2012 Election Thread

[Superfreakie]

The drums are beating louder, Freakie.

But that is going to be the extent of it. Does wonders for oil industry futures though.

This is not Iraq, nor Afghanistan, both impoverished regimes with little in international wherewithal. The farthest this might be pushed is with an Israeli air attack. But with the Iranian facilities now subterranean, it would take a serious weapon. Not sure if the Holy Land of the Jews wish to nuke a Persian state at this time. That might not go over so well in the greater Middle East.

Iran will eventually develop a nuclear weapon. This is inevitable.   

[PIE-GUY]

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. They have millions of people who are very well educated and very sympathetic to democratic values. They are a country just waiting for the opportunity to change their own regime. If the US were to attack Iran, it would set the progress of those forward thinking ideals back 30 years.

Iran is certainly not Iraq or Afghanistan.

[sls.stormyrider]

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. They have millions of people who are very well educated and very sympathetic to democratic values. They are a country just waiting for the opportunity to change their own regime. If the US were to attack Iran, it would set the progress of those forward thinking ideals back 30 years.

Iran is certainly not Iraq or Afghanistan.

and it's not like those were overwhelming successes
of course,  Wolfowitz said - Iraq would be easy
:roll:

[rowjimmy]

Getting into Iraq and toppling the regime was easy.

It's all those other details that weren't anticipated.

[sls.stormyrider]

Getting into Iraq and toppling the regime was easy.

It's all those other details that weren't anticipated.

should have been - in bullshitting with my friends debating the war before hand, it came up frequently. If we thought about it, those other guys did too - just denied the obvious because it contradicted with their perverted view of reality.

[rowjimmy]

Getting into Iraq and toppling the regime was easy.

It's all those other details that weren't anticipated.

should have been - in bullshitting with my friends debating the war before hand, it came up frequently. If we thought about it, those other guys did too - just denied the obvious because it contradicted with their perverted view of reality.

The Iraqis will greet us with flowers

[VDB]

Obama campaign encourages supporters to raise funds for Democratic-leaning super PACs. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of taking the lay of the land and deciding you don't want the GOP super PACs to just spend wildly while you sit on the sidelines.

Fox News doesn't quite see it that way. They're howling "hypocrisy" -- noting that Obama wasn't too keen on the notion of unrestrained super PAC spending in the wake of Citizens United.

As I recall, that decision was hailed by conservatives, as it enabled more people to do with their money what they want and not have the government saying otherwise. And, conservatives have been taking full advantage so far this election season. So they should be applauding the Obama campaign for finally coming around and deciding to embrace the full freedoms that Citizens United has enabled.


A metaphor:

Let's say the NFL decides to legalize a whole slew of heretofore dirty and illegal plays. The NFC teams declare this is a travesty, an affront to the purity of the league, and they won't have anything to do with it. The AFC teams embrace the new reality and realize it can be easier to win (and more fun to play) when you can now stack your roster full of Ndamukong Suhs. The Super Bowl rolls around and the NFC team realizes, "fuck this, we're playing dirty too. We want to win, after all." The AFC team cries and says, "but you swore you'd play clean! Have you no integrity?? You're bad people!" The AFC's fans hoot and shout in agreement. "You're hypocrites! You said you hate the new, dirty way of playing! Only our team is allowed to play like that!" The NFC team's fans proceed to hail batteries down upon the AFC team and its fans. This must mean the Eagles are playing.

/a metaphor

[runawayjimbo]

I agree Obama should use every tool at his disposal to make his case to the public that he deserves another term. More speech is good speech. Of course the right will call him a hypocrite, just as the left would if the roles were reversed, but that doesn't mean it's not true. I also think the perception of the influence of money is drastically overstated; Romney was on an all out negative blitz against Newt for weeks leading up to FL, but it wasn't until he tanked in the 2 debates (especially the second) that his numbers started to drop. Also, these campaigns are hardly a new phenomenon; Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Willie Horton happened long before Citizens.

There's only one problem I have with your metaphor: the game is not decided by the players but by the supporters. If a team decides at the outset to play dirty, what effect might that have on people who support them? And if a team decries the rules and refuses to play by the new "dirty" rules, might their support grow as they play the hero? Do you think Mark McGuire and Sammie Sosa and Barry Bonds will ever be accepted into the Hall of Fame? Every individual has the opportunity to make up their own mind and vote accordingly, so I don't hold super PACs responsible if people are too ignorant to make an informed decision (I still don't understand how exit polls show a large swath of the electorate who say they made up their mind in the days before they voted).

Finally, the Phillies throw batteries, the Eagles throw snowballs. Suck it, redneck :wink:

[VDB]

There's only one problem I have with your metaphor: the game is not decided by the players but by the supporters.

Dammit Jimbo, quit punching holes in my sweet-ass metaphor. Perhaps I should have picked something like figure skating or floor gymnastics, where there's a performance but the outcome is determined by judges. Or American Idol. Fuck, I don't know.

Point is, the reaction is stupid, and if the tables were turned and the party labels switched, it would still be stupid.

Every individual has the opportunity to make up their own mind and vote accordingly, so I don't hold super PACs responsible if people are too ignorant to make an informed decision

Agreed.

Suck it, redneck :wink:

I wasn't born in the south, just got here as soon as I could.

Straight outta the D.C. suburbs, dawg.

[sls.stormyrider]

There's only one problem I have with your metaphor: the game is not decided by the players but by the supporters. If a team decides at the outset to play dirty, what effect might that have on people who support them? And if a team decries the rules and refuses to play by the new "dirty" rules, might their support grow as they play the hero? Do you think Mark McGuire and Sammie Sosa and Barry Bonds will ever be accepted into the Hall of Fame? Every individual has the opportunity to make up their own mind and vote accordingly, so I don't hold super PACs responsible if people are too ignorant to make an informed decision (I still don't understand how exit polls show a large swath of the electorate who say they made up their mind in the days before they voted).

apparently, some sort of market research has shown that negative advertising works. So - it's not the supporters but the targets.
All they have to do is convince 1 or 2% of the population in the right states to have a huge impact.
Is it the fault of the SuperPacs or is it the fault of people who are swayed by the repetitive arguments that say so and so is a crook? Both, but the SuperPacs know this and take advantage of it, so they deserve much of the blame.

[runawayjimbo]

There's only one problem I have with your metaphor: the game is not decided by the players but by the supporters.

Dammit Jimbo, quit punching holes in my sweet-ass metaphor. Perhaps I should have picked something like figure skating or floor gymnastics, where there's a performance but the outcome is determined by judges. Or American Idol. Fuck, I don't know.

I was thinking the WWF: we all know this shit is rigged anyway.

[VDB]

Santorum had a good day yesterday.

Too bad for him he's still Rick Santorum.

[runawayjimbo]

Santorum had a good day yesterday.

Too bad for him he's still Rick Santorum.

The "anybody but Romney" primary continues.

The size of his victories was pretty shocking to me, although it's worth noting that he won exactly zero delegates last night since CO and MN were caucuses who award their delegates later and MO has a non-binding primary followed by a caucus in March. But it should give him some momentum and maybe help his fundraising efforts (apparently one of the largest contributor to Newt's Super PAC was onstage with Santorum last night).

It will also be interesting to see how this affects Newt. Santorum could unite conservatives as the best anti-Romney candidate and send Newt packing. But If Newt can hold the South and Santorum remains strong in midwest, Romney won't have enough delegates to win the nomination setting up some drama at the GOP convention.

The challenge for Santorum now will be trying to convince people he's really not that crazy once all his craziness starts being exposed by the new found spotlights. And we'll get to see in real time the impact of Romney's negative ads as he pivots away from Newt and sics his super PAC on Santorum.

Remember in 2008 when the GOP was openly mocking the protracted Obama-Hillary primary?

[VDB]

Santorum is now leading in Michigan, Ohio and nationwide.

This is a guy who thinks your state should be allowed to outlaw condoms and birth control. Because a sudden explosion of rugrats and pregnancies is exactly what this economy needs right now.

This is either Republican voters making Romney squirm for a while just to makes sure he knows they don't actually like him, or they're seriously thinking about flushing the entire election right down the shitter.

[mbw]

Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!