs-idea-to-send-police-after-judges-neither-practical-nor-constitutional/2011/12/19/gIQA7LnQ5O_story.html)
Quote
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, December 19, 7:12 PM

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says rival Newt Gingrich’s idea to send Capitol Police or U.S. marshals to bring judges before lawmakers to explain their decisions is neither practical nor constitutional.

Romney says the answer to out-of-control judges is not to tear up the Constitution and say that Congress is the ultimate power in the country. Instead, he says the Constitution should be followed when it comes to removing judges or reversing judicial decisions.

Romney made the comments Monday night on the Fox News Channel.

Over the weekend, Gingrich leveled wide-ranging criticism at the judicial system and suggested that as president he could ignore some Supreme Court decisions and would seek to abolish left-leaning courts. He also said Congress should subpoena judges to explain their decisions to lawmakers.
It's not Newt's position that intrigues me; we all know he's a loon.  It's that Romney is wanting to remove judges and reverse their decisions if he disagrees with them,  and he's coming off as the reasonable sort.  This is actually exactly what's been happening in American politics for a while.  The right keeps foisting maniacs out to represent them, and the effect is to slide the fulcrum a little to the right.  That's why we have a Republican president who's mascaraing as a democrat,  and half the country no longer recognizes that he's essentially the second coming of their patron saint, Lord Reagan. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 19, 2011, 09:40:41 PM
I thought Paul's visit to Leno could be seen as good and bad. I'm convinced that it could lead to more liberals being exposed to his views and might vote for him. But among conservatives, what he said about Bachmann and Santorum might not be to his benefit.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure liberals know who Ron Paul is.

And I'm equally sure that very few actual liberals would ever vote for a guy who will pack the courts with more right-wingers. His position on abortion alone disqualifies him as someone I can vote for and I know most of my liberal friends feel the same way.
:therearenowords:

I wonder if you really know his position. It basically reminds me of this (just replace the fake "I don't believe in Evolution;" he does.) Deal wtih:

(https://i.imgur.com/bXcty.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 19, 2011, 09:46:26 PM
I don't get why that is a facepalm? I feel the same way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 19, 2011, 11:32:09 PM
I don't get it either. It says a lot about "Dr." Ron Paul and his supposed adherence to reason.
Not only that, but Obama "believes" in Empire? He "believes" in corporate wars? I think that picture kinda illustrates the level of discourse in a significant portion of Paul's following.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 05:02:17 AM
Emindead, it's just something that might throw off voters - his stance on abortion that is.

It also abandons a lot of libertarians. Actually most libertarians are pro-choice and not pro-life.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 20, 2011, 06:22:41 AM
Ron Paul is pro-life, yet still he wants that each State to decide whether it's legal to practice it or not - pretty reasonable. (I'm hugely pro-life yet if someone is pro-choice and still proposed and had a record like Paul, i.e. being consistent for a great amount of time, I wouldn't doubt to vote for him. It actually seems pretty fucking stupid not to vote for a guy just because his stance on abortion is contrary to mine. Each person has his views, sure, it doesn't make them less stupid when there are bigger issues at stake.)

jsem, even if most Libertarians are pro-choice it doesn't matter in the individual level.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.
It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 20, 2011, 06:33:11 AM
I don't get it either. It says a lot about "Dr." Ron Paul and his supposed adherence to reason.
Not only that, but Obama "believes" in Empire? He "believes" in corporate wars? I think that picture kinda illustrates the level of discourse in a significant portion of Paul's following.

rumborak

Pretty much this. I'm sorry but it's just plain ridiculous, and about half of those belong to Chimpy anyway.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 07:22:28 AM
I honestly don't even know what just happened there, but the only thing I can really react with is (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/smilies/scratchhead.gif)

The graphic that was posted had nothing to do with my comment.  I'm reminded of the three stooges episode where Moe, Larry and Curly are sleeping on a train and Moe gets woken up by Larry who is snoring so he slaps Curly and tells him "wake up and go to sleep"  :lol

Ron Paul is pro-life.  That's a well documented fact.  Ron Paul will nominate conservative judges.  Judges who would continue to bring us wonderful things like the Citizens United case which brought us corporate personhood.   But his pro-life stance alone renders him disqualified to any liberal, including this liberal.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 20, 2011, 07:49:04 AM
Not that I think you should vote for Ron Paul or anything, but why do you always bring up that classification, "liberal," like it's some cookie cutter mold that people fall neatly into? Hell, one could consider a lot of my views "liberal" (although I probably wouldn't label myself as such) and I'm *considering* voting for the man.

It's just that in the current political climate, social issues - especially ones that don't directly affect me - aren't as important to me right now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 20, 2011, 07:52:35 AM
Ron Paul is pro-life, yet still he wants that each State to decide whether it's legal to practice it or not - pretty reasonable. (I'm hugely pro-life yet if someone is pro-choice and still proposed and had a record like Paul, i.e. being consistent for a great amount of time, I wouldn't doubt to vote for him. It actually seems pretty fucking stupid not to vote for a guy just because his stance on abortion is contrary to mine. Each person has his views, sure, it doesn't make them less stupid when there are bigger issues at stake.)

jsem, even if most Libertarians are pro-choice it doesn't matter in the individual level.

And I don't see how his stance on evolution at all should matter when it comes to public policy. It's not like he's trying to force schools to teach intelligent design to my knowledge.
It should not. The example just tried to make a point on the "I won't vote for him because he's 'ridiculous' on this precise instance", hence the "ignore the fake stance".

So I'm confused... instead of being an educated voter and searching for a candidate that is of the same opinions and mindset as myself, I should be searching for what? The most handsome? The best speaker? If we aren't looking at beliefs and stances on issues, what are we looking at?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 08:12:13 AM
Emindead, you just have to get over the fact that for some people, the question of abortion is so important that they cannot in their mind support a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate at all.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 08:49:26 AM
Not that I think you should vote for Ron Paul or anything, but why do you always bring up that classification, "liberal," like it's some cookie cutter mold that people fall neatly into? Hell, one could consider a lot of my views "liberal" (although I probably wouldn't label myself as such) and I'm *considering* voting for the man.

It's just that in the current political climate, social issues - especially ones that don't directly affect me - aren't as important to me right now.

Why do I always bring it up? Fist of all, I am a liberal.  And I'm not afraid of admitting it.  I'm not saying you or anyone else here is afraid of anything, but you know, when you get to the point when you've been on this earth for about half a century, you really stop giving a shit what people think and just be who you are.  Who I am is a liberal and a registered Democrat.  So, since we're talking about an election and since there are generally three major voting blocs in the united states -  Liberals, Conservatives and Independents- I bring it up when it's germane to the point I'm making in one of these discussions.  Such as the point I was making above about Ron Paul being pro-life.  Pro-life is typically a position held by conservatives, and it's one rarely held by liberals.  Thus, my use of the term liberal in this instance.

As far as whether or not social issues effect you, well, I would urge you to consider the fact that the Supreme Court is the longest-lasting legacy of any presidency.   Many justices serve on the court for 20 or 30 years and they will shape the laws of the land for a large portion of your life.   It's not about whether or not you think -this week or even this year- if social issues are important.  It's about whether or not you think they are important, period.  Personally, I think they're extremely important.  (although abortion is pretty much at the bottom of my list of importance when it comes to social issues).   Young people like yourself should take a keen interest in how the courts may be shaped by the president.  It's going to have a very, very long impact on you.

Oh, and one more thing:  I don't see "liberal" as some cookie cutter mold that people fit into.  It's a worldview, just like conservative is a worldview, or even libertarian.  It's just a word used to describe a general set of beliefs, and certainly nothing to get offended about.



Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 08:56:40 AM
Emindead, you just have to get over the fact that for some people, the question of abortion is so important that they cannot in their mind support a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate at all.

For me it's a flag.  When I see that a politician is "Pro-Life" I know what is almost always to follow - basically, conservatism.  I haven't met many liberals (ooohh, there's that word again!  :lol ) who are pro-life.   I think abortion is one place where libertarians are, for lack of a better term, inconsistent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion) 

Ron Paul is a member of the Republican party, holds quite a few libertarian positions  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)on the issues, but he also holds quite a few of the Republican party's positions as well.

But yeah, when I see the word pro-life, I exclude that candidate from consideration because I know a person who is pro-life will not nominate liberal justices.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 09:50:17 AM
There is no "Republican party's position". Everyone has their own views, and RP doesn't compromise his views to fit into the party.

Plus, Paul is the only one who is consistently pro-life - against the warfare.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on December 20, 2011, 10:42:46 AM
There is absolutely an official Repub Party position; otherwise it wouldn't be so easy for the Senate Republicans to block so many bills.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 12:14:07 PM
There is no "Republican party's position". Everyone has their own views, and RP doesn't compromise his views to fit into the party.

Plus, Paul is the only one who is consistently pro-life - against the warfare.

Um, reality would like a word with you  (https://www.issues2000.org/Republican_Party.htm) :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 12:15:44 PM
Huh. I was always of the belief that there was no official party position, just positions of different people within the party.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
Huh. I was always of the belief that there was no official party position, just positions of different people within the party.

It's cool man....they usually refer to it as the "platform" here.

lemme see if I can find the democrat one....brb
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 12:17:31 PM
OK, yeah, here's the Democratic party platform (https://www.democrats.org/issues)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 12:21:17 PM
The two party system in the US must go.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on December 20, 2011, 12:22:36 PM
Like many things, it should be changed, but it won't.

Not much to be done about that, short of a full-out citizens' revolution.

Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 20, 2011, 12:31:01 PM
The two party system in the US must go.

Well, you know, it's definitely far from perfect, but the fact is, the United States has been a pretty successful experiment now for over 200 years and it is still evolving.  I think our culture is pretty self-correcting, although to use an analogy, like an aircraft carrier, it often takes a LONG time to change course......

The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

I've come to accept it for what it is and I vote mostly according to two things:  My conscience and fate of the supreme court.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 20, 2011, 12:43:18 PM
The two party system in the US must go.

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=26382.msg1109414#msg1109414

https://www.americanselect.org/
I'm really excited to see where this goes in the next 6 months.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 20, 2011, 01:21:52 PM
My thoughts on the two party system,  and more importantly,  why Americans won't change it:

As I've been watching the midterm circle jerk, I've been more and more inclined to think that this noble experiment of ours has turned out to be a resounding failure.  As much as we like to blame the two party system, and we all know it sucks, I think that it's actually just an inevitable consequence of a bigger problem.  People don't seem to realize that what they tout as the biggest strength of a democratic government is actually it's biggest weakness.  The system will inevitably steer towards electioneering rather than governing.  The simple truth is that you can't govern if you don't get elected, but once you actually get into office, how you govern is merely a function of maintaining electability.  Nobody has ever held onto an office while telling an unpopular truth.  Right or wrong is no longer relevant.

Quote from: James E. Carter
I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation. . . .

Quote from: George H. W. Bush
"it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform."

The problem as I see it is that getting yourself elected requires selling yourself to the masses, and as I'm so fond of pointing out, the masses are fucking stupid.  As Turdblossom demonstrated with such extraordinary success, the more you boil things down to the simplest, black and white components, the more people you can get to rally behind your cause.  It's campaigning to the lowest common denominator.  A politician who even suggests that an issue is complicated and needs to be carefully considered will get clobbered in two years by an empty suit that says "IT'S US VS. THEM!!!"  The Romans figured this out 2000 years ago. 

Rather than suggesting that Americans should build a fire and put on a damn sweater, Carter should have told them to crank up the heat and buy a big V8 Cadillac because he'll take care of obtaining more oil.  After all, we deserve it.  Instead of raising taxes, Bush should have made up some of his own voodoo economics, lowered taxes, and told everybody that we're doing better than ever (until the next president comes along to inherit the problem).  "That extra $50 on my tax return is worth a helluva lot more than those imaginary problems that nobody can understand!"

This is the only result that can be obtained in a system derived off of popularity. 

Unfortunately, with great ignorance comes great arrogance.  The people who are convinced that we control the government for the better are the same people who believe this to be the greatest and most free nation on Earth.  With those beliefs, it is inconceivable that they could ever accept that the system has failed.  Convinced that our way is right, we go out and force our ways onto others whether they want it or not, completely refusing to consider that perhaps there could be a better option.  Alas, the inevitable outcome is that Americans will never resolve the problems with the government,  and in that refusal, we will eventually force ourselves into irrelevance; much like the Romans before us.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 20, 2011, 03:07:20 PM
The two party system in the US must go.

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=26382.msg1109414#msg1109414

https://www.americanselect.org/
I'm really excited to see where this goes in the next 6 months.

By the way, I saw MSNBC covering this issue last night. Found it interesting, becuase it was a mainstream media outlet talking about how you could not support the two party system.

Judges who would continue to bring us wonderful things like the Citizens United case which brought us corporate personhood.   

I'd really like to hear Pauls position on this. It's perhaps the biggest reason I wouldn't vote for him, even though I really hope he gets the nomination, and wish he would still merge with Obama to create something new in American politics - a liberal libertarian party.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 20, 2011, 03:13:30 PM
Merge with Obama? He doesn't even represent the progressive base anymore.

Gary Johnson would be the best poster-boy for a liberal/libertarian party, along with people like Kucinich and Nader.


I am also anxious to hear how he views the Citizens United case, I think he's for the Supreme Court verdict though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 20, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
I've heard some not-so-good things about Americans Elect lately. Apparently it's run by some unsavory characters. And it doesn't publicly disclose its donations. I'll try to dig up some links.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 20, 2011, 05:26:37 PM
Why focus on the negative press or where the $ is from? Why not discuss the idea and possible 3rd option for a candidate? I believe they have enough signatures in a large quantity of the states.

Let me clarify... we don't really know where the money comes from for the current parties and candidates. Its all hidden in PACs and corporations. I would also say that our current parties are run by some "unsavory" characters. So in my mind whats the difference? Well this one is appearing to be a nominated person by a large amount of people. Not based on party lines. Why treat this candidate differently? They would still be backed by unknown funds, still be swayed by money, and still promise things they can't deliver. But at least its a new option that isn't visibly tied to the issues with the current parties.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 20, 2011, 05:47:40 PM
I thought the whole point of it was that it was going to be free of the trappings of current partisan politics. Anyway I'm not completely discounting it, I just wanted to point out some somewhat legitimate misgivings people had with it. Always better to know!

I'm definitely still interested to see what comes of it. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 20, 2011, 07:25:43 PM
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

This is unfortunately true. The sad thing is, I've always thought that if all the people who say "I'd vote for a third party but won't because that would be giving a vote away to the Dems/Reps" actually voted third party, you'd have possibly over half the country voting for third parties, and that'd be a huge turning point.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 21, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
The problem with the idea that the "two party system must go" is you have to have a viable alternative that enough people are actually interested in to bring a third option into play.  There are plenty of alternatives to the Democratic/Republican party tickets in most of our elections, but most of the power/money/influence is currently concentrated in those two parties, and, well, that's just the reality of it.

This is unfortunately true. The sad thing is, I've always thought that if all the people who say "I'd vote for a third party but won't because that would be giving a vote away to the Dems/Reps" actually voted third party, you'd have possibly over half the country voting for third parties, and that'd be a huge turning point.

Psychology is against you. When people think a rule is, well, a rule, they justify it, etc; when they think the rule can be broken, they, well, break it. Everyone sees the two party system as a rule they cannot break, becuase of the money, becuase of other people, so they don't break the rule.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 21, 2011, 06:16:35 PM
That's basically what I'm saying, isn't it? People won't vote for a third party because they know other people won't for the same reason.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 21, 2011, 06:46:42 PM
I thought you were saying that people could vote for a third party, and that'd be a turning point; all I meant is that without structural changes, that turning point won't happen.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 22, 2011, 06:10:53 AM
Ouch. Ron Paul is really dropping the ball on owning up to his racist newsletters.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 22, 2011, 06:32:51 AM
Ouch. Ron Paul is really dropping the ball on owning up to his racist newsletters.

This comes up every time he runs, usually when he's polling well.  The problem is it's a no-win situation for him.  For one thing, the newsletters with the racist content have no by line.  So it's unclear if Ron Paul himself actually wrote it.  So he could deny that he wrote it.  But then if he denies he wrote it, the very next question that comes up is "well, why aren't you overseeing the content of these newsletters?" He can't win on this one.  He looks irresponsible if he claims he can't control the content of every newsletter put out by his office or he looks like a racist if he claims he wrote it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 06:51:44 AM
He didn't write then, that's very clear. But people are still holding him responsible for this, and legitimately so.

There is one person who was a ghost writer for him who is responsible for pretty much all if not all of these remarks in his newsletters, but it's not 100% clear it's him and it would be unfair for RP to throw that person under the bus without being certain that it was him and blaming somebody innocent instead.

The person who wrote the remarks has to come forward so this can be put to rest once and for all. Lew Rockwell might know who wrote them, but it would be a huge blow to the liberty movement if he were thrown under the bus too. He can't really come out and take responsibility and "take one for the team", he's too vital with the Mises institute and all - it would discredit a lot of what RP stands for.

The ghost writer responsible simply has to come forward, there's no other way out of this. People have a pretty good presumption about who it is, but you cannot just come out and blast someone if you're not positively sure about it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 22, 2011, 07:14:27 AM
It's not "very clear" that he didn't write them. That's his claim when it comes up, but essentially it becomes a case of he-said-she-said, and the fact that he can't point to a writer doesn't bode well for him. Taking the mic off when a journalist asks you about it? Ouch. Even Herman Cain knew not to do that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 07:23:35 AM
He answered her question but she continued to ask him the same question over and over. I think it's fair to see the frustration.

But yeah, read this (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2u-MCilk3n2ODdjMmI2OTgtMWE4NC00OWEzLWE1MWUtY2Y4Yzg5M2ZkMjY4&hl=en_US) if you're not convinced he's being sincere about this.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 22, 2011, 07:39:19 AM
Sorry, but that does not do much to make anyone feel much better about this all. Some of those arguments are so weak that it's not even worth getting into. I'm sure RP die-hards are satisfied with them, but no-one else will be. I mean, it's OK that his signature appears on those things because "it could have been photo-copied."? Alrighty. And the Dallas Star is wrong for attributing that he "did not deny" writing the comments when asked because they didn't say so in a direct quote? Wow.

This is the type of stuff that kills front-runners, and these "denials" simply will not satisfy the voting public no matter how the RP fanboys feel about the issue. It's a shame that someone with more integrity than most will likely see his final political showdown cut short in typical politician fashion, for the same types of mistakes that always bring politicians down.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 22, 2011, 09:02:56 AM
Eh, is anyone really surprised by this? RP has a million skeletons in his closet, but because he was such a fringe candidate none of the big contenders saw it worth attacking him. Now that he's leading in Iowa they started to hone in on him, and he will go straight down. His racist stuff, his stance on Iran, his "destroy 5 state departments", that's all welcome canon fodder. It would also be a cinch to tie him to some really loopy Libertarian characters (think Jeremiah Wright).

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 22, 2011, 09:17:13 AM
It's really a non-issue anyway because Ron Paul is never going to be nominated for president anyway. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 22, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
I just read an excellent article in The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/) about the racist newsletters and finding a "pure" candidate. It's pretty long but well-worth the read. There's an excerpt toward the end where the author does some intellectual grappling with himself on who to vote for that I found myself agreeing with. He's not an ardent Paul supporter or anything like that.

Quote
"How could you vote for someone who..."

Isn't that a thorny formulation? I'm sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We're all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity?  Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?

And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that -- just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who've deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality.

In voting for "the lesser of two evils," there is still evil there -- we're just better at ignoring certain kinds in this fallen world. A national security policy that results in the regular deaths of innocent foreigners in order to maybe make us marginally safer from terrorism is one evil we are very good at ignoring.

[...]

Figuring out what flaws to accept in a candidate is a brutal calculus. I wouldn't begrudge someone who, having pondered the matter, decided that as best as they could tell -- we're all guessing about character judgments -- the racist newsletters are reason enough to refrain from supporting Paul. In some ways, it would be easiest for me to reach that conclusion: to establish as a litmus test that I'll never vote for anyone even remotely associated with what is poisonous drivel.

What I find harder, but compulsory, by my code, is at least comparing candidates all of whom stand for something poisonous, immoral or idiotic. Should I stay home? Does that not make me complicit in a different way? These quandaries are inescapable in a large democracy, especially one that is a global hegemon. My tentative conclusion: among the candidates who could win, Paul is least complicit in needlessly killing innocents abroad; he is least likely to deprive innocent foreigners of their God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; he is most committed to civil liberties and drug legalization at home. The contrary policies, which I regard as abhorrent, are easily ignored by most voters, because they are the status quo.

It is easiest to evade the moral implications of policies already in place.

Should Paul continue to perform well in the polls, or even win the Iowa caucuses, national media attention is going to focus intensely on his newsletters as never before, and it won't represent a double-standard: published racism under any candidate's name would rightly attract press attention! Paul ought to stop acting aggrieved. He is not a victim here. Voters ought to do their best to understand the controversy, gauge Paul's character, and render judgment about his likely behavior were he elected to the presidency, relative to his competitors.

 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 22, 2011, 10:09:29 AM
Well, to me, as much as I hate myself that Obama backpeddled on quite a few things, I must still say that I feel I can get most of the good things Paul stands for (emphasis on diplomacy, upholding the rule of law, drug legalization) without the loopy bits (destruction of 5 state departments) by plain reelecting Obama.
In fact, I find it rather hilarious that a lot of this bruhaha about Ron Paul's stances is really just him having Democrat values on certain things.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 22, 2011, 10:20:16 AM
I must still say that I feel I can get most of the good things Paul stands for (emphasis on diplomacy, upholding the rule of law, drug legalization) without the loopy bits (destruction of 5 state departments) by plain reelecting Obama.

rumborak

In what world does Obama stand for upholding the rule of law and drug legalization?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 22, 2011, 12:55:44 PM
Eh, is anyone really surprised by this? RP has a million skeletons in his closet, but because he was such a fringe candidate none of the big contenders saw it worth attacking him. Now that he's leading in Iowa they started to hone in on him, and he will go straight down. His racist stuff, his stance on Iran, his "destroy 5 state departments", that's all welcome canon fodder. It would also be a cinch to tie him to some really loopy Libertarian characters (think Jeremiah Wright).

rumborak

Don't forget the monster truck ad, and the debate against the Obama imposter.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 22, 2011, 12:57:37 PM
I think we're all trying to forget that :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 22, 2011, 01:01:29 PM
I must still say that I feel I can get most of the good things Paul stands for (emphasis on diplomacy, upholding the rule of law, drug legalization) without the loopy bits (destruction of 5 state departments) by plain reelecting Obama.

rumborak

In what world does Obama stand for upholding the rule of law and drug legalization?

I (obviously) can't speak for rumborak, but I think the operative word in his post was "most"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 22, 2011, 01:08:54 PM
Right, and then he put some stances in parentheses that I figured he was ascribing to both people. I disagree either way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 22, 2011, 01:29:10 PM
Right, and then he put some stances in parentheses that I figured he was ascribing to both people. I disagree either way.

So, to be clear, you prefer Ron Paul over Obama?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 22, 2011, 01:49:23 PM
I suppose so.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 22, 2011, 02:16:16 PM
It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on December 22, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
I suppose so.
I have to agree.  My only concern would be judicial appointments,  and I don't think that'll get much worse.  If it looks like Obama will get bounced,  and he won't,  then Ginsburg and possibly Kennedy would announce their retirements so he'd be the one to replace them.  Thomas will be the first to retire from the right,  but he won't do that until there's a Republican to replace him; much like O'Connor.  With a President Paul,  that might happen sooner than later,  and it's not like Paul would find somebody as equally obtuse.  I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if Roberts were to drop dead one morning,  but it's certainly not something I'd bet on. 

The federal appeals courts are already a hodgepodge of ideologies,  so I don't see RP screwing that up too badly.   

As for everything else,  I think Paul would be a much better choice than Chimpy Jr.  While Paul might swing the court a bit more to the right,  but probably not,  he'd at least stand up for civil liberties, lessening the damage that gets done.  Obama's fucking us all,  and the court's already in place to back up him.  Paul would fuck us less,  so the court wouldn't be such an issue.


edit:
It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.
Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily,  and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on December 22, 2011, 02:29:58 PM

edit:
It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.
Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily,  and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin.

You think its that obvious? I guess I don't have that much of a feel of everyone's political leanings towards all the candidates.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 22, 2011, 02:44:48 PM
Somebody start that thread, I'm lazy. My guess would be Obama.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 02:46:26 PM
Here's a better question to all of you calling Paul a racist: What can he do to save himself in your eyes?

Ah well, I guess this video is just going to prove your point about Paul actually being a racist, I mean - it's in his rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 22, 2011, 02:47:52 PM

edit:
It could be interesting to have polls as mock DTF elections to see who would win. One of Obama vs Paul, Obama vs Romney, etc.
Obama would beat any of the GOP whackjobs handily,  and Paul would beat Obama by a similar margin.

You think its that obvious? I guess I don't have that much of a feel of everyone's political leanings towards all the candidates.

I agree Obama's got the GOP pretty much covered at this point. However, I don't think Paul would win. People like their Medicare and their Social Security, so either Paul would really have to moderate his tone (that is, agree to a compromise), or he's going to basically have nothing left but young people who don't think they need health insurance. He'd have half of what the American people like regarding "Wallstreet," but until we know his position on Citizens United, that could be another very damming position.

Those two issues alone would mean Obama beats Paul. The "99%" movement hasn't gone away, it's effecting Republican politics, and Paul will find himself in a hard battle against Obama regarding these issues.

Besides, it's all going to depend upon Congress anyways. Obama or Paul alone means jack shit if you still have the current Republicans controlling the Senate and the House. Ron Paul with a Democratic Majority in the House and a Supermajority in the Senate would be a very interesting result, maybe more interesting than Obama.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 02:52:22 PM
Eh, is anyone really surprised by this? RP has a million skeletons in his closet, but because he was such a fringe candidate none of the big contenders saw it worth attacking him. Now that he's leading in Iowa they started to hone in on him, and he will go straight down. His racist stuff, his stance on Iran, his "destroy 5 state departments", that's all welcome canon fodder. It would also be a cinch to tie him to some really loopy Libertarian characters (think Jeremiah Wright).

rumborak

Don't forget the monster truck ad, and the debate against the Obama imposter.
Dude. Do you even know the story about that Obama imposter? It was on Stossel, and the context is important. It wasn't MEANT to be an actual Obama, it was a joke debate that Paul participated in: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-debates-obama-impersonator-on-fox.html)

They say after the interview after who the actor was an everything.

I'm sick of this taken out context.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 22, 2011, 02:55:18 PM
Here's a better question to all of you calling Paul a racist: What can he do to save himself in your eyes?

Ah well, I guess this video is just going to prove your point about Paul actually being a racist, I mean - it's in his rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0)

Err, that made him look particularly non-racist actually.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 02:57:40 PM
Exactly. Because his actual views are represented in that video. Especially as a matter of public policy, he's the best choice for all races.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 22, 2011, 02:58:08 PM

Ah well, I guess this video is just going to prove your point about Paul actually being a racist, I mean - it's in his rhetoric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0)

Explain how that is racist? Or is it sarcasm? Cause I really hope the video title is satire, otherwise I'm more inclined to think that whoever made the video is a racist, and not Paul.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 22, 2011, 03:05:35 PM
It was sarcasm, and the person who made it wanted a troll title apparently.

Here's RP's portfolio, (hmm I wonder what he invests in?): https://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/check-out-ron-pauls-stock-portfolio-2011-12-22/A1CBC8F3-0424-41B8-BCD4-C07F90A587F1?dist=afterbell#!A1CBC8F3-0424-41B8-BCD4-C07F90A587F1 (https://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/check-out-ron-pauls-stock-portfolio-2011-12-22/A1CBC8F3-0424-41B8-BCD4-C07F90A587F1?dist=afterbell#!A1CBC8F3-0424-41B8-BCD4-C07F90A587F1)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 22, 2011, 04:24:56 PM
So, I guess it comes down to his racist ghost writer, but is that better though?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 22, 2011, 05:19:26 PM
That allegedly racist newsletter is never late.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 22, 2011, 06:55:15 PM
That allegedly racist newsletter is never late.

There is nothing "alleged" about the racism contained in the newsletters (note: plural).

Exactly. Because his actual views are represented in that video. Especially as a matter of public policy, he's the best choice for all races.

Yes. And no-one is saying Paul's a racist now. The point is, he's done a horrible job owning up to those newsletters which have always haunted him,  ironic considering he seems to think he's adequately explained for them even though the majority of people outside of his supporters know that's not true. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but Ron Paul is a 76 year old rich white dude who's spent a lifetime in public opposition to the Civil Rights Act. His views on race have likely tamed over time, but is it really that wild to suggest that maybe the race-rhetoric he found appropriate 20 years ago wouldn't exactly hold-up by today's standards?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 23, 2011, 05:18:28 AM
Yes. And no-one is saying Paul's a racist now.
Except tons of pundits on TV discrediting his entire run for the presidency.

So, I guess it comes down to his racist ghost writer, but is that better though?
No. But if this person were to come out and apologize it himself would be better
I don't know how the public would perceive it if:
a) Ron Paul threw Fred Reed or whoever wrote it under the bus, saying it's most likely him. It raises the question about why he suddenly knows it was that person etc. And what if Fred Reed didn't actually write them and goes out and denies he ever wrote them? That would just stockpile this entire thing.
b) Fred Reed goes out himself and says he wrote them, the best case scenario. Ron Paul can distance himself from it better.

Some people might never forgive him, he was the publisher after all. The best thing he can do is to go out and debunk the statements in the newsletters one by one, explaining how they are not his views. Plus, one of those statements in the newsletters are incorrect, because the person writes in Paul's name saying "As a congressman I voted against every attempt to commemorate MLK" or someting like that, but in actuality, he has voted FOR commemorating MLK.

Well. Enough of me defending this guy. He does have some owning up to do.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 23, 2011, 02:24:02 PM
So, given that I kinda got late into the game because of my trip, I am somewhat surprised to see this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

and combine that with the notion that Paul at some point led the polls. According to that site Paul doesn't even have half of the leaders percentages, and never had. So, what gives?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 23, 2011, 03:38:08 PM
This is national average, which includes states other than Iowa/NH where Paul is doing well.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 23, 2011, 03:52:03 PM
Ah, I see. I just looked at the Iowa one and indeed he is the leader in that one.
I have a hard time believing that though. Mysteriously Iowa likes Paul, whereas the national average doesn't care about him. And neither do the NH or SC polls. Something is very off, we all saw the same debates.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 23, 2011, 03:57:03 PM
Last three NH polls have RP @ 21%, 21%, 19%.

Debates have less effect than ground game: phone from home, door to door, super brochures, etc. That's the reason he's doing better in Iowa and NH imo.

That last Florida poll from early in the month has Gingrich @ 44%, I very hardly think he would poll that well now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 23, 2011, 04:02:00 PM
Yeah, but Romney has 10% more. While that could be explained by the proximity to Massachusetts, in SC people care even less about Paul.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 23, 2011, 04:07:47 PM
True, but his poll numbers are consistently rising. Time will only tell how the Iowa results are going to play out in the polls subsequent.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 23, 2011, 11:21:33 PM
A friend of mine recently likened Ron Paul to a court jester, and I thought that hit it on the nail right there. His "job" is to show the folly of the ruling class, but he never really is electable himself.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 24, 2011, 03:09:58 AM
Mitt vs Paul in Virginia.

Both Newt and Perry failed to get on the ballot with the 10K signatures needed. With all the hate Mitt has, this is maybe what Paul needs.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on December 24, 2011, 03:12:47 AM
I hope so.

If he can pull a victory out of this, this could be a setup for something that could grow into a real streak for the guy. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 24, 2011, 03:20:20 AM
Plus, there are no winner take all states - so a brokered convention is very likely at this point.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on December 24, 2011, 04:28:09 AM
Keep in mind that Huckabee won the Iowa primary 4 years ago and then quickly faded. Iowa in not a good first test, nor is NH. NH in particular is a very Paul friendly state. I really can't see Paul winning much beyond that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 24, 2011, 06:56:18 AM
Mitt vs Paul in Virginia.

Both Newt and Perry failed to get on the ballot with the 10K signatures needed. With all the hate Mitt has, this is maybe what Paul needs.

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP!!!! :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/perry-disqualified-from-va-primary-ballot/2011/12/23/gIQA3BZNEP_blog.html

Posted at 03:40 AM ET, 12/24/2011
Gingrich, Perry Disqualified from Va. Primary Ballot
By Anita Kumar

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to submit enough valid signatures to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, state GOP officials said Friday evening and early Saturday.

The Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday that Gingrich and Perry failed to submit 10,000 signatures of registered voters required to get their names on the ballot for the March 6 primary.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the party announced on Twitter.

The rejection is a significant setback for the Gingrich campaign since he is leading the polls in Virginia among likely Republican voters and is seen as a strong contender for the nomination.

Perry’s campaign told state election officials it had submitted 11,911 signatures, and Gingrich’s campaign said it submitted 11,050 signatures. State party officials spent Friday night validating the signatures.

Earlier Friday, the Republican Party of Virginia certified former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) to appear on the ballot.

The four candidates turned in thousands of signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline Thursday.

Jerry Kilgore, former attorney general and chairman of Perry’s campaign in Virginia, said he was disappointed, but that qualifying for the Virginia ballot is a “daunting task.”

“Hopefully, he will do better in other states,’’ he said. “He can focus on other states.”

Candidates had until 5 p.m. to collect 10,000 signatures from across the state, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional district.

Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum did not submit signatures and failed to qualify on Thursday, according to state GOP officials.

Virginia, an increasingly important swing state, will hold its primary on Super Tuesday, March 6.

Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate Tuesday to submit signatures for Virginia’s primary election ballot.

On Thursday morning, Gingrich said at an event outside Richmond that his campaign was still collecting signatures, but expected to have enough.

A poll released Wednesday showed Gingrich with a slight lead over Romney among Virginia Republicans in the race for president. The Quinnipiac University poll shows Gingrich at 30 percent and Romney at 25 percent among Republican voters.

President Obama was the first presidential candidate to submit his signatures Dec. 2.

The Democratic Party of Virginia certified his signatures Friday. He was the only Democrat to qualify for the ballot so the State Board of Elections will cancel the primary. All Virginia delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be cast for him, said Brian Moran, party chairman.


To quote a redditor: Newt Gingrich wants to be president so bad, he forgot to get himself on the ballot IN THE STATE HE LIVES IN.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/155/594/yesitis2.gif?1318992465)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 24, 2011, 08:36:49 AM
I already said that. I wonder who people hate more: Romney or Paul. I hope it's Romney.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 24, 2011, 09:19:30 AM
Sorry, man. Edited my post.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 24, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
They keep asking Paul if he'd run as an independent if he didn't get the nomination. But I'm curious; even though it's a long shot, do you think the 80 percent of the Republican establishment that finds Paul's views reprehensible would run their own candidate given an unlikely Paul nomination?

Given the nature of most Republicans during Barry's first term, I could see the party actually failing to fall in line behind their nominee and cannibalizing themselves during the General Election. This class of Republicans have definitely shown time and time again that they prefer making dramatic statements and perfect ideological adherence over the practical concerns of governance, and the primaries have been ugly. Given how pathetic they've done over the last four years, I'd expect them to lose anyway; but the way they've looked during the primaries has got me thinking that either Paul or another candidate will run third party and just fuck up everything for the GOP. 

I really hate to play the partisan, but given what Republicans did during Bush's terms, what they've done with their one term having some control of the House under Obama, and the absolute boneheads they've tried to pre-ordain as "serious candidates" over the last two general elections (Palin, Cain, Newt, etc), you've really got to wonder whether the GOP is capable of governing at all anymore; or whether they're a party on the fritz that realizes they have more in common with corporate democrats than they do with their own withering base. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 24, 2011, 11:56:55 AM
They're going to align themselves behind whoever is the candidate, because they want to beat Obama over all.

Paul has leverage though, because if he runs 3rd party he could split the vote and guarantee an Obama win. This leaves me to think that whoever the candidate is going to be is going to have to adopt a more humble foreign policy, and challenge the monetary system, to earn the backing of Paul supporters.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 24, 2011, 12:25:09 PM
Man, this primary is more drama than one could ever wish for. :lol
So, are Perry and Gingrich pulling out?
EDIT: Ah, they're gonna try to still get in by write-in. What a mess :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 24, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
They're going to align themselves behind whoever is the candidate, because they want to beat Obama over all.

Paul has leverage though, because if he runs 3rd party he could split the vote and guarantee an Obama win. This leaves me to think that whoever the candidate is going to be is going to have to adopt a more humble foreign policy, and challenge the monetary system, to earn the backing of Paul supporters.

So, do you think the party would actually unite behind Ron Paul, given that actually happens? I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 24, 2011, 12:42:36 PM
They want to beat Obama no matter what. I think they will come around to support him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 24, 2011, 09:00:20 PM
No way in hell. Paul is a threat to their way of politicking.

I don't know if you could get any one of them to admit it but I'm sure they would prefer four more years of Obama over Paul.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 24, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
No write-ins for Gingrich, VA law doesn't allow it. While I agree with Gingrich that the system is ridiculous, there's clearly something amiss if he can't get 10,000 signatures off the ground in VA.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 25, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Didn't ya hear? He's running a unique kind of presidential campaign, because we have NEVER seen a candidate like Newt Gingrich before.

That, or he just got in for the free promotion, basically, so that he can sell his books and his time for more / still... but that would be dirty, so there's just no way that could ever apply to Newt.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 25, 2011, 07:40:30 AM
Man, talk about an epic fail.  not getting on the ballot in Virginia  :lol

And it's only 10,000 signatures needed.  That's not a lot in the grand scheme of things
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 25, 2011, 10:35:57 AM
It's also his home state, Newt that is.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 25, 2011, 10:50:48 AM
Didn't realize that, that's even more of a blow. My prediction is that he will lose massively in Iowa, then pull out shortly after.

What I thought was really interesting about this graph:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

is that every candidate has their distinct "phase".
August: Bachmann
September: Perry
October: Cain
November: Gingrich
December: Paul

In all of that, only Romney maintained a stable number of votes. It seems the Republican voters have a "anybody but Romney!!" approach, trying every other candidate only to see them blow up publicly. My guess is that RP will be the next peak on that graph.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 25, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
But since no early states are winner take all, only proportionate, I think at least Newt will stay in the race til after Super Tuesday. Perry will drop out after 5-6 primaries I presume.

Romney will be the inevitable candidate though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 25, 2011, 12:18:12 PM
Yeah, without a major upset, I think so too. Every other candidate (except Paul) has "blown their load" so to speak. And even the Paul momentum is bound to run out soon.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 25, 2011, 02:05:51 PM
It's definitely down to Paul and Romney; both have a more stable support than any of the other candidates, but in the end, I think too many conservatives will not vote for Paul because of his foreign policy, and the fact taht he actually wants to end something as horrendous as the Drug War.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 25, 2011, 04:10:30 PM
There's also the thing that Paul isn't "presidential" really. Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 25, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
That'd be hilarious to watch from the inside.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 26, 2011, 05:01:15 AM
It's also his home state, Newt that is.

He resides in Georgia and was born in Pennsylvania (bio here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich))
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 26, 2011, 05:15:52 AM
Oh. Well, I heard it was his home state, didn't bother checking it up. It's still pretty embarrassing.

Edit: No, actually:

Residence    
Carrollton, Georgia (1979–1993, while in office)
Marietta, Georgia (1993–1999, while in office)
McLean, Virginia (1999–present)[1]


Guess I was correct.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 26, 2011, 07:59:00 AM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 26, 2011, 08:59:39 AM
Oh. Well, I heard it was his home state, didn't bother checking it up. It's still pretty embarrassing.

Edit: No, actually:

Residence   
Carrollton, Georgia (1979–1993, while in office)
Marietta, Georgia (1993–1999, while in office)
McLean, Virginia (1999–present)[1]


Guess I was correct.

You identified Virginia as his "home state" yes, he lives there now, but it's not his "home state."    I think of "home state" as the place you were born, not necessarily the place you reside.    But I guess we're splitting hairs on this  :lol

Doesn't matter anyway, Romney's going to be the nominee, I think.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 26, 2011, 09:04:12 AM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 26, 2011, 09:15:07 AM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

rumborak

I see Ron Paul as one of those candidates that would never be elected (let's face it, he's unelectable as POTUS) but he has a productive impact on the debates leading up to the election because while he's got some positions that are sheer lunacy (see: The Monster Truck Ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSNk4981DI) for example) and have zero chance of ever being enacted, those positions DO serve a purpose by dragging the dialog in a certain direction.

What I wonder now is since this is Ron Paul's last presidential election where's he's a truly viable candidate in terms of age, will his son Rand (a complete whack-job from the word go, btw) take up his mantle?  I don't think so, but I still wonder if Rand will try to remake his image in his father's mold.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 26, 2011, 09:31:33 AM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

rumborak

I see Ron Paul as one of those candidates that would never be elected (let's face it, he's unelectable as POTUS) but he has a productive impact on the debates leading up to the election because while he's got some positions that are sheer lunacy (see: The Monster Truck Ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSNk4981DI) for example) and have zero chance of ever being enacted, those positions DO serve a purpose by dragging the dialog in a certain direction.

I totally agree, his "services" as a court jester who shows the ridiculousness of the other attendants was invaluable. But, that's a lot of money dumped into being a court jester. I mean, RP and his clan truly believe he could be a good president, and that's what really surprises me. I really have the impression that many of his followers believe that, once he's in power, international relations will just become trade negotiations.

EDIT: Just looked at CNN for news. So it begins, the guns have been positioned: https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM
Uh oh. David Frum is such a windbag.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 26, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

I don't think it really matters. I know you don't like non-interventionism and all, but I don't think he will just go to some diplomatic event and basically give everyone the finger or something.

But yeah, Romney might, ya know, bomb another country, expand our overseas presence, domestic surveillance, etc. But hey! He looks "presidential".

Not a trade off I'm really willing to make, personally.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 26, 2011, 01:12:31 PM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

rumborak

I see Ron Paul as one of those candidates that would never be elected (let's face it, he's unelectable as POTUS) but he has a productive impact on the debates leading up to the election because while he's got some positions that are sheer lunacy (see: The Monster Truck Ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aSNk4981DI) for example) and have zero chance of ever being enacted, those positions DO serve a purpose by dragging the dialog in a certain direction.

I totally agree, his "services" as a court jester who shows the ridiculousness of the other attendants was invaluable. But, that's a lot of money dumped into being a court jester. I mean, RP and his clan truly believe he could be a good president, and that's what really surprises me. I really have the impression that many of his followers believe that, once he's in power, international relations will just become trade negotiations.

EDIT: Just looked at CNN for news. So it begins, the guns have been positioned: https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

rumborak

They have been upping the ante lately against Paul. Just think of how the media would handle an Iowa win.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 26, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Can you imagine him at a G8 summit?

rumborak
Taking into account his (right, imho) view on the UN, I guess the G8 will be insignificant (this follows my view of how the UN will be without the US: as irrelevant as The League of Nations) once the US steps down from those summits (G8, G20, etc.).

My point was wider really. A president needs to be in front of a lot of international congregations. Can I see Romney representing the United States of America? Yes. Can I see Paul doing the same thing? No. His "erratic professor" mannerism is fine for primary debates, but not for being a president.

But yeah, Romney might, ya know, bomb another country, expand our overseas presence, domestic surveillance, etc. But hey! He looks "presidential".

Not a trade off I'm really willing to make, personally.

I don't actually think Romney will push particularly hard on those issues once he's in power. He's playing along so he doesn't lose the extreme right, but frankly, once he's in power, I don't expect him to be particularly different in many policies than Obama.

Quote
I don't think it really matters. I know you don't like non-interventionism and all, but I don't think he will just go to some diplomatic event and basically give everyone the finger or something.

I'm not against non-interventionism as a guiding rule for international policy, far from it, but RP's approach to it doesn't exceed that of a idealistic 14-year old. He's clearly never spent any significant thought on what to do when push comes to shove, which is sadly how many of those things happen in international politics.
And yes, there *is* a value to being "presidential". Like Obama's policies or not, but he is extremely presidential and that has eased a lot of diplomatic relations with other countries. RP is a bumbling old man, and combined with many of his untenable stance in international politics, he would drive US credibility into the ground.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 26, 2011, 04:14:41 PM
Ron Paul would make a much better Speaker than President.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 26, 2011, 04:21:06 PM
He's going to have some leverage after this election cycle, that's for sure. He might use it to get a good position, and maybe becoming Speaker is a trade-off he'd be willing to make - but he has said that he's not running for re-election as a congressman.

Another tradeoff could be a cabinet position and the best would by far be Secretary of State, but that would NEVER happen. Treasury Secretary is a position I'd hope for, but he'd be such a danger to the special interests they would NEVER allow that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 26, 2011, 04:55:56 PM
Heh, CNN is preparing the next salvo for Gingrich. Apparently he lied about his first divorce.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 26, 2011, 05:30:52 PM
I'm not surprised about Gingrich.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 26, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
FIRE AWAY!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ResultsMayVary on December 26, 2011, 08:33:45 PM
I hate to backtrack a bit of the thread's history, but I hope Paul wins the nomination (even though it's extremely unlikely). I will be voting for him here in Ohio for the primary and the general election (regardless of whether or not he's nominated).

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 27, 2011, 04:54:37 AM
Another tradeoff could be a cabinet position and the best would by far be Secretary of State, but that would NEVER happen.
He would be an awful Secretary of State.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 27, 2011, 05:32:26 AM
I'm saying, the best for him to be able to advance his positions and his influence.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 27, 2011, 06:12:55 AM
Hate to say "I told you so," but it looks like there is something after all to Ron Paul's campaign being kinda Nazi-ish.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?pagewanted=all
Quote
The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.

Quote
Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.


Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if one of those Stormfront guys helped decide that Ron Paul's "unofficial" campaign should have that black white and red theme I was pointing out earlier.

This, the Lew Rockwell stuff, and everything else is making me wonder if Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act and his other bizarre stances on race issues was always just a consequence of him being a true libertarian, or if maybe the "libertarianism" has just been a way for him to intellectualize much uglier beliefs.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 27, 2011, 08:58:13 AM
To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 27, 2011, 09:30:51 AM
Another tradeoff could be a cabinet position and the best would by far be Secretary of State, but that would NEVER happen.
He would be an awful Secretary of State.
Even if a Republican topples Obama next year (I'd say Romney has a 50/50 shot at it) Ron Paul will not be SoS.  He's articulated a position on foreign policy that is pretty much 180 degrees in opposition to Republican foreign policy orthodoxy.  None of them would put Ron Paul in that position.

To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.

rumborak


I agree rumborak.  I also think David Frum's article on CNN is basically a moderate Republican establishment hit piece that has essentially leveraged Ron Paul's "fringe vacuuming" propensity and used it against him. 

What really blows my mind is the rhetorical gymnastics I see a lot of my "born again" and "evangelical" Christian friends doing to rationalize voting for Ron Paul.  I actually feel sorry for a lot of them (and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all) because in this election cycle they've been given the opportunity (if they want to back a candidate that might actually win more than two states in the general election) to support a philandering, serial liar (Gingrich).......a guy who has taken more positions on the issues than the Kama Sutra (Romney), or a guy who thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea (Ron Paul)......not the most competitive alternatives......

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 27, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.

I agree rumborak.  I also think David Frum's article on CNN is basically a moderate Republican establishment hit piece that has essentially leveraged Ron Paul's "fringe vacuuming" propensity and used it against him. 

It's also the reason why he won't completely own up to it. Because if he whole-heartedly disassociated himself from those former views, he would lose part of his die-hard supporters, the guys who stand in the pouring rain somewhere in Iowa trying to get Paul elected.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 27, 2011, 09:52:59 AM
It's like when Boehner would evade the interview questions about Obama's birthplace. I'm sure Boehner doesn't give two craps about where the President was born but he didn't give a completely straight answer that closed the door on the issue for fear of losing the birthers.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 27, 2011, 10:02:07 AM
To me this is a classic sign of opportunism. Paul is a politician, so he wants support. Paul however saw his chance not in the mainstream, but instead by vacuuming up the fringes. And to get those, he had to purport a couple of nasty views. Whether he actually believed those or not is secondary really. What matters is to what ends he was willing to go in order to get political support. And to this day, there's a lot of questionable elements in Paul's ranks.

I agree rumborak.  I also think David Frum's article on CNN is basically a moderate Republican establishment hit piece that has essentially leveraged Ron Paul's "fringe vacuuming" propensity and used it against him. 

It's also the reason why he won't completely own up to it. Because if he whole-heartedly disassociated himself from those former views, he would lose part of his die-hard supporters, the guys who stand in the pouring rain somewhere in Iowa trying to get Paul elected.

rumborak
Call me crazy but I'm sure this exact thing happened four years ago. A reporter asked him on camera if he like these kind of supporters and without hesitation he said: "No."
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 27, 2011, 10:35:44 AM
Well, it's definitely not enough, as one can see right now. Does anyone really have the impression he's distancing himself from them? I certainly don't. Just like antigoon said, it's like Boehner trying to please two masters at once, the moderates and the extreme. Paul tries the same thing.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 27, 2011, 02:25:42 PM
Call me crazy but I'm sure this exact thing happened four years ago. A reporter asked him on camera if he like these kind of supporters and without hesitation he said: "No."

And then, when he was asked if he'd return their financial contributions, he talked around it in a circle like he does whenever any of his bizarre views or circumstances come up.

But anyway, the point is, no-one really cares that a primary candidate who doesn't have a chance and gets left out of debates might have ties to White Nationalists and other unsavory right-wing extremist ('08 RP). That is par for course if we're talking about the Republican Party. It DOES matter when the candidate is a front-runner, though. In a way, Paul's not been able to live up to his reputation all that well. The more he gets put under the media spot-light, the more he looks like a very typical politician who just so happens to be more rigid in his positions.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 27, 2011, 02:45:50 PM
I don't understand. So people ignored these issues back in '08 because he had no chance, but now, even if answered or refuted (circling? that's not only unfair but false) those issues somehow have to haunt him again.
To be fair I don't live in the US and don't stay tuned 24/7 to CNN, MSNBC or FOX News (their signal comes here with my Cable), but I don't see the "heat" (on these issues) you're saying that it's making him look "like a very typical politician". Last time I checked he's doing really well, #1 spot and still rising (God, sometimes I miss The Daily Show just to see how Stewart would handle this event.)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 27, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
I don't understand. So people ignored these issues back in '08 because he had no chance, but now, even if answered or refuted (circling? that's not only unfair but false) those issues somehow have to haunt him again.

Of course. Media stations have people whose job it is to dig through candidates' past. They're not gonna waste their time going through candidates' past who they think have no chance of winning anyway. Now that all but one non-Mitts are gone or on their way down, Paul is in the focus and the public gets focused on his skeletons in the closet.

Quote
Last time I checked he's doing really well, #1 spot and still rising (God, sometimes I miss The Daily Show just to see how Stewart would handle this event.)

He is indeed still the front runner in Iowa. The "rising" part comes mostly from Gingrich's support having completely collapsed over the last few days (from 31% to 15% in just a few days); Romney is rising too.
In the national polls Paul is barely over Bachmann and Perry however.

EDIT: Gingrich says if RP gets to be nominated, he wouldn't vote for him: https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/27/gingrich-wouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul/?hpt=hp_t2

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 27, 2011, 03:57:41 PM
That's a fairly typical verbal vomit moment for Gingrich.  He often says really stupid things, which is one (of many) reasons that he will not be the Republican nominee.

 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 27, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
I think he realizes that his star has set, and now he's trying to his remaining influence to help Romney.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on December 27, 2011, 04:03:01 PM
He's going to be the nominee! I mean he said it himself! (https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-tells-abc-news-im-going-to-be-the-nominee) DUHH.


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 28, 2011, 07:21:00 AM
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-maintains-his-lead.html

December 27, 2011
Paul maintains his lead

The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state.  Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats. GOP caucus voters tend to skew old, and Romney has a 34-12 advantage with seniors. But Paul's candidacy looks like it's going to attract an unusual number of younger voters to the caucus this year, and with those under 45 he has a 35-11 advantage on Romney. The independent/young voter combo worked for Barack Obama in securing an unexpectedly large victory on the Democratic side in 2008 and it may be Paul's winning equation in 2012.

Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul's lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul's lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he'll have won this on the ground- 26% of voters think he's run the strongest campaign in the state to 18% for Bachmann and 10% for Santorum with just 5% bestowing that designation to Romney. There's also an increasing sense that Paul will indeed win the state- 29% think he'll emerge victorious with 15% picking Romney and no one else in double digits.

Although Romney's support has held steady at 20% over the last week his favorability numbers have taken a hit, something that could keep him from moving into first place over the final week. He was at +9 (49/40) but has dipped now into negative territory at -3 (44/47). Additionally Romney is the second choice of only 10% of voters, barely better than Paul's 9%. It's certainly still close enough that he could win, but there's nothing within the numbers this week to suggest that he should win. One of Romney's biggest problems continues to be his inability to hold onto his 2008 voters. Only 48% of them are still with him.

In a development that probably no one would have expected a year ago Romney is winning big with regular Fox News viewers, getting 27% to 16% for Gingrich, 15% for Bachmann, and just 12% for Paul. But Paul leads Romney 38-13 with the 48% of likely caucus voters who don't regularly watch Fox News.

Newt Gingrich just keeps on sliding. He's gone from 27% to 22% to 14% to 13% over the course of our four Iowa tracking polls.  His favorability numbers are pretty abysmal now at 37/54 and only 32% of likely voters think that he has strong principles to 45% who believe he does not. Once the darling of Tea Party voters in the state, he's now slipped to third with that group behind Bachmann and Paul.  There's not much reason to think Gingrich can return to his former strong standing in the state in the final week.

Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum continue to all be clustered right around 10%. Santorum actually has the best favorability numbers of any of the candidates at +27 (56/29). He's also the most frequent second choice of voters at 14%.  Whether he can translate any of this into a top 3 finish remains to be seen, but he's someone who would seem to have the potential to grow his support in the final week.

One thing that's hurt Santorum's ability to really make a move is that the Evangelical vote is incredibly fragmented with 6 different candidates getting between 12 and 21%. Paul actually leads the way with that group at 21% to 16% for Romney and Bachmann, 15% for Santorum, 14% for Gingrich, and 12% for Perry.

Bachmann  leads the way with Tea Party voters 24-21 over Paul but the fact that you can be winning Tea Partiers but only in 4th place overall speaks to the diminished power of that movement compared to 2010 within the Republican electorate...only 26% of likely caucus voters consider themselves to be members.

Iowa looks like a 2 person race between Paul and Romney as the campaign enters its final week.  If Paul can really change the electorate by turning out all these young people and independents who don't usually vote in Republican caucuses, he'll win. If turnout ends up looking a little bit more traditional, Romney will probably prevail. And given all the strange twists and turns to this point don't be surprised to see yet another surprise in the final week...and based on the innards of this poll the person best positioned to provide that surprise in the closing stretch is Santorum.

Apparently, digging a two decade old skeleton in a closet hasn't affected him that much. Paul is still leading, Gingrich is plummeting while Mitt Romney is barely maintaining his 20% support - I really don't think he can reach RP by next Tuesday. All I can say is that these are some good GOP elections thus far.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 28, 2011, 06:14:01 PM
Well, the whole article kinda relies mostly on the most recent ARG poll, which is however quite a few days old. Whatever influence the recent attacks on Paul had remains to be seen.
I thought Huckabee (of all people) had an interesting point. The winner of Iowa might be decided by the weather. Weather is good (i.e. above 40 people come out and vote) and Romney comes out on top, weather is bad (die-hard Paulites stand in the rain), Paul wins.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on December 29, 2011, 06:16:11 AM
That "skeleton" will dig at him, even if it doesn't in Iowa. Right now, Paul likes to leave the stage without taking a single question from reporters (https://"https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70919_Page2.html"); no-doubt there are plenty who want to ask him about the newsletters, Lew Rockwell, and so-on. You get to do that when you're a potential winner of one state in a party primary; not when you're a major candidate in a national election.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Tick on December 29, 2011, 06:17:43 AM
Obama is going to have a field day on the Republicans when the time comes based on the fact all he will have to say is...
You couldn't even decide who was best to lead your party, how can you believe he can lead a nation?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 29, 2011, 08:44:53 AM
Obama is going to have a field day on the Republicans when the time comes based on the fact all he will have to say is...
You couldn't even decide who was best to lead your party, how can you believe he can lead a nation?

Eh, that's not much of an attack when you consider that the Democratic primaries in 2008 were just as volatile, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008) if not more so.

His best line of attack against Republicans will be the "do nothing congress (https://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-27/politics/politics_obama-do-nothing-congress_1_debt-ceiling-debate-house-speaker-john-boehner-trillion-in-deficit-reduction?_s=PM:POLITICS)"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ddtonfire on December 30, 2011, 08:28:45 AM
Eh, that's not much of an attack when you consider that the Democratic primaries in 2008 were just as volatile, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008) if not more so.

Yes, four years ago, I was convinced the Democrats couldn't win since their base seemed so divided at the time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 30, 2011, 01:04:58 PM
Eh, that's not much of an attack when you consider that the Democratic primaries in 2008 were just as volatile, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008) if not more so.

Yes, four years ago, I was convinced the Democrats couldn't win since their base seemed so divided at the time.

Right.  And who would have imagined that after such a bitter and heated primary battle that Hillary Clinton would have ended up in the most powerful cabinet position there is?  It seemed unimaginable at the time, but as has often been postulated here and elsewhere, a week in politics is an eternity. 

The Republicans will have their battle, some blood will be spilled, but then at the end they will band together and support their nominee.  And I'll tell you right now, if Mitt Romney is who they nominate, Obama is going to have his work cut out for him getting re-elected.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on December 30, 2011, 01:19:25 PM
Nah, Obama will have a field day with Mitt, and all the endorsements and crazy shit he's said. Mitt supported the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, which failed by 2/3's of the vote, as well as his support for ending public unions in Ohio, which also failed by 2/3's.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on December 30, 2011, 02:12:21 PM
And if he wants to play nasty, all he needs to mention is the word "Mormon" numerous times in his ads.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on December 30, 2011, 04:34:12 PM
https://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-30/iowas-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/

Michael Scheuer Endorses Ron Paul for President

By RonPaul.com on December 30, 2011

Michael Scheuer is the former head of the Bin Laden unit for the CIA. He was with the CIA for 22 years. He quit in disgust after the 9-11 commission report was released. He is the best-selling author of four books on the subject of foreign policy and the Middle East, and he is a painful thorn in the side of the establishment. [Full article in the link above]

It's nice to see this kind of support.  :tup
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on December 30, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
I wasn't surprised at all to see it, he's been a real good spokesman for non-interventionism.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 01, 2012, 07:28:24 AM
From CNN.com
 (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/in-early-book-rep-ron-paul-criticized-aids-patients-minority-rights-and-sexual-harassment-victims/?hpt=hp_bn3)
Quote
In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

Another item in a growing list of reasons why Ron Paul isn't going anywhere as a candidate for president, regardless of where he finishes in Iowa.

His own toxic words are going to eat him alive from the inside out.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 01, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Iowans are getting desperate, now Santorum is surging.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 01, 2012, 01:24:12 PM
Let's wait for the PPP poll to come out tonight.

It's going to be a race between Paul and Romney. I don't think Santorum's going to break the top two.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 01, 2012, 04:06:46 PM
From CNN.com
 (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/in-early-book-rep-ron-paul-criticized-aids-patients-minority-rights-and-sexual-harassment-victims/?hpt=hp_bn3)
Quote
In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

Another item in a growing list of reasons why Ron Paul isn't going anywhere as a candidate for president, regardless of where he finishes in Iowa.

His own toxic words are going to eat him alive from the inside out.

Ya know, this sorta brings up an interesting question in politics: how much are politicians allowed to grow, change, learn, etc? I'm not sure if this necessarily fits this case, but in other cases, it seems like we expect politicians to think the same thing today as they did decades ago. Any change is seen as "flip-flopping," but it's rather unfair in the overall gist of things. In fact, I'd probably be more disturbed if someone didn't change their opinion over thirty years; reminds me of Colbert's Correspondence performance, where he said Bush would think the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 03, 2012, 01:42:55 PM
(https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c276/chknptpie/ObamaWellPlayed.jpg)

Well played Mr. Obama....
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 03, 2012, 03:53:42 PM
:lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm amazed how well RP is doing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
Really? I'm surprised how well Santorum is doing.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 03, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
Really? I'm surprised how well Santorum is doing.

rumborak

I'm not. The media was jerking him off the last few days, can't remember why. But it makes sense, in a way.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 03, 2012, 08:36:16 PM
lol. Ron Paul is doing well. I'm loving it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 08:39:40 PM
He seems to be falling behind though. But, only half of the votes are in so far.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
They haven't even started counting Jefferson county, the only county Paul won on 08. Also nothing in from Scott County - which is Ames, a college campus site.

I can't wait to go to bed, but I know I couldn't sleep - too exciting.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 08:49:35 PM
Ok. Seems like it's over for Paul.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 08:50:28 PM
Yeah, right now it's 4% difference to Santorum.

EDIT: WTF, it jumped from 60% reported to 79%!! Yeah, that will have been it.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 03, 2012, 08:54:24 PM
FUCK!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 08:55:06 PM
Romney came back! 25% right now. Paul is out.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 03, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
Even Santorum's nephew hates his uncle!!!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2012, 09:03:48 PM
Ugh  :facepalm:

Does Romney bring anything to the table other than piles of cash?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 03, 2012, 09:06:06 PM
Only 12 votes of difference!!! What the hell?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 09:06:06 PM
Ugh  :facepalm:

Does Romney bring anything to the table other than piles of cash?

He is the only one IMHO who has a chance to beat Obama.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 09:07:00 PM
I'm smelling a recount :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Pyroph on January 03, 2012, 09:18:43 PM
They haven't even started counting Jefferson county, the only county Paul won on 08. Also nothing in from Scott County - which is Ames, a college campus site.

I can't wait to go to bed, but I know I couldn't sleep - too exciting.

Story county. I'm in Scott county which is the Quad Cities.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 03, 2012, 09:19:29 PM
Holy shit if people at Twitter are ignorant. When Paul said "We're all Austrians now" it was just a gag of Nixon's "We're all Keynesians now." Twitter retarded folks thinks he means Austrian citizens. :lol Idiots.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 09:20:49 PM
This is ridiculous. Romney is 13 votes ahead! :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 09:33:53 PM
Man. 5.30 AM

On to New Hampshire. I'm hoping for Huntsman to surge in the last week like Santorum did, only that Huntsman takes votes from Romney, leaving RP unchanged. RP has a shot to do in South Carolina what he did in Iowa.

But it's looking more and more like the inevitable Romney nomination and the thus the inevitable reelection of Obama.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 03, 2012, 09:36:13 PM
Ugh  :facepalm:

Does Romney bring anything to the table other than piles of cash?

He is the only one IMHO who has a chance to beat Obama.

rumborak

Really? I can't think of a reason he might outright lose to him, but I can't think of any sort of upper hand on his part aside from the cash. And cash really only votes so far.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 09:43:16 PM
People are too stupid to understand all of Paul's positions, but he has a shot vs Obama because of independents and disgruntled progressives on civil liberties and foreign policy.

Romney would lose, he's just a weak flip flopper.

Huntsman is the only candidate who has a good shot at it, but he's too moderate for the base.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 09:44:56 PM
People are too stupid to understand all of Paul's positions,

That must be it  :\

RP would have zero chance against Obama, sorry.

On to New Hampshire.

Do you really think anybody but Romney will win NH? He was the governor of Massachusetts, and there's a lot of MA Republicans who live in Southern NH. He's going at 41% in the current polls.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 10:05:35 PM
It's going to be a LOT closer than it looks now. That's all I'm going to say. Santorum and Huntsman are going to come from behind, RP will end @ about 20% in NH too, Romney maybe at 27.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 10:09:11 PM
I very much doubt that prediction. NH isn't chock full of evangelicals like Iowa is, and Romney was quite a popular governor in MA for the Republicans. That doesn't just go away.
Regarding RP, my prediction is that his star is setting soon. I think this was his peak. Had he won he could have extended his momentum, but the conclusion here was that it was between Romney and Santorum.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 10:16:55 PM
Maybe I'm just being fed what I want, but this article just popped up:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 10:19:58 PM
Errr .... am I understanding this article correctly in that it suggests RP volunteers are planning to go against the will of Iowa and try to subvert the process by secretly becoming delegates in the RNC and then voting for RP in the actual nomination?
If he actually tried that and somebody could prove it, it would be the immediate end of RP.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 03, 2012, 10:24:09 PM
A "recount" is certainly on tonight's menu.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 10:27:36 PM
Well. It's well within the realms of the delegate process, it's about depth of support really.

You may see it as undemocratic, and the caucus system really confuses me and is a bit undemocratic, but it's the way it is.

Ron Paul may as well end up with an unproprtionally large number of delegates.

edit:
"Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally."
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 10:29:54 PM
Well. It's well within the realms of the delegate process, it's about depth of support really.

You may see it as undemocratic, and the caucus system really confuses me and is a bit undemocratic, but it's the way it is.

Ron Paul may as well end up with an unproprtionally large number of delegates.

Your statement right there pretty much cements my belief of what's wrong with RP's base. I mean, you'd be plain willing to override the public vote just to have it your way.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 10:30:43 PM
Jeez, 98%, and now Romney is back on top :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 10:34:25 PM
Well. It's well within the realms of the delegate process, it's about depth of support really.

You may see it as undemocratic, and the caucus system really confuses me and is a bit undemocratic, but it's the way it is.

Ron Paul may as well end up with an unproprtionally large number of delegates.

Your statement right there pretty much cements my belief of what's wrong with RP's base. I mean, you'd be plain willing to override the public vote just to have it your way.

rumborak

The caucus system is designed for this, it's for depth of support. Primary states speaks more about breadth of support. This is how the game is played.

It's either play, or get played.


Now 5 votes between frothy and mittens.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 03, 2012, 10:38:00 PM
Just 5 votes, absolutely insane.

I know this is somewhat unrelated? But does anyone know offhand how large a difference the popular and electoral vote count was between George Bush and Gore back in '00?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 03, 2012, 10:39:45 PM
@jsem: Sorry,but sticking around the longest after the event does not qualify you to override thousands of people's faithful vote. The fact that you seriously suggest this is nothing but disturbing.But, as you said, people are apparently too stupid to understand RP's policies, so I guess their votes don't really count.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 03, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
But what are you supposed to do, play nice even though you could play rough WITHIN the rules? People ought to understand how the caucus process works, this is about ORGANIZATION on the behalf of the campaign and DEPTH OF SUPPORT. This is more about getting out the vote, it's also about getting the voters to stay around and be active in being delegates.

That being said, I seriously don't understand the stupidity of the caucus process, and the delegate process altogether, and why some states are first and the last states have almost no say in choosing their nominee - it's a stupid voting process as a whole. Primaries like New Hampshire are much fairer imo. I'm saying that I don't agree with the game, but when you're in it you've gotta play the way it CAN be - and it's completely within the rules.

STILL: The caucus straw vote is more about creating momentum, the delegates are awarded in March or something.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 04, 2012, 12:25:01 AM
I'm smelling a recount :lol

rumborak

Is it winner take all? I know some aren't, but I don't know what Iowa does.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 04, 2012, 04:00:46 AM
Nah, it's all proportionate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 04, 2012, 06:25:50 AM
It's non-binding as well I believe, so delegates aren't forced to vote for a certain candidate.

RP will end @ about 20% in NH too
I wouldn't be surprised if RP did pretty well in NH. Romney will get the first spot, but I'd predict Paul will get #2. We have a lot of anti-government people in NH. But the more populated areas are very close to Mass. and many of them commute to work in Mass., so I think Romney will have little problem winning.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 04, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Just freaking 8 votes of difference. Wow.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 04, 2012, 06:45:33 AM
NH is the Live Free or Die state.

Also home to the Free State project.

Paul is going to do very well.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Perpetual Change on January 04, 2012, 07:10:24 AM
I don't get why NH is such a big primary state. Isn't it going to go liberal, anyway?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: PlaysLikeMyung on January 04, 2012, 07:35:52 AM
I fear for this country if Ron Paul is even CLOSE to getting the nomination.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Blackfield on January 04, 2012, 07:49:14 AM
Why?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 07:55:06 AM
Why?

While, idealistically, he's very attractive for voters, the fact is that he probably wouldn't beat Obama. Even if he did, he wouldn't get anything passed that he wants to do. No one in Congress would ever vote in favor of some of his ideas, and we'd have a stagnant office and a wasted 4 years.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 04, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2012, 08:20:50 AM
I think Paul would do alright in a general election.  I don't think anybody they pick is really going to energize the base,  and RP certainly won't.  The difference is that RP can get a ton of independent support that Romney or Santorum can't.  There are plenty of people like me who would generally support the democrat but think that Obama is a worthless pile of dog-doo.  While I wouldn't vote for an establishment Republican,  I would vote for one with an independent streak like Paul.  I'm starting to think the votes gained from independents might be greater than the votes lost by apathetic republicans should Paul get the nomination. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 04, 2012, 08:52:34 AM
I don't get why NH is such a big primary state. Isn't it going to go liberal, anyway?
Not necessarily. They don't seem to vote consistently one party or the other. But they're only 4 electoral votes anyway, which is pretty much negligible. NH is a big primary state because they're the second primary, that's it. There's really no significance to the state otherwise. I'm sure they have an early primary just so they matter for a while.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 09:10:17 AM
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.

Eh, it's plenty true. Someone has to pay for their re-elections. Those people like government money or money created by government programs/regulations etc.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: wasteland on January 04, 2012, 09:21:58 AM
I can't undestand how anyone would wish to support a politician who thinks of admitting the existence of evolution or not denying the global warming as a reproachful act.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 04, 2012, 09:35:27 AM
Well, Santorum made it closer than I thought, but as I suspected Romney wins.  I think Romney will do even better in NH, but not a LOT better.  Ron Paul will probably be gone by or right after Super Tuesday.    The only question that remains is will he mount a disgruntled independent challenge, effectively ensuring an Obama victory in the General Election or will he simply take his ball and go home? 

Bachmann will probably announce that she's out this week.  Maybe even today.

Huntsman is the wild card in NH.  Did his strategy pay off? 

None of this matters much anyway, since it's Romney's turn.  He'll be the nominee.  And the general election will be one of the closest in history.

Obama's problem is obvious.  The highly motivated youth vote that propelled him to victory in 2008 are all pretty much disgusted with him.  Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to make this election very close.  I still say 50/50 shot -at best- for Obama....the only way that improves between now and November is if we get some fairly dramatic GOOD NEWS about the economy between now and then.  With home prices still going down, that seems unlikely.


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 04, 2012, 09:56:21 AM
I can't undestand how anyone would wish to support a politician who thinks of admitting the existence of evolution or not denying the global warming as a reproachful act.
I can't understand how anyone would wish to support a politician who's secret drone wars kill innocent men, women, and children - Someone who supports the assassination of American citizens abroad and has codified into law the ability of the government to indefinitely detain US citizens. 

It's easy to play this game; I could go on for days. I don't mean to trivialize very reasonable and logical concerns with someone like Paul's positions, but frankly, I'd like for the rule of law to be somewhat re-established before addressing that stuff.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 04, 2012, 10:09:26 AM
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.

Eh, it's plenty true. Someone has to pay for their re-elections. Those people like government money or money created by government programs/regulations etc.

What government money? Donors are primarily corporate or private.

I can't undestand how anyone would wish to support a politician who thinks of admitting the existence of evolution or not denying the global warming as a reproachful act.
I can't understand how anyone would wish to support a politician who's secret drone wars kill innocent men, women, and children - Someone who supports the assassination of American citizens abroad and has codified into law the ability of the government to indefinitely detain US citizens. 

It's easy to play this game; I could go on for days. I don't mean to trivialize very reasonable and logical concerns with someone like Paul's positions, but frankly, I'd like for the rule of law to be somewhat re-established before addressing that stuff.



I hate to say it, but problems like global warming are a much more time sensitive issue. Social and political justice is a ticking time bomb only in the sense that the failure to secure either *may* spark violent backlash, and the effects of that will be very localized.

I know I sound like I'm trivializing the very important issue of justice, but we should probably try to prevent millions from dying from cataclysmic environmental reactions and potential extinction of life on Earth first, and deal with questions like those later.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 04, 2012, 10:18:25 AM
I know you're just piggybacking on sensationalist posts, but do you really think things will be THAT much worse on the climate change front with four years of Paul? From what I gather things aren't so great right now anyway.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 04, 2012, 10:23:44 AM
Obama may not be taking us forward, but the Republican agenda so far has been going backward. End the EPA and all that nonsense.

Anyway, sorry about that tirade. I wrote it fresh out of editing a policy paper. It may be more accurate to say that the longer we wait, the harder it will be to make the necessary changes to avoid both a human and economic catastrophe, here as well as abroad. The point is climate change mitigation is a much more time-critical issue, in that there is such a thing as 'too late.'
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 10:25:21 AM
That's not true at all; Paul loves the idea of cutting spending and government, and so does the Republican establishment. The reason they dislike him is because he's not an establishment Republican.

Eh, it's plenty true. Someone has to pay for their re-elections. Those people like government money or money created by government programs/regulations etc.

What government money? Donors are primarily corporate or private.


I'm pretty sure BP backs candidates that are going to make oil regulations less rigid allowing BP to make more money. Things of that nature.


/imnotsayingallpoliticiansareboughtoffbutthereareenoughwhoaretomakeadifference
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 04, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 01:07:00 PM
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).

Democrats are just as bad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 04, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).

Democrats are just as bad.

Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Republicans don't need government money, they get plenty in corporate funds (not to say Democrats don't as well, but that's why Republicans don't sweat the smaller government thing).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 04, 2012, 01:51:56 PM
Ron Paul will probably be gone by or right after Super Tuesday.    The only question that remains is will he mount a disgruntled independent challenge, effectively ensuring an Obama victory in the General Election or will he simply take his ball and go home?

Yeah, it'll be interesting. A lot of disillusioned teenagers will be the result.

Quote
Bachmann will probably announce that she's out this week.  Maybe even today.

Yup, she's out. Even though she still said yesterday she'd stay in the race.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
Yup, she's out. Even though she still said yesterday she'd stay in the race.

rumborak


As a conservative, this is how I feel about her dropping out :

(https://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/tumblr_lgqwsbEa891qfjmnk.gif)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 04, 2012, 02:02:02 PM
As a liberal, this is how I feel about her dropping out :

(https://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/tumblr_lgqwsbEa891qfjmnk.gif)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 04, 2012, 02:02:50 PM
As a human being, this is how I feel about her dropping out :

(https://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/tumblr_lgqwsbEa891qfjmnk.gif)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 04, 2012, 02:06:08 PM
I'm all fucking warm and fuzzy right now  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 02:10:24 PM
Whenever she started talking during the debates  this is what would happen in my house:

I'd start drinking my beer (you need 2-3 for the debates regardless of Bachman) and looking at my phone
My mom would hit mute and look at her phone and glance up to see if she's shut up yet
My dad would start reading his book


Every time.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 04, 2012, 02:18:31 PM
That would be due to the fact that she's dumber than a bag full of hammers  :lol

And the worst part is, EVERYONE - I think even the people who elected her - know it!  :lol

And it's got NOTHING to do with her ideology.  She's just an idiot.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: snapple on January 04, 2012, 02:22:19 PM
And it's got NOTHING to do with her ideology.  She's just an idiot.

:clap: POTYAY

(post of the year, any year)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 04, 2012, 03:38:32 PM
I am still stunned that there were 2 counties in which Perry won. WTF. It's also interesting to see how Romney allured to the city folks, whereas Santorum was more popular in rural areas.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 04, 2012, 04:14:40 PM
According to AP, Romney gets 13 delegates, Santorum gets 12, the rest get 0.

Apparently, Paul supporters didn't win the delegate process in any of the congressional districts or something.

Just a projection though, not official yet.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 04, 2012, 10:36:25 PM
I think Paul would do alright in a general election.  I don't think anybody they pick is really going to energize the base,  and RP certainly won't.  The difference is that RP can get a ton of independent support that Romney or Santorum can't.  There are plenty of people like me who would generally support the democrat but think that Obama is a worthless pile of dog-doo.  While I wouldn't vote for an establishment Republican,  I would vote for one with an independent streak like Paul.  I'm starting to think the votes gained from independents might be greater than the votes lost by apathetic republicans should Paul get the nomination.

If the prospect of a Ron Paul and a Democratic Congress was possible, then I think more might get done than with any other options. Our foreign policy would at least change, and I sorta wonder if he would just stop enforcing the drug war. I mean, he could pardon every drug offender in the country. Democrats wouldn't do away with the welfare aspects, but I honestly think if the President pushed for this, they wouldn't really push back too much.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 05, 2012, 06:31:17 AM
A lot of laws have been written with executive orders too. If he disagrees with them, he'll just repeal them with another executive order.

He wants laws to be passed by the legislative branch, so he'd undo a LOT of what many previous administrations have done.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 05, 2012, 05:17:26 PM
Btw, just to clear things up, the last "this" of my last post was meant to refer to the Wars and the Drug War, not welfare, as it would imply.

He wants laws to be passed by the legislative branch, so he'd undo a LOT of what many previous administrations have done.

Well, it'd be lot trickier than simply undoing them.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 07, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
Scheavo, I heard you talking about RP @ corporate personhood some while back:

"The corporation itself isn't a person, only we as individuals are"
- RP @ University of New Hampshire Town Hall


But substantively, Paul doesn't favor campaign finance reform. I think he'd be in favor of full transparency of who's donating, but can't tell for sure.

It's a sad thing. Public finance isn't perfect, but might actually be better than the current system in the US. Sweden's system of elections totally protects the status quo, the unions have a stranglehold over the political situation, and the only possible changes are really minor in the steps toward freedom. The corruption in terms of corporate influence is MUCH less though, you don't have lobbyists flocking Stockholm. Public finance would be a net benefit to the US election system.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 07, 2012, 04:46:21 PM
RP's quote doesn't really answer the question.

If there was a small donation limit to campaign contribution, and require that such contributions come from a single person, and not a corporation, I'd be fine. You're going to have to build somewhat of a base to campaign, you can't go to a few people, get money, and get famous by running a few TV ads.

Also,

Buddy Roehmer.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

4th video down.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 07, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 07, 2012, 06:27:25 PM
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak

Why not just limit the money, and then let that dictate the amount of time they can run? Trying to set the amount of time seems weird to me, especially considering it still wouldn't deal with corruption in the political system.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kingshmegland on January 08, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak

Why not just limit the money, and then let that dictate the amount of time they can run? Trying to set the amount of time seems weird to me, especially considering it still wouldn't deal with corruption in the political system.

This is the right call.  In the end we lessen the payola the candidates take in.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 08:54:32 AM
I'll take it one step further and say that limiting the TIME to campaign could even encourage more corruption because then you've got an even more intense race to come up with as much money as possible to outspend your opponents.  Cut the head off the beast.  The money is the head, not the time. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 09:10:28 AM
The problem with making it money-based is, the value of money changes, the value of time doesn't. So, you'd be in a constant battle over how much money is an appropriate amount, over and over again, just like Congress salary increases. When going by time, that wouldn't be an issue.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 11:49:03 AM
So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 12:20:06 PM
The problem with making it money-based is, the value of money changes, the value of time doesn't. So, you'd be in a constant battle over how much money is an appropriate amount, over and over again, just like Congress salary increases. When going by time, that wouldn't be an issue.

rumborak

Nah, just weight it on the inflation rate like they do with welfare. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 12:26:15 PM
So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak

My best guess based on the most current polling trends (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) is Gingrich and Perry will be out, probably after Florida.  Romney will lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday, most likely.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 12:33:26 PM
Wow, hadn't seen the Gingrich dip in SC yet in the polls. Yeah, that was it for him. No candidate has managed to recover from a dip so far.
It's interesting how Paul just trudges on with his 10-20% in the various states, despite the massive fluctuations of the other candidates. He really polarizes people; either pople stand to him no matter what, or they consider him patently unelectable. Unless he manages to generate major momentum soon, I think Florida and SC will break his back though. In both states he's not exceeding 10%.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 09, 2012, 12:37:49 PM
So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak

Actually, Huntsman's getting more coverage and attention lately - even negative ads against him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 12:40:14 PM
Seriously, I would LOVE to see a Huntsman vs. Obama race. Because that would force the two to discuss REAL issues, not bullshit like wars on religion and who has experienced more trauma in some war (what a dick-waving contest that was in the debate!)

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 09, 2012, 12:50:11 PM
I think their history would probably make it more of a topic of real issues than anything else. Obama never really went off on McCain like he could have last time, he tried to keep it on more real issues, and Huntsman seems like someone who has the same desire. I think they have a good relationship, which would also go a long ways too.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM
They seem pretty similar to me, actually.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 01:06:27 PM
Wow, hadn't seen the Gingrich dip in SC yet in the polls. Yeah, that was it for him. No candidate has managed to recover from a dip so far.
It's interesting how Paul just trudges on with his 10-20% in the various states, despite the massive fluctuations of the other candidates. He really polarizes people; either pople stand to him no matter what, or they consider him patently unelectable. Unless he manages to generate major momentum soon, I think Florida and SC will break his back though. In both states he's not exceeding 10%.

rumborak

I never really thought Gingrich would get as much steam as he did.  Way too much personal baggage.  Remember, this is a guy who paid a $300k fine and resigned as Speaker of the House under a fairly substantial ethics violation cloud.  A guy like that just isn't going to get too far in an election.  He did OK for a while in Iowa, I think, on his name recognition and early debate performances, but once the attack ads were rolled out by the pro-Romney PACs and people started either remembering (or being told about) how corrupt he actually was when he held office, his numbers took a nose dive and they've never recovered, and I don't think they will.  His days are numbered.  Huntsman never had a chance.  Perry self-destructed with his "oops moment" combined with 3 consecutive terrible debate performances and Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.  He's unelectable at this level, he always has been.  He IS a *slight* wild card because I think with this being his final realistic shot at higher office, he could (25% chance I'd say) launch an independent bid for the White House as a way of saying "Fuck You" to the Republican establishment for never giving him his shot.  If he does that, he ensures an Obama victory and I just don't know if he's quite that bitter and vindictive.....possible, bot not probable.

Mitt Romney's the nominee and if the DNC or Obama fumbles, even just a little bit, Romney's the next president.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 09, 2012, 01:27:22 PM
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 09, 2012, 01:47:42 PM
There are only three things that prevent me from supporting Huntsman. These are his stances on abortion, support for the Keystone XL pipeline, and his bid to reduce corporate taxes. Otherwise I might have even chosen him over Obama.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 09, 2012, 01:49:36 PM
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.
Yep, this is going to be just like 2004. A president ready for defeat, but the other party couldn't come up with a good candidate. For the record, I don't think Romney is too bad, but is anyone out there really all that excited about him? I like that he's moderate, but beyond that there's not much to get excited about.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 01:50:05 PM
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

They? Who is "They?"

Romney is a formidable opponent.  And Obama hasn't exactly been the rock star as President Obama as he was as Candidate Obama.  Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to hurt him and his support among independents as well as progressives has slid.

If it comes down to Obama or Romney I definitely want Obama to win but it's certainly not going to be the cakewalk on easy street that some people are making it out to be.  Not against Romney.

Here's the current polling (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) in a General Election match-up.  Well within the margin of error.  It's basically a tie at this point.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
I think whatever goes down this year will easily decide the election. If for example the economy continues to pick up (and not just the occasional slight updrift), Obama will look good. If Iran goes apeshit, Romney will be favored.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 02:10:15 PM
I think whatever goes down this year will easily decide the election. If for example the economy continues to pick up (and not just the occasional slight updrift), Obama will look good. If Iran goes apeshit, Romney will be favored.

rumborak

I agree with that.  In fact, I think the economy is one place where Obama may have an edge now, because it appears to have bottomed out and things are picking up again.  I also think the "Iran threat" has been massively overblown and overhyped by the neocon wing of the Republican party.  I'd say at this point the election may even be Obama's to lose, but he hasn't shown me anything in the last 4 years that make me very confident, with a couple of rare exceptions like the auto-industry bail out.  I also think the he's done "OK" on foreign policy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 02:36:29 PM
Holy crap, what a bad wording. Romney says he "like being able to fire people":

https://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-says-like-being-able-fire-people-new-hampshire-event/DSLNx9xGGR7KhEiyXEHVJI/index.html?p1=News_links

Obama definitely had his DVR running on that one.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 09, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

They? Who is "They?"

Romney is a formidable opponent.  And Obama hasn't exactly been the rock star as President Obama as he was as Candidate Obama.  Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to hurt him and his support among independents as well as progressives has slid.

If it comes down to Obama or Romney I definitely want Obama to win but it's certainly not going to be the cakewalk on easy street that some people are making it out to be.  Not against Romney.

Here's the current polling (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) in a General Election match-up.  Well within the margin of error.  It's basically a tie at this point.
The republicans. They can't rally enthusiastically between anyone. The only reason Romney is leading is because of his supposed "electability".

Obama would DESTROY Romney, and quite frankly, all other candidates but Huntsman. Or perhaps Roemer.
Paul is a different story, there's no telling what would happen - but the GOP cannot go on without his base, they're here to stay.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 03:19:23 PM
jsem, if you think Obama would destroy Romney, he would OBLITERATE Paul. Paul looks good against the backdrop of obscenely bizarre GOP candidates. When compared to a moderate candidate like Obama, he would come across as that "crazy neighbor", as somebody referred to him today in a video of NH residents' reactions.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: pogoowner on January 09, 2012, 03:26:08 PM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 09, 2012, 03:26:39 PM
Holy crap, what a bad wording. Romney says he "like being able to fire people":

https://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-says-like-being-able-fire-people-new-hampshire-event/DSLNx9xGGR7KhEiyXEHVJI/index.html?p1=News_links

Obama definitely had his DVR running on that one.

rumborak

In terms of context, he likes to be able to choose his services, but yes very bad wording indeed!

Also this:

Quote
When Kushner held an impromptu news conference after the event had finished, the Romney campaign instructed the individual operating the music to increase the volume to a decibel so loud, nobody could hear the woman speak.
https://news.yahoo.com/romney-likes-being-able-fire-people-174752665--abc-news.html
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 09, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
It will happen, mark my words.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on January 09, 2012, 04:58:52 PM
What's POTUS?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 04:59:37 PM
President of the US
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on January 09, 2012, 10:45:31 PM
Wow, I'm bad with acronyms.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Gorille85 on January 10, 2012, 12:52:36 AM
The end is near.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 10, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
It will happen, mark my words.

 :lol   
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 10, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
Yeah. Laugh all you want.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 10, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
Rand Paul is an idiot.  And that's probably an insult to idiots.  He'll never be president, just like his father will never be president.   He'll pick up the mantle of his whacky father's ideas, and maybe, like his father, he'll run for president a few times.  But, like his father, he'll never get any more than maybe 15% of the vote, because (like his father) he believes in stuff that's just never going to appeal to the mainstream in this country. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 10, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
And whoever said that thing about the "crazy neighbor" views was right.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 10, 2012, 12:16:09 PM
One thing I found rather humorous is how apparently at RP rallies, people break into "Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul" chants. Not a discredit to the profession, but he's a physician, for crying out loud.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 10, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
One thing I found rather humorous is how apparently at RP rallies, people break into "Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul" chants. Not a discredit to the profession, but he's a physician, for crying out loud.

rumborak

It's interesting.  At a few other places I post we've been discussing the election and the PaulbotsTM almost always refer to him as "Dr. Paul" as if it makes him a superior candidate.  Mostly, it comes off as sort of smug and elitist.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 10, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 10, 2012, 09:08:05 PM
So, I guess Roemer and Perry are out. 0% and 1%, respectively.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 10, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Roamer never stood a shot in hell, which is sad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on January 10, 2012, 10:03:49 PM
It's disappointing that Romney did as well as he did. The guy is such a slimy fuck. I was really hoping he wouldn't crack 35% tonight. I was also hoping Huntsman would hit at least 20%.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Jamariquay on January 10, 2012, 11:05:31 PM
The question from here isn't "Will Romney win?" but rather, "Who will Romney pick for his running mate?"

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: The King in Crimson on January 11, 2012, 12:11:56 AM
I guess I should thank Republican voters for not voting for someone that is batshit crazy, but it's Mitt Romney, so it feels kinda hollow, like thanking someone for taking a shit in your sink as opposed to shitting in your microwave.

Also, I listened to his winning speech on NPR on the way home from work. Totally sounds like he's already the Republican nominee. I mean, granted, he pretty much is but still , kinda funny how he's jumping the gun.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 11, 2012, 04:57:55 AM
Perry is not out, he's pulling out all the stops in South Carolina.

Expect a Perry uprising, he's going to be the Santorum/Huntsman of South Carolina.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 11, 2012, 07:48:41 AM
Well, he better get rolling then, so far the polls show him at 5%.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2012, 08:23:00 AM
As I understand it the GOP in S.C.  is dominated by the religious whack-jobs that fawn over the Perry types.  I suspect Romney will win again,  but Santorum, and to a lesser extent Perry, will do much better there.  This is where Romney's "cult" membership will hurt him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 11, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
Here's the current polling in South Carolina  (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)

No way Perry's going to climb out of that hole in 10 days.  Although, it is true that the Evangelical vote in South Carolina is quite strong and Perry has a lot more money and resources than Santorum.  Watch for Rick Perry to go after Santorum and Gingrich in a bid for third place.  Ron Paul.....eh.....he'll probably come in third or fourth.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 11, 2012, 11:04:03 AM
BTW, what's that talk about RP's potential bid as an independent if the GOP nomination doesn't work out? It would seem to me the public perception of such a move would come across as "someone who wants it too badly and can't take No for an answer".

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 11, 2012, 11:17:25 AM
It would also come across as someone who actually wants a second term from Obama.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 11, 2012, 11:33:49 AM
Well alright then, I say have at it!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 11, 2012, 11:49:22 AM
If running as an independent would somehow get him into a televised debate with Romney and Obama I would be all for it. I think that could be extremely beneficial to public discourse.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 11, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
It would also come across as someone who actually wants a second term from Obama.

Considering that the current general election polling projections (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) put Romney and Obama in a statistical tie, I think it can be confidently articulated that an independent bid by ANYONE who siphons votes from the Conservative voting contingent in this country would practically guarantee Obama a second term.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 11, 2012, 12:39:46 PM
Here's the current polling in South Carolina  (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)

No way Perry's going to climb out of that hole in 10 days.  Although, it is true that the Evangelical vote in South Carolina is quite strong and Perry has a lot more money and resources than Santorum.  Watch for Rick Perry to go after Santorum and Gingrich in a bid for third place.  Ron Paul.....eh.....he'll probably come in third or fourth.


Santorum was polling dead last a week before the caucus. Jon Huntsman was polling at about 10% a week ago, ended up 18%.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 11, 2012, 12:56:18 PM
Here's the current polling in South Carolina  (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)

No way Perry's going to climb out of that hole in 10 days.  Although, it is true that the Evangelical vote in South Carolina is quite strong and Perry has a lot more money and resources than Santorum.  Watch for Rick Perry to go after Santorum and Gingrich in a bid for third place.  Ron Paul.....eh.....he'll probably come in third or fourth.


Santorum was polling dead last a week before the caucus. Jon Huntsman was polling at about 10% a week ago, ended up 18%.

No, he wasn't.  On December 29th - 6 days (also known as one day less than a week) prior to the caucus he was polling in third place at 16% (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 11, 2012, 01:59:44 PM
True. 1½ week before though. He started surging right after Christmas.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on January 11, 2012, 08:56:09 PM
I really wish that newsletter stuff hadn't come up pre-Iowa, because Ron Paul winning Iowa really could have shaken things up. Now, I haven't really been a Ron Paul fan since I went through a bit of a phase back in early 2008, but at least the man has a few good policy positions, and seems very genuine. Romney, again, is a slimy fuck who will take whatever position he needs to to win. He embodies so many things that are wrong with American politics.

I'm rooting for Obama to win a second term, but would really like him to have an opponent who isn't completely terrible. Here's hoping Huntsman is able to build some name recognition this time around and does well in 2016.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 12, 2012, 11:57:32 AM
I hear you loud and clear, TL, and I agree about Romney.  He's like a used car salesman on steroids.

It's easy to tell when he's lying.  Just look at his lips.  If they're moving, he's lying.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 12, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
Meanwhile, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are stepping in it by violating Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment "thou shalt not attack another Republican" by going after Romney (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/perry-donor-defects-to-romney-citing-bain-attacks/) for the work he did with Bain Capital.  I've always thought that was a bad strategy.  Bain Capital is actually a very, very well respected company in the business community and they give generously to lots and lots of charities.   
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Meanwhile, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are stepping in it by violating Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment "thou shalt not attack another Republican" by going after Romney (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/perry-donor-defects-to-romney-citing-bain-attacks/) for the work he did with Bain Capital.  I've always thought that was a bad strategy. Bain Capital is actually a very, very well respected company in the business community and they give generously to lots and lots of charities.

I love Republicans.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 12, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
Colbert 2012
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 13, 2012, 08:14:56 AM
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/uplaugh.gif)

What's funniest about that is he's probably the best candidate in the entire field

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 13, 2012, 09:31:03 AM
In all complete and utter honesty, I would vote for him over any of the Republicans running.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 13, 2012, 10:34:17 AM
I mean frankly that's not such a hard choice.

Anyway, lol of the day: according to Paul Krugman, Romney defended his actions at Bain Capital by likening it to Obama's auto industry bailout, a presidential act he had previously condemned. I can't find another article atm confirming this, but still lol.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: GuineaPig on January 13, 2012, 10:46:39 AM
lolamericanpolitics (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16549624)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 13, 2012, 11:20:59 AM
I mean frankly that's not such a hard choice.

Anyway, lol of the day: according to Paul Krugman, Romney defended his actions at Bain Capital by likening it to Obama's auto industry bailout, a presidential act he had previously condemned. I can't find another article atm confirming this, but still lol.

Just read it (https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/romney-and-the-bailout/) a little while ago.  It was LOLtastic.  :lol

This is the actual quote from Romney:

“In the general election, I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers. He did it to try to save the business,” Romney said on “CBS This Morning.” “We … had, on occasion, to do things that are tough to try to save a business.”

And this was Mitt Romney's opinion (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/181102/bad-worse/mitt-romney) of the auto industry bail out when Obama proposed it.


He really ought to shut his hole pretty soon or Obama IS going to landslide him.   Don't his handlers vet this stuff?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 13, 2012, 11:30:20 AM
Obama didn't bail out the auto industry? That was George W., Obama just had to deal with the aftermath.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 13, 2012, 11:32:05 AM
No no, Obama did in 2010. It was the move that got my best friend to finally like Obama. :lol

It may be a different presidential act from the one you were thinking of.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 13, 2012, 11:33:49 AM
Not the way I remember it happening... Goerge W. gave the bailout, then Obama basically had to structure how that bailout would work, and made sure that the auto companies were using that money appropriately. I guess you could say Obama "bailed" them out with his plan, but it wasn't a choice he truly made going into office.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 13, 2012, 11:37:27 AM
Oh, that could be. My bad.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 13, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
I've noticed a lot of people have merged the end of Bush's economic policies with Obama's. Obama gets blamed by a lot of people for bailing out Wallstreet (LOL) and the auto-company (LOL), when both were provisions enacted Bush. Bush went to Congress and tried to get an official bail out of the auto-industry, got denied, so he used TARP funds to get his way.

But it's Obama's fault, cause he's a socialist ya know.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 13, 2012, 11:46:09 AM
For the record, before I knew that I kinda liked that it was Obama who bailed out the auto industry. :p

Ya know, with me being into global warming and all that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 13, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
Eh, I think the money would have been better spent buying hybrid / electric vehicles for the government fleet. Go to Tesla, work out a contract with them for some cars. That'd provide jobs, and not just prop up a shitty industry.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 13, 2012, 12:40:44 PM
I think we're doing that this year or next anyway, aren't we? I think Obama mentioned something along those lines when he went to Georgetown last year.

And the point of propping up that shitty industry (and indeed I agree with you there fully) is to get them on our side, so to speak. We bailed you out, now go make us some green cars.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: AcidLameLTE on January 13, 2012, 03:05:30 PM
lolamericanpolitics (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16549624)
I just came in here to post that article.

Crazy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 13, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
What kind of campaigns are those guys running?!

https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/virginia-gop-primary-ballot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich are not on the Virginia ballot.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 13, 2012, 05:26:42 PM
Well, more of how Obama's gonna run is coming out:

https://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/01/13/obama-jumps-on-romney/


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 14, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
So Steven Colbert was getting more poll votes than John Huntsman early in the week... so he has now announced that he is running for President in South Carolina since people already seemed to be writing him in :rollin

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/01/13/stephen-colbert-announces-run-in-south-carolina-presidential-primary-hands-pac/?test=faces
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 14, 2012, 11:53:44 AM
Oh man that Colbert crap is hilarious.

If liberals can just rally around him, he could potentially win South Carolina because it's an open primary.

That would be HILARIOUS.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 14, 2012, 06:05:45 PM
Oh man that Colbert crap is hilarious.

If liberals can just rally around him, he could potentially win South Carolina because it's an open primary.

That would be HILARIOUS.

Except for the one fatal flaw: you can't write in candidates in South Carolina.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 15, 2012, 06:00:52 AM
You mean he's not on the ballot?

It should be for more than just the show.. he should've been on the ballot.

Btw, the Colbert Super Pac just released an attack ad on Mitt Romney.
https://colbertsuperpac.com/ (https://colbertsuperpac.com/)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 15, 2012, 09:39:21 AM
 :rollin holy crap at that ad! and awesome John Lithgow!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: The King in Crimson on January 15, 2012, 09:49:52 AM
That was hilarious.  :lol

If nothing else, I hope the existence of the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super Pac brings to light the sheer idiocy of the Super Pac in general.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 15, 2012, 01:35:55 PM
You mean he's not on the ballot?

The ONLY people on the ballot in South Carolina are Romney and Paul. I mean, the amount of coverage this doesn't exist makes me think that this isn't the case in primaries, or there's some exception, or there's a loophole, or something. Probably though, people just assume you can write in a candidate, becuase why the fuck can't you write in a candidate in a democracy? Maybe if we voted for parties, but we don't.

*edit*

Oh, and so it's clear, I think it's great what Colbert and Stewart are doing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 15, 2012, 02:11:05 PM
Holy shit, Rick Perry! 

Quote
Perry: Marines in video are 'kids,' not criminals

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press – 56 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry on Sunday accused the Obama administration of "over-the-top rhetoric" and "disdain for the military" in its condemnation of a video that purportedly shows four Marines urinating on corpses in Afghanistan.

Perry's comments put him at odds with Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said the images could damage the war effort.

"The Marine Corps prides itself that we don't lower ourselves to the level of the enemy," McCain said when asked about Perry's position. "So it makes me sad more than anything else, because ... I can't tell you how wonderful these people (Marines) are. And it hurts their reputation and their image."

No one has been charged in the case, but officials in the U.S. and abroad have called for swift punishment of the four Marines. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week that he worried the video could be used by the Taliban to undermine peace talks.

A military criminal investigation and an internal Marine Corps review are under way. The Geneva Conventions forbid the desecration of the dead.

Texas Gov. Perry said the Marines involved should be reprimanded but not prosecuted on criminal charges.

"Obviously, 18-, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often. And that's what's occurred here," Perry told CNN's "State of the Union."

He later added: "What's really disturbing to me is the kind of over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military."

Later appearing on the same show, McCain said he disagreed.

"We're trying to win the hearts and minds" of the Afghanistan population, he said. "And when something like that comes up, it obviously harms that ability."

This guy really is too stupid to live. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 15, 2012, 02:19:39 PM
He's not going anywhere so this doesn't really matter all that much, but yeah he's a freaking idiot.  And that might be an insult to idiots.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 15, 2012, 02:50:26 PM
Pissing on their corpse is adding insult to injury. We don't have to condone it, but I think it would be way more unjust to seriously punish the soldiers for "war crimes," when the people who started and perpetuate this door are the one's prosecuting.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 15, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
You mean he's not on the ballot?

The ONLY people on the ballot in South Carolina are Romney and Paul. I mean, the amount of coverage this doesn't exist makes me think that this isn't the case in primaries, or there's some exception, or there's a loophole, or something. Probably though, people just assume you can write in a candidate, becuase why the fuck can't you write in a candidate in a democracy? Maybe if we voted for parties, but we don't.

*edit*

Oh, and so it's clear, I think it's great what Colbert and Stewart are doing.
No, not only Romney and Paul. Where did you get that? Why would Santorum, Gingrich and Perry be holding events there then?

Colbert is obviously not on the ballot. It's just the current people in the field, as well as Cain, Bachmann and Johnson. I saw a pic of a ballot.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 15, 2012, 05:42:24 PM
You mean he's not on the ballot?

The ONLY people on the ballot in South Carolina are Romney and Paul. I mean, the amount of coverage this doesn't exist makes me think that this isn't the case in primaries, or there's some exception, or there's a loophole, or something. Probably though, people just assume you can write in a candidate, becuase why the fuck can't you write in a candidate in a democracy? Maybe if we voted for parties, but we don't.

*edit*

Oh, and so it's clear, I think it's great what Colbert and Stewart are doing.
No, not only Romney and Paul. Where did you get that? Why would Santorum, Gingrich and Perry be holding events there then?

So apparently I'm an idiot and confused South Carolina with Virginia in the news reports.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 15, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Annnd there goes Huntsman.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/huntsman-to-drop-out-of-gop-race/

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 15, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
I'm just surprised he hung on as long as he did.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 15, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
Whatever.

I can't wait til November, man. This shit is so drawn out it's painful.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 15, 2012, 08:27:01 PM
I can't wait til November, man. This shit is so drawn out it's painful.

Not sure if it ever really stopped.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 15, 2012, 08:37:51 PM
Whatever.

I can't wait til November, man. This shit is so drawn out it's painful.

I agree. It's self-paralyzing to the country.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 16, 2012, 11:47:34 PM
I thought Huntsman's drop out speech was good (might have missed some of it, I was watching the CC of it at the gym). Did he say whether or not he was going to endorse anyone?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 17, 2012, 12:20:08 AM
He endorsed Romney in his speech.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 17, 2012, 06:23:55 AM
He endorsed Romney in his speech.

Oh what the fuck! >:(

After all that shit about how this campaign was nothing more than pointless slandering not worthy of the American people, he goes and picks the worst offender.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 17, 2012, 06:30:48 AM
I never got why people thought Huntsman was much better than any of the other candidates. He threw a few bones to the moderates and didn't always pander to the lowest common denominator for cheers at debates but other than that, he seemed like same ol same ol.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 17, 2012, 11:46:14 AM
Prediction: if Romney somehow wins (I have a hard time seeing this happening), Huntsman should be the obvious pick for State Secretary. He has the experience, he looks at the seen and the unseen of foreign affairs - including economic prospects.

The only problem is, Romney's foreign policy advisers are largely neo-con Bush/Cheney people... huge problem.

I personally love Romney's free enterprise rhetoric, but his foreign policy rhetoric scares me deeply.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 17, 2012, 01:01:48 PM
Prediction: if Romney somehow wins (I have a hard time seeing this happening)

Winning as in winning the election, or winning the nomination? Because, winning the nomination is at this point just a matter of time, IMHO. None of the other candidates really have any momentum going.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 17, 2012, 01:14:27 PM
I wouldn't say Huntsman should be an obvious replacement for Clinton if Obama gets reelected :lol

I mean winning the general election. It's probably not likely to happen though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 17, 2012, 07:14:34 PM
I imagine it'll depend upon the poll numbers in July, and right up to the convention, but Obama can always do something good and switch up the VP.

He endorsed Romney in his speech.

Oh what the fuck! >:(

After all that shit about how this campaign was nothing more than pointless slandering not worthy of the American people, he goes and picks the worst offender.

Ya, this sorta makes me not like the man. He's always seemed a little more genuine then the rest of the crop, and quite a bit more moderate. I mean, I wouldn't vote for him, but I wouldn't be horrified if he got into office.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 17, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
Do people not like the VP? I can understand frustration with his basically being a non-entity, but did he actively do something bad?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
I like Joe Biden.  I actually liked him for President.  I wanted the ticket switched with Obama as VP and Biden as president.  Might have been a little bit less gridlock that way because Biden has a lot of friends across the aisle.

As far as Huntsman endorsing Romney, I think that was his only good move.  Everyone knows Romney's going to be the nominee.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 18, 2012, 08:56:13 AM
Yeah, I don't see how people are so upset about Huntsman doing that. Endorsing anyone else would have been stupid. Without a major deal breaker from Romney's side, the nomination is essentially over.

Totally disagree about the Biden thing though :lol He never would have won against McCain.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 10:33:49 AM
Yeah, I don't see how people are so upset about Huntsman doing that. Endorsing anyone else would have been stupid. Without a major deal breaker from Romney's side, the nomination is essentially over.

rumborak

He could have endorsed no one. His endorsement is basically a sign that he wants in on the cabinet, and considers that more important than sticking to what he believes and has said about the man.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 18, 2012, 10:43:01 AM
I don't know whether I read it that way. I perceived it as a statement of "for all those that supported me: Romney is closest to my own views". Besides, Huntsman would indeed be a good VP IMHO, with all his foreign relations knowledge.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 11:12:21 AM
I don't know whether I read it that way. I perceived it as a statement of "for all those that supported me: Romney is closest to my own views". Besides, Huntsman would indeed be a good VP IMHO, with all his foreign relations knowledge.

rumborak

He's too similar to Romney to be VP pick, and if only becuase they're both Mormon. VP pick is all about politics and who you can get into the tent, because the VP actually does like nothing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 01:18:15 PM
I don't know whether I read it that way. I perceived it as a statement of "for all those that supported me: Romney is closest to my own views". Besides, Huntsman would indeed be a good VP IMHO, with all his foreign relations knowledge.

rumborak

Two Mormons on the ticket?  Never happen.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 18, 2012, 01:29:38 PM
Rubio or Christie is going to be his choice,
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 01:38:01 PM
I don't think Christie will accept, but Rubio....hmm....maybe.   He's pretty far right, so he would definitely fill the traditional "attack dog" role that the VP fills.  He lacks executive experience, though.

Then again, he's from Florida and would definitely help in a battleground state.


Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
Rick Perry is dropping out.

Look for an announcement soon
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 07:27:37 AM
And another one bites the dust  (https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/breaking-perry-to-drop-out-thursday/)

bye, bye, douche
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 07:42:56 AM
This is really, really funny....  :lol

ABC News is going to air an in-depth interview with one of his ex wives.  Story here (https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/politics/gingrich-wife-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) for those who are interested.

The thing that made me guffaw pretty hard, though, was this quote from a Gingrich campaign staffer:

Quote
"ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future- about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having."

Extreme Liberalism??  :eek    :rollin
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 19, 2012, 07:52:08 AM
https://www.colbertsuperpac.com/episodeiv-anewhope/

 :rollin Samuel L Jackson

https://www.colbertsuperpac.com/marist-south-carolina-poll-results/
"Vote for Colbert? 18% in South Carolina Kinda Somewhat Likely"
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 19, 2012, 08:22:50 AM
Newt's new "scandal" isn't going to hurt him at all.

People are just going to say that the "liberal media" crafted this story to kill Newt's momentum.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 08:29:16 AM
I wish Newt would win the Republican primary and be the nominee.  That would pretty much guarantee an Obama victory in November.  :tup
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2012, 08:45:11 AM
Perry is suppose to be dropping out today.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 19, 2012, 08:58:40 AM
He's going to endorse Newt.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dark Castle on January 19, 2012, 11:42:50 AM
He's going to endorse Newt.
Eyeh, Newt's doomed  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 11:56:34 AM
Actually, Newt is now leading the polls (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary) in South Carolina

So, the guy who wanted an "open marriage" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/marianne-gingrich-newt-gingrich-ex-wife_n_1216106.html) with his second of three wives will beat the guy who's been married to the same woman for over three decades and did not leave office in a huge cloud of ethics scandals. 

All this in the most Evangelical state in the early primaries!   :lol

Go GOP!  :tup
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 12:49:27 PM
The fact that Newt has bounced back is a rather healthy? sign for his campaign. Palin endorsed him so that's probably big for a lot of people.. *sigh*

I mean, it would be rather funny I think to see Newt try and debate Obama. Let's see what Obama does to his bullshit about teaching poor people a proper "work ethic" by hiring "inner city high school" students to be janitors.

Oh, not to mention the pure amount of dirt on Newt. Obama can afford to play nice again, cause all that shit will come up on it's own.

I just hope we have the amount of debates that's occurring now for the Presidential Campaigns. Isn't there usually just 4 during the Presidential? Fuck, seems like there's been 4 in the past week!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 19, 2012, 01:39:23 PM
I'm not as confident Obama will wipe Newt off the map anymore :lol

Romney would definitely lose though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2012, 01:50:34 PM

Oh, not to mention the pure amount of dirt on Newt. Obama can afford to play nice again, cause all that shit will come up on it's own.



This. Even if Obama is forced to play dirty, I'm sure the democrats have plenty of dirt they are saving in the event it comes to that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 19, 2012, 07:58:28 PM
Wow, after watching that debate, I feel much better about Obama's prospects.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 19, 2012, 08:51:14 PM
It was really bad. The race baiting stuff in particular made me wanna puke.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 19, 2012, 08:53:30 PM
Not to mention both Paul and Santorum during the abortion bit seemed to be a little confused about whether they were pro-state or pro-federal.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 19, 2012, 09:33:59 PM
Holy shit, Ron Paul was on fire tonight! No mumbling, not stuttering, direct answers... even the crowd demanded him to speak! Of course CNN loved all the jabs Santorum gave to Gingrich, but still. This was a great debate for RP (that abortion part, lovely).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 19, 2012, 09:37:59 PM
Wait...there was another debate today?!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: William Wallace on January 19, 2012, 10:09:33 PM
A brief analysis (https://www.policymic.com/articles/3471/gop-candidates-vie-for-most-conservative-title-in-south-carolina-presidential-debate/headline_story) of tonight's debate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Quote
Too much media coverage is expended on the cadidates' personalities, who they sleep with, and how much money they make

So first of all, there's a typo (I didn't notice that myself until I pasted, lol);

I agree with you on the who they sleep with, but I think the other two aspects are perfectly apt in a Presidential debate. Personality is insanely important when picking a President - for instance, I don't want a psychopath in the White House - and how much money they make can show you how little the person is capable of understanding your issues. When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through. He's not running for Representative, but he is still supposed to represent the American people. Doing so isn't demonizing them as a person, or anything at all that can be considered an "attack" on being wealthy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: William Wallace on January 19, 2012, 10:50:10 PM
Quote
Too much media coverage is expended on the cadidates' personalities, who they sleep with, and how much money they make

So first of all, there's a typo (I didn't notice that myself until I pasted, lol);
Where?

Quote
I agree with you on the who they sleep with, but I think the other two aspects are perfectly apt in a Presidential debate. Personality is insanely important when picking a President - for instance, I don't want a psychopath in the White House - and how much money they make can show you how little the person is capable of understanding your issues. When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through. He's not running for Representative, but he is still supposed to represent the American people. Doing so isn't demonizing them as a person, or anything at all that can be considered an "attack" on being wealthy.
They're all fair game. But they shouldn't be discussed at the expense of more substantive issues.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
Cadidates, sorry.

I agree with your general verdict of the American media, I just think Newt's past, and his apparent personality, is rather important aspect of his bid to become President. I mean, him wanting to have an open marriage doesn't bother me at all; it's his hypocrisy on the issue recently, and how he's tried to run. It's also his ethics scandal, and what he did when he was Speaker (politically motivated impeachment). It's more then fair to ask if the man has the temperament and personality to be President, and it's not insubstantive or somehow fallacious.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: William Wallace on January 20, 2012, 12:02:12 AM
Cadidates, sorry.
Fuck. Yeah, I was in a hurry.

Quote
I agree with your general verdict of the American media, I just think Newt's past, and his apparent personality, is rather important aspect of his bid to become President. I mean, him wanting to have an open marriage doesn't bother me at all; it's his hypocrisy on the issue recently, and how he's tried to run. It's also his ethics scandal, and what he did when he was Speaker (politically motivated impeachment). It's more then fair to ask if the man has the temperament and personality to be President, and it's not insubstantive or somehow fallacious.
I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 20, 2012, 01:43:19 AM
I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view. 

Ron Paul aside, who in the Republican field is actually capable of this? I'll agree with the problem, but I don't think it's the media bringing up some of the problems with Newt, it's that Newt is given a stage in the first place. Did you see the standing ovation he got for demonizing poor people?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 20, 2012, 06:46:07 AM
I agree to a point. But if such discussions displace in depth debate about energy policy, war or spending, we have a problem in my view. 

Ron Paul aside, who in the Republican field is actually capable of this? I'll agree with the problem, but I don't think it's the media bringing up some of the problems with Newt, it's that Newt is given a stage in the first place. Did you see the standing ovation he got for demonizing poor people?

Not just for demonizing poor people, for demonizing poor racial minorities.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the two ideological and cultural poles of this nation are entirely reconcilable. Most will disagree with me, but it might be better off if we split.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 20, 2012, 08:12:29 AM
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.

In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 20, 2012, 08:35:43 AM
I was of the impression that that was referring to Romney's income, not the debt. Not that I would know if that's his actual income, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2012, 08:57:06 AM
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.

In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.

Yeah, that's only about 12 hours of operations in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 20, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
I think Paul did VERY well last night. Gingrich as well. I expect Gingrich to narrowly beat Romney, and Paul ending up at about 19% at third. Santorum last at maybe 15-16%.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 20, 2012, 11:45:39 AM
It absolutely blows my mind that SC Republicans would choose a guy with a marital history that gives US Magazine a hard-on, over a guy whose main fault is being Mormon.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 20, 2012, 11:49:44 AM
Obama sings Al Green and Biden congratulates Giants for making it to the Superbowl, in a conference in San Fransisco.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 20, 2012, 11:51:18 AM
It absolutely blows my mind that SC Republicans would choose a guy with a marital history that gives US Magazine a hard-on, over a guy whose main fault is being Mormon.

rumborak

Do you really thing that is the primary thing against Romney?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 20, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
It absolutely blows my mind that SC Republicans would choose a guy with a marital history that gives US Magazine a hard-on, over a guy whose main fault is being Mormon.

rumborak

Do you really thing that is the primary thing against Romney?

In South Carolina?  His Mormonism is at or near the top of the list of reasons they don't like him.  Most Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 20, 2012, 12:37:46 PM
Is that really factual though? Is it that view really that wide spread among Evangelicals?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 20, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.

In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.

Yeah, that's only about 12 hours of operations in Afghanistan.

And this means what? That collectively we all have more money than individually? You're simply starting a truism. We're talking about personal income here, and him saying that 375k is not that much, which for him is not. Even though 375k a year is enough to make you the top 1% of Americans, Romney thinks it's "just a little." That's because he's extremely rich and extremely out of touch with the American experience.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 20, 2012, 12:51:43 PM
When Romney calls 375k a little bit of money, he's showing just how unfamiliar he is with the things actual Americans go through.

In the grand scheme of a federal budget or our debt, 375k is very little money though.

Yeah, that's only about 12 hours of operations in Afghanistan.

And this means what? That collectively we all have more money than individually? You're simply starting a truism. We're talking about personal income here, and him saying that 375k is not that much, which for him is not. Even though 375k a year is enough to make you the top 1% of Americans, Romney thinks it's "just a little." That's because he's extremely rich and extremely out of touch with the American experience.

Ah, that's what I thought. My family is considered part of the 1%, and yet we make only a fraction of that, which should say a lot about Mitt's "out-of-touchness" with his base and the rest of the American populace.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 20, 2012, 12:54:45 PM
I guess I just don't care what a politician's income is. The fact that they are a politician to me means they are probably out of touch, not because of their level of income. Someone who has knowledge and experience on large amounts of money would probably know how to budget and fight the deficit better than someone in my economic level.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 20, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
Is that really factual though? Is it that view really that wide spread among Evangelicals?

Synopsis here (https://askville.amazon.com/evangelicals-mormons-christian/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7552017)

A more technical dissertation on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity)

Basically, Mormon theology is just not compatible Evangelical theology at all.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 20, 2012, 01:24:33 PM
I guess I just don't care what a politician's income is. The fact that they are a politician to me means they are probably out of touch, not because of their level of income. Someone who has knowledge and experience on large amounts of money would probably know how to budget and fight the deficit better than someone in my economic level.

Well, it's not just about income, it's about their life experience, and other factors in the income. Someone as rich as Romney has never had to seriously "budget" in his life. What he made his career doing what basically sure money, something anyone could do if they had the resources. Buy out a company, leverage it out, take money, earn money no matter what happens to the company you bought out. Seems to me a person who as at least been poor in their lifetime is going to be better at it (and knowing most people who lived through the Great Depression is testament to that). They're going to have a lot of experience budgeting, and getting rid of things that are personally important for the necessity of reducing the budget. Seeing as how the real issue with the American deficit is the Bush Tax Cuts, and our Wars in Afghanistan, Romney policies would drive us off the roof . At this point, I'd almost like this to happen, just so people can finally get over the delusion of the Republican message.

Which is entirely besides the point, because neither Obama or Romney as President has any real control over the budget. True control is in the House, everyone else just adds to the debate, and has political power to pressure people.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 20, 2012, 02:10:18 PM
It said that 1/3 don't consider LDS as being Christians. Wow.

But to say that most evangelicals consider Romney a cultist goes beyond that. I don't really think that can be the case.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 20, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
It said that 1/3 don't consider LDS as being Christians. Wow.

But to say that most evangelicals consider Romney a cultist goes beyond that. I don't really think that can be the case.

Read between the lines..... (https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_s_mormon_cult_controversy_anti_mormonism_is_the_prej.html)

Quote
  National polls taken in recent months show how far anti-black prejudice has subsided compared to anti-Mormon prejudice. In a Gallup survey (https://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx), 5 percent of adults said they wouldn’t vote for their party’s presidential nominee if he were black. Six percent said they wouldn’t vote for a woman, 7 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, 9 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Jew, and 10 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Hispanic. But 22 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. Gallup reported:
     The stability in U.S. bias against voting for a Mormon presidential candidate contrasts markedly with steep declines in similar views toward several other groups over the past half-century, including blacks, women, Catholics, and Jews. The last time as many as 22% of Americans said they would not vote for any of these groups (the same level opposed to voting for a Mormon today) was 1959 for Catholics, 1961 for Jews, 1971 for blacks, and 1975 for women. As noted, opposition to voting for each of these has since tapered off to single digits.
     In a Pew survey (https://people-press.org/2011/06/02/section-2-candidate-traits-and-experience/), 7 percent of adults said they’d be more likely to support a presidential candidate if he were black. Only 3 percent said they’d be less likely. (Among whites, 3 percent said more likely; 4 percent said less likely.) But while 5 percent said they’d be more likely to support a presidential candidate if he were Mormon, 25 percent said they’d be less likely. In the four years since Pew’s last survey on this topic, taken in August 2007, the percentage of respondents who said they’d be less likely to support a black, Hispanic, or female candidate shrank. But the percentage who said they’d be less likely to support a Mormon didn’t change (https://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-02-11%202012%20Campaign%20Release.pdf).
Maybe "most" is too strong of a word, I don't know, I only say that because most of the evangelicals I know (probably 15 or 20 people give or take a few) have told me they believe Mormonism is a cult.  Combine that with all of these fairly high-profile pastors coming out and saying it's a cult, and you've got a pretty wide swath of these folks that simply won't vote for the guy based on his religion.  Which, to me, personally, is kind of silly.  But then I also think not voting for a guy because he's rich is silly too.



 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 20, 2012, 02:24:53 PM
Here's another poll (https://pollposition.com/2011/10/10/28-say-mormon-faith-is-cult/) where almost 1/3 said Mormonism is a cult.

Quote
Thirty-one percent of Republicans said Mormonism is a cult, as did 25% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 20, 2012, 02:49:41 PM
Then again, I wonder what the percentage of Protestants is who think Catholicism is a cult. It's almost a defining feature of a religion to fight tooth and nail amongst each other.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 20, 2012, 02:51:31 PM
Wow. As a LDS myself, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that stat. There are many other reasons to not support Romney's bid for presidency :lol

And those polls you showed earlier shows the obscenity of US politics. Especially that anti-black sentiment. What is wrong with people?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dark Castle on January 20, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
Wow. As a LDS myself, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that stat. There are many other reasons to not support Romney's bid for presidency :lol

And those polls you showed earlier shows the obscenity of US politics. Especially that anti-black sentiment. What is wrong with people?
We're all just jealous of all the hot wives you get to have :D
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 20, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
I guess I just don't care what a politician's income is. The fact that they are a politician to me means they are probably out of touch, not because of their level of income. Someone who has knowledge and experience on large amounts of money would probably know how to budget and fight the deficit better than someone in my economic level.

Well, it's not just about income, it's about their life experience, and other factors in the income. Someone as rich as Romney has never had to seriously "budget" in his life. What he made his career doing what basically sure money, something anyone could do if they had the resources. Buy out a company, leverage it out, take money, earn money no matter what happens to the company you bought out. Seems to me a person who as at least been poor in their lifetime is going to be better at it (and knowing most people who lived through the Great Depression is testament to that). They're going to have a lot of experience budgeting, and getting rid of things that are personally important for the necessity of reducing the budget. Seeing as how the real issue with the American deficit is the Bush Tax Cuts, and our Wars in Afghanistan, Romney policies would drive us off the roof . At this point, I'd almost like this to happen, just so people can finally get over the delusion of the Republican message.

Which is entirely besides the point, because neither Obama or Romney as President has any real control over the budget. True control is in the House, everyone else just adds to the debate, and has political power to pressure people.

I wasn't really focusing on Romney. I don't care what any politicians income is was my point and I think you agree with it? It has to do with their background and knowledge. That is what should be discussed, not the dollar amount.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 20, 2012, 04:10:43 PM
No, but as Scheavo was trying to explain, that income disparity is part and parcel to their personal background. Someone who's never known want will never truly be able to sympathize with the plight of average Americans, and it will reflect in his/her platform and policies.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 20, 2012, 04:15:21 PM
Someone who's never known want will never truly be able to sympathize with the plight of average Americans, and it will reflect in his/her platform and policies.
This.  I don't care if someone has built themselves into a success and now makes a zillion dollars a year.  But someone who has never bought his own groceries or fretted over making a mortgage payment simply won't be able to empathize with the vast majority of Americans.

I realize that exceptions are possible.  I also believe those exceptional people wouldn't bother with trying to run for President.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 20, 2012, 07:30:17 PM
https://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/america-hates-newt-gingrich/326161

Quote
Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Yikes.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 20, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Obama is polling surprisingly well, particularly from Faux News.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 21, 2012, 12:18:35 AM
This is playing out like a DTF Images & Words survivor. NG is Metropolis, MR is LTL, RP is TTT & RS is PMU. You know that LTL is probably gonna win but sometimes Metropolis is a serious threat to it while some would really hope TTT wins and PMU is admired but remains behind.
I think it's really unfair that a big part of how you're judged is how good you do on debates, RS was fast and articulate on that CNN debate while's the shittiest one of stage. NG is witty and that gave him some advantage on MR in the debate but only in the debate. How is being a clever talking or having a faster and tighter command of the English language making you better than the rest when you obviously have the same ideology with minor differences? Just an unfiltered thought.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 21, 2012, 02:07:24 AM
Lol, look at Gingrich's favorability numbers.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on January 21, 2012, 12:31:28 PM
How is Obama polling so well from Fox News? Are they trying to scare people into action?  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 21, 2012, 12:36:01 PM
Could be a strategy. "Listen, Republican folks! If we don't get our shit together and choose Romney this BLACK GUY is going to WIN AGAIN and finish leading us to HELL! Let's choose him QUICK!"

It adds up.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 21, 2012, 12:38:27 PM
Fox hasn't been that kind to Romney. They don't like him that much.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 21, 2012, 01:25:04 PM
Mostly for the Mormon thing, it seems, which is a foolish reason to tear him down but hey.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 21, 2012, 01:35:04 PM
Lol, look at Gingrich's favorability numbers.

Apparently his response:

Quote
But the presidency is not about likeability. The presidency is about are you capable of doing the job?

Which just begs the question: what about the President's diplomatic job? There, he certainty must be likeable.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 21, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
Wow. As a LDS myself, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that stat. There are many other reasons to not support Romney's bid for presidency :lol

And those polls you showed earlier shows the obscenity of US politics. Especially that anti-black sentiment. What is wrong with people?


I wish I knew what these people think.  I really do.  It's baffling to me. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 21, 2012, 07:29:27 PM
Wow... interseting results. Gingrich dominates, Paul comes in 4th. This party does not seem like it's coalescing at all, this next election is going to be a complete mess.

Delegate count:

https://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 21, 2012, 07:43:44 PM
Herman Cain apparently got around 9% of the vote.  Way to go, Colbert!
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 21, 2012, 09:02:09 PM
Hah, interesting result tonight. Romney got his work cut out, momentum is everything. I guess Santorum is still somewhat in the game, whereas RP is slowly falling by the wayside. He'd been struggling to break the 20% barrier, and now he can't even get close to that one anymore.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 22, 2012, 02:31:01 AM
Brokered convention is going to happen. But, Paul 4th, what is wrong with SC.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: wasteland on January 22, 2012, 03:13:18 AM
What happens if two or more candidates make it to the convention with roughly the same number of delegates?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 22, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
Well, that's what jsem is saying. It's called a "brokered convention" and involves horse trades between delegates, and revoting.

But, Paul 4th, what is wrong with SC.

Well, tbh, I think the 13% is somewhere around the real percentage of people supporting RP's libertarian views. The high NH votes were partially because it was RP's turn at that point to have a slight surge (just like any of the other candidates had before).

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 22, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
But, Paul 4th, what is wrong with SC.
Nothing really, that's about accurate.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 22, 2012, 01:18:11 PM
Holy crapola, just saw this:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc?hpt=hp_t2

99% of the GOP in SC are white?!!!

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 22, 2012, 11:16:27 PM
Is the Republican party that much different anywhere?

But ya, that's why when people like Gingrich, who are basically the definition of a condescending white man on race, get standing ovations, instead of booed.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 23, 2012, 06:57:31 AM
Only 9% of electorate 18-29. And only 31% for Paul. I'm disappointed there.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 23, 2012, 08:35:45 AM
Only 9% of electorate 18-29. And only 31% for Paul. I'm disappointed there.

I know you're disappointed, but the reality is what it is.  Ron Paul has never had a chance in the Republican party.  His foreign policy views are way too far outside of today's conservative orthodoxy for him to ever achieve anything more than around 15% of the vote.  I'm not trying to rub it in, jsem, I know you like the guy, I know you support him.  I just think in the United States of 2012, Ron Paul just ain't going anywhere, neither is libertarianism in general.

What is fascinating to me is to watch this sort of circular firing squad that the Republicans are forming, all because of -let's be honest- Mitt Romney's religion.  I mean, other than his religion, Mitt Romney is really the perfect candidate to win back the white house for the Republican party.  He polls the strongest in most match-ups against Obama, he's got the executive experience, he clearly has a pretty vast amount of knowledge with respect to how the economy works, he's done extremely well in the debates, has a monstrous organization, he LOOKS very presidential and I think his handlers selected the precise theme (the Optimism/Pessimism theme he's running on) that can best be wielded against Obama and the Democrats......

yet......

They are selecting Gingrich?  Newt Gingrich?  :lol

Now THAT would be an Obama landslide.   

I still think the Republicans CAN'T be this stupid.  Can they?  :|

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 23, 2012, 10:45:22 AM
I know you're disappointed, but the reality is what it is.  Ron Paul has never had a chance in the Republican party.  His foreign policy views are way too far outside of today's conservative orthodoxy for him to ever achieve anything more than around 15% of the vote.  I'm not trying to rub it in, jsem, I know you like the guy, I know you support him.  I just think in the United States of 2012, Ron Paul just ain't going anywhere, neither is libertarianism in general.

I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment. I kinda hope that RP's staff is laying out reality to him as it is, and isn't sugar-coating things making him believe that he actually has a chance at either candidacy or presidency. He never had, and I really hope RP knew this going in but wanted to use the GOP nomination cycle as a way to publicly spread his views.
RP's support base mostly draws on the same young, idealistic, willing-to-destroy-the-status-quo demographic that every country has. In Germany, those guys are Communists. In the US, they're Libertarians.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 23, 2012, 12:09:41 PM
Even though I think a few of his policy positions are pretty "out there" I actually think you're right about his rationale for running.  He's a fairly committed libertarian who is trying to spread his message.  Nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 23, 2012, 02:12:52 PM
Newt isn't going to contest for 500 delegates. Ron Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all 50 states, if Newt continues this streak - winning Florida and such - a brokered convention might just end up happening.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 23, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
That would be fine in my book.  Brokered convention = compromised & wounded ticket
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 23, 2012, 03:52:35 PM
Newt isn't going to contest for 500 delegates. Ron Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all 50 states, if Newt continues this streak - winning Florida and such - a brokered convention might just end up happening.

I don't want to pound on this unnecessarily, but given you've mentioned this twice now and given your exclusive support for RP, am I right to assume you see a brokered convention as a chance for him to get the nomination after all?
If so, I would have to add another dose of reality: While there is the somewhat "mathematical" possibility that with a constant back and forth between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum the delegates might be so fractured that Ron Paul might actually end up with a big enough chunk of delegates to look equally eligible for president, the GOP base would essentially boycott the RNC if RP got the bid. Because all he would have done is to game the shoddy nomination system. Reality is that only about 10% want RP; the rest just can't make up their mind about either Romney or Gingrich.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 23, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Watching the debate.... Mitt's response in regard to the space program just made me facepalm for a good ten minutes.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on January 23, 2012, 09:10:30 PM
Where are you watching it at?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 23, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
It was on NBC, it's over now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Implode on January 23, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
Ah. It's a shame I don't watch TV anymore. I'd find these debates fascinating.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ResultsMayVary on January 23, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
As a RP supporter, I thought he did the best in this debate. No one really went after him, though. Romney handled himself well, again (with the exception of a few questions where I wanted to smash my head into the top of my desk).
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 23, 2012, 10:10:23 PM
As a RP supporter, I thought he did the best in this debate. No one really went after him, though. Romney handled himself well, again (with the exception of a few questions where I wanted to smash my head into the top of my desk).

RP's stance on Cuba was really well presented.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ResultsMayVary on January 23, 2012, 10:49:30 PM
As a RP supporter, I thought he did the best in this debate. No one really went after him, though. Romney handled himself well, again (with the exception of a few questions where I wanted to smash my head into the top of my desk).

RP's stance on Cuba was really well presented.
Yes, it was. Too bad the majority of Republicans are all set on "KILL CASTRO, KILL EVERYTHING" mode.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 23, 2012, 11:10:46 PM
Newt isn't going to contest for 500 delegates. Ron Paul and Romney are on the ballot in all 50 states, if Newt continues this streak - winning Florida and such - a brokered convention might just end up happening.

I don't want to pound on this unnecessarily, but given you've mentioned this twice now and given your exclusive support for RP, am I right to assume you see a brokered convention as a chance for him to get the nomination after all?
If so, I would have to add another dose of reality: While there is the somewhat "mathematical" possibility that with a constant back and forth between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum the delegates might be so fractured that Ron Paul might actually end up with a big enough chunk of delegates to look equally eligible for president, the GOP base would essentially boycott the RNC if RP got the bid. Because all he would have done is to game the shoddy nomination system. Reality is that only about 10% want RP; the rest just can't make up their mind about either Romney or Gingrich.

rumborak
Ron Paul won't be the nomination, but he'll have a definite say in the platform.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 24, 2012, 04:30:33 AM
I doubt it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 24, 2012, 08:20:32 AM
Watching the debate.... Mitt's response in regard to the space program just made me facepalm for a good ten minutes.

I want to bitch about this in a little more depth. Mitt verabally assaulted Obama, saying that he does not care enough scinence and space exploration. Obama isn't the one who tried to cripple the James Webb telescope, we have the house of representatives to thank for that. He went on to say how Obama has set no goals for the future of space exploration. This angers me because Obama has said more than enough times that he wants to have humans on Mars by 2030.

Mitt was also talking about how the private sector needs to get in the game. I personally believe that SpaceX is going to take over the duties of NASA, at least in regards to human space flight. Anyway, Mitt kept saying how the government needs to offer cash rewards to the private sector for the completion of specific goals. The problem I see with this is that the government can't benefit a whole lot from this. The government sponsors the DARPA competition every year, mainly because they get the rights to use any of the technology displayed in the competition. DARPA is more or less free research and developement for our miltary. I don't see how a competition to get to Mars will make us stronger as a country.

I did like the fact that all the candidates seemed to agree that space research is important. However, I don't think any of them know enough about it to discuss it as a topic.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 24, 2012, 12:00:07 PM
Watching the debate.... Mitt's response in regard to the space program just made me facepalm for a good ten minutes.

I want to bitch about this in a little more depth. Mitt verabally assaulted Obama, saying that he does not care enough scinence and space exploration. Obama isn't the one who tried to cripple the James Webb telescope, we have the house of representatives to thank for that. He went on to say how Obama has set no goals for the future of space exploration. This angers me because Obama has said more than enough times that he wants to have humans on Mars by 2030.

Mitt was also talking about how the private sector needs to get in the game. I personally believe that SpaceX is going to take over the duties of NASA, at least in regards to human space flight. Anyway, Mitt kept saying how the government needs to offer cash rewards to the private sector for the completion of specific goals. The problem I see with this is that the government can't benefit a whole lot from this. The government sponsors the DARPA competition every year, mainly because they get the rights to use any of the technology displayed in the competition. DARPA is more or less free research and developement for our miltary. I don't see how a competition to get to Mars will make us stronger as a country.

I did like the fact that all the candidates seemed to agree that space research is important. However, I don't think any of them know enough about it to discuss it as a topic.

From FactCheck.org (https://factcheck.org/2012/01/factual-flubs-in-florida/):

Quote
Romney Wrong on NASA
Romney went too far when he claimed that Obama has “no plans” for NASA.  Obama in 2010 set in motion a plan to  build a heavy-lift launch vehicle to go beyond the Earth’s orbit. The president’s plan calls on NASA to land astronauts on an asteroid by 2025, orbit Mars  by the mid-2030s and, ultimately, land on Mars.
 <blockquote>Romney: His plans for NASA, he has no plans for NASA. The space coast is — is struggling. This president has failed the people of Florida.</blockquote> Some background: President Bush announced (https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm) in January 2004 that he would retire the Shuttle program and return to the moon by 2020. The Shuttle program ended (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html) last year, leading to job losses (https://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-07-01-space-coast-business_n.htm) along the so-called “space coast.” The question facing Obama early in his administration was whether he would continue Bush’s plan for NASA or come up with his own. Obama proposed a new course.
In February 2010, Obama’s proposed budget for NASA called for killing (https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agzQHt17aPXI) Bush’s plan to return to the moon. In an April 15, 2010, speech in Florida, Obama unveiled (https://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html) his proposal for a deep-space exploration plan that included the goals of landing on an asteroid by 2025 and orbiting Mars by the middle of the 2030s — with the  ultimate goal of landing on Mars. The proposal caused a rift among some  of NASA’s most famous astronauts, with Neil Armstrong opposing it and  Buzz Aldrin supporting it, as the Los Angeles Times reported (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/houston-we-have-a-problem-no-one-likes-obamas-space-plan.html) at the time.
Nevertheless, Obama’s plans are moving forward. NASA announced (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html) a design for the heavy-lift launch vehicle that would make it possible to go beyond the Earth’s orbit. In making the announcement on the design  plans, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said: “President Obama challenged us to be  bold and dream big, and that’s exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I  was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow’s explorers will now  dream of one day walking on Mars.”

Basically, when one of these clowns has their gums flapping, most of the junk that's falling out of their mouths is bullshit.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 24, 2012, 12:02:35 PM
It's pretty sad really. What's the point of listening to the debates if they at this point all just flat-out lie?

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 24, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
It's pretty sad really. What's the point of listening to the debates if they at this point all just flat-out lie?

rumborak

Red Meat for their constituencies, which, supposedly drums up more interest in the elections, which in turn could improve voter turnout, which, of course, is always a good thing for your party.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 24, 2012, 01:05:37 PM
I would love to have a debate where they did fact checking on the fly and called them on it later in the debate so they had time to clarify. Of course, the candidates would never agree to such a thing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: skydivingninja on January 24, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
I miss Jon Huntsman in the GOP debates.  I don't agree with his regressive stance towards Roe v. Wade, but he was a small beacon of rationality, common sense, and moderate thinking in a cesspool of Republican extremism.  Maybe in 2016 he'll have a better chance...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 24, 2012, 02:51:00 PM
I would love to have a debate where they did fact checking on the fly and called them on it later in the debate so they had time to clarify. Of course, the candidates would never agree to such a thing.

Paul would. Gingrich would probably be vain enough to think he was right, or attack the moderator in some fashion. Romney would basically be stuttering.

I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 24, 2012, 03:17:05 PM
I like the realtime fact check idea.  My suggestion would be to let Bill O'Reilly moderate the democratic debates and Bill Mahr the GOP debates.  The biggest problem with them now is that the moderators are just tossing them softballs as lead ins to their scripted spiels and diatribes.  I'd like to see these things happen with moderators who are actually trying to grill them.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 24, 2012, 03:30:38 PM
I would love to have a debate where they did fact checking on the fly and called them on it later in the debate so they had time to clarify. Of course, the candidates would never agree to such a thing.

Paul would. Gingrich would probably be vain enough to think he was right, or attack the moderator in some fashion. Romney would basically be stuttering.

I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.
I would love to see that.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 24, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
I like the realtime fact check idea.  My suggestion would be to let Bill O'Reilly moderate the democratic debates and Bill Mahr the GOP debates.  The biggest problem with them now is that the moderators are just tossing them softballs as lead ins to their scripted spiels and diatribes.  I'd like to see these things happen with moderators who are actually trying to grill them.

Bill Maher on the GOP debates would be amazing. Barto, do you watch Real Time? I make it a point to every Friday.

I would like to see more emphasis on the cause of this recession in these debates. They briefly brought it up last night, and you can tell they don't really enjoy talking about it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 24, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
^ I had the impression everybody here collectively hate Bill Maher!

I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.

Why not Colbert? I prefer him.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 24, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
^ I had the impression everybody here collectively hate Bill Maher!



Not me. Other than Neil  Degrasse Tyson, he might be my favorite living person.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 24, 2012, 05:37:25 PM
I was neutral until he expressed some support for SOPA and then I realized it's dumb to dislike because of that. I might start watching the show.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 24, 2012, 05:46:53 PM
I was neutral until he expressed some support for SOPA and then I realized it's dumb to dislike because of that. I might start watching the show.

This is the last sidebar post I'll make. Watch this clip.

*edit* wrong link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 25, 2012, 05:56:12 AM
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 25, 2012, 07:19:55 AM
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.

 I don't think they should be hostile, but I do think they should make them sweat. Try and trip them up with their own thoughts and ideas. Make them screw up in front of the American people. I don't say this because I think they should be treated cruely, but I think it is of upmost importance to find out who really knows their stuff and who doesn't. Even though Mitt was wrong about NASA, and was proven so, the majority of Americans would never realize or hear about it. I think that it would be a good thing if they were called out on their errors on the spot.


I think Obama did really well during the state of the union address last night. The man said nothing I disagree with. I would love to see the remaining republican candidates try and oppose anything he said.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 25, 2012, 08:24:01 AM
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.

Well you're not gonna get that in-party from either side, so...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2012, 08:45:20 AM
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.
The reasons I picked O'Reilly and Mahr was because I think they could be hard-assed without being hostile.  The trick is to get somebody who refuses to accept bullshit,  but professional enough to be civilized.  Mahr is the one of the two I'd be concerned about.  I think O'Reilly is a pompous windbag,  but he's certainly capable of being a professional when it suits his needs. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 25, 2012, 09:04:33 AM
I'm not sure that I would want a moderator who would be actively hostile towards the candidates, but one who asked tough questions and demanded the proof of the candidates statements would be nice.

Well you're not gonna get that in-party from either side, so...
Sure, but there are plenty of opposite party people that would be more professional than O'Reilly or Mahr. It's possible either of them could restrain themselves and be professional, but there typical character is one who is hostile towards opposing views.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 25, 2012, 09:46:51 AM
How about Michael Moore & Rush Limbaugh?  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dark Castle on January 25, 2012, 10:09:01 AM
Honestly, John Stewart proved what a badass he was in that interview on Fox, I'd go with Stewart and O'Reilly.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: j on January 25, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
Honestly, John Stewart proved what a badass he was in that interview on Fox, I'd go with Stewart and O'Reilly.

I wouldn't be too opposed to this.  Although if you get O'Reilly on the wrong day, I feel like he wouldn't be able to stop himself from doing a lot more than just "moderating."

-J
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on January 25, 2012, 01:02:52 PM
How about Michael Moore & Rush Limbaugh?  :biggrin:

Michael Moore would be interesting. I know this goes against a lot of you, but I really like they guy. I'm not saying I agree with every word that comes out of his mouth, but I have to give the guy a lot of respect for what he does / stands for.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: ReaPsTA on January 25, 2012, 01:57:22 PM
How about Michael Moore & Rush Limbaugh?  :biggrin:

Michael Moore would be interesting. I know this goes against a lot of you, but I really like they guy. I'm not saying I agree with every word that comes out of his mouth, but I have to give the guy a lot of respect for what he does / stands for.

You have respect for a lair who abuses the experiences of people who are emotionally traumatized to further a political agenda that completely contradicts his own personal lifestyle?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 25, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
What is a "lair" ?  :P
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dark Castle on January 25, 2012, 02:28:41 PM
What is a "lair" ?  :P
(https://i42.tinypic.com/mc65iu.jpg)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 25, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
 :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 25, 2012, 02:35:32 PM
I say, let Jon Stewart moderate a debate. Put it on a bigger network, so a lot of people who normally don't watch Jon Stewart get exposed to him.

Why not Colbert? I prefer him.

His interviews can be awesome, and sometimes brilliant, but which Colbert do you get? His character, or himself? Jon Stewart would be very fair, and given who he's interviewed and that history, I'd say it would be most likely be amiable.

Maher would be entertaining, but I don't think it would be as constructive as Stewart.



Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 25, 2012, 02:59:31 PM
Obviously we're talking hypothetically here but I don't think Stewart would ever go for it. It would undermine his "I'm only a comedian" schtick.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 26, 2012, 01:35:23 PM
Obviously we're talking hypothetically here but I don't think Stewart would ever go for it. It would undermine his "I'm only a comedian" schtick.

Then he wouldn't do such serious interviews with politicians.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Sigz on January 26, 2012, 02:39:21 PM
Time Traveler From The Year 1998 Warns Nation Not To Elect Newt Gingrich (https://www.theonion.com/articles/time-traveler-from-the-year-1998-warns-nation-not,27178/)
Quote
WASHINGTON—Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign. "In my time, he shuts down the federal government for 28 days because his feelings get hurt over having to sit at the back of Air Force One. Gingrich gets our president impeached for lying about marital infidelities when, at the same time, Gingrich himself is engaged in his own extramarital affairs. And for God's sake, he divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Won't anyone listen to me?!?" When asked about Donald Trump, the time-traveler said he had no information on the man, as no one from 1998 cared about a "washed-up fake millionaire."
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 26, 2012, 03:07:53 PM
Obviously we're talking hypothetically here but I don't think Stewart would ever go for it. It would undermine his "I'm only a comedian" schtick.

Then he wouldn't do such serious interviews with politicians.
I think this would clearly take it to another level.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 26, 2012, 04:13:10 PM
So according to realclearpolitics.com, both Santorum and Paul have dropped into the single digits. Who is next to drop out? My guess would be Santorum.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 26, 2012, 06:39:25 PM
Anybody watching the debates? Romney is definitely looking pretty good. If he can hold it up til the end of the debate, Florida should be in the bag for him.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 26, 2012, 07:37:20 PM
Yeah, I think Romney has looked pretty good in this one.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 26, 2012, 08:18:45 PM
After all these debates you would think Ron Paul would have thought of better answers to those standard questions. I mean, he doesn't seem to even care about assuaging the concerns of Republicans that his foreign policy is essentially nonexistent.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 27, 2012, 04:30:21 AM
After all these debates you would think Ron Paul would have thought of better answers to those standard questions. I mean, he doesn't seem to even care about assuaging the concerns of Republicans that his foreign policy is essentially nonexistent.

rumborak
My cousin-in-law is a big RP fan and loved his performance last night.  I thought he came across as almost impotent.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 27, 2012, 07:25:32 AM
He never puts any effort into the "performance" and his reactions and answers are very consistent.
Where was last night's debate? I didn't catch it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 27, 2012, 07:34:16 AM
I know Paul has written off Florida, but yesterday will not have helped him in Maine. Santorum at least has some bite to him.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 27, 2012, 07:36:13 AM
How did Newt do in the debate? I didn't get a chance to watch it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 27, 2012, 07:38:50 AM
I personally thought he was significantly worse than Romney. Frankly, at some point Mitt ripped him a new one, and Newt could only do his nasty look of smugness.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 27, 2012, 10:14:37 AM
I think the Republican machine is coming to its senses now.  Latest polling in Florida shows Gingrich's lead is gone and Romney is ahead again.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 27, 2012, 12:48:54 PM
Yeah, I think yesterday really hurt Gingrich. He just came across as a hater, but with little redeeming qualities. I agree with Hef, RP just looked impotent. Or, rather irrelevant. At the end I asked myself "why is he even invited anymore at this point?". The realistic answer to the question is probably: To serve as a "commercial break" between Romney vs. Gingrich. I mean, they even clustered Santorum and RP together in their answers, almost as a "and now for the lulz".

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 27, 2012, 01:18:07 PM
Yeah, wow, I watched some of the debate on YouTube today while loading up a few servers here and Gingrich kind of got his rhetorical head caved in by Romney. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 27, 2012, 01:36:26 PM
I really liked when Romney got pissed at the immigration thing. Holy crap, Romney was fuming, and he essentially got almost standing ovations with his response to Newt.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 27, 2012, 02:12:22 PM
I didn't see, what was Romney's deal with immigration?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 27, 2012, 02:27:30 PM
I didn't see, what was Romney's deal with immigration?

This is the relevant exchange:

Quote
Again, Romney learned from previous debates. He first had an excellent line answering Gingrich's assertion that grandmothers and grandfathers were not likely to "self-deport." Romney came back: "Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers." Boom! It both mocked Gingrich's grandmother self-deportation argument while at the same time underscoring the vast issue of illegal immigration.

It's from THIS opinion piece (https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/opinion/graham-debate-florida/index.html?hpt=hp_t2) on CNN.com by Todd Graham, director of debate at Southern Illinois University

I've been watching Graham's columns and he's clearly a fan of Mitt Romney, so take that piece with a boulder of salt, but he's got a point about how well Romney seems to have done yesterday.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 27, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
I was actually referring to another thing. Gingrich had apparently called Romney "anti-immigrant" in one of his ads, and Gingrich (upon Blitzer's request) reiterated that.
Romney got really pissed off and said (paraphrased): "WTF are you talking about. My father was born in Mexico and my wife's father was born in Wales. It's this incendiary bullcrap that we don't need in these debates. It's fine to disagree with me, but your charged epithet is something you should apologize for." The audience erupted in strong applause after that.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on January 28, 2012, 12:53:18 AM
What network hosted that latest debate?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 28, 2012, 09:11:35 AM
That was CNN. Seems there are no debates for another month though (good!), meaning this would be the chance for Romney to keep rolling on the momentum he built in the last debate.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 28, 2012, 03:00:50 PM
Read an interesting article today that RP could be planning to blackmail himself into the cabinet. He could threaten the actual nominee to run as an Independent and thus almost guarantee the loss of that nominee. With that in his pocket he could try to secure himself an office in the administration by promising to play along.
Because, let's be honest, there is zero chance at this point to be nominated. However, if he manages to keep the 10% devout to himself until the nomination, he has a bargaining chip.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: El Barto on January 28, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Not a bad play,  actually.  I wonder if he'd buck for a position where he could really influence things,  or a cush job with which to run out the clock.  Ambassador to Thailand would probably be a great job to settle into. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 28, 2012, 03:11:30 PM
I doubt he would go for a cushiony job, he's way too idealistic for that. He would want something like Treasury so he can shape policy. Which of course will give Romney a major headache since RP is really a loose cannon.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 28, 2012, 03:17:49 PM
It'll be a catch-22 for whoever gets it (and for more hardcore, establishment voters a possible deal breaker), should be interesting to watch.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2012, 04:50:41 PM
That would certainly be interesting.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 28, 2012, 05:06:20 PM
It would be hard to get the public perception right though I think. How would he go about it? Officially endorse the nominee he made the deal with? Given how hardcore his base is he would come across as a sellout, and that might backfire then.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 28, 2012, 06:46:47 PM
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 29, 2012, 04:24:20 AM
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.
I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 29, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Wow. If the polls are to be believed, Gingrich's support has completely collapsed and Romney is 15 points ahead.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 29, 2012, 08:53:28 PM
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.
I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.

I heard that too, but only from one source, and it hasn't been reported on much. I'll refer to that as the "grapevine," until there's an actual report on the issue.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: lordxizor on January 30, 2012, 05:57:41 AM
It's not unusual for the cabinet to have a good amount of turnover between terms. Plus I'm sure Clinton is gearing herself up for another run at president in 2016.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
pls go geithner. pls.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 30, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Speaking of the cabinet, the grapevine is hinting that both Clinton and Geithner will not stick around for Obama's 2nd term.
I don't know about a grapevine, but I'm pretty sure that Geitner said himself the other day that he doubted he would serve for a second term.

Clinton has already articulated that on more than one occasion as well.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 30, 2012, 12:12:14 PM
Not a bad play,  actually.  I wonder if he'd buck for a position where he could really influence things,  or a cush job with which to run out the clock.  Ambassador to Thailand would probably be a great job to settle into.

Right and the counter play is to tell him "yeah, sure, you can have ____________________" position.  Then just do what every politician who ever lived has done.  Go back on your promise after you're elected.  What's Ron Paul going to do about it?  Hint: It's something that starts with an "N" and ends in "othing"  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 30, 2012, 12:36:41 PM
Ron Paul will get played badly in a brokered convention if he is not the leader in delegates.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 30, 2012, 01:34:25 PM
Ron Paul will get played badly in a brokered convention if he is not the leader in delegates.

You seem to be in touch more with the RP base. Does anyone actually still believe that RP will be a leader in delegates? I mean, the show is over, right? Tomorrow Romney will have 69 delegates, and Ron Paul 3.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 30, 2012, 03:32:18 PM
What? There's no way to know the actual delegate count from the caucus states until their state conventions.

Plus, there will have been 4/50 primaries tomorrow - I can't believe people are so quick to declare a winner.

He's going to end up with about the same number of delegates as Gingrich, and Romney probably around 300 ahead of them.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 30, 2012, 04:31:04 PM
Which still is to say that Paul is, for all intents and purposes, sunk.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2012, 04:45:29 PM
He's going to end up with about the same number of delegates as Gingrich
I sincerely doubt it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 30, 2012, 04:49:53 PM
Of course I can't exactly quote stats on this, but how many candidates have gotten the nomination after they deserted the 4th most populous state in the nation? You don't win battles by fighting on the sidelines.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 30, 2012, 05:35:25 PM
Ron Paul will win Montana.

Which will do him absolutely no good.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on January 30, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
He'll also win Washington, and perhaps Alaska. Which will also do him no good.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 31, 2012, 08:23:57 AM
After betting on the wrong horse, Cain is trying to improve his standings with Romney:

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/01/31/after_endorsing_gingrich_cain_says_romney_ok_too/?p1=News_links

Vying for a place in the administration, are we? :lol

He'll also win Washington, and perhaps Alaska. Which will also do him no good.

We'll see. In my perception he's now down to the core supporters. The undecided voters were at some points causing a slight upswing in his popularity, but at this point, in the eyes of undecided, he's out of the race.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
That headline belongs in the Onion :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 31, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
That headline belongs in the Onion :lol

 :rollin   I was going to post the exact same thing!

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 31, 2012, 06:55:19 PM
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/ron-paul-2012.jpg)

 :biggrin:
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 31, 2012, 07:04:06 PM
Wow, I tried to watch Romney's victory speech tonight, and it's just amazing to me how much of a charlatan and demagogue the man is. Just spewing crap after crap that's either invalid or just completely lacking any evaluation. It was full of fucking lies, just pure lies, and a complete straw man of a President who does not exist. Of course, all the Republicans are responsible of this, but Romney seems to be staking his entire bid on complete lies. It's disgusting. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 31, 2012, 07:15:35 PM
How is it that the more rural you get, the more extreme and conservative people are? I'm looking at the by-county map of the Florida results, and there's places in nothern Florida where Gingrich has a 10% lead. And in every county that has a major city, Romney won by a landslide.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on January 31, 2012, 07:24:59 PM
But Gingrich isn't really that conservative?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 31, 2012, 07:26:38 PM
That's how he's positioning himself though against Romney.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on January 31, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
I would just like to say that the winner/loser phase of the Florida primary bumped a keynote speech from Australia's Prime Minister discussing the economy, fiscal policy and industry policy from our two 24 hour news programs.

I hope you guys and your celebrity political system are happy.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on January 31, 2012, 08:04:30 PM
Hey, we're the only country that matters, so...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: The King in Crimson on January 31, 2012, 08:34:20 PM
I would just like to say that the winner/loser phase of the Florida primary bumped a keynote speech from Australia's Prime Minister discussing the economy, fiscal policy and industry policy from our two 24 hour news programs.

I hope you guys and your celebrity political system are happy.
I've been tired of this crap since November and we still have 6 months to go.  Ugh.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2012, 08:50:13 PM
I would just like to say that the winner/loser phase of the Florida primary bumped a keynote speech from Australia's Prime Minister discussing the economy, fiscal policy and industry policy from our two 24 hour news programs.

I hope you guys and your celebrity political system are happy.
But how could we find the most qualified person for the job if we didn't do it this way? 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on January 31, 2012, 09:03:04 PM
Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on January 31, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Here's a weird observation: How come there's no polls anymore for the upcoming states? Up until now there were several polls running per state, but the last polls for the upcoming ones are ancient and really have no meaning.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2012, 09:41:12 PM
This may be an obvious question, but how did it come about that Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire -three states not very representative of the electorate on the whole- came to pretty much determine who the nominee would be?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: TL on January 31, 2012, 10:32:57 PM
Here's a weird observation: How come there's no polls anymore for the upcoming states? Up until now there were several polls running per state, but the last polls for the upcoming ones are ancient and really have no meaning.

rumborak
Many stages of the US political system are more for show than anything. The GOP knew Romney was going to be their nominee before a single vote was cast. They just needed to make it look like they were still being democratic about the whole process until Romney gained enough ground that they could justify treating his nomination as inevitable.

Putting states like Iowa and New Hampshire early on allows them to play up a candidate's "electability" if the person they like wins, but dismiss it as just a small state and not representative of 'real america' if the candidate they like loses.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 31, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.

I'm gonna go ahead an guess that most Latino's didn't vote in the Republican primary.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on January 31, 2012, 11:10:03 PM
Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.

I'm gonna go ahead an guess that most Latino's didn't vote in the Republican primary.
Now, why would you say that?

 :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on January 31, 2012, 11:14:12 PM
Predictable results in Florida. Holy shit, Latino's are truly embarrassing.

I'm gonna go ahead an guess that most Latino's didn't vote in the Republican primary.
Now, why would you say that?

 :lol

Sarcasm?

Serious answer, historical voting records. They generally vote Democratic. It's also not in their economic interest to support any of the Republicans.

You know what's refreshing about Paul? His speech isn't a diatribe against Obama. He calls out the Federal Government, but at least he isn't stooping to the extremely low and dishonest nature of saying everything that's wrong with our government is somehow "Obama's fault."
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Progmetty on February 01, 2012, 01:05:45 AM
The man is really classy, he can't be president.
Finished watching the debate on youtube. When the guy from the audience asked about what they'll do about the creation of a Palestinian state Romney and Gingrich really weren't shy to lay back and show some width and wetness right away.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on February 01, 2012, 06:29:09 AM
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/ron-paul-2012.jpg)

 :biggrin:
Lol. This was a pretty predictable result though.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 01, 2012, 01:45:03 PM
Wow, I tried to watch Romney's victory speech tonight, and it's just amazing to me how much of a charlatan and demagogue the man is. Just spewing crap after crap that's either invalid or just completely lacking any evaluation. It was full of fucking lies, just pure lies, and a complete straw man of a President who does not exist. Of course, all the Republicans are responsible of this, but Romney seems to be staking his entire bid on complete lies. It's disgusting.

It's really pretty astonishing how it works, isn't it?  You're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.  The man is a walking contradiction of himself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCmiFcRyIc)
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 01, 2012, 01:51:36 PM
I seriously think one of Obama's biggest assets this coming election will be his general likability. His good guy family man vibe is undeniable. Romney just can't help but seem unpleasant, cold, and completely in his own world.

I can't think of a more prickly POTUS candidate in recent years...besides, like, Gingrich.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 01, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Wow, I tried to watch Romney's victory speech tonight, and it's just amazing to me how much of a charlatan and demagogue the man is. Just spewing crap after crap that's either invalid or just completely lacking any evaluation. It was full of fucking lies, just pure lies, and a complete straw man of a President who does not exist. Of course, all the Republicans are responsible of this, but Romney seems to be staking his entire bid on complete lies. It's disgusting.

It's really pretty astonishing how it works, isn't it?  You're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.  The man is a walking contradiction of himself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCmiFcRyIc)

Oh I know, it's just getting completely disturbing to me how much of a complete lie the man is running on. It's demagoguery, it's the worst of the human spirit, and I really don't know if I'll be able to live in a country that is so ignorant. Hopefully, when he, or any of the likely nominee's start running against Obama, the American people by and large see the bullshit for what it is.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 01, 2012, 02:16:09 PM
But what is one supposed to do when both candidates are bs? I mean I'll vote third party, but...
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 01, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
Speaking of third parties, are there even any at this point? Haven't heard anything of the Green Party since Nader.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: bosk1 on February 01, 2012, 02:37:50 PM
Well, the "Tea Party" was supposed to be independent, but lack of a singular cohesive identity combined with the GOP basically doing a hostile takeover led to them basically disappearing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 01, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
But what is one supposed to do when both candidates are bs? I mean I'll vote third party, but...


I guess I still don't see what's so bs about Obama. Is there some? Ya, but for the most part he's pretty factually accurate, and he's kept to his campaign promises something like 98%+ of the time.

I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).

Speaking of third parties, are there even any at this point? Haven't heard anything of the Green Party since Nader.

rumborak

Well, there's America Elects (or whatever the internet thing is), but that's sorta been out of the news. I know there's still technically a Libertarian party, but again, no media coverage.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on February 01, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
AE is on the ballot in at least 15 states last I heard.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on February 02, 2012, 07:36:06 AM
I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).
You know, Ron Paul isn't cutting much at all out of Social Security and Medicare as of his current plans.
Well, there's America Elects (or whatever the internet thing is), but that's sorta been out of the news. I know there's still technically a Libertarian party, but again, no media coverage.

Which is sad. The Libertarian Party could see some momentum behind it after this Paul campaign.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 02, 2012, 07:58:16 AM
Polls are showing the usual percentages for Nevada. Romney at 45%, Gingrich 25%, Santorum 11%, Paul 9%.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2012, 08:08:42 AM
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?

I gave him the benefit of the doubt with the firing people comment. Even though I dislike the guy, I understood what he meant with that comment. With this one though, I just get angry. Even if it is being taken out of context, this one is hard to swallow. It just seems like really stupid thing to say in a country where 1 and 10 can't find work, and 1 in 6 families are struggling to eat well. I highly doubt he meant that he doesn't care about the poor, but what is this safety net he speaks of? "If it needs repair", what the fuck does that mean? Of course it needs repair, look at the state of our country right now.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 08:19:49 AM
Not to mention "we have a safety net there" isn't an excuse when a major component of the conservative platform is actually eliminating that safety net.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on February 02, 2012, 08:23:31 AM
New Nevada poll:

Quote from: https://2012nevadacaucus.com/romney-lead-poll-paul-leaps/
In the most recent 2012NevadaCaucus.com phone poll.....

Mitt Romney 34%
Ron Paul 24%
Undecided 19%
Newt Gingrich 14%
Rick Santorum 9%

Results are based on telephone survey from 1-31-12 to 2-1-12, with a random sample of 300 Republican registered voters, aged 18 and older, living in state of Nevada and are likely to vote in the 2012 Nevada Caucus.
Margin of error is ±5 percentage points.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 02, 2012, 08:45:31 AM
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2012, 09:01:44 AM
Not to mention "we have a safety net there" isn't an excuse when a major component of the conservative platform is actually eliminating that safety net.
First thing I thought as well. He is just so bad at hiding his true self.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: eric42434224 on February 02, 2012, 11:07:37 AM
All I hear from the candidates, as well as voters, is that the biggest issue is who can beat Obama.
I personally get put off when the main platform or concern is to just beat the opponent of the opposing party, rather than what they can or will do to fix the country.
And does anyone feel that any Republican candidate will be able to beat Obama?  Not sure I do.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 02, 2012, 11:29:47 AM
I certainly don't get the impression that any of the candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, has anything vastly different to offer in terms of solutions than Obama. They're using the language the GOP base wants to hear ("save money", "smaller government") but then proceed to talk about expanding the military etc.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2012, 11:30:37 AM
It seems by design that the challenging party will rarely ever able to beat the incumbent. And I'm not just talking about the money disparity, either -- the candidate selection process has been pretty crap. Since Reagan:

Walter Mondale
Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

I wasn't around for Mondale, but jeez talk about a lot of bland, uninspiring folks.

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
And does anyone feel that any Republican candidate will be able to beat Obama?  Not sure I do.

Unless they can prove that Obama caused this country's melt down and not the Bush administration, I'd say no. I can wait to see which republican has to go head to head with Obama. I'm sure Obama has a ton of artillery that he is just waiting to fire off when the time is right.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2012, 11:36:07 AM
It's going to be so easy for him to paint Romney as Mr. Douchebag 1% it's not even funny.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 02, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
Yeah. Romney isn't even that popular with the Republicans themselves. And the Dems will have a field day with Romneycare.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 11:48:36 AM
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.

The Dems already have a lot of hearts and minds. My whole mindset is that Obama was in office for the beginning of this mess, he is much more in tune with it than any of the current Republican candidates. I don't think it is wise to throw a new guy into the mix to try and correct something that they really aren't familiar with.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 11:58:14 AM
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.

The Dems already have a lot of hearts and minds. My whole mindset is that Obama was in office for the beginning of this mess, he is much or in tune with it than any of the current Republican candidates. I don't think it is wise to throw a new guy into the mix to try and correct something that they really aren't familiar with.

From a politically knowledgeable standpoint, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there are people in this country, people who even voted for Obama in 2008, who believe he alone is to blame for the current situation.

I might be misunderstanding your point though, so please notify me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2012, 12:01:18 PM
I just hope the Dems don't get cocky. They do still have to win the hearts and minds, even Obama haters.

The Dems already have a lot of hearts and minds. My whole mindset is that Obama was in office for the beginning of this mess, he is much more in tune with it than any of the current Republican candidates. I don't think it is wise to throw a new guy into the mix to try and correct something that they really aren't familiar with.

From a politically knowledgeable standpoint, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there are people in this country, people who even voted for Obama in 2008, who believe he alone is to blame for the current situation.

I might be misunderstanding your point though, so please notify me.

Nah, we're on the same page.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: bosk1 on February 02, 2012, 12:03:05 PM
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?

Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.

#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."

#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.

And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate:  What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently).  So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between.  Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor.  But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new.  His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it.  It really makes him sound out of touch.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2012, 12:04:30 PM
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?

Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.

#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."

#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.

And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate:  What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently).  So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between.  Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor.  But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new.  His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it.  It really makes him sound out of touch.

Very good post  :tup
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 12:10:19 PM
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?

Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.

#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."

#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.

And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate:  What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently).  So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between.  Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor.  But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new.  His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it.  It really makes him sound out of touch.

Very good post  :tup

Agreed, and unfortunately for him the highlighted section will inevitably be undermined by the fact that, as you acknowledge, the party platform is against allowing the safety net to exist in the first place. He'll be caught between betraying his platform and therefore his party or betraying his constituents.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 02, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
Of coures the man's out of touch, he' makes 57k a day, which is basically more than the average person makes in a year.

I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).
You know, Ron Paul isn't cutting much at all out of Social Security and Medicare as of his current plans.

See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on February 02, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.

rumborak

Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

Paul supporters were treated miserably at the state convention, because McCain robocalls had identified them by phone polling. That's why a lot of Paul supporters aren't answering to polls now. I don't know how true that is, but I believe Paul will end up second, far behind Romney.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 02, 2012, 02:43:43 PM
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.

rumborak

This place (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) has the best polling I've seen anywhere.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 02, 2012, 02:45:40 PM
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 02, 2012, 02:51:02 PM
It seems by design that the challenging party will rarely ever able to beat the incumbent. And I'm not just talking about the money disparity, either -- the candidate selection process has been pretty crap. Since Reagan:

Walter Mondale
Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

I wasn't around for Mondale, but jeez talk about a lot of bland, uninspiring folks.

Mondale sucked.  When he picked Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, he chose to lose the election just to make a social statement.  Biggest landslide in a presidential election in my lifetime.  The Gipper carried 49 states. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 02, 2012, 04:33:31 PM
All I hear from the candidates, as well as voters, is that the biggest issue is who can beat Obama.
I personally get put off when the main platform or concern is to just beat the opponent of the opposing party, rather than what they can or will do to fix the country.
Timewarp quote lol.

We had this happen to our Labor Party (leftish) in 2007 - although we are talking parliamentary not presidential. They elected this guy called Kevin Rudd as leader, had this massive campaign around him being this deity sent to save ua from the horrible conservatives who had been in power for a decade or so. He won, but it turned out he was a little dictator, making decisions with no consultation with his ministers and very little with his bureaocracy. Made a bunch of bad moves, pissed off the media, community at large, lobby groups and, finally, the parts of the business community and got rolled. Labor still won power in 2010 in minority, but they are still working through the shit he kicked up and are so deeply unpopular that a the opposition looks like they will waltz into power with basically no policies.

So, beware.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 02, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

You do. No one is forcing you to stay in the country. There's plenty of places to live that don't have such laws.

The guarantee is one reason why Social Security and Medicare can work. Without that guarantee, you neuter the entire system. It's a social contract, that changes how you are compensated, it does not change how much you are compensated. 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 02, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
I've not signed any contract.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 02, 2012, 07:06:37 PM
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 02, 2012, 07:19:00 PM
I've not signed any contract.
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak


Ya, and where's my contract I signed approving my being born? How dare my parents force to me live, it should have been consensual.

unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 07:50:26 PM
Unless you wanna go live in the woods and be a Unibomber. Or go to another country.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 02, 2012, 08:46:45 PM
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak

The things listed here are not the same as forcing some one to be involved in a retirement plan.

unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.

I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to.  And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.

Unless you wanna go live in the woods and be a Unibomber.

So I have a choice of being forced to give up my money for a retirement plan that I don't want, or being the Unibomber.... got it.

Or go to another country.

This is an interesting comment. The U.S. is supposed to be a union of states. The federal government was not given authority to mandate things like retirement plans, although the states can initiate social experiments like this.  This gives an individual the option to vote with their feet. They can move to a totally different place under different laws without giving up their citizenship and protection of the bill of rights. This is one of the separations of power, and generates competition between states. And most of all it gives people choice.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: emindead on February 02, 2012, 09:49:38 PM
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2012, 09:58:13 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/TwW1X.gif)
Ed Norton: emindead
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 10:01:35 PM
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.

OK.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 02, 2012, 11:29:20 PM
unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.

I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to.  And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

I also never said that the social contract we have is limited to the Constitution, nor is the Constitution a strictly limited thing. It set's up a groundwork for how the government can work, it does not say with precision what can and cannot be done. It gives the power for certain things, it denies the power for certain things, and it gives the framework for other things to come about. The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work. Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end. Did the Founders imagine something like Social Security? No, but they didn't write anything in the Constitution that actually forbids this from occurring, and it leaves the door open; allowing for the people of the Nation to come to their own decision. They first and foremost set up a government responsible to the People.

Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.


Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.

You are aware it's an extenuation of libertarian philosophy, don't you? Every libertarian I have ever argued against has no problem with people banding together, and doing the things discussed about on their own accord. However, for some reason, when the scale of this banding together get's so large, this goes out the window, and people are no longer allowed to come to social agreements.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 02, 2012, 11:38:01 PM
It's like that old joke about the anarchist convention, and it makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: MasterShakezula on February 02, 2012, 11:43:01 PM
I do not see why one would so harshly oppose some portion of their income going into SS.  I mean, one may or may not end up needing it, but you cannot necessarily tell for sure until around the time you are eligible.  Even if you don't end up needing your SS checks, they're still a nice bonus.  It's the gov. doing something real beneficial for you; why be so opposed to it? 
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Chino on February 03, 2012, 07:24:32 AM
I do not see why one would so harshly oppose some portion of their income going into SS.  I mean, one may or may not end up needing it, but you cannot necessarily tell for sure until around the time you are eligible.  Even if you don't end up needing your SS checks, they're still a nice bonus.  It's the gov. doing something real beneficial for you; why be so opposed to it?

I don't think the fact that it is social security that is the problem. I think people get upset because their money is being taken away for something they never agreed to. In this case it happens to be social security, any other fund with the same money holdings would generate the exact same response.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: eric42434224 on February 03, 2012, 07:32:16 AM
Where was the agreement I made to pay any sort of taxes?  Fed Taxes.  State Taxes.  Sales Tax.  I never signed an agreement to obey any laws either.
Its a social contract that is agreed upon by our society.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 03, 2012, 08:16:29 AM

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.

The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work.


I'm not advocating a rigid government, I'm advocating that we use the rules that we have set up. We give the federal government new powers by ammendment. It makes it a harder and slower process, but this is a good thing. It prevents major changes at the whim of poplular demand that may or may not be good in the long run, or easily reversable if need be.

Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.

If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?


Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.

No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 03, 2012, 08:32:02 AM
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 03, 2012, 08:42:06 AM
You know this will get a few mentions on the campaign trail once Obama hits the road: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/business/economy/us-economy-added-243000-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-is-8-3.html?_r=1&hp
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 03, 2012, 08:44:17 AM
Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

What's to stop him from doing so this time?

Quote
Paul supporters were treated miserably at the state convention, because McCain robocalls had identified them by phone polling. That's why a lot of Paul supporters aren't answering to polls now. I don't know how true that is, but I believe Paul will end up second, far behind Romney.

I find it highly unlikely he will come in above Gingrich. In both polls used by realclearpolitics.com, Gingrich gets 25%, whereas RP has either 9% or 15%.  Your explanation of "the RP supporters are hiding because they got treated badly last time" will not amount for a 10% difference.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 03, 2012, 08:48:20 AM
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak

Well there is a way to change the constitution if it really is needed.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 03, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
Speaking of the Green Party, they declared their nominee: Roseanne.

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/roseanne-is-running-for-president-not-a-joke/

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Dark Castle on February 03, 2012, 08:51:30 AM
Speaking of the Green Party, they declared their nominee: Roseanne.

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/roseanne-is-running-for-president-not-a-joke/

rumborak

DDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
I've been watching Roseanne lately  :lol
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2012, 08:54:58 AM
:|
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: jsem on February 03, 2012, 09:16:02 AM
Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

What's to stop him from doing so this time?

Nothing. He'll probably end up at around 50% this time too. I never made any claim that he'd lose votes.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 03, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak

Well there is a way to change the constitution if it really is needed.

Weren't you just saying that we need to go back to the Constitution's original intentions?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 03, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: eric42434224 on February 03, 2012, 12:40:43 PM
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 03, 2012, 12:45:05 PM
Should have colored my post for more clarity
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: unklejman on February 03, 2012, 01:33:42 PM
It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.

So put the most invasive and controlling as close to the individual as possible. City, county, state. It is much easier to leave from under them, or change them this way.

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

I've vowed to never argue with you again, but I'll say this one thing. Act's of war should only be done as a last resort under direct threat of attack, or actual attack,  with declaration of congress, and with an exit strategy.  I feel that those who want preemptive war with 3rd world nations should pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and fight it themselves.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 03, 2012, 02:15:04 PM
It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.

So put the most invasive and controlling as close to the individual as possible. City, county, state. It is much easier to leave from under them, or change them this way.

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

I've vowed to never argue with you again, but I'll say this one thing. Act's of war should only be done as a last resort under direct threat of attack, or actual attack,  with declaration of congress, and with an exit strategy.  I feel that those who want preemptive war with 3rd world nations should pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and fight it themselves.

Then we have no argument here (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/cheers.gif)

Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 03, 2012, 02:22:54 PM
That still doesn't have anything to do with tax money going toward purposes you as an individual don't agree with.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 03, 2012, 02:32:15 PM
That still doesn't have anything to do with tax money going toward purposes you as an individual don't agree with.

Well, yeah, I'm just trying to play nice in the sandbox.  :P
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 03, 2012, 02:41:47 PM
It is appreciated.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 03, 2012, 03:10:11 PM

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.

Go tell that to a bear. I'm sure he'll understand your natural rights. The reality of life is, you have no rights that are not protected and assured to you by society, and your rights are tied to the society you live. Go to Saudi Arabia, and try and claim your right to free speech.

It's also not just my opinion, it's a fully loaded argument I am giving. There's a difference between the two, even though they obviously overlap.

Quote
Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.

If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?

Why did the tenth amendment not get rid of the necessary and proper clause, and the other stated powers? Why, under thsi scenario, did the founders, and Madison himself, come to agree that a National Bank was constitutional because it was necessary and proper? I'm not sure about you, but I've read the notes on the debate, and they were quite aware of this limited their foresight was, and that they didn't want to basically doom their country because they couldn't foresee every possibility.

The 10th amendment also gives the States any powers not granted in the Constitution - this, however, is very specifically a power granted to the Federal Government.
 
Quote
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.

No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.

Yes, but the Federal Government we have came about because there was too little cohesion, too much anarchy.

There's also the preamble, which quite clearly tells us why the Federal Government was set up:

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Again, the promotion of the general Welfare is mentioned, as well as some other things you're ignoring.

The Founders did quite a few things that today's Libertarians whitewash over.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: rumborak on February 03, 2012, 07:38:37 PM
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 03, 2012, 09:20:40 PM
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
I would think so.  Not only with the unemployment info, but how well the stocks did today was also great news. 

Well, not for the Republicans, I guess.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 03, 2012, 09:47:54 PM
According to Mitt, Obama has still made the economy worse. We should've been here two years ago, or something.

What's so entertaining about how long elections are now, is that candidates start running on issues that evolve and become false issues to run on. Mitt's still running like it's 2008 (probably because he's been running since 2006), and his positions are horribly anachronistic. Now, he's stuck in the uncomfortable position of trying to cast doom on the economy, because he would basically give the election to Obama if he actually admitted the truth of the economy.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 03, 2012, 10:38:23 PM
According to Mitt, Obama has still made the economy worse. We should've been here two years ago, or something.

Unfortunately, there will be plenty who jump on board with him on that.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.

Yeah, I hope you're right on that, and I hope it's our man.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 04, 2012, 12:15:21 AM
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
At a glance they are ok (in terms of job creation), but the unemployment number is almost totally misleading at the moment. The US participation rate has dropped to its lowest level on record (records go back to 1948) to 63.7 per cent I think. This is a very, very low rate of workforce participation - on par with the socialist parts of Europe (who have structurally lower participation due to higher social welfare on average*). Prior to "The Great Recession" - which is a stupid name by the way, participation was about 66-67 per cent. A ~3 per cent fall doesn't sound like much...but:

If we were to hold the participation rate steady at its pre-crisis peak, 66.4 per cent, the US unemployment rate would be sitting pretty at 11.9 per cent as oppose to 8.2 per cent. No kidding either.

Why? People have given up looking for work. I don't think you can argue anything other than that - the change in participation is far too severe for it to be simple fluctuation in the level of participation. So yeah, its great that the US economy is creating jobs, but you've got a hell of a long way to go yet until things are under control.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.

I wouldn't bet your house on it. That would require heaps to go your way: that the US continues to trash the Dollar, that China allows the Yuan to keep rising, that China runs out of cheap labour (it won't, I don't think), that India doesn't get its shit together (which it is), that Africa remains a basket case (can't say on that one), that Europe survives (and so the Euro doesn't become either non-existent or remain well undervalued), etc etc. That's way too big a call to make. Reminds me of a couple of articles that I've read earlier in the week, the second of which is quite relevant - although it states the obvious really (we call it garbage in, garbage out):

https://www.watoday.com.au/business/the-very-model-of-a-future-based-on-guesswork-20120203-1qxma.html

Who made that assertion, by the way?



*Please don't let that comment start a flame warm between the right and the left. I'm suprised this thread has gone as far as it has without it so far.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 04, 2012, 12:33:28 AM
What counts as participating? Our population is getting older, more people would be retiring and leaving the workforce naturally anyways. And what about people going back to school and getting new training?

I mean, it's a valid point, but it still needs to be evaluated. What's the "ideal" participation? If there is such a thing. Personally I think it's odd how much we think everyone needs to have a job. And let's say before that both people in a relationship were working, or that some people got married, and because their partner got a better paying job, they no longer have to work. Is that accounted for, and whose to say its not better, or can't be better? More people have to work if there's just shitty paying jobs.

The fact that American manufacturing is coming back is huge, as is the fact that were closing the trading gap.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 04, 2012, 12:44:58 AM
Yeah there are a whole bunch of reasons that the particpation rate fluctuates, but in my professional opinion its to do with discouraged workers by in large. Sure, you get labour market churn all the time - I read this week that in any given year the Australian economy churns through about 1,000,000 people (out of total employment of ~12,000,000), I can imagine the US would be similar as a percentage. Oh yeah, and the participation rate is derived as the percentage of people aged between 15 and 65 (I think...) either in work or actively seeking, so an ageing population may not necesserally drive a fall in participation.

I don't think there is an "ideal" participation rate, but I know the OECD average is around 65 per cent. This is including socialist Europe, which as said has a structurally lower participation rate. Australia's overall rate is ~66 per cent, while my state almost hit 70 per cent recently (made it to 69.8 per cent). Participation is driven by a lot of forces; I'm actually working with the policy team over the next few months to come up with some papers on participation so hopefully I'll have an answer soon.

I don't think everyone needs to have a job, but I think everyone that wants a job should be able to find one within a reasonable timeframe. If they can't, presumably they will drop out of the labour fore, which means that although they can't find a job, they are not statistically unemployed - and so that inflates (deflates) your unemployment rate.

Not saying its right, but thats just how things are measured.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Scheavo on February 04, 2012, 01:00:30 AM
Well, I guess my point would just be that lower participation doesn't equate with a worse economy. There's a lot of factors involved and it could really go either way. Republicans though only want to use it as a sign that things are actually worse still, which seems groundless to me, without a full explanation of why and how.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 04, 2012, 01:06:08 AM
I would agree with that. Although I still believe the lower participation rate relative to before TGR is an indicator of how bad things have become in the US labour market.

The abuse of statistics is something that pisses me off pretty much more than anything - whether to talk up or talk down.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 04, 2012, 01:46:13 AM
People aren't just giving up in searching for jobs.  You can't really do that here in America; that is a recipe for eviction, foreclosure, and becoming homeless.  Unemployment benefits only last so long.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 04, 2012, 02:09:28 AM
I'm an economist, I can conviniently assume those things to the dustbin :)

However, the BLS stats are generally pretty good...and they do indicate that this is happening. Haven't foreclosures been pretty high for quite a while now?
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 04, 2012, 02:36:53 AM
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Riceball on February 04, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
When life hands you lemons, just say fuck the lemons and bail.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: chknptpie on February 04, 2012, 07:04:12 AM
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.

This has been going on here in Arizona for years. So many people just walk away from a house they bought for $300k that is now only worth $150k. Just pack up and move on, leave it empty. It's crazy to me to think about doing something like that.



As far as Romney saying we should have been here 2 years ago, blame congress, not the president.
Title: Re: Election 2012
Post by: Super Dude on February 04, 2012, 07:22:26 AM
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.

This has been going on here in Arizona for years. So many people just walk away from a house they bought for $300k that is now only worth $150k. Just pack up and move on, leave it empty. It's crazy to me to think about doing something like that.



As far as Romney saying we should have been here 2 years ago, blame congress, not the president.

Yep, the central point that everyone somehow misses. I don't really know how we can do it (especially without resulting in the opposite problem: an executive that actually is overpowered), but this country really has to rein