week4paug.net

Where's the stage? Spurious Generalities => Politiw00kchat => Topic started by: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM

Title: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
With the 2012 election officially kicking off with the Iowa caucus tonight, I figured we could use an all things election thread to keep things nice and organized. I could probably just go ahead and call it "Obama v. Romney - The Battle of the Mandates", but I'll play along like there's a bit of suspense to this GOP primary. The Congressional elections might provide a little more drama.

I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's recent popularity in Iowa, but I guess it makes sense given the GOP primary thus far which has had more front runners than a 3.0 second set.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on January 04, 2012, 12:58:48 AM
You're right on here. Romney has the nomination tied up after tonight. Perry "reassessing" so essentially dropping (Thank GOD). Romney has way too much of a head start in the upcoming states in my book.
Donezo.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on January 04, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
They're into scat play? Sick fuckers.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 04, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
I read something like 68% of registered republicans consider themselves evangelical Christians.
that explains a lot
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on January 04, 2012, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 04, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
I read something like 68% of registered republicans consider themselves evangelical Christians.
that explains a lot
Yup.  They don't like a woman's right to choose at all out there.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 11:12:49 AM
Actually, I meant to remove the words "in Iowa".
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 04, 2012, 11:17:19 AM
What, I'm not gonna get my Newt nomination?

Sheesh, 2012 is not turning out to be all that I hoped it would be.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on January 04, 2012, 11:23:52 AM
At least we won't have Obama to worry about after this year...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-openly-asks-nation-why-on-earth-he-would-wan,26933/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-openly-asks-nation-why-on-earth-he-would-wan,26933/)

QuoteObama Openly Asks Nation Why On Earth He Would Want To Serve For Another Term

PITTSBURGH—Citing three years of exhausting partisan politics, constant gridlock in Congress, and an overall feeling that the entire nation has "completely lost it," President Barack Obama openly asked a campaign-rally crowd Tuesday why he'd want to serve another term as president of "this godforsaken country."

"My fellow Americans, I come to you today to ask, why?" Obama said to 1,200 people gathered inside a gymnasium at Taylor Allderdice High School. "Why can't our congressional leaders work together to create jobs? Why can't Wall Street ever be held accountable? And most important, why on God's green earth would I voluntarily subject myself to this nonsense for another four years?"

"I'm dead serious," the president continued, saying that any reasonable person would have walked away the moment the Senate minority leader announced his main priority—above creating jobs and improving American health care—was to make Obama a one-term president. "I'm asking if anybody out there can come up with even one reason why I'd want to endure this unmitigated shit show for another minute, let alone through 2016. What's in it for me, ex­actly? Can anyone answer that? Anyone at all?"

After a long silence during which crowd members mostly just shuffled their feet and stared at the ground, Obama said, "Yeah, that's what I thought."

Arguing he'd have to be certifiably insane or some kind of sadistic freak to extend his presidency, Obama asked why anyone with half a brain would willingly open himself up to constant vilification by media strategists, or place himself in a situation that involves so much work for such little reward. He also asked the audience how "messed up and sick" he'd have to be to devote nearly a decade of his life to an unending cycle of political gamesmanship that stifles progress at every turn.

At one point during the 40-minute address, Obama wondered aloud if anyone could blame him for wanting to avoid another four years of idiotic questions about his birth certificate, racist immigration laws, Eric Cantor, citizens who know in their hearts the country must switch to renewable energy but simply refuse to do so, the South, antigay bigotry, and "just all of it, really."

"Today this nation faces difficult questions," Obama said. "For one, how bad must it have gotten for a politician to gladly—gladly—give up the most sought-after elected position in the world? And also, of all the people listening to me right now, is there even one of you who would honestly want to trade places with me? There isn't, is there? And I don't blame you."

In the coming weeks, Obama will reportedly continue to take his anti-second-term message across the country, asking ordinary Americans if they agree that his being on the ballot in November would make him a complete and total moron. Sources within the president's new "One Goddamn Reason" campaign confirmed he is genuinely curious to see if one American citizen can tell him why leaving the White House isn't the best thing he could possibly do for himself and his family.

"I have a pen and some paper right here," Obama said Wednesday morning at a town hall meeting in Ohio. "Let's list the pros and cons of being president. Con: There are people out there who literally want to shoot you dead. Con: We live in a country seriously considering a Newt Gingrich White House. Con: You can help 40 million Americans receive health care, sign legislation that regulates a financial system run amok, give the order to kill Osama bin Laden, help topple Muammar Qaddafi's tyrannical regime without losing the life of one American soldier, end the war in Iraq, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, stave off a second Great Depression, take out more than 30 top al- Qaeda leaders, and somehow everyone still calls you the next Jimmy Carter."

"Can anyone out there name a pro?" continued Obama, gesturing at the silent crowd with his pen. "That's okay. I asked a bunch of people in Pittsburgh the same exact question yesterday, and they couldn't, either."

While many Beltway observers questioned Obama's new strategy, saying the president could hurt his chances of serving a second term by saying he doesn't want to serve a second term, others argued Obama seems to have finally rediscovered his voice.

"Whenever I watch him on the stump asking a crowd, 'Why am I fucking here right now?' or saying things like, 'I think I'd rather die than do this job again,' he's so fiery and passionate I'm reminded of the 2007 Obama," Democratic strategist Karen Finney said. "The one who thought he could make a difference before a broken, nonsensical political system and an insane populace robbed him of his humanity, ripped out his heart, and left him for dead.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2012, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Undermind on January 04, 2012, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 04, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
I read something like 68% of registered republicans consider themselves evangelical Christians.
that explains a lot
Yup.  They don't like a woman's right to choose at all out there.

I love the compassion of the Evangelicals - they just can't stop protecting life (Muslims need not apply).

CNN exits polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia) only have 57% identifying as Born-Again/Evangelical (apparently there's a difference?), but to your point, Santorum took nearly a third of that vote, almost twice Paul's 18%.

Another maddening fact from the exit polls was 28% of caucus goers said they made up their mind "in the last few days" and 18% said "today" (Santorum had healthy margins over Romney in both those categories). I'm not sure where those people had been for the last couple of months, but I have to seriously question how informed your decision is if you made up your mind in the last week of December.

One other fun fact: 64% of voters support the Tea Party, and Santorum won 29% of that bloc (Paul and Romney each had 19%). Now, regardless of your opinion on the Tea Party, this just proves to me once again that the Tea Party does not really believe in small gov't, fiscal restraint, and civil liberties. Because if they did, they surely wouldn't be supporting a guy who voted for the largest (unfunded) Medicare expansion in history and the Patriot Act, vows never to cut the defense budget ever, and would propose a federal ban on gay marriage (overturning those pesky states that currently allow it; the 10th amendment is for the weak). The Tea Party is nothing more than a faction of the mainstream GOP who fancies themselves historians because they like to put on stupid tri-corner hats.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 04, 2012, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2012, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Undermind on January 04, 2012, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 04, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
I read something like 68% of registered republicans consider themselves evangelical Christians.
that explains a lot
Yup.  They don't like a woman's right to choose at all out there.

I love the compassion of the Evangelicals - they just can't stop protecting life (Muslims need not apply).

CNN exits polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia) only have 57% identifying as Born-Again/Evangelical (apparently there's a difference?), but to your point, Santorum took nearly a third of that vote, almost twice Paul's 18%.

Another maddening fact from the exit polls was 28% of caucus goers said they made up their mind "in the last few days" and 18% said "today" (Santorum had healthy margins over Romney in both those categories). I'm not sure where those people had been for the last couple of months, but I have to seriously question how informed your decision is if you made up your mind in the last week of December.

One other fun fact: 64% of voters support the Tea Party, and Santorum won 29% of that bloc (Paul and Romney each had 19%). Now, regardless of your opinion on the Tea Party, this just proves to me once again that the Tea Party does not really believe in small gov't, fiscal restraint, and civil liberties. Because if they did, they surely wouldn't be supporting a guy who voted for the largest (unfunded) Medicare expansion in history and the Patriot Act, vows never to cut the defense budget ever, and would propose a federal ban on gay marriage (overturning those pesky states that currently allow it; the 10th amendment is for the weak). The Tea Party is nothing more than a faction of the mainstream GOP who fancies themselves historians because they like to put on stupid tri-corner hats.

actually, they believe in the government not poking into personal (or state) affiars - unless, of course, the Tea Pary members disagree with the choice one makes about personal affairs. Then, those choices should be prohibited.
thus, we should all be gun carrying heterosexual christians because this is a christian nation. the founding fathers clearly erred here, and the 1st amendment can be ignored.

(in Clarence Thomas confirmatin hearings, he called out the founding fathers on freedom of religion)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 04, 2012, 03:02:32 PM
and, in further news, Bachman's out, Perry's still in.

at least we still have some comic relief
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 04, 2012, 04:20:30 PM
Lulz...  http://twitter.com/PALINBACHMANN

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 04, 2012, 06:23:17 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that about 120,000 Iowans participated in yesterday's Republican caucuses. That's 4% of the state's population, and 4/100s of a percent of the U.S. population. More people attend NASCAR races than this. Pretty amazing the attention that gets paid to this and the influence it has for involving so few people, if you think about it.

And, apparently the Democrats held caucuses as well and they drew 25,000.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on January 04, 2012, 06:47:28 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 04, 2012, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2012, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Undermind on January 04, 2012, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 04, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 03, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
I'm still struggling to understand Santorum's popularity in Iowa.
I read something like 68% of registered republicans consider themselves evangelical Christians.
that explains a lot
Yup.  They don't like a woman's right to choose at all out there.

Now, regardless of your opinion on the Tea Party, this just proves to me once again that the Tea Party does not really believe in small gov't, fiscal restraint, and civil liberties. Because if they did, they surely wouldn't be supporting a guy who voted for the largest (unfunded) Medicare expansion in history and the Patriot Act, vows never to cut the defense budget ever, and would propose a federal ban on gay marriage (overturning those pesky states that currently allow it; the 10th amendment is for the weak). The Tea Party is nothing more than a faction of the mainstream GOP who fancies themselves historians because they like to put on stupid tri-corner hats.

actually, they believe in the government not poking into personal (or state) affiars - unless, of course, the Tea Pary members disagree with the choice one makes about personal affairs. Then, those choices should be prohibited.

the only gov't spending they really get pissed about is when disenfranchised black people get assistance  feeding their families, and having refrigerators to put the leftovers in.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 05, 2012, 08:55:28 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on January 04, 2012, 06:47:28 PM

the only gov't spending they really get pissed about is when disenfranchised black people get assistance  feeding their families, and having refrigerators to put the leftovers in.

God forbid those people have 2 cars to drive mom and dad to their min. wage jobs in their depressed communities... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 05, 2012, 10:12:30 AM
Stewart's take on Iowa last night was hilarious as usual

Part 1 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---the-corn-identity?xrs=share_copy

Part 2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---the-corn-identity---top-tier-candidates?xrs=share_copy
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on January 06, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 05, 2012, 10:12:30 AM
Stewart's take on Iowa last night was hilarious as usual

Part 1 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---the-corn-identity?xrs=share_copy

Part 2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---the-corn-identity---top-tier-candidates?xrs=share_copy

How you gonna post those two clips without the moment of zen, I don't know...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/moment-of-zen---anderson-cooper-s-iowa-caucus-commentary (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/moment-of-zen---anderson-cooper-s-iowa-caucus-commentary)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 06, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 05, 2012, 10:12:30 AM
Part 2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---the-corn-identity---top-tier-candidates?xrs=share_copy

Oh man, just when you're about to forget how big of a joke Mitt Romney is...


Quote from: PIE-GUY on January 06, 2012, 09:01:41 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/moment-of-zen---anderson-cooper-s-iowa-caucus-commentary (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/moment-of-zen---anderson-cooper-s-iowa-caucus-commentary)

That's awesome!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 08, 2012, 06:39:58 PM
LOL

best lines go to Anderson Cooper predicting Jon Stewart's response, and this

QuoteEven in victory, Mitt Romney's self-described ordinary guy persona feels like it came from an ordinary guy kit that he got at Hammacher Schlemmer for $14 million.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 10, 2012, 09:38:57 PM
I really hope Huntsman doesn't drop out after his 3rd place finish tonight. It'd be a shame for his smoking hot daughters to slip back into obscurity.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 10, 2012, 10:45:02 PM
Huntsman and his daughters are still in.

not only does he have hot daughters, but he actually has some good ideas.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on January 11, 2012, 02:01:53 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman


:Still hoping Colbert doesn't drop out:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 12, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 10:45:02 PM
Huntsman and his daughters are still in.

not only does he have hot daughters, but he actually has some good ideas.

You know, I hear a lot about Huntsman and his moderate-ness and his good ideas. Admittedly, I haven't bothered to learn too much about him since I didn't expect him to be around very long. But from what I can see, he's pretty indistinguishable from all but one of the other candidates:

- As govenor, he cut taxes and increased spending faster than wages grew in Utah
- Embraces Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms and a balanced budget amendment
- Quote from an Iowa debate: "Let me tell you the real problem that we're up against. If you want to build a facility in the United States, you can't, because of the EPA's regulatory reign of terror."
- Favors DOMA and a Right to Life amendment
- After originally saying he "trusted scientists" on climate change, he changes his stance once conservatives began scrambling for an anti-Romney (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/jon-huntsman-flip-flops-on-climate-change.php?ref=fpblg): "There are questions about the validity of the science, evidenced by one university over in Scotland recently."
- Appeared in 2007 with Arnold and Montana Gov Brian Schweitzer urging Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695228198/Huntsman-appears-in-climate-ad.html); he's since changed his tune now that he's running for the Oil Party's nomination.
- (My personal favorite) Wants to build a fence to keep out the dirty "illegals" (http://www.jon2012.com/index.php/hblog/post/jon_on_border_security)

I'll take your word, sls, that he has some good ideas. But on the whole, he just seems like more of the same to me.

Still, smoking hot daughters.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 12, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
Huntsman is no better than the other flavors of crazy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: birdman on January 12, 2012, 02:03:17 PM
This guy, Vermin Supreme,  got more votes than Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain combined in the NH Primary. :clap:
I can't believe there are still people who voted for Bachman and Cain.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 12, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman

I wish. RCP says it's Romney by 9%. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html) Still haven't decided who I'm voting for.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on January 12, 2012, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: nab on January 11, 2012, 02:01:53 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman


:Still hoping Colbert doesn't drop out:

I'd vote for him
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 12, 2012, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 12, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman

I wish. RCP says it's Romney by 9%. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html) Still haven't decided who I'm voting for.

VDB, are you a registered Republican or is SC an open primary?

Jim DeMint is supposed to endorse Romney today so that may well push him over the top and further my point that the Tea Party is not nearly as principled as they'd have you believe.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 12, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 12, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 10:45:02 PM
Huntsman and his daughters are still in.

not only does he have hot daughters, but he actually has some good ideas.

You know, I hear a lot about Huntsman and his moderate-ness and his good ideas. Admittedly, I haven't bothered to learn too much about him since I didn't expect him to be around very long. But from what I can see, he's pretty indistinguishable from all but one of the other candidates:

- As govenor, he cut taxes and increased spending faster than wages grew in Utah
- Embraces Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms and a balanced budget amendment
- Quote from an Iowa debate: "Let me tell you the real problem that we're up against. If you want to build a facility in the United States, you can't, because of the EPA's regulatory reign of terror."
- Favors DOMA and a Right to Life amendment
- After originally saying he "trusted scientists" on climate change, he changes his stance once conservatives began scrambling for an anti-Romney (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/jon-huntsman-flip-flops-on-climate-change.php?ref=fpblg): "There are questions about the validity of the science, evidenced by one university over in Scotland recently."
- Appeared in 2007 with Arnold and Montana Gov Brian Schweitzer urging Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695228198/Huntsman-appears-in-climate-ad.html); he's since changed his tune now that he's running for the Oil Party's nomination.
- (My personal favorite) Wants to build a fence to keep out the dirty "illegals" (http://www.jon2012.com/index.php/hblog/post/jon_on_border_security)

I'll take your word, sls, that he has some good ideas. But on the whole, he just seems like more of the same to me.

Still, smoking hot daughters.

didn't know that he flipped against science on climate change and evolution. he did believe in them before.
and - he is not the model candidate imo.
he does have reasonable foreign policy experience
he has a reasonable plan for financial reform

doesn't matter anyway
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 12, 2012, 05:43:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 12, 2012, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 12, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 10, 2012, 11:17:18 PM
just saw this on the local ABC news

preliminary poll results from South Carolina

1-Ron Paul
2-Rick Perry
3-Steve Colbert
4-John Huntsman

I wish. RCP says it's Romney by 9%. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html) Still haven't decided who I'm voting for.

VDB, are you a registered Republican or is SC an open primary?

Jim DeMint is supposed to endorse Romney today so that may well push him over the top and further my point that the Tea Party is not nearly as principled as they'd have you believe.

Open primary, but you have to pick one when both parties are holding them. So in 2008 I did not get to vote in the GOP contest as I'd voted in the earlier Dem primary. (Not sure what would've happened if I tried, though. I assume they'd have a mechanism for knowing, but then, this is South Carolina...)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 12, 2012, 09:00:10 PM
my candidate is here

http://knope2012.com/
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: zimbra on January 13, 2012, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 12, 2012, 09:00:10 PM
my candidate is here

http://knope2012.com/

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 15, 2012, 10:16:15 PM
Huntsman and his hot daughters are out
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 15, 2012, 10:16:15 PM
Huntsman and his hot daughters are out

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

::cue hot daughter montage set to Sarah McLachlan::
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 16, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 15, 2012, 10:16:15 PM
Huntsman and his hot daughters are out

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

::cue hot daughter montage set to Sarah McLachlan::

I wouldn't doubt this for a second. You sick bastard!  :shakehead:

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Seriously though, it's just a matter of time before they're all voted off the island leaving us with Romney. I'm just surprised Huntsman dropped before Newt and Perry.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 16, 2012, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 16, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 15, 2012, 10:16:15 PM
Huntsman and his hot daughters are out

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

::cue hot daughter montage set to Sarah McLachlan::

I wouldn't doubt this for a second. You sick bastard!  :shakehead:

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Seriously though, it's just a matter of time before they're all voted off the island leaving us with Romney. I'm just surprised Huntsman dropped before Newt and Perry.

You know, the absence of pictures posted on this topic makes me think that you guys are overstating the hotness.
Personally, I'll not be googling Huntsman for fear he'll take it as encouragement to do something other than disappear into the obscurity he so richly deserves.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 16, 2012, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 16, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 15, 2012, 10:16:15 PM
Huntsman and his hot daughters are out

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

::cue hot daughter montage set to Sarah McLachlan::

I wouldn't doubt this for a second. You sick bastard!  :shakehead:

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Seriously though, it's just a matter of time before they're all voted off the island leaving us with Romney. I'm just surprised Huntsman dropped before Newt and Perry.

You know, the absence of pictures posted on this topic makes me think that you guys are overstating the hotness.
Personally, I'll not be googling Huntsman for fear he'll take it as encouragement to do something other than disappear into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

They're pretty hot. Maybe not "stop-you-in-your-tracks" hot, but definitely "sit-through-a-ridiculously-optimistic-speech-after-finishing-a-distant-third-in-the-only-state-he-campaigned-in-just-to-look-at-your-hot-daughters" hot:

(http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/huntsman-daughters.jpg)

(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/1/5/11/enhanced-buzz-29237-1325781016-26.jpg)

(http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/39/2011/11/b4b8d09b6da66dab7775795e544d2ca1.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: danje on January 16, 2012, 02:41:22 PM
Nice.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on January 16, 2012, 02:44:28 PM
the far left blonde in this pic looks like my ex... disturbingly so. blech.

(http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/39/2011/11/b4b8d09b6da66dab7775795e544d2ca1.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 12, 2012, 05:43:34 PM

Open primary, but you have to pick one when both parties are holding them. So in 2008 I did not get to vote in the GOP contest as I'd voted in the earlier Dem primary. (Not sure what would've happened if I tried, though. I assume they'd have a mechanism for knowing, but then, this is South Carolina...)

You would just need to pretend to be someone else...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 16, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 12, 2012, 05:43:34 PM

Open primary, but you have to pick one when both parties are holding them. So in 2008 I did not get to vote in the GOP contest as I'd voted in the earlier Dem primary. (Not sure what would've happened if I tried, though. I assume they'd have a mechanism for knowing, but then, this is South Carolina...)

You would just need to pretend to be someone else...

Terry

Pretty sure they have laws against that type of thing, well maybe not in South Carolina.   :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 16, 2012, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: Hicks on January 16, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 16, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 12, 2012, 05:43:34 PM

Open primary, but you have to pick one when both parties are holding them. So in 2008 I did not get to vote in the GOP contest as I'd voted in the earlier Dem primary. (Not sure what would've happened if I tried, though. I assume they'd have a mechanism for knowing, but then, this is South Carolina...)

You would just need to pretend to be someone else...

Terry

Pretty sure they have laws against that type of thing, well maybe not in South Carolina.   :wink:

Its a joke...  AJ Holder just made a comment about Voter ID in SC...

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/holder-goes-sc-trashes-id-law-mlk-day/315571

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 16, 2012, 09:39:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 02:32:53 PM
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/1/5/11/enhanced-buzz-29237-1325781016-26.jpg)

GQ really taps into the modern, internet porn loving, man's fantasy with this shot.

Except they all should be 'singing' into 'microphones'.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 16, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
Watching the SC debate really makes me understand the state a lot more.

MOD:  Gov. Romney, blah blah blah... Mexico...
BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

MOD:  Dr. Paul, minorities are incarcerated 4x as much as whites. Is the judicial system inherently racist?
Paul:  Duh
::crickets::

MOD:  Spkr. Gingrich, do you see how saying "Black people have no work ethic" can piss some people off?
Gingrich:  Shut up, Juan Williams, poor students need to be janitors so they can learn how to work.
Standing O

Perry's having a strong debate tonight (3.0 curve), he might get a bounce. But I think Gingrich is going to be a pretty tough challenger to Romney here after tonight.

Also,

Quote from: rowjimmy on January 16, 2012, 09:39:05 PM
GQ really taps into the modern, internet porn loving, man's fantasy with this shot.

Except they all should be 'singing' into 'microphones'.

Lulz
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 17, 2012, 11:22:07 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

Do any of these clowns give a shit about the middle class?

I think not.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 18, 2012, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

Long ago, Men realized that most Human endeavors are led by one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  In the case of Capitalism, it is Greed.  Men, realizing the harm in their creations, created Religion to give Men a sense of Conscience.  In some sense, it has failed.  For this I attribute Sloth...

Terry
 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 18, 2012, 05:28:08 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 18, 2012, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

Long ago, Men realized that most Human endeavors are led by one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  In the case of Capitalism, it is Greed.  Men, realizing the harm in their creations, created Religion to give Men a sense of Conscience.  In some sense, it has failed.  For this I attribute Sloth...

Terry

but he did help Forbin...



The outrage over Romney's estimate of his tax rate is interesting. Personally, I don't think it's fair that someone can make $ off interest and pay less taxes than those of us who actually work for our $. Whenever the Dems (or anyone) mentions raising the capital gains tax, the GOP raises hell. Now, supporters of Romney's opponents are are trying to use his low tax rate against Romney. So - change the law.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 18, 2012, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 18, 2012, 05:28:08 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 18, 2012, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

Long ago, Men realized that most Human endeavors are led by one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  In the case of Capitalism, it is Greed.  Men, realizing the harm in their creations, created Religion to give Men a sense of Conscience.  In some sense, it has failed.  For this I attribute Sloth...

Terry

but he did help Forbin...



The outrage over Romney's estimate of his tax rate is interesting. Personally, I don't think it's fair that someone can make $ off interest and pay less taxes than those of us who actually work for our $. Whenever the Dems (or anyone) mentions raising the capital gains tax, the GOP raises hell. Now, supporters of Romney's opponents are are trying to use his low tax rate against Romney. So - change the law.

Right, it goes to show how politics is really just about fighting and winning. Party brethren will be bitter foes when all vying for the same one job, then snap into dutiful alignment once the opponent changes to the other party.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 19, 2012, 09:36:48 AM
Just heard Rick Perry's dropping out. This would seem odd mere days before the SC primary, just in case he could score some last-gasp hope here, unless it's calculated to throw his socially conservative, anti-Mitt supporters' votes to Newt rather than split that vote.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 19, 2012, 11:54:47 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

You can' t be a fan of free market capitalism if you don't believe the second half of your paragraph there. That is their DEFINITION of free market capitalism. It is greed without a conscience.

Quote from: Hicks on January 17, 2012, 11:22:07 PM

Do any of these clowns give a shit about the middle class?

I think not.


Agreed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 19, 2012, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 19, 2012, 09:36:48 AM
Just heard Rick Perry's dropping out. This would seem odd mere days before the SC primary, just in case he could score some last-gasp hope here, unless it's calculated to throw his socially conservative, anti-Mitt supporters' votes to Newt rather than split that vote.

GO NEWT!     GO NEWT!     GO NEWT!     GO NEWT!     GO NEWT!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 19, 2012, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 19, 2012, 11:54:47 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 17, 2012, 10:53:51 PM
I decided to throw on the recent hatchet job "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" tonight. Pretty remarkable that this came from a pro-Newt, ostensibly conservative super PAC. It truly is everything Occupy Wall Street wanted to say but didn't have the video production staff to pull off.

I'm a fan of free-market capitalism - honest - but I also like the idea of "capitalism with a conscience." As in, sure, Bain Capital could buy up these companies, they could fire the employees, slash costs, pile up debt and flip them for a quick profit, making millions for a select few at the expense of everyone else involved, but should they? Nah, probably not.

I don't think the corporate raiders who do this kind of thing ought to be hanged or beheaded or thrown in jail or any of that - hey, this kind of stuff is legal, after all - but maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

You can' t be a fan of free market capitalism if you don't believe the second half of your paragraph there. That is their DEFINITION of free market capitalism. It is greed without a conscience.

I think Newt actually put it fairly well the other day. I just don't expect to keep hearing this kind of stuff coming out of his mouth outside a GOP primary where he's running against Mitt Romney:

QuoteGingrich was holding little back in his criticism of Romney, saying that, in at least some instances, the Bain model has meant "leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind and walk off with all the profits."

"Now, I'll let you decide if that's really good capitalism. I think it's exploitive. I think it's not defensible," he said.

Gingrich continued that what Romney engaged in "is not venture capital."

"Venture capital is when you go in and put in your capital and you stick it out," he said.

Gingrich has faced rebuke in some quarters as attacking the GOP bedrock of free enterprise in his criticism of Romney and Bain. But he argued Tuesday that raising questions about Romney's track record at Bain should not be confused with an attack on capitalism.

"I'm proud of real capitalists. I'm proud of guys who say to their workers I'm in it with you. If I lose money and you lose a job we lost together because we both tried," he said.

via (http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/17/2116966/gingrich-says-hes-best-bet-in.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 19, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
I don't even know how to respond to that.

Quotereal capitalists. I'm proud of guys who say to their workers I'm in it with you. If I lose money and you lose a job we lost together because we both tried
?!?!?

Explain that to the millions of unemployed people right now, who have lost their jobs due to cheaper labor elsewhere, i.e. capitalism externalizing it's costs, while their employers/corporations continue to rake in more money due to  higher profit margins. Capitalism by definition is exploitive. And the fact that the GOP candidates are even arguing it is laughable. It's what they stand for. Attacking what Mitt Romeny did, "leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind and walk off with all the profits"...is precisely what the GOP stands for, which brings us back to your point...

Quotebut maybe it's not unreasonable to say that we shouldn't elect someone who doesn't give a shit about the middle class to be president.

Not unreasonable at all, which is why Hicks said,

Quote from: Hicks on January 17, 2012, 11:22:07 PM
Do any of these clowns give a shit about the middle class?

I think not.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 19, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
I'm not sure if you're arguing against the very notion of having people/groups who invest money into businesses hoping they can turn a profit on that investment, and pursuing that profit not only for its own sake but also as a means to offset losses.

Whether it's private venture capital firms or Joe Blow buying stock in a NYSE-listed company, the basic idea is the same: invest your money and hope for a return. Diversify to hedge against losses. I'm not sure if it's this concept you find distasteful or just its real-world application today.

In a pure, hypothetical free market as I like to imagine it, everyone gets what they want because quality is rewarded with success. This gets perverted because, in practice, what people actually value is not quality but low price above all else and convenience second. So, on the whole, it seems that one of the biggest determinants of whether a business is rewarded in the marketplace is if it can offer its shit cheap, cheap, cheap. The consumer might feel like he won because he got a good deal, the business shareholders might win because they made a big profit, and the people in the middle -- the people who make the widget -- are the ones getting screwed (yes, exploited) because their labor isn't really deemed to be worth very much. Or, the job is taken away altogether and offshored.

If the charges against Bain are to be believed, there were instances in which they came in, bought businesses, fired off employees, compromised quality, and somehow managed to flip the companies for a profit anyway. So lots of people got screwed except Bain and its shareholders. I think that's a different approach to capitalism and investment than what Newt claims, today anyway, to be a proponent of, and the version I've described.

I do agree that it's pretty flabbergasting to see this debate taking place inside the GOP, of all places, because it's always seemed that they hold as a sacred truth that the profit motive is completely above reproach, and therefore any criticism of an action taken in the pursuit of profit is automatically disqualified from consideration.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 19, 2012, 05:01:42 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 19, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
I don't even know how to respond to that.

Quotereal capitalists. I'm proud of guys who say to their workers I'm in it with you. If I lose money and you lose a job we lost together because we both tried
?!?!?

Explain that to the millions of unemployed people right now, who have lost their jobs due to cheaper labor elsewhere, i.e. capitalism externalizing it's costs, while their employers/corporations continue to rake in more money due to  higher profit margins. Capitalism by definition is exploitive. And the fact that the GOP candidates are even arguing it is laughable. It's what they stand for. Attacking what Mitt Romeny did, "leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind and walk off with all the profits"...is precisely what the GOP stands for,

Gingrich is such a self-aggrandizing dickhole there's no reason to respond to it, GAH. He (like Romney) will say any focus group-tested statement that his campaign has determined will move the needle. So he'll rail against Romney for his "vulture capitalism" now and in the same breath call Obama a socialist. He is the epitome of hypocrisy (see the whole "higher standard"/Lewinsky soap opera that unfolded as he was cheating on his wife with a 20-yr old staffer).

I do, however, respectfully disagree with your idea that capitalism is exploitive (or is it exploitative?). Capitalism is the only economic system that can efficiently allocate resources to all people's benefit. You're right, people will lose their jobs as firms seek to reduce their costs, but more people benefit from the lower priced goods that come as a result of that. How many people could afford an iPhone if it had a "Made in U.S.A." label? Not to mention the millions of people around the world who have been lifted out of poverty from companies "shipping jobs overseas." I don't think those people's well being should be excluded when conducting a capitalism cost-benefit analysis just because they weren't lucky enough to be born within our borders. I know this treads into the whole theory vs real world argument, but you'll never convince me that capitalism in itself is an evil.

The bigger problem, IMO, is not capitalism but corporatism, which is what we really have today. Power is concentrated in the wealthy and the politically connected. Money buys influence in gov't who in turn dole out favors to their favored special interests which creates the inequalities - in income, in opportunities, in freedoms - that we suffer from today.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 19, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
In a pure, hypothetical free market as I like to imagine it, everyone gets what they want because quality is rewarded with success. This gets perverted because, in practice, what people actually value is not quality but low price above all else and convenience second. So, on the whole, it seems that one of the biggest determinants of whether a business is rewarded in the marketplace is if it can offer its shit cheap, cheap, cheap. The consumer might feel like he won because he got a good deal, the business shareholders might win because they made a big profit, and the people in the middle -- the people who make the widget -- are the ones getting screwed (yes, exploited) because their labor isn't really deemed to be worth very much. Or, the job is taken away altogether and offshored.

Tell that to the people who shop at Whole Foods. What about the people who pay tens of thousands more for a Prius? In fact, some of the most profitable businesses are not the Wal-Marts of the world but the Apples who provide a high quality user experience that people are willing to pay a premium for. The issue, as I see it, is not that the average person values discounts but that he is forced to make his dollars stretch further and further as more of his earnings are striped away by taxes and inflation to fund endless wars and psychotic banker bailouts.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 19, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
If the charges against Bain are to be believed, there were instances in which they came in, bought businesses, fired off employees, compromised quality, and somehow managed to flip the companies for a profit anyway. So lots of people got screwed except Bain and its shareholders. I think that's a different approach to capitalism and investment than what Newt claims, today anyway, to be a proponent of, and the version I've described.

FWIW (and I can't believe I have to defend Romney here), I think I saw that the charges in the movie were widely exaggerated and that the one (or handful) of deals mentioned where Bain did raid a company happened after Romney had left. There's plenty of reasons to dislike the flip-flopping robot, but it seems like the reports in the movie were pretty obscene distortions of the truth (as hard as that is to believe that an "unaffiliated" super PAC would smear another candidate).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 19, 2012, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 19, 2012, 05:01:42 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 19, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
In a pure, hypothetical free market as I like to imagine it, everyone gets what they want because quality is rewarded with success. This gets perverted because, in practice, what people actually value is not quality but low price above all else and convenience second. So, on the whole, it seems that one of the biggest determinants of whether a business is rewarded in the marketplace is if it can offer its shit cheap, cheap, cheap. The consumer might feel like he won because he got a good deal, the business shareholders might win because they made a big profit, and the people in the middle -- the people who make the widget -- are the ones getting screwed (yes, exploited) because their labor isn't really deemed to be worth very much. Or, the job is taken away altogether and offshored.

Tell that to the people who shop at Whole Foods. What about the people who pay tens of thousands more for a Prius? In fact, some of the most profitable businesses are not the Wal-Marts of the world but the Apples who provide a high quality user experience that people are willing to pay a premium for. The issue, as I see it, is not that the average person values discounts but that he is forced to make his dollars stretch further and further as more of his earnings are striped away by taxes and inflation to fund endless wars and psychotic banker bailouts.

You're right about premium brands, of course, and I intentionally painted with a broad brush as, for every person who eats at Ruth's Chris, there are scores more who go to McDonald's; for everyone who shops at Whole Foods, there are lots more who get their groceries at Walmart. Hell, even Apple -- like you say -- had to move its supply chain overseas in order to offer products at a price point consumers would pay.

There are surely a host of reasons for it, some of which you suggest, but ultimately price is one of the most powerful influencers on consumer decision-making. I imagine this was really compounded by the globalization of supply chains as companies and consumers realized just how inexpensive things could get. Ever hear a 60-year-old talk about how much his first color TV cost? Holy smokes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 20, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
I totally bonked and didn't realize there was a debate last night. Wish I had watched it.

QuoteWhen CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich's ex-wife saying that he had sought one, the Republican chastised him.

"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine," Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.

Yup. Newt thinks that's just about the most despicable thing imaginable. He also thinks hyperbole is better than sex, Jesus, sliced bread and double rainbows combined.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 20, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 20, 2012, 10:37:38 AM

Yup. Newt thinks that's just about the most despicable thing imaginable. He also thinks hyperbole is better than sex, Jesus, sliced bread and double rainbows combined.

Typical GOP response...  Don't own up to your faults and be responsible, instead call the people that remark on your own despicable behavior as "despicable".

In plain English:  "The fact that I'm morally destitude and cheated on my wife isn't the issue.  The fact that the media pointed it out to everyone is the issue."

Terry


ETA:  And "Yeah, I'll cheat on my wife at the same time I press to have the President impeached for cheating on his wife".  That's not hypocritical or anything...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 20, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 20, 2012, 10:37:38 AM

Yup. Newt thinks that's just about the most despicable thing imaginable. He also thinks hyperbole is better than sex, Jesus, sliced bread and double rainbows combined.

Typical GOP response...  Don't own up to your faults and be responsible, instead call the people that remark on your own despicable behavior as "despicable".

In plain English:  "The fact that I'm morally destitude and cheated on my wife isn't the issue.  The fact that the media pointed it out to everyone is the issue."

Terry


ETA:  And "Yeah, I'll cheat on my wife at the same time I press to have the President impeached for cheating on his wife".  That's not hypocritical or anything...

Reminds me of this clip,  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard What? Hold on dog. Whatchya gonan ask me, in front of my wife and everything?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEj0R15q8bw

re: the capitalism posts, I'm way too exhausted to discuss that sort of thing right now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 20, 2012, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 20, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
In plain English:  "The fact that I'm morally destitude and cheated on my wife isn't the issue.  The fact that the media pointed it out to everyone is the issue."

Pretty much sums it up.


Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 AM
re: the capitalism posts, I'm way too exhausted to discuss that sort of thing right now.

Get some sleep, dood! By the way, I wasn't trying to pick a fight or anything, just exploring the difference of opinion I was picking up on. People can discuss it till the cows come home, but I don't think the world will ever arrive at one single, universally accepted economic theory or preferred system.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 20, 2012, 12:45:55 PM
1- What John King, should have pointed out, imo, that Newt's affairs were occuring at a time when the GOP was touting itself as the party of "family values"

Of course, this type of question was far from despicable when Clinton was a candidate or Prez.

2-I have no problem with Romney being rich, or investing his $ in a way to minimize taxes. I do have a problem, as I've said repeatedly, a system that taxes you less if you make $ on dividends / investments than if you actually work

3-Venture capitalists are a double edge sword. Sometimes, they provide capital to support a business. Sometimes, they buy firms and sell them for parts. I'm not sure I connect the dots the same way Romney does - just cause he was / is a venture capitalist doesn't mean he knows how to create jobs.
Now, if Romney ran a firm that actually created something (other than wealth), that would be a different story

4-Although I believe in a capitalist system, unregulated capitalism is expoitive. the owners will always try their best to get the laborers to work as hard as humanly possible and pay them the least they can get away with. That's why unions and labor laws got started. then, the unions got too much power, and on it goes.
You're correct, though, our current system of corporate rule is far, far worse and doesn't represent a free market
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on January 20, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
let us not forget newt first discussed terms of a divorce with his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery having a tumor removed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 20, 2012, 02:21:39 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 20, 2012, 12:45:55 PM
3-Venture capitalists are a double edge sword. Sometimes, they provide capital to support a business. Sometimes, they buy firms and sell them for parts. I'm not sure I connect the dots the same way Romney does - just cause he was / is a venture capitalist doesn't mean he knows how to create jobs.
Now, if Romney ran a firm that actually created something (other than wealth), that would be a different story

Totally agreed. He goes around acting like the factory owner. Of course, we all know that money can help create jobs because lots of businesses need money to launch and grow. So if he's simply claiming that, as a venture capitalist, he knows how jobs are created, that doesn't make him very special.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on January 20, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONMEeozE_K8
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 20, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
^^^
looks pretty funny - I'll have to watch the whole thing when I get home

Quote from: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 20, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
^^^
looks pretty funny - I'll have to watch the whole thing when I get home

Quote from: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.

A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."  He's been married for like 6 years now, so I doubt that motto applies to him anymore.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 20, 2012, 09:01:47 PM
Quote from: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 20, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
^^^
looks pretty funny - I'll have to watch the whole thing when I get home

Quote from: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.

A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."  He's been married for like 6 years now, so I doubt that motto applies to him anymore.

I take it you're not married, keller? If anything it's even more applicable now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 20, 2012, 09:01:47 PM
Quote from: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 20, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
^^^
looks pretty funny - I'll have to watch the whole thing when I get home

Quote from: Hicks on January 20, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on January 20, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 20, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 20, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
Are we really calling out politicians for their moral compass? C'mon, both parties are equally guilty on this topic, IMO.

Of course both parties are guilty of this (ex: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc), but seeing as how we're discussing the Republican debates, I don't see why we'd be pointing out the moral failings of previous democratic nominees/presidents, or did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed something, not everyone is a democrat. 

:ducks:

LOL

Once you've impeached someone for getting a beej you've pretty much lost any right to claim that your own affairs are private.

A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."  He's been married for like 6 years now, so I doubt that motto applies to him anymore.

I take it you're not married, keller? If anything it's even more applicable now.

Well, I meant he's probably never in the position where he gets the offer.  So I think we're thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 21, 2012, 08:13:29 PM
South Carolina goes to Newt.

Probably a bump in the road for Romney. SC was not very kind to him four years ago either, so no huge surprise. But he did better this time around, a sign of his much improved strength from 2008.

Fans of the horse race will like this result as Mitt is obviously not going to run away with it any time too soon. At least, it looks like that now...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 22, 2012, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."

How did his cock taste???

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on January 22, 2012, 12:29:45 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 22, 2012, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."

How did his cock taste???

Terry

+K
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 22, 2012, 01:02:19 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 21, 2012, 08:13:29 PM
South Carolina goes to Newt.

Probably a bump in the road for Romney. SC was not very kind to him four years ago either, so no huge surprise. But he did better this time around, a sign of his much improved strength from 2008.

Fans of the horse race will like this result as Mitt is obviously not going to run away with it any time too soon. At least, it looks like that now...

Fascinating (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc?hpt=hp_pc1)

It amazes me how self-identified Evangelicals (2/3rds of the vote) can break for a twice divorced adulterer 2-1 over Romney and Santorum in spite of because he told John King "Go fuck yourself" after being asked how he pitched swinging to his 2nd wife.

Also hilarious/depressing, of the 1/3rd or the electorate who "strongly agreed" with the Tea Party, Newt won almost half the vote. People who claim to oppose bank bailouts are going overwhelmingly for a guy who got paid millions to lobby Fannie/Freddie at the height of the housing bubble but now rails against their role in the crisis.

I thought Newt would close the gap or sneak out a victory; I definitely did not expect this kinds of ass whooping. Now I get why states' rights can be such a frightening prospect for you dudes from the South.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 22, 2012, 02:34:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 22, 2012, 01:02:19 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 21, 2012, 08:13:29 PM
South Carolina goes to Newt.

Probably a bump in the road for Romney. SC was not very kind to him four years ago either, so no huge surprise. But he did better this time around, a sign of his much improved strength from 2008.

Fans of the horse race will like this result as Mitt is obviously not going to run away with it any time too soon. At least, it looks like that now...

Fascinating (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc?hpt=hp_pc1)

It amazes me how self-identified Evangelicals (2/3rds of the vote) can break for a twice divorced adulterer 2-1 over Romney and Santorum in spite of because he told John King "Go fuck yourself" after being asked how he pitched swinging to his 2nd wife.

Also hilarious/depressing, of the 1/3rd or the electorate who "strongly agreed" with the Tea Party, Newt won almost half the vote. People who claim to oppose bank bailouts are going overwhelmingly for a guy who got paid millions to lobby Fannie/Freddie at the height of the housing bubble but now rails against their role in the crisis.

I thought Newt would close the gap or sneak out a victory; I definitely did not expect this kinds of ass whooping. Now I get why states' rights can be such a frightening prospect for you dudes from the South.

And what should we expect from the least educated State in our Union??? 

"Newt kicked ass!  Romney is a pussy.  Santor-who?  Throw me a Bud and watch this!"

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 22, 2012, 02:36:28 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 22, 2012, 01:02:19 AM
SC

I take it you've never been to the Palmetto State...  It is a whole 'nuther palce unto itself...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on January 22, 2012, 03:26:26 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 22, 2012, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: kellerb on January 20, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
A former coworker of mine had this to say:  "Never turn down a blowjob."

How did his cock taste???

Terry

I would imagine it tastes like chicken. Most white meat does.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on January 22, 2012, 09:11:25 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 22, 2012, 01:02:19 AM

I thought Newt would close the gap or sneak out a victory; I definitely did not expect this kinds of ass whooping. Now I get why states' rights can be such a frightening prospect for you dudes from the South.

People in south carolina voted for newt because they like gettin' some strange. States rights to be swingers is more like it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 22, 2012, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on January 22, 2012, 02:36:28 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 22, 2012, 01:02:19 AM
SC

I take it you've never been to the Palmetto State...  It is a whole 'nuther palce unto itself...

Terry

Pay no attention to the northerner!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 22, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
Cmon Floridians, you've got a reputation for being batshit crazy to uphold, dont let me down by playing it safe and going for Romney. 

GO NEWT GO!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 23, 2012, 08:50:12 AM
Interesting aside, related to something we talked about earlier.

Why Apple's products are 'Designed in California' but 'Assembled in China' (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/22/why-apples-products-are-designed-in-california-but-assembled/)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 23, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 23, 2012, 08:50:12 AM
Interesting aside, related to something we talked about earlier.

Why Apple's products are 'Designed in California' but 'Assembled in China' (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/22/why-apples-products-are-designed-in-california-but-assembled/)

After reading that, listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on January 23, 2012, 12:24:25 PM
Quote from: Hicks on January 22, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
Cmon Floridians, you've got a reputation for being batshit crazy to uphold, dont let me down by playing it safe and going for Romney. 

GO NEWT GO!

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 23, 2012, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 23, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 23, 2012, 08:50:12 AM
Interesting aside, related to something we talked about earlier.

Why Apple's products are 'Designed in California' but 'Assembled in China' (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/22/why-apples-products-are-designed-in-california-but-assembled/)

After reading that, listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory
I've heard excerpts - disturbing stuff
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on January 23, 2012, 01:10:40 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 23, 2012, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 23, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 23, 2012, 08:50:12 AM
Interesting aside, related to something we talked about earlier.

Why Apple's products are 'Designed in California' but 'Assembled in China' (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/22/why-apples-products-are-designed-in-california-but-assembled/)

After reading that, listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory
I've heard excerpts - disturbing stuff

But it's not just Apple. It's all Western electronic companies that are using the Chinese labor market and lots of other industries, taboot.
Also,  very little of that was totally new to me. It's just tough to hear it all at once.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 23, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on January 23, 2012, 02:05:30 PM
Yeah when people whine about our speakers being manufactured in China I'm always tempted to ask them where the phone they are talking on was made, the computer they used to find out about us, what kind of car they drive, what kind of TV they have. . .   


But I don't. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 24, 2012, 08:49:32 PM
some good news - while it lasts

Quote3d-party ads nixed by Brown, Warren
By Glen Johnson
Globe Staff / January 24, 2012


Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren today signed a novel ban on third-party ads in their hotly contested US Senate race after posturing between both sides over the agreement. "This is a great victory for the people of Massachusetts," Brown said in a statement. He is battling to retain the seat he won in a January 2010 special election to replace the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, while Warren is expected to emerge from a group of lesser-known Democrats.

the interested 3rd parties said that for now they will honor the agreement, but once someone violates it then the gloves will be off. Of note is that Koch hasn't commented yet.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 25, 2012, 01:46:34 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 23, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry


there's too many people that just don't care. it's pathetic honestly. but what can i say even this website is a part of it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 26, 2012, 05:42:58 AM
Quote from: goodabouthood on January 25, 2012, 01:46:34 AM
Quote from: slslbs on January 23, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry


there's too many people that just don't care. it's pathetic honestly. but what can i say even this website is a part of it.

from today's NYT
didn't quote it (nor did I read the entire article) - it's quite long
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on January 26, 2012, 11:19:08 AM
I really enjoyed obama's SOTU the other night. Thought it was pretty upbeat.  Anyone else have thoughts?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 12:55:09 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 26, 2012, 11:19:08 AM
I really enjoyed obama's SOTU the other night. Thought it was pretty upbeat.  Anyone else have thoughts?

I was gonna keep my rant to myself, but since you asked...  :wink:

I was not a fan (shocking). I was pleasantly surprised that it didn't come off quite as much like a stump speech as I thought it would; I figured he'd spend the better part of an hour chastising Republicans for being too intransigent to do what's "good" for the country. But overall, I felt it was another speech chocked full of lofty promises meant to get the base fired up for the election.

A couple of my major sticking points:

-- He defended the GM bailout and even had the balls to praise GM's re-emergence as the #1 automaker in the world. I'm not ok with the President unilaterally firing the CEO of a private company and subverting decades of bankruptcy law by putting junior creditors (i.e., allies at UAW) ahead of senior ones (i.e., greedy fat cat bondholders). I also find it in pretty pathetically poor taste to pretend GM would be the top automaker if not for a tsunami and nuclear fallout that wrought havoc on its major competitors' supply chains. If you gave Sears $50B in cash and another $20B in tax breaks and took out some distribution centers at Wal-Mart or Home Depot or Best Buy, Sears would probably overtake the others as the most profitable retailer; that doesn't make Sears a success story.

-- Took credit for withdrawal in Iraq. While I am fully supportive of this "fact", I find it pretty disingenuous for the administration to take credit for it. Obama aggressively lobbied the Iraqi PM to allow him to leave troops there past the 12-31-2011 date but was denied (not to mention his campaign promises of full withdrawal by YE 2009). Also, I don't know how many embassies have 16,000 "staff" (in addition to the thousands of private contractors hired to stay), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't exactly constitute a full withdrawal. I also didn't like the sabre-rattling line towards the end about taking "no option off the table" with regard to Iran.

-- Demanding states require kids to graduate or stay in school until they're 18. I'm not sure where the President gets off telling all 50 states they should do his bidding, but that was as big an example of gov'tal overreach as I can remember in a SOTU. I'm not suggesting kids shouldn't graduate from HS in this day in age, I just don't understand how a Constitutional scholar thinks the President derives the authority to mandate policy to the states, especially in an area like education. Also, when taken with the equally offensive requirements from No Child Left Behind which make it nearly impossible to hold kids accountable by making them repeat a grade or go to summer school, there's nothing that would improve how kids who are struggling in school learn more gooder and make them less likely to want to drop out, it would only make school more mandatory.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
I thought it was a good speech.
clearly, it was a campaign speech meant to give "the other side" to a lot of the BS that Romney and Gingrich have been saying.
If we went point by point with their arguments, this thread would have about 50 more pages. If you don't believe me, just go to factcheck.org

anyway -
I agree with the GM bailout. GM going bankrupt would have affected numerous other companies, the unemployment results would hav been disasterous

I agree with rjimbo that he has no authority over what states to with education. That said, who can argue with trying to keep kids in school? I mean, why shouldn't the Prez try to support that? There's nothing wrong with urging the states to do anything. He can't force them. I also liked his comment that we should have the ability to get rid of bad teachers and reward good teachers, a thinly veiled shot at the teachers union (not teachers), which typically supports dems

I agree with his rhetoric toward Iran. He clearly stated that we would tried diplomacy 1st. The military is best used as a threat. If he took military response off the table they would be thinking well - what's he gonna do about it.

I agree with his sentiments regarding the tax code. I don't begrudge Mitt's 42 mill over 2 years, it does piss me off that he payed a lower tax rate than probably anyone on this board except the students. Something is wrong with that. I don't blame Mitt for that, he followed the law. But -  I do blame him for wanting to keep the system. What's worse is that according to the NYT under Newt's plan Mitt would pay even less.

I agree with efforts towards green energy and ending tax breaks to the oil companies
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 26, 2012, 04:43:05 PM
Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
I agree with the GM bailout. GM going bankrupt would have affected numerous other companies, the unemployment results would hav been disasterous

I love your optimism, sls, but the "it would have been worse" argument just doesn't fly with me. I don't know what could be worse than 3 yrs of a recession, stagnant wages and persistently high unemployment (remember the whole "unemployment won't exceed 8% with the stimulus" prediction?).

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
we should have the ability to get rid of bad teachers and reward good teachers, a thinly veiled shot at the teachers union (not teachers), which typically supports dems

True, but I'm pretty sure he's said this line before with nothing to show for it. If he really wanted to make teachers' unions take notice, he should have proposed increasing school choice or a "money follows the student" approach rather than "we should be able to fire incompetent teachers (wink wink)."

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
I agree with his rhetoric toward Iran. He clearly stated that we would tried diplomacy 1st. The military is best used as a threat. If he took military response off the table they would be thinking well - what's he gonna do about it.

Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
I agree with his sentiments regarding the tax code. I don't begrudge Mitt's 42 mill over 2 years, it does piss me off that he payed a lower tax rate than probably anyone on this board except the students. Something is wrong with that. I don't blame Mitt for that, he followed the law. But -  I do blame him for wanting to keep the system. What's worse is that according to the NYT under Newt's plan Mitt would pay even less.

I'll spare you my Buffet's secretary sitting next to FLOTUS rant, but I agree the tax code needs to be dramatically overhauled. Chances of that happening in an election year? Less than zero.

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 01:29:27 PM
I agree with efforts towards green energy and ending tax breaks to the oil companies

I totally agree oil company subsidies should be ended, but I don't see the point in taking those same subsidies and passing them on to another industry.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 26, 2012, 04:43:05 PM
Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?

Based on the amount spent and the actual number of jobs "saved" (how do you measure that exactly) - which, BTW, is far less than the 1M Obama mentioned - the gov't spent approx. 500k per job (I'll try to find you a source if interested). Doesn't sound like a net win to me.

Also, if it was wrong to save the financial companies who acted recklessly and were poorly managed (and I'd contend that it was), why should we follow the same strategy for another industry? And do you really think the auto bailout will help these companies turn around permanently or will this just be a life line that will keep them afloat until the next time they need some help? If the bank bailout did nothing but enrich bankers and encourage excessive risk taking (again, I'd argue it did), why would the auto bailout be any different? BTW, the gov't bought into GM around $33/share and needed the stock to go to around $50 to break even; it's currently trading around $25. A couple of profitable qtrs doesn't make a gov't takeover of the auto industry any more palatable.

Also, VDB, don't forget there's another GOP debate/shitshow tonight if you're interested.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on January 26, 2012, 07:35:28 PM
we'll just have to agree to disagree with GM. I understand the principles of where you're coming from. Personally, I think a more pragmatic approach is sometimes warranted. We'll have to wait a few years to see what the long term effects of bailing out GM are - unlike the bankers the board of GM is incented to profit over the long run, not just today.

Much of our current technology / science  etc, which is now controlled by the private sector, started with Federal $. So - no, I see nothing wrong with investing federal $ in green energy.  The reasons we have to do it have all been said before, and, if we don't do it, someone else will.

No - I don't think we'll be at war with Iran before the election.

and - I don't think anything will happen before the election. For better or worse, he can't do anything without Congress. What should he do - only propose things that will pass? If that's the case, he could have skipped the speech because nothing will pass, except resolutions like "In God We Trust is the motto of our country" This is clearly the most dysfunctional Congress in my lifetime.


ETA - was anyone else surprised / outraged to find out that Congress is aloud to trade securities based on insider info??? Unfriggin' real.
The way this made it into  SOTU is that Scott Brown authored a bill to outlaw it. It was introduced in November. Reid announced today that it will come to the Senate for vote.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on January 26, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

This, I assure you, will not happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on January 27, 2012, 12:03:42 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 26, 2012, 04:43:05 PM
Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?

Based on the amount spent and the actual number of jobs "saved" (how do you measure that exactly) - which, BTW, is far less than the 1M Obama mentioned - the gov't spent approx. 500k per job (I'll try to find you a source if interested). Doesn't sound like a net win to me.

Also, if it was wrong to save the financial companies who acted recklessly and were poorly managed (and I'd contend that it was), why should we follow the same strategy for another industry? And do you really think the auto bailout will help these companies turn around permanently or will this just be a life line that will keep them afloat until the next time they need some help? If the bank bailout did nothing but enrich bankers and encourage excessive risk taking (again, I'd argue it did), why would the auto bailout be any different? BTW, the gov't bought into GM around $33/share and needed the stock to go to around $50 to break even; it's currently trading around $25. A couple of profitable qtrs doesn't make a gov't takeover of the auto industry any more palatable.

Also, VDB, don't forget there's another GOP debate/shitshow tonight if you're interested.

Mind you, I'm not making an argument necessarily on the GM matter -- I raised the question 1. to prompt discussion and 2. because I'm admittedly not entirely hip to all the details.

I do think it raises an interesting and fundamental issue -- on the one hand, should private businesses and even entire industries be left to sink or swim on their own accord? I think I've let on here that I'm enough of a government-wary libertarian-type to find the notion attractive. At the same time, I like to leave room for practical considerations and will tend to side with real-world evidence and circumstances over strict dogma. (Again, that's not necessarily to stake out a position in this particular case; just to say that I tend not to first consult my rote ideology before deciding where I land on an issue.)

And yeah, I did know about tonight's debate but had a late night getting home and figured I'd spend time with the wife instead... anyway, since my state has voted I feel less compelled by civic duty versus, if anything, sheer curiosity to check in on what the knuckleheads have to say nowadays.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on January 27, 2012, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 07:35:28 PM
we'll just have to agree to disagree with GM. I understand the principles of where you're coming from. Personally, I think a more pragmatic approach is sometimes warranted. We'll have to wait a few years to see what the long term effects of bailing out GM are - unlike the bankers the board of GM is incented to profit over the long run, not just today.

Understood. I wasn't trying to belittle your POV (or VDB's), only to further the discussion.

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 07:35:28 PM
ETA - was anyone else surprised / outraged to find out that Congress is aloud to trade securities based on insider info??? Unfriggin' real.
The way this made it into  SOTU is that Scott Brown authored a bill to outlaw it. It was introduced in November. Reid announced today that it will come to the Senate for vote.

This story was broke by 60 Minutes in November. WARNING: this video is highly enraging.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n

Quote from: Superfreakie on January 26, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

This, I assure you, will not happen.

I hope you're right (of course, sanctions and covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists probably qualify as an act of war :wink:).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on January 27, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 27, 2012, 04:37:49 PM

I hope you're right (of course, sanctions and covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists probably qualify as an act of war :wink:).

there is a "war on terror" that has been declared with no end in sight. Somehow, this qualifies.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on January 27, 2012, 07:25:38 PM
 Overheard at work today
"Yeah, I think I'm going to vote for Newt.  At least he has an American name.  Not Isreali like Obama!"
:frustrated:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on January 27, 2012, 08:23:48 PM
Quote from: Undermind on January 27, 2012, 07:25:38 PM
Overheard at work today
"Yeah, I think I'm going to vote for Newt.  At least he has an American name.  Not Isreali like Obama!"
:frustrated:

When they can't even get the racism right, it makes my temples throb.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on January 30, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: kellerb on January 27, 2012, 08:23:48 PM
Quote from: Undermind on January 27, 2012, 07:25:38 PM
Overheard at work today
"Yeah, I think I'm going to vote for Newt.  At least he has an American name.  Not Isreali like Obama!"
:frustrated:

When they can't even get the racism right, it makes my temples throb.

I am more amused that "Newt" is an American name even more so than the other stupidity.   A Newt is something they turn you into if you are looking for the Holy Grail in Europe.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on January 30, 2012, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Guyute on January 30, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
A Newt is something they turn you into if you are looking for the Holy Grail in Europe.

"I got better..."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on January 30, 2012, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 27, 2012, 04:37:49 PM

Quote from: slslbs on January 26, 2012, 07:35:28 PM
ETA - was anyone else surprised / outraged to find out that Congress is aloud to trade securities based on insider info??? Unfriggin' real.
The way this made it into  SOTU is that Scott Brown authored a bill to outlaw it. It was introduced in November. Reid announced today that it will come to the Senate for vote.

This story was broke by 60 Minutes in November. WARNING: this video is highly enraging.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n


Yeah, I can't remember where I'd first read about this. I think it was in Time or Newsweek, talking about how technically there's no laws against it. Actually, it claimed it wasn't insider info per se as it pertains to business activities, but moreso about making trades that benefit them in industries that are going to be affected by the very laws they are about to write into legislation. I don't know if that's what the 60 mins vid is about, but I'm not in the mood to be enraged so I'm going to hold off on watching that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on February 01, 2012, 01:15:40 PM
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-middle-income-americans-are-focus-not-very-poor/

What a t00l.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 01, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 01, 2012, 01:15:40 PM
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-middle-income-americans-are-focus-not-very-poor/

What a t00l.

Strange thing to just blurt right out loud. Is he also saying the prescription for abject poverty will never be anything more than a "safety net" -- that he can't/won't imagine policies that could systematically lift people out of poverty?

One way or another, I can't imagine this quote will be going away any time soon...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 01, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
he oughta just stick to singing America the Beautiful

:roll:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on February 01, 2012, 02:22:03 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 01, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
he oughta just stick to singing America the Beautiful

:roll:

I "loved" how that performance followed on the heels of Obama's short serenade in Harlem. Romney's political apparatus is so contrived it hurts my intelligence.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on February 01, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 01, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 01, 2012, 01:15:40 PM
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-middle-income-americans-are-focus-not-very-poor/

What a t00l.

Strange thing to just blurt right out loud. Is he also saying the prescription for abject poverty will never be anything more than a "safety net" -- that he can't/won't imagine policies that could systematically lift people out of poverty?

One way or another, I can't imagine this quote will be going away any time soon...

And the disconnect by politicians from the reality the rest of us live in continues... :shakehead:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 01, 2012, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on February 01, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 01, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 01, 2012, 01:15:40 PM
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-middle-income-americans-are-focus-not-very-poor/

What a t00l.

Strange thing to just blurt right out loud. Is he also saying the prescription for abject poverty will never be anything more than a "safety net" -- that he can't/won't imagine policies that could systematically lift people out of poverty? 

One way or another, I can't imagine this quote will be going away any time soon...

And the disconnect by politicians from the reality the rest of us live in continues... :shakehead:

Pfft, like you've never made a $10,000 bet.

It's definitely a setback the day after he wins Florida, but I don't know that this will hang over Romney that long (although it will obviously be playing in a campaign ad near you in the fall). There's just too many things not to like about Mitt, like singing 3 verses of America the Beautiful...poorly. When he promises to increase the size of the military, fix SS & Medicare/aid, and balance the budget without raising taxes it makes my brain hurt.

Quote from: Superfreakie on January 26, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 26, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

I stopped reading there.

This, I assure you, will not happen.

The drums are beating louder, Freakie.

Quote
Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-is-prepared-to-launch-terrorist-attacks-in-us-intelligence-report-finds/2012/01/30/gIQACwGweQ_story.html)

An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States. While Iran has long been linked to attacks on American targets overseas, U.S. officials said they see troubling significance in Tehran's alleged role in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year.

U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 02, 2012, 11:51:42 AM
Trump to endorse Gingrich Romney who gives a shit? (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney-in-las-vegas/)

The better question, I think, would be why anyone would want Trump's endorsement.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 02, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 02, 2012, 11:51:42 AM
Trump to endorse Gingrich Romney who gives a shit? (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney-in-las-vegas/)

The better question, I think, would be why anyone would want Trump's endorsement.

I was wondering the same things.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 04, 2012, 05:28:00 PM
anyone see Ron Paul last night on Piers Morgan?
I don't agree with Paul on many things, and would never vote for him. I'm not a strict constructionist and I don't believe in a laissez faire approach to the markets.

but, I do respect him. He seems honest and genuine. He doesn't seem like a "player" - he's not out attacking the other guy. he is out defending his views and arguing for them, and arguing against opposite policies, not opposite personalities
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on February 05, 2012, 01:08:43 AM
Quote from: slslbs on February 04, 2012, 05:28:00 PM
anyone see Ron Paul last night on Piers Morgan?
I don't agree with Paul on many things, and would never vote for him. I'm not a strict constructionist and I don't believe in a laissez faire approach to the markets.

but, I do respect him. He seems honest and genuine. He doesn't seem like a "player" - he's not out attacking the other guy. he is out defending his views and arguing for them, and arguing against opposite policies, not opposite personalities

I did see the interview and walked away with a similar feeling. If America's politicians were to take a page or two from his approach to political life (not necessarily policies), the country would be well served. Also exposed Piers for the shambling mental midget that he is.   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on February 05, 2012, 01:20:42 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 01, 2012, 11:04:48 PM
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.   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on February 05, 2012, 10:52:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 05, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on February 05, 2012, 10:52:09 AM
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:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on February 06, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
Getting into Iraq and toppling the regime was easy.

It's all those other details that weren't anticipated.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 07, 2012, 01:00:15 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 06, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on February 07, 2012, 10:09:56 AM
Quote from: slslbs on February 07, 2012, 01:00:15 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 06, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
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.


Quote from: DICK_CheneyThe Iraqis will greet us with flowers
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 07, 2012, 10:32:27 AM
Obama campaign encourages supporters to raise funds for Democratic-leaning super PACs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/obama-changes-tune-urges-fundraisers-to-back-super-pac/?intcmp=trending). 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
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 07, 2012, 11:54:02 AM
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:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 07, 2012, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 07, 2012, 11:54:02 AM
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.

QuoteEvery 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.

QuoteSuck 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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 07, 2012, 12:54:04 PM



Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 07, 2012, 11:54:02 AM

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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 07, 2012, 01:25:18 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 07, 2012, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 07, 2012, 11:54:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 08, 2012, 09:09:25 AM
Santorum had a good day yesterday.

Too bad for him he's still Rick Santorum.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 08, 2012, 10:34:49 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 08, 2012, 09:09:25 AM
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?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 17, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
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 (http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/17/2156768/on-birth-control-santorum-out.html). 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.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on February 17, 2012, 01:16:33 PM
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on February 17, 2012, 01:47:29 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 17, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
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 (http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/17/2156768/on-birth-control-santorum-out.html). 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.

Basically, Romney's been trying to appeal to the independent (read: sane) voters, which doesn't really satisfy the republican (read: bat shit crazy) voters, which leaves room for someone like Santorum to fill in the far right wing void.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on February 17, 2012, 01:52:43 PM
I dunno something about Santorum makes him frighteningly viable in my opinion.

Sure he is nuts, but he appears to be genuine, which of course goes a long way in politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 17, 2012, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on February 17, 2012, 01:47:29 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on February 17, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
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 (http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/17/2156768/on-birth-control-santorum-out.html). 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.

Basically, Romney's been trying to appeal to the independent (read: sane) voters, which doesn't really satisfy the republican (read: bat shit crazy) voters, which leaves room for someone like Santorum to fill in the far right wing void.

I'm not so sure it's that Romney has been trying to appeal to moderate voters; if anything, he has been bending over backwards to show conservatives that he's further right than his record reflects (see his "I am severely conservative" line). I just think he is inherently unlikable.  He says stupid shit like "Corporations are people" and "I like being able to fire people" and "I'm not concerned about the very poor". Now, those quotes may or may not have been taken out of context, but the point is a more natural politician would never make those kind of unforced errors. And to Hicks' point, even though the shit coming out of Santorum's mouth (lulz) is insane and would completely undermine nearly everything conservatives say they stand for, he really does believes it so it doesn't come across as forced and thus (to some people), it's more acceptable/believable.

I do think it would be a disaster for the GOP if he wins, but in the long run, it may convince the GOP they have to move away from the social issues if they want to be relevant in the 21st century. You can't claim you want the gov't out of your lives while also proposing to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes (Santorum also said recently "Freedom's not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations." (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/16/santorum-ban-gambling/)). A third grader can see the hypocrisy of their positions.

Nate Silver has a model that is currently showing Santorum with a 76% chance of winning Michigan and a 93% chance of winning Ohio (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/). Losing Michigan would be bad for Romney and would allow Santorum to continue his momentum in wins and thus fundraising (which is right now Romney's only advantage), but the bigger fear for Romney has got to be that they get to Super Tuesday and he only ends up winning 2-3 of the 10 primaries (MA, VA and probably VT). I believe all the delegates are awarded proportionately, but that's gotta sting to get your ass handed to you by a guy who lost his last re-election bid by 18 pts. I'm still not convinced Santorum has the organization to go the distance with Romney, but it's certainly seeming more likely by the day. If he can get Newt to drop out, he's going to be a real problem.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on February 17, 2012, 03:30:33 PM
What do you mean Romney seems forced? He loves trees, and lakes. But I hate lamp.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 01:16:33 PM
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!

This.  I'll be voting "Frothy" on Super Tuesday.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on February 17, 2012, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 01:16:33 PM
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!

This.  I'll be voting "Frothy" on Super Tuesday.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-16-2012/indecision-2012---mitt-romney-s---rick-santorum-s-michigan-campaign-ads

unreal.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 11:12:44 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 01:16:33 PM
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!

This.  I'll be voting "Frothy" on Super Tuesday.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-16-2012/indecision-2012---mitt-romney-s---rick-santorum-s-michigan-campaign-ads

unreal.

Holy shit!   :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on February 18, 2012, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 11:12:44 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on February 17, 2012, 01:16:33 PM
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo Rick!

This.  I'll be voting "Frothy" on Super Tuesday.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-16-2012/indecision-2012---mitt-romney-s---rick-santorum-s-michigan-campaign-ads

unreal.

Holy shit!   :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

It would have been "Holy Shit!  :laugh:" .. if it actually hit Santorum, but since it back fired and hit Romney it's definitely just Ass Holy Shit!!  :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 19, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 17, 2012, 02:23:08 PM

I do think it would be a disaster for the GOP if he wins, but in the long run, it may convince the GOP they have to move away from the social issues if they want to be relevant in the 21st century. You can't claim you want the gov't out of your lives while also proposing to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes (Santorum also said recently "Freedom's not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations." (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/16/santorum-ban-gambling/)). A third grader can see the hypocrisy of their positions.

yep - the hypocrasy just kills me. I have no problem with fiscal conservatives. I may not agree with everything they say, (I agree with some of it), and I see where they are coming from. My problem is with saying the govt is impinging on freedoms, then telling me who I can marry, have sex with, etc.
Never mind that unwanted pregnancy is a HUGE economic and public health burden, and it goes without saying, the cause of 99.9% of all abortions (why can't these self rightous people get that)  :samurai:

As far as Romney goes - I must say that if you look at his record campaigining for Senator and Gov in MA, then his record as Gov in MA, he is clearly right - moderate, not a "conservative's conservative". Not close.

If you look at his actions and statements since 2007, he's a different person.

Now, I know that all politicians 'stretch the truth" to get elected, and I also realize that once they get elected realities change and some things they wanted to do as candidates they realize they either can't do or shouldn't do. This guy has taken it to a whole new level, surpassing GW Bush by a large margin.

At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting. With Romney, it's anyone's guess.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on February 19, 2012, 11:00:32 PM
Romney is interesting to me.

It is funny to look at his time in Massachusetts. 
Universal Healthcare
Improved Education Spending
Reduced Taxes
Balanced the budget
Passed Gay Marriage

All this for a Republican Governor with a Democratic House and Senate.

He basically ran the Democratic agenda through plus balanced the budget and he is HATED in the state.  how does that happen?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 20, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Guyute on February 19, 2012, 11:00:32 PM
Romney is interesting to me.

It is funny to look at his time in Massachusetts. 
Universal Healthcare
Improved Education Spending
Reduced Taxes
Balanced the budget
Passed Gay Marriage

All this for a Republican Governor with a Democratic House and Senate.

He basically ran the Democratic agenda through plus balanced the budget and he is HATED in the state.  how does that happen?
In this Masshole's opinioin, if he ran on his record, I just might vote for him.
But he's not - he veered right is 2008 and is trying to pander to Rush and his minions. He is, in my opinion, now one of the biggest known liars in the polical arena at this point.
I think he's a smart guy and can get stuff done, but I have no idea what he will try to do.

and - for the record, gay marriage was a judicial decision. the legislature tried to overturn the decision with constitiutional amendment but couldn't. I don't think there is an actual law saying it's legal; the law banning gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the SJC.

Also, iirc the tax cut was by voter referendum, not Romney
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on February 20, 2012, 02:52:04 PM
I come from a long line of Mass Dems.  This recent veer right concerns me.  I was actually excited about the possibility of a CEO getting elected.  I believe what we need right now is someone with a strong business mind to drive change and run it more like a company and not career politicians.   How do you vote for someone that has changed so much so quickly?

of course I do't like Obama either.   So much promise and so much disappointment.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on February 21, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 19, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting......

a dump truck load of batshit crazy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on February 21, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on February 21, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 19, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting......

a dump truck load of batshit crazy.

:laugh:  :beers:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on February 21, 2012, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on February 21, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on February 21, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 19, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting......

a dump truck load of batshit crazy.

:laugh:  :beers:

I too enjoyed that post.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 21, 2012, 02:02:00 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on February 21, 2012, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on February 21, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on February 21, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 19, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting......

a dump truck load of batshit crazy.

:laugh:  :beers:

I too enjoyed that post.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 21, 2012, 02:24:24 PM
speaking of batshit crazy, Santorum doesn't have a monopoly on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 23, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
Anyone tune in to the debate last night?

Rick Santorum is a smug asswipe who looks uncomfortable half the time.

Mitt Romney is much slicker and better prepared in debates than when he has to talk off-the-cuff in front of regular people.

Newt Gingrich is amusing in how he barely tries to mask his contempt for stupid questions and how he projects that he thinks he's much smarter on every issue than basically everyone else.

Ron Paul is much less interested than the other three in veering off topic toward his talking points and has the cojones to challenge some GOP sacred cows (e.g. warmongering) in front of a GOP audience. He's also charmingly old, cranky and goofy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 23, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
I watched, though I'm not sure why. Santorum had a rough night, most notably when he described how he "took one for the team" in voting for NCLB even though it betrayed his "principles" (especially hilarious after using the word "courage" to describe himself). I guess makes Romney the winner by default.

I think with all the light shining on Santorum and his religious zealotry, his 15 mins is almost up. The more time goes by the more people are realizing how terrifying this guy is. I just can't believe the GOP would be dumb enough to nominate a guy who would lose 35 states to Obama in the general no matter how uninspiring Romney is (then again, it is the GOP).

Going back a bit,

Quote from: Guyute on February 19, 2012, 11:00:32 PM
It is funny to look at his time in Massachusetts. 
Universal Healthcare
Improved Education Spending
Reduced Taxes
Balanced the budget
Passed Gay Marriage

All this for a Republican Governor with a Democratic House and Senate.

He basically ran the Democratic agenda through plus balanced the budget and he is HATED in the state.  how does that happen?

Romney is trying to argue he only did these things because he had to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and that he really has always been a staunch conservative. I don't think that's a completely unconvincing argument to the base, but the problem, to sls' point, is that there is no way to discern who this guy is since his positions change with the prevailing polling winds.

Here's what I do know about Romney: he says he will lower taxes, increase defense spending, save Social Security and Medicare/aid and balance the budget. In other words, he is patently lying about at least one of those things.

Quote from: slslbs on February 20, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
In this Masshole's opinioin, if he ran on his record, I just might vote for him.
But he's not - he veered right is 2008 and is trying to pander to Rush and his minions. He is, in my opinion, now one of the biggest known liars in the polical arena at this point.

Agreed, although I can think of a certain Democratic presidential candidate that I'd put in the same category.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 23, 2012, 12:40:32 PM
one more thing about Romney's MA record - the budget MUST be balanced by law. Romney can't take credit for that, whoever wrote that law years ago gets that one.
Quote
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 23, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
But he's not - he veered right is 2008 and is trying to pander to Rush and his minions. He is, in my opinion, now one of the biggest known liars in the polical arena at this point.

Agreed, although I can think of a certain Democratic presidential candidate that I'd put in the same category.

I beg to differ. If you don't like him, fine. Let's look at some of the major campaign promises

Ending the Iraq war - done

Increasing efforts in Afghanistan (yes, he campaigned on escalating that one) - done, much to the anger of his own party and the "liberal base"

Getting Bin Laden - done

Health care reform - done, sort of. you may not like it but he expended a lot of political capital on that one, so I take that as a fulfilled promise

increase bipartisanship - totally impossible considering who he is working with. Every GOP initiative he agreed with they suddenly opposed.

ending the Bush tax cuts - tried, backed off for the sake of a budget deal (call it either a pragmatic compromise, gutless, or part of the sausage making), trying again.

close Gitmo - you got me on that one

I think that's a pretty good record of trying to make good on campaign promises.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 23, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with my feelings toward him, I just think he has been one of the worst politicians I can remember in terms of making big promises and then not following through with them. Now, you might say "The circumstances changed once he got in office and was provided the relevant facts" (e.g., Gitmo) or "He tried but couldn't get it done because of irrational GOP opposition" a la the Bush tax cuts or repealing (or at least not re-certifying) the Patriot Act. I'm not dismissing those points, but I don't see how that distinction matters in a discussion about politicians who say shit to get elected. That's why he is no different to me than Romney.

A couple of comments on your points above:

Iraq - true, although he frequently promised to end it by 12/31/2009 on the stump. And to me, 16,000 military personnel stationed indefinitely at the world's largest embassy constitutes "ending the war" in name only.

Afghanistan - I don't remember a whole lot of liberal outrage over this. Sure, some people griped but there was no where near the resistance Bush got from the left during the Iraq surge. I'm not defending Bush, but the anti-war movement in this country has been conspicuously silent since a Democrat took over.

Health care - his most frequent criticism of Hillary's health care proposal was that she would mandate coverage. I don't remember his proposal (probably because it was long on vague "principles" and short on specifics), but I do remember questioning at the time how anyone could think it was a good idea to force people to buy something from a private company as a condition of living (and this was well before I turned to libertarianism). But, we've been down the health care road before so I'll grant you that he did put a lot on the line and fulfilled this promise (even if it the result was, IMO, sub-optimal).

Bipartisanship - agree the GOP will oppose anything he says. But the promise wasn't just about increasing bipartisanship (which, in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue). It was about ridding DC of the toxic tone and engaging both sides in a productive debate. There's simply no way for me to believe that Obama tried his best but just can't work solely due to the uncompromising GOP. He chastises and berates them just as often as they do him.

And a few countering points:

Medical marijuana - Yes, federal law supersedes state law but they've chosen not to enforce other federal laws (most recently DOMA as it relates to military benefits (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/211513-holder-wont-defend-doma-over-military-benefits)). And they've not only continued the Bush policies, they've actually escalted the Drug War relative to Bush (unabashed Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan had some harsh words for Obama on this (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/obamas-war-on-medical-marijuana-ctd.html)).

"Most transparent administration in history" - On his first day, Obama signed an executive order banning lobbyists from holding high ranking positions; on day 3, he granted a waiver to appoint a lobbyist for Raytheon to Deputy Sec of Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/william-lynn-obamas-first_n_160512.html). They've crakced down on whistleblowers, suing CIA officers for leaking info about CIA torture (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/the-wh-loves-aggressive-journalism-abroad-todays-qs-for-os-wh-2222012/). The DOJ has adopted a policy of denying basically any request under the Freedom of Information Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72916.html) under "national security interest" legalese created by Bush lawyers. There was a great piece in the New Yorker a month ago (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all) that outlines how spectacularly he's failed on this front (including signing off on gaming CBO calculations to make ObamaCare scoring look better than reality).

Cut deficit in half by end of first term and propose net spending cut - The deficit will be in excess of $1T every year of his first term and he has overseen the largest increase in spending since WWII. This most recent "budget" has me pretty fired up (that's a whole nother rant), but there's no question he has absolutely no intention of reducing the deficit or paying down the debt which is currently the size of our entire economy.

It goes on and on: stimlus bill loaded with earmarks; increased drone attacks killing thousads of innocent civilians (I guess only American lives are worth saving); militarism in Libya (soon to be Syria and Iran after that); continued torture practices "enhanced interrogation techniques"; initially opposing NDAA because the powers to lock up American citizens indefinitely didn't go far enough (thankfully, he relented and signed the bill that will only give him a little bit of power to send citizens to Gitmo without a trial).

I agree with you: all politicians promise shit they can't deliver. I just don't understand why it is so hard for many on either side of the political spectrum to be consistent in their critiques regardless of which party occupies the White House.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 23, 2012, 07:35:49 PM
agree with the point on transparency and the torture issues.

One of my biggest dissapointments relates to your comments on the earmarks - I think he let Pelosi and Reid have too much of a say in the early mega-bills. Some of that may have been him trying to learn the job (after GWB and BO, I think it's clear that an outsider isn't necessarily a good thing), but regardless...

Personally, I agree with how he handled Libya (something that was unpredictable in 08, imo), and, considering that we were in a war I would rather attack with drones than our soldiers. Yes, innocent bystanders shouldn't suffer casualties - that can and does happen with manned aircraft and soldiers on the ground. Not condoning it, I just prefer drones in harms way than one of our soldiers.

We have different philosophies on the budget - my biggest gripe is not pushing the agenda of the bipartison commission. I have others, but I do believe we need to subsidize green energy. There is no such thing as a "free market" when the Chinese are subsidizing production of solar panels and cells. I can go on about this but that's for another time.
that said, considering that the market crashed late september (my birthday, in fact), most of his campaign speeches occured when there was a different reality.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 24, 2012, 09:10:05 AM
There was a pretty good, and infuriating, article in the latest Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216) about the feds and medical MJ. Points out how the Obama administration first made good on its promise to back off, but has since (as Jimbo pointed out) ramped up efforts in an unprecedented way. It's pretty galling and only a few people are trying to hold Obama accountable for this, but apparently not having much impact. Makes you realize that the executive branch basically operates with impunity (you can't vote U.S. attorneys or drug czars out of office) and so the only effective route has got to be the legislative one. If pot weren't illegal, then the DOJ wouldn't have an excuse for busting people. Pretty simple.

But, on this issue at least, it makes you wish Ron Paul could run against Obama since he's the only person who might actually have any interest in calling him out on this. You know the other three would be right there on the same page.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on February 24, 2012, 09:39:34 AM
Gary Johnson 2012
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on February 24, 2012, 10:14:22 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 24, 2012, 09:39:34 AM
Gary Johnson 2012

"Who?"

- Republican voters
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on February 25, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1028335.1330143071!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)

QuoteRomney delivered a key speech Friday at the cavernous home of the Detroit Lions — and 1,200 people showed up in a venue built for 65,000.


:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

sure doesnt look like 1,200 to me.  and take away the press and his campaign volunteers i'd say 100-200 citizens tops showed up.
apparently he used his "the trees are the right height" line again.  what a crock of shit.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on February 25, 2012, 01:21:52 AM
What a pitiful turnout for such a large venue.  And what the hell is it with that "trees" line? 

He also reiterated his love for American cars by, brilliantly, stating that he owns a Ford Mustang and a Chevrolet pickup, while his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs."  Way to remind a Detroit crowd that you're "just like them."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on February 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on February 25, 2012, 01:21:52 AM
What a pitiful turnout for such a large venue.  And what the hell is it with that "trees" line? 

He also reiterated his love for American cars by, brilliantly, stating that he owns a Ford Mustang and a Chevrolet pickup, while his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs."  Way to remind a Detroit crowd that you're "just like them."

What, you don't have 4 cars?

As for that turnout  :shakehead:

Also, regarding the tree's comment and this entire race actually:

"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been" - Fidel Castro

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on February 27, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Jeb Bush
Quote"I used to be a conservative, and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that's kind of where we are."



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/24/did-jeb-bush-actually-say-that/?xid=newsletter-weekly#ixzz1nbjh6ueA
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 07, 2012, 11:24:02 AM
So this is what it's come to in American politics (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10596417-kaptur-beats-kucinich-in-ohio-democrats-battle-will-face-joe-the-plumber). Longtime congressman and rare anti-war voice Dennis Kucinich lost a primary necessitated by redistricting, and the Republican opponent to the prevailing Democrat will be none other than Joe the Plumber.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on March 07, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
2 long term dem incumbents fight over 1 seat, will go against Joe the Plumber in November

do I need to bother googling which party runs the state leg in OH?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 19, 2012, 09:34:34 AM
So I hear Romney won Puerto Rico yesterday in a landslide. They're saying one reason is that Santorum, speaking in PR on the question of statehood, said that as a condition they would first need to follow the law and speak English.

Except there is no law saying you have to speak English to become a state.

So Rick Santorum is such a jackass that he'll make willfully ignorant statements and torpedo his own electoral prospects in a place like PR just for the sake of spouting off some xenophobic rhetoric. A real statesman, this guy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 19, 2012, 10:50:17 AM
I'm still not convinced people are voting for Santorum because they like him or if it's just a vote against Romney's unlikability (and his Mormonism). The delegate math at this point just doesn't add up so there's no way Romney won't be the nominee, but the fact that Santorum has made it this far just illustrates to me the further dumbening of the country (or at least the GOP primaries).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 19, 2012, 11:14:18 AM
I'd say it does certainly reflect some dissatisfaction with Romney, but the fact the Santorum is the anti-Romney vote also reflects on the electorate itself. This is the best they can come up with as the alternative to Romney?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Remember that for all the news media won't shut up about the Republican primary campaign, the turnout for these primaries is at near-record lows. From that I infer that most sensible Republicans (yes, I believe they exist!) are doing the sensible thing and sitting this one out. So what the news media (and we) are doing is stressing out and prognosticating based on the whims of a tiny number of people actually voting in the primaries. The results may tell us something, but  doubt it's much.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on March 19, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Remember that for all the news media won't shut up about the Republican primary campaign, the turnout for these primaries is at near-record lows. From that I infer that most sensible Republicans (yes, I believe they exist!) are doing the sensible thing and sitting this one out. So what the news media (and we) are doing is stressing out and prognosticating based on the whims of a tiny number of people actually voting in the primaries. The results may tell us something, but  doubt it's much.

agree on both points. there still are sensible Republicans and they would rather not run against an incumbent.

the problem with the primaries - well one of them, is that imo the average primary voter is not the same as the average voter, for both parties.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: slslbs on March 19, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Remember that for all the news media won't shut up about the Republican primary campaign, the turnout for these primaries is at near-record lows. From that I infer that most sensible Republicans (yes, I believe they exist!) are doing the sensible thing and sitting this one out. So what the news media (and we) are doing is stressing out and prognosticating based on the whims of a tiny number of people actually voting in the primaries. The results may tell us something, but  doubt it's much.

agree on both points. there still are sensible Republicans and they would rather not run against an incumbent.

the problem with the primaries - well one of them, is that imo the average primary voter is not the same as the average voter, for both parties.

This is a really good point. I've been saying for about 18 months that I almost feel sorry for Romney--not that I want him to hold national office, but he's done all the work, put in the time, made all the right friends, and he's doing everything he can to get the nomination. And as his reward for slogging through this ugliest of primary campaigns, he gets to be the sacrificial candidate against a nearly unbeatable incumbent. He's doomed.

Seriously, when it we get down to it, charisma counts for a lot. Romney is less charismatic than most JC Penney mannequins. (Although I'd rather share a long commercial flight with him than any of the other nutjobs he's running against.) But Obama oozes charisma. It's almost no contest.

Yeah, poor Mitt Romney.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on March 19, 2012, 06:45:46 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: slslbs on March 19, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 19, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Remember that for all the news media won't shut up about the Republican primary campaign, the turnout for these primaries is at near-record lows. From that I infer that most sensible Republicans (yes, I believe they exist!) are doing the sensible thing and sitting this one out. So what the news media (and we) are doing is stressing out and prognosticating based on the whims of a tiny number of people actually voting in the primaries. The results may tell us something, but  doubt it's much.

agree on both points. there still are sensible Republicans and they would rather not run against an incumbent.

the problem with the primaries - well one of them, is that imo the average primary voter is not the same as the average voter, for both parties.

This is a really good point. I've been saying for about 18 months that I almost feel sorry for Romney--not that I want him to hold national office, but he's done all the work, put in the time, made all the right friends, and he's doing everything he can to get the nomination. And as his reward for slogging through this ugliest of primary campaigns, he gets to be the sacrificial candidate against a nearly unbeatable incumbent. He's doomed.

Seriously, when it we get down to it, charisma counts for a lot. Romney is less charismatic than most JC Penney mannequins. (Although I'd rather share a long commercial flight with him than any of the other nutjobs he's running against.) But Obama oozes charisma. It's almost no contest.

Yeah, poor Mitt Romney.

(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/49/dawson_crying.gif)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on March 19, 2012, 09:02:16 PM
yea, but there's enough uncertainty that Obama is by no means a definite.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 19, 2012, 11:01:53 PM
Quote from: slslbs on March 19, 2012, 09:02:16 PM
yea, but there's enough uncertainty that Obama is by no means a definite.

Absolutely. I can envision a scenario in which Romney wins.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on March 20, 2012, 11:09:52 AM
I think it would require a gross scandal or another 9/11. Romney can barely breathe without revealing his patrician sense of privilege and entitlement. Obama's got style. No contest.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 20, 2012, 11:09:52 AM
I think it would require a gross scandal or another 9/11. Romney can barely breathe without revealing his patrician sense of privilege and entitlement. Obama's got style. No contest.

Yeah, but Obama is black. Certain people hate that.
A lot.

He's also a muslim and not a US citizen so, that's not good either.

Don't let's get started about his history in "community organizing."

Seriously, though, Lots of folks are going to vote against Obama because he's Obama and because they believe (accurately or not) certain things about him and his vision of America.
These people would vote for Son Of Sam against Obama if he had an '(r)' by his name. Particularly if he had a clear pro-life position.

Obama is going to have to work hard to motivate the middle and the youth to come out and vote for him. Some are not pro-republican but many are either apathetic or they are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on March 20, 2012, 11:25:02 AM
^^^All good points, but my money's on Barack. (And don't forget the dog lovers' share of the electorate--by November, you won't be able to.)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 20, 2012, 12:08:08 PM
The question to me is if people dislike Romney now, how hatable will he be by November? At that point it's just a matter of who will voters deem the lesser of two evils (as usual). I agree with sunrise that in a low turnout election, Obama has the advantage but it's also true that even a slight decrease in consumer confidence could be enough to turn independents (who at 40% of the electorate decide all elections) away from Obama. A summer of $5/gal gas could do a number on people's psyche.

I'm curious about the "sensible Republicans" who sat out that you guys keep talking about. Surely you don't mean Jersey Shore cast member Chris Christie? Mitch Daniels just signed a right to work law that, according to unions, is an attack on the common man. Who would it take for you to say, "I could vote for this guy?" or at least "Well, if he wins he won't be that bad."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 20, 2012, 12:47:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 20, 2012, 12:08:08 PM
I'm curious about the "sensible Republicans" who sat out that you guys keep talking about. Surely you don't mean Jersey Shore cast member Chris Christie?

Wait, I thought he played Tony Soprano's brother-in-law?


Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 20, 2012, 12:08:08 PM
Who would it take for you to say, "I could vote for this guy?" or at least "Well, if he wins he won't be that bad."

I'm thinking this is actually my current attitude toward Romney. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a total joke and his flip-floppery can't be ignored, but for the most part he strikes me as a shrewd enough politician (hello, Massachussetts Republican) to say and do what he thinks he needs to do in order to keep the constituency happy. As president, I imagine he'd be a fairly middle-of-the-road, status-quo type, finally free of the Republican primary circus so he can take a pragmatic, moderate approach to governing that I think would reflect his terrible, yearning, awkward desire to be liked.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on March 20, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 20, 2012, 12:08:08 PM
I'm curious about the "sensible Republicans" who sat out that you guys keep talking about. Surely you don't mean Jersey Shore cast member Chris Christie?

I mean "sensible" in that they have the good sense not to enter a race they're bound to lose--not that I find their politics sensible.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on March 20, 2012, 04:22:08 PM
I think there are a # of reasons why a moderate might not vote for Obama (if they're not disgusted by the GOP rhetoric, that is)

gas prices. yes, it's a global market, but people are probably still pissed

unemployment. the crisis actually started in 07, but many people conveniently forget that. besides, Obama is the guy on top right now, so he's "responsible"

leadership - yes, he has charisma, but he is percieved by some as "weak". not totally without reason

Obamacare - it doesn't matter that some people don't have health care coverage, the gov't can't make me buy insurance

the deficit - see above

if you say something loud enough and often enough, it becomes true.

sensible Repbublicans? none of them are electable because they aren't true conservatives. I doubt if someone read quotes from Reagan's speeches these days they would be considered conservative enough the way things have gone (see my Jeb Bush quote)

Scott Brown
Olympia Snow - unfortunately she's retiring
John Kasich (maybe, although he's under fire right now)
there are probably a few others that I can't think of now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on March 21, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry

It's not just that. It's been hashed over recently better than I can right now but (for just one example) I distinctly remember being told that detention center at Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed.

Obama's going to have to get out and work hard to highlight the things he has achieved out of all he said he'd try to do.


Also, people who blame Gas Prices on the president don't know wtf they're talking about. Gas companies and global markets drive those prices.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on March 21, 2012, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 21, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry

It's not just that. It's been hashed over recently better than I can right now but (for just one example) I distinctly remember being told that detention center at Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed.

Obama's going to have to get out and work hard to highlight the things he has achieved out of all he said he'd try to do.


Also, people who blame Gas Prices on the president don't know wtf they're talking about. Gas companies and global markets drive those prices.

Unfortunately people who don't know wtf they are talking about not only decide elections, but frequently win them.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on March 21, 2012, 02:59:29 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 21, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry

It's not just that. It's been hashed over recently better than I can right now but (for just one example) I distinctly remember being told that detention center at Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed.

Obama's going to have to get out and work hard to highlight the things he has achieved out of all he said he'd try to do.

Also, people who blame Gas Prices on the president don't know wtf they're talking about. Gas companies and global markets drive those prices.
yes - I don't think he's done a very good job o that front, yet
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on March 21, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 21, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry

It's not just that. It's been hashed over recently better than I can right now but (for just one example) I distinctly remember being told that detention center at Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed.

Obama's going to have to get out and work hard to highlight the things he has achieved out of all he said he'd try to do.


Also, people who blame Gas Prices on the president don't know wtf they're talking about. Gas companies and global markets drive those prices.

The GTMO promise was a mistake, OB should never have set a deadline...  THere were too far details to which he was not privy to make a bold statement like that...  Letting them out w/o Due Process would have given the GOP a "weak on crime" attack point, not closing on time gives them a "failure" attack point.  Anyways, IMO attacking OB for failing to close GTMO is also attacking the GOP's own position that it should remain open.  And if they do not want it open, why go through such efforts to impede the POTUS from closing it???  (military vs. civilian court debates, 2011 defense budget bill, etc.)

IMO, GTMO is neither a failure or a success.  It is what it is, though OB has done more to legitimize it and close it.  As a counter, I wonder what McCain would have done, given his recent rhetoric about going to war in the Middle East and/or his own experience as a POW...

Of course, none of this means anything to a Fauxnie...

Terry

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 23, 2012, 03:26:18 PM
For as much as Rick Santorum seems to get points for his "authenticity" (as in: he's authentically loony), and as much as he likes to hammer Romney for the latter's slipperiness, it sure seems like Santorum himself is pretty good at talking out of both sides of his mouth and looking like a fool from time to time.

Take this latest dustup (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830198-santorum-tries-to-erase-romney-etch-a-sketch-comment), where he said that you might as well vote for Obama "instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future." (That being Romney.)

Today, Santorum is trying to back off that, denying that he actually said we should stay with Obama over Romeny. His M.O. when he gets caught in moments like this is to actually 1. deny that he said what he said and 2. blame the media or Mitt Romney for him getting caught saying it.

Not only does the guy have some pretty whacky views on the world, but as a candidate his undisciplined mouth gets him in trouble a lot. Romney's does, too, but Santorum isn't doing himself too many favors.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on March 23, 2012, 04:17:32 PM
I just have this weird feeling that Sanatorum is the more likely guy to beat Obama in the general, that's what makes him really scary to me. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 21, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 21, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 20, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 20, 2012, 11:14:03 AM
are not happy with their perception of Obama's accomplishments.

The Fox News Effect taking hold...  You tell the people that he's a failure enough times, it doesn't matter how much water he turns to wine...

My neighbor who ignores all things political will tell you OB is a failure, but can't tell you why.  Not even one good example... 

Terry

It's not just that. It's been hashed over recently better than I can right now but (for just one example) I distinctly remember being told that detention center at Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed.

Obama's going to have to get out and work hard to highlight the things he has achieved out of all he said he'd try to do.


Also, people who blame Gas Prices on the president don't know wtf they're talking about. Gas companies and global markets drive those prices.

The GTMO promise was a mistake, OB should never have set a deadline...  THere were too far details to which he was not privy to make a bold statement like that... Letting them out w/o Due Process would have given the GOP a "weak on crime" attack point, not closing on time gives them a "failure" attack point.  Anyways, IMO attacking OB for failing to close GTMO is also attacking the GOP's own position that it should remain open.  And if they do not want it open, why go through such efforts to impede the POTUS from closing it???  (military vs. civilian court debates, 2011 defense budget bill, etc.)

IMO, GTMO is neither a failure or a success.  It is what it is, though OB has done more to legitimize it and close it.  As a counter, I wonder what McCain would have done, given his recent rhetoric about going to war in the Middle East and/or his own experience as a POW...

Of course, none of this means anything to a Fauxnie...

Terry




So our only criteria for giving Obama a draw on GTMO is that he averted a hypothetical political attack, might have done better than McCain might have hypothetically done, and has helped legitimize the base?


I understand relativism, but isn't it kind of a stretch to argue: "Draw=success because it neutralizes my opponents hypothetical argument", when we are dealing with real people, held without real due process, in real holding cells?   



I do agree with you, however, that Obama didn't have the knowledge he needed in initiating his promise to close  GTMO. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on March 24, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
so, obama is now embracing the term "obamacare."
whats up with that?

he has a FB page called "I Like Obamacare"   :?
seems like a bad move to me.
i dont know exactly why, i just dont like it.


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on March 24, 2012, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on March 24, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
so, obama is now embracing the term "obamacare."
whats up with that?

he has a FB page called "I Like Obamacare"   :?
seems like a bad move to me.
i dont know exactly why, i just dont like it.

Well, they coined it with an "I HATE FUCKING OBAMA" sentiment built in, so it's natural to feel weird about it.  But if he can turn it around and own the phrase, he crushes. CRUSHES
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

So our only criteria for giving Obama a draw on GTMO is that he averted a hypothetical political attack,


In a sense, yes.  The US Gov't sometimes has to use evil means to achieve good ends.  Honestly, I have no issue with GTMO...

And I see OB moving forward with trying prisoners in court, transferring them out, etc.  I think we saw the previous admin just dumping people there to be forgotten. 

Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
...might have done better than McCain might have hypothetically done, and has helped legitimize the base?

I'm not making any such hypothetical.  I actually brought that up as an honest curiosity - as a POW, he may have moved faster than OB.  And since the House is currently GOP led, they may have made his actions easier than they have for OB... 

ETA:  actually who know where the House would be today, if McCain had been elected...  Congress could be Dem Led and we could be exactly where we are today on the issue...  Anyone have a way to visit alternate realities???


Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

I understand relativism...

I do agree with you, however, that Obama didn't have the knowledge he needed in initiating his promise to close  GTMO.

Isn't ALL politics "relative"?   :-P

ETA:  shouldn't our acknowledgement of OB's prior ignorance also tint our views of GITMO - we don't know the whole story... 

Terry


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

So our only criteria for giving Obama a draw on GTMO is that he averted a hypothetical political attack,


In a sense, yes.  The US Gov't sometimes has to use evil means to achieve good ends.  Honestly, I have no issue with GTMO...

I'm curious, if President Rick Santorum was sending US citizens to the gulag indefinitely (which, thanks to this president he would have the authority to do), could you still say the same thing? If not, then you're just being a homer.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
And I see OB moving forward with trying prisoners in court, transferring them out, etc.  I think we saw the previous admin just dumping people there to be forgotten.

C'mon

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
...might have done better than McCain might have hypothetically done, and has helped legitimize the base?

I'm not making any such hypothetical.  I actually brought that up as an honest curiosity - as a POW, he may have moved faster than OB.  And since the House is currently GOP led, they may have made his actions easier than they have for OB...

I think he would have gone the other way with it, locking up more people and taunting the terrrrrrists.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

I understand relativism...

I do agree with you, however, that Obama didn't have the knowledge he needed in initiating his promise to close  GTMO.

Isn't ALL politics "relative"?   :-P

ETA:  shouldn't our acknowledgement of OB's prior ignorance also tint our views of GITMO - we don't know the whole story... 

Terry

Whether or not he knew enough (or we do) is pretty irrelevant to me. His campaign promise wasn't specifically about closing Gitmo. Like much of his candidacy, it was symbolic of something bigger. In this case, it was about assuring the world that the US is a country of laws and that we will uphold those laws even/especially when it is difficult. I agree with your point that if the roles were reversed we'd be in the same spot. But to me, the only question is whether or not you believe that our system of laws and justice helps to differentiate us from countries that kidnap and torture people. Obama doesn't.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on March 25, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

So our only criteria for giving Obama a draw on GTMO is that he averted a hypothetical political attack,


In a sense, yes.  The US Gov't sometimes has to use evil means to achieve good ends.  Honestly, I have no issue with GTMO...

I'm curious, if President Rick Santorum was sending US citizens to the gulag indefinitely (which, thanks to this president he would have the authority to do), could you still say the same thing? If not, then you're just being a homer.

In the case of Japanese Internment, no.  In the case of catching and holding the Unibomber before he ever became the Unibomber, yes.  Each case is weighs on its own terms in Court, or should be...  Extending POTUS power to do so w/o Congress is a Constitutional Issue...  Let the Court decide...


Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
And I see OB moving forward with trying prisoners in court, transferring them out, etc.  I think we saw the previous admin just dumping people there to be forgotten.

C'mon


I'll concede that..  Due Process doesn't have to be instant...


Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
...might have done better than McCain might have hypothetically done, and has helped legitimize the base?

I'm not making any such hypothetical.  I actually brought that up as an honest curiosity - as a POW, he may have moved faster than OB.  And since the House is currently GOP led, they may have made his actions easier than they have for OB...


I think he would have gone the other way with it, locking up more people and taunting the terrrrrrists.

LOL!  With Palin right behind him holding an M16!


Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 24, 2012, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: nab on March 23, 2012, 05:55:34 PM

I understand relativism...

I do agree with you, however, that Obama didn't have the knowledge he needed in initiating his promise to close  GTMO.

Isn't ALL politics "relative"?   :-P

ETA:  shouldn't our acknowledgement of OB's prior ignorance also tint our views of GITMO - we don't know the whole story... 

Terry

Whether or not he knew enough (or we do) is pretty irrelevant to me. His campaign promise wasn't specifically about closing Gitmo. Like much of his candidacy, it was symbolic of something bigger. In this case, it was about assuring the world that the US is a country of laws and that we will uphold those laws even/especially when it is difficult. I agree with your point that if the roles were reversed we'd be in the same spot. But to me, the only question is whether or not you believe that our system of laws and justice helps to differentiate us from countries that kidnap and torture people. Obama doesn't.

C'mon!  If you believe that the US Gov't hasn't always employed kidnap and torture to extend the interests of The People (however unspeakable), then you are naive, IMO...  No offense...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 25, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
And if you believe that the US Gov't hasn't always employed kidnap and torture to extend the interests of The People (however unspeakable), then you are naive, IMO...  No offense...

I don't doubt that Obama was not the first to use those tactics, but I remember him running on very different ideals than those he abides by now. I was duped into believing that a Constitutional law professor would have some credibility in adhering to it. Chalk it up to not knowing enough, all politicians do it, etc.; doesn't make it suck any less.

And T, as long as you keep jumping on my ISOs, you could never offend me. Unless you tell me to go fuck my mother. BING-POW-BOOM!!

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a WTF am I still doing up thread with my name on it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on March 25, 2012, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 25, 2012, 12:56:40 AM
And if you believe that the US Gov't hasn't always employed kidnap and torture to extend the interests of The People (however unspeakable), then you are naive, IMO...  No offense...

I don't doubt that Obama was not the first to use those tactics, but I remember him running on very different ideals than those he abides by now. I was duped into believing that a Constitutional law professor would have some credibility in adhering to it. Chalk it up to not knowing enough, all politicians do it, etc.; doesn't make it suck any less.

I bet its more of a matter of finding out that closing GTMO does more harm than keeping it open...

But, you know they all change their tune once they get what they want...  POTUS is just the best vote getter in this weeks Popularity Contest...  Its always been that way...


Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
And T, as long as you keep jumping on my ISOs, you could never offend me. Unless you tell me to go fuck my mother. BING-POW-BOOM!!

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a WTF am I still doing up thread with my name on it.

No, I'll never make fun of you...  But your views, I may poke at them...  But I'm sure we have the same heart, just different eyes...

And yeah, I always stay up this late!  Its part of the game!

Terry

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on March 25, 2012, 03:17:47 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 25, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Unless you tell me to go fuck my mother. BING-POW-BOOM!!

Heh, I was just watching that last night.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Romney goes from inevitable to eventual as Santorum drips drops out. I wonder if he was offered something (Sec. of Praying the Gay Away?) or if the specter of losing his home state was just too much. Still, it's pretty unbelievable that a guy who was more of a joke than Michelle Bachmann a week before Iowa became the party's anti-Romney vote.

Anyway, time for the VP guessing games to begin. :pukesinmouth:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Quote
Santorum suspends campaign

Washington (CNN) -- Rick Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his Republican presidential campaign after a weekend of "prayer and thought," effectively ceding the GOP nomination to Mitt Romney.

The former Pennsylvania senator made his announcement following the weekend hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Isabella.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds," Santorum said. "We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting."

The development means that Romney is now the certain GOP nominee to take on President Barack Obama in November, as Santorum was his main challenger. While Romney still needs to win several hundred delegates to clinch the nomination, Santorum's departure from the race leaves his path unhindered.

...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on April 10, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
this is going to be the 3.0 of elections
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: phil on April 10, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
this is going to be the 3.0 of elections

A lot of excitement and anticipation followed by crushing disappointment? Sounds about right.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on April 10, 2012, 05:40:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: phil on April 10, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
this is going to be the 3.0 of elections

A lot of excitement and anticipation followed by crushing disappointment? Sounds about right.

Now that you mention it, maybe I was wrong. No excitement, no anticipation. Romney and Obama? Snooze. Looks like I'm voting for myself as a write-in.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on April 10, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
none of the republicans even ripcorded, except maybe bachmannnn.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 11:20:55 PM
Quote from: phil on April 10, 2012, 05:40:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: phil on April 10, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
this is going to be the 3.0 of elections

A lot of excitement and anticipation followed by crushing disappointment? Sounds about right.

Now that you mention it, maybe I was wrong. No excitement, no anticipation. Romney and Obama? Snooze. Looks like I'm voting for myself as a write-in.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Damn it, I was so focused on a "3.0 blows" joke I completely missed the obvious.

Quote from: kellerb on April 10, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
none of the republicans even ripcorded, except maybe bachmannnn.

Tim Pawlenty
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on April 11, 2012, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
I wonder if he was offered something

...

Anyway, time for the VP guessing games to begin. :pukesinmouth:

A) Mitt Romney is cynical enough to offer the VP spot to some lunatic religious zealot if he thinks it'll excite the evangelicals and sweep him to Bush-style victory.

B) Mitt Romney is smart enough to realize independents matter in the general and so he'll tell all the right-wingers to fuck off now that he has the nom sewn up. Most of his "severe conservatism" was simply pandering to make it through the primary.


Which one is it?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on April 11, 2012, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: kellerb on April 10, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
none of the crazy republicans even ripcorded, except maybe bachmannnn.

fyp
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on April 11, 2012, 09:55:14 AM
I sure hope Ron Paul sticks around to Nader2000 the republitards.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 11, 2012, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
I wonder if he was offered something

...

Anyway, time for the VP guessing games to begin. :pukesinmouth:

A) Mitt Romney is cynical enough to offer the VP spot to some lunatic religious zealot if he thinks it'll excite the evangelicals and sweep him to Bush-style victory.

B) Mitt Romney is smart enough to realize independents matter in the general and so he'll tell all the right-wingers to fuck off now that he has the nom sewn up. Most of his "severe conservatism" was simply pandering to make it through the primary.


Which one is it?

Oh, there's no chance Romney would put Santorum as VP (if he does, he's dumber than I thought he was). Not only does Santorum alienate a significant portion of the independent vote, but Romney was going to beat him in PA so he doesn't even help Romney in his home state. But I could (unfortunately) see some kind of cabinet level position or ambassadorship or some shit like that. I still think Santorum was more concerned about losing PA than anything else (with the possible exception of the health of his daughter), but it wouldn't surprise me if you saw a Santorum appointment somewhere in a Romney administration.

Quote from: rowjimmy on April 11, 2012, 09:55:14 AM
I sure hope Ron Paul sticks around to Nader2000 the republitards.

I'll send you your bumper sticker.

I don't think this is a very likely scenario. I think Ron would understand the implications for his son's political career in the GOP if he handed Obama a victory. Still, it is Romney we're talking about, so you might not need anyone siphoning votes for an Obama victory.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on April 11, 2012, 10:35:03 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 10:08:59 AM

I don't think this is a very likely scenario. I think Ron would understand the implications for his son's political career in the GOP if he handed Obama a victory.

Ah yes...  The Oligarchy...   :-P

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on April 11, 2012, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Oh, there's no chance Romney would put Santorum as VP (if he does, he's dumber than I thought he was). Not only does Santorum alienate a significant portion of the independent vote, but Romney was going to beat him in PA so he doesn't even help Romney in his home state. But I could (unfortunately) see some kind of cabinet level position or ambassadorship or some shit like that. I still think Santorum was more concerned about losing PA than anything else (with the possible exception of the health of his daughter), but it wouldn't surprise me if you saw a Santorum appointment somewhere in a Romney administration.

I agree that Santorum for VP would be a bad idea for Romney. After that, I really don't see the point of giving him some other administration job considering a) it would be post-election, so any "GOP unity" or "team of rivals" argument wouldn't necessarily apply since there isn't an electorate to sway; and b) what has Satorum, who got smacked in the 2006 election, done to distinguish himself as a competent leader or expert in any vital government field? Seems to me the guy basically brings social and religious controversy to the table and little else.



spelling...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 11, 2012, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Oh, there's no chance Romney would put Santorum as VP (if he does, he's dumber than I thought he was). Not only does Santorum alienate a significant portion of the independent vote, but Romney was going to beat him in PA so he doesn't even help Romney in his home state. But I could (unfortunately) see some kind of cabinet level position or ambassadorship or some shit like that. I still think Santorum was more concerned about losing PA than anything else (with the possible exception of the health of his daughter), but it wouldn't surprise me if you saw a Santorum appointment somewhere in a Romney administration.

I agree that Santorum for VP would be a bad idea for Romney. After that, I really don't see the point of giving him some other administration job considering a) it would be post-election, so any "GOP unity" or "team of rivals" argument wouldn't necessarily apply since there isn't an electorate to sway; and b) what has Satorum, who got smacked in the 2006 election, done to distinguish himself as a competent leader or expert in any vital government field? Seems to me the guy basically brings social and religious controversy to the table and little else.



spelling...

Agreed. It was really just my skepticism that any politician would do something beneficial to a rival unless they got a cut of the action. The fact that Santorum didn't come out for Romney yesterday tells me there was no such offer.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on April 11, 2012, 03:08:46 PM
Clearly Newt is the only logical choice for VP.   :evil:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 11, 2012, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on April 11, 2012, 03:08:46 PM
Clearly Newt is the only logical choice for VP.   :evil:

Speaking of your boy, can somebody loan Newt $500 so he can get on the ballot in Utah? And how about the balls on this guy pretending he is the obvious choice for Santorum supporters? It takes a special kind of arrogance to keep this charade going.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/220891-report-gingrichs-500-check-for-utah-primary-filing-fee-bounces

Quote
Report: Gingrich's $500 check for Utah primary filing fee bounces

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich might fail to appear on the Utah primary ballot after a check for the required filing fee bounced, according to media reports.

The check for $500 bounced on March 27, Utah state election director Mark Thomas told ABC News, which first reported the story.

"Our office immediately attempted to contact the campaign and the designated agent but no phone calls were returned," said Thomas, according to ABC.

"We also asked the state Republican Party to assist us, but they also could not get into communication with them, although I do not know how they attempted to contact them," he added.
The incident highlights fundraising woes for Gingrich who has struggled to raise money and win delegates, after his early victory in South Carolina's first-in-the-nation primary. Gingrich trails front-runner Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who exited the race Tuesday, in national polls.

Earlier this month, one of his top contributor's, real estate mogul Sheldon Adelson, suggested it was time for the GOP to rally behind Romney and that Gingrich may have hit a dead end in his presidential bid.

The former House Speaker, though, has insisted he would stay in the race until the GOP convention in Tampa.

On Tuesday, after Santorum announced he would exit from the race, Gingrich sought to recast the Republican contest as a two-man race between him and Romney.

Gingrich said Santorum's departure "makes it clearer that there's a conservative, named Newt Gingrich, and there's Mitt Romney."

Gingrich made a pitch to Santorum's delegates. "I humbly ask Sen. Santorum's supporters to visit Newt.org to review my conservative record and join us as we bring these values to Tampa. We know well that only a conservative can protect life, defend the Constitution, restore jobs and growth and return to a balanced budget," he said.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on April 11, 2012, 05:47:06 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

That'd be a bold choice considering his knee problems.     :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on April 11, 2012, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: Hicks on April 11, 2012, 05:47:06 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

That'd be a bold choice considering his knee problems.     :wink:

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

I was just about to go there.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on April 13, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

Possible, but Rubio has some bizarre shit in his closet.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on April 13, 2012, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on April 13, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

Possible, but Rubio has some bizarre shit in his closet.

would you trust someone who didn't?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on April 13, 2012, 11:22:30 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 13, 2012, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on April 13, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

Possible, but Rubio has some bizarre shit in his closet.

would you trust someone who didn't?

I wouldn't trust them to actually be a republican
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on April 14, 2012, 12:04:24 AM
Quote from: kellerb on April 13, 2012, 11:22:30 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 13, 2012, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on April 13, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

Possible, but Rubio has some bizarre shit in his closet.

would you trust someone who didn't?

I wouldn't trust them to actually be a republican

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard both good points
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on April 14, 2012, 12:31:11 AM
Quote from: Superfreakie on April 13, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on April 11, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
my guess is Romney will pick Rubio

Possible, but Rubio has some bizarre shit in his closet.

Maybe, but he could turn FL red and he helps out at least a little with the massive problem the GOP has with Latinos. It's a political and completely transparent choice which is another reason why he's probably the odds on favorite.

Paul Ryan would be a pretty stupid pick IMO since he hands Obama the "they want to steal your Medicare because they hate old people" attack. Plus I don't think Romney can win WI even with him so I'm not sure what he brings to the table.

Chris Christie would be the most annoying VP candidate since the last election (although it might be worth it for the Royal Rumble that would break out during the Biden-Christie VP debate).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on May 02, 2012, 09:48:06 AM
Juan Williams thinks Romney should pick Condi Rice as his running mate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/01/why-condoleezza-rice-could-change-everything-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork).

I admit I don't know a whole heck of lot about her, but... doesn't sound like such a bad play.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2012, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2012, 09:48:06 AM
Juan Williams thinks Romney should pick Condi Rice as his running mate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/01/why-condoleezza-rice-could-change-everything-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork).

I admit I don't know a whole heck of lot about her, but... doesn't sound like such a bad play.

How'd that work out last time when they went with a game changing, make-a-statement pick?

Juan is right that she is infinitely more qualified than the previous bimbo, but I think because she is so closely tied to the Bush legacy of nation building and endless war it would be enough to turn off anti-war independents (speaking of which, Obama's speech last night made me nauseous). I think someone like Rob Portman who is a much lower profile Bush-y would be better on the fiscal conservative front (despite his penchant for deficit spending as budget director) and in trying to capture one of the crown jewels (OH). Still, Condi's foreign policy chops would help blunt the one area that Obama would be considered by many (not me, but many) to have an advantage right now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on May 02, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2012, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2012, 09:48:06 AM
Juan Williams thinks Romney should pick Condi Rice as his running mate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/01/why-condoleezza-rice-could-change-everything-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork).

I admit I don't know a whole heck of lot about her, but... doesn't sound like such a bad play.

How'd that work out last time when they went with a game changing, make-a-statement pick?

Juan is right that she is infinitely more qualified than the previous bimbo

I think you answered the question right there. I wouldn't put Rice and Palin in anywhere near the same league.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on May 02, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
LOL, yeah Romney going over to China or Russia and talking about the trees being "the right height" sounds like some first class diplomacy to me.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2012, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 02, 2012, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2012, 09:48:06 AM
Juan Williams thinks Romney should pick Condi Rice as his running mate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/01/why-condoleezza-rice-could-change-everything-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork).

I admit I don't know a whole heck of lot about her, but... doesn't sound like such a bad play.

How'd that work out last time when they went with a game changing, make-a-statement pick?

Juan is right that she is infinitely more qualified than the previous bimbo

I think you answered the question right there. I wouldn't put Rice and Palin in anywhere near the same league.

No doubt, but the "shock" factor is about the same to me. Not to mention the obvious transparency of the pick (McCain trying to capture disenfranchised Hillary voters, Romney trying to quell the "war on women" and the party of white guy problems).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on May 02, 2012, 11:26:52 AM
Just think, if the GOP trots out a second female VEEP pick in a row and loses again, they can deftly paint the Democrats as being the real party of sexists!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on May 02, 2012, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 02, 2012, 09:48:06 AM
Juan Williams thinks Romney should pick Condi Rice as his running mate (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/01/why-condoleezza-rice-could-change-everything-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork).

I admit I don't know a whole heck of lot about her, but... doesn't sound like such a bad play.

Condy is a bad ass and Mittens would be wise to ask her...  She would be dumb to go along...  IMO...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on May 10, 2012, 11:41:13 AM
Romney being his own dumb self:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/mitt-romney-scolds-reporter-over-marijuana-question-arent-there-issues-of-significance/
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on May 10, 2012, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: Undermind on May 10, 2012, 11:41:13 AM
Romney being his own dumb self:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/mitt-romney-scolds-reporter-over-marijuana-question-arent-there-issues-of-significance/

This is the Etch-a-Sketch candidate recognizing that some of his positions will be unpopular with moderates and independents, and he's not going to win the election talking about them. He's just going to try and hammer away at the economy the entire time and take the opposite of whatever Obama's foreign-policy positions are. This is his "failed presidency" narrative. Only the most calloused homophobe would consider "endorses gay marriage" to be part of Obama's "failure" as a president.

But yeah, I think it's bullshit for a candidate for national office to refuse to talk about issues that enjoy (any level of) national prominence.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on May 10, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
Let's not forget that marijuana is an economic issue too, the amount of money we waste on enforcement/incarceration and the amount we could be capturing in tax dollars is huge. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
I could never vote for a guy who stands with his arms by his side so robotically like that. Gives me the heebie jeebies. I didn't vote for McCain for the same reason, and I'm not about to start now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
Good ol' Mitt Romney. I mean c'mon, who didn't pick on gays in high school?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-apologizes-dumb-things-did-prep-school-152935856.html
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
Good ol' Mitt Romney. I mean c'mon, who didn't pick on gays in high school?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-apologizes-dumb-things-did-prep-school-152935856.html

The funny part about his apology was that he admits to being a dick, he was just a clueless dick who had no idea the guy was gay.

But, I meant to post the original article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html) in VDB's Fox News thread because I have to know: do you guys see any left leaning bias in an exposé about Romney picking on a gay classmate the day after Obama makes his big announcement? The article doesn't just insinuate, it is reporting as factually accurate that Romney and his "prep school posse" attacked the kid because "he thought did not belong," and that the kid was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." Please, someone who chastises Fox News for their blatant disregard for journalistic integrity tell me that they can recognize this for the agenda laden hit piece it is. Please.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
Good ol' Mitt Romney. I mean c'mon, who didn't pick on gays in high school?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-apologizes-dumb-things-did-prep-school-152935856.html

The funny part about his apology was that he admits to being a dick, he was just a clueless dick who had no idea the guy was gay.

But, I meant to post the original article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html) in VDB's Fox News thread because I have to know: do you guys see any left leaning bias in an exposé about Romney picking on a gay classmate the day after Obama makes his big announcement? The article doesn't just insinuate, it is reporting as factually accurate that Romney and his "prep school posse" attacked the kid because "he thought did not belong," and that the kid was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." Please, someone who chastises Fox News for their blatant disregard for journalistic integrity tell me that they can recognize this for the agenda laden hit piece it is. Please.

For sure, there is little question. Probably had it in the can waiting for the opportune moment to drop it. Let's be clear, Obama is an incredibly ruthless politician and the people he has surrounded himself with, including big business partners, are on equal footing. You don't get to the top without being one. However, while this is agenda ridden, to me that's a rung up on the morality ladder when contrasted against Fox's journalistic integrity lying propaganda.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on May 10, 2012, 08:35:47 PM
Quote from: Hicks on May 10, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
Let's not forget that marijuana is an economic issue too, the amount of money we waste on enforcement/incarceration and the amount we could be capturing in tax dollars is huge.

# 1 cash crop in CA.
major economic issue, imo
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on May 10, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
I could never vote for a guy who stands with his arms by his side so robotically like that. Gives me the heebie jeebies. I didn't vote for McCain for the same reason, and I'm not about to start now.

McCain gets a pass on that--and the wonky bulging jaw--from me because I'm pretty sure they are partly the result of injuries sustained in combat or prison. Similar story w/ Bob Dole, if you ever noticed; I think one of his arms or hands was paralyzed, basically a club, from an injury in the big one.

Romney, on the other hand, is just a plain stiff.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 09:59:41 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on May 10, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
I could never vote for a guy who stands with his arms by his side so robotically like that. Gives me the heebie jeebies. I didn't vote for McCain for the same reason, and I'm not about to start now.

McCain gets a pass on that--and the wonky bulging jaw--from me because I'm pretty sure they are partly the result of injuries sustained in combat or prison. Similar story w/ Bob Dole, if you ever noticed; I think one of his arms or hands was paralyzed, basically a club, from an injury in the big one.

Romney, on the other hand, is just a plain stiff.

Prison schmrison. A guy shouldn't have his finger on the button if he can't do a round of high fives in the situation room afterwards.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on May 11, 2012, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
Good ol' Mitt Romney. I mean c'mon, who didn't pick on gays in high school?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-apologizes-dumb-things-did-prep-school-152935856.html

The funny part about his apology was that he admits to being a dick, he was just a clueless dick who had no idea the guy was gay.

But, I meant to post the original article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html) in VDB's Fox News thread because I have to know: do you guys see any left leaning bias in an exposé about Romney picking on a gay classmate the day after Obama makes his big announcement? The article doesn't just insinuate, it is reporting as factually accurate that Romney and his "prep school posse" attacked the kid because "he thought did not belong," and that the kid was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." Please, someone who chastises Fox News for their blatant disregard for journalistic integrity tell me that they can recognize this for the agenda laden hit piece it is. Please.

Fair call.

I heard about this on the radio driving home. I'm not sure that dragging up some 65 year old's high school dickbaggery is entirely relevant to a presidential election, especially if what it amounts to is he was part of a clique that wasn't so kind to outsiders. Go ahead and tell me there no decent, admirable adults out there who might have been douches in high school. (I'm not saying that Romney is decent or admirable, just that if he's not, it's not necessarily because of this.)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on May 11, 2012, 07:30:08 AM
Yeah I don't really like the smells coming off the "Romney as bully" story.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on May 11, 2012, 09:28:42 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 10, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
Good ol' Mitt Romney. I mean c'mon, who didn't pick on gays in high school?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-apologizes-dumb-things-did-prep-school-152935856.html

The funny part about his apology was that he admits to being a dick, he was just a clueless dick who had no idea the guy was gay.

But, I meant to post the original article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html) in VDB's Fox News thread because I have to know: do you guys see any left leaning bias in an exposé about Romney picking on a gay classmate the day after Obama makes his big announcement? The article doesn't just insinuate, it is reporting as factually accurate that Romney and his "prep school posse" attacked the kid because "he thought did not belong," and that the kid was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." Please, someone who chastises Fox News for their blatant disregard for journalistic integrity tell me that they can recognize this for the agenda laden hit piece it is. Please.

Michael Corleone: Where does it say that you can't kill a cop?
Tom Hagen: Come on, Mikey...
Michael Corleone: Tom, wait a minute. I'm talking about a cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a - a - a dishonest cop - a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That's a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don't we, Tom?
[Tom nods]
Michael Corleone: And they might like a story like that.
Tom Hagen: They might, they just might.
Michael Corleone: [to Sonny] It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.


Total left lean anti Mitt "propaganda"...  Really, do we think what he did back in the 60s to that kid is all that meaningful today???  I don't particularly think so.  I've changed a ton since HS, I'm sure Mittens has too...

Honestly, I don't think its good strategy.  Mittens has enough bad personality to hang himself... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on May 11, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Superfreakie on May 10, 2012, 06:24:56 PM
Probably had it in the can waiting for the opportune moment to drop it. Let's be clear, Obama is an incredibly ruthless politician and the people he has surrounded himself with, including big business partners, are on equal footing.

This

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 11, 2012, 12:42:30 AM
Go ahead and tell me there no decent, admirable adults out there who might have been douches in high school. (I'm not saying that Romney is decent or admirable, just that if he's not, it's not necessarily because of this.)

That

Quote from: sunrisevt on May 11, 2012, 07:30:08 AM
Yeah I don't really like the smells coming off the "Romney as bully" story.

Definitely

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on May 11, 2012, 09:28:42 AM
Honestly, I don't think its good strategy.  Mittens has enough bad personality to hang himself... 

F'real (ETA: and bonus points for the Godfather lines)

Thanks guys. You restored my hope for humanity.

+k x4
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on May 11, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 11, 2012, 11:38:34 AM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on May 11, 2012, 09:28:42 AM
Honestly, I don't think its good strategy.  Mittens has enough bad personality to hang himself... 

F'real (ETA: and bonus points for the Godfather lines)


And it begins...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/conservatives-counter-claims-mitt-romney-a-bully-obama-worse-article-1.1076353?localLinksEnabled=false

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on May 11, 2012, 07:45:10 PM
someone help me out here.

Where in the Constitution or the FEC regs does it state that members of political campaigns must act like 4 year olds?
It must say that somewhere - it's the only rule that everyone complies with
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 05, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Scott Walker survives recall in WI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/scott-walker/2012/06/05/gJQAockFHV_blog.html)

This election is going to be really close.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on June 06, 2012, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 05, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Scott Walker survives recall in WI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/scott-walker/2012/06/05/gJQAockFHV_blog.html)

This election is going to be really close.



The Walker recall?  The presidential election?  The 2012 General Election?


Close for all the wrong reasons if you ask me.  50/50 splits are not democracy in action, imo, but a fertile feeding ground for enshrining elite control via hero worship. 


If people really want to get back to "the good old days" (you know, when markets were unregulated and taxes on the wealthy were high), it's going to take a lot more humility than most are willing to offer.   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 06, 2012, 11:30:03 PM
Quote from: nab on June 06, 2012, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 05, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Scott Walker survives recall in WI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/scott-walker/2012/06/05/gJQAockFHV_blog.html)

This election is going to be really close.



The Walker recall?  The presidential election?  The 2012 General Election?


Close for all the wrong reasons if you ask me.  50/50 splits are not democracy in action, imo, but a fertile feeding ground for enshrining elite control via hero worship. 


If people really want to get back to "the good old days" (you know, when markets were unregulated and taxes on the wealthy were high), it's going to take a lot more humility than most are willing to offer.

Sorry, the general.

WI and NC (both Obama in 2008) go from toss up to likely GOP. I still have doubts about Obama in PA and FL and OH. And even though Romney is inherently unlikable, I think external factors (healthcare ruling, Eurozone meltdown and contagion, another debt ceiling) are gonna be breaking against Obama at the wrong time. Then again, ECB and the Fed are going to ease which could temporarily and artificially create a bounce to get through the election. But things definitely look tougher for Obama today than they did yesterday.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on June 07, 2012, 01:11:52 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 06, 2012, 11:30:03 PM
Quote from: nab on June 06, 2012, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 05, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Scott Walker survives recall in WI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/scott-walker/2012/06/05/gJQAockFHV_blog.html)

This election is going to be really close.



The Walker recall?  The presidential election?  The 2012 General Election?


Close for all the wrong reasons if you ask me.  50/50 splits are not democracy in action, imo, but a fertile feeding ground for enshrining elite control via hero worship. 


If people really want to get back to "the good old days" (you know, when markets were unregulated and taxes on the wealthy were high), it's going to take a lot more humility than most are willing to offer.

Sorry, the general.

WI and NC (both Obama in 2008) go from toss up to likely GOP. I still have doubts about Obama in PA and FL and OH. And even though Romney is inherently unlikable, I think external factors (healthcare ruling, Eurozone meltdown and contagion, another debt ceiling) are gonna be breaking against Obama at the wrong time. Then again, ECB and the Fed are going to ease which could temporarily and artificially create a bounce to get through the election. But things definitely look tougher for Obama today than they did yesterday.

I don't think yesterday's outcome has any influence on what will happen in November.  Obama still has a strong lead in WI despite what happened with the recall election (double digits in some polls, though I'm a bit skeptical of those particular numbers).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama is gonna pull off a "Landslide Lyndon", nor am I even saying I'm confident that he'll win.  Honestly, if the election were tomorrow, I really don't think he'd win.  I'm just saying that WI is a state that hasn't gone red in a Presidential election since Reagan.  Yet, they're certainly no stranger to electing a Republican Governor (four of their last six).  I just don't see this as groundbreaking in any way.  They're a state that, in recent history, likes their Presidents blue and their Governors red.  Last night's election and all of the current polls suggest that this will be the case again. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 07, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 07, 2012, 01:11:52 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 06, 2012, 11:30:03 PM
Quote from: nab on June 06, 2012, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 05, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Scott Walker survives recall in WI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/scott-walker/2012/06/05/gJQAockFHV_blog.html)

This election is going to be really close.



The Walker recall?  The presidential election?  The 2012 General Election?


Close for all the wrong reasons if you ask me.  50/50 splits are not democracy in action, imo, but a fertile feeding ground for enshrining elite control via hero worship. 


If people really want to get back to "the good old days" (you know, when markets were unregulated and taxes on the wealthy were high), it's going to take a lot more humility than most are willing to offer.

Sorry, the general.

WI and NC (both Obama in 2008) go from toss up to likely GOP. I still have doubts about Obama in PA and FL and OH. And even though Romney is inherently unlikable, I think external factors (healthcare ruling, Eurozone meltdown and contagion, another debt ceiling) are gonna be breaking against Obama at the wrong time. Then again, ECB and the Fed are going to ease which could temporarily and artificially create a bounce to get through the election. But things definitely look tougher for Obama today than they did yesterday.

I don't think yesterday's outcome has any influence on what will happen in November.  Obama still has a strong lead in WI despite what happened with the recall election (double digits in some polls, though I'm a bit skeptical of those particular numbers).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama is gonna pull off a "Landslide Lyndon", nor am I even saying I'm confident that he'll win.  Honestly, if the election were tomorrow, I really don't think he'd win.  I'm just saying that WI is a state that hasn't gone red in a Presidential election since Reagan.  Yet, they're certainly no stranger to electing a Republican Governor (four of their last six).  I just don't see this as groundbreaking in any way.  They're a state that, in recent history, likes their Presidents blue and their Governors red.  Last night's election and all of the current polls suggest that this will be the case again.

I know that's the conventional wisdom on the left and it may be correct (for the reasons you noted). I'm just having a tough time picturing what the typical Walker-Obama crossover voter looks like. And I'm glad to see you don't have the same hyperbolic "end of democracy" tone that's been coming out of the progressive camp since Tues night (e.g., despite what Ed Schulz says, none of the inordinate amount of money donated to Walker was illegal before Citizens United).

But I think the external environment will have a far greater impact than a recall election in WI, so in that sense, I agree with you.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on June 08, 2012, 07:15:00 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 06, 2012, 11:30:03 PM

WI and NC (both Obama in 2008) go from toss up to likely GOP.

NC is Romney's to lose...  The State's Dems are on the retreat and the GOP has pretty much been given a green-light to do whatever...  Its not surprising...

Terry


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on June 21, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

Well said, Dan.

Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?

Someone needs to point out during this campaign that Romney donates millions to the Mormon church (and gets a tax benefit for doing so), which then turns around and spends some of that money on shit like defeating Prop 8. Someone should ask Romney if he thinks intolerance should be tax-deductible.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
This is relevant, and I honestly hadn't thought about it like that. I do think it makes the Evangelistic Righy far less likely to be excited. In the end they may end up sucking it up, and begrudgingly voting for
Romney, but I just don't see the high motivation onthe part of the GOTV campaign that they were fired up and ready to lead for GWB.

Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?
Yeah, I'm definitely not on board with that, but it's somewhat expected given their core "values" and "beliefs". I was mainly speaking of non-politically motivated things. Your point is well taken though, and certainly not overlooked.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 01:08:55 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on June 21, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?

Someone needs to point out during this campaign that Romney donates millions to the Mormon church (and gets a tax benefit for doing so), which then turns around and spends some of that money on shit like defeating Prop 8. Someone should ask Romney if he thinks intolerance should be tax-deductible.

Bill Maher points it out all the time.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on June 21, 2012, 02:44:46 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 01:08:55 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on June 21, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?

Someone needs to point out during this campaign that Romney donates millions to the Mormon church (and gets a tax benefit for doing so), which then turns around and spends some of that money on shit like defeating Prop 8. Someone should ask Romney if he thinks intolerance should be tax-deductible.

Bill Maher points it out all the time.

Well yes (I love me some Bill Maher re: religion) but I was hoping more like Obama himself (ain't gonna happen) or a debate moderator (too scared)...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on June 21, 2012, 02:44:46 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 01:08:55 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on June 21, 2012, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 21, 2012, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.

You mean like dumping millions of dollars into campaigns to prevent equal rights for homosexuals?

Someone needs to point out during this campaign that Romney donates millions to the Mormon church (and gets a tax benefit for doing so), which then turns around and spends some of that money on shit like defeating Prop 8. Someone should ask Romney if he thinks intolerance should be tax-deductible.

Bill Maher points it out all the time.

Well yes (I love me some Bill Maher re: religion) but I was hoping more like Obama himself (ain't gonna happen) or a debate moderator (too scared)...

Most are too scared to open that can of worms.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
This is relevant, and I honestly hadn't thought about it like that. I do think it makes the Evangelistic Righy far less likely to be excited. In the end they may end up sucking it up, and begrudgingly voting for
Romney, but I just don't see the high motivation onthe part of the GOTV campaign that they were fired up and ready to lead for GWB.

I definitely see where you're coming from.  My only point is that, in this next election, many social issues hang in the balance.  Far too many for them to get apathetic in November. 

You mentioned their big enthusiasm for Bush, well, don't forget that a huge part of that GOTV campaign in Nov. 2004 was, in part, due to a total of 11 states that had referendums defining marriage.  All eleven states gave a resounding "HELL NO!" to gay marriage.  Ohio, the state that single-handedly decided the election by a measly two points, was one of them.  A huge part of that massive GOTV campaign from the religious right was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (. . . and while you're there, vote for "the good guy").  I see the same thing happening again on the religious right.  This time the threat won't be widespread marriage referendums, it'll be about defeating the man who wants to destroy America's Christian values.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling they'll be out in full force.

I think this election is in the hands of the "swing voters" whose number one priority is how the economy should be handled, and whether the young voters are apathetic or enthusiastic.   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
This is relevant, and I honestly hadn't thought about it like that. I do think it makes the Evangelistic Righy far less likely to be excited. In the end they may end up sucking it up, and begrudgingly voting for
Romney, but I just don't see the high motivation onthe part of the GOTV campaign that they were fired up and ready to lead for GWB.

I definitely see where you're coming from.  My only point is that, in this next election, many social issues hang in the balance.  Far too many for them to get apathetic in November. 

You mentioned their big enthusiasm for Bush, well, don't forget that a huge part of that GOTV campaign in Nov. 2004 was, in part, due to a total of 11 states that had referendums defining marriage.  All eleven states gave a resounding "HELL NO!" to gay marriage.  Ohio, the state that single-handedly decided the election by a measly two points, was one of them.  A huge part of that massive GOTV campaign from the religious right was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (. . . and while you're there, vote for "the good guy").  I see the same thing happening again on the religious right.  This time the threat won't be widespread marriage referendums, it'll be about defeating the man who wants to destroy America's Christian values.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling they'll be out in full force.

I think this election is in the hands of the "swing voters" whose number one priority is how the economy should be handled, and whether the young voters are apathetic or enthusiastic.   
It's a very interesting point that you're making here, and I certainly understand where you are coming from. I guess the possibility of there being enough close minded nut jobs out there that really can't deal with some of these social issues. If that is THE sole motivating factor, Obama might be in trouble. I guess I'm just cautiously optimistic that peole will be swayed by the fact that he's not an offering paying member of their club. I hope I'm right too, but you're assessment is (unfortunately) a very real possibility as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on June 21, 2012, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
This is relevant, and I honestly hadn't thought about it like that. I do think it makes the Evangelistic Righy far less likely to be excited. In the end they may end up sucking it up, and begrudgingly voting for
Romney, but I just don't see the high motivation onthe part of the GOTV campaign that they were fired up and ready to lead for GWB.

I definitely see where you're coming from.  My only point is that, in this next election, many social issues hang in the balance.  Far too many for them to get apathetic in November. 

You mentioned their big enthusiasm for Bush, well, don't forget that a huge part of that GOTV campaign in Nov. 2004 was, in part, due to a total of 11 states that had referendums defining marriage.  All eleven states gave a resounding "HELL NO!" to gay marriage.  Ohio, the state that single-handedly decided the election by a measly two points, was one of them.  A huge part of that massive GOTV campaign from the religious right was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (. . . and while you're there, vote for "the good guy").  I see the same thing happening again on the religious right.  This time the threat won't be widespread marriage referendums, it'll be about defeating the man who wants to destroy America's Christian values.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling they'll be out in full force.

I think this election is in the hands of the "swing voters" whose number one priority is how the economy should be handled, and whether the young voters are apathetic or enthusiastic.   
It's a very interesting point that you're making here, and I certainly understand where you are coming from. I guess the possibility of there being enough close minded nut jobs out there that really can't deal with some of these social issues. If that is THE sole motivating factor, Obama might be in trouble. I guess I'm just cautiously optimistic that peole will be swayed by the fact that he's not an offering paying member of their club. I hope I'm right too, but you're assessment is (unfortunately) a very real possibility as well.

I agree with you, but for this reason:  Evangelical Christians don't believe Romney is on their "correct-Jesus" side, so they don't trust him 100% on those social issues they vote on.  GWB, they totally trusted about that shit.  Romney believes in a different, incorrect jesus, so he's not to be 100% trusted to hate the gays, stomp on the minority-poor (only minorities exploit the welfare), and only enact Literal-Translation-of-the-Bible-approved laws. 

This will cause a drop-off in voters.  Not "swing" voters as much as "Maybe I vote, maybe I don't vote this year" republican voters.

Obama, on the other hand, will have to deal with the same "Maybe I vote, Maybe I don't" issue on the Democrat side, which is a big unknown, because he got those voters to the polls in 2008 bigtime.

I honestly don't think there's much in the way of swing voters this election, just a huge amount of "I might not bother to vote"r's.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on June 21, 2012, 10:05:33 PM
Quote from: kellerb on June 21, 2012, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 21, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
George Bush won because the god fearing, flag waiving, religious right turned out in droves.
Mitt Romney will lose for the same reason.
Personally, I don't have anything against the Mormons (I don't necessarily believe the same things they do, but to each their own), and in fact they've done some really great things humanitarian wise over the years.
That being said, the GOP voters as a whole will feel very differently I'm sure.
There is NO WAY Condi hops on this ticket IMHO. If she does, I could feel differently. Until then, it's Obama's to lose.

I don't believe this election hangs in the hands of the religous right.  These kinds of Evangelicals are, ironically, some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet, and they certainly have their issues with people that worship the "wrong" flavor of Christ.  But, while they probably won't be enthusiastic about Romney himself, they'll be totally enthuastic about anyone but Obama. 

Think like one of them for a second.  Do you want to vote for a Morman?  Or do you want to stay home and let another vote go to Obama?  I mean, Obama is the guy who allows gays to serve in the military, vowed to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and, personally, supports same-sex marriage.  He not only supports Roe v Wade, but he also wants employers to cockblock God by providing birth control (via "socialist healthcare") to good, God fearing, taxpayers.  And, of course, please don't forget his homeboy Jeremiah Wright, and the "fact" that his second term is all about taking away your guns and holy books (which is "proven" because he hasn't done it yet).

When it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, there's no question about it.  They're gonna side with the guy who thinks Jesus is from Missouri faster than you can say "Don't Ask Don't Tell". 
This is relevant, and I honestly hadn't thought about it like that. I do think it makes the Evangelistic Righy far less likely to be excited. In the end they may end up sucking it up, and begrudgingly voting for
Romney, but I just don't see the high motivation onthe part of the GOTV campaign that they were fired up and ready to lead for GWB.

I definitely see where you're coming from.  My only point is that, in this next election, many social issues hang in the balance.  Far too many for them to get apathetic in November. 

You mentioned their big enthusiasm for Bush, well, don't forget that a huge part of that GOTV campaign in Nov. 2004 was, in part, due to a total of 11 states that had referendums defining marriage.  All eleven states gave a resounding "HELL NO!" to gay marriage.  Ohio, the state that single-handedly decided the election by a measly two points, was one of them.  A huge part of that massive GOTV campaign from the religious right was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (. . . and while you're there, vote for "the good guy").  I see the same thing happening again on the religious right.  This time the threat won't be widespread marriage referendums, it'll be about defeating the man who wants to destroy America's Christian values.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling they'll be out in full force.

I think this election is in the hands of the "swing voters" whose number one priority is how the economy should be handled, and whether the young voters are apathetic or enthusiastic.   
It's a very interesting point that you're making here, and I certainly understand where you are coming from. I guess the possibility of there being enough close minded nut jobs out there that really can't deal with some of these social issues. If that is THE sole motivating factor, Obama might be in trouble. I guess I'm just cautiously optimistic that peole will be swayed by the fact that he's not an offering paying member of their club. I hope I'm right too, but you're assessment is (unfortunately) a very real possibility as well.

I agree with you, but for this reason:  Evangelical Christians don't believe Romney is on their "correct-Jesus" side, so they don't trust him 100% on those social issues they vote on.  GWB, they totally trusted about that shit.  Romney believes in a different, incorrect jesus, so he's not to be 100% trusted to hate the gays, stomp on the minority-poor (only minorities exploit the welfare), and only enact Literal-Translation-of-the-Bible-approved laws. 

This will cause a drop-off in voters.  Not "swing" voters as much as "Maybe I vote, maybe I don't vote this year" republican voters.

Obama, on the other hand, will have to deal with the same "Maybe I vote, Maybe I don't" issue on the Democrat side, which is a big unknown, because he got those voters to the polls in 2008 bigtime.

I honestly don't think there's much in the way of swing voters this election, just a huge amount of "I might not bother to vote"r's.
yep - I don't think Obama will get people excited the way he did 4 years ago, and the only people who Romney will get excited are the ones who really hate Obama.
the bottom line, imo, is how the economy is doing, or how people think the economy is doing.
the first thing that happens to a losing team is the coach gets fired.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on June 21, 2012, 11:02:58 PM
I agree with you guys that born-agains don't trust Romney, but I'm not convinced they'll matter much since most of the states where Evangelicals make a difference are already solidly red (OH, FL, IA and VA notwithstanding). Turnout is definitely the key in a low enthusiasm election, and that usually favors the incumbent.

Quote from: slslbs on June 21, 2012, 10:05:33 PM
the bottom line, imo, is how the economy is doing, or how people think the economy is doing. 
the first thing that happens to a losing team is the coach gets fired.

Agreed. If they can kick the status quo can for a couple of months, it's Obama's to lose. But it could turn around very quickly (and quite plausibly, IMO) if a things start breaking against him, beginning next week with the Supreme Court decision on the ACA, followed by a Eurozone/financial crisis, the "fiscal cliff" brouhaha, and another debt ceiling circus (i.e., continued Congressional dooshbaggery).

Also, my Libertarian guru, Nick Gillespe, is on Bill Maher tomorrow night. It was an appearance of his on the show last year that converted me from a frustrated in Obama but still Democratic-minded moderate into the right-wing, liberty obsessed, free market worshipper I am today. I can't wait to watch him smash Maddow.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on June 21, 2012, 11:08:12 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 21, 2012, 11:02:58 PM
I agree with you guys that born-agains don't trust Romney, but I'm not convinced they'll matter much since most of the states where Evangelicals make a difference are already solidly red (OH, FL, IA and VA notwithstanding). Turnout is definitely the key in a low enthusiasm election, and that usually favors the incumbent.
Well I live in Iowa, and I really don't know that we are solidly red. I also don't know that Ohio is solidly red. I agree with you on the turnout though.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on June 22, 2012, 09:21:18 PM
Paul Ryan Being Vetted for VP (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303798/ryan-being-vetted-vp-robert-costa#)

QuoteI'm reliably informed that Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman, has submitted paperwork to the Romney campaign. Sources confirm that he is being vetted for the vice-presidential nomination.

Ryan, one of the GOP's brightest young stars, is clearly a favorite of Romney allies. But some top Republican officials are wary of plucking him from the House, where he is the party's most influential voice on fiscal issues.

Earlier this week, Romney campaigned with Ryan in Janesville, Wis., Ryan's hometown. Ryan previously stumped for Romney in late March and early April, ahead of Wisconsin's Republican presidential primary.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on August 11, 2012, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on June 22, 2012, 09:21:18 PM
Paul Ryan Being Vetted for VP (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303798/ryan-being-vetted-vp-robert-costa#)

QuoteI'm reliably informed that Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman, has submitted paperwork to the Romney campaign. Sources confirm that he is being vetted for the vice-presidential nomination.

Ryan, one of the GOP's brightest young stars, is clearly a favorite of Romney allies. But some top Republican officials are wary of plucking him from the House, where he is the party's most influential voice on fiscal issues.

Earlier this week, Romney campaigned with Ryan in Janesville, Wis., Ryan's hometown. Ryan previously stumped for Romney in late March and early April, ahead of Wisconsin's Republican presidential primary.

Looks like it's all but official.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-announce-vp-pick-saturday-032140054.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-announce-vp-pick-saturday-032140054.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 08:21:33 AM
Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:05:58 AM
I think Ryan was the best choice from Romney's perspective. He had already endorsed the Ryan budget so Obama was gonna paint him as a right wing, grandma-hating penny pincher anyway. But Ryan is much more exciting to the base than someone like Portman or Pawlenty (although they probably meet the "do no harm" criteria of VP selection better than Ryan). Still, the debt/deficit is the #2 issue for independents so I think it helps Romney with them. He will likely lose FL, but Ryan helps him in OH, WI, and CO.

Also, not the VP debates matter, but Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 08:21:33 AM
Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard why. I mean, the Ryan budget doesn't balance until 2040. That doesn't seem very extreme to me. The Medicare vouchers is the only "radical" difference and while it may not be perfect, it's the only attempt at changing a system that everyone readily admits is bankrupting us. But no one on the left is willing to put forth a credible plan to fix it. Like Tim Geithner to Ryan a couple months ago: "We're not coming before you to tell you we have a long term solution to fix the debt. What we are saying is we don't like yours."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 11, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
yea, this is Romney's way of reinforcing "It's the economy, Stupid"
personally, I thought that Romney had the folks who liked Ryan anyway.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on August 11, 2012, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on August 11, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
yea, this is Romney's way of reinforcing "It's the economy, Stupid"
personally, I thought that Romney had the folks who liked Ryan anyway.

Definitely. It wasn't a decision based on winning independents, that's for sure. It's the strategy of stating to the conservatives, no really, I'm with you. They realize getting the far right worked into a frenzy will drive those people to the polls.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on August 11, 2012, 02:20:51 PM
Found this while reading comments on the Ryan selection.  I lol'ed


Quote"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
― John Rogers
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:05:58 AM

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 08:21:33 AM
Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard why. I mean, the Ryan budget doesn't balance until 2040. That doesn't seem very extreme to me. The Medicare vouchers is the only "radical" difference and while it may not be perfect, it's the only attempt at changing a system that everyone readily admits is bankrupting us. But no one on the left is willing to put forth a credible plan to fix it. Like Tim Geithner to Ryan a couple months ago: "We're not coming before you to tell you we have a long term solution to fix the debt. What we are saying is we don't like yours."

The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

How a person advocating for killing both Medicare and Medicaid doesn't scare you, I don't know. But it scares the shit outta me.

Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on August 11, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:05:58 AM

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 08:21:33 AM
Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard why. I mean, the Ryan budget doesn't balance until 2040. That doesn't seem very extreme to me. The Medicare vouchers is the only "radical" difference and while it may not be perfect, it's the only attempt at changing a system that everyone readily admits is bankrupting us. But no one on the left is willing to put forth a credible plan to fix it. Like Tim Geithner to Ryan a couple months ago: "We're not coming before you to tell you we have a long term solution to fix the debt. What we are saying is we don't like yours."

The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

How a person advocating for killing both Medicare and Medicaid doesn't scare you, I don't know. But it scares the shit outta me.

Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.

But then how will it ever trickle down to me  :|
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: birdman on August 11, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on August 11, 2012, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: birdman on August 11, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.

That's also at least 50% of the poor's motto
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:00:51 PM
Let me first say I am not now nor will I ever be voting for Romney, and the selection of Ryan as VP does absolutely nothing to change that. However (and this may be hard for some of you to believe), I do have a few comments on today's discussion:

Quote from: slslbs on August 11, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
yea, this is Romney's way of reinforcing "It's the economy, Stupid"
personally, I thought that Romney had the folks who liked Ryan anyway.

As of yesterday, RCP had WI leaning Obama, giving him 247 likely electoral votes, which means Obama would win simply by winning FL (29). As of today, WI is now a tossup, meaning Obama needs to win FL and VA (still a likely outcome). The math definitely favors Obama, but I do think this will put PA in play and help Romney in the other swing states more than hurt.

But, as you and I have agreed before, all that matters is the economy, and by that, of course, I mean the stock market. Because jobs number and GDP have been shitty all year and future GDP and earnings forecasts have all been revised down time after time. But as long as the S&P is at 1400 and people see their 401(k)s looking ok, Obama will win. If Europe blows up and we see a 20% drop in the stock market, it's anybody's ballgame.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

I don't remember the 2008 budget, but I have a tough time believing he advocated for the elimination of Medicare. I'm not saying you're lying and if you have a link, I'd love to read it, but that sounds like it has just a touch of left leaning bent to it.

As for privatization of SS, I guess I wonder if that's not the answer, than what's the alternative? Look, it's not that I don't believe we shouldn't provide retirement security for seniors, it's that I don't believe it's possible for federal gov'ts to provide it (as evidenced by the overly generous welfare state in Europe that we are currently watching the downfall of). The problem is that the politicians will never have the stones to make unpopular changes to an unsustainable program, and I don't know of anyone who would argue that they are not unsustainable in their current forms.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

He wanted to remove the tax breaks for healthcare because he wanted to sever healthcare from employment, something that many people (both free market oriented and not) believe is necessary. It's not like he was saying "If you offer healthcare to your employees you're a dick." He simply wanted to cut the tie of employment and healthcare, something that would make health insurance more portable and, in all likelihood, more affordable. And if you want to talk fairness, ask the people who buy individual coverage (about 15% of people with health insurance) if they think it's fair that most people get tax free healthcare while they pay on their own from whatever's left over after Uncle Sam gets his cut.

Like I said above, the voucher plan may not be perfect, but it's better than no Medicare which is the inevitable future if we stick to the status quo. So as soon as the Dems put forth a credible alternative, I'll be happy to entertain a debate between the two approaches. Unfortunately we can't have that now because they can't/won't.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

I really think the perversion of Ayn Rand's beliefs has been one of the stranger turns over the past couple years. She didn't preach selfishness, at least not in the sense that your decisions have no effect on what other people do so you should try to get yours before they try to take it from you. The underlying message was that when millions of individuals do what is in their own best interest (which, oftentimes includes helping your fellow man) everyone prospers. It was much morre a message of the dangers of centralized planning (something she witnessed firsthand in mother Russia) and that free people making their own decisions leads to better outcomes for all than a concentrated few making decisions for everyone.

People like Krugman and Robert Reich and Jared Bernstein and Larry Summers scare me much more than some dead Russian immigrant. Those are the guys calling the shots now, and in spite of their brilliance (or perhaps because of), they fail to grasp what Hayek called the Fatal Conceit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Conceit): that central planners will never be able to control the trillions of interconnected decisions that make up the economy on a daily basis. The resurgence of Keynesian economics scares the shit out of me, because now people believe it is established fact that gov'ts can simply spend their way out of recessions when we've seen that no matter what you do you cannot influence how people will react to your policy decisions and thus there is no real way to stimulate aggregate demand. As hard as it is for these guys to believe, people may not actually go out and spend their $600 tax rebates or states may use money they receive from the federal gov't to pay down debts rather than hire new people. The simple fact is that people already make most of their decisions based on their own self-interest and the ability of central planners to influences these decision is limited at best.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.

You do know that's not gonna come close to closing the unfunded trillions in Medicare/aid/SS liabilities, right? So while that may sound good in a campaign, it does very little to solve the problem. Surely there's other reforms we can agree on? Means testing is a no brainer. Raising the retirement age is another easy one. But, back to my earlier point, do you have confidence that elected officials who depend on their constituents' (read, old people's) votes will be likely to enact these two very simple changes that would drastically alter the funded status of the programs? Because I don't.

So it's not that I don't agree with you that we shouldn't provide these things, Pie Guy. It's that I don't believe it's possible so I'm open to alternatives, that's all.

Quote from: kellerb on August 11, 2012, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: birdman on August 11, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.

That's also at least 50% of the poor's motto

Which is exactly why we need more central planners to make decisions for us. Because clearly these stupid poor people don't know what's good for them.

:roll:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 21, 2012, 11:02:58 PM
I agree with you guys that born-agains don't trust Romney, but I'm not convinced they'll matter much since most of the states where Evangelicals make a difference are already solidly red (OH, FL, IA and VA notwithstanding). Turnout is definitely the key in a low enthusiasm election, and that usually favors the incumbent.

Quote from: slslbs on June 21, 2012, 10:05:33 PM
the bottom line, imo, is how the economy is doing, or how people think the economy is doing.
the first thing that happens to a losing team is the coach gets fired.

Agreed. If they can kick the status quo can for a couple of months, it's Obama's to lose. But it could turn around very quickly (and quite plausibly, IMO) if a things start breaking against him, beginning next week with the Supreme Court decision on the ACA, followed by a Eurozone/financial crisis, the "fiscal cliff" brouhaha, and another debt ceiling circus (i.e., continued Congressional dooshbaggery).

Also, my Libertarian guru, Nick Gillespe, is on Bill Maher tomorrow night. It was an appearance of his on the show last year that converted me from a frustrated in Obama but still Democratic-minded moderate into the right-wing, liberty obsessed, free market worshipper I am today. I can't wait to watch him smash Maddow.


First of all, aside from Ron Paul,  Right Wing-Liberty Obsessed completely embodies the full length of the spectrum of an oxymoron..  And Ron Paul's projected ideals on free trade, in my opinion, will not bring us to a world that will not lead to the continued sucking sound of middle class jobs leaving this country. Although, I couldn't agree with him more on the issue of ending the FED, and of course, his conceptual  drug policies.

And free market worship, is something I have some strong questions about, because due to the total lack of many needed regulations within the financial market is what directly resulted in the financial crisis that has cost the U.S. taxpayers more money than will or can even be calculated. Being the fact that 8 million houses went into foreclosure, close to 20 million home owners who pay their mortgage on time, lost between 1/3 to 1/2 of their equity in their home's value, which will take years to get back, if ever. About 1 trillion in bail out money, plus the ungodly amount shoveled to the banks by Feds, leading to major inflation. A loss of nearly 9 million jobs, led to a huge amount of tax revenue loss, plus the ongoing unemployment checks the government has mailed out. The fact that many of these people who lost their jobs, also lost their health care, costing both the system, and the cost of higher premiums past on to people paying for health care. In other words, where do the calculations bringing us to a real figure actually begin and end. But the biggest problem I have with someone who touts free market worship, is looking at Wall street as it operates today, without any regulations, is not a free market, that police's itself, in fact it is just the opposite of that, and for a free market to exist, that will not create another large financial crisis, or bogus bubble, after bogus bubble, will completely need to be changed in ways that in today's world, with the leaders we have today, are beyond realistic, and painfully laughable to think they would ever actually come about. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 11, 2012, 10:25:58 PM
Romney is really trying to energize that left-wing base...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 10:55:20 PM
First of all, nice callback, Poster.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
First of all, aside from Ron Paul,  Right Wing-Liberty Obsessed completely embodies the full length of the spectrum of an oxymoron.. And Ron Paul's projected ideals on free trade, in my opinion, will not bring us to a world that will not lead…

Wait, what?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
...to the continued sucking sound of middle class jobs leaving this country. Although, I couldn't agree with him more on the issue of ending the FED, and of course, his conceptual  drug policies.

I'm kinda confused. You don't like his views on "free trade", but you agree with him on ending the Fed? That IS his view on free trade.

Be honest: it's the free drugs, isn't it?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
And free market worship, is something I have some strong questions about, because due to the total lack of many needed regulations within the financial market is what directly resulted in the financial crisis that has cost the U.S. taxpayers more money than will or can even be calculated.

HOLD THE PHONE......free market means NO regulation?!? Well, fuck this shit.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
About 1 trillion in bail out money, plus the ungodly amount shoveled to the banks by Feds, leading to major inflation.

Nuh uh. Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/krugman-not-enough-inflation.html) and the BLS (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm) tell me CPI is below the Fed's mandate of 2%.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
The fact that many of these people who lost their jobs, also lost their health care, costing both the system, and the cost of higher premiums past on to people paying for health care.

If only there was a way that wasn't radical where people could take their healthcare with them if they lost their jobs. What could it be?? Think, jimbo, THINK DAMN YOU!!!

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
In other words, where do the calculations bringing us to a real figure actually begin and end. But the biggest problem I have with someone who touts free market worship, is looking at Wall street as it operates today, without any regulations, is not a free market, that police's itself, in fact it is just the opposite of that, and for a free market to exist, that will not create another large financial crisis, or bogus bubble, after bogus bubble, will completely need to be changed in ways that in today's world, with the leaders we have today, are beyond realistic, and painfully laughable to think they would ever actually come about.

Wall St doesn't operate "without any regulation", Wall St controls the regulations. The regulators work for the benefit of Wall St not least of all because they may not make shit as a regulator, but they'll be set once they go over to Morgan or Goldman or some hedge fund you've never heard of once their term is up. And politicians know how to put on a good show, but take a look at Chuck Schumer's donors and you tell me who he works for (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001093&type=C). (ETA: MUCH better donor list)

So, I really have no idea what to make of your post. I think you're saying Ron Paul-ism is crazy and yet everything you say sounds like a Ron Paul supporter (like, oh I don't know, me). I'd imagine you'd agree with Ron Paul that Obama has been atrocious for his persecution of law abiding, tax revenue generating, people employing small businesses, right? So how is he so crazy (which, I think is what you were getting at but I'm still not 100% sure)? Or are you like a Nader Democrat which is why we see eye-to-eye on the issue but not the solution; whereas you'd say it demonstrates the need for more gov't, I'd say it suggests we need less?

Anyway, I had forgotten about that so thanks for reminding me. Obama's 1-for-1 so far on my list of downside risks, with 3 more to come so there's still a lot that could go wrong for Obama. And I've seen the Romney Super PAC ad with the debt clock and Obama saying "one term proposition" at least 100 times over the course of the Olympics in a very important county for Obama in PA.

Quote from: rowjimmy on August 11, 2012, 10:25:58 PM
Romney is really trying to energize that left-wing base...

He sure as shit can't energize the right.

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 11, 2012, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 10:55:20 PM

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.
that would be an interesting match up

and, I agree, Romney still needs to energize the right (as if Obama hasn't done that enough). Ryan will help that.
disagree about OH, though. we'll see
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
Ok, I'm on my way out, so I just want to quickly clear a few things up. The first is, that I really do support most of what Ron Paul stands for, just not his views on free trade or his views on pro-life, and yes I know he wants to give the power of pro-life vs. pro-choice to the states. Secondly, maybe identifying yourself as a right-wing supporter in today's climate, could really be misleading, to put it mildly. Putting right-winged-liberty obsessed together, taking into consideration the ideals that the GOP are representing and looking to thwart upon the diversity of people living in this country, is absolutely an oxymoron. A true conservative-libertarian is something that maybe better received or respected, in my opinion.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 11:37:08 PM
Quote from: slslbs on August 11, 2012, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 10:55:20 PM

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.
that would be an interesting match up

and, I agree, Romney still needs to energize the right (as if Obama hasn't done that enough). Ryan will help that.
disagree about OH, though. we'll see

I just looked at the RCP map and I agree there's not a lof of ways to a Romney victory. If he does end up losing FL because of Paul Ryan, he HAS to win PA and run the table with the other tossups other than VA and NH (stupidly long link below).

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
Ok, I'm on my way out, so I just want to quickly clear a few things up. The first is, that I really do support most of what Ron Paul stands for, just not his views on free trade or his views on pro-life, and yes I know he wants to give the power of pro-life vs. pro-choice to the states. Secondly, maybe identifying yourself as a right-wing supporter in today's climate, could really be misleading, to put it mildly. Putting right-winged-liberty obsessed together, taking into consideration the ideals that the GOP are representing and looking to thwart upon the diversity of people living in this country, is absolutely an oxymoron.

Holy shit is that what got you all worked up? Check your sarcasm filter. :wink:

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 11, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
A true conservative-libertarian is something that maybe better received or respected, in my opinion.

Thanks, I'll give that a shot.

(again, kidding...Libertarians are a bunch of dreamers)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html?map=HI_1,AK_5,FL_2,NH_3,MI_3,VT_1,ME_2,RI_1,NY_1,PA_7,NJ_2,DE_1,MD_1,VA_3,WV_5,OH_7,IN_6,IL_1,CT_2,WI_7,NC_6,DC_1,MA_1,TN_6,AR_5,MO_6,GA_6,SC_6,KY_5,AL_5,LA_5,MS_5,IA_6,MN_3,OK_5,TX_6,NM_3,KS_5,NE_5,SD_6,ND_6,WY_5,MT_6,CO_7,ID_5,UT_5,AZ_7,NV_7,OR_3,WA_2,CA_1
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 11, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
A long and well researched article on Ryan:

http://nyr.kr/Qn9uDp
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 12, 2012, 02:45:48 PM
Friday: Romney attacks Reid for suggesting that he paid zero in taxes
Saturday: Romney selects a running mate whose budget plan would have him pay zero in taxes.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on August 12, 2012, 04:03:38 PM
Here's a more cynical take on the Ryan pick.

Wasn't Mitt himself supposed to provide all the economic bona fides his candidacy needed? Remember that whole "private industry experience" argument? Except maybe now Mitt's finding that case isn't sticking. Maybe Bain is turning into as much a liability as an asset. Oops. So now he has to double down on the economy with his Ryan pick, as opposed to being able to round out the ticket with some foreign-policy credentials, like with a Coni Rice (if she had bee interested, anyway).

I'm not saying this is definitely what the Romney campaign's calculus was, but... it's one theory at least. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:05:58 AM
Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden.
I spent some of the best years of my life working for Joe Biden, he and his entire family are pretty close to my heart.
For integrity's sake that needed to be clear, but I assure you that personal relationships have nothing to do with what I'm going to say here.
Joe Biden has more integrity in his pinky finger than Paul Ryan does in his entire family. Paul Ryan has absolutely zero idea of how to do anything other than propose budget cuts that scare most of his own party away from him.
While Paul Ryan had his head buried in Ayn Rand novels, Joe Biden spent a week in the Balkans brokering a deal with Slobodan Milosevic. In the face of one of most feared men at the time, Joe Biden looked him in the eyes and said "I think you're a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one.". This is just one of many monumental accomplishments of then Senator Biden. I could go on and talk about the Violence Against Women Act, and his other work as chairman of the Foreign Relations, and Judiciary Committee, but there is no need.
In politics there are few honest, straightforward, down right good people. Joe Biden is one of them.
He will not just "beat" Paul Ryan. He will politically cut his fucking throat open, and watch him squeal like the piece of fucking garbage that he is.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 13, 2012, 08:13:29 AM
Paul Ryan has voted the misogynist ticket so many times that Biden can mop him up with that alone.

Ryan is the asshat who proposed a budget without any numbers in it.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 11, 2012, 09:05:58 AM
Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden.
I spent some of the best years of my life working for Joe Biden, he and his entire family are pretty close to my heart.
For integrity's sake that needed to be clear, but I assure you that personal relationships have nothing to do with what I'm going to say here.
Joe Biden has more integrity in his pinky finger than Paul Ryan does in his entire family. Paul Ryan has absolutely zero idea of how to do anything other than propose budget cuts that scare most of his own party away from him.
While Paul Ryan had his head buried in Ayn Rand novels, Joe Biden spent a week in the Balkans brokering a deal with Slobodan Milosevic. In the face of one of most feared men at the time, Joe Biden looked him in the eyes and said "I think you're a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one.". This is just one of many monumental accomplishments of then Senator Biden. I could go on and talk about the Violence Against Women Act, and his other work as chairman of the Foreign Relations, and Judiciary Committee, but there is no need.
In politics there are few honest, straightforward, down right good people. Joe Biden is one of them.

I think it's pretty clear that your personal affinity for Biden is influencing your objective political analysis so I guess there's no point debating this. Let me say that as a person, I don't doubt Biden is a good dude; he is a Phillies fan after all and his wife is smoking hot. But there's simply no way he can hang with Ryan in a debate, especially one in which foreign policy is gonna be a footnote compared to the economy, jobs, the budget, unemployment, and of course, the economy.

Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
He will not just "beat" Paul Ryan. He will politically cut his fucking throat open, and watch him squeal like the piece of fucking garbage that he is.

Classy

Quote from: rowjimmy on August 13, 2012, 08:13:29 AM
Paul Ryan has voted the misogynist ticket so many times that Biden can mop him up with that alone.

I agree wholeheartedly: Patriot Act, both wars, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, auto bailout, Bush tax cuts. Virtually every budget busting measure implemented over the Bush years he voted for. But this is exactly why I find it so strange that the left is attacking him as a radical fiscal hawk. I think your tactic - he's full of shit - would be much more effective and more aligned with reality (which I guess is not always a prerequisite in a campaign).
 
BTW, Ryan is also terrible on civil liberties - indefinite detention, spying, drones, drug war, border fence - pretty much anything I oppose he supports. He is the poster child for someone who talks a good game (depending on your perspective) but whose record betrays him as just another cog in the status quo machine. In that sense, he reminds me a lot of another well spoken politician I once supported who is long on platitudes but short on action.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 10:58:39 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
He will not just "beat" Paul Ryan. He will politically cut his fucking throat open, and watch him squeal like the piece of fucking garbage that he is.

Classy
Just like Paul Ryan. It's not about shaking hands and putting on a front. This is will affect the every day quality of life for many Americans; it's a war. Mudslinging, negative ads? Definitely. If they are true, we should expose them for the vile pieces of shit that they are. They way that Ryan wants to just blatantly shove his dick in the mouth of the middle class should make everyone want to puke. His budget would cut every single assistance program we have out there, and leave this country to the "job creators".

Quote from: rowjimmy on August 13, 2012, 08:13:29 AM
Paul Ryan has voted the misogynist ticket so many times that Biden can mop him up with that alone.

Ryan is the asshat who proposed a budget without any numbers in it.
Truth bombs.


I get so guttural about this shit even though I don't work around it anymore, and I really shouldn't. At the end of the day, I'm glad he selected Ryan - he just sealed the victory for Obama.
Game. Set. Match.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 03:20:56 PM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 10:58:39 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
He will not just "beat" Paul Ryan. He will politically cut his fucking throat open, and watch him squeal like the piece of fucking garbage that he is.

Classy
Just like Paul Ryan. It's not about shaking hands and putting on a front. This is will affect the every day quality of life for many Americans; it's a war. Mudslinging, negative ads? Definitely. If they are true, we should expose them for the vile pieces of shit that they are. They way that Ryan wants to just blatantly shove his dick in the mouth of the middle class should make everyone want to puke. His budget would cut every single assistance program we have out there, and leave this country to the "job creators".

Does it bother you at all how detached your rhetoric is from reality? "Cut every single assistance program." Is that what he'd do? C'mon. I'm pretty sure we can have a more intelligent conversation by staying away from gross distortions of the other side's policies. I get that you don't like him (or any Republican, probably), but what I don't get is why you feel the need to use misinformation in your critique of the opposition's positions. Leave that to the president.
 
Here's what I do know: federal spending goes up 35% over 10 yrs under Ryan's plan (in nominal dollars). That's a hell of a gimmick to make spending go up that much while "slashing" the budget. But it pales in comparison to the over 50% spending spree called for in Obama's plan. So while Ryan's plan is a marked improvement compared to Obama's, it still isn't very good for a country running a deficit over a trillion dollars for the past couple of years. Medicare/aid would be cut but that's the entire point if you are looking to balance a budget that is ballooning due to unrestrained healthcare spending (note SS is unchanged in Ryan's budget). Finally, defense spending over 10 yrs would be identical in both budgets, so if Ryan is a war monger, what does that make Obama?
 
Newsflash: they're the same goddamned thing.
 
I don't care who wins because I honestly see no difference between them. Still, I am insanely curious to see what would happen to all the pleas for bipartisanship and cooperation coming from the left if Romney would win (I know, I know, it'll never happen). Something tells me the "obstructionist House" would become the "virtuous Senate" pretty quickly.
 
Again, in case it's not clear, I think Paul Ryan is a fraud. However, I do at least give him credit for being the only one with the stones to begin the conversation on the structural reforms that are necessary to ensure these programs will be around when it is time for our generation to start collecting (I can hear bvaz chuckling now).
 
Also, here's the great free market champion begging Congress to pass TARP. What a tool.
 
http://youtu.be/RyJBZYz858M
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on August 14, 2012, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 03:20:56 PM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 10:58:39 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 13, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: aphineday on August 13, 2012, 02:00:49 AM
He will not just "beat" Paul Ryan. He will politically cut his fucking throat open, and watch him squeal like the piece of fucking garbage that he is.

Classy
Just like Paul Ryan. It's not about shaking hands and putting on a front. This is will affect the every day quality of life for many Americans; it's a war. Mudslinging, negative ads? Definitely. If they are true, we should expose them for the vile pieces of shit that they are. They way that Ryan wants to just blatantly shove his dick in the mouth of the middle class should make everyone want to puke. His budget would cut every single assistance program we have out there, and leave this country to the "job creators".

Does it bother you at all how detached your rhetoric is from reality? "Cut every single assistance program." Is that what he'd do? C'mon. I'm pretty sure we can have a more intelligent conversation by staying away from gross distortions of the other side's policies. I get that you don't like him (or any Republican, probably), but what I don't get is why you feel the need to use misinformation in your critique of the opposition's positions. Leave that to the president.
Not if that's what you consider "detached from reality". Read the pile of garbage that he calls a budget. It slashes funds for every federal assistance program I can think of, but I do apologize for the VAST oversimplification of an otherwise truly wonderful budget.

"Is this what he'd do?" -Yes, that's why I said it.

It's not a "gross distortion" when that's truly what they want to come at us with.

I get that you don't like him (or any Republican, probably) - Incorrect. There are several Republicans I completely respect and even agree with. Paul Ryan is part of the neo-con hijacking of the ever popular "Tea Party" movement of a few years back.

I don't get is why you feel the need to use misinformation in your critique of the opposition's positions - Again, I did not do this. I simply stated what Ryan preaches. He does not believe in government backed assistance program, he wants to privatize it.

Leave that to the president - He's been trying to tell the entire country, but every body turns a blind eye because "he's going to take our guns away", and every other half-assed, ill-conceived, whack job  conspiracy theory out there.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 14, 2012, 10:06:16 PM
Perhaps this is obvious... But it seems to me Ryan was the Koch Brothers' decision more than literally anything else.

"Mitt, if you want a PAC money bonanza behind your campaign, then this will be your running mate."

"yessir. Thank you, sir."

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on August 15, 2012, 01:32:03 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 14, 2012, 10:06:16 PM
Perhaps this is obvious... But it seems to me Ryan was the Koch Brothers' decision more than literally anything else.

"Mitt, if you want a PAC money bonanza behind your campaign, then this will be your running mate."

"yessir. Thank you, sir."

I'm sure there is plenty of Church money behind Mittens too...  They have to spend their Vegas money somewhere...   :-P

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 08:01:23 AM
aphineday - hey, if that's what you believe, ok. I couldn't help but notice you didn't name one of the many programs being slashed or any of the many Rs you respect/agree with, but that doesn't really matter. Here's my point:

Obama's budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf) would spend 23.3% of GDP in FY2013. You might say we need sustain such high levels of federal spending as we continue to deal with the post-war worst recession and that's fine. But by 2022 spending is down just 0.5%, to 22.8% of GDP. Federal debt held by the public swells to nearly $20 trillionwithaT in 10 yrs (which excludes the $6.5T that Treasury "borrows" from the SS accounting gimmick trust fund). On the other hand, since 1950 revenues as a percentage of GDP has reached 20% only once (yes we know, Hicks, under Clinton :wink:) but the historical average is around 18%. So until Obama/Dems tell me how they want to at least pretend (which is all a budget is since future Congress' will do whatever the fuck they want anyway) to bring federal spending down to at least a fifth of the economy, I have no choice but to conclude that Paul Ryan is the only adult in the room even though, as I think I made clear, I think his plan is a farce too. Because we will never escape this debt-ridden zombie economy until we bring spending down to more sustainable levels (shit even Canada only spends about 16% of GDP).

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 14, 2012, 10:06:16 PM
Perhaps this is obvious... But it seems to me Ryan was the Koch Brothers' decision more than literally anything else.

Damn, I got crushed on my "how long till the first Koch Bros picked him" poll. I had Monday afternoon.  :-P
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 15, 2012, 09:47:29 AM
I love how people look at ten-year budget projections as a means to criticize the current administration as if some other asshole isn't going to come along and change the entire picture in 4 or 8 years.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 15, 2012, 09:47:29 AM
I love how people look at ten-year budget projections as a means to criticize the current administration as if some other asshole isn't going to come along and change the entire picture in 4 or 8 years.

I agree with you that out year projections in any budget are meaningless, especially for the gov't who is unbound by prior budgets. But no one cares about the projections because everyone knows those numbers will be wrong anyway (for example, Obama's first budget (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY/pdf/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY.pdf) had the 2012 deficit at $557 billion, roughly half of what we'll come in at). What's important in a budget is the overall strategic vision of the organization in question, and that is where my criticism lies.
 
Ryan's plan may be unpalatable for Dems and I fully understand that (I think it's garbage too albeit for somewhat different reasons). But Obama doesn't have a plan (see Geithner, Tim). We've added $10T to the debt over the past 12 years. Obama's fault, Bush's fault, I truly don't care. All I care is that someone presents a serious solution for fixing it.
 
We can't have a debate on this issue until the Dems present a plan. Obama's budget says that the status quo is cool. That is completely unacceptable to me and I wish it was to more people. Because once interest rates start to rise (and it is an absolute certainty that they will as the debt exceed 100% of GDP), the vig on the $16T we already owe is gonna get pretty steep.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on August 15, 2012, 11:23:29 AM
It's a little funny/puzzling to me how so few people (meaning, politicians and mainstream press) give any attention during budget debates to defense spending. Is it really such a sacred cow across the board that no one (except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) points out we could save a lot of money here?

(http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2011/10/12/aid_graph_blog_main_horizontal.JPG)
via (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/02/how-much-does-uncle-sam-spend-on-foreign-aid.html)

Defense is bigger than social security, medicare or medicaid. And yet these are the things that budget hawks always howl are going to bankrupt our country. (Also, a strong undercurrent to the conservative viewpoint is that these programs are inherently undesirable because they "redistribute wealth" or they give (poor) people something for nothing.) Shouldn't it be viewed as being inherently more noble to spend money on your own citizens than on defense contractors and war? Guess not.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that defense needs to be drastically reined in (one of my principal reasons for calling nans on the Ryan plan which, BTW, has defense spending exactly equal to Obama's), the reason for the focus on SS/Medicare is that the rates of growth for these programs in the coming years will dramatically outpace defense spending increases. Under the CBO baseline (i.e., no changes to current laws), both SS spending and combined Medicare/aid will exceed defense this year and each will more than double it in 10 yrs. It's the demographics (aging population, less current workers paying for more retirees, increased life expectancy, etc.) that make SS/Medicare far more unsustainable over the medium- to long-term than defense. That doesn't mean we shouldn't overhaul defense spending as well, it just means that entitlements are the true driver of the longer term debt crisis.
 
Plus, if you cut defense spending you obviously hate our troops, and no one wants to do that - except for the obstructionist Dems who tried to end Iraq War by refusing to fund it under Bush.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 15, 2012, 01:24:15 PM
Why Ayn Rand would have hated Ryan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html)

QuoteAtlas Spurned

    by JENNIFER BURNS
    Aug. 14, 2012

EARLY in his Congressional career, Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin representative and presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, would give out copies of Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" as Christmas presents. He described the novelist of heroic capitalism as "the reason I got into public service." But what would Rand think of Mr. Ryan?

While Rand, an atheist, did enjoy a good Christmas celebration for its cheerful commercialism, she would have scoffed at the idea of public service. And though Mr. Ryan's advocacy of steep cuts in government spending would have pleased her, she would have vehemently opposed his social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. She would have denounced Mr. Ryan as she denounced Ronald Reagan, for trying "to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics."

Mr. Ryan's youthful, feverish embrace of Rand and his clumsy attempts to distance himself from her is more than the flip-flopping of an ambitious politician: it is a window into the ideological fissures at the heart of modern conservatism.

Rand's atheism and social libertarianism have long placed her in an uneasy position in the pantheon of conservative heroes, but she has proved irresistible to those who came of age in the baby boom and after. They found her iconoclasm thrilling, and her admirers poured into Barry M. Goldwater's doomed 1964 presidential campaign, the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute. After her death, in 1982, it became even easier for her admirers to ignore the parts of her message they didn't like and focus on her advocacy of unfettered capitalism and her celebration of the individual.

Mr. Ryan is particularly taken by Rand's black-and-white worldview. "The fight we are in here," he once told a group of her adherents, "is a fight of individualism versus collectivism." If she were alive, he said, Rand would do "a great job in showing us just how wrong what government is doing is."

Rand's anti-government argument rested on another binary opposition, between "producers" who create wealth and "moochers" who feed off them. This theme has endeared Rand, and Mr. Ryan, to the Tea Party, whose members believe they are the only ones who deserve government aid.

Yet when his embrace of Rand drew fire from Catholic leaders, Mr. Ryan reversed course with a speed that would make his running mate, Mitt Romney, proud. "Don't give me Ayn Rand," he told National Review earlier this year. "Give me Thomas Aquinas." He claimed that his austere budget was motivated by the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that issues should be handled at the most local level possible, rather than Rand's anti-government views.

This retreat to religion would have infuriated Rand, who believed it was impossible to separate government policies from their moral and philosophical underpinnings. Policies motivated by Christian values, which she called "the best kindergarten of communism possible," were inherently corrupt.

Free-market capitalism, she said, needed a new, secular morality of selfishness, one she promoted in her novels, nonfiction and newsletters. Conservative contemporaries would have none of it: William F. Buckley Jr. criticized her "desiccated philosophy" and Whittaker Chambers dubbed her "Big Sister."

Mr. Ryan's rise is a telling index of how far conservatism has evolved from its founding principles. The creators of the movement embraced the free market, but shied from Rand's promotion of capitalism as a moral system. They emphasized the practical benefits of capitalism, not its ethics. Their fidelity to Christianity grew into a staunch social conservatism that Rand fought against in vain.

Mr. Ryan has attempted a similar pirouette, but it is too late: driven by the fever of the Tea Party and drawing upon a wellspring of enthusiasm for Rand, politicians like Mr. Ryan have set the philosophy of "Atlas Shrugged" at the core of modern Republicanism.

In so doing, modern conservatives ignore the fundamental principles that animated Rand: personal as well as economic freedom. Her philosophy sprang from her deep belief in the autonomy and independence of each individual. This meant that individuals could not depend on government for retirement savings or medical care. But it also meant that individuals must be free from government interference in their personal lives.

Years before Roe v. Wade, Rand called abortion "a moral right which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." She condemned the military draft and American involvement in Vietnam. She warned against recreational drugs but thought government had no right to ban them. These aspects of Rand do not fit with a political view that weds fiscal and social conservatism.

Mr. Ryan's selection as Mr. Romney's running mate is the kind of stinging rebuke of the welfare state that Rand hoped to see during her lifetime. But Mr. Ryan is also what she called "a conservative in the worst sense of the word." As a woman in a man's world, a Jewish atheist in a country dominated by Christianity and a refugee from a totalitarian state, Rand knew it was not enough to promote individual freedom in the economic realm alone. If Mr. Ryan becomes the next vice president, it wouldn't be her dream come true, but her nightmare.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 02:30:05 PM

Quote from: PIE-GUY on August 15, 2012, 01:24:15 PM
Why Ayn Rand would have hated Ryan:

So we can stop pretending that Ryan is a faithful Rand disciple hellbent on implementing her objectivist atheist worldview on the unsuspecting downtrodden? Well that's a relief.

Also, tell me you didn't laugh at this.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/admit-it-i-scare-the-everloving-shit-out-of-you-do,29160/

Quote
Admit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Shit Out Of You, Don't I?
BY PAUL RYAN 
CANDIDATE FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I'm a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney's chances of becoming president because I'm a liability. But if we're being honest with each other—if we're able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we're all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.

I'm young, I'm handsome, I'm smart, and I'm articulate. And that scares the ever-loving shit out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.

It's okay to admit it. You're frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I'm not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I'm a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.

Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it's 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women's rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?

Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?

I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I'm right? Because I'm good at it. No, I'm really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I'm saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.

The American people love that shit. They love it.

Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I've got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I'll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we're being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven't noticed, I'm white. Hoo, brother, am I white.

Yup, you should be scared shitless of me, because guess who isn't? The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it's almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won't be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.

Boy, I'm going to sell the shit out of that talking point. And I'm going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I'm Paul Ryan. That's what I do.

And if we're having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don't think for a second that I don't know you're terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.

Well, that's 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.

I'm your worst fucking nightmare.

Oh, and by the way, don't even try to pretend you haven't imagined me being elected president one day.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on August 15, 2012, 04:49:13 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 08:01:23 AM
aphineday - hey, if that's what you believe, ok. I couldn't help but notice you didn't name one of the many programs being slashed or any of the many Rs you respect/agree with:
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare
Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Dick Lugar, Mike Bloomberg  just off the top of my head.
There are many more.



Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 07:14:49 PM
Apologies in advance if this comes off as kinda dickish. My disdain is with politicians and partisans, not you, aphineday.

Quote from: aphineday on August 15, 2012, 04:49:13 PM
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare

Medicare cuts are tricky (like most arcane budgetary shit). The budgets are projected over 10 years and of course, Ryan's plan changes absolutely nothing for the next 10 years (anyone 55 or older sees no difference in the program). After that the funding mechanisms diverge, but over the 10 yr budget (which, as RJ points out, even those numbers don't mean shit), there are no substantive cuts to Medicare. However, Ryan's plan does extend the $700B in cuts implemented in ObamaCare. This is why many on the left are rightly calling shenanigans when Romney/Ryan promise to "restore Obama's cuts" while also reducing deficit. They can either keep the cuts and use it to reduce the shortfall (unlike Obama who is double counting by using the cuts to pay for ObamaCare AND shore up Medicare's solvency) or they can restore the $700B and reduce Medicare's projected insolvency date by about a decade. It's complete and utter bullshit to say they can do both, but it is an important distinction that Ryan is simply piggybacking off the cuts implemented by the ACA.

Medicaid would be cut to the tune of $77B a year in the hopes that block granting back to the states would reduce inefficiency and allow the states to determine what would be best for it's residents (as the needs of PA are completely different than those in IA). I assume you don't agree this would work, but, as we've discussed ad nauseum, until Obama tells me how he'd reduce federal health spending, I can't really make a determination which plan is better.

Welfare is a pretty broad stroke, but if you are talking about income security programs for the poor you're right their are some cuts, about 16%. That may be too severe for Dems, but when you are running a trillion dollar deficit, I don't believe that is tantamount to turning your back on the poor in a system that is widely acknowledged to contain massive fraud and waste. But you're right there are cuts, I just think "slashed" is a touch on the dramatic side.

As for SS, there is absolutely no change to the program. Well, that's not entirely true; here is what Ryan calls for re SS:

Quote
In a shared call for leadership, this budget calls for action on Social Security by requiring both the President and the Congress to put forward specific ideas and legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical program. Both parties must work together to chart a path forward on common-sense reforms, and this budget provides the nation's leaders with the tools to get there.

So the drastic changes to SS amount to creating a commission to fix it. That's it. Spending does not change meaning the second largest budget item after Medicare goes through this savagely austere budget unscathed. Now, I don't blame you, aphineday, for saying SS was cut because the left has been beating the drums on it but it is simply not true and any pundit who suggests otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Quote from: aphineday on August 15, 2012, 04:49:13 PM
Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Dick Lugar, Mike Bloomberg  just off the top of my head.

Arlen Specter was a R his entire career before he switched to D when it became clear he was going to lose in the primary to Pat Toomey. He then lost in the Dem primary to Joe Sestak (who subsequently lost to Pat Toomey). I guess he counts as an R, but the fact that tucked tail and ran at the first sight of a difficult primary just reaks of political expediency and contempt of his constituents to me (disclaimer: I voted for Sestak).

Bloomberg was D until 2001. But when he wanted to run for mayor he couldn't be bothered running in a competitive Democratic primary he might not win so he suddenly decided he was an R. He spent $73M of his own money to buy the election. He bought his way to a second term too. But he wasn't done. Because even though he had reached NYC's 2 term mayoral limit, he felt the people of NY couldn't get along without him so he had his allies on the City Council extend the term limit to 3 terms. In response to this astounding usurping of power, the city put forth a referendum to return the term limits to 2 terms which, of all fucking people, Bloomberg supported (it passed 3-1). I forgot to mention he became an Independent somewhere along the way. Clearly, he is not a R and, IMO, he is one of the worst symbols of a broken system.

Dick Lugar (who is a lame duck after losing the IN primary) and Hatch are both Rs so I guess they fit the bill but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out they have virtually the same voting record as Paul Ryan (i.e., for anything Bush proposes, against anything Obama wants). Both supported some of the more vile of the Republican positions including the wars, a Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriages (and both voted against repealing DADT), TARP and the Patriot Act.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 24, 2012, 05:05:18 PM
Seriously
 
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/aug/19/tdopin02-the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win-ar-2138869/
 
Quote
The wrong side absolutely must not win

The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations and flat-out lies.

Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side Look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to The Other Side if it could ever be verified.

I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks — remarks that reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.

These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger — unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
Dude makes some good points.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/25/charlie-crist-former-republican-governor-of-florida-endorses-president-obama/

QuoteIn a special editorial to the Sunday, 8/26/12, Tampa Bay Times, Charlie Crist, former Republican Governor of Florida, spells out why he is backing Barack Obama for President.

Crist states:

I've studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I've watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I've seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I'm confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.


The president's response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.

President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

And the president invested in our retirement security by strengthening Medicare. The $716 billion in savings his opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse. His opponents would end the Medicare guarantee by creating a voucher that would raise seniors' costs by thousands of dollars and bankrupt the program.

We have more work to do, more investments to make and more waste to cut. But only one candidate in this race has proven a willingness to navigate a realistic path to prosperity.

As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.

But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.

The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.

Pundits looking to reduce something as big as a statewide election to a single photograph have blamed the result of my 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate on my greeting of President Obama. I didn't stand with our president because of what it could mean politically; I did it because uniting to recover from the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes was more important than party affiliation. I stood with our nation's leader because it was right for my state.

President Obama has a strong record of doing what is best for America and Florida, and he built it by spending more time worrying about what his decisions would mean for the people than for his political fortunes. That's what makes him the right leader for our times, and that's why I'm proud to stand with him today.

I see quite a few hungover Republicans in Tampa opening their morning paper and choking on their coffee.

Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools. Katherine Manaan
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 26, 2012, 05:00:42 PM
Impressive.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 12:02:31 AM
I think Crist probably had an axe to grind toward the party after he passed on an easy second term at Governor to run for Seante but lost to Rubio by 20pts. He was likely an Obama supporter a long time ago. Either way, I'm not sure his support means more in FL than who wins the Medicare argument.

As for his points:

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
I've studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I've watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I've seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

Ahem: "Do you believe the people of Florida got tired of status quo politicians like myself and voted for a fire-breathing Latino? I mean, how desperate can they be to get rid of the person who's been dicking them around (*allegedly*) for so long for Marco fucking Rubio?"

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.

Crist may be the only Obama surrogate reminding voters that we're in the longest period of unemployment over 8% in...ever. Need MOAR Todd Akin.

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

I swear, I'm not saying those investments aren't necessary, but all I heard was "Unions, unions, union buddies, and, ah let's see here...unions."

Also, college is not more affordable now. All they've done is manipulate the interest rate so that it feels more affordable. But Obama's done nothing to address the $1 trillion in student loan debt so to me it looks like a not-so-implicit line of credit to the banks.

This is the whole problem with Keynesian/monetary stimulus: it doesn't address the root causes, it's just a goddamned slight of hand. Just because the S&P is at 1400 and people's 401(k) looks pretty good doesn't mean they should go out and finance that yacht they always wanted. But central planners believe people will feel richer so they're more likely to go out and spend money they may or may not actually have. And the craziest part is, as the Fed-induced housing bubble showed, they were right! But at some point all that leverage has to come down (terrifying sidenote: there is $28 TRILLION in gov't, corporate, and private debt maturing in the next 4 yrs) and that means the banks will eventually have to take a loss - and the Fed will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
And the president invested in our retirement security by strengthening Medicare. The $716 billion in savings his opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse.

Not sure if we've talked about the double counting issue, but that's totally double counting.

But I take more issue with this line that the $716B is only going to curb payments to those dickbag insurance companies but providers will be unaffected. Because I just cannot believe that you can cut - fuck, I keep saying cut - you can reduce the rate of growth of Medicare spending by $71.6B a year without having one doctor say, "You know what, it's just not worth it anymore." (sls, I'd love to hear your insight on this) And if providers aren't affected, why stop at $716B? Is that the exact equilibrium where you can remove corporate profits from insurance companies without reducing seniors' benefits? Why not $1.4T? Wouldn't 2.1T be 3x as gooder?

If Obama was the leader Crist proclaims him to be, he should be saying, "Look, it's true we are reducing the rate of growth of spending on seniors' benefits but we are doing it to provide healthcare to all Americans because we think it is good public policy and we are hopeful it will bring down costs in the long run." And then explain why. Instead what we get is "We're only taking it from greedy insurance companies and it actually extends the life of the trust fund and, seriously, the other guy would be much, much worse." That just doesn't feel all Hope & Change-y to me.

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment

568 words before a mention of Akin? Crist clearly wasn't on the WH talking points distribution list. Awkward.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 27, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
The blind will not be led into the light
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 10:13:48 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 27, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
The blind will not be led into the light

Are you quoting Scripture?

Mind = blown
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 27, 2012, 10:16:40 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 10:13:48 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 27, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
The blind will not be led into the light

Are you quoting Scripture?

Mind = blown

No.

Although I have read the texts of several major religions.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on August 27, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Pretty sure unemployment was over 8% for longer than 5 years during the depression.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 27, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Pretty sure unemployment was over 8% for longer than 5 years during the depression.

Sorry, that was unintentionally misleading; I meant recorded history. The BLS has only tracked unemployment since 1948 and since then employment has been above 8% only 3 times: Jan-Dec 1975 (12 months), Nov 1981-Dec 1983 (21 months), and Feb 2009-now (42 months and counting).
 
You're right unemployment was higher than 8% during the Depression but that's only because the methodology for calculating it was drastically different; it included the underemployed (i.e., part-time workers who want to be full-time) or people who had given up looking for work (this is closer to the U-6 measure, currently 15%, which is often cited by Republican as the real unemployment rate since it makes Obama looks worse). Comparing unemployment measures would be like comparing a 1.0 Melt to a 3.0 version; it's really not the same ballgame.
 
So let's just say we're both right.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
I didn't expect Obama to be able to bring that number down almost until his first term was up anyways. My perspective on what Obama inherited, is something that was just in the beginnings of what was going to be a very long and dragged out recession of the magnitude that you see being played out. The fact that about 4 million houses went into foreclosure almost by the time his first year in office was up, then close to another 3 million houses were eventually foreclosed upon, and that about 16 million more homeowners found themselves in a home that lost approximately  35% - 40% of it's value, should be a major indicator of just how bad the debacle that the Republican led House (05'-07'), the Republican led Senate (05'-07'), and the Republican President (01'-09'), really handed off to Obama. Job loses from the beginning of 2008 until the spring of 2009 already had past the 5 million mark. The TARP bailout didn't stop a thing, except a possible catastrophic market crash. It's beyond ridiculous to think that any President was going to take office, and then proceed to pull a magic wand out of his ass, and bring the economy back in less than 4 years. The republicans are always asking for Obama to take responsibility, but as far as I am concerned, this is still mostly their responsibility. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
The 16 trillion dollar deficit this country has racked up, started about 32 years ago under the Reagan administration, who just about doubled the deficit in his 8 years in office. The deficit in relation to the U.S. GDP was 120% after WW 2, which steadily declined until 1980, to where it reached a low point of 30% of the GDP, after the Reagan/ Bush years it was 62%, Clinton brought it down slightly to about 58%, and then George W. Bush brought it up to about 88%, and this was without putting either of the two wars on the books.

Our country experienced great growth with a very high tax rate through the 50's & 60's, and at the same time the country had some of the strongest regulations in place. The lazy-fare policies that led to the Great Depression were crushed by FDR, and kept this country free from market bubbles and major banking disasters, like the one that got us into the huge mess that we are in today. The deregulation assault, which started under the Reagan administration, and continued until Clinton signed the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Stegall of 1932, brought us right back to ruins. But yet the Republicans are still touting that regulations are the problem, without ever offering up any type of other hardcore reforms, such as ending the Federal Reserve, while at the same time instilling other regulations, to bring down the size of these banks, so that if they invest badly again, we can let them fail, without being threatened by a huge maket crash, wiping out the entire economy and a ton of retirement funds.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 02:28:10 AM
At runawayjimbo... Somewhere back in this thread, I mentioned something about inflation, and you threw up some link to a page, in dispute of the fact that I feel a large amount of inflation has taken place.

Gas in 2000: average - $1.54g / today it's 3.74g.. at a 20 mile commute/weekday in a car that gets 25 miles/gal.  1.54/g = 53.50 and  3.74/g = 129.50/month, that is an increase of 2.4 times / 140%, and of course you know that this raises the cost of everything period, I mean it even costs more money to sleep in many places...   

Phish tickets in 2000 - $27.50, today $60.00, that is an increase of 2.1 times / or a 110%

Health insurance costs.. up about 113% since 2000.. at a rate of 2.1% of an average workers pay, according to kaiser foundation data, but this says wages have increased 34% since 2000, and really the average median wage has remained stagnant... http://www.kff.org/insurance/092311nr.cfm

average cost of tuition for a 4 year college in 2000: - $13,000, today it's 21,000..   that's a 61.5% increase, but the link says it is a 37% increase after calculating in the inflation, meaning the average value of the dollar has decreased by 24.5% since 2000... http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76

the average median income has dropped approximately 7%... after adjusting for inflation.. according to a survey done by the census bureau, it's probably pretty close, but stagnant is probably closer.. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1


All of this adds up big time to families, and every average working stiff across America. It is getting harder and harder for a lot of people to be able to afford enough on their own, so that they do not become dependent on tax dollars, is one form or another.

I mean at $35,000/year..
$673/week - $583, after taxes = $2524.39/month

$625/month - rent
$80/month - utilities
$75/month - internet/TV... 
$250/month - car payment
$65/month - car insurance
$200/month - gas
$450/month - food... on a diet
$100/month - phone
$160/month - health ins.
$200/month - entertainment/misc.

  $2524.39 income
- $2155.00 bills
  $369/month for all savings and retirement, and these are your average bills if your single without kids...

And the other question I want to raise when you look at this is, when you are out and about hanging with your friends at bars or even at Phish shows. If you were to survey 20 people, how many do you think would say they earn more or less than 35,000/year... My estimation is probably less than 10 earn that much or more..

















Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on August 28, 2012, 02:40:32 PM
What state do I have to move to net $583 on $673 gross?

Tell me and I'll move there.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on August 28, 2012, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 28, 2012, 02:40:32 PM
What state do I have to move to net $583 on $673 gross?

Tell me and I'll move there.

Ask Mitt, that looks to be about his tax bracket.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on August 28, 2012, 05:48:57 PM
Lulz from the NYTimes...

www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html)

QuoteThe Real Romney

    by DAVID BROOKS
    Aug. 27, 2012

The purpose of the Republican convention is to introduce America to the real Mitt Romney. Fortunately, I have spent hours researching this subject. I can provide you with the definitive biography and a unique look into the Byronic soul of the Republican nominee:

Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia and several other swing states. He emerged, hair first, believing in America, and especially its national parks. He was given the name Mitt, after the Roman god of mutual funds, and launched into the world with the lofty expectation that he would someday become the Arrow shirt man.

Romney was a precocious and gifted child. He uttered his first words ("I like to fire people") at age 14 months, made his first gaffe at 15 months and purchased his first nursery school at 24 months. The school, highly leveraged, went under, but Romney made 24 million Jujubes on the deal.

Mitt grew up in a modest family. His father had an auto body shop called the American Motors Corporation, and his mother owned a small piece of land, Brazil. He had several boyhood friends, many of whom owned Nascar franchises, and excelled at school, where his fourth-grade project, "Inspiring Actuaries I Have Known," was widely admired.

The Romneys had a special family tradition. The most cherished member got to spend road trips on the roof of the car. Mitt spent many happy hours up there, applying face lotion to combat windburn.

The teenage years were more turbulent. He was sent to a private school, where he was saddened to find there are people in America who summer where they winter. He developed a lifelong concern for the second homeless, and organized bake sales with proceeds going to the moderately rich.

Some people say he retreated into himself during these years. He had a pet rock, which ran away from home because it was starved of affection. He bought a mood ring, but it remained permanently transparent. His ability to turn wine into water detracted from his popularity at parties.

There was, frankly, a period of wandering. After hearing Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side," Romney decided to leave Mormonism and become Amish. He left the Amish faith because of its ban on hair product, and bounced around before settling back in college. There, he majored in music, rendering Mozart's entire oeuvre in PowerPoint.

His love affair with Ann Davies, the most impressive part of his life, restored his equilibrium. Always respectful, Mitt and Ann decided to elope with their parents. They went on a trip to Israel, where they tried and failed to introduce the concept of reticence. Romney also went on a mission to France. He spent two years knocking on doors, failing to win a single convert. This was a feat he would replicate during his 2008 presidential bid.

After his mission, he attended Harvard, studying business, law, classics and philosophy, though intellectually his first love was always tax avoidance. After Harvard, he took his jawline to Bain Consulting, a firm with very smart people with excessive personal hygiene. While at Bain, he helped rescue many outstanding companies, like Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Atari and DeLorean.

Romney was extremely detail oriented in his business life. He once canceled a corporate retreat at which Abba had been hired to play, saying he found the band's music "too angry."

Romney is also a passionately devoted family man. After streamlining his wife's pregnancies down to six months each, Mitt helped Ann raise five perfect sons — Bip, Chip, Rip, Skip and Dip — who married identically tanned wives. Some have said that Romney's lifestyle is overly privileged, pointing to the fact that he has an elevator for his cars in the garage of his San Diego home. This is not entirely fair. Romney owns many homes without garage elevators and the cars have to take the stairs.

After a successful stint at Bain, Romney was lured away to run the Winter Olympics, the second most Caucasian institution on earth, after the G.O.P. He then decided to run for governor of Massachusetts. His campaign slogan, "Vote Romney: More Impressive Than You'll Ever Be," was not a hit, but Romney won the race anyway on an environmental platform, promising to make the state safe for steeplechase.

After his governorship, Romney suffered through a midlife crisis, during which he became a social conservative. This prepared the way for his presidential run. He barely won the 2012 Republican primaries after a grueling nine-month campaign, running unopposed. At the convention, where his Secret Service nickname is Mannequin, Romney will talk about his real-life record: successful business leader, superb family man, effective governor, devoted community leader and prudent decision-maker. If elected, he promises to bring all Americans together and make them feel inferior.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on August 28, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
Ever since Obama was elected I've liked Brooks more and more.

I bet he's getting stoned with Krugman and discussing Marxian economics right now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on August 28, 2012, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 28, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
Ever since Obama was elected I've liked Brooks more and more.

I bet he's getting stoned with Krugman and discussing Marxian economics right now.

I watch alot of Charlie Rose (I DVR every episode) and Brooks, Rose's long time friend and often interviewee, has without question evolved/strayed/woken up over years. But one can hardly blame him, as the Republican Party, whose ideals he once trumpeted, has gone sideways twice in the last decade. From excessive spending, government overreach and righteous imperialism to xenophobic anti-government nationalism. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 28, 2012, 09:37:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 12:02:31 AM

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

I swear, I'm not saying those investments aren't necessary, but all I heard was "Unions, unions, union buddies, and, ah let's see here...unions."


a bit cynical, imo. It's not the fault (or credit) to anyone or politician that education and construction are predominantly union led. Saying pro-infrastructure is union pandering is quite a stretch.
Obama, btw, has been trying to change some of the status quo regarding the dominance of teachers unions (I'm not anti teacher, but the union, at least where I live, has been more than a little crazy - separate talk).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 28, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
Christie's speech was interesting. Much of it was similar to what Obama said 4 years ago.
Christie has been successful at the state level - bipartisanship at the state level and federal level are 2 different things

I find it interesting to hear someone hear about the importance of politicians working together, when the Senate leader from that very party said that his most important task is to make sure that the president does not get re-elected.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 12:32:20 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 28, 2012, 09:37:25 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 27, 2012, 12:02:31 AM

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 26, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

I swear, I'm not saying those investments aren't necessary, but all I heard was "Unions, unions, union buddies, and, ah let's see here...unions."


a bit cynical, imo. It's not the fault (or credit) to anyone or politician that education and construction are predominantly union led. Saying pro-infrastructure is union pandering is quite a stretch.
Obama, btw, has been trying to change some of the status quo regarding the dominance of teachers unions (I'm not anti teacher, but the union, at least where I live, has been more than a little crazy - separate talk).

Damn you and your logic and your level-headedness, sls. +k

Fair enough, it's not pandering. The auto bailout clearly was, but infrastructure spending is certainly a valid function of gov't. I just wished we knew or even pretended to care about where the money was gonna come from. However, we do know that the stimulus was unable to invest in infrastructure as quickly as needed to move the needle ("Turns out shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected"). High speed rail costs are running well over initial estimates and people are wondering if it's worth it in CA. You and I've discussed what would have happened if TARP wasn't passed and we both agree we'll never know the answer. But when I look at what did happen, fully understanding the difficulties he was facing, I just don't believe him to be the leader that Crist paints him to be. I don't believe he deserves another term but unfortunately the alternative is Mitt Romney. That just doesn't seem fair to me, the Independent voter (now the single largest party affiliation). What about ME, sls!?!?

But I disagree that he's done anything to change the status quo with the teachers unions other than a tough line in the State of the Union. And that line has been recycled by presidents almost as much as "end our dependence on foreign oil". But he hasn't reformed education and he's handed out waivers to states that are not meeting minimum requirements under NCLB. He hasn't put forth any plan other than to pay for teachers in a challenging environment. Much like healthcare, I believe education has structural problems which need to be addressed quickly instead of just picking away at the margins like we've done for years. And I don't understand why we haven't tried something new in the face of glaring evidence that schools are woefully underperforming, so I attribute that to one (or a handful) of parties having undue influence over the system. And that's what I oppose.

Quote from: slslbs on August 28, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
Christie's speech was interesting. Much of it was similar to what Obama said 4 years ago.
Christie has been successful at the state level - bipartisanship at the state level and federal level are 2 different things

I find it interesting to hear someone hear about the importance of politicians working together, when the Senate leader from that very party said that his most important task is to make sure that the president does not get re-elected.

I didn't see it but I heard Ann Romney was really strong.

As for the McConnell comment, I think this has been going on both ways for years; he was just the first one dumb enough to say it. I agree it's annoying and hard to believe an elected official could be such a child, but that's who we have running the country: mildly intelligent people who have above all else a need to be liked by as many people as possible. Scary stuff.

Apparently when the Ron Paul delegates voted for him at the Roll Call today the podium just ignored them (even though they are allowed to vote for him under current rules, rules which were changed going forward because of this). "Anybody else? Any...other...votes? No? Ok then." What a bunch of dicks.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 29, 2012, 06:36:22 AM
Ann Romney gave a good speech. She faced the "war on women" by basically addressing the importance of woman in our society.

Agree with your comments on education, and where will the $ come from for infrastructure.
I disagree that the GM bailout was really a union bailout - even Kasich has gone on record saying that it save a lot of non UAW jobs in auto - related industries, ie makers of car seats, paint, Fisher rocker panels etc. Union or not, they're still jobs. We'll agree to disagree.

There's no question that the Dems pander to their base, unions and seniors. IMO raising the retirement age is a no brainer.
The GOP panders to their base - financial types, religious right and the "America 1st" crowd. I don't understand why they're allergic to closing tax loopholes, and why they want to spend MORE on defense.

In general, politicians of both parties are the opposite of what Christie said they should be - able to make the hard choices and more worried about the country than partisan politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 29, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 28, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
Christie's speech was interesting. Much of it was similar to what Obama said 4 years ago.
Christie has been successful at the state level - bipartisanship at the state level and federal level are 2 different things

I find it interesting to hear someone hear about the importance of politicians working together, when the Senate leader from that very party said that his most important task is to make sure that the president does not get re-elected.

Some would disagree about Christie's "success". Take Barbara Buono, Democratic State Senate Majority Leader from the New Jersey:

QuoteTuesday night, many Americans are due to get their first taste of the carefully constructed Christie image — a brash, tough-talking fiscal conservative who thinks his leadership, economic policies and tax cuts should serve as a model for the rest of the nation.
As always, he will be entertaining – he isn't called "Gov. YouTube" for nothing. The problem is that this carefully constructed image is based on exaggerations, at best, and falsehoods, at worst.

Christie claims to have put New Jersey on a sound fiscal path — cutting spending, holding the line on property taxes, fighting off tax increases, investing in education and laying the foundation for the "Jersey Comeback."

That is the image you can expect to see brandished on televisions Tuesday night.

Here is the reality:
New Jersey ranked 47th in economic growth in 2010 and 2011, and our economy shrink by 0.5 percent last year. There are 175,000 fewer jobs in New Jersey today than in December 2007, before the recession started. New Jersey lost 12,000 jobs in July alone, the highest job loss of any state in the nation.

Meanwhile, property taxes for the average New Jersey family were at a 20 percent net increase during his first two years in office, up from $6,244 to $7,519.

To be fair, Christie, like President Barack Obama and all the governors elected from 2008 to 2010, inherited an economy crippled by the Great Recession.

The question to ask however, is: What has Christie done as governor to fix it? And are his policies a model for "America's Comeback Team," as the presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney seems to think? Or a prescription to avoid?

On taking office, Christie cut state aid for education by $1.1 billion, slashed property tax relief for senior citizens and cut government worker pensions — breaking campaign promises in all three cases, as The Star-Ledger, the state's largest newspaper, recently reported.

In addition, Christie's personal and political ideology has cost New Jersey billions of dollars in federal aid for education, transportation and women's health funding.

It gets worse.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80237.html#ixzz24w3idRJl
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 29, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
I basically totally disagree that the auto-bailout was just pandering to Obama's union buddies. It just think it is lame Republican rhetoric that leaves out so many points of the heart of the matter that both this country was facing at the time and what would have become of the nearly 1.1 million people who would have lost their jobs, in an already failing economy, and what would have happened to all those communities who's tax code were dependent upon that industry. I mean 1.1 million jobs both creates a shit load of tax revenue which goes towards the entire infrastructure of the cities and states to which they serve. Not to mention the fact that it saved the federal government from mailing out just that many more unemployment checks. It's ridiculous to not feel for 1.1 million people losing their jobs, and just casting it off without any compassion by just saying it was only done so Obama could pander to his union buddies.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 04:38:51 PM
sls - You mean to tell me that the Governor of a state where the auto bailout is popular agrees with his constituents and is turning his back on his hallowed GOP principles? Well, color me surprised. :wink: Also, LOL at Christie's success (but that's for another day).

poster - How do you know 1.1M would have lost their jobs? That seems like a pretty difficult thing to measure, the number of people that would have lost their jobs absent the gov't saving one of the most grossly mismanaged companies in history. And do you see any irony in accusing me of using Republican talking points while trotting a statistic concoted by the administration itself?

But, to the original question, the reason I believe it is cronyism is because Obama skirted years of bankruptcy law by forcing losses on the bondholders (who are supposed to be the most senior creditors) in favor of UAW pension and retiree healthcare benefits. And while you may not be troubled by a unilateral disregard for years of historical precedent, it's pretty scary to me that the president exercised the power to do whatever the fuck he pleased (after campaigning against excess executive power, mind you) and people bend over backwards to defend his leadership on it.

Also, while GM retirees received overwhelmingly preferential treatment in the proceedings, non-union salaried employees of Delphi (a supplier and former subsidiary of GM) saw their pensions slashed while UAW members were made whole when the terminated plans were taken over by the PBGC. And while the PBGC has wide discretion over the handling of plan terminations, they are supposed to remain independent (like the Fed, LOL). But it's coming out that Treasury may have been pushing the PBGC to give the UAW pensioners favored status (despite sworn testimony by senior administation officials that they had nothing to do with it). A bipartisan group has requested further information on whether this decision was a political one (http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=65e78303-f271-4719-8494-7e5063f6d36e) (and if anyone can get to the bottom of this, it's Congress!). But either way, it seems pretty clear to me that the administration's implementation of the auto bailout (which was initiated under Bush remember) was at least in part for the benefit of their pals in the union.

As to the economics of the bailout, liberals everywhere cheered last year when GM regained the #1 spot and claimed this was indisputable evidence that the bailout had worked. Of course, they (purposefully) ignored that the only reason GM was #1 was because of the widespread supply chain disruptions suffered by Toyota and Honda following the Fukushima earthquake/nuclear disaster. And it may turn out to be rather short-sighted seeing as GM is hemorrhaging market share and will be re-eclipsed by Toyota this year. Taxpayer losses will likely continue to mount as GM's stock will have to reach $55 to recoup our investment (currently trading at $21 and hasn't been above $30 in over a year after IPOing at $33). Plus, GM received about $10B more than needed to finance its reorganization and it was all in equity so they have no debt service load. So what do you think its competitors did? They bitch that GM's preferential treatment wasn't fair because, well, it wasn't. So Ford got a cushy gov't loan and Fiat was given a majority stake in Chrysler without one red euro of their own.

Fundamentally, there is no difference to me between this and the Wall St bailout. And the only reason I can see why people say one is cool and one is theft is that people don't like greedy bankers (as if greedy unions are any better). In both cases, bailing out failed companies only encourages moral hazard because there is no incentive to right the ship since they know the gov't will step in the next time they get in trouble (and in GM's case, there most certainly will be a next time). Did the auto bailout save jobs? Sure (although I seriously doubt the 1.1M estimate that you so willingly throw around as fact above). But the long-term implications and intangible costs far outweigh the short-term benefit, IMO.

I also forgot to get back you with my comments (of which I have many) on your trifecta of posts above. I've been kinda jammed up today but I'll try to bang it out tonight.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 09:57:43 PM
Fuck it, I'll live blawg this.

Pawlenty gave his speech like he was doing an open mic night at the Cellar. I despise Huckabee, but he's much better at it than most of the clowns.

Condi now. Leads off with 9/11. Classy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 10:00:32 PM
I'm no Yglesias fan, but this is hilarious

QuoteMatt Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias
Here you are thinking the Obama jobs record is pretty bad, then along comes Rice to remind you of the Bush foreign policy.

A pretty good Antelope is playing too, I think.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 10:05:16 PM
Condi is bombing worse than the first set at Oak Mountain the other night.

QuoteMatt Welch@mleewelchFalse choice alert -- either we police the world, or someone else will, or there will be "chaos."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 29, 2012, 10:07:47 PM
Energy independence...DRINK!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on August 29, 2012, 10:41:08 PM
I'm not sure we have a sign or word even for someone that posts 5 times in a row. I'll just post this and save you from the double trifecta, or maybe triple double. Yeah, that works out to 6. That would've been bad. You're welcome.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 29, 2012, 11:27:19 PM
ok - Christie's "supposed" success.

so moving on to tonight. Ryan's speech was a lot of things - mentioning specifics was not one of them.

where I agree with Ryan (and where I'm disappointed with Obama) - Obama's leadership is questionable. Sure, the GOP was very effective in blocking Obama, even in things they liked. But, Obama gave too much lattitude to Reid and Pelosi, imo. The biggest problem I have is that he got the bipartisan commission going, and then did not publicly support them. Privately, he was negotiating with Boehner on those principles but did not publicly try to convince anyone or twist anyone's arms.
I'm not in favor of Ryan's plan for the deficit. Unfortunately, I can't comment on Obama's. If someone can post a link, I'd appreciate it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2012, 11:27:19 PM
ok - Christie's "supposed" success.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2012, 11:27:19 PM
so moving on to tonight. Ryan's speech was a lot of things - mentioning specifics was not one of them.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard :hereitisyousentimentalbastard (although have the conventions ever been anything but platitudes and rhetoric?)

Overall it seemed kinda awkward to me. But he ended on a high note so I'm sure they'll eat it up.

Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2012, 11:27:19 PM
where I agree with Ryan (and where I'm disappointed with Obama) - Obama's leadership is questionable. Sure, the GOP was very effective in blocking Obama, even in things they liked. But, Obama gave too much lattitude to Reid and Pelosi, imo. The biggest problem I have is that he got the bipartisan commission going, and then did not publicly support them. Privately, he was negotiating with Boehner on those principles but did not publicly try to convince anyone or twist anyone's arms.
I'm not in favor of Ryan's plan for the deficit. Unfortunately, I can't comment on Obama's. If someone can post a link, I'd appreciate it.

Here you go. And did you miss my question on what the ObamaCare Medicare cuts reductions in the growth of spending will do to providers?

http://youtu.be/4suYxetNWBY
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 01:06:31 AM
First of all, +k for the rant(s), poster.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
I didn't expect Obama to be able to bring that number down almost until his first term was up anyways. My perspective on what Obama inherited, is something that was just in the beginnings of what was going to be a very long and dragged out recession of the magnitude that you see being played out.

Why is that exactly? In the 11 post-war recessions before this one, it took 23.5 months on average to get total jobs back to the pre-recession level (sorry, Hicks, the Fed data only goes back to 1939 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS) although per the NBER we were not technically in a recession between June 1938 and February 1945 (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html)). We are at an unprecedented 56 months and counting and we are still 5M jobs below than the January 2008 peak. And I understand "this time was different!" and "the obstructionist GOP blocks everything he wants to do!" and that's all well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that we are still witnessing the slowest recovery in history and while that is by no means exclusively (or even predominantly) Obama's fault, it does prove to me that his first term was devoid of leadership.

The fact is, he made a conscious political decision to spend the first 2 yrs of his presidency fighting for healthcare. He recognized that he may only have a Democratically controlled House and Senate for 2 yrs so he decided to focus exclusively on this (it certainly wasn't on passing a budget, which hasn't happened throughout his term). I interpret this decision to mean that he believed the economy would recover by the time his first term was up (since, as I noted above, that's what had always happened to this point) so healthcare was the priority. It turns out that political calulcation may cost him a second term.

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking: "jimbo, you don't believe gov't can create jobs so why would it matter if Obama focused on jobs or not?" And you'd be right, I don't believe gov't can create jobs any more than I believe Mitt Romney would repeal ObamaCare. But there were 2 problems I had with the decision to push through ObamaCare (well, a lot more than two actually but as it pertains to the jobs argument). First, the increased requirements and regulation is absolutely an impediment to growth, per the most recent Chamber of Commerce small business survey (http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/uploads/New_Q2Chamber_Survey_July%202012%20Harris%20Report%2007_16_12.pdf) (disclaimer: the Chamber of Commerce is essentially a political arm of the GOP, but they can't fake the numbers this lopsided done by an independent pollster). Second, it prevented fixing the structural reforms - how we finance our entitlement system, the overcomplicated tax code, the proper incentives for business to invest and grow - that would have (IMO) fostered a much stronger recovery. Then he could have coasted to  re-election with the trust of the people to do whatever the hell he wanted regardless of Congress (and a big victory would have had down ballot effects as well). Instead, like he so often does, he led from behind.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
The fact that about 4 million houses went into foreclosure almost by the time his first year in office was up, then close to another 3 million houses were eventually foreclosed upon, and that about 16 million more homeowners found themselves in a home that lost approximately  35% - 40% of it's value, should be a major indicator of just how bad the debacle that the Republican led House (05'-07'), the Republican led Senate (05'-07'), and the Republican President (01'-09'), really handed off to Obama.

Three things: (1) what does a person's home value have to do with jobs? and (b) are you seriously trying to tell me the housing crisis was created in 2 yrs (even though most of the subprime debt was already on the banks' books by 2005)? and (iii) the ' comes before the abbreviated year, as in '05-'07 :wink:

The simple fact is everyone is to blame for the housing crash: the Fed for keeping interest rates too low for too long (going back to Greenspan and exasperated by the Bernank); Republicans AND Democrats who for years purposefully manipulated the housing market through price distorting measures such as the mortgage deduction and mandates on Fannie and Freddie for how much of their book had to consist of loans to low income families (primarily Dems pushing that one, BTW); academics like Krugman who said "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html) because that's the only thing they know how to do; the banks who fueled the mania by packaging and repackaging loans to sell a piece of shit wrapped in a pretty bow to unsuspecting investors; supposedly sophisticated investors who kept buying these shitty vehicles without questioning once why they were able to get a higher yield on AAA rated securities; the rating agencies who were so goddamn dumb they just let the banks tell them what the rating should be in a tremendous conflict of interest (rating agencies get paid by the companies selling the debt, not by the investors, so if the agencies want more business they have to appease their clients; how fucking stupid is that?); mortgage brokers who didn't give a shit about lending standards because they could turn around and sell them to Fannie/Freddie without thinking twice about the quality of the applicant. But perhaps the most complicit culprit (and the one who gets the biggest pass, IMO) is the American public. We overleveraged ourselves so many times over on the same flawed assumption the banks used: that housing prices would never go down. And please, PLEASE, don't come back saying "predatory lending" because while I don't disagree that it happened, it was nowhere near the scale that would lead to the widescale foreclosures that we saw (I think I saw an estimate of loans considered "predatory" as under 10% somewhere but I could totally be making that up because I don't even know how you would go about measuring that). In the end ( ::winknudge:: ), the public took on too much debt and the system collapsed. Boy, am I glad we're not still repeating our mistakes...

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
Job loses from the beginning of 2008 until the spring of 2009 already had past the 5 million mark. The TARP bailout didn't stop a thing, except a possible catastrophic market crash. It's beyond ridiculous to think that any President was going to take office, and then proceed to pull a magic wand out of his ass, and bring the economy back in less than 4 years. The republicans are always asking for Obama to take responsibility, but as far as I am concerned, this is still mostly their responsibility.

This is the thing about your post that I struggle with the most: I just don't understand why it should matter who is at fault (especially when both parties are equally guilty). As I said above, I think this entire premise (that it was all the GOP's fault to begin with) is completely flawed but that really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is who is trying to make it better (hint: it's neither). Obviously he walked in to a difficult situation. Yes, external events have hampered global growth. So what? He's the president, not the night manager at Bob's Big Boy. Bush had 9/11, Clinton had a massive recession himself, FDR is widely considered a great president (not be me, but by people) and he had polio fercrissakes (and something else, I forget). In 4 yrs, I don't know that I've seen any leadership or accountability out of Obama, so to me, "not my fault" is not a legitmiate answer.

I'm not sure people would care if it just felt like we were moving in the right direction. But people don't believe we are getting better. And the only reason this election is even remotely close is because the Republicans are a bunch of unlikeable dicks (as evidenced by their current nominee).

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
George W. Bush brought it up to about 88%, and this was without putting either of the two wars on the books.

To be clear, when they say "didn't put it on the books" it means it wasn't accounted for in the budget. But planes and tanks and guns are expensive and I don't think Lockheed Martin takes an IOU (and even if they did that would still count as debt). So the 88% includes the money spent (but not accounted for) on 2 wars that we are never going to fully remove ourselves from.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
Our country experienced great growth with a very high tax rate through the 50's & 60's, and at the same time the country had some of the strongest regulations in place.

The reason for the post-war boom was not because we were smarter or worked harder (LOL) or because we had higher taxes or better regulations. It was because we were the only major nation not rebuilding from a global conflict. And to a point Hicks often makes, manufacturing capital is real and thus the growth is inherently more stable (unlike today's finacial inventions by rogue physicists jerking themselves off with more and more complex schemes). But IMO we should just admit what we already know - that manufacturing will never fully come back. So we shouldn't be fighting to bring those jobs back, we should be looking to create new industries and services that will drive growth into the next phase of human history (space travel? nanotech robots to eradicate cancer? teleporters? go wild).

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
The deregulation assault, which started under the Reagan administration, and continued until Clinton signed the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act of 1999,

Who signed?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
which overturned the Glass-Stegall of 1932

Steagall :wink:

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
brought us right back to ruins. But yet the Republicans are still touting that regulations are the problem, without ever offering up any type of other hardcore reforms, such as ending the Federal Reserve

See, this is where I get lost: if the Fed kept us safe from bubbles and bank failures through the '60s, why would you want to end it? I mean, if deregulation was the problem, why would you want to engage in the ultimate financial dergulation? Unless you think something happened in, oh I don't know, let's say 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock) that changed the way credit was created.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
while at the same time instilling other regulations, to bring down the size of these banks, so that if they invest badly again, we can let them fail, without being threatened by a huge maket crash, wiping out the entire economy and a ton of retirement funds.

I'm sure we part ways on how to do it, but I agree banks should be smaller.

As for the inflation part, nice job, but I just don't belive you know more about inflation than the honorable Paul R Krugman, Ph.D (a Nobel laureate, BTW). If Prof. Krugman says we're in need of more inflation (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/krugman-not-enough-inflation.html?_r=1), than I have to assume he's telling the truth.

I mean, come on...gas, Phish tix, healthcare? Nobody's buying that shit. People buy HD TVs and refrigerators, and the prices on those things have been going down to Chinatown.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 28, 2012, 02:28:10 AM
And the other question I want to raise when you look at this is, when you are out and about hanging with your friends at bars or even at Phish shows. If you were to survey 20 people, how many do you think would say they earn more or less than 35,000/year... My estimation is probably less than 10 earn that much or more..

Well, according to your link, median income is around $49,445, so I'd suggest in a random sample of 20 people, more than 10 people would make $35k or more. At Phish shows not so much.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 30, 2012, 07:41:21 AM
Fox News calls out Ryan for being full of shit:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

(Link courtesy John Perry Barlow)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on August 30, 2012, 10:37:29 AM
^^^
awesome


btw, when Ryan blasted Obamacare last night, they panned to the audience. Everyone was standing up and cheering.

except



Ann Romney, who sat there quietly.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on August 30, 2012, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 30, 2012, 10:37:29 AM
^^^
awesome


btw, when Ryan blasted Obamacare last night, they panned to the audience. Everyone was standing up and cheering.

except



Ann Romney, who sat there quietly.
If I was in Obama's shoes, I'd start referring to it as "Obamney Care", and thank him incessantly for all of the inspiration.
I'm not even kidding, Mitchell did a good job in Massachusetts, and he should be given credit where credit is due.
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 30, 2012, 07:41:21 AM
Fox News calls out Ryan for being full of shit:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

(Link courtesy John Perry Barlow)
I promise you this speech was one of the nails in the coffin for Mitt Romney. Almost every fact Ryan attempted to state was a blatant lie or at the very least an embellishment of the truth.
Obama will hit him, and hit him hard with that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on August 30, 2012, 10:50:12 AM
http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=19639.msg669203#msg669203
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on August 30, 2012, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:50:12 AM
http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=19639.msg669203#msg669203

Beat ya by three hours.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 10:53:53 PM
This Clint Eastwood "speech" the most depressingly awkward thing I've seen since Ryan last night. It's like a good episode of Louie.

Rubio reminds everyone he's from Cuba. Then makes a "Latinos live in a house with like 50 people" joke. Great TV.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on August 31, 2012, 12:27:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 10:53:53 PM
This Clint Eastwood "speech" the most depressingly awkward thing I've seen since Ryan last night. It's like a good episode of Louie.

Rubio reminds everyone he's from Cuba. Then makes a "Latinos live in a house with like 50 people" joke. Great TV.

I love "hating" you...  You want to kill 'em all!  LOL!  I know another Philly Steaker that talks the same talk...  Maybe its the water!?!  LOL!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2012, 12:28:58 AM
I guess it was a good speech by Romney but it's hard to listen to a guy when you can't believe a word he says.

Also, Christie reminds everyone that Romney cried ("he got emotional"...you know, cause people think he's a robot). What would Republicans say if the Democratic nominee cried during his acceptance speech?

New Taibbi for Hicks (et al). This is just the intro.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Quote
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill
by: Matt Taibbi

The great criticism of Mitt Romney, from both sides of the aisle, has always been that he doesn't stand for anything. He's a flip-flopper, they say, a lightweight, a cardboard opportunist who'll say anything to get elected.

The critics couldn't be more wrong. Mitt Romney is no tissue-paper man. He's closer to being a revolutionary, a backward-world version of Che or Trotsky, with tweezed nostrils instead of a beard, a half-Windsor instead of a leather jerkin. His legendary flip-flops aren't the lies of a bumbling opportunist – they're the confident prevarications of a man untroubled by misleading the nonbeliever in pursuit of a single, all-consuming goal. Romney has a vision, and he's trying for something big: We've just been too slow to sort out what it is, just as we've been slow to grasp the roots of the radical economic changes that have swept the country in the last generation.

The incredible untold story of the 2012 election so far is that Romney's run has been a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy, which he's somehow managed to keep hidden, even with thousands of cameras following his every move. And the drama of this rhetorical high-wire act was ratcheted up even further when Romney chose his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin – like himself, a self-righteously anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know penny pincher who'd be honored to tell Oliver Twist there's no more soup left. By selecting Ryan, Romney, the hard-charging, chameleonic champion of a disgraced-yet-defiant Wall Street, officially succeeded in moving the battle lines in the 2012 presidential race.

Like John McCain four years before, Romney desperately needed a vice-presidential pick that would change the game. But where McCain bet on a combustive mix of clueless novelty and suburban sexual tension named Sarah Palin, Romney bet on an idea. He said as much when he unveiled his choice of Ryan, the author of a hair-raising budget-cutting plan best known for its willingness to slash the sacred cows of Medicare and Medicaid. "Paul Ryan has become an intellectual leader of the Republican Party," Romney told frenzied Republican supporters in Norfolk, Virginia, standing before the reliably jingoistic backdrop of a floating warship. "He understands the fiscal challenges facing America: our exploding deficits and crushing debt."

Debt, debt, debt. If the Republican Party had a James Carville, this is what he would have said to win Mitt over, in whatever late-night war room session led to the Ryan pick: "It's the debt, stupid." This is the way to defeat Barack Obama: to recast the race as a jeremiad against debt, something just about everybody who's ever gotten a bill in the mail hates on a primal level.

Last May, in a much-touted speech in Iowa, Romney used language that was literally inflammatory to describe America's federal borrowing. "A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation," he declared. "Every day we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love." Our collective debt is no ordinary problem: According to Mitt, it's going to burn our children alive.

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.

Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.

Mitt Romney – a man whose own father built cars and nurtured communities, and was one of the old-school industrial anachronisms pushed aside by the new generation's wealth grab – has emerged now to sell this make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos to the world. He's Gordon Gekko, but a new and improved version, with better PR – and a bigger goal. A takeover artist all his life, Romney is now trying to take over America itself. And if his own history is any guide, we'll all end up paying for the acquisition.

...


(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829/306x306/20120827-mitt-romney-x306-1346104394.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2012, 12:30:25 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 31, 2012, 12:27:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 10:53:53 PM
This Clint Eastwood "speech" the most depressingly awkward thing I've seen since Ryan last night. It's like a good episode of Louie.

Rubio reminds everyone he's from Cuba. Then makes a "Latinos live in a house with like 50 people" joke. Great TV.

I love "hating" you...  You want to kill 'em all!  LOL!  I know another Philly Steaker that talks the same talk...  Maybe its the water!?!  LOL!

Terry

Ahhh, dude, if you come to Philly, it's best you don't drink the water.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2012, 12:41:05 AM
Penn Jillette is the shit
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on August 31, 2012, 12:48:19 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2012, 12:30:25 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 31, 2012, 12:27:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 10:53:53 PM
This Clint Eastwood "speech" the most depressingly awkward thing I've seen since Ryan last night. It's like a good episode of Louie.

Rubio reminds everyone he's from Cuba. Then makes a "Latinos live in a house with like 50 people" joke. Great TV.

I love "hating" you...  You want to kill 'em all!  LOL!  I know another Philly Steaker that talks the same talk...  Maybe its the water!?!  LOL!

Terry

Ahhh, dude, if you come to Philly, it's best you don't drink the water.

The one time I was in Philly, it was harrowing...  But it was a fun show (camden 99)...  I remember good cheese steaks, tho I was just following along and didn't know anything...  virgin...

Next time I'll stick to beers!  You're buying!  LOL!

Terry



Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on August 31, 2012, 01:05:13 AM
Heh, yeah Camden was a real eye opener, we don't have anything like that out here. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
I didn't expect Obama to be able to bring that number down almost until his first term was up anyways. My perspective on what Obama inherited, is something that was just in the beginnings of what was going to be a very long and dragged out recession of the magnitude that you see being played out.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 01:06:31 AM
Why is that exactly? In the 11 post-war recessions before this one, it took 23.5 months on average to get total jobs back to the pre-recession level (sorry, Hicks, the Fed data only goes back to 1939 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS) although per the NBER we were not technically in a recession between June 1938 and February 1945 (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html)). We are at an unprecedented 56 months and counting and we are still 5M jobs below than the January 2008 peak. And I understand "this time was different!" and "the obstructionist GOP blocks everything he wants to do!" and that's all well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that we are still witnessing the slowest recovery in history and while that is by no means exclusively (or even predominantly) Obama's fault, it does prove to me that his first term was devoid of leadership.

The fact is, he made a conscious political decision to spend the first 2 yrs of his presidency fighting for healthcare. He recognized that he may only have a Democratically controlled House and Senate for 2 yrs so he decided to focus exclusively on this (it certainly wasn't on passing a budget, which hasn't happened throughout his term). I interpret this decision to mean that he believed the economy would recover by the time his first term was up (since, as I noted above, that's what had always happened to this point) so healthcare was the priority. It turns out that political calulcation may cost him a second term.

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking: "jimbo, you don't believe gov't can create jobs so why would it matter if Obama focused on jobs or not?" And you'd be right, I don't believe gov't can create jobs any more than I believe Mitt Romney would repeal ObamaCare. But there were 2 problems I had with the decision to push through ObamaCare (well, a lot more than two actually but as it pertains to the jobs argument). First, the increased requirements and regulation is absolutely an impediment to growth, per the most recent Chamber of Commerce small business survey (http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/uploads/New_Q2Chamber_Survey_July%202012%20Harris%20Report%2007_16_12.pdf) (disclaimer: the Chamber of Commerce is essentially a political arm of the GOP, but they can't fake the numbers this lopsided done by an independent pollster). Second, it prevented fixing the structural reforms - how we finance our entitlement system, the overcomplicated tax code, the proper incentives for business to invest and grow - that would have (IMO) fostered a much stronger recovery. Then he could have coasted to  re-election with the trust of the people to do whatever the hell he wanted regardless of Congress (and a big victory would have had down ballot effects as well). Instead, like he so often does, he led from behind.

I agree with you here, on the point that Obama should have waited to try and nail down something on healthcare. He should have re-regulated Wall Street first and foremost, people were beyond fuming at what went down, and definitely would have been behind the idea of the possible reimplementation of something along the lines of the Glass-Steagall Act. I feel this was a huge fail on his part, and I'm still really pissed about it. This is one of the biggest reasons I considered myself as an Independent. Both parties were behind the deregulation of the stock market, but you should really admit, that it was the Republican party that started the concept of deregulation under Reagan, and continued to push for more and more deregulatory policies until the bottom dropped out after Clinton signed the Financial Reform Act. I think that it should also be noted that Clinton did veto this bill twice during his two terms in office before he signed it through in 1999, but it was continued to be railroaded  down his throat by the Republican led House and Senate during his last 4 years in office. 

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
The fact that about 4 million houses went into foreclosure almost by the time his first year in office was up, then close to another 3 million houses were eventually foreclosed upon, and that about 16 million more homeowners found themselves in a home that lost approximately  35% - 40% of it's value, should be a major indicator of just how bad the debacle that the Republican led House (05'-07'), the Republican led Senate (05'-07'), and the Republican President (01'-09'), really handed off to Obama.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 01:06:31 AM
Three things: (1) what does a person's home value have to do with jobs? and (b) are you seriously trying to tell me the housing crisis was created in 2 yrs (even though most of the subprime debt was already on the banks' books by 2005)? and (iii) the ' comes before the abbreviated year, as in '05-'07 :wink:

The simple fact is everyone is to blame for the housing crash: the Fed for keeping interest rates too low for too long (going back to Greenspan and exasperated by the Bernank); Republicans AND Democrats who for years purposefully manipulated the housing market through price distorting measures such as the mortgage deduction and mandates on Fannie and Freddie for how much of their book had to consist of loans to low income families (primarily Dems pushing that one, BTW); academics like Krugman who said "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html) because that's the only thing they know how to do; the banks who fueled the mania by packaging and repackaging loans to sell a piece of shit wrapped in a pretty bow to unsuspecting investors; supposedly sophisticated investors who kept buying these shitty vehicles without questioning once why they were able to get a higher yield on AAA rated securities; the rating agencies who were so goddamn dumb they just let the banks tell them what the rating should be in a tremendous conflict of interest (rating agencies get paid by the companies selling the debt, not by the investors, so if the agencies want more business they have to appease their clients; how fucking stupid is that?); mortgage brokers who didn't give a shit about lending standards because they could turn around and sell them to Fannie/Freddie without thinking twice about the quality of the applicant. But perhaps the most complicit culprit (and the one who gets the biggest pass, IMO) is the American public. We overleveraged ourselves so many times over on the same flawed assumption the banks used: that housing prices would never go down. And please, PLEASE, don't come back saying "predatory lending" because while I don't disagree that it happened, it was nowhere near the scale that would lead to the widescale foreclosures that we saw (I think I saw an estimate of loans considered "predatory" as under 10% somewhere but I could totally be making that up because I don't even know how you would go about measuring that). In the end ( ::winknudge:: ), the public took on too much debt and the system collapsed. Boy, am I glad we're not still repeating our mistakes...

Your first question is a doozy!! "what does a person's home value have to do with jobs?" Well it's all about equity, no one is going to invest in homes that have lost 35% of their value, unless it's absolutely necessary, home values fuel a great percentage of our economy in so many ways, that I couldn't ramble enough off from the top of my head to cover even half of it. And it goes a lot further than just how a person's home value affects jobs in the U.S.. First of all if 4 million houses+ go into foreclosure, than not to many people are buying homes, this means that the entire housing industry came to a grinding halt. New homes were no longer being built, putting so many major construction workers, carpenters, architects, realtors sub-contractors, sales people across the board, every small business that sells goods for homes (appliances, flooring, wood, plumbing, furniture, ect...), basically everyone that you can think of who would be employed by the building of new homes, and remodeling lost their jobs, not to mention big commercial projects and building died along with it. Anyone who invested in property when shit was thriving thinking it was money in the bank lost their shirts, but ironically it still turned out to be money in the bank, only it was the banks money, after we bailed them out of all their overhead.  This was the number one reason for the amount of job loses that this country incurred. On top of all that the banks were no longer giving out loans to help fuel the economy, and it is still really hard for small businesses to get loans, and very hard for people to get loans that don't have top notch credit. This is why the economy has been in a stall for so long. The banks are milking it for all it's worth, trying to force as many people into foreclosure as possible. This and the fact that very large corporations are not reinvesting in this country with the large profits they took in since 2010. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/12/10/173683/pro-business/

And on the other point you made, about what took place with all the bullshit in the wall street debacle, the answer is YES!! I read Matt Tabbi's book too, and I completely agree on all points, making me in no way shape or form, ready to believe in the Republican party as it exists today. But I also believe that the democrats aren't going to change the status quo of what is going on either, I mean it's like Tabbi said, the Dodd-Frank Act is a huge puff ball!! It's a joke what we are being fed, and how fast the news coverage went away (Orwell Roles in his Grave). Also don't forget to add about the multiple letter written to congress by Goldman asking for special privileged to over-ride the regulations on speculators at the end of his book, which was granted to them, which most likely is the reason behind to huge spike in gas prices. I remember Bernie Sander's did a clip on this in Congress. But to add to my difficulties in finding trust in the Democratic party are our policies on free trade, and how little is being done to raise any issue to fact of how bad these trade agreements are for the U.S.. Neither party is pulling for the heart of America anymore, being the middle class. But Obama is still by far the better choice IMO. Not only is the  Republican party absolutely nuts!!, in consideration to how much of an issue their making out of abortion, contraception, ect.. But they never took any responsibility for cause and effect of the deregulation that they have pushed so vehemently for in the past, but they are right back on the loud speaker pushing for the removal of the Dodd-Frank Act, with out offering up any kind of alternative, in fact they are blaming this lousy piece of watered down shit of regulation as part of the cause for the still slow recovery taking place. My hatred for that party runs extremely deep at this point. They seemed to be behind every piece of grandiose policy I can think of, although Clinton seemed to sign at least two of them through, like the one above and the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which really is the biggest cause for the out and out shitty media coverage we get, but also the tremendous need for donations from lobbyists in the major political realm today. I mean 40 billion in public funds for media coverage for public election coverage would still be going a long away. 

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 27, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
Job loses from the beginning of 2008 until the spring of 2009 already had past the 5 million mark. The TARP bailout didn't stop a thing, except a possible catastrophic market crash. It's beyond ridiculous to think that any President was going to take office, and then proceed to pull a magic wand out of his ass, and bring the economy back in less than 4 years. The republicans are always asking for Obama to take responsibility, but as far as I am concerned, this is still mostly their responsibility.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 01:06:31 AM
This is the thing about your post that I struggle with the most: I just don't understand why it should matter who is at fault (especially when both parties are equally guilty). As I said above, I think this entire premise (that it was all the GOP's fault to begin with) is completely flawed but that really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is who is trying to make it better (hint: it's neither). Obviously he walked in to a difficult situation. Yes, external events have hampered global growth. So what? He's the president, not the night manager at Bob's Big Boy. Bush had 9/11, Clinton had a massive recession himself, FDR is widely considered a great president (not be me, but by people) and he had polio fercrissakes (and something else, I forget). In 4 yrs, I don't know that I've seen any leadership or accountability out of Obama, so to me, "not my fault" is not a legitmiate answer.

I am out of time for now, but read this about some of the responsibility about the very fast accumulation onto the deficit in 2009.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 02, 2012, 12:35:37 AM
Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
I agree with you here, on the point that Obama should have waited to try and nail down something on healthcare. He should have re-regulated Wall Street first and foremost, people were beyond fuming at what went down, and definitely would have been behind the idea of the possible reimplementation of something along the lines of the Glass-Steagall Act. I feel this was a huge fail on his part, and I'm still really pissed about it.

I agree the public would have supported stricter reforms out of the gate. And I too was confused that he chose not to address it, especially after he appointed such reform minded trusted officials like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner (random/depressing side note: widely believed/known that Goldman is holding a corner office for him next to another former ex-FRBNY president).

On the other hand, the one thing no one who blames the repeal of G-S for the crisis can explain to me is that why were the most stable banks during the crisis the ones that took advantage of the new commercial/investment/insurance clusterfuck? I mean, look at the institutions that failed: Bear, Lehman, Indymac, WaMu, AIG, Wachovia, Merril Lynch (not to mention Fannie and Freddie which if I was going to assign blame would likely bear the brunt). These were all companies that would have been legal prior to GLB so even if G-S hadn't been repealed there's nothing to suggest to me that the sub-prime crisis would have been averted if not for the evil Republicans and their deregulatory hijinks.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
This is one of the biggest reasons I considered myself as an Independent.

You do?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
Both parties were behind the deregulation of the stock market, but you should really admit, that it was the Republican party that started the concept of deregulation under Reagan, and continued to push for more and more deregulatory policies until the bottom dropped out after Clinton signed the Financial Reform Act.

OK, look, if you want to continue to blame Republicans for being the most responsible that's your prerogative. Here's a couple of reasons why I don't make that same value judgment:

-- Clinton signed it
-- Clinton's top advisors heavily lobbied for the bill - prior Treasury Secretary (and 25 yr Goldman vet) Robert Rubin, his deputy/successor (who took over after Rubin took a gig with Citi) serial deregulator Larry Summers (who was the point man on stopping the CFTC from regulating OTC derivatives which, IMO, was/continues to have far more dire effects on the economy than GLB), and the Maestro himself
-- It's been rumored that the day before a conference deal was announced when Congress was gridlocked over how to merge the House and Senate versions (ahhh, simpler times before we were so polarized), Sandy fucking Weill himself called Clinton and got him on board since the clock was ticking on Citigroup who had already violated G-S by its merger with Travelers but was promptly given a waiver by the Fed (remember, in his day, Clinton was one goddamn slick muthafucka; he definitely did not subscribe to the Obama school of "leading from behind")
-- GLB passed in the House 343-86 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/h276), with Ds voting for it 2-1. Notable ayes: Steny Hoyer, Anthony Weiner (weiner, LOL), Paul Ryan, 27/31 from NY and 12/13 in NJ (Ds & Rs...hey, they know who they work for!), Earl Blumenauer (sorry, Hicks); Pelosi had the courage not to vote on a bill that was assured easy passage. Nos: Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Sherrod Brown (usual suspects)
-- After a party line vote in the Senate (54-44 w/ only 1 D for), the final bill coming out of conference passed the Senate 90-8 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s354). So after bravely standing together in opposition to the original Senate version, 36 Ds changed their votes on the final bill (I'd love to know what made it so much more palatable; surely it had nothing to do with the fact they knew it was going to pass both houses and go to committee). Yeas: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, (sorry, aphineday), Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, a veritable who's who in Democratic Financial Services whores.
-- The Center for Responsible Politics found that members who supported the measure received about twice as much money from Financial Services than those who opposed (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/money-and-votes-aligned-in-con.html).

Quote
There was little difference in the money collected by Republicans who supported the bill and those who opposed it; the 255 GOP supporters collected an average of  $179,175, while the opponents in their ranks-and there were only five of them-collected $171,890. On the Democratic side, however, there was a wide gulf, as the graph indicates. The 195 Democrats who supported the Financial Services Modernization Act had received an average of $179,920 in the two years and 10 months leading up to its passage, while the 59 Democrats who opposed it received just $83,475.

Also, an interesting table on that page of the largest beneficiaries of the Financial Services sector from '89-'08 (a little out of date but makes the point):













Name                               Total                   GLB Vote
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)$31,040,714n/a
Barack Obama (D-IL)$27,942,613n/a
John McCain (R-AZ)$26,593,411A
John Kerry (D-MA)$19,094,828Y
Chris Dodd $13,204,556Y
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)$12,795,946Y
Joe Lieberman (I-CT)$9,972,924Y
Arlen Specter (R-PA)$5,652,910Y
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) $4,678,993n/a
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)           $4,669,788Y

I hear a lot about how Obama hasn't been able to do anything because the GOP stands in his way on everything he does. But when the tables were turned and the Dems had a chance to stand up to the GOP deregulatory mania that you lament, they didn't just cower in fear, they called shotgun. You say the GOP is worse because they were the ones pushing it. That's fine. But I don't see it that way in light of the fact that the Dems (led by St. Willy) were right there with them sucking from the Vampire Squid's teat.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
I think that it should also be noted that Clinton did veto this bill twice during his two terms in office before he signed it through in 1999, but it was continued to be railroaded  down his throat by the Republican led House and Senate during his last 4 years in office.

I'm not sure I've ever heard this before. Link-y?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
Your first question is a doozy!! "what does a person's home value have to do with jobs?" Well it's all about equity, no one is going to invest in homes that have lost 35% of their value, unless it's absolutely necessary

Shit, you mean there's not going to be another empty development of new homes sprouting up in the dessert in NV or in sunny land-locked Orlando? Whatever will we do without more housing inventory?!?!

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
home values fuel a great percentage of our economy in so many ways, that I couldn't ramble enough off from the top of my head to cover even half of it.

Why do home values fuel a percentage of our economy? Is it because if home values go up people can borrow deeper and deeper against their equity, "fueling" the economy through nothing but a surge in invented money, postponing (but not preventing) another collapse as debt levels grow ever more unsustainable to prop up the phony credit driven economy? Because personally I count that as a net positive consequence of the housing crisis.

Here's what I don't get about you, Poster. You say you want to end the Fed but the ideas that you put forth seem to be a continuation of the demand side, centrally planned version of the economy that we have experienced since the '70s. I'm just so confused why you want to end the Fed if you believe that the the outcomes they achieve are so acceptable or even desirable? Who would control interest rates and money supply and the flow of credit to do the attain the system you are describing in a Fed-less economy?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
And it goes a lot further than just how a person's home value affects jobs in the U.S.. First of all if 4 million houses+ go into foreclosure, than not to many people are buying homes, this means that the entire housing industry came to a grinding halt. New homes were no longer being built, putting so many major construction workers, carpenters, architects, realtors sub-contractors, sales people across the board, every small business that sells goods for homes (appliances, flooring, wood, plumbing, furniture, ect...), basically everyone that you can think of who would be employed by the building of new homes, and remodeling lost their jobs, not to mention big commercial projects and building died along with it. Anyone who invested in property when shit was thriving thinking it was money in the bank lost their shirts, but ironically it still turned out to be money in the bank, only it was the banks money, after we bailed them out of all their overhead.  This was the number one reason for the amount of job loses that this country incurred.

Foreclosures were the #1 reason for the job losses?

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
On top of all that the banks were no longer giving out loans to help fuel the economy, and it is still really hard for small businesses to get loans, and very hard for people to get loans that don't have top notch credit.

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!!!

Sorry, I didn't mean to get all CAPS-y on you, but one of the most important lessons from the crisis should have been that lending standards were unacceptably low and so a restriction in credit was expected, virtuous even. Did standards swing to far back the other way? Probably. But credit-driven growth is not real, it's mostly inflation and a distribution of wealth to the top of the economic food chain, something we all agree needs to be changed. Sorry, but I just hate to see people bemoan a retraction in credit coming out of a debt crisis (especially a fellow Independent who wants to end the Fed). Europe is trying to save their debt laden economies with more debt, and it is failing in front of our eyes. We (and by we I mean the world) NEED to deleverage and start over because we are now suffering the consequences of trying to grow an economy through fictional paper and unpayable debt.

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
This is why the economy has been in a stall for so long. The banks are milking it for all it's worth, trying to force as many people into foreclosure as possible. This and the fact that very large corporations are not reinvesting in this country with the large profits they took in since 2010. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/12/10/173683/pro-business/

ThinkProgress?!? Oh, now I get where you are coming from. You should have just said that to begin with!!!

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
And on the other point you made, about what took place with all the bullshit in the wall street debacle, the answer is YES!! I read Matt Tabbi's book too, and I completely agree on all points, making me in no way shape or form, ready to believe in the Republican party as it exists today. But I also believe that the democrats aren't going to change the status quo of what is going on either, I mean it's like Tabbi said, the Dodd-Frank Act is a huge puff ball!! It's a joke what we are being fed, and how fast the news coverage went away (Orwell Roles in his Grave). Also don't forget to add about the multiple letter written to congress by Goldman asking for special privileged to over-ride the regulations on speculators at the end of his book, which was granted to them, which most likely is the reason behind to huge spike in gas prices. I remember Bernie Sander's did a clip on this in Congress. But to add to my difficulties in finding trust in the Democratic party are our policies on free trade, and how little is being done to raise any issue to fact of how bad these trade agreements are for the U.S.. Neither party is pulling for the heart of America anymore, being the middle class. But Obama is still by far the better choice IMO. Not only is the  Republican party absolutely nuts!!, in consideration to how much of an issue their making out of abortion, contraception, ect.. But they never took any responsibility for cause and effect of the deregulation that they have pushed so vehemently for in the past, but they are right back on the loud speaker pushing for the removal of the Dodd-Frank Act, with out offering up any kind of alternative, in fact they are blaming this lousy piece of watered down shit of regulation as part of the cause for the still slow recovery taking place. My hatred for that party runs extremely deep at this point. They seemed to be behind every piece of grandiose policy I can think of, although Clinton seemed to sign at least two of them through, like the one above and the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which really is the biggest cause for the out and out shitty media coverage we get, but also the tremendous need for donations from lobbyists in the major political realm today. I mean 40 billion in public funds for media coverage for public election coverage would still be going a long away. 

I didn't read Taibbi's book but I'm not sure why it would have made you less likely to believe the GOP since he's usually an equal opportunity offender. And I REALLY don't believe that Goldman caused a huge spike in gas prices. And I guess you are saying that Democrats are too in favor of free trade for your liking, implying that you would rather see more protectionist policies that would restrict the flow of goods & services in and out of the country under the presumption that doing so would "bring back American jobs" (you can probably imagine I wholeheartedly disagree with this point).

Quote from: Poster Nutbag on August 31, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
I am out of time for now, but read this about some of the responsibility about the very fast accumulation onto the deficit in 2009.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

As I've said, I honestly do not care who bears more responsibility. The only metric I used to determine who I support is if they are they making the current situation better. I don't need to read FactCheck.org to know that Mitt Romney is lying about something because he lies about everything (FactCheck.org, BTW, is as non-partisan as Media Matters or the Family Research Council).

But what has Obama done to fix it? I mean, the underlying message of that article to me is not that Obama didn't massively increase spending, it's that he's done nothing at all. Like, absolutely nothing. And how could he influence spending? He hasn't passed a budget throughout his entire term, including when the Ds controlled both Houses. That alone shows me that, aside from the stimulus and the woefully ignorant Cash for Clunkers, most of the added spending (whatever that may be) has come in the form of increased regulations since that would be the one area the executive branch could boost spending without passing a plan for spending priorities.

To me, he has been the definition of the status quo in every sense of the word. On everything from drones to dispensaries to immigration to torture to cronyism to interventionism (although I know the Freakie one will disagree with me here). No accountability for a single person despite concrete evidence of the fallacy of the modern financial system. In my opinion, it's been a spectacular FAIL.

So while I don't believe Romney should be president, I in no way believe Obama should either. YMMV
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 04, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
the Dems are definitely a much more positive group than the GOP.

Ram Emanuel gave a great speech on leadership
Patrick, and Castro gave very good speeches and addressed a lot of issues the GOP raised
Michelle knocked it out of the park

favorite quotes
Castro - Romney said the most important thing is to start a business, even if you have to borrow $ from your parents. Why didn't I think of that?
Patrick- Romney was more interest in having the job (as governor) than doing the job
Michelle - we admire success in others, but we want everyone to have a fair share.
               we believe that if you walk through the door of opportunity, you don't slam it shut. you reach back and help the person behind you.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 05, 2012, 10:05:54 AM
Quote from: slslbs on September 04, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
the Dems are definitely a much more positive group than the GOP.
 
Ram Emanuel gave a great speech on leadership
Patrick, and Castro gave very good speeches and addressed a lot of issues the GOP raised
Michelle knocked it out of the park
 
favorite quotes
Castro - Romney said the most important thing is to start a business, even if you have to borrow $ from your parents. Why didn't I think of that?
Patrick- Romney was more interest in having the job (as governor) than doing the job
Michelle - we admire success in others, but we want everyone to have a fair share. 
               we believe that if you walk through the door of opportunity, you don't slam it shut. you reach back and help the person behind you.

Well, I think it's probably true that any incumbent party would seek a more "positive" message than the challengers, especially in an political environment with such high levels of dissatisfaction. But I'm not sure that I'd agree with your assessment that it was in fact more positive. I heard a lot of underhanded "the Republicans are unpatriotic" (I remember a simpler time when the Dems took offense to the GOP using the "U" word), a lot of "Mitt Romney is not like you" (you know who pulls coffee tables out of the trash and drives rusted out cars? Regular people like Barack, not rich dudes like Mitt Romney), and a LOT of talk of Swiss and Cayman bank accounts. It may have been more subtle than the Reps, but it was no less insidious IMO.

I also heard a great deal about how the Dems believe people should be able to marry whomever they want, so much so you'd think Obama actually helped advance that cause rather than say "Well I'm cool with it but you know, if you folks here in NC want to discriminate against people for wanting to express their love for each other, well that's cool too."
 
As for the speeches, I agree Patrick and Michelle delivered excellent speeches (at least in style, not so much in substance), but I thought Castro was really poor. He seemed like he was doing a bad Obama impersonation throughout his speech. And he had a goofy smile on his face like Jimmy Fallon in any SNL skit that kinda bugged me. I missed Rahm (although I am surprised at how he is embraced given his past as a greedy investment banker who was once on Goldman's payroll while fundraising for Clinton). But that Martin O'Malley speech was one of the most dooshchill inducing things I've ever seen, especially the "forward not back" call-and-response segment. I also found it interesting that one of the Dems true stars, Cory Booker, was hidden in the 6 o'clock hour as pennance for his "naueating" comments a couple of months ago.
 
But here's the biggest problem I had with the theme last night: it completely and utterly ignores any semblence of today's fiscal realities. Over and over I heard how we need to "invest" in teachers and firefighters and police as if there were no state/local budget crises or underfunded pensions weighing on these "investments". No, the only reason we can't have our cake and eat it too is because of the right-wing extremism. I just find it pretty goddamn ironic that the Dems want to attack the GOP for lying as they sit there refusing to confront the most obvious truth facing modern gov'ts: that there is no more money because politicians on both sides have for years handed out "free" benefits in return for votes. So if the Dems want to claim the "adult in the room" banner, they'll have to get serious about how we will ever get out of the debt crisis we are currently being consumed by (crossed $16T yesterday...YAY!!!).

I am excited for Clinton tonight though. Say what you will, but that slick motherfucker has a way of connecting with an audience.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 05, 2012, 05:38:10 PM
agree about O'Malley

and - you're right. I agree with the philosophy of "investing" on education and infrastructure - it's clear that we need both.
but, there is no mention of how it will be paid for.

imo the pentagon budget has more than a little extra wiggle room, but try and say that in public if you're a politician and see what happens.

I'm hoping that BO will mention something specific Thursday night (but I'm not holding my breath). I had to LOL at Mitt not releasing his plan because he doesn't want it to be scrutinized by the Dems.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on September 06, 2012, 12:00:21 AM
Repeal the 22nd Amendment, bring back Bill!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
He really is a master. Supposedly his teleprompter froze up halfway into the speech and he was just winging it. For 48 mins. We'll see what the fact checkers have to say tomorrow, but there's no doubt I'd vote for Clinton over the two clowns we got.

::insert obligatory Clinton-Sandra Fluke joke here::
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on September 06, 2012, 09:26:58 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
Clinton

Reminded me of this episode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhE0xdFHqfI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhE0xdFHqfI)

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 06, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
anyone see Sr Simone, the Nun on the Bus?
a reminder that "pro life" is much more than just being against abortion.

I liked what Warren and Fluke had to say, too.

As for Clinton, that must have been the best speech I've heard in well over 20 years.

yes, I'd definitely vote for him again.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 02:22:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 06, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
anyone see Sr Simone, the Nun on the Bus?
a reminder that "pro life" is much more than just being against abortion.

Like opposing drone strikes that kill 13 civilians including women and children (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/03/world/meast/yemen-drone-strike/)?

The Dems used Fluke as as a political prop once and I'm not surprised to see they weren't afraid to do it again. IMO, her speech was poorly delivered and looser with the "facts" than Paul Ryan's (but of course we can't attack an innocent civilian for her role in a highly partisan ceremonial JO session). I did like that she got top billing over Strickland and van Hollen, though (who were both awful in their own rights); that must have really bugged them.

I thought Warren (the original "You didn't build that!") was really, really awful but that's kinda my overall opinion of her to begin with.

Clinton's prepared remarks = 3,000 words; delivered nearly 6,000. The guy is a machine.

Also, sls, Politico takes issue with your claim that Dems are more positive (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80810.html?hp=t2_3), finding that while GOP attacks Obama as a bad president, Dems attack Romney as an unpatriotic tax dodger who wears magic underwear.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 06, 2012, 02:34:48 PM
yea, but the Dems comments about Romney are much funnier
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 06, 2012, 02:34:48 PM
yea, but the Dems comments about Romney are much funnier

Well yeah, they have all the Hollywood writers working for them.

Also, has John Kerry always delivered speeches like this? He sounds so forced and inauthentic; hard to believe he couldn't connect with voters (although he was the first presidential vote I ever cast after skipping the 2000 throwdown).

"Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off than 4 yrs ago!" Really?

ETA: a "Mitt Romney was for it before he was against joke", there you go!! (too bad half the people in the room don't know what he was talking about)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: pcr3 on September 06, 2012, 09:13:38 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 06, 2012, 02:34:48 PM
yea, but the Dems comments about Romney are much funnier

Well yeah, they have all the Hollywood writers working for them.

Also, has John Kerry always delivered speeches like this? He sounds so forced and inauthentic; hard to believe he couldn't connect with voters (although he was the first presidential vote I ever cast after skipping the 2000 throwdown).

"Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off than 4 yrs ago!" Really?

ETA: a "Mitt Romney was for it before he was against joke", there you go!! (too bad half the people in the room don't know what he was talking about)

Hmmm...I thought that was one of the better speeches I've seen Kerry do.  I suppose that just shows how we are all subject to confirmation bias.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on September 06, 2012, 09:24:12 PM
I lol'd at his Rocky IV joke.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 06, 2012, 11:37:14 PM
Meh. That sounded awfully familiar.

I wonder how tomorrow's jobs number (which he got today) weighed on the speech. I can't decide if it was tempered because he knows it's gonna disappoint or if he was just on cruise because he knows there's a big boost coming his way (the ECB buying Europe doesn't hurt either). But it just felt a little stale to me. Fuck, Biden's was better (at least as good).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 07, 2012, 05:46:52 AM
I thought it was good. Short on specifics, as expected.

It's tough to follow Clinton.

The job #s today will be key
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 07, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
Quote from: slslbs on September 07, 2012, 05:46:52 AM
I thought it was good. Short on specifics, as expected.

It's tough to follow Clinton.

The job #s today will be key

Yeah, but there was talk that he was going to get specific (like Clinton masterfully did) all day yesterday. A lot of speculation that he would come out for Simpson-Bowles. Shit, he even made fun of Romney for not giving any specifics and then didn't follow his own ridicule. And it all just seemed eerily the same as 2008 to me: most important election of our time; they got us into this mess in the first place; we invest in you, they invest in rich people.

I agree it's tough to follow Clinton, but that doesn't exactly make a great bumper sticker.
 
More importantly, jobs # is terrible (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm):+96k on expectations of +130k; a loss of 15k manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate did decline to 8.1% but that's only because people are leaving the labor force (if labor participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, it's be 11.2%). I guess that explains the "we need more time" theme from last night.
 
Of course, the kicker for Obama is that this pretty much paves the way for QE3, which would be a huge boost to stocks (not the real economy, only the one that makes people feel like things are better).
 
Now it gets interesting!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: tet on September 07, 2012, 11:21:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 07, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
Quote from: slslbs on September 07, 2012, 05:46:52 AM
I thought it was good. Short on specifics, as expected.

It's tough to follow Clinton.

The job #s today will be key

Yeah, but there was talk that he was going to get specific (like Clinton masterfully did) all day yesterday. A lot of speculation that he would come out for Simpson-Bowles. Shit, he even made fun of Romney for not giving any specifics and then didn't follow his own ridicule. And it all just seemed eerily the same as 2008 to me: most important election of our time; they got us into this mess in the first place; we invest in you, they invest in rich people.

I agree it's tough to follow Clinton, but that doesn't exactly make a great bumper sticker.

More importantly, jobs # is terrible (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm):+96k on expectations of +130k; a loss of 15k manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate did decline to 8.1% but that's only because people are leaving the labor force (if labor participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, it's be 11.2%). I guess that explains the "we need more time" theme from last night.

Of course, the kicker for Obama is that this pretty much paves the way for QE3, which would be a huge boost to stocks (not the real economy, only the one that makes people feel like things are better).

Now it gets interesting!

that's why all this talk of QE3 is so goddamn annoying... these fucking stock brokers and investment bankers really have their heads up their asses if they think that QE3 is going to do ANYTHING, or that it's actually a good idea for either the short or long term!  virtually no experts think it's worth doing, and obviously nor does the Fed or it would have done it already - they just keep hinting that it is still possible so the morons on Wall St. can get a lease for a new Ducati and not worry about it. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 07, 2012, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: tet on September 07, 2012, 11:21:49 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 07, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
Quote from: slslbs on September 07, 2012, 05:46:52 AM
I thought it was good. Short on specifics, as expected.

It's tough to follow Clinton.

The job #s today will be key

Yeah, but there was talk that he was going to get specific (like Clinton masterfully did) all day yesterday. A lot of speculation that he would come out for Simpson-Bowles. Shit, he even made fun of Romney for not giving any specifics and then didn't follow his own ridicule. And it all just seemed eerily the same as 2008 to me: most important election of our time; they got us into this mess in the first place; we invest in you, they invest in rich people.

I agree it's tough to follow Clinton, but that doesn't exactly make a great bumper sticker.

More importantly, jobs # is terrible (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm):+96k on expectations of +130k; a loss of 15k manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate did decline to 8.1% but that's only because people are leaving the labor force (if labor participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, it's be 11.2%). I guess that explains the "we need more time" theme from last night.

Of course, the kicker for Obama is that this pretty much paves the way for QE3, which would be a huge boost to stocks (not the real economy, only the one that makes people feel like things are better).

Now it gets interesting!

that's why all this talk of QE3 is so goddamn annoying... these fucking stock brokers and investment bankers really have their heads up their asses if they think that QE3 is going to do ANYTHING, or that it's actually a good idea for either the short or long term!  virtually no experts think it's worth doing, and obviously nor does the Fed or it would have done it already - they just keep hinting that it is still possible so the morons on Wall St. can get a lease for a new Ducati and not worry about it.

Wall St doesn't have their heads up their asses because they know exactly what MOAR QE will do and it is the only thing that matters to them: boost financial profits so they can get a fat bonus at the end of the year. And really, if that's all that matters to Wall St, their muppets (central bankers, politicians on both sides) will continue to do thier bidding.
 
In the short term, it will provide a boost stocks and you better believe people will be lining up to refi a 30yr mortgage at 3%. And this is all that the demand siders care about: perpetuating the illusion that you are richer (if only on paper) so that you go out and spend more (preferrably with your hard earned "savings" but feel free to charge that shit too). They never stop to think that people may actually use their new found "wealth" to pay down their existing debt or save for the future. Nope, if you can save $100 a month on your mortgage you'll obviously run out and buy (better yet, finance!!) a new TV or computer or (American) car. In the long term, never-ending monetization of structural problems will undoubtedly lead to economic ruin.
 
As for experts, I think there's a lot more mainstream support for it than you suggest: here's the director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research saying "We Need Quantitative Easing to Raise Employment (http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-more-quantitative-easing/we-need-quantitative-easing-to-raise-inflation)"; here's the chair of the UCLA Econ dept saying "Central banks should do much more (http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/?s=Roger+Farmer#axzz22mp4RAYY)"; and let's not forget Krugman here (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/plutocrats-and-printing-presses/), here (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/24/how-end-depression/?pagination=false), and here (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/bernanke-wimps-out/) (note I don't necessarily consider these boobs "experts," but some people do).
 
And it's not that the Fed hasn't done it because they don't think it will work: 4 Fed Presidents have openly supported unlimited bond buying (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-03/fed-moves-toward-open-ended-bond-purchases-to-satisfy-bernanke.html), stopping only when some predefined metric (at least I hope it's predefined) is met, e.g., unemployment under 7%. But their hands have kind of been tied because every time it looks like it's on the table a better than expected jobs # comes in or the market just soars based on the simple expectation that the Fed will act. And because the public has become more skeptical (thankfully) of these "virtuous" programs, Bernanke's not dumb enough to try it while the S&P is at 1400 (although we'll see next week).
 
But I do agree with you that they keep trying to head fake the economy into gear by saying "Don't worry, we'll do something if we need to" (that's essentially what the ECB has done this entire year, including yesterday when the Dow went up +250pts). And they may be able to continue to muddle along for a while, making people feel like things are getting better or maybe they'll find a new asset bubble to inflate (can you say student loan securitization!) and get the economy moving again. For a while at least. But until we address the very real fiscal and structural imbalances that have been created over decades of malinvestment, wrong-headed intervention and political cowardice, we are simply setting ourselves up for another massive failure. And the more faith we put in the wisdom of the central planners to save us from the necessary correction with fictional paper gains, the more devastating the comedown is going to be.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 08, 2012, 09:40:21 AM
an interesting look at Gov Romney's record

http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/09/05/governor-romney-faced-similar-economic-situation-obama-with-similar-results/S2cHk3JRGn0hHRnbEFuh2M/story.html

QuoteAs governor, Romney faced similar economic situation as Obama -- with similar results

E-mail
By Megan Woolhouse and Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts economy was in freefall in 2002, bleeding thousands of jobs each month as the collapse of the technology bubble unraveled the state's most important industry. In just a year, the state unemployment rate had nearly doubled, with the likelihood that tens of thousands of technology and other jobs would be lost forever.

GRAPHIC

Economic record in Mass.
Into this shattering recession -- from which the state has yet to fully recover -- rode Mitt Romney, fresh from saving the scandal-plagued Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and promising another turnaround for Massachusetts. In his gubernatorial campaign, he touted his business experience as the cure for the state's deep recession, saying a "lifetime in the private sector" had taught him how to create jobs. He styled himself as a "CEO governor" and the state's top salesman who would use his corporate connections to bring new companies and new jobs to Massachusetts.
Governor Deval Patrick, speaking Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention, assailed his predecessor's economic record, pointing to anemic job growth and deep budget cuts that affected education, transportation, and other programs that support the state's economy. Romney's campaign responded that the former governor turned a wide budget deficit into a surplus, held the line on taxes, and left office with fewer unemployed in Massachusetts than today.

In many ways, Romney inherited a state economy in 2003 similar to the one President Barack Obama found entering the White House in 2009, one marked by a deep recession, huge job losses, and a widening budget deficit. And like Obama, Romney struggled mightily, delivering at best a modest recovery dictated less by his political leadership than by sprawling global forces beyond his control.

Like Obama, Romney could also point to an economy that was much improved from the worst of the recession. But, as with the US economy today, progress was slow, painstaking, and for many, disappointing.

At the end of his term, Romney could claim a small net job gain and a lower unemployment rate, but the pace of job growth lagged the nation badly and only a huge outflow of Massachusetts workers to faster growing states kept the unemployment rate from climbing higher.

It is not quite the image of a turnaround painted by Romney's presidential campaign.

In a statement, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said the former Massachusetts governor added "tens of thousands of new jobs," lowered the state's unemployment rate, and balanced the state budget every year without borrowing or raising taxes.

"His sound management and fiscally responsible leadership resulted in a state credit rating upgrade and economic prosperity in the Commonwealth that has not been seen since he left office," he said.

But Romney's handling of the Massachusetts' economy was more complicated than the unemployment rate or state's credit rating would indicate. His budgetary and economic decisions offer insight into his personal and political priorities. There were unexpected foes, victories, and lost opportunities.

* * *

Romney took office in 2003, in the midst of one of the state's deepest recessions since World War II. More than 200,000 jobs disappeared in Massachusetts after the dot-com bubble burst -- 45 percent, more than the state lost during the recent "Great Recession."

At the time, no one could foresee how deep the damage would run or how long it would take for the state to regain its economic footing.

"It was clear the state was having significant difficulties and that what had been a boom period had come to an end," Eric A. Kriss, a former Bain Capital colleague of Romney's who later became the state's chief fiscal officer. "As you dip into the details you are amazed and astounded and depressed all at the same time."

Kriss and a small coterie of aides holed up in a borrowed State House office and began pouring over the state's balance sheets shortly after Romney's election. Kriss quickly discovered that the state's annual budget, set to run out in June of the following year, was dangerously out of balance and likely to yield a budget gap of $3 billion during the fiscal year to come.

Romney spent much of his first two years in office focusing on the state's budget crisis. Romney succeeded in closing the budget shortfall without raising the state sales or income tax -- a notable accomplishment. Yet his approach triggered criticism.

Romney largely balanced the budget by cutting state aid to cities and towns, many of which responded by raising property taxes. In his first two years in office, Romney presided over a 15 percent cut in spending on unrestricted aid to cities and towns; he also cut more than 4 percent of funding for local schools.

Largely as a result, the average local property tax bill jumped more than $700 a year, or about 24 percent, to $3,962 from $3,206. By the end of Romney's term, the combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts grew to 10.6 percent of income from 10 percent, according to the Taxpayers Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Michael C. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded research group, said the magnitude of the deficit required the cuts in local aid, which he described as a fair, if not dynamic, strategy deployed by most governors in times of crisis.

"In broad strokes, he did pretty much what every other governor has done -- he raised revenues and cut spending," Widmer said. "It's probably the right thing to do, to have a balanced approach."

Romney also took on natural allies in the business community when he undertook an effort to change the business tax code by closing what he called "loopholes." It was a controversial step, but Romney said the rules allowed many companies to avoid paying taxes at a time when the state could hardly afford it. Some banks, for example, avoided taxes by sheltering holdings in Real Estate Investment Trusts.

Business leaders opposed the effort, viewing it as a tax increase. One revision, for example, required large retailers to pay sales taxes on the printing costs of direct mail promotional advertising, a move that increased their taxes by about $15 million annually.

Romney supporters, such as David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank, said the strategy was ill-conceived and at odds with efforts to change Massachusetts' reputation as a state with a high business costs.

"It impacted the state's competitiveness negatively," Tuerck said recently. "Higher taxes discourage corporations from investing in the state and creating jobs."

Romney also increased government fees on a host of services, from marriage licenses to property deeds, raising another $375 million annually.

Kriss defended the move, arguing that many fees had not been adjusted for inflation in decades. And, he said, closing the so-called loopholes affected a relatively small number of companies that were eluding the original intent of the tax laws.

"It was not in any way a tax increase," he said. "It was a clarification of what you could do and what you couldn't do."

***

On the campaign trail in 2002, Romney promised a jobs creation program "second to none in the history of the state," pledging to use his corporate connections to lure chief executives across America to Massachusetts.

The results fell far short of the promise. During Romney's four years in office, the state added a net 31,000 jobs, a growth rate of less than 1 percent compared to 5 percent nationally during the same period. State unemployment fell to 4.7 percent from a peak of 6 percent, but remained above the US average, then 4.4 percent.

Meanwhile, as the state recovery lagged other parts of the country, a net 233,000 people -- 3.5 percent of the population -- left the state, many seeking jobs elsewhere.

"He was going to be the number one salesperson," said Brian Gilmore, spokesman for Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state's largest business advocacy group. "I don't think that turned out successfully."

As with balancing the budget, Romney took a conventional approach to economic development, moving to reduce some business regulations and using taxpayer money, in the form of incentive programs, to try to stimulate job growth. Widmer said Romney undertook few initiatives that could have fundamentally altered the economic equation for the state, such as policies aimed at lowering Massachusetts' electricity costs, which are among the highest in the nation.

Widmer pointed to William Weld, another Republican governor who took office during a recession and overhauled the state's worker compensation system. It took a decade for those reforms to take full effect, but worker compensation costs for business plunged by two-thirds and helped make the state more competitive.

Romney did not have the patience for tackling issues that might only pay off in the long-term, Widmer said.

"His economic record was uninspired," Widmer said. "They never developed an economic strategy nor implemented a coherent set of initiatives that would improve the state's business climate."

Others chafed at Romney's frequent out of state trips as he tested the waters for his first presidential run. Despite his pledge to be the state's top salesman, he tried to woo Republican Party conservatives by publicly bashing the state's liberal politics and emphasizing its generous unemployment insurance benefits -- raising a red flag to firms interested in relocating here.

"I was very shocked to hear our governor on the road basically saying Massachusetts is a terrible place to do business," said David Begelfer, chief executive of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, a commercial real estate trade group.

David A. Tibbetts, a former state director of economic development under two Republican governors, Weld and A. Paul Cellucci, said Romney seemed more concerned with his presidential ambitions than the nitty gritty of local economic development. Tibbetts, now president of the Merrimack Valley Economic Development Council in North Andover, cited an effort by local business officials to get Romney's administration to use federal highway funds to build a new interchange on Interstate 93. The effort would have opened new land for development, Tibbetts said, but Romney showed little interest.

"People had very high hopes for him as governor. He's extremely bright, talented, and involved in business," Tibbetts said. "In the end, he showed no loyalty to the state he was elected to run."

Romney was able to claim some successes attracting business, including the expansions of Swiss dental implant maker, Straumann Group, in Andover and pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co., of Whitehouse Station, N.J. in Boston and Novartis AG of Switzerland in Cambridge.

One of his biggest wins came near the end of his term in 2006, when Massachusetts won a bidding war with other states, convincing pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb to build a $750 million plant at the former Fort Devens army base.

Romney touted the victory at a press conference, saying the state, with approval by the Legislature, had offered $60 million in incentives to the company to build its plant in Massachusetts, where it would eventually employ as many as 550 workers.

But records show the state only required Bristol-Myers Squibb to hire 350 workers to receive the tax breaks. And less than two months after Romney left office, MassDevelopment, a quasi-public development agency led by a Romney appointee, finalized an agreement reducing Bristol-Myers Squibb's property taxes by about $35 million over 20 years, bringing total incentives to more than $100 million.

The deal provided one of the biggest tax incentive packages in state history. And it meant that the state would ultimately pay about $250,000 for each of the 400 jobs that exist at the plant today.

"That's a little bit hard to justify," said Northeastern University law professor Peter Enrich, who has studied incentives extensively. "The reason these companies come to Massachusetts is there's already a critical mass of companies in the biotech area here, and there has been for 20 to 30 years."

* * *

In June, just six days after a dismal national jobs report, Romney's campaign introduced a new 30-second TV advertisement.

"As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade," a voice intones over images of the Massachusetts State House and Romney visiting various employers and talking with workers. "From day one as president Mitt Romney's strong leadership will make all the difference on jobs."

As he did in his gubernatorial campaign, Romney has invoked the image of a turnaround expert again and again, portraying himself as a leader ready to confront US budget and jobs woes. Yet the advertisement creates an illusion at odds with reality: Massachusetts experienced an anemic recovery, generating just enough job growth for Romney to claim he left the Massachusetts economy better than he found it.

The economic situations faced by Romney as governor and Obama as president appear remarkably similar. The recessions they inherited damaged the foundations of the respective economies, necessitating long, slow recoveries. In each of the downturns, job losses totalled about 6 percent of employment.

Their first year in office was marked by steep job losses, the subsequent years by disappointing job growth. Both sought increases in taxes and other revenues to help close budget deficits, and both used government money -- albeit on a vastly different scale -- to try to stimulate job growth.

Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston who has followed Romney's career for two decades, described Romney as an effective manager who has gone to great lengths to show that he was capable of saving Massachusetts' economy and can rescue the nation from its current doldrums and Obama's economic policies.

Yet Romney is more like his opponent than he will admit, Watanabe said, right down to his campaign theme, "Believe in America."

"Interestingly enough," Watanabe said, "it's a variation of 'hope and change.'"

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 08, 2012, 03:54:06 PM
and - in other news:

Ryan said the Federal Govt should not interfere in states medical mj (paging rjimbo)

Ryan also said he ran a marathon in just under 3 hours. In reality, his time was 4:01. As someone who has completed 4 marathons, I respect anyone who has run one (or attempted to run one), no matter what the finishing time is. But to change 4:01 to the 2:50s is, well, absurd.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the 1st or last time a politician lies about his past.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 10, 2012, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: slslbs on September 08, 2012, 03:54:06 PM
and - in other news:

Ryan said the Federal Govt should not interfere in states medical mj (paging rjimbo)

I saw that. Too bad I don't believe him after being burned by a certain young Senator who made an identical promise 4 yrs ago before waging an unprecedented war on legal medical marijuana dispensaries.

Also on Friday, in an interview on CNBC, Ryan failed to commit to replacing Bernanke when his 2nd term as Fed Chairman expires in Jan 2014. Sounds like his corporate masters gave him a talking to about even pretending he was serious about this whole sound money BS (which he wasn't to begin with).

Also, both sides' strategies for the next 60ish days seem to be pretty clear to me at this point: Romney is running on the fact that Obama promised a lot and failed to deliver (regardless of external events, Congressional opposition); Obama will be running on Bill Clinton (his dynamism, his jobs record). The hilarious/depressing similarity of these strategies is that both are trying distract from the fact that they don't have a goddamned clue how to address the enormous challenges that still lie ahead of us.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on September 11, 2012, 05:49:36 PM
AN UNPRECEDENTED WAR ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES!!!!


(that have pretty much only existed since he became president)

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on September 12, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Also, legal by whose definition? Certainly not the people actually doing the cracking down.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
Quote from: Hicks on September 11, 2012, 05:49:36 PM
AN UNPRECEDENTED WAR ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES!!!!


(that have pretty much only existed since he became president)

That's funny. It's not truthful considering the first dispensary opened in CA in 1997, but still pretty funny.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 12, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Also, legal by whose definition? Certainly not the people actually doing the cracking down.

How about it was legal by Senator Obama circa September 2008, but not so much by President Obama once he obtained office? But if you guys want to continue to accept that Obama had no choice but to become the most ardent drug warrior since Nixon, that's cool. We can agree to disagree.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on September 12, 2012, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
Quote from: Hicks on September 11, 2012, 05:49:36 PM
AN UNPRECEDENTED WAR ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES!!!!


(that have pretty much only existed since he became president)

That's funny. It's not truthful considering the first dispensary opened in CA in 1997, but still pretty funny.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 12, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Also, legal by whose definition? Certainly not the people actually doing the cracking down.

How about it was legal by Senator Obama circa September 2008, but not so much by President Obama once he obtained office? But if you guys want to continue to accept that Obama had no choice but to become the most ardent drug warrior since Nixon, that's cool. We can agree to disagree.

Well, as I've said before, I don't like it, and I wish it wasn't happening. But despite whatever statements or promises Senator Obama might have made on the campaign trail, federal law is federal law. I recall, from prior discussions, that we disagree over the extent to which Justice can or should be allowed to ignore violations of federal law and just turn a blind eye.

I do think it's interesting, though -- if you say that Obama is doing this by choice and not out of obligation, why would he be doing that? Why go so draconian on these pot peddlers? Whatever happened to Choom Gang Barry??
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on September 12, 2012, 09:47:42 AM
Sure there were a few in California, but they have become much more widespread in the last four years to the point that he was probably pressured by the DEA brass to do something about it.

So I really do think your statement is hyperbole. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 12, 2012, 09:40:05 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
Quote from: Hicks on September 11, 2012, 05:49:36 PM
AN UNPRECEDENTED WAR ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES!!!!


(that have pretty much only existed since he became president)

That's funny. It's not truthful considering the first dispensary opened in CA in 1997, but still pretty funny.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 12, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Also, legal by whose definition? Certainly not the people actually doing the cracking down.

How about it was legal by Senator Obama circa September 2008, but not so much by President Obama once he obtained office? But if you guys want to continue to accept that Obama had no choice but to become the most ardent drug warrior since Nixon, that's cool. We can agree to disagree.

Well, as I've said before, I don't like it, and I wish it wasn't happening. But despite whatever statements or promises Senator Obama might have made on the campaign trail, federal law is federal law. I recall, from prior discussions, that we disagree over the extent to which Justice can or should be allowed to ignore violations of federal law and just turn a blind eye.

I do think it's interesting, though -- if you say that Obama is doing this by choice and not out of obligation, why would he be doing that? Why go so draconian on these pot peddlers? Whatever happened to Choom Gang Barry??

And that's the problem. It doesn't really matter that Obama went back on his promise to direct scarce federal resources to other more pressing issues than prosecuting legal medical marijuana facilities (or on abuses of executive power, or greater transparency, or more humane apporach to immigration, or...). Of course politicians lie. Almost by definition, their job is to make promises that they have no intention of keeping in exchange for votes. And that, in and of itself, is a problem for me coming from a guy who promised to lead us away from politics as usual.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with his policies or the amount of GOP obstruction or on external events influencing his decisions, I don't know how there can be any disagreement that since his election he has been more concerned with politics than in being the leader he sold himself as. This is simply a political decision like all the others (because a Democrat can't be seen as soft on drugs going into an election year). There has been no Change and not a whole lot of Hope either. And that is the problem for me.

Quote from: Hicks on September 12, 2012, 09:47:42 AM
Sure there were a few in California, but they have become much more widespread in the last four years to the point that he was probably pressured by the DEA brass to do something about it.

So I really do think your statement is hyperbole. 

How is it hyperbole: Obama has overseen over 200 raids on state approved dispensaries, more than Bush's entire 8 years (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/).
 
To your point, though, you're right, there's not a lot of precedent. But we can unequivocally say one of two things: (1) Obama has been worse than Bush when it comes to the War on Drugs or (2) he's a pussy who's allowed the DEA to jam their over-armed, heavy-handed dicks down his throat. Which one is worse depends on your perspective (or party, I guess).

Hicks, I swear I am not asking you to vote against Obama. I am simply pointing out what I see as one of the major failings of what we all agree (at least I think we agree) has been a disappointing presidency. Would Romney be any better? Fuck no, despite what Paul Ryan says. But I don't think we should be afraid to call out politicians when they fuck up, even those who we support.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on September 12, 2012, 03:17:56 PM
Honestly with all of the problems in our society and fucked economic system, medical marijuana enforcement just isn't that important to me. 

It's not like it isn't readily available for people who need it in any of the states where it's legal.

I understand that the people who run these dispensaries are getting royally screwed and that sucks, but they should have been aware they were taking some measure of risk by engaging in behavior that is prohibited by Federal law.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on September 12, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
How is it hyperbole: Obama has overseen over 200 raids on state approved dispensaries, more than Bush's entire 8 years (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/).

That fucking headline alone is hyperbole. It's not as if this
(http://shapersofthe80s.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama11oblraid-wh.jpg)
is what happens every time there is a raid.

That's Oversight.

When the White House leans on the Justice department to prosecute or not prosecute certain types of crimes people cry out that Justice needs to be independent. But when the JD does something that people don't like, that blame the White House. Both sides of the aisle do it and it's a bullshit double standard.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 12, 2012, 04:26:07 PM
on a related note - just got the ballot choices in the mail, and among them are to allow medical mj in MA

I'm not personally affected one way or the other, but, honestly, it makes more sense to just legalize it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 12, 2012, 03:17:56 PM
Honestly with all of the problems in our society and fucked economic system, medical marijuana enforcement just isn't that important to me.  

It's not like it isn't readily available for people who need it in any of the states where it's legal.

I understand that the people who run these dispensaries are getting royally screwed and that sucks, but they should have been aware they were taking some measure of risk by engaging in behavior that is prohibited by Federal law.

I hear you. Look, I think medical marijuana is a farce. I don't doubt that it helps people and I wouldn't want to be the one denying people who are suffering something that helps them. But of course medical marijuana is just a bridge to get to the point where we can make the personal decision of whether or not you want to use marijuana recreationally like you can with alcohol or tobacco.
 
So it's not that I'm bothered by the dichotomy between state and federal laws vis a vis marijuana. It's that (a) Obama broke one of the most tangible promises he made in the campaign and (b) the immoral War on Drugs continues to ruin people's lives on a daily basis. We lecture the world about human rights abuses while we throw people in a cage for an individual choice that is supposed to be guaranteed and that we allow them to make for more drugs that are more dangerous to both the individual and the public at large. And that's a goddamned shame.

Quote from: rowjimmy on September 12, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 12, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
How is it hyperbole: Obama has overseen over 200 raids on state approved dispensaries, more than Bush's entire 8 years (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/).

That fucking headline alone is hyperbole. It's not as if this
(http://shapersofthe80s.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama11oblraid-wh.jpg)
is what happens every time there is a raid.

That's Oversight.

When the White House leans on the Justice department to prosecute or not prosecute certain types of crimes people cry out that Justice needs to be independent. But when the JD does something that people don't like, that blame the White House. Both sides of the aisle do it and it's a bullshit double standard.

I think it was pretty obvious when I said "Obama" I meant the administration. You're right, Obama isn't exclusively to blame for this tragedy any more than Clinton should get credit for a budget surplus (allegedly (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)). But if you don't believe the chief executive of the branch of gov't charged with enforcing the law has authority over enforcement priorities, then what does he have?
 
So in case it's not clear, I don't lay all of the blame on Obama. However, all the officials in his administration are appointed by him, so the only redress I have to right what I perceive to be a tremedmous wrong would be to vote him out if I believed the opposing candidate to be better (which of course I don't).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on September 13, 2012, 10:34:58 AM
Way to skip over the real point of my post in my last paragraph.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2012, 11:10:10 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 13, 2012, 10:34:58 AM
Way to skip over the real point of my post in my last paragraph.

What point, that there is a double standard in politics? What do you want, a Pulitzer?

Although I thought I did address it (perhaps indirectly) by pointing out the equally obvious point that there is no recourse over JoD officials except to vote for or against the president who, for better or worse, has influence over his appointees.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on September 13, 2012, 11:20:57 AM

The point is that you are flogging the wrong side of that standard.

The Justice Department is supposed to enforce the laws of the land.

That's it.

If the White House doesn't like that their job is to CHANGE THE LAWS.
Same goes for Congress.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on September 13, 2012, 11:27:45 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 13, 2012, 11:20:57 AM

The point is that you are flogging the wrong side of that standard.

The Justice Department is supposed to enforce the laws of the land.

That's it.

If the White House doesn't like that their job is to CHANGE THE LAWS.
Same goes for Congress.

Exactly and considering that Obama can't even get routine appointments approved by the assholes in Congress then I don't see how a conversation of ending the drug war can even be contemplated at this point.    Which of course is fucktarded.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2012, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 13, 2012, 11:20:57 AM

The point is that you are flogging the wrong side of that standard.

The Justice Department is supposed to enforce the laws of the land.

That's it.

If the White House doesn't like that their job is to CHANGE THE LAWS.
Same goes for Congress.

DOMA says no
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 13, 2012, 05:07:55 PM
From what I undertand about DOMA, the only recourse the feds would have would be to deny social security payments or medicare benificiary payments. It doesn't make same sex marriage illegal, but does say that a state isn't required to recognize a same sex marriage, even if it was performed legally in another state. It does not call for prosecution of officials or participants.

so - the only way DOMA would apply here is if people have filed, and received, federal benefits as part of same sex marriage. Otherwise, no federal law has been broken

the Supreme court will be asked to weigh in soon, I suspect.

anyway - the medical mj and DOMA situations are clearly different
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2012, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 13, 2012, 05:07:55 PM
anyway - the medical mj and DOMA situations are clearly different

I agree they are quite different: in one case, the administration decided not to enforce a law to appease a key constituency; in the other, they had no choice but to enforce a law the chief executive once opposed (allegedly) because who cares about stoner pothead drug addicts anyway.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on September 13, 2012, 11:06:44 PM
has it really not been enforced?  again - the only thing to enforce with DOMA is gay spouses not getting federal benefits. It has nothing to do with disallowing marriage. have there been reports of gay spouses getting benefits? I honestly don't know, but that is what the law is all about.
I suspect it is being enforced because there are some court challenges - just supicion
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on September 13, 2012, 11:39:55 PM
This is just me stating what I thought I heard and not looking it up... but I thought the issue with DOMA was the administration decided not to defend it in court, as opposed to not enforce it, like sls says with respect to benefits.

Could be wrong... please correct if so...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 14, 2012, 12:10:29 AM
C'mon, guys, I don't get bogged down in the details; I'm a big picture guy. And to me, it seems like the administration clearly has (or at least has not been afraid to use) the ability to influence laws based on its interpretation of them. Whether or not that's constitutional or not, fuck if I know. But he signs the National Drug Control Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/2012_ndcs.pdf) so ultimately he is responsible for the direction the DEA takes. And if it's true that he's just being cockblocked by over zealous drug warriors, he is free to appoint a new director who shares his supposedly more tolerant, humane, moral views. But he hasn't done that, which is itself a failure to me.

YMMV

VDB, yes, that is the justification, that the law is being enforced, just not defended in court. Which is not at all a contradiction.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 14, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 09:18:56 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 14, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on September 14, 2012, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 09:18:56 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 14, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.

I haven't read a rjb post in the politiwook chat section in maybe a year now. No offense dude, just saying.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on September 15, 2012, 02:26:50 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 14, 2012, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 09:18:56 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 14, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 14, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.

I haven't read a rjb post in the politiwook chat section in maybe a year now. No offense dude, just saying.

::inserts Dawson crying gif::
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on September 18, 2012, 06:35:43 PM
The Romney-Ryan campaign gaffe of the day
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/paul-ryan-new-hampshire-stimulus_n_1892299.html
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on September 24, 2012, 01:45:57 PM
The hits just keep coming!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/mitt-romney-60-minutes-health-care_n_1908129.html

and

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/298367_471900912830506_242310491_n.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 01, 2012, 06:01:26 PM
Some Romney financial backers may be backing out...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/mitt-romney-donors_n_1930269.html
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: UncleEbinezer on October 02, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 02, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on October 02, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 02, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 02, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on October 02, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry

one upside to living in a solidly red state... no presidential ads unless they are national... and very few are national.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 02, 2012, 11:03:27 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 02, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 02, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on October 02, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry

one upside to living in a solidly red state... no presidential ads unless they are national... and very few are national.

Or in my case the upside of living in a state that will never, ever have any impact on a Presidential election.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 02, 2012, 12:44:55 PM
same here.
we have a couple races that are close - senate and one House race (my red)

the commercials basically all say the same thing.
"vote for me because the other guy is bad" and then list why the world will end.

there are very few commercials that say " this is what I stand for - vote for me"
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
Judges blocks PA's obvious attempt to suppress voter turnout, at least until after the election

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gofwU6p1wVa1q_XloJpJkhL2jy8Q?docId=7eb8b0ee54b0499c9caa9776c1eba958

Quote
Judge halts Pa.'s tough new voter ID requirement

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania's divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said in his ruling that he was concerned by the state's stumbling efforts to create a photo ID that is easily accessible to voters and that he could not rely on the assurances of government officials at this late date that every voter would be able to get a valid ID.

If it stands, it is good news for Obama's chances in Pennsylvania, one of the nation's biggest electoral college prizes, unless Republicans and the tea party groups that backed the law find a way to use it to motivate their supporters and possibly independents.

Simpson's ruling could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, although state officials weren't ready to say Tuesday whether they would appeal. He based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

Simpson's ruling will allow the law to go into full effect next year, though he could still decide later to issue a permanent injunction.

Election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can use a regular voting machine in the polling place and would not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials afterward.

One lawyer for the plaintiffs called it a "win," while the Advancement Project, which aided the legal challenge, expressed concern that a new public education campaign would be needed to ensure people without photo ID know they can vote.

Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who helped champion the law, said the state's lawyers were still analyzing it.

The state's Republican Party chairman, Rob Gleason, said he was disappointed and stressed that the law is a "common-sense reform" that is supported in public polling across the political spectrum.

"Despite the empty rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is still about ensuring one person, one vote," Gleason said.

In a statement, the Obama campaign said the decision means that "eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state. "

Simpson's ruling came after listening to two days of testimony about the state's eleventh-hour efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID. He also heard about long lines and ill-informed clerks at driver's license centers and identification requirements that made it hard for some registered voters to get a state-issued photo ID.

The 6-month-old law — now among the nation's toughest — has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights and become a high-profile political issue in the contest between Obama, a Democrat, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, for Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes.

It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Pennsylvania, traditionally considered one of the most valuable presidential swing states, is showing a persistent lead for Obama in independent polls. Pollsters had said Pennsylvania's identification requirement could mean that fewer people ended up voting and, in the past, lower turnouts have benefited Republicans in Pennsylvania.

But Democrats have used their opposition to the law as a rallying cry, turning it into a valuable tool to motivate volunteers and campaign contributions while other opponents of the law, including labor unions, good government groups, the NAACP, AARP and the League of Women Voters, hold voter education drives and protest rallies.

The law was a signature accomplishment of Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature and Corbett. Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, justified it as a bulwark against any potential election fraud.

Every Democratic lawmaker voted against it. Some accused Republicans of using old-fashioned Jim Crow tactics to steal the White House from Obama. Other opponents said it would make it harder for young adults, minorities, the elderly, poor and disabled to vote.

A wave of new voter identification requirements have been approved in the past couple years, primarily by Republican-controlled Legislatures.

Earlier this year, a federal court panel struck down Texas' voter ID law, and a state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire's voter ID law, and a federal court is reviewing South Carolina's law.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 02, 2012, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
QuoteIt was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

The only way this comment could not have been about simple vote-suppression would have been if the amount of vote fraud (that benefits Democrats) allegedly taking place/about to take place is in excess of the margin of victory that Obama would have otherwise received had he prevailed. Which, given that voter-ID proponents have been able to produce scant actual evidence of actual voting fraud, I find quite unlikely.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:02:44 PM
And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:02:44 PM
And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...

Today?

Quote
Ryan's comments were delivered as part of his keynote address at The American Spectator's 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner, which the magazine posted online. A reader tipped HuffPost to Ryan's speech, given in November -- six months before Romney's videotaped remarks.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:21:17 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:02:44 PM
And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...

Today?

Quote
Ryan's comments were delivered as part of his keynote address at The American Spectator's 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner, which the magazine posted online. A reader tipped HuffPost to Ryan's speech, given in November -- six months before Romney's videotaped remarks.
discovered today so he wins today's prize...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:21:17 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 02, 2012, 09:02:44 PM
And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...

Today?

Quote
Ryan's comments were delivered as part of his keynote address at The American Spectator's 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner, which the magazine posted online. A reader tipped HuffPost to Ryan's speech, given in November -- six months before Romney's videotaped remarks.
discovered today so he wins today's prize...

Well by that logic this is news too (WARNING: scary black man alert!!!):

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans

Quote
Exclusive: In heated '07 speech, Obama lavishes praise on Wright, says feds 'don't care' about New Orleans [VIDEO]

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.

"The people down in New Orleans they don't care about as much!" Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims "part of the American family."

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama's carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

...

Holy shit, no wonder people hate politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 02, 2012, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 02, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
Well by that logic this is news too (WARNING: scary black man alert!!!):

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans

Quote
Exclusive: In heated '07 speech, Obama lavishes praise on Wright, says feds 'don't care' about New Orleans [VIDEO]

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.

"The people down in New Orleans they don't care about as much!" Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims "part of the American family."

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama's carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

...

Holy shit, no wonder people hate politics.

Care to take a guess what's the top story on foxnews.com right now (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/video-surfaces-obama-in-2007-suggesting-racism-slowed-aid-to-post-katrina-new/)??

QuoteObama, echoing rapper Kanye West's infamous anti-Bush remarks a couple years earlier, then argues that New Orleans was treated differently, suggesting the reason was that the city is mostly black.

Oh sweet lord, Fox News. Does anyone actually think Obama takes his cues on post-Katrina disaster-management criticisms from "rapper Kanye West"? Just because Kanye West said something "a couple years earlier," does that mean anyone else raising similar questions subsequently is just mimicking Kanye? Right. Or, I dunno, maybe Fox News thought it was so critical to insert that line because, hey, Kanye is just a crazy, vulgar black man who unfairly called Bush a racist and by comparing Obama's remarks to his, see how easily the FN audience now can dismiss them out of hand and not have to actually think critically about the double standard that Obama was trying to call out. Phew, that was a close call. Nice save, Fox News!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 03, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
I just wish this friggin election was tomorrow. I am so sick of all this shit.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 01:22:05 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
I just wish this friggin election was tomorrow. I am so sick of all this shit.

Cmon now, if you cant enjoy watching Mitt get his ass handed to him on a daily basis then you should probably just avoid all things politiw00k.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 03, 2012, 07:05:44 AM
it's not that - the constant finger pointing, lies, etc.
the #1 commercial here has to do with whether or not Elizabeth Warren is part Native American, and how much she did or didn't gain because of her supposed heritage.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
sls gets it (well, except for the Elizabeth Warren part :wink: ).

Typical ad/flyer/debate in any election: "My opponent is evil and he will cause irreparable harm to you and the ones you love. I, on the other hand, care deeply about the issues affecting you and will make sure I protect your interests and those of future generations."

Also, Hicks, in the week or so that you've been beating the "election is soooo over drum" the polls have been tightening. If Romney doesn't collapse tonight (50-50 chance) and we get a sub-150k jobs report on Friday (not to mention Spain failing to be "saved" and impending fiscal cliff uncertainty), we could be in a statistical dead heat by next week.

I totally agree with you that Romney is a terrible candidate and his campaign has been a joke. His path to 270 electoral votes is extremely limited. And still this race is going to go down to the wire. Doesn't that concern you in the least?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on October 03, 2012, 10:47:05 AM
Anyone wanna play this presidential debate drinking game (http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6831057/presidential-debate-drinking-game) tonight?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2012, 11:07:14 AM
Quote from: phil on October 03, 2012, 10:47:05 AM
Anyone wanna play this presidential debate drinking game (http://www.collegehumor.com/article/6831057/presidential-debate-drinking-game) tonight?

Wish I could! I inadvertently scheduled a double-billing of "Black Dynamite" and "Idiocracy" at my house tonight, so I'll have to record the debate and watch later.

I also propose drinking for:

- Every time Obama says "uh" (you'll be blacked out halfway through)
- Every time Romney does his creepy smile-and-head-tilt thing
- Every time Romney responds to a dig with his patented, snide "Nice try."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
sls gets it (well, except for the Elizabeth Warren part :wink: ).

Typical ad/flyer/debate in any election: "My opponent is evil and he will cause irreparable harm to you and the ones you love. I, on the other hand, care deeply about the issues affecting you and will make sure I protect your interests and those of future generations."

Also, Hicks, in the week or so that you've been beating the "election is soooo over drum" the polls have been tightening. If Romney doesn't collapse tonight (50-50 chance) and we get a sub-150k jobs report on Friday (not to mention Spain failing to be "saved" and impending fiscal cliff uncertainty), we could be in a statistical dead heat by next week.

I totally agree with you that Romney is a terrible candidate and his campaign has been a joke. His path to 270 electoral votes is extremely limited. And still this race is going to go down to the wire. Doesn't that concern you in the least?

Five Thirty Eight gives Romney a 15% chance of winning as of today, that ain't very good.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Barring any spectacular revelations this thing is over. 

Also the jobs report came in ahead of forecast this morning, not at 150K but still ahead of forecast, which will further help Obama. 

As for being concerned with how close this thing is, nothing could concern me more than W getting a second term back in 2004, I will never understand that bullshit.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on October 03, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Mitt Romney, LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
sls gets it (well, except for the Elizabeth Warren part :wink: ).

Typical ad/flyer/debate in any election: "My opponent is evil and he will cause irreparable harm to you and the ones you love. I, on the other hand, care deeply about the issues affecting you and will make sure I protect your interests and those of future generations."

Also, Hicks, in the week or so that you've been beating the "election is soooo over drum" the polls have been tightening. If Romney doesn't collapse tonight (50-50 chance) and we get a sub-150k jobs report on Friday (not to mention Spain failing to be "saved" and impending fiscal cliff uncertainty), we could be in a statistical dead heat by next week.

I totally agree with you that Romney is a terrible candidate and his campaign has been a joke. His path to 270 electoral votes is extremely limited. And still this race is going to go down to the wire. Doesn't that concern you in the least?

Five Thirty Eight gives Romney a 15% chance of winning as of today, that ain't very good.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Barring any spectacular revelations this thing is over. 

Also the jobs report came in ahead of forecast this morning, not at 150K but still ahead of forecast, which will further help Obama. 

As for being concerned with how close this thing is, nothing could concern me more than W getting a second term back in 2004, I will never understand that bullshit.

Nate Silver predicted every Senate race and the electoral college in 2008 when his 538 blog was independent. After being bought by NYT, he has become a little less rigorous. I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

Look, I called it for Obama the day QE4LIFE was announced (although it hasn't had nearly the effect of precious attempts), I just don't think it's nearly as foregone a conclusion as you do.

As for the jobs report, the ADP number announced on the first Wed of the month is meaningless. The "real" number from the BLS (along with the monthly unemployment rate) is announced at 8:30am on the first Friday of the month. Last month, the ADP number was almost 60% higher than the establishment survey. ADP today was 160k, which if it is as inaccurate as last month would put Friday's number in the 100k ballpark. If Oct and Nov jobs come in at that level, it could be a game changer.

If people feel like the economy is getting better, Obama has nothing to worry about. But if we start to slide in the next couple weeks, people will forget how much the dislike Romney and Obama is in serious trouble.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 03, 2012, 04:29:24 PM
another episode like the Libya embassy disaster could change things
a disaster in the Euro zone that affects our economy could change things.

it ain't over till it's over.



frankly, if Romney were to win, and governed the country along the same moderate principles he used in MA (health care reform, green energy) I wouldn't complain too loudly.
Unfortunately, Romney has given no indication that he will budge toward the center, and I don't think the rt wing of the GOP will tolerate any movement by anyone, regardless of party.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 03, 2012, 04:48:59 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 04:29:24 PM
frankly, if Romney were to win, and governed the country along the same moderate principles he used in MA (health care reform, green energy) I wouldn't complain too loudly.
Unfortunately, Romney has given no indication that he will budge toward the center, and I don't think the rt wing of the GOP will tolerate any movement by anyone, regardless of party.

It's true. And the sad thing for Republicans is that, if Romney hadn't been forced so far to the right to get through the primaries, and was allowed to run as his Massachusetts-style self, I think he'd have a much better shot at winning this thing and (if he governs the same way) getting re-elected. Playing the "I'm more right-wing than you are" game may be all well and good for some congressional races and the South Carolina primary, but I don't see this being any kind of long-term strategy for sustained electoral success on the national level.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 05:46:25 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 04:29:24 PM
another episode like the Libya embassy disaster could change things
a disaster in the Euro zone that affects our economy could change things.

it ain't over till it's over.



frankly, if Romney were to win, and governed the country along the same moderate principles he used in MA (health care reform, green energy) I wouldn't complain too loudly.
Unfortunately, Romney has given no indication that he will budge toward the center, and I don't think the rt wing of the GOP will tolerate any movement by anyone, regardless of party.

Libya, Europe, LOL, this is America we don't care about what happens in other countries.

What do we care about is likability and confidence and at this point Romney smells like a douchebag loser.

I don't see that changing over the course of the next month. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 09:06:41 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 04:29:24 PM
frankly, if Romney were to win, and governed the country along the same moderate principles he used in MA (health care reform, green energy) I wouldn't complain too loudly.
Unfortunately, Romney has given no indication that he will budge toward the center, and I don't think the rt wing of the GOP will tolerate any movement by anyone, regardless of party.

But if there's one thing we all agree on it's that Romney talks out of his ass and is utterly unbelievable. Why would his campaign rhetoric be any different? Based on his governing record, I think Romney would be far more centrist than he has let on. I'd also look at his advisers: Rogoff, Feldstein, Mankiw means continued expansive monetary policy and Too Big To Fail-iness. Neo-cons means more wars (but I'd contend Dr. Drone is no better on this front). And neither one of them will touch the most pressing issue of Social Security and Medicare/aid.

Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 05:46:25 PM
Libya, Europe, LOL, this is America we don't care about what happens in other countries.

What do we care about is likability and confidence and at this point Romney smells like a douchebag loser.

Damn straight.


Also, I can't listen to Kelly Ayotte talk. She always sounds like she's on the verge of tears.

Game time.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:12:32 PM
Loving this debate!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: fastfingers12 on October 03, 2012, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:12:32 PM
Loving this debate!
its on!  :samurai: haha 2 questions in and they are ignoring the moderator
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 09:38:40 PM
Obama repeating himself, clearly annoyed. Romney crying to Jim Lehrer for more time. Overall, early advantage to Romney. Clear loser: the American people.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on October 03, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: fastfingers12 on October 03, 2012, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:12:32 PM
Loving this debate!
its on!  :samurai: haha 2 questions in and they are ignoring the moderator

He will have him fired as a matter or top priority.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 09:45:04 PM
Obama: "Social Security is structurally sound."

HA-FUCKING HA. He should walk off stage like Costanza. "Thank you, good night!!!!"
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:50:15 PM
Seniors are generally pretty happy with Medicare? News to me.......
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:50:15 PM
Seniors are generally pretty happy with Medicare? News to me.......

Lulz

They may not be entirely happy with it, but they definitely don't want anyone touching it. Lesson = old people HATE change.

Quote
Andrew Sullivan
@sullydish: This is a rolling calamity for Obama. He's boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney! http://t.co/rjMHKNer

:-o
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Couldn't possibly agree more. Obama will regroup and come back strong though. Romney is def taking it to him tonight.  Not that debates sway many votes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:00:54 PM
Honestly they both seem like assholes tonight. 

Romney's ability to lie with a straight face is fairly impressive.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:00:54 PM
Honestly they both seem like assholes tonight. 

Romney's ability to lie with a straight face is fairly impressive.

Well you're always gonna say Romney is an asshole, but +k for taking it to your boy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:04:46 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:00:54 PM
Honestly they both seem like assholes tonight. 

Romney's ability to lie with a straight face is fairly impressive.

It's funny cuz it's true.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 03, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
no discussion about Climate Change?  weak. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:05:35 PM
Quote from: susep on October 03, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
no discussion about Climate Change?  weak.

Next time?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 03, 2012, 10:06:49 PM
Mittens has been practicing!  But I've only been listening for about 10min. 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:07:54 PM
Romney explaining differences between Obamacare and RomneyCare and what he'd do to replace it gives me the heebie-jeebies
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 03, 2012, 10:08:49 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:05:35 PM
Quote from: susep on October 03, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
no discussion about Climate Change?  weak.

Next time?

it is both a domestic and international paradigm, it really shows just how far away we are still from embracing a New Environmental Paradigm. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:09:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:00:54 PM
Honestly they both seem like assholes tonight. 

Romney's ability to lie with a straight face is fairly impressive.

Well you're always gonna say Romney is an asshole, but +k for taking it to your boy.

If there's a universe where Romney isn't considered an asshole I don't want to live in it.

But yeah Obama is failing in the personality department, not good.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Uh if you think that shit is scientific. . .


LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:16:44 PM
First God reference of the night?!?! Can't be.

Drink, phil
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Uh if you think that shit is scientific. . .


LOL.

It's real people putting their actual money behind a bet as to which candidate will win. If you ask me, that's far more scientific than self-reported answers to pollsters relying on complex models of voter turnout and party registration/enthusiasm.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on October 03, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
I'm just happy this country is so shallow all people will be talking about after this is that Romney will get rid of Big Bird.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 03, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
I'm just happy this country is so shallow all people will be talking about after this is that Romney will get rid of Big Bird.

"I like being able to fire Big Bird"

That "your own airplane and your own house but not your own facts" line was the most cringe worthy of the night.

ETA: oh wait, I forgot about Obama's "I had 5 secs before you interrupted".
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Uh if you think that shit is scientific. . .


LOL.

It's real people putting their actual money behind a bet as to which candidate will win. If you ask me, that's far more scientific than self-reported answers to pollsters relying on complex models of voter turnout and party registration/enthusiasm.

Sure but the people who bother with or even know about that site are far from a random sampling of the general voting populace.

So yeah not scientific by a long shot.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 03, 2012, 10:25:54 PM
 :tte:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Uh if you think that shit is scientific. . .


LOL.

It's real people putting their actual money behind a bet as to which candidate will win. If you ask me, that's far more scientific than self-reported answers to pollsters relying on complex models of voter turnout and party registration/enthusiasm.

Sure but the people who bother with or even know about that site are far from a random sampling of the general voting populace.

So yeah not scientific by a long shot.

What's more accurate: the price you pay for gas or an iPhone or milk (well, not milk b/c of all the subsidies) or the mezzanine tranche of a synthetic CDO?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
How much better would these debates be if Stephen Colbert or Conan Obrien was the moderator?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 03, 2012, 10:30:25 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
How much better would these debates be if Stephen Colbert or Conan Obrien was the moderator?

A lot better, they are walkin all over the moderator, esp Romney. Colbert would not allow that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:32:48 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 03, 2012, 10:30:25 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
How much better would these debates be if Stephen Colbert or Conan Obrien was the moderator?

A lot better, they are walkin all over the moderator, esp Romney. Colbert would not allow that.

Obama said "Fuck you, Jim, I got 5 secs left now go back to PBS where nobody watches you."

Quote
Albert Brooks
@AlbertBrooks: Well, I'd rather have a beer with Mitt Romney because he doesn't drink and I could have both of them.

Ugh, Romney saying Obama cut defense is mind numbing.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 03:11:40 PM
I look at Intrade as a more accurate (and more real time) barometer. Obama was close to 80% there last week but has since fallen to 70% today.

66%

SELL, MORTIMER, SELL!!!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Uh if you think that shit is scientific. . .


LOL.

It's real people putting their actual money behind a bet as to which candidate will win. If you ask me, that's far more scientific than self-reported answers to pollsters relying on complex models of voter turnout and party registration/enthusiasm.

Sure but the people who bother with or even know about that site are far from a random sampling of the general voting populace.

So yeah not scientific by a long shot.

What's more accurate: the price you pay for gas or an iPhone or milk (well, not milk b/c of all the subsidies) or the mezzanine tranche of a synthetic CDO?

a.  Speculators are douchebags

b.  I don't own an iphone

c.  Seems fair

d.  I don't buy that shit either
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 03, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
imo Mitt made his points better than Obama

according to the fact checkers at abc, Romney took way more liberties with the truth.

imo Obama should have been more aggressive correcting Romney when he was fabricating the truth
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 10:38:01 PM
I hope Lehrer's wife gives him a bj tonight because he's gonna fucking need one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:41:30 PM
Chris Matthews is having a full fledged breakdown live on TV right now
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 03, 2012, 10:50:40 PM
Quote
"Big Bird tells Willard that today's debate is brought to you by the letters 'F' and 'U'."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on October 03, 2012, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
imo Mitt made his points better than Obama

according to the fact checkers at abc, Romney took way more liberties with the truth.

imo Obama should have been more aggressive correcting Romney when he was fabricating the truth


This is my basic observation as well.  I felt like Obama was treading water while Romney was pushing the waves; artificial tides or not.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
according to the fact checkers at abc, Romney took way more liberties with the truth.

imo Obama should have been more aggressive correcting Romney when he was fabricating the truth

From here (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/presidential-debate-2012-live-blog-and-fact-or-fiction/)? I'm not sure how you get to "way more liberties". By my count, Obama has 20-40% True/Mostly true and Romney has 36% (see below). Looks like a tie to me. But more importantly,  who's fact checking the fact checkers, sls?!?!

Obama - 1 True, 1 doubtful, 2 Mostly Fiction, 1 False

Obama #1 - Mostly Fiction
Obama #2 - Mostly Fiction
Obama #3 - No answer (appears True)
Obama #4 - No answer (debatable at best)
Obama #5 - False (outdated)

Romney - 1.5 True, 1 Mostly true, 2 Mostly False, 2.5 False

Romney #1 - False (although how this gets False and Obama's the first 2 Mostly Fiction is beyond me)
Romney #2 - "Misconstrued statement" (this is where fact checkers drive me nuts; it's misconstrued because they draw a distinction between a slowing in the rate of growth vs an actual cut. As I've pointed out over and over again, everybody calls slowing the growth a "cut", so I'd give the fact checkers "Pants on Fire"
Romney #3 - Mostly true
Romney #4 - No answer (False or Mostly false it seems)
Romney #5 - Part 1 - False; Part 2 - True
Romney #6 - False (20-37% is not half)
Romney #7 - True
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2012, 11:31:20 PM
Woah... When did this become an LST?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2012, 11:31:20 PM
Woah... When did this become an LST?

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

I think people realize how important this upcoming election is.......
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2012, 11:31:20 PM
Woah... When did this become an LST?

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

I think people realize how important this upcoming election is.......

At the bare minimum it's as important as finding out whether or not Phish played Possum again. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 04, 2012, 12:04:13 AM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2012, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 03, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2012, 11:31:20 PM
Woah... When did this become an LST?

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

I think people realize how important this upcoming election is.......

At the bare minimum it's as important as finding out whether or not Phish played Possum again.

Pretty sure they did
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on October 04, 2012, 12:51:58 AM
That was pretty brutal to watch, Romney seemed way more prepared and was definitely taking advantage of Obama's lack of offense.  Unless the Dems were hoping Romney would put his foot in his mouth I'm not really sure of the overall strategy to lay so far back and lack depth to any rebuttal.  Obama seemed content shaking his head and staring at his notes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 04, 2012, 10:51:19 AM
Dennis miller via Facebook:
Quote
Obama better hope a kicked ass is covered under Obamacare

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 04, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romneys-biggest-lies-presidential-debate.html
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 04, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

not to mention a couple other things Obama didn't say about ACA
-it ends the donut hole
-preventative care is covered without copay

Regarding pre-conditions, Romney's plan reverts to the prior law - If you change jobs or insurance, you are covered as long as your insurance is not interrupted for > 90 days. If you never had insurance, or had it interrupted > 90 days, you are SOL.

Also, Romney was talking about private companies competing with Medicare for seniors. It sounds like a good idea. I thought it was a good idea when they started doing in in MA and NH in the mid 90s. All the major players had senior's plans.
None of them do now - none of them could compete with Medicare for price / coverage.


All of our arguments are well and good, but the Prez should have brought these points up himself last night.
I've never seen him look so bad
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 04, 2012, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 04, 2012, 03:06:11 PM

Also, Romney was talking about private companies competing with Medicare for seniors. It sounds like a good idea.

Mittens said that if you were a senior and weren't happy with your current Private Insurer, you could just get a new one...  But what Private Insurer is going to pick-up an elderly person who may not have medical expenses now, but will definitely have them in the future???  Mitt offers a false choice. 

T
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 04, 2012, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 04, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

not to mention a couple other things Obama didn't say about ACA
-it ends the donut hole
-preventative care is covered without copay

Regarding pre-conditions, Romney's plan reverts to the prior law - If you change jobs or insurance, you are covered as long as your insurance is not interrupted for > 90 days. If you never had insurance, or had it interrupted > 90 days, you are SOL.

Also, Romney was talking about private companies competing with Medicare for seniors. It sounds like a good idea. I thought it was a good idea when they started doing in in MA and NH in the mid 90s. All the major players had senior's plans.
None of them do now - none of them could compete with Medicare for price / coverage.


All of our arguments are well and good, but the Prez should have brought these points up himself last night.
I've never seen him look so bad

True neglecting to point out just how badly Romney was lying is practically aiding and abetting.

Obama clearly lost the debate, but I do think it remains to be seen if Romney really won anything.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 04, 2012, 03:31:57 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/

DENVER—Following last night's nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was "acting like such a goddamned pussy up there." "Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?" asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was "genuinely worried" that maybe somebody had "cut Daddy's balls off" right before he took the stage. "What happened, Dad? Were you on your period or something? Maybe the next time you're in front of the entire country for an hour and a half you should try not letting another man spank you on the ass like that." Sources added that Obama's youngest daughter then offered to help the president go "look for [his] dick, because apparently it's gone missing."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 04, 2012, 04:18:50 PM

Quote from: Hicks on October 04, 2012, 03:31:57 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/
Sources added that Obama’s youngest daughter then offered to help the president go “look for [his] dick, because apparently it’s gone missing.”
sometimes the onion writes things that are, in fact, true

you know that Michelle didn't give him that special anniversary gift after that performance.


another crazy claim was on green energy
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/90-billion-for-green-energy-a-closer-look/

QuoteThree times in Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney said that President Obama had plowed $90 billion of federal money into green energy. "Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives,'' he said. "Ninety billion — that — that would have — that would have hired two million teachers,'' he said.

Is $90 billion accurate?

As we reported in August when Mr. Romney first raised the figure, sort of. The $90 billion is a real number drawn from the 2009 stimulus package, but it wasn't all spent, as Mr. Romney said, and a lot of the green energy spending that went out the door on Mr. Obama's watch was authorized during the Bush administration.

The biggest component of the $90 billion was $29 billion for energy efficiency, of which $5 billion involved improvements in the homes and apartments of low-income households. There was also $18 billion for fast trains and $21 billion for wind farms, solar panels and other renewable energy. Supporters point out that much of the energy spending drew in private capital.

Mr. Romney also said, "I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they've gone out of business." One, Solyndra, a maker of solar equipment, went under and took the government's $528 million with it. (The Solyndra grant process began during the Bush administration, however, as my colleague John Mr. Broder noted.) Others went bankrupt, but the government recovered some of the stimulus money. The defaults were far less than Congress had allocated to cover losses, and far, far less than half of the ventures, although some others may yet fail.

As Mr. Broder also pointed out, Mr. Romney asserted that all the increase in oil and gas production during Mr. Obama's term occurred on private lands, but federal statistics contradict this.

Environmentalists and others were quick to point out that the debate was also noteworthy for what was not said; there was no mention of global warming or climate change in general.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 04, 2012, 05:37:32 PM
Prob posted already but

Romenys 10 most Baseless Claims

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/mitt-romney-inaccuracies-_n_1939337.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3&pLid=215506&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1601088
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 04, 2012, 10:30:26 PM
I mean, I would like to respond to all the above but I just don't have it in me tonight (oh don't worry, I'll weigh in on some of them). The instantaneous and ubiquitous outrage tells me pretty much everything I need to know about how the left felt about last night. "It was Jim Lehrer's fault" (personally I thought he was as good as a moderator could be; it was easily the most dialogue driven debate I can remember). "Romney lies" (I'll get to some of my favorites). "Debates don't really matter anyway." And of course, my personal favorite, Al Gore's "well Obama obviously had altitude sickness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/al-gore-blames-altitude-barack-obama-presidential-debate-2012-who-won_n_1940297.html)."

Also, there's been a lot of talk of Romney's lack of specifics, but last night (and quite often) Obama promised to cut Medicare by being "balanced" and "reasonable". He said they were "looking at" how best to present Simpson-Bowles to Congress (after sitting on it since the committee failed to force a Congressional debate on it; BTW, the Simpson-Bowles tax plan, the left's "fair and balanced" approach to deficit reduction, looks remarkably like Romney's). And I've seen far more headlines detailing Romney's lies than Obama's; does that mean Obama was entirely truthful while Romney is a scum sucking snake oil salesman? (hint: he is, but surely someone should recognize the  truthiness in Obama's statements as well).

In the end (!!!), I don't believe last night changed the outcome of the election, but it did change the trajectory of the race. But more importantly is the economy, starting with tomorrow's job numbers (Obama was briefed on them this afternoon; wonder if that made him feel better or was salt on the wounds).

But to a couple of my favorite "lies":

-- The $5T tax cut & the myth of the $2,000 middle class tax hike - I'm glad to see FactCheck called Obama's BS on this one. I'm really not sure why Obama decided to mention this one (over and over and over). Pretty blatantly untrue. You wanna say Romney doesn't make up the revenue, that's a different story. It's still debatable (he has recently started floating the idea of capping deductions which overwhelmingly benefit high incomes), but at least it's not patently untrue.
-- Obama didn't double the deficit - This was interesting and "debunked" on both FactCheck and HuffPo. The reason this is so ridiculous to me is because both organizations completely miss the point Romney was making. FactCheck (but not HuffPo, shockingly) acknowledges Obama's famous (broken) promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term (hard to deny given it was in his first SOTU). But then they both say he didn't double the deficit because FY09 ended $1.2-1.4T in the hole, roughly the same as this year. But you don't compare deficits from different years (you'd need to look at the cumulative deficits, i.e., the debt, for that). Romney was comparing Obama's projected FY12 deficit to reality, a very typical actual-vs-expected analysis. And by Obama's own calculation, the FY12 deficit of $557B is...hang on, let me get a calculator...oh yeah, roughly doubled by the current $1.2T. You could say they forecast wasn't accurate. You could say (as Obama often does) "we didn't understand the depths of the recession." Both of those things may be true, but they don't really inspire a lot of confidence in the administration's ability to lead us out of a mess they don't understand.
-- Medicare "cuts" - I've mentioned this ad nauseum, but IMO everybody is guilty of lying on this point.

Quote from: slslbs on October 04, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
not to mention a couple other things Obama didn't say about ACA
-it ends the donut hole
-preventative care is covered without copay

These thing sound good but of course, but we might want to think about paying for them at some point. Just sayin'.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 04, 2012, 03:11:49 PM
Mittens said that if you were a senior and weren't happy with your current Private Insurer, you could just get a new one...  But what Private Insurer is going to pick-up an elderly person who may not have medical expenses now, but will definitely have them in the future???  Mitt offers a false choice. 

Agreed, private insurers would certainly not offer coverage now to seniors because of both the manipulation of market prices through the gov't oligopoly on total healthcare spending as well as the now stringent regulations detailing how insurers can or cannot underwrite their insureds. But were it not for this intervention, the senior market could be a very profitable block of business for insurers. Property insurers LOVE offering policies to homeowners in coastal FL or sitting on the San Andreas fault because they (most reasonably) are allowed to charge those customers more for the expected value of potential loses. If insurers could underwrite their business, there would be plenty of carriers willing to offer coverage. But as long as the senior market is distorted by Medicare and overly burdensome oversight, you're right, no one company ever would venture into that market and competition can never be established as a cost controlling measure (in part for the reasons sls outlines above).

Quote from: slslbs on October 04, 2012, 04:18:50 PM
another crazy claim was on green energy
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/90-billion-for-green-energy-a-closer-look/

C'mon, sls. Of course you know it doesn't matter what was actually spent but what was guaranteed (although by their tally I get $68B of the $90B, not exactly a tremendous "savings"). Because if the gov't offers a line of credit to green energy companies, they have to have that money available if people want to draw on it. Like any budget, the money is allocated once promised and then if it never goes out the door it can be credited back at a later date but the money is still allocated (i.e., spent in the eyes of the gov't). That means they have to raise it through taxes or (more likely) borrow it; either way, there is an opportunity cost to that guarantee that actually exceeds the $90B figure because they are taking it out of the productive sectors of the economy and that is not a good "investment" in times of recession/anemic recovery (and let's not forget the interest paid on the borrowed money).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
I had to DVR the debate Wednesday and watched it last night. I agree with the broad consensus that Mitt came out of this looking better than Obama... not sure what BO's problem was... bored? Tired? He almost seemed like he didn't want to be there. Usually BO is much more on point than that.

Still, whereas Romney exhibited passion and energy, I'm not going to say he completely blew Obama out of the water -- it's not as if Obama was just completely steamrolled and knocked around all night. His attitude seemed to be more "yawn... you're wrong, let me explain why" and simply less "fired up! ready to go!"

I found it pretty annoying how the candidates would challenge each other on dubious or vague claims the other was making, and the response was simply to keep making them using the same words as before. Came off as just the usual prevarications we always hear.

And how about Romney going out of his way to sound like a nonthreatening centrist? Who is this guy and what has he done with primary-season Romney? Not looking for a tax cut? Praising parts of Dodd-Frank or aspects of Obamacare? Espousing the greatness of regulations and investment in public education? Obama really needs/needed to hold Romney more accountable for the far-right positions he staked out during the primaries, e.g. on social issues or immigration or those other red-meat topics where he had to outflank the Rick Perry's and Rick Santorum's of the world. I'd love to see Romney up there squirming his way through a conversation about how his positions on gay rights or abortion have drifted so far since he no longer had to be accountable to Massachusetts voters.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 09:37:14 AM
I don't really understand how Romney's getting away with his whole "I'm proud of what we did in Massachusetts. It was right for our state. It's not right for the whole country. It should be up to each state to come up with it's own plan."

Well, in Texas coming up with our own plan literally leaves millions of children with no care at all. Sweet. Thanks.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 05, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
Obama really needs/needed to hold Romney more accountable for the far-right positions he staked out during the primaries,


As my wife pointed out last night, its hard to argue with someone that constantly changes their position, or in Mitt's case, out-right denies his position.

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 09:37:14 AM
I don't really understand how Romney's getting away with his whole "I'm proud of what we did in Massachusetts. It was right for our state. It's not right for the whole country. It should be up to each state to come up with it's own plan."

Well, in Texas coming up with our own plan literally leaves millions of children with no care at all. Sweet. Thanks.

It's another great opportunity for Obama to press him. You can't simultaneously say that "the government cannot force you to buy insurance or 'take over' health care" and then "but it's OK if state governments do it." Romney is trying to have it both ways -- frame Obamacare as both a fundamental affront to the liberties of the people and their right to be free of government intervention, and also a state's rights issue. It can only be one or the other, not both.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 05, 2012, 10:33:57 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 09:37:14 AM
I don't really understand how Romney's getting away with his whole "I'm proud of what we did in Massachusetts. It was right for our state. It's not right for the whole country. It should be up to each state to come up with it's own plan."

Well, in Texas coming up with our own plan literally leaves millions of children with no care at all. Sweet. Thanks.

It's another great opportunity for Obama to press him. You can't simultaneously say that "the government cannot force you to buy insurance or 'take over' health care" and then "but it's OK if state governments do it." Romney is trying to have it both ways -- frame Obamacare as both a fundamental affront to the liberties of the people and their right to be free of government intervention, and also a state's rights issue. It can only be one or the other, not both.

Giving States more control over Welfare (like giving them a choice whether to keep Workfare) is seen as "not requiring people" to work for welfare...

T
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 05, 2012, 11:42:11 AM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 05, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
Obama really needs/needed to hold Romney more accountable for the far-right positions he staked out during the primaries,


As my wife pointed out last night, its hard to argue with someone that constantly changes their position, or in Mitt's case, out-right denies his position.

Terry
:)  That's a good point!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

Perhaps he interpreted "type of paper of their choosing" to include "3x5 cards with notes written on them that I will provide."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 05, 2012, 11:54:54 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

Perhaps he interpreted "type of paper of their choosing" to include "3x5 cards with notes written on them that I will provide."

Sounds good to me. Hey, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. He gets my vote for that move right there alone.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.

Yep this is the 2012 Election Thread, not the 2012 Reality Thread. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Intrade up 5% today, back to 70% FWIW. The debate pop has completely retraced.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.

Yep this is the 2012 Election Thread, not the 2012 Reality Thread.

The number today is heavily skewed.  The harsh reality is that unemployment has run out for many and the election has stalled hiring/growth until we know who is in charge, business and the markets hate uncertainty.  The drop is because so many have stopped looking for work and when they do they are no longer counted as unemployed.   The reason the stock market isn't jumping on this is because they know this.  If it were a real drop there would be a rally, not a 61 point gain as I write this.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 05, 2012, 11:54:54 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

Perhaps he interpreted "type of paper of their choosing" to include "3x5 cards with notes written on them that I will provide."

Sounds good to me. Hey, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. He gets my vote for that move right there alone.

USA!  USA!  USA!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.

Yep this is the 2012 Election Thread, not the 2012 Reality Thread.

The number today is heavily skewed.  The harsh reality is that unemployment has run out for many and the election has stalled hiring/growth until we know who is in charge, business and the markets hate uncertainty.  The drop is because so many have stopped looking for work and when they do they are no longer counted as unemployed.   The reason the stock market isn't jumping on this is because they know this.  If it were a real drop there would be a rally, not a 61 point gain as I write this.

Uh did you read anything I wrote?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.

Yep this is the 2012 Election Thread, not the 2012 Reality Thread.

The number today is heavily skewed.  The harsh reality is that unemployment has run out for many and the election has stalled hiring/growth until we know who is in charge, business and the markets hate uncertainty.  The drop is because so many have stopped looking for work and when they do they are no longer counted as unemployed.   The reason the stock market isn't jumping on this is because they know this.  If it were a real drop there would be a rally, not a 61 point gain as I write this.

Uh did you read anything I wrote?

Was meant to add to it.  You talked about them needing to find a gig.  I was trying to call out how many had stopped trying. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:37:09 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
114k jobs, almost exactly as expected (115k). Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% from 8.1% (8.2% expected). Like in previous months, however, this is most likely driven almost exclusively by people leaving the labor force.

Pretty anti-climactic. Both sides will use it to say "See, the other guy is wrong." Probably a win for Obama's run out the clock strategy.

"Unemployment under 8% for the first time in three years."

Even you have to admit that's a pretty killer soundbite for Obama to hang his hat on.

Maybe, but like most soundbites it completely ignores the reality of the situation. But if people see the drop as a sign that the economy is getting better, it's game over.

The stock market's reaction has been less than exuberant (up under 0.5% so far) as people have dived into the numbers and realized that the drop still shows severe labor market weakness (it was driven by part time workers who want to be full time, namely people who's 99 weeks are up and now gotta find a gig, hence the broader U-6 measure was unchanged). But I agree with your original point: in the political context, facts are meaningless.

Yep this is the 2012 Election Thread, not the 2012 Reality Thread.

The number today is heavily skewed.  The harsh reality is that unemployment has run out for many and the election has stalled hiring/growth until we know who is in charge, business and the markets hate uncertainty.  The drop is because so many have stopped looking for work and when they do they are no longer counted as unemployed.   The reason the stock market isn't jumping on this is because they know this.  If it were a real drop there would be a rally, not a 61 point gain as I write this.

Uh did you read anything I wrote?

Was meant to add to it.  You talked about them needing to find a gig.  I was trying to call out how many had stopped trying.

That was me, and I agree wholeheartedly. The market is unimpressed for good reason.

Also, who are you, Jack Welch? :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 05, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.

But I want my scandal!!!

Also, normal people keep their hankys in their pocket. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.

But I want my scandal!!!

Also, normal people keep their hankys in their pocket.

You didn't actually believe some conspiracy theory that you saw on one of your crazy left wing "news" sites, did you? :wink:

Also, Hicks says "hanky". ::points and laughs::
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.

But I want my scandal!!!

Also, normal people keep their hankys in their pocket.

You didn't actually believe some conspiracy theory that you saw on one of your crazy left wing "news" sites, did you? :wink:

Also, Hicks says "hanky". ::points and laughs::

Well like anyone born after 1970 I don't use them, so perhaps I'm not fully hip to the nomenclature. 

Also, middle class chumps like me call it a "sleeve" usually. 

Also, also yeah I first saw it on a liberal conspiracy site that I believe is called "The Facebooks". 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:19:33 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 05, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
http://youtu.be/hTE1Y3bvqwM

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Quote
Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006220) has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.

But I want my scandal!!!

Also, normal people keep their hankys in their pocket.

You didn't actually believe some conspiracy theory that you saw on one of your crazy left wing "news" sites, did you? :wink:

Also, Hicks says "hanky". ::points and laughs::

Well like anyone born after 1970 I don't use them, so perhaps I'm not fully hip to the nomenclature. 

Also, middle class chumps like me call it a "sleeve" usually. 

Also, also yeah I first saw it on a liberal conspiracy site that I believe is called "The Facebooks".

A sleeve? You must be a fancy man. We just rocket them out and try no to get too much on our clothes in Philly.

Well I hoped you learned your lesson: if its on FB, it's probably not true.

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 05, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:19:33 PM

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.

You could spend the afternoon railing against Teachers Unions and the failure of the public school system???

T

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:38:12 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 05, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 02:19:33 PM

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.

You could spend the afternoon railing against Teachers Unions and the failure of the public school system???

I knew I could count on you, T. +k

Now go get your fucking shinebox and fill my ISOs!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 05, 2012, 11:25:08 PM
OK, the DLS numbers are flawed. It's been that way for years. The method should be improved. But, at least for now, we can compare apples to apples, sort of. Maybe apples to pears. Now isn't the right time to change them.
The other variable, is that with the stress of the recession, businesses have learned how to do more with less employees. Progress.

On other news, Romney now says his 47% comment was wrong. After he defended it for 2 weeks, he says that he was wrong. Um....sure, Mitt

CNN was calling out Mitt for saying that his health plan covers pre-conditions (see my prior post). After the debate, his aides were backpedalling. AC had Ari Fleischer on tonight - when asked about it, even Ari said - yeah, that comment was a head scratcher.

and we thought Kerry was a flip flopper.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 06, 2012, 02:53:33 AM
Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on October 06, 2012, 03:25:16 AM
 
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 06, 2012, 02:53:33 AM
Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.


Rule #1 in the lay person's use of supporting data is that the set is always correct when it fits the speaker's assumption and always suspect when it contradicts the listener's narrative. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 05, 2012, 11:25:08 PM
OK, the DLS numbers are flawed.

BLS :wink:

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 06, 2012, 02:53:33 AM
Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.

To nab's point, yesterday Austan Goolsbee said anyone questioning the BLS numbers was an idiot who had no clue how the BLS process worked (paraphrasing obviously). Funny thing: back in 2003, a younger Goolsbee said...wait for it... "In other words, the government has cooked the books. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/the-index-of-missing-economic-indicators-the-unemployment-myth.html?src=pm)" Of course, he gave some long winded explanation about how obviously his claims of manipulation under Bush (and Reagan) was different than what the right was saying yesterday. I LOL'd.

As for the actual numbers, there's a couple nuances about the data to note (wonky time). There are 2 surveys in the BLS numbers, the "establishment data" which samples actual non-farm payroll data (similar to the Wed ADP report) and the "household survey" which polls 50,000 (I think) households about their employment situation. The first survey provides the "jobs number" which was +114k yesterday and is the source for any jobs number related claims (like Clinton's jobs scorecard at the DNC or Obama's 4.5M private sector claim). The second is the source used in the unemployment rate calculation and it said employment increased +873k (hence the 0.3% drop in the unemployment rate). Now, there's always some discrepancy between the two which is mostly statistical noise (just like any 2 polls with the same questions and same sample size can produce different results). But there were a couple of (potentially) legitimate issues with yesterday's report.

First, the discrepancy between the two surveys is unusually large, which seems to suggest something is amiss with at least one of the numbers. Second, while 873k jobs could conceivable be added in times of strong growth, it is hard to imagine that many jobs being added while the economy was growing by just 1.25% in Q3. That kind of increase would make more sense in the context of an economy growing around 5% per year, and we clearly ain't there. Third, it was the first time in the history of the data series that the 20-24 yr old cohort showed an increase in Sept employment as it usually drops with kids going back to school. It could be argued that this implies people are foregoing their education and keeping their jobs due to the dismal employment prospect, but that's hard to square with the record number of student loans/defaults which points to kids staying in school LONGER (i.e., grad school, changing majors) to delay their inevitable death march into a weak labor market. And lastly, of the 873k jobs added, something like 575k were from the so-called "Part Time for Economic Reasons." These are the people who want to be working full time but can't find a job and so have to work part time, as discussed above, likely a function of people running out of their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. In other words, there may be jobs being added, but they are lower quality jobs than what would be needed to drive a sustainable recovery.

With all that as a backdrop, I have to admit I am suspect of the numbers. And it may sound crazy, but gov'tal statistics can be fudged: Nixon once ordered the Dept of Defense to order 2 yrs worth of toilet paper in an attempt (unsuccessful, I believe) to pad GDP growth; the CPI methodology has been changed to limit the amount of the COLA going to Social Security recipients (most notably in excluding food and energy prices from the "core" measure); and just last week,  Lockheed said they would delay laying off 120k employees until after the election at the White House's request (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/). So political games can be played to help either side's case, and, IMO, it's somewhat naive to pretend these games aren't in fact played. But it seems to some (at least according to Goolsbee), the left's analysis is thoughtful and grounded in fact while the right's is simply wingnut crazies obsessed with conspiracy theories. Neither one of those seem right to me.

Now, I understand that it may not be appropriate for elected officials (like crazy Allen West) to claim that the administration is engaged in a conspiratorial plot to deceive the public of the truth for political gain. I mean, it's not like any Democrat ever claimed "Bush lied, people died (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Pelosi_Bush_briefers_lied_to_me.html).

I think if anything, as sls points out, this whole episode highlights the need for more accurate and transparent metrics with regard to measuring the actual amount of jobs. To highlight that, here is the key point from Goolsbee's 2003 piece that is exactly relevant today (of course I disagree with the more funds part, but the point still stands). And this is what the right misses when it focuses on the conspiratorial issues of the jobs numbers:

Quote
Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interests of both political parties. Democrats were able to claim unemployment fell in the 1990's to the lowest level in 40 years, happy to ignore the invisible unemployed. Republicans have eagerly embraced the view that the recession of 2001 was the mildest on record.

The situation has grown so dire, though, that we can't even tell whether the job market is recovering. The time has come to correct the official unemployment statistics to account for those left out. The government agencies that can give us a more detailed and accurate picture of the nation's employment situation -- the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis -- need additional funds and resources from Congress to do their jobs.

Otherwise, announcements about a rebounding economy will continue to show only half the picture.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
Meh, you can spin conspiracy theories all day long but the simple fact is that businesses have been running skeleton crews for the last two years and with a few glimmers of hope like the housing market coming back, Apple driving massive tech growth with the new iphone and some modest overall economic growth, companies finally feel like they can go out on a limb and start hiring again.

A skeleton crew is no way to run a business, it drives down morale, creates in fighting and resentment and ultimately negatively productivity because workers are so stressed while trying to cope with increased work loads for the same pay.  I should know because I've been a part of one myself since 2009, and guess what: we hired two guys this week to finally get us back to our 2008 level of staffing.  I think for a lot of companies this Christmas season is pretty much make or break, so they might as well go all in and load up on their staff so they can take their best shot. 

I know your thinking "cmon Hicks are you really trying to extrapolate your individual experience to the employment numbers of the entire country?" 

Well, this would tend to reinforce my theory that it really is a widespread phenomenon:

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/usretailsalescalendar/a/Christmas-Shopping-2012Predictions-Holiday-Season-Retail-Sales-Jobs-Hiring-Technology.htm

Quote
75% of retail leaders surveyed by management consulting firm Hay Group predicted that sales for the 2012 Christmas shopping season will be higher than they were in 2011. This same group of retail leaders said they planned to start their holiday shopping promotions even earlier than last year, with 42% saying they will start promoting Christmas shopping deals in October.


I dunno, it's pretty sad that when things are finally coming back, at least potentially, people need to start saying it's some kind of trickery just because they don't like the guy in the White House.  It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 06, 2012, 03:01:03 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems.
exactly
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
Meh, you can spin conspiracy theories all day long but the simple fact is that businesses have been running skeleton crews for the last two years and with a few glimmers of hope like the housing market coming back, Apple driving massive tech growth with the new iphone and some modest overall economic growth, companies finally feel like they can go out on a limb and start hiring again.

I disagree, and so does the data. The glimmers of hope in housing are false signals from a market that continues to be heavily subsidized by ridiculously low rates (talk about the policies that got us into this mess). Apple's stock price may be exponentially growing, but that doesn't mean they have added to the workforce, at least in the US (now I have no problem with this, but both candidates are engaging in inflammatory trade rhetoric toward China). 1.25% GDP growth is not modest, it is anemic. And with the fiscal cliff and massive uncertainty in US regulatory policy as well a likely global recession starting with year 3 of the Euro crisis (how many times have they been "saved" by expansionary monetary policy from the ECB), companies are not willing to invest in expanding their workforces (and with good reason, IMO). I mean, the fact that the only "growing" jobs are temporary/part time ones kinda belies your point. If companies felt they could start hiring, they wouldn't be hiring these kinds of transitory jobs.

Quote from: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
A skeleton crew is no way to run a business, it drives down morale, creates in fighting and resentment and ultimately negatively productivity because workers are so stressed while trying to cope with increased work loads for the same pay.

I agree, staffing is tight in most industries for the reasons I noted above. But what's the alternative? Hire people out of a sense of the "common good"? That may sound good unless it drives companies out of business because of all the new workers they can't afford. Now both the new and existing employees are SOL.

Quote from: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
Quote
75% of retail leaders surveyed by management consulting firm Hay Group predicted that sales for the 2012 Christmas shopping season will be higher than they were in 2011. This same group of retail leaders said they planned to start their holiday shopping promotions even earlier than last year, with 42% saying they will start promoting Christmas shopping deals in October.

You're talking about one sector of the economy (retail) that makes up 10-15% of the total labor force. And you're citing exactly the kind of temporary jobs I mentioned above. And while I am genuinely and wholeheartedly happy that some people have any income after being without it for however long, my point is not "well F those people," it's that we are not seeing the kind of recovery that will begin driving real growth again.

Quote from: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
I dunno, it's pretty sad that when things are finally coming back, at least potentially, people need to start saying it's some kind of trickery just because they don't like the guy in the White House.  It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems.

I don't know if that's directed at me directly or at your frustration over the response from conservatives, but I can tell you from my perspective, this has nothing to do with Obama. Remember, my philosophy on economics and capitalism means that I do not believe that Obama COULD do anything about it even if he was able to (although I would argue that, given what he did accomplish with a Democratic majority, his policies would likely not provide anything other than a short term sugar rush anyway). That goes for Romney as well; when he says "my plan will create 12M jobs" I shiver every time: first, there is simply no way anyone could ever possibly accurately forecast the level of job creation  and second, even if there were exactly 12M jobs created I don't believe a president gets credit for it, that's private industry's creation. Believe me, my frustration with Obama comes much more from what I see as his clear abuse of executive power, continued American imperialism, a complete disregard for civil liberties, and an absolutely unaccountable and opaque centralized state (all things he campaigned against and, unlike the economy, policies that he has DIRECT influence over).

My entire issue is that, contrary to the headlines, things are not finally coming back (and are we seriously celebrating an unemployment rate of 7.8%?). It's not trickery on the part of the BLS, there are countless other indicators that point to the fact that we are still in the early stages of a deleveraging that could take a decade or more (see Japan). And trying to artificially inspire confidence to spur demand, whether it's through insanely expansive monetary policy, fiscal gimmicks like payroll tax holidays or rebates, or Keynesian stimulus, is, IMO, unbelievably reckless.

But I absolutely agree with you that the level of polarization and politicization of any and everything is frustrating and will keep us stuck in status quo gridlock until it is broken. That's why I support neither candidate or party unequivocally. Part of me (a very small part of me) would find some solace in a Romney win because then you'd see I am not the right leaning partisan you seem to think I am.

As for the Fox News' of the world who seem to embody all that you hate about our current state of political affairs, fuck 'em. They will manipulate and distort and do everything they can to denigrade the Democrats. Then again, aren't you the guy who posted an unfounded accusation of Romney cheating in the debate that you found on Facebook? :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on October 06, 2012, 06:34:21 PM
is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on October 06, 2012, 06:41:08 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 06, 2012, 06:34:21 PM
is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.

I'm seriously considering it. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 06, 2012, 06:34:21 PM
is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.

I didn't realize it was being broadcast. If I can get this goddamned baby to sleep before then I'll definitely check it out. Starts at 8 EST?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 06, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
will have to watch that

Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
That goes for Romney as well; when he says "my plan will create 12M jobs" I shiver every time: first, there is simply no way anyone could ever possibly accurately forecast the level of job creation  and second, even if there were exactly 12M jobs created I don't believe a president gets credit for it, that's private industry's creation.

agreed. It sounds great for him to say "I know how to create jobs, my plan will creat 12  mill" - but I don't see how.

Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

and, nobody mentioned capital gains tax. If someone can explain to me how Mitt (or someone like him, this isn't personal) can make millions of dollars on investments but get taxed at %15, but other people work their asses off and get taxed at higher rates, please let me know. And, I don't buy the explanation that investors should be rewarded for putting $ into businesses - they are rewarded when they get their return.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 08:37:40 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
and, nobody mentioned capital gains tax. If someone can explain to me how Mitt (or someone like him, this isn't personal) can make millions of dollars on investments but get taxed at %15, but other people work their asses off and get taxed at higher rates, please let me know. And, I don't buy the explanation that investors should be rewarded for putting $ into businesses - they are rewarded when they get their return.

Now, lets make a distinction between the capital gains tax itself and the carried interest loophole that lets private equity guys like Romney only pay cap gains rates on their income. The latter is clearly unfair and should be closed (although something tells me this is not on Mitt's list of targeted loopholes). So on this, I'm with you: private equity is in the business of taking risk, so their income should be taxed at the ordinary rate which for most of them would be the top bracket.

But the cap gains tax itself is different. We want to encourage people to save and invest their money, right? Not just super wealthy dickbags like Romney but everyone should want to grow their savings in the best way possible for their given risk tolerance. Also, investing has the added bonus of providing capital to business who can then put money that to productive use by hiring workers or buying new equipment. But the problem with the tax on capital gains is it is double taxation. Because any money you've invested you've already earned and been taxed for. So the cap gains tax is, in effect, punishing you for investing your after-tax money wisely.

There are other effects like distorting the price of stocks (because you might hold when you should sell or sell when you should hold to offset any gains/losses at the end of the year). There's the issue that ordinary income is guaranteed and is taxed when earned while investments can be wiped out and may not be recognized until years after the cap gain was earned. And let's not forget it's not only stocks: if you sell a house that's not your primary residence for more than what you paid (not likely these days but once upon a time it happened) it is a capital gain (there are some other nuanced laws about cap gains and home sales that I'm not familiar with). So it's not just the investor class subject to this double taxation. And yes, the return on an investment is the compensation you get for taking that risk, but higher cap gains taxes along with riskier economic climates like the one we're living through absolutely could discourage total investment which would be a drag on overall growth.

So, while the carried interest loophole is one of the worst examples of cronyism in a tax code laden with special interest handouts, the cap gains tax in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing and I support it's elimination. YMMV

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 06, 2012, 09:52:49 PM
Welp here in Portland houses are starting to move again in a matter of days.

Anything good goes immediately here.  Is it just an anomaly since it's desirable market or are we an indicator of a more widespread recovery?

I don't know the answer but I can tell you that nobody could move shit three years ago and that is definitely not the case now.

Seems to me something is changing.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 08:37:40 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

right - but he says the tax change is revenue neutral. So how does that put more $ in the economy?

btw, Reagan proved that cutting taxes without cutting spending only makes the deficit get larger.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 08:37:40 PM

Now, lets make a distinction between the capital gains tax itself and the carried interest loophole that lets private equity guys like Romney only pay cap gains rates on their income. The latter is clearly unfair and should be closed (although something tells me this is not on Mitt's list of targeted loopholes). So on this, I'm with you: private equity is in the business of taking risk, so their income should be taxed at the ordinary rate which for most of them would be the top bracket.

But the cap gains tax itself is different. We want to encourage people to save and invest their money, right? Not just super wealthy dickbags like Romney but everyone should want to grow their savings in the best way possible for their given risk tolerance. Also, investing has the added bonus of providing capital to business who can then put money that to productive use by hiring workers or buying new equipment. But the problem with the tax on capital gains is it is double taxation. Because any money you've invested you've already earned and been taxed for. So the cap gains tax is, in effect, punishing you for investing your after-tax money wisely.

There are other effects like distorting the price of stocks (because you might hold when you should sell or sell when you should hold to offset any gains/losses at the end of the year). There's the issue that ordinary income is guaranteed and is taxed when earned while investments can be wiped out and may not be recognized until years after the cap gain was earned. And let's not forget it's not only stocks: if you sell a house that's not your primary residence for more than what you paid (not likely these days but once upon a time it happened) it is a capital gain (there are some other nuanced laws about cap gains and home sales that I'm not familiar with). So it's not just the investor class subject to this double taxation. And yes, the return on an investment is the compensation you get for taking that risk, but higher cap gains taxes along with riskier economic climates like the one we're living through absolutely could discourage total investment which would be a drag on overall growth.

So, while the carried interest loophole is one of the worst examples of cronyism in a tax code laden with special interest handouts, the cap gains tax in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing and I support it's elimination. YMMV

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.

well, you know more about this stuff than I do. But here are my issues with the cap gains part
if you personally own the business and invest in it to help it grow, fine, I have no problem with that.

the average investor, imo doesn't invest because he or she believes in what the company is doing, but will he make money on this. Stocks often go up after a company reduces costs (ie layoffs) - there is nothing altruistic about it. And, if I thought an investment was gonna make $, I would do it whether I was getting taxed 15% or 20%.

Double taxation? If I make $1,000 (and get taxed on it), and invest it in something, the cap gains tax is only on the profit, not the principle.

I don't think cap gains should be necessarily taxed the same as regular income, but 15% is too low. The tax system is a little more equitable.

QuoteETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.
maybe - you can make the same argument about govt spending - say on infrastructure (something we need and something I think even Ron Paul will agree is the role of govt). It's just about stimulating the economy, there's the deficit too. When we have a deficit, all spending / taxes / cuts need to be looked at closely. Even increasing tax reciepts by a few percent, and cutting spending by a few percent add up.

ETA - there's also the fairness issue. Fox news blames the Dems for starting class warfare, imo there already is class warfare, only not the same way Fox is thinking of it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2012, 08:37:40 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

right - but he says the tax change is revenue neutral. So how does that put more $ in the economy?

All revenue neutral means is the same amount of tax collected under varying plans. So if the current baseline if $40T in taxes collected over the next 10 yrs, Romney's plan collect the same dollars with lower rates and a faster growing GDP. It would lower the share of taxes collected as a % of GDP, but the total amount of revenues would be the same.

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
btw, Reagan proved that cutting taxes without cutting spending only makes the deficit get larger.

Can I get an Amen?!?! But remember, despite what the GOP says, Reagan raised tax rates not once but twice.

I saw the evil Grover Norquist on Bill Maher a while back and he mentioned that the reason for the strict no new taxes line in the sand is because of Reagan. Under both tax increases, there was a deal with Tip O'Neal that they would raise rates in exchange for a reduction in spending. However, since rates and projected tax revenues were higher, the Dems saw this as a blank check to increase spending. Because of this, Norquist and his ilk see any tax rate increases as an implicit approval for growing spending, so they say they have no choice but to be impenetrable dicks until spending comes back down to historical levels (around 20% of GDP). Make of that what you will.

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PMwell, you know more about this stuff than I do. But here are my issues with the cap gains part
if you personally own the business and invest in it to help it grow, fine, I have no problem with that.

the average investor, imo doesn't invest because he or she believes in what the company is doing, but will he make money on this. Stocks often go up after a company reduces costs (ie layoffs) - there is nothing altruistic about it. And, if I thought an investment was gonna make $, I would do it whether I was getting taxed 15% or 20%.

At some point we're gonna have to leave the altruism at the door or else we're not gonna get anywhere. People should save their money and plan for their future in the best way they know how. For many, especially younger people who have a longer time horizon, stocks are the best way to do this (or at least they were before the stock market became completely detached from fundamentals and became Helicopter Ben's monetary playground/crack house). For many people, there's really nothing wrong with investing in Exxon or Wal-Mart; others find this notion reprehensible. But that's the beauty of the market - everyone is free to make their own decision and do what they deem to be in their own best interest. If some people want to use their moral compass to guide their investing or purchasing decisions, more power to them and there are companies that cater to these kinds of people. I mean, let's be clear - if you have a Prius you most likely paid a premium for it (i.e., you do not save enough money in gas to break even on the increased sticker price), but that doesn't mean you don't get some satisfaction from feeling that you did your part. I don't understand why there needs to be a distinction between good and bad money. Sustainably growing the economy is the best way to help those in need, not worrying about with a company in my portfolio had to lay off a few thousand workers.

As for the power of taxes to deter investment, tax treatment is a very powerful motivator. So while 15 or 20% may not matter to you, to some (read: the uber-wealthy) it could be a considerable hit so they will shift their asset allocations to tax preferred vehicles like municipal bonds or universal life insurance or, yes, Swiss bank accounts. That is a drag on investment and productivity and thus economic output.

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
Double taxation? If I make $1,000 (and get taxed on it), and invest it in something, the cap gains tax is only on the profit, not the principle.

To your earlier point, that profit is the return you are getting for risking your own capital. Your after-tax money helped a business generate profit which you share in (the business, which you are a partial owner in, also pays taxes so really that money is being taxed 3 times; unless you are GE). Oh and that principle could also be completely wiped out too.

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
I don't think cap gains should be necessarily taxed the same as regular income, but 15% is too low. The tax system is a little more equitable.

Glad to hear this, but what would the "right" level be? (rhetorical, obviously)

Quote from: slslbs on October 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
QuoteETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.
maybe - you can make the same argument about govt spending - say on infrastructure (something we need and something I think even Ron Paul will agree is the role of govt). It's just about stimulating the economy, there's the deficit too. When we have a deficit, all spending / taxes / cuts need to be looked at closely. Even increasing tax reciepts by a few percent, and cutting spending by a few percent add up.

Look, at the end of the day, if we want to have the gov't be a larger share of the economy than it has historically been (and by we I mean the country as a whole, I say fuck this), we will have to pay for it. You cannot continue running $1T deficits without at some point suffering the consequences of it. When Greece started going down the shitter, people said, "Well it's only Greece, what effect could a country the size of Delaware have on the world economy?" 2 years later we are still struggling with the havoc this tiny country has/is wreaking on global financial markets. Iceland, Portugal, Ireland, no big deal, these are all relatively small countries on a global scale. But now Spain is finding out what happens when you try to spend without restraint for decades. And soon Italy, the world's 8th largest economy. So to anyone who thinks it can't happen here I cannot emphasize how wrong you are.

But where are the politicians saying we need to raise revenue? If we want to have gov't spending of 25% (or more given the aging population), taxes will need to go up not just on the rich but on everyone. Substantially. So while it may make good politics to campaign on the Buffet Rule and higher capital gains taxes and Clinton era taxes but only on a small subset of the country, it does not make good policy. And no one will ever, in the history or future of the country, campaign on raising middle class taxes. So, in effect, unless we get spending in check, we're screwed.

Then again, I also believe taxation is theft and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed, so what do I know.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 08, 2012, 10:03:05 AM
Everyone knows where Taibi's politics lie, but he hit the nail on the head with this one:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presidential-debate-aftermath-mitt-romney-wins-all-important-bs-contest-20121005 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presidential-debate-aftermath-mitt-romney-wins-all-important-bs-contest-20121005)

QuotePresidential Debate Aftermath: Mitt Romney Wins All-Important BS Contest

I didn't watch the debate – I just couldn't. I read it in transcript form afterwards. I know it is widely believed that Mitt Romney won, but I don't agree. I think both candidates lost. I think they both sucked. Romney told a series of outright lies – the bit about the pre-existing conditions was incredible – while Barack Obama seemed unaccountably disinterested in the intellectual challenge of the exercise, repeatedly leaving the gross absurdities hurled his way by Romney unchallenged.

Romney's performance was better than Obama's, but only if you throw out criteria like "wasn't 100% full of shit from the opening bell" and "made an actual attempt to explain who he is and what his plans are." Unfortunately, that is good enough for our news media, which drools over the gamesmanship aspects of these debates, because it loves candidates who sink their teeth into the horse-race nonsense that they think validates their professional lives.

For instance: in my local paper, the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, I read an analysis entitled, "Romney's debate performance was presidential game changer, analysts say."

The unnamed authors of this analysis delivered a blizzard of sports metaphors about Romney's performance. "It's a new race for the White House," they said, after Romney "changed the game with an aggressive, confident performance" – needed, because "Obama's forces had hinted earlier that all they needed from the debate was one good punch to knock Romney out," after the challenger "spent the summer and early fall stumbling."

On the internet, they complemented this keen analysis with a cartoon picture of the two candidates as superheroes punching each other, complete with "Pow!" and "Bam!" Batman-style effects.

Why was Romney so effective, according to the Star-Ledger? Because "the Romney viewers saw during the nationally televised debate from Denver was the one his friends have long known: a conversational, smart, decent-on-his-feet guy, eager to defend his plans to cut taxes and change government health insurance for future generations."

Obama, meanwhile, came off as "wonky and lacking punch," because he was "so intent on answering questions."

The piece literally had nothing to say about the substance or accuracy of the two arguments. Like, not one thing. It did, however, speculate that Obama might be in trouble if his performance ended up getting parodied on the Daily Show, because he might end up with a reputation for being "too academic, too cold and uneasy with being challenged."

What the hell does any of this have to do with being president? It's one thing for reporters to talk shop behind the scenes about which candidate they think is doing a better job of slinging bull. But to legitimize it as real is just nuts.

Analysts like this were, however, right in a way. Romney did come across as the more confident and aggressive candidate, and Obama did come across as "wonky" and "lacking punch." Just visually and dramatically, Romney met the spectacle on its terms better than Obama did, much the way John F. Kennedy did in his celebrated debate with Richard Nixon. In that legendary meeting, radio viewers thought Nixon won, but TV viewers, blown away by Kennedy's smile and tan, thought was a landslide for the Democrat.

Journalists who cite that Nixon-Kennedy debate always forget that the lesson of that night is that the new broadcast media technology made superficiality and nonsense more important – that thanks to the press, it was now possible to get someone elected to the most powerful office on earth because he had a superior tan. Reporters love this story because it reminds everyone that the medium they work in has the power to overcome substance and decide elections all by itself. What's amazing is that they don't have the good sense to be ashamed of this.

I read the transcript of the debate and all I got from Romney was either outright factual lies, or total rhetorical dishonesty. He even tried out a version of the for-years-debunked death panel business:

    In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need to have a -- an -- a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have.

Really? Hey, Mitt – what do you think health insurance is? It is, by definition, a bunch of people deciding what kinds of treatments we should have.

Of course, Romney's point is that there's allegedly going to be a bloodless government board somewhere deciding upon treatment options, as opposed to some bloodless corporate board making those decisions, but even that's not true at all. Romney was talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which exists solely to make cuts in Medicare if its costs rise beyond a certain level and congress doesn't do anything about them.

That board is specifically barred by law from making the kinds of care decisions Romney is talking about. Obama did at least point this out, but weakly, and that's not even the point. I mean, practically in the same breath of his "unelected board" attack, Romney criticized Obama's plan because it cut Medicare. So he's clearly not against government bureaucrats making decisions about treatment, because what the hell does Romney think Medicare does? He should try getting an eye job and billing Medicare for it. The whole thing was a non-sequitur, insincere and substantively meaningless – but if you had no clue what you were watching, it looked like Romney was confidently attacking and Obama was backtracking.

Romney's entire debate performance was like this. He said absolutely nothing, but got lots of credit for style points. Here's Romney's answer on what budget cuts he would make, addressing perhaps-soon-to-be-ex-PBS employee, Jim Lehrer:

    I'm sorry, Jim. I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That's number one.

    Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state.

    Number three, I'll make government more efficient, and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.

So the answer to the question, "What will you do to rein in the biggest budget deficit in history?" comes down to, "I'll cut PBS, which is about one millionth of the federal budget, and some other stuff."

For God's sake – "I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke? That's worse than a Bill Belichick answer: "What's our plan against the Broncos? We're going to watch the film and do what's best for our football team."

Reporters should have instantly pelted Romney with bags of dogshit for insulting the American people with this ridiculous non-answer, but he was instead praised for the canny "strategy" hidden in the response. Despite the fact that Romney is running as a budget hawk and yet has refused to name any actual programs (except Obamacare and PBS) he will cut, reporters gave him credit in the debate for being willing to be the bearer of bad budgetary news, because he essentially advance-fired Jim Lehrer on TV. Many also complimented the "humor" of the line about Big Bird.

Typically, Obama is the recipient of the breathless media plaudits for meaningless imageering and iconography, but Romney scooped it all up this time. Ugh. At least there are only two more!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 08, 2012, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian... 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:36:50 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 08, 2012, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian...

I don't think birthers, or even the tea partiers as a whole, make up the majority of the GOP constituency.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 08, 2012, 02:59:19 PM
I hate to say this, but some people are that dumb.
Hopefully, if you are curious enough to watch the debates, your curious enough to do more than just scratch the surface and fine out what is BS and what isn't.
Too many of us don't do that.
Style often trumps substance.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 08, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

This morning one of the headlines on FN.com was "Media's new debate excuse -- 'he lied'" (referring to the "liberal media" and Romney, respectively). Then there's this (http://nation.foxnews.com/ed-schultz/2012/10/05/saddest-excuse-yet-obama-s-poor-debate-performance-he-couldn-t-comprehend-romney-s-lies). And this (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/08/conservative-media-attack-obama-campaign-media/190448).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 08, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:36:50 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 08, 2012, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian...

I don't think birthers, or even the tea partiers as a whole, make up the majority of the GOP constituency.

Sure, but you didn't see that particular majority trying to discredit any of those stories...  When the current Leader of the GOP (Boner) says:  ""It's not up to me to tell them what to think", its just complicity plain and simple...  If there was any serious leadership there, that story would have been buried along time ago as "that makes us look like a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing idiots".  Instead it was legitimatized, even embraced, by the likes of Gov. Jan "Old Brown Shoe" Brewer...  IMO... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 03:04:57 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 02:04:10 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

This morning one of the headlines on FN.com was "Media's new debate excuse -- 'he lied'" (referring to the "liberal media" and Romney, respectively). Then there's this (http://nation.foxnews.com/ed-schultz/2012/10/05/saddest-excuse-yet-obama-s-poor-debate-performance-he-couldn-t-comprehend-romney-s-lies). And this (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/08/conservative-media-attack-obama-campaign-media/190448).

I'm not doubting that they are trying to spin it that way, I'm just at the very least hoping that those in the middle aren't buying it.

Of course the conservative choir will eat it up, but those people would still vote for Romney if the NY Times had a picture of him eating babies for breakfast. 

The people that matter are those that can still be swayed at this point, and I would tend to think they have a bit more ability to analyze information or else they would have been herded to one side or the other long ago.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 08, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 08, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again

Exactly.

ETA:  I'm pretty sure he really does eat babies for breakfast btw.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 08, 2012, 03:16:46 PM
Well, the polls are swinging Romney's way, so unless that's just coincidence, it seems like the debate helped him. So it's not just the conservative faithful who happily lapped it up.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 08, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 08, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again

Exactly.

ETA:  I'm pretty sure he really does eat babies for breakfast btw.

Chinese babies at that. They taste better. I think it's the all organic straight from the fields rice diet they're fed. Mmm-mmm, chinese baby. Marinated in a soy based sauce, slow cooked over some apple wood chips....chinese baby back ribs indeed!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 08, 2012, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 08, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 08, 2012, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 08, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again

Exactly.

ETA:  I'm pretty sure he really does eat babies for breakfast btw.

Chinese babies at that. They taste better. I think it's the all organic straight from the fields rice diet they're fed. Mmm-mmm, chinese baby. Marinated in a soy based sauce, slow cooked over some apple wood chips....chinese baby back ribs indeed!

He better watch out for all the arsenic!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 09, 2012, 10:28:04 AM
Fox News is jizzing themselves over this new Pew poll that gave Romney good news yesterday (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/romney-surges-in-new-poll-makes-across-board-gains-on-heels-debate/).

Meanwhile, Nate Silver is taking a much more nuanced view (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-8-a-great-poll-for-romney-in-perspective/#more-35748) and is actually paying attention to all the polls that came out yesterday. He still puts Romney at a 25% chance of winning the election. But, you know, he's just some egghead liberal elite who uses -- pfft -- data and analytics to put together pretty charts for his commie overlords at the New York Times.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 09, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
I think it's fair to say the debate helped Romney - no surprise.
Apparently, the Big Bird ad is going to air in Ohio.
Have they aired any ads showing the Romney flip flops from the primaries to the general, like the vids on the other thread?

they don't spend too much cash for the Presidential here in MA.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 09, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 09, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
I think it's fair to say the debate helped Romney - no surprise.
Apparently, the Big Bird ad is going to air in Ohio.
Have they aired any ads showing the Romney flip flops from the primaries to the general, like the vids on the other thread?

they don't spend too much cash for the Presidential here in MA.

An ad about Big Bird? That doesn't seem desperate at all.

Also, could someone tell me which loopholes Obama is going to close to lower the corporate tax rate that he mentioned in the debate? Because for all the clamor over Romney's lack of specifics, people seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama was very much style and not much substance in the debate as well. His style just kinda sucked.

ETA: Romney's speech at VMI yesterday was despicable, BTW
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 09, 2012, 02:03:25 PM
Pretty sure he specifically called out ending tax breaks for moving operations overseas as a loophole he would close.

Also, tax breaks for oil companies.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 09, 2012, 02:34:21 PM
that's the only one I recall him mentioning.

and, if it was up to me, I can think of many other ads beside for I would run if I was in charge.
thankfully, I'm not
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mattstick on October 09, 2012, 03:02:20 PM

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/10/8/15/enhanced-buzz-13869-1349724427-5.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 09, 2012, 11:25:32 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 09, 2012, 02:03:25 PM
Pretty sure he specifically called out ending tax breaks for moving operations overseas as a loophole he would close.

Also, tax breaks for oil companies.

Hmmm, where I have heard that before? Oh yeah...

Quote
You know, unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

QuoteTo help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts.  But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year.  We just can't afford it.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address)

So, if the only two loopholes Obama mentioned are the ones he's been talking about since the last election, I'm not sure how anyone can take him seriously. 4 years (2 with a Democratically controlled Congress) and I don't even think either of those have even been formally considered by Congress. And please, PLEASE don't cry GOP obstructionism on this. If Obama couldn't get 1 GOP senator to break the filibuster - no Susan Collins? Olympia Snowe? Dick Lugar, who liberals suddenly realized they LOVED after he lost to a Tea Partier - he is an even more ineffective leader than I thought he was. The reason none of this ever moved was because he had absolutely no interest in moving it other than to use it as a campaign prop (much like his tough talk to the teachers unions, sls).

Quote from: mattstick on October 09, 2012, 03:02:20 PM

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/10/8/15/enhanced-buzz-13869-1349724427-5.jpg)

That's awesome but of course it sounds nothing like Jed Bartlet who was an ARDENT free marketer. Also, here's 85 reasons why Sesame Street is going to be ok (http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/85-reasons-why-sesame-street-is-going-to-be-ok-6zgv)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 10, 2012, 12:10:23 AM
Sesame Street (children's television workshop) has requested Obama not to use Big Bird in the ads as they are a non-partisan organization.   
Now between that and the Liar Liar ads Obama looks desperate when he doesn't need to be.   They are actually starting to turn voters away as a result.

The best line I heard today was a woman I work with telling me that Romney is a bully and he bullied Obama during the debate and she doesn't want a bully for president.  To which I replied "So you are telling me that the leader of the free world was bullied during a debate by Mitt Romney?  Do I want someone who can be bullied in that easy of  a setting for president?"   Of course it was just to make a point, but I found it amusing.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
You asked which loopholes he said he would close during the last debate and I told you the ones he mentioned, simple as that.

Are you really going to sit there and minimize the obstructionist tactics in the Senate?  I mean it took an all out battle that lasted months just to get some money for 9/11 responders for chrissake.  So maybe it might be a tad more difficult to close loopholes that armies of lobbyists would be deployed to defend if there was even a hint that they were going away.   Not to mention that some of the assholes in Congress probably directly benefit from them too.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 10, 2012, 12:31:30 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 10, 2012, 12:10:23 AM
Sesame Street (children's television workshop) has requested Obama not to use Big Bird in the ads as they are a non-partisan organization.   

Already aired twice and got yanked... I caught it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2012, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
You asked which loopholes he said he would close during the last debate and I told you the ones he mentioned, simple as that.

So, to summarize, when Romney talks about policies he (in your estimation) has no intention of following through on he is a liar; when Obama speaks of policies he either can't or won't (but certainly hasn't) pass, we'll hey, at least he's out there talking about doing them. Is that about right?

Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Are you really going to sit there and minimize the obstructionist tactics in the Senate?  I mean it took an all out battle that lasted months just to get some money for 9/11 responders for chrissake.  So maybe it might be a tad more difficult to close loopholes that armies of lobbyists would be deployed to defend if there was even a hint that they were going away.  Not to mention that some of the assholes in Congress probably directly benefit from them too.

To be sure, the GOP have at times stood against Obama for purely political gain. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama has shied away from fights on policies he was elected on because he didn't want to suffer the electoral/fundraising consequences of it. It doesn't make it right, but it's a game both sides play equally.

Overall, I think the Obama's problem has been that his campaign has been so concerned with telling you why you shouldn't vote for Romney that they've forgotten to make a case for why you should vote for him. They are running the Bush 2004 playbook of fear and distortion to a T  - he'll cut taxes for the wealthy (which means he'll raise your taxes!!), he'll roll back regulations on Wall St (even though everyone who's been paying  the slightest bit of attention knows that Dodd-Frank is bullshit), he'll take away your "free" contraceptive and ultimately your right to choose (remember when only Republicans stoked the culture war flames?). But anytime he talks of what he wants to do it sounds like it's been lifted from his campaign 4 years ago, and I think people (particularly Independents who voted for him last time) do not believe a second term will yield any more progress on these fronts than his first.

Overall, I think he's in serious trouble. There's plenty of time for Romney to say something else inexplicably stupid and the market is still close to multi-year highs, but Obama has to do something to stop the bleeding soon, and it doesn't appear to me that he or his campaign have any clue in how to do that.

Intrade = Omaba 62.2% (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474)
RCP Average - Romney +0.8 (a 4+ pt swing in a week) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)
FiveThirtyEight - Obama 71.2% (down 13.5% from a week ago) (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on October 10, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on October 10, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.

He ain't gonna win, but a sick part of me thinks this country deserves him. . .
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 10, 2012, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on October 10, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.

He ain't gonna win, but a sick part of me thinks this country deserves him. . .

1.  watch ryan demolish biden...
2.  watch mittens win...
3.  watch Terry get disgusted...

I knew I should have stayed in DL all those years ago...

Terry


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 10, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1952780.html

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/#javascript:void(0)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on October 10, 2012, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on October 10, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.

He ain't gonna win, but a sick part of me thinks this country deserves him. . .
so true.
i live in a very "red" state, and it disgusts me just looking at 90% of the people when i'm actually out and about and thinking that they are insane enough to actually want this devil to lead our country.

TBH this electoral year has made me realize more than ever how much i am a stranger in a strange land.

back to your point though Hicks, it really seems as if it could be the only solution though in the long run.
if not this time around then maybe the next.
people will never learn until they are completely and utterly screwed. --i dont mean out of work and cant afford health care screwed. i mean rounded up and forced into slave labor type of screwed.
this country is on a crash course for pure facism, or at the least some other sort of ism, where freedom is just a sick joke someone once told and everyone decided they wanted to forget about.

CONSUME YOUR  PRODUCTS WHILE YOU CAN YOU FUCKING AUTOMATONS! CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME! FOR TOMORROW YOU WILL STARVE! AND FOR GENERATIONS ONWARD YOU WILL STARVE AND LABOR FOR THE RULING CLASS!
ENJOY YOUR GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED DRUGS! GET HIGH ON CAFFEINE AND NICOTINE AND WORK WORK WORK! THEN DRINK YOUR 5% ALCOHOL AND GO HOME AND BEAT YOUR WIFE!!
REST WELL KNOWING YOU HAVE GREASED THE WHEEL OF CAPITALISM ONE MORE DAY! FOR THE FUTURE HOLDS NOTHING BUT MISERY!!!!





...end rant./ exit political board stage left--
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 10, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
the Prez is in trouble.
Big bird wasn't gonna help him anyway.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
couple things referenced above

teachers union - the Reach for the Top program required the teachers union to sign a pledge agreeing to the concept that promotion will be based on merit. Sounds simple, right. That isn't what is done now (at least in our town). Many locals were against it - not only did our union not sign the pledge, but the local union pres wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper explaining why he was risking the town getting $ over this principle.
  also, based on rhetoric coming from the WH and also the CHI teachers strike, some teachers union locals have done the unthinkable this year - support GOP candidates.
so - someone out there thinks this isn't just empty campaign rhetoric.

re oil co loopholes. POTUS obviouslycan't write a bill, but following the news the last few years this has been seriously been considered and brought up in congress. There were numerous headlines over the past few years how the GOP wouldn't accept them because they saw it the same as increasing taxes.

anyway, no excuses for Obamas performance during the debates.

interesting though - casting Romney as a moderate is making the "etch a sketch"candidate prophecy come true.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 11, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
interesting though - casting Romney as a moderate is making the "etch a sketch"candidate prophecy come true.

True -- but as well as this worked for him in the debate, it still can't help but cause confusion and incoherence. Did you see where Romney told an Iowa media outlet that he has no plans for legislation to affect access to abortions (moderate Mitt) and then immediately his campaign essentially refuted that (primaries Mitt)? You'd think they'd be a little more disciplined than that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 11, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

What better place to teach, than at the schools???  Considering everyone supposedly agrees with teaching "them" character and discipline, why not use the existing education tools in those neighborhoods - the public schools???  Then why is the GOP cutting public school budgets around NC???  Seems counter-indicative to say you want to provide for "those" people, and yet continually vote to take away those things that can help those very people... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either (they may not put it as high a priority though). Clearly, the difference is approach. Republicans think the answer is merely in the free market (which is where all answers lie), where the Dems think the govt can and should do something about it (which is were many answers lie).

the best social program is a job. how we get there is the hard part, clearly improving schools is key. Again, the GOP wants to do that via the free market also.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either

Here's the thing... let's just look at healthcare for a second. If we were to remove "uninsured" citizens (a category which includes both urban and rural poor) from the statistics, we would rank right in line with other first world countries in categories like infant mortality, etc. But we have third world poverty in our rural and urban areas that Republicans want to ignore, so we end up with infant mortality rates that are statistically below many developing nations.

If you don't think the government has a responsibility to address this issue, then you are OK with maintaining a third world segment of our population. It's that simple to me.

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 11, 2012, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 11, 2012, 11:55:39 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 11:38:03 AM

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

QFT.

I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 12:04:21 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either

Here's the thing... let's just look at healthcare for a second. If we were to remove "uninsured" citizens (a category which includes both urban and rural poor) from the statistics, we would rank right in line with other first world countries in categories like infant mortality, etc. But we have third world poverty in our rural and urban areas that Republicans want to ignore, so we end up with infant mortality rates that are statistically below many developing nations.

If you don't think the government has a responsibility to address this issue, then you are OK with maintaining a third world segment of our population. It's that simple to me.

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

I agree with you on the solution- that's why I usually vote with the Dems.
I don't think they don't care (maybe some don't) - they just think the market will do all, which to me is untrue
the other standard answer is that the States will do it. I agree that theoretically local control is better, looking around to see the different services offered in different states, and how states handle block grants make me skeptical of that approach as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 12:10:43 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.

Look, you're on a message board for a band that attracts a significant number of people who engage in illicit activity. The stakes for said activity are relatively low... there are very few guns in the Phish lot...  but Paul Ryan would say that we are making immoral choices and that is why the activities are illicit. I disagree with the morality of activities but they are illicit, none the less.

Now, take a kid growing up in the inner-city. He's faced with very similar choices. Activities deemed illicit may not be seen as immoral to him... that said, the stakes are much higher... I still don't think it is immoral for this kid to experiment with drugs. I have morality problems with even carrying a gun, but that's because I grew up in a sheltered home in a nice suburb. If I grew up in a home, or in a neighborhood, where the adults I knew carried guns, it would be really hard for me to see that as immoral.

Saying that this inner-city kid lacks discipline and character is blaming him for growing up in a third world environment. The "perpetrators" are anyone who would ignore this fact and allow that environment to exist. Again, there will never be a free market solution to these problems. There will never be profits made from educating our youth. There will never be profits from providing health care to our poor.

The government MUST provide these things or the environment will never change. The irony is that we spend more money incarcerating people than any country in the world... BY FAR!! Why? Because Republicans think the problem with our inner-cities is one of "discipline and character."

This point of view is thinly-veiled racism... nothing more, nothing less. These people don't matter to Republicans. They are "others." They don't look like us and they certainly don't share our moral compass. If they did, they'd stop doing drugs and carrying guns. They'd get jobs and be able to afford healthcare and college.
 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 11, 2012, 12:41:12 PM
To be clear, we are talking about "violent crime" (at least, that's the topic that precipitated this whole discussion)... Who is saying that every kid who grows up in the inner city lacks character and discipline? That almost seems to be the premise you are arguing against.

You are very correct in that we all have our own definition of morality based on our experiences and circumstances, but I have a much easier time saying it's not immoral for someone to smoke a joint than I do saying it's not immoral for someone to participate in gangland slayings or robbing innocent citizens at gunpoint... Do you not?

When is it fair to judge someone else's behavior on the basis of its (im)morality? Well, most people just use their own definition as the litmus test. Problematic given there are individual differences there, as you note. But you can at least try to create some kind of external standard against which you can evaluate the behavior. For example, does the action bring harm to other people? Smoking pot: by and large, I say it doesn't. Assaulting, shooting or killing people in your community: I say it does. I have no problem judging one as being worse than the other.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 12:41:52 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 12:10:43 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 11, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
QuoteWednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.

Look, you're on a message board for a band that attracts a significant number of people who engage in illicit activity. The stakes for said activity are relatively low... there are very few guns in the Phish lot...  but Paul Ryan would say that we are making immoral choices and that is why the activities are illicit. I disagree with the morality of activities but they are illicit, none the less.

Now, take a kid growing up in the inner-city. He's faced with very similar choices. Activities deemed illicit may not be seen as immoral to him... that said, the stakes are much higher... I still don't think it is immoral for this kid to experiment with drugs. I have morality problems with even carrying a gun, but that's because I grew up in a sheltered home in a nice suburb. If I grew up in a home, or in a neighborhood, where the adults I knew carried guns, it would be really hard for me to see that as immoral.

Saying that this inner-city kid lacks discipline and character is blaming him for growing up in a third world environment. The "perpetrators" are anyone who would ignore this fact and allow that environment to exist. Again, there will never be a free market solution to these problems. There will never be profits made from educating our youth. There will never be profits from providing health care to our poor.

The government MUST provide these things or the environment will never change. The irony is that we spend more money incarcerating people than any country in the world... BY FAR!! Why? Because Republicans think the problem with our inner-cities is one of "discipline and character."

This point of view is thinly-veiled racism... nothing more, nothing less. These people don't matter to Republicans. They are "others." They don't look like us and they certainly don't share our moral compass. If they did, they'd stop doing drugs and carrying guns. They'd get jobs and be able to afford healthcare and college.


:clap:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Ryan says bring opportunity to disadvantaged neighborhoods; aren't all those things you mentioned part of that opportunity? Why focus on the "character and discipline" and ignore the part where he says he wants the same thing as you?

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms

A wise man once said "Generalizations are always wrong" (or something to that extent).

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 11, 2012, 11:38:03 AM

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.

The free market solution to healthcare does not hinge on how profitable health insurance is to various segments of the population; it is about lowering the cost of healthcare so that more people could afford it without foregoing the quality and availability of care that people who live under single payer systems can only dream about. Is it really that crazy to believe that open competition and transparent prices can drive costs lower while fostering the same level of innovation (even though it's happened time and again across various industries)? And, to answer your forthcoming "Yes, it is" I say it's no crazier than believing the gov't has unlimited resources to provide "free" healthcare and education and retirement to all its citizens.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 11:55:39 AM
I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!

Also, going back a bit

Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
teachers union - the Reach for the Top program required the teachers union to sign a pledge agreeing to the concept that promotion will be based on merit. Sounds simple, right. That isn't what is done now (at least in our town). Many locals were against it - not only did our union not sign the pledge, but the local union pres wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper explaining why he was risking the town getting $ over this principle.

Oh, they signed a pledge? Well, why didn't you say so!! I didn't know they signed a pledge. :wink:

Also, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.

Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
re oil co loopholes. POTUS obviouslycan't write a bill, but following the news the last few years this has been seriously been considered and brought up in congress. There were numerous headlines over the past few years how the GOP wouldn't accept them because they saw it the same as increasing taxes.

I seem to remember Mary Landreau (D-LA) having a lot to say about the sanctity of oil subsidies during that debate as well. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 11, 2012, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:45:24 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 11:55:39 AM
I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!


So we agree that the Free Market (at least in this case) fails to meet the needs of the entire population. 

Thanks!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 02:09:07 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:45:24 PM

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 11:55:39 AM
I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

LOL. You mean telecom, with some of the highest barriers to entry of any industry suffers from market failure? I can't begin to imagine why that would be?!?!


So we agree that the Free Market (at least in this case) fails to meet the needs of the entire population. 

Thanks!

Terry

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 11, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 02:09:07 PM

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.

We're not talking about the same thing.  You're talking about wireless phone (cellular) in a urban setting (philly).  I'm talking about fiber/cable internet access in remote rural settings (NC).  I don't equate the Philly area with rural areas where access might not be as easy to get, even with little or no competition.  You get a lot of that in NC...  Heck, the City of Wilson built their own IP b/c they got tired of being skipped over by TWC (yes TWC told an entire town they wouldn't get service).

But you're right about the regulation, at least in this regard:  TWC has persuaded the local GOPers to pass law that says other municipalities cannot build their own networks (like Wilson).  Ironically, the same people that talk about removing regulation and stimulating competition in our state voted the exact 180^ on this subject... 

You can tout competition all you want.  All I'm trying to get across is that competition for zero dollars nets zero.  No one is going to compete to see who can lose money the fastest to route service to remote areas.  Competition fails to meet the needs of ALL the people.

So going back to Pie-Guys initial thought, I agree whole-heatedly.  Competition and the Free Market do not provide for the needs for all the people.  It can't and never will - it works on the principle of diminishing returns.  At some point, any industry will draw a line, and if you're on the wrong side, you're SOL.

But yeah, thanks for agreeing with me for once again.  Want to keep beating this horse?  Or are you feeling particularly narcissistic today???

T   
 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:45:24 PM

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.

for once, we agree.
the GOP claims it's a free market, but we all know different.
don't go telling the GOP that their solutions aren't free market...

QuoteAlso, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.
personally, I think that when 2 parties are negotiating, someone else chiming in can only muck things up.

and, of course, if Obama did say something, the GOP would have shot back about how this was a local issue and the WH getting involved was just another example of the Federal govt sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, over-reaching, socialism, etc.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 05:32:02 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 02:09:07 PM

Sure, barriers to entry (much like monopoly power) decreases competition and leads to inefficiencies in the market. Of course, in telecom, a good deal of those barriers exist due to excessive regulation which the giant telecoms exploit to keep their oligopoly alive and well. And the consumer inevitably suffers because of it.

Contrast that to areas of the country where some of those man made barriers have been relaxed and competition has been able to provide more choices to more people. Here in Philly, we have seen an influx of low cost wireless providers who have been able to supply plans to those who couldn't afford it before. They may have limited service and aren't getting LTE speed, but a lot of people are now able to afford something that they couldn't before. All because of evil, evil competition.

We're not talking about the same thing.  You're talking about wireless phone (cellular) in a urban setting (philly).  I'm talking about fiber/cable internet access in remote rural settings (NC).  I don't equate the Philly area with rural areas where access might not be as easy to get, even with little or no competition.  You get a lot of that in NC...  Heck, the City of Wilson built their own IP b/c they got tired of being skipped over by TWC (yes TWC told an entire town they wouldn't get service).

I understand the differences between wireless/urban vs. cable/rural, but the circumstances are the same: a segment of the population lacks access to a service that they want. Sure, the specifics of each industry/setting are different, but we can still draw parallels between the two. I mean, by your logic, should we refrain from making comparisons of the airline vs. railroad industries, or newspapers vs. blogs because the specific criteria are not identical? Or can we compare two related but distinct industries to understand how they thrive and under what conditions they suffer?

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
But you're right about the regulation, at least in this regard:  TWC has persuaded the local GOPers to pass law that says other municipalities cannot build their own networks (like Wilson). Ironically, the same people that talk about removing regulation and stimulating competition in our state voted the exact 180^ on this subject...

Of course, just as the health insurers persuaded Democrats they could live with community rating and guaranteed issue and medical loss ratio requirements if the gov't could provide them with millions of new subscribers.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
You can tout competition all you want.  All I'm trying to get across is that competition for zero dollars nets zero.  No one is going to compete to see who can lose money the fastest to route service to remote areas.  Competition fails to meet the needs of ALL the people.

So going back to Pie-Guys initial thought, I agree whole-heatedly. Competition and the Free Market do not provide for the needs for all the people.  It can't and never will - it works on the principle of diminishing returns.  At some point, any industry will draw a line, and if you're on the wrong side, you're SOL.

Show me a socio-economic system that provides for the needs of ALL people.

I agree, it would be impossible to think that a company would lie expensive fiber optic cables to rural areas with a limited population, many of whom lack the means to pay for the services. My point is that with decreased restrictions on a competitive marketplace, an alternative, lower cost option could be made available.

No one - certainly not me - contends that free markets will provide a perfect outcome for every single person; that is a goal that is unquestionably unattainable. What the free market will do, however, is allocate the resources in the most equitable way possible so that all people have the opportunity (but not the guarantee) to realize the benefits.

Obviously, healthcare is different than broadband: it is an essential component of a person's right to life, which the gov't has a duty to protect. The question is the best way to do that.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 11, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
But yeah, thanks for agreeing with me for once again.  Want to keep beating this horse?  Or are you feeling particularly narcissistic today???

What, you don't know me at all? I could do this all day.


Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 12:45:24 PM

OK, this has been going on for a while but can we PLEASE stop referring to Republicans as presenting a free market solution. They, much like Democrats, prefer a corporatist/cronyist system that doles out favors to the special interests near and dear to their hearts.
for once, we agree.
the GOP claims it's a free market, but we all know different.
don't go telling the GOP that their solutions aren't free market...

Oh come on, we're not always on opposite ends of the spectrum, are we sls?

Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 03:17:21 PM
QuoteAlso, in the Chicago situation, it was Rahm, who had to deal with the consequence of the teachers demands, setting stricter accountability standards for the unions. What was the White House's position on that? Oh yeah, they kinda sat that whole debate out.
personally, I think that when 2 parties are negotiating, someone else chiming in can only muck things up.

and, of course, if Obama did say something, the GOP would have shot back about how this was a local issue and the WH getting involved was just another example of the Federal govt sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, over-reaching, socialism, etc.

Of course they would, but is that a good enough reason not to if he was as serious about reforming education as you give him credit for? And given his ties to the city and the mayor, it would have been perfectly appropriate for him to provide some insight into what would be a fair outcome. I agree with you about third party meddling and with your hypothetical GOP who say federal gov't has no business intervening in local affairs, but that's not what I was looking for. POTUS is asked his positions on any variety of topics, many of which are outside of his control; that's all I was suggesting. But I didn't expect in in September of an election year.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 05:40:54 PM
Quote
Oh come on, we're not always on opposite ends of the spectrum, are we sls?
no
insert ;) into my original post
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 08:59:58 PM
It's pretty clear that Jill Biden and Paul Ryan's wife should just lez out to determine who wins the debate.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 09:51:43 PM
Welp, nobody's gonna call Biden a punching bag tomorrow.

Douchebag maybe, but he's not wussing out that's for sure.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 09:56:35 PM
Ugh I can't even watch this, if I wanted to see people yelling over each other I'd go to my parents house.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 11, 2012, 09:56:35 PM
Ugh I can't even watch this, if I wanted to see people yelling over each other I'd go to my parents house.

Lulz

Short version tomorrow: Dems - "Biden killed it!"; Reps - "Ryan was factual and respectful...unlike that crank Joe Biden"

This is complete and utter bullshit.

ETA: oh yeah, and it'll be the right's turn to complain about the moderator.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 11, 2012, 10:44:51 PM
hmmm

I liked it
arguments about the issues without   did not... did too
Martha Radatz did a very good job, much better than Lehrer in that she didn't let either one walk all over her. when she wanted to move the debate along and change topic, she did. (Lehrer was not the cause of Obama's failure - Obama was)
I think both Biden and Ryan got their points across - Biden did what Obama didn't do in that he was able to refute Ryan without being a dick.
Biden was more passionate and was able to interject "I was there when..."
Ryan "eloquently" make his points and stood his ground

favorite lines of the night went to Ryan
"I know you have a lot of ground to make up"
"You know that some things don't always come out right"

also, I must give credit to rjimbo to mentioning the carried interest tax, which no doubt prompted Biden to mention it as well
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 11:06:03 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 10:44:51 PM
Martha Radatz did a very good job, much better than Lehrer in that she didn't let either one walk all over her. when she wanted to move the debate along and change topic, she did. (Lehrer was not the cause of Obama's failure - Obama was)

I don't know, it felt choppy and disjointed at times. There was no flow. She would ask a question and then change gears a little too quickly for me.

Quote from: slslbs on October 11, 2012, 10:44:51 PM
I think both Biden and Ryan got their points across - Biden did what Obama didn't do in that he was able to refute Ryan without being a dick.
Biden was more passionate and was able to interject "I was there when..."
Ryan "eloquently" make his points and stood his ground

Definitely disagree, I think Biden came off as pretty dickish. I saw one count that said he interrupted 82 times. His laughing and eye rolling did nothing for me too.

Also, I'm glad that 7.8% unemployment means the economy is fixed and we can talk about war for 90 mins.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
Apparently Biden didn't come across well to the CNN focus group: "Joe Biden came across as a buffoon interrupting" Ryan tried educating us before Biden "bumbled in."

CNBC - Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?
Paul Ryan: 53%
Joe Biden: 41%
Neither: 6%
Total Votes: 27,403

CBS NEWS SNAP POLL of uncommitted voters:
Biden: 50%
Ryan: 31%
Tie: 19%

ETA: make of this what you will. Ryan looks like he won the CNN demo; I wonder how the Fox and MSNBC voters saw it?

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters

Who won debate?
Ryan: 48%
Biden: 44%
Sampling error: +-5%

Who Was More Likeable?
Ryan: 53%
Biden: 43%

Who Was More In Touch With Problems of People Like You?
Ryan: 51%
Biden: 44%
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 12, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
Apparently Biden didn't come across well to the CNN focus group: "Joe Biden came across as a buffoon interrupting" Ryan tried educating us before Biden "bumbled in."

CNBC - Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?
Paul Ryan: 53%
Joe Biden: 41%
Neither: 6%
Total Votes: 27,403

CBS NEWS SNAP POLL of uncommitted voters:
Biden: 50%
Ryan: 31%
Tie: 19%

ETA: make of this what you will. Ryan looks like he won the CNN demo; I wonder how the Fox and MSNBC voters saw it?

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters

Who won debate?
Ryan: 48%
Biden: 44%
Sampling error: +-5%

Who Was More Likeable?
Ryan: 53%
Biden: 43%

Who Was More In Touch With Problems of People Like You?
Ryan: 51%
Biden: 44%
Guess a lot of rich white people watched it...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on October 12, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 12, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
Apparently Biden didn't come across well to the CNN focus group: "Joe Biden came across as a buffoon interrupting" Ryan tried educating us before Biden "bumbled in."

CNBC - Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?
Paul Ryan: 53%
Joe Biden: 41%
Neither: 6%
Total Votes: 27,403

CBS NEWS SNAP POLL of uncommitted voters:
Biden: 50%
Ryan: 31%
Tie: 19%

ETA: make of this what you will. Ryan looks like he won the CNN demo; I wonder how the Fox and MSNBC voters saw it?

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters

Who won debate?
Ryan: 48%
Biden: 44%
Sampling error: +-5%

Who Was More Likeable?
Ryan: 53%
Biden: 43%

Who Was More In Touch With Problems of People Like You?
Ryan: 51%
Biden: 44%
Guess a lot of rich white people watched it...

They're the only ones who can afford television
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 12, 2012, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: phil on October 12, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 12, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
Apparently Biden didn't come across well to the CNN focus group: "Joe Biden came across as a buffoon interrupting" Ryan tried educating us before Biden "bumbled in."

CNBC - Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?
Paul Ryan: 53%
Joe Biden: 41%
Neither: 6%
Total Votes: 27,403

CBS NEWS SNAP POLL of uncommitted voters:
Biden: 50%
Ryan: 31%
Tie: 19%

ETA: make of this what you will. Ryan looks like he won the CNN demo; I wonder how the Fox and MSNBC voters saw it?

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters

Who won debate?
Ryan: 48%
Biden: 44%
Sampling error: +-5%

Who Was More Likeable?
Ryan: 53%
Biden: 43%

Who Was More In Touch With Problems of People Like You?
Ryan: 51%
Biden: 44%
Guess a lot of rich white people watched it...

They're the only ones who can afford television

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 12, 2012, 12:42:08 PM
apparantly the #1 Google search last night was
"malarky"
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 12, 2012, 03:01:18 PM
This was my first exposure to Ryan, Biden owned him.  This debate was much more entertaining then its predecessor.  I think its perfectly ok to call shenanigans in a political forum or any forum for that matter.  Ryan is pre-mature to hold the office of the Vice Presidency, I question Romney's choice.  Martha Radatz's question about religion and abortion was insightful.  Obviously a very sensitive and powerful "moral" topic in politics, Ryan's pro-life belief was a self inflected wound in a lot of voters eyes regardless of party.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 12, 2012, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: susep on October 12, 2012, 03:01:18 PM
This was my first exposure to Ryan, Biden owned him.  This debate was much more entertaining then its predecessor.  I think its perfectly ok to call shenanigans in a political forum or any forum for that matter.  Ryan is pre-mature to hold the office of the Vice Presidency, I question Romney's choice.  Martha Radatz's question about religion and abortion was insightful.  Obviously a very sensitive and powerful "moral" topic in politics, Ryan's pro-life belief was a self inflected wound in a lot of voters eyes regardless of party.
I agree with all of these points.  It is amazing to me that the right wing is still fighting a woman's choice.  This stance has lost them many independent votes and will continue to.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2012, 12:40:56 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 12, 2012, 03:36:44 PM
It is amazing to me that the right wing is still fighting a woman's choice.  This stance has lost them many independent votes and will continue to.

While I don't disagree with you, the polls certainly seem to:

FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/oct-12-romney-debate-gains-show-staying-power/#more-35968) - Obama 61%; popular vote projection tied ("Mitt Romney continues to surge in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and Friday may have featured his best set of polls all year.")
RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) - Romney +1.0
Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474) - under 60% for the first time in over a month

Less people will watch the next debate than watched the first (and even less the third). At this point, it's all about momentum and Joe Biden will not be enough to turn the tide. Unless the president does something big - and soon - or there's some kind of large external shock (a la Lehman Bros but in reverse), Obama is in trouble.

But who knows, the electoral map still favors Obama. Or maybe you guys will get really lucky and Gary Johnson will siphon off enough of the Romney vote to let Obama squeak by.

25 days, not a lot of time...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 15, 2012, 11:48:03 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/
:shakehead:

There should be an upswing in the amount of soup kitchens if Ryan becomes VP.  That's for sure.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on October 16, 2012, 02:43:28 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 15, 2012, 11:48:03 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/
:shakehead:

There should be an upswing in the amount of soup kitchens if Ryan becomes VP.  That's for sure.

For a bit more info on that incident, check out the story from our local paper.

Soup kitchen visit by Ryan stirs anger (http://www.vindy.com/news/2012/oct/16/soup-kitchen-visit-by-ryan-stirs-anger/)

QuoteYOUNGSTOWN

The president of Mahoning County's St. Vincent de Paul Society is "shocked" and "angry" that Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan used the soup kitchen for a "publicity stunt."

Brian J. Antal, who runs the society, said the campaign "ramrodded themselves in there" without getting proper permission for the visit Saturday that followed Ryan's town-hall meeting at Youngstown State University.

"They said they got permission from the right people, but that would have been me, and I never would have given them permission," Antal said Monday.

Juanita Sherba, St. Vincent's Saturday coordinator for the dining hall, said she gave the Ryan campaign approval that day for the visit by the candidate and his family.

Sherba say she now realizes it wasn't her call to make.

The event "was a photo op," she said. "It was the phoniest piece of baloney I've ever been associated with. In hindsight, I would have never let him in the door."

When an advance person from the Mitt Romney/Ryan campaign asked about the visit, Sherba said it took her by surprise.

"I didn't know it was my place to say 'no,'" she said. "I made a mistake."

The event was completely staged by the campaign, she said.

"They couldn't have cared less," Sherba said. "The advance man said Paul Ryan wanted to come and talk to our clientele, but he didn't."

When asked for a comment, Christopher Maloney, spokesman for the Romney/Ryan campaign, said: "Our campaign and Congressman Ryan were pleased to bring attention to the meaningful charitable contributions St. Vincent de Paul Society makes to people in need."

One Romney/Ryan campaign aide, who declined to be identified for this story, said Sherba told a staffer that it would be fine for Ryan to come to the center, and that she was pleased by the request.

Also, the aide said Sherba expressed gratitude for the visit.

But Sherba tells a different story.

She said she was told Ryan would talk with the society's clientele, but he arrived so late that breakfast was over for quite some time.

Volunteers started to clean up, she said, when a Ryan campaign staff member asked them to leave some pots and pans unwashed so the VP nominee and his family could do something when he arrived.

"We just wanted to come by and say, 'Thanks,'" Ryan said to a few volunteers who stayed behind Saturday. "This is what makes society go."

Despite some media reports, Sherba said Ryan and his family washed a few dirty pots and pans, but it wasn't necessary.

"It was all about him coming in and doing dishes for publicity," Sherba said. "We had to save dishes. We would have gone home by the time he arrived. We didn't need him to do the dishes. It was getting late, and I said that we were closing in five minutes. I waited longer than that, and he finally arrived."

Antal said he's received several phone calls and emails from donors who are "not pleased" that Ryan used the soup kitchen as a photo op.

"I'd have the same problem if [Vice President] Joe Biden or [President] Barack Obama came down there," Antal said of the Democratic ticket.

But he did specifically criticize Ryan for wanting to eliminate the small amount of federal money the society gets for the dining hall.

"That is a little two-faced to say the least," he said. "I cannot have the appearance that we are endorsing the Republicans by letting them use our facility for photo ops and publicity stunts."

The society received $12,000 in federal money this year and raised about $175,000 to $200,000 in private donations for the dining hall, Antal said.

The nearby food pantry received $3,200 in federal aid this year and $75,000 in private donations, he said.

"If we can't get private donations, we're sunk," Antal said. "It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's a faith-based organization, and we're not here to get someone elected."

Antal said he doesn't blame volunteers for this.

The society's bylaws prohibit the endorsement of candidates and political parties, Antal said.

Now it also will include a policy prohibiting candidates from visiting its facilities, he said.

The dining hall is next door to The Vindicator's processing facility and newsroom on Front Street in downtown Youngstown.

St. Vincent serves 98,000 meals to the poor annually with 200 to 250 people served lunch every weekday and about 150 served breakfast on Saturdays, Antal said. The hall is closed Sundays.

Also, those provided lunch are given bags with a sandwich or food wrap to eat at night, he said.

Those wanting to donate to the society can do so at P.O. Box 224, Youngstown, OH 44501 or at any First Place Bank.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:03:09 PM
Ding ding!!

I really hate townhalls
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:23:20 PM
Romney's alpha male bit comes with extra dooshbag tonight
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 09:48:00 PM
Mitt "I ran the Olympics" Romney, lol. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:49:38 PM
His constant "I DIDN'T GET MY TURN!!" is really bugging me.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 16, 2012, 09:53:20 PM
the candidate who endorses coal as the energy of the future is a lost cause.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:49:38 PM
His constant "I DIDN'T GET MY TURN!!" is really bugging me.

8 year olds dude.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:56:45 PM
Just a hunch, but I'm having a tough time believing that a twentysomething girl who's concerned about equal pay for women, a woman who blames everything on Bush, and a black dude who voted for Obama in 2008 but isn't as hopeful as he was "in 2012" are undecided voters.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 09:57:54 PM
Quote from: susep on October 16, 2012, 09:53:20 PM
the candidate who endorses coal as the energy of the future is a lost cause.

Three words: O. Hi. O.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
This is just painful to watch.

I am not a Romney supporter, but he sounds more like someone who understands what he is talking about.   But of course, this is his wheelhouse.   Debate, identifying weakness, and attacking.

Obama sounds like someone on his heels and angry.  I have never found him to be a good debater, great speech maker, but not a debater.

Yeah, the 2 of them whining about time sounds like a kid wanting a longer term on the swing.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
"Gangbangers"

What is Things that should never be said in a presidential debate?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 16, 2012, 10:07:47 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
This is just painful to watch.


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 16, 2012, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
"Gangbangers"

What is Things that should never be said in a presidential debate?

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:09:37 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 16, 2012, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
"Gangbangers"

What is Things that should never be said in a presidential debate?

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

QFT
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
This is just painful to watch.

I am not a Romney supporter, but he sounds more like someone who understands what he is talking about.   But of course, this is his wheelhouse.   Debate, identifying weakness, and attacking.

Obama sounds like someone on his heels and angry.  I have never found him to be a good debater, great speech maker, but not a debater.

Yeah, the 2 of them whining about time sounds like a kid wanting a longer term on the swing.

A dude that refers to capital gains and dividend tax cuts as middle class cuts doesn't understand jack shit.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Both of them now appealing to Candy to make the other bad man stop saying things!!!

It's kind of funny watching Obama bitch about time when you have the CNN counter though.

Overall, Obama has been WAAAY better, and Romney has been much worse. I'm not sure if this is the game changer Obama needed, but it's a start.

They both seem like out of touch assholes to me.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.

It's all about the momentum, which, coming into today was clearly in Romney's favor.

And the map you speak of changes depending on which poll you look at. No clear consensus. I can draw up a bunch of very plausible paths to a Romney victory.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:28:53 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Both of them now appealing to Candy to make the other bad man stop saying things!!!

It's kind of funny watching Obama bitch about time when you have the CNN counter though.

Overall, Obama has been WAAAY better, and Romney has been much worse. I'm not sure if this is the game changer Obama needed, but it's a start.

They both seem like out of touch assholes to me.

Its funny, because I have seen Obama as being horrendous, I mean really bad.  Romney had performed worse than the last debate.  He had some clear openings for the knock out punch and missed.   
Obama needs to get out of this OK and then get back to making speeches and getting air time on that front.  When I hear quotes like "the reason gas prices were so low is because the economy was on the verge of collapse" it is just so nonsensical that I don't know what to make of it.

The next jobs report is most likely the deciding factor.  If favorable and the stock market continues to climb Obama should be fine for the election.  If not it could be the opening Romney needs.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.

It's all about the momentum, which, coming into today was clearly in Romney's favor.

And the map you speak of changes depending on which poll you look at. No clear consensus. I can draw up a bunch of very plausible paths to a Romney victory.

Plausible?   No clear consensus?  That's hardly a commanding lead. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.

It's all about the momentum, which, coming into today was clearly in Romney's favor.

And the map you speak of changes depending on which poll you look at. No clear consensus. I can draw up a bunch of very plausible paths to a Romney victory.

Plausible?   No clear consensus?  That's hardly a commanding lead.

RCP has 201-191 Obama with 146 tossups (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html). Before the first debate that was 251-181 Obama. PA, OH, MI, WI - all previously leaning Obama - now tossups. You tell me who's in the driver seat.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mattstick on October 16, 2012, 10:38:21 PM
47%!

Chug!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:40:26 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:28:53 PM
Its funny, because I have seen Obama as being horrendous, I mean really bad.  Romney had performed worse than the last debate.  He had some clear openings for the knock out punch and missed.   

I'm not saying Obama hasn't been full of shit, he has; I was just saying his performance from last time was far improved. Only on style, I would give this round to Obama. But while the left will celebrate Obama as the Comeback Kid, I'm not sure he will play as well with the middle class as they might think it will.

Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:28:53 PM
Obama needs to get out of this OK and then get back to making speeches and getting air time on that front.  When I hear quotes like "the reason gas prices were so low is because the economy was on the verge of collapse" it is just so nonsensical that I don't know what to make of it.

One of my most LOLworthy highlights in a night filled with them.

Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:28:53 PM
The next jobs report is most likely the deciding factor.  If favorable and the stock market continues to climb Obama should be fine for the election.  If not it could be the opening Romney needs.

Maybe, but it's only a couple of days before the election. Most people will have their mind solidly made up by then. At least I hope they would (if not, what the fuck have you been doing for the past 18 months?)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 16, 2012, 10:38:21 PM
47%!

Chug!

It's just how it is.  There is 47% on each side that don't move much.  they are basically battling for the middle that are undecided.  I wish we would just do away with the electoral college so that everyone's vote counted.  You get the popular vote and you win, period.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:42:47 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.

It's all about the momentum, which, coming into today was clearly in Romney's favor.

And the map you speak of changes depending on which poll you look at. No clear consensus. I can draw up a bunch of very plausible paths to a Romney victory.

Plausible?   No clear consensus?  That's hardly a commanding lead.

RCP has 201-191 Obama with 146 tossups (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html). Before the first debate that was 251-181 Obama. PA, OH, MI, WI - all previously leaning Obama - now tossups. You tell me who's in the driver seat.

A slim lead is still a lead, keep spinning brah.

Also, what's the deal with Ann Romney's hair, she looks like she just rolled out of bed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:44:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 16, 2012, 10:38:21 PM
47%!

Chug!

It's just how it is.  There is 47% on each side that don't move much.  they are basically battling for the middle that are undecided.  I wish we would just do away with the electoral college so that everyone's vote counted.  You get the popular vote and you win, period.

Meh fuck that, I think we should just have the Supreme Court appoint the Prez every time.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:47:36 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:42:47 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:34:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Obama is still leading the electoral map and needs a "game changer"?

OK then.

It's all about the momentum, which, coming into today was clearly in Romney's favor.

And the map you speak of changes depending on which poll you look at. No clear consensus. I can draw up a bunch of very plausible paths to a Romney victory.

Plausible?   No clear consensus?  That's hardly a commanding lead.

RCP has 201-191 Obama with 146 tossups (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html). Before the first debate that was 251-181 Obama. PA, OH, MI, WI - all previously leaning Obama - now tossups. You tell me who's in the driver seat.

A slim lead is still a lead, keep spinning brah.

Also, what's the deal with Ann Romney's hair, she looks like she just rolled out of bed.

It's hard to spin when you don't have a horse to back. Mine are simply observations.

Funny that it was Romney who brought up the 47% first. That couldn't have been on anyone's drinking list.

I fucking hate Chris Hayes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 10:54:55 PM
I think my family infuriates me a helluva lot more during the debate than the debate itself.

This is the first election I've REALLY been involved in learning more on my own(news, debates, reading their policies, etc.)

I think I still hate politics. There's my vote.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:01:17 PM
Gonna be a LOT of "fact checking" from both sides on the Libya/"act of terror" brouhaha. Left will say "Yes, he used the words"; right will say "He was talking about 9/11 or terrorism in general, not Libya."

My prediction: it's gonna be some more finger pointing and semantic bullshit about who said what instead of anything substantive. Everybody wins.

Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 10:54:55 PM
I think I still hate politics. There's my vote.

Me too, but I'm hooked on this shit and I don't know why. It's like, I know I don't have to jerk off every night, but what the hell else am I gonna do?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
For transparency while watching the debate I was on another screen trying to design how to create software to ensure Dodd-Frank compliance.   What a crap bill.  2074 pages, 500 new regulations and they have only written the rules for 15 of them so far.  What's worse is it has no more teeth than the 47 page Glass-Segal act.

Let's just say it does slant my view as I live in this crap all day, every day.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:04:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:01:17 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 10:54:55 PM
I think I still hate politics. There's my vote.

Me too, but I'm hooked on this shit and I don't know why. It's like, I know I don't have to jerk off every night, but what the hell else am I gonna do?

Heard.

I think we're in the same boat. Train wreck...... Can.not.look.away.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 16, 2012, 11:04:28 PM
George Will
"i have seen every debate in American history, this was the best"
"Obama had a tactical victory"

Personally, I would give the Prez a slight advantage
Will it be enough to win? still close.

the one Romney comment that got me was no tax on interest and cap gains.
can you say - regressive??
I'm surprised Obama didn't jump on that.

best Obama - showing how Romney changed from the primaries to the general
best Romney - things suck now, why should we keep this guy?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:07:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 16, 2012, 11:04:28 PM
best Obama - showing how Romney changed from the primaries to the general
best Romney - things suck now, why should we keep this guy?

Isn't it sad that neither candidate's best moment is when they are talking about themselves? It's been this way a while, still blows though.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:09:00 PM
p.s. who the fuck is this guy on FOX*?His voice is ruining my ears.


*first time watching Fox News EVER.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:11:21 PM
screw Fox.  I can't believe what the woman at dem HQ is wearing on CNN. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 16, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:07:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 16, 2012, 11:04:28 PM
best Obama - showing how Romney changed from the primaries to the general
best Romney - things suck now, why should we keep this guy?

Isn't it sad that neither candidate's best moment is when they are talking about themselves? It's been this way a while, still blows though.

It's been this way for a long, long time, unfortunately
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:13:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:11:21 PM
screw Fox.  I can't believe what the woman at dem HQ is wearing on CNN.

Sold. I changed the channel.


BOOBS!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:15:21 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:13:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:11:21 PM
screw Fox.  I can't believe what the woman at dem HQ is wearing on CNN.

Sold. I changed the channel.


BOOBS!

I can't believe Kerry got through that without leering at the side boob.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:19:05 PM
Hot chick in red dress standing behind Hannity and Ed Gillespe on Fox right now.

This is what election coverage should be!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
For transparency while watching the debate I was on another screen trying to design how to create software to ensure Dodd-Frank compliance.   What a crap bill.  2074 pages, 500 new regulations and they have only written the rules for 15 of them so far.  What's worse is it has no more teeth than the 47 page Glass-Segal act.

Let's just say it does slant my view as I live in this crap all day, every day.

(http://cdn.pophangover.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tumblr_m9f9hqSgpq1rpae6q.gif)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 12:02:40 AM
CNN Snap Poll Results (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/16/breaking-cnn-poll-obama-edges-romney-in-debate/)

Who won the debate?
Obama: 46%
Romney: 39%

Some pretty bad news for Obama, though, when you dig into the number (not included in the link (yet), but just shown on CNN):

Who would be better handling the economy?
Romney: 58%
Obama: 40%

Who would be better handling healthcare?
Romney: 49%
Obama: 46%

Who would be better handling taxes?
Romney: 51%
Obama: 44%

Who would be better handling deficit?
Romney: 59%
Obama: 36%

One thing is clear: the third debate which is all about foreign policy is gonna suuuuuuuck.

ETA: FWIW, my most important poll, Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474), has Obama up about 4% for the day (3% or so since the start of the debate).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 17, 2012, 12:14:25 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:15:21 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:13:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:11:21 PM
screw Fox.  I can't believe what the woman at dem HQ is wearing on CNN.

Sold. I changed the channel.


BOOBS!

I can't believe Kerry got through that without leering at the side boob.

being a politician means that you know how to leer at boobs and not get caught

Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:03:55 PM
For transparency while watching the debate I was on another screen trying to design how to create software to ensure Dodd-Frank compliance.   What a crap bill.  2074 pages, 500 new regulations and they have only written the rules for 15 of them so far.  What's worse is it has no more teeth than the 47 page Glass-Segal act.

Let's just say it does slant my view as I live in this crap all day, every day.


I get it. My life is complicated by regulations
Congress is real good about complicated regulations.
I think we both know that both of our industries need to be regulated - we have seen the consequences of under - regulated WS (and medicine)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 17, 2012, 12:14:25 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 11:15:21 PM
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 16, 2012, 11:13:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 11:11:21 PM
screw Fox.  I can't believe what the woman at dem HQ is wearing on CNN.

Sold. I changed the channel.


BOOBS!

I can't believe Kerry got through that without leering at the side boob.

being a politician means that you know how to leer at boobs and not get caught

True. Plus he's probably had years of practice. I mean, you wouldn't want to get caught gawking and lose out on the ketchup money. People love ketchup.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 17, 2012, 12:30:45 AM
https://www.buypresidentialchia.com/?rtag=americanchia&
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 01:15:17 AM
The best thing about this election is clearly the ascendance of Matt Romney:

https://twitter.com/mattromney2012

You can also follow him on the facebooks. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 17, 2012, 03:46:07 PM
I got a binder full of women, too.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 17, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 17, 2012, 03:46:07 PM
I got a binder full of women, too.

I used to have one...  Then I found out there's all this free porn on the internet...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 17, 2012, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 17, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 17, 2012, 03:46:07 PM
I got a binder full of women, too.

I used to have one...  Then I found out there's all this free porn on the internet...

Terry

Yeah, that's what I meant. My bookmarks tab.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 04:45:50 PM
http://bindersfullofwomen.com/

https://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.

If young people voted with as much enthusiasm as they create Internet memes, this thing might be out of reach by now. As it is, most of the voting population probably didn't see the humor in the "gaffe" and are likely familiar with the concept of a binder.

Going into last night, Romney had closed the gap with women in swing states (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/). And what is the Obama campaign's response? Binders and Big Bird. Amazeballs.

ETA:
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

I know you know I know you make that distinction and that I think it's a bunch of malarkey. :-P
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.

If young people voted with as much enthusiasm as they create Internet memes, this thing might be out of reach by now. As it is, most of the voting population probably didn't see the humor in the "gaffe" and are likely familiar with the concept of a binder.

Going into last night, Romney had closed the gap with women in swing states (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/). And what is the Obama campaign's response? Binders and Big Bird. Amazeballs.
I think Obama has done a fine job at showing the full picture as to how bad Romney will be for woman voters and the rights they will probably lose if he becomes President.  If they are too dumb to understand that through the Big Bird and Binders stuff than so be it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.

If young people voted with as much enthusiasm as they create Internet memes, this thing might be out of reach by now. As it is, most of the voting population probably didn't see the humor in the "gaffe" and are likely familiar with the concept of a binder.

Going into last night, Romney had closed the gap with women in swing states (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/). And what is the Obama campaign's response? Binders and Big Bird. Amazeballs.
I think Obama has done a fine job at showing the full picture as to how bad Romney will be for woman voters and the rights they will probably lose if he becomes President.  If they are too dumb to understand that through the Big Bird and Binders stuff than so be it.

I agree Obama has done a commendable job painting the picture of Romney as someone who will take away their "rights", I just don't think women are falling for it. And rightly so.

Again, Obama's entire campaign is based on "don't vote for the other guy." And while Romney's pitch is basically in the same vein, it hurts Obama more coming off the whole Hope & Change thing when he's running W's 2004 play book using the same speeches from 4 yrs ago.

Last night, the woman asked Romney how he's different than W; I wish someone would ask the same of Obama.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:50:45 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.

If young people voted with as much enthusiasm as they create Internet memes, this thing might be out of reach by now. As it is, most of the voting population probably didn't see the humor in the "gaffe" and are likely familiar with the concept of a binder.

Going into last night, Romney had closed the gap with women in swing states (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/). And what is the Obama campaign's response? Binders and Big Bird. Amazeballs.
I think Obama has done a fine job at showing the full picture as to how bad Romney will be for woman voters and the rights they will probably lose if he becomes President.  If they are too dumb to understand that through the Big Bird and Binders stuff than so be it.

I agree Obama has done a commendable job painting the picture of Romney as someone who will take away their "rights", I just don't think women are falling for it. And rightly so.

Again, Obama's entire campaign is based on "don't vote for the other guy." And while Romney's pitch is basically in the same vein, it hurts Obama more coming off the whole Hope & Change thing when he's running W's 2004 play book using the same speeches from 4 yrs ago.

Last night, the woman asked Romney how he's different than W; I wish someone would ask the same of Obama.
um, one way would be that Bush put the country in the shitter and Obama had to lead a country out of one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 17, 2012, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
I wish someone would ask the same of Obama.

OB:  "Well...  For starters, I'm black..."

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 17, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

Obviously there is something I don't about you and MSNBC.    Would be curious as to what you see as the difference other than ends of the spectrum.  Odd that now CNN is the least biased.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 17, 2012, 09:57:10 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 17, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

Obviously there is something I don't about you and MSNBC.    Would be curious as to what you see as the difference other than ends of the spectrum.  Odd that now CNN is the least biased.

This is why I get most of my news from Al-Jazeera... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 10:06:12 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:50:45 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 17, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 17, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
If this binders full of women thing ends up moving the numbers I'm gonna lol.

If young people voted with as much enthusiasm as they create Internet memes, this thing might be out of reach by now. As it is, most of the voting population probably didn't see the humor in the "gaffe" and are likely familiar with the concept of a binder.

Going into last night, Romney had closed the gap with women in swing states (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/). And what is the Obama campaign's response? Binders and Big Bird. Amazeballs.

I think Obama has done a fine job at showing the full picture as to how bad Romney will be for woman voters and the rights they will probably lose if he becomes President.  If they are too dumb to understand that through the Big Bird and Binders stuff than so be it.

I agree Obama has done a commendable job painting the picture of Romney as someone who will take away their "rights", I just don't think women are falling for it. And rightly so.

Again, Obama's entire campaign is based on "don't vote for the other guy." And while Romney's pitch is basically in the same vein, it hurts Obama more coming off the whole Hope & Change thing when he's running W's 2004 play book using the same speeches from 4 yrs ago.

Last night, the woman asked Romney how he's different than W; I wish someone would ask the same of Obama.
um, one way would be that Bush put the country in the shitter and Obama had to lead a country out of one.

That's about as vague an answer as Obama would give. Congratulations, you too can be (a potentially one term) President.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 17, 2012, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 17, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
I wish someone would ask the same of Obama.
OB:  "Well...  For starters, I'm black..."

Now that's an answer!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 18, 2012, 09:10:42 AM
if the binders full of women wasn't bad enough, Romney himself didn't solicit them - it was the other way around

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/17/binders-full-women-mitt-romney-claim-not-entirely-accurate/jrKRRGSIPqjvuKX8dgq6gL/story.html
QuoteRomney's story isn't entirely accurate.

Those "binders full of women" actually came from a coalition called Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, or MassGAP, that had formed in August 2002 to address the shortage of women in high-ranking government positions. They had started assembling groups of applicants, taking several months to reach out to women's organizations around the state and preparing to present potential hires to whichever candidate won the election.

"We contacted both candidates before the final election," said Liz Levin, who was chairman of MassGAP until 2010. "This was an effort that we put our hearts in. We wanted to make sure that people knew how many good, qualified, terrific ladies there were."

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 18, 2012, 09:20:06 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 17, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

Obviously there is something I don't about you and MSNBC.    Would be curious as to what you see as the difference other than ends of the spectrum.  Odd that now CNN is the least biased.

I believe that both Fox News and MSNBC have made business-based decisions to appeal to the ideological bents of their respective audiences. But they go about it in different ways.

MSNBC loads up their airtime with opinion/commentary personalities, who all pretty much swing left except for the departed Pat Buchanan and his replacement "Silent" Steve Schmidt. So, if you check into MSNBC during prime time, you're going to hear liberal viewpoints. But they are clearly delivered as opinions. Now, what I think is inappropriate for a news channel is the fact that MSNBC also stocks their election desk with those same opinion personalities. But the coverage and commentary there is still being delivered by opinion people as opinion people. Rachel Maddow is not purporting to take off her "commentator" hat and don the role of "chief hard news anchor" or anything like that. They still are who they are.

Fox News, meanwhile, takes great pains to inject every aspect of their operation with their right-leaning inclinations. This is manifested not only in the makeup of their talking heads (same as MSNBC) but also in the kind of stories they cover and the way they cover them. Spend any amount of time consuming Fox News and it's clear what narratives they are pushing; and they push them hard. Go check out my brilliant Fox News thread for a glimpse into the ways FN lets ideology infect the very core of their hard "news" operation. It's OK that they play to their audience -- hey, they gotta make money -- but you get the distinct sense that they aren't just honoring their audience's confirmation bias, they are actively feeding them material and coverage that props up Republican narratives and perpetuates the whole thing. (Maybe this is just FN's way of ensuring the audience will always be there, holding the views that they hold... holy shit, that's brilliant!) Oh, and the fact that they still try and pay lip service to their own "fair and balanced" self-applied label is just beyond disingenuous.

FN was essentially started as a response to CNN, which was viewed by some on the right as being "too liberal." FN turned out to be wildly successful by just going straight for one side of the spectrum. I think the charges of bias have spooked CNN over the years into trying as hard as possible to just shoot straight down the middle and not offend anyone (namely, conservatives who hate them anyway). So MSNBC saw an opportunity to provide the left-leaning option, and I believe they've been rewarded in the marketplace for that. But they do so with much less, and much less insidious, pretense, in my opinion.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2012, 11:10:33 PM
With NC flipping from tossup to Leans Romney, RCP has Romney with an electoral college lead for the first time in the race (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html) (206-201 with 131 tossups).

Also, while Nate Silver still shows Obama with a 66% chance to win, two U of Colorado political science profs give Romney a 77% chance of winning the popular vote (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435). And while Silver's model was very accurate in 2008 and again in the midterms, the Colorado model has accurately predicted the outcome in every election since 1980.

Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474) down 4% today to 63%.

Getting ready to watch Obama on the Daily Show and LOL at the right's idiocy over the "less than optimal" comment.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 18, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2012, 11:10:33 PM
LOL at the right's idiocy over the "less than optimal" comment.

Yeah, you mean this bullshit?

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0MfMjDjfreo/UIDGhQqkd2I/AAAAAAAAC-k/44gY9hTCFeU/s720/Screen%2520shot%25202012-10-18%2520at%252011.16.42%2520PM.png)

Here's a great example of ignoring context in order to just score quick, lazy points (both sides are guilty of it). Stewart suggested that the administration's response to the episode was "not optimal." I think Obama was simply turning that analysis back on Stewart to say, the real problem is that people got killed; screw the commentariat's response to our response. His use of "optimal" in that context was to suggest that the very word and that flavor of assessment is simply inadequate given the severity of the episode.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2012, 11:31:25 PM
Yeah, it wa obviously a response to the question and calling him out on it is bullshit (although you could kinda see on Obama's face the "oh shit, shouldn't have said that" look almost immediately).

Also, god bless Jon Stewart. He asked tougher, more important questions of Obama in 15 mins than the WH press corps did in 4 yrs (warantless wiretapping, for example).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 19, 2012, 10:15:07 AM
The latest Gallup poll has Romney up 7 points. Not so surprisingly, FoxNews.com has been exclusively trumpeting this poll (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/romney-opens-up-7-point-lead-over-obama-as-campaigns-hunker-down-in-swing/) the last couple days. (Remember earlier when they made a huge deal out of a Pew poll that also contained a favorable little nugget for Mitt? I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.)

But Nate Silver uses -- pffft -- reason and analysis to take a look at just how much stock one should put into Gallup, (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/) based on its methodology and its history of being not so accurate after all. Worth a read.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2012, 11:38:44 AM
Most GOP strategists are dismissing the Gallup +7 results. And then there's Fox... (fucking Dick Morris)

Still, for all the fancy predictive modeling and rationalization about polling bias and bitching about sampling error this cycle, it's worth noting the national head-to-head RCP Average was just 0.3 pts off in 2008 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html) and their electoral map correctly predicted the outcome in every state except IN (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2008/presidential_elections_no_toss_ups-11-2-2008.html) (because really, who saw that coming?). So while as an actuary I appreciate a good Monte Carlo simulation as much as the next statistician (read: nerd), a lot of times simplicity really is better.

The difference, obviously, is the electoral environment is vastly changed from last time when it became clear Obama would win once the Dow began plunging hundreds of points a day. Voting patterns are likely to be much harder to pick up this time, but it seems to me that Silver's model may be understating the impact of the economy on the eventual outcome.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 19, 2012, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 18, 2012, 09:20:06 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 17, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 17, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 16, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 16, 2012, 10:44:32 PM
Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

Obviously there is something I don't about you and MSNBC.    Would be curious as to what you see as the difference other than ends of the spectrum.  Odd that now CNN is the least biased.

I believe that both Fox News and MSNBC have made business-based decisions to appeal to the ideological bents of their respective audiences. But they go about it in different ways.

MSNBC loads up their airtime with opinion/commentary personalities, who all pretty much swing left except for the departed Pat Buchanan and his replacement "Silent" Steve Schmidt. So, if you check into MSNBC during prime time, you're going to hear liberal viewpoints. But they are clearly delivered as opinions. Now, what I think is inappropriate for a news channel is the fact that MSNBC also stocks their election desk with those same opinion personalities. But the coverage and commentary there is still being delivered by opinion people as opinion people. Rachel Maddow is not purporting to take off her "commentator" hat and don the role of "chief hard news anchor" or anything like that. They still are who they are.

Fox News, meanwhile, takes great pains to inject every aspect of their operation with their right-leaning inclinations. This is manifested not only in the makeup of their talking heads (same as MSNBC) but also in the kind of stories they cover and the way they cover them. Spend any amount of time consuming Fox News and it's clear what narratives they are pushing; and they push them hard. Go check out my brilliant Fox News thread for a glimpse into the ways FN lets ideology infect the very core of their hard "news" operation. It's OK that they play to their audience -- hey, they gotta make money -- but you get the distinct sense that they aren't just honoring their audience's confirmation bias, they are actively feeding them material and coverage that props up Republican narratives and perpetuates the whole thing. (Maybe this is just FN's way of ensuring the audience will always be there, holding the views that they hold... holy shit, that's brilliant!) Oh, and the fact that they still try and pay lip service to their own "fair and balanced" self-applied label is just beyond disingenuous.

FN was essentially started as a response to CNN, which was viewed by some on the right as being "too liberal." FN turned out to be wildly successful by just going straight for one side of the spectrum. I think the charges of bias have spooked CNN over the years into trying as hard as possible to just shoot straight down the middle and not offend anyone (namely, conservatives who hate them anyway). So MSNBC saw an opportunity to provide the left-leaning option, and I believe they've been rewarded in the marketplace for that. But they do so with much less, and much less insidious, pretense, in my opinion.

OK, now I understand where you are coming from.  It's funny, because the way you describe Fox is how I feel about MSNBC (and Fox).  The 1 credit I actually give to Fox is that they will actually get people from prominent Democratic think tanks on for the other side of the argument.  I know of 1 who is on a 2-3 times a week right now during their morning show.    I find that MSNBC tends to bring in people who just chant Mantra and can't have an intelligent discussion for the other side of things.

You are right, they both made business decisions and they are working.  I will say I do listen to Morning Joe a lot because they will have intelligent debates with both sides, its my dirty little secret.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 19, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
RealClearPolitics is definitely pretty accurate. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 19, 2012, 04:40:04 PM
I can say without hesitation that I have spent less than ten minutes total between MSNBC and Fox in the last year.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 19, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
^^^
same here.

this is gonna be close.

QuoteAlso, while Nate Silver still shows Obama with a 66% chance to win, two U of Colorado political science profs give Romney a 77% chance of winning the popular vote. And while Silver's model was very accurate in 2008 and again in the midterms, the Colorado model has accurately predicted the outcome in every election since 1980.

the CO model is interesting - seems like it's based entirely on the economy, as if the debates / speeches didn't happen (if I'm reading it right).

Intrade down to 61.8%
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 19, 2012, 09:54:32 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
QuoteAlso, while Nate Silver still shows Obama with a 66% chance to win, two U of Colorado political science profs give Romney a 77% chance of winning the popular vote. And while Silver's model was very accurate in 2008 and again in the midterms, the Colorado model has accurately predicted the outcome in every election since 1980.

the CO model is interesting - seems like it's based entirely on the economy, as if the debates / speeches didn't happen (if I'm reading it right).

I mean, they're political scientists so I gotta believe polling data is factored into the model somehow. The difference I believe is that they take a much deeper look at state by state variations in employment, etc. As far as I know, Silver's only economic variable (or at least the predominant one) is the S&P 500. Now, in some years (maybe even most), that's probably going to be a close enough proxy for people's perception about the economy's overall health. But this year is obviously different with the S&P approaching  its 2007 peak while unemployment is at 7.8%, so a more granular look at the data may provide a more meaningful insight; OH and MI both LOST about 13k jobs in Sept, for example. All I know is if the Colorado model predicted the popular vote for Gore in 2000, it's pretty goddamned on point.

Also, Taibbi is on Bill Maher starting in 10 mins to shit all over Romney (paging Hicks).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 20, 2012, 12:02:08 AM
I'm not saying they're wrong- what the hell do I know about political forecasting.
Just that it's interesting.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:01:47 PM
Can't tell you how excited I am to not have to do this again for 4 yrs.

Quote
jeremy scahill ‏@jeremyscahill
Mitt Romney: If I'm elected, the drones will have a commander in chief who speaks their language.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:24:52 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Don't bother, foreign policy during a presidential election is the WORST. "I can bomb more countries." "No I can bomb more countries!!" "What do you know, you've never even drone attacked anyone!"

Recurring theme:

Romney: The president has not led on any issue.

Obama: I did this, this, and this. Now's here's what you said, which is clearly crazy. (Pretty sure he threw an abortion shout out in there at one point as well)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 22, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
Wife is watching the debate so I am watching the debate. 

This should be interesting.  Obama is much more well versed on foreign policy so now it is how well did Romney study.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 09:29:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:24:52 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Don't bother, foreign policy during a presidential election is the WORST. "I can bomb more countries." "No I can bomb more countries!!" "What do you know, you've never even drone attacked anyone!"

Recurring theme:

Romney: The president has not led on any issue.

Obama: I did this, this, and this. Now's here's what you said, which is clearly crazy. (Pretty sure he threw an abortion shout out in there at one point as well)

LOL!  I'm half expecting OB to walk in with mic in hand, say "Bin Laden bitches!", drop the mic on the floor, and then walk out...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:29:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:24:52 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Don't bother, foreign policy during a presidential election is the WORST. "I can bomb more countries." "No I can bomb more countries!!" "What do you know, you've never even drone attacked anyone!"

Recurring theme:

Romney: The president has not led on any issue.

Obama: I did this, this, and this. Now's here's what you said, which is clearly crazy. (Pretty sure he threw an abortion shout out in there at one point as well)

LOL!  I'm half expecting OB to walk in with mic in hand, say "Bin Laden bitches!", drop the mic on the floor, and then walk out...

Terry

Funny story: Romney congratulated Obama on OBL in his first answer. Obama's face was like, "Ahh, I was saving that for my closer."

There has not been a disagreement of any substance on anything so far.

And Romney has began transitioning every question to the economy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 22, 2012, 09:35:47 PM
Romney know this is foreign policy, right?

Oh wait now Obama had gone to education.

What a shit show
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:37:27 PM
the American foreign policy is to rape and pillage, this is charades. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:38:05 PM
Holy shit. I tuned in to a debate on foreign policy and a Race to the Top broke out.

This is nonsense. Schieffer trying (not really) to get back on track but neither candidate is biting.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
I guess they didn't want to compete with a Game 7 NLCS and MNF so they played the debate from last time.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 22, 2012, 09:41:30 PM
This debate is a clusterfuck.

Romney looks constipated. Dude cant even answer a question with a straight answer.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
I guess they didn't want to compete with a Game 7 NLCS and MNF so they played the debate from last time.

The TV ad time will play a greater role in deciding this election than the actual debate...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.

Why the hell would you do that?  They are obviously poor and are part of that 47%.  If the had any money, they'd already bought some guns!

What?  Are we now going to be handing guns out to all the poor people around the world?  Jesus!!!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:50:10 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.

Why the hell would you do that?  They are obviously poor and are part of that 47%.  If the had any money, they'd already bought some guns!

What?  Are we now going to be handing guns out to all the poor people around the world?  Jesus!!!

Terry

Do they have oil?

Also, Obama just said the sequester "will not happen". News to me.

And as each promises to outspend the other on defense, maybe someone should show them this:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A52vhmHCYAEhIYi.png:large)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 22, 2012, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.

Why the hell would you do that?  They are obviously poor and are part of that 47%.  If the had any money, they'd already bought some guns!

What?  Are we now going to be handing guns out to all the poor people around the world?  Jesus!!!

Terry

How else do you expect to end world poverty?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 22, 2012, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.

Why the hell would you do that?  They are obviously poor and are part of that 47%.  If the had any money, they'd already bought some guns!

What?  Are we now going to be handing guns out to all the poor people around the world?  Jesus!!!

Terry

How else do you expect to end world poverty?

Butter?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 22, 2012, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
Quote from: susep on October 22, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Romney, "I don't want to get involved militarily but I want to provide arms to Syrians."  wtf?

What could possibly go wrong???

Which "Syrians"???

Terry

The ones that don't have any guns. Duh.

Why the hell would you do that?  They are obviously poor and are part of that 47%.  If the had any money, they'd already bought some guns!

What?  Are we now going to be handing guns out to all the poor people around the world?  Jesus!!!

Terry

How else do you expect to end world poverty?

Butter?

I love butter...

Terry

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 22, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
Obama is really bringin out the I killed Bin Laden card....really?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on October 22, 2012, 10:06:24 PM
Anyone have a link for the stream tonight?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 22, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
Obama is really bringin out the I killed Bin Laden card....really?

I know right? He's been kinda reluctant to talk about that up to this point.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:07:25 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 22, 2012, 10:06:24 PM
Anyone have a link for the stream tonight?

Couch Vote?  Whose got my heady Absentee Ballot?

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on October 22, 2012, 10:11:07 PM
I'm not going to lie, for the longest time, the idea of watching a Mormon get fucked really hard, made my balls tingle.  After watching this, I understand why Mormon porn never made it mainstream. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?


That would be fine and dandy if their gov't was in some way "friendly" towards us, its neighbors, or even its own people.  I'm pretty sure we are trying to do this in an attempt to stave off war.  If not, why not just bomb them (yes, we DO have the ability, in this case) and get it over with??? 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:11:54 PM
The only person who loves drones more than Obama is Romney. Awesome.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 22, 2012, 10:15:32 PM
I caved and joined the viewing party...     CHINA!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:15:34 PM
lol at jimbo doing his best Pat Buchanan impersonation up in here.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?


That would be fine and dandy if their gov't was in some way "friendly" towards us, its neighbors, or even its own people.  I'm pretty sure we are trying to do this in an attempt to stave off war.  If not, why not just bomb them (yes, we DO have the ability, in this case) and get it over with??? 

Terry

An aside...  I remember hearing on the radio years ago about how Iran was trying to get Russia to accept payments for commercial nuke tech in Euros rather than Dollars...  This would in effect make the World Oil Market switch from Dollars to Euros...  But the Russians didn't buy it, and the US hated it...  Considering the position of the Euro now, it was probably smart of Russia... 

Do you remember anything like that Jimbo???

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:16:26 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?


That would be fine and dandy if their gov't was in some way "friendly" towards us, its neighbors, or even its own people.  I'm pretty sure we are trying to do this in an attempt to stave off war.  If not, why not just bomb them (yes, we DO have the ability, in this case) and get it over with??? 

Terry

So my only two choices are kill or be killed? Well that doesn't seem fair. That's like asking me to pick between these two clowns.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Guyute on October 22, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

I've switched over to the Giants smoking the Cardinals and am about to open a bottle of Macallan.   There's my foreign policy bitch, I support Scotland.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on October 22, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 22, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

I've switched over to the Giants smoking the Cardinals and am about to open a bottle of Macallan.   There's my foreign policy bitch, I support Scotland.
best line I've read all night.   :hereitisyousentimentalbastard  :clap:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:22:27 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?


That would be fine and dandy if their gov't was in some way "friendly" towards us, its neighbors, or even its own people.  I'm pretty sure we are trying to do this in an attempt to stave off war.  If not, why not just bomb them (yes, we DO have the ability, in this case) and get it over with??? 

Terry

An aside...  I remember hearing on the radio years ago about how Iran was trying to get Russia to accept payments for commercial nuke tech in Euros rather than Dollars...  This would in effect make the World Oil Market switch from Dollars to Euros...  But the Russians didn't buy it, and the US hated it...  Considering the position of the Euro now, it was probably smart of Russia... 

Do you remember anything like that Jimbo???

Terry

Doesn't ring a bell but it's not surprising: China and Brazil have already started trying to circumvent trading in dollars. I don't think it's ever advisable to try to stop something that's inevitable. Kinda builds up ill will with the people who will be calling the shots in the future.

American exceptionalism, LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:24:17 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 22, 2012, 10:17:24 PM

I've switched over to the Giants smoking the Cardinals and am about to open a bottle of Macallan.   There's my foreign policy bitch, I support Scotland.

Hell yeah!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
Romney constantly shoots himself in the foot. Why the hell would you voluntarily pivot to auto bailout that he's been made an asshole over time and time again?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 22, 2012, 10:26:49 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
Romney constantly shoots himself in the foot. Why the hell would you voluntarily pivot to auto bailout that he's been made an asshole over time and time again?

Yeah hes been bright red and sweating all night...actually that might be a spray tan.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:29:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:22:27 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Obama again bragging about "crippling sanctions" on Iran without saying that they are immoral because they don't hurt the plutocrats, only Iranians.

"Crippling sanctions" three times in one answer!!! Drink a handle of Jack.

Has anyone thought of another way to try to make a foreign gov't try to do something ti might not want to otherwise do, other than Military Force and/or "Foreign Aid" to an installed Dictator???

Terry

Maybe if they had some cool stuff. If only there was a way to "trade" with them "freely". Hmm...

Or maybe we should stop believing we have the ability to make a foreign gov't do something they don't want to do?


That would be fine and dandy if their gov't was in some way "friendly" towards us, its neighbors, or even its own people.  I'm pretty sure we are trying to do this in an attempt to stave off war.  If not, why not just bomb them (yes, we DO have the ability, in this case) and get it over with??? 

Terry

An aside...  I remember hearing on the radio years ago about how Iran was trying to get Russia to accept payments for commercial nuke tech in Euros rather than Dollars...  This would in effect make the World Oil Market switch from Dollars to Euros...  But the Russians didn't buy it, and the US hated it...  Considering the position of the Euro now, it was probably smart of Russia... 

Do you remember anything like that Jimbo???

Terry

Doesn't ring a bell but it's not surprising: China and Brazil have already started trying to circumvent trading in dollars. I don't think it's ever advisable to try to stop something that's inevitable. Kinda builds up ill will with the people who will be calling the shots in the future.

American exceptionalism, LOL.

Well, I believe in our exceptionalism...  But yeah, there are tons of people out there that take exception to that... 

And yeah, I also believe we've been waging a Quiet Trade War with China for years...  Nixon's visit wasn't a hand-shake, it was a sizing up... 

Did you ever see the short lived series FireFly???  In that everyone spoke a cajun of Chinese and English... 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on October 22, 2012, 10:30:56 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-auto-bailout_n_1974906.html

Total bullshit.  If you google it, every article cited how he wanted to let the auto industry fail with the exception of private sector help.  Fucking soulless liar. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
Romney heartily laughs at Obama joke about campaign ads. He really is a fucking dildo.

FWIW, Intrade virtually unchanged at 61% from start of debate.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 22, 2012, 10:33:36 PM
Obama's closing statement seems pretty solid. Dont think he will get to accomplish what he is saying, but its a good plan.

Romney sounds like a broken record. How is he gonna create 20 mil new jobs?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:34:05 PM
Quote from: sophist on October 22, 2012, 10:30:56 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-auto-bailout_n_1974906.html

Total bullshit.  If you google it, every article cited how he wanted to let the auto industry fail with the exception of private sector help.  Fucking soulless liar.

Why not read the real thing instead of HuffPo?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

QuoteThe American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
Romney heartily laughs at Obama joke about campaign ads. He really is a fucking dildo.

FWIW, Intrade virtually unchanged at 61% from start of debate.

So who are you voting for Azrael???

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 22, 2012, 10:33:36 PM
Obama's closing statement seems pretty solid. Dont think he will get to accomplish what he is saying, but its a good plan.

Romney sounds like a broken record. How is he gonna create 20 mil new jobs?

He's going to deport anyone that's not Mormon...  Revenge for Missouri...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on October 22, 2012, 10:41:25 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 22, 2012, 10:33:36 PM
Obama's closing statement seems pretty solid. Dont think he will get to accomplish what he is saying, but its a good plan.

Romney sounds like a broken record. How is he gonna create 20 mil new jobs?

He's going to deport anyone that's not Mormon...  Revenge for Missouri...

Terry

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
Romney heartily laughs at Obama joke about campaign ads. He really is a fucking dildo.

FWIW, Intrade virtually unchanged at 61% from start of debate.

So who are you voting for Azrael???

Terry

I honestly don't know. I can't vote for Romney. I can't see myself voting for Obama. But since I don't believe the president has nearly the effect on the economy that the candidates (and the public at large) seem to think they do, a Romney foreign policy is scary to me. John Bolton is to me the worst person alive. So the question is do I think Romney would allow himself to be steamrolled by the neocons into pushing us into more wars. And if so, would it be any worse than Obama's nearly identical foreign policy of W? I really don't know.

Obviously most of my beliefs align with Gary Johnson but for the fact he has also said that he had no objection to drone attacks and that he didn't think anyone committed a crime in the financial crisis, which indicates to me that he doesn't really get it. Also, he's way to healthy for a guy his age. I mean, do we really want a president who's climbed the highest mountain in 5 of the 7 continents? I just don't know that I trust anyone in their 50s who's that fit (sls, I'm looking at you :wink:).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:50:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
Romney heartily laughs at Obama joke about campaign ads. He really is a fucking dildo.

FWIW, Intrade virtually unchanged at 61% from start of debate.

So who are you voting for Azrael???

Terry

I honestly don't know. I can't vote for Romney. I can't see myself voting for Obama. But since I don't believe the president has nearly the effect on the economy that the candidates (and the public at large) seem to think they do, a Romney foreign policy is scary to me. John Bolton is to me the worst person alive. So the question is do I think Romney would allow himself to be steamrolled by the neocons into pushing us into more wars. And if so, would it be any worse than Obama's nearly identical foreign policy of W? I really don't know.

Obviously most of my beliefs align with Gary Johnson but for the fact he has also said that he had no objection to drone attacks and that he didn't think anyone committed a crime in the financial crisis, which indicates to me that he doesn't really get it. Also, he's way to healthy for a guy his age. I mean, do we really want a president who's climbed the highest mountain in 5 of the 7 continents? I just don't know that I trust anyone in their 50s who's that fit (sls, I'm looking at you :wink:).

Nice non-answer...  You should go into politiks...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
I think I figured out why these debates have helped Romney so much.

His normal speaking voice is actually quite soothing and people who don't know much about the issues respond to that.

Tonight I kind of zoned out and stopped listening to what he was actually saying and just listened to the tone of his voice and I almost started liking him.

Then I remember that he's a fucking douchebag liar, not to mention a Mormon, and all was right with the world again.


Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:55:27 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:50:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
Romney heartily laughs at Obama joke about campaign ads. He really is a fucking dildo.

FWIW, Intrade virtually unchanged at 61% from start of debate.

So who are you voting for Azrael???

Terry

I honestly don't know. I can't vote for Romney. I can't see myself voting for Obama. But since I don't believe the president has nearly the effect on the economy that the candidates (and the public at large) seem to think they do, a Romney foreign policy is scary to me. John Bolton is to me the worst person alive. So the question is do I think Romney would allow himself to be steamrolled by the neocons into pushing us into more wars. And if so, would it be any worse than Obama's nearly identical foreign policy of W? I really don't know.

Obviously most of my beliefs align with Gary Johnson but for the fact he has also said that he had no objection to drone attacks and that he didn't think anyone committed a crime in the financial crisis, which indicates to me that he doesn't really get it. Also, he's way to healthy for a guy his age. I mean, do we really want a president who's climbed the highest mountain in 5 of the 7 continents? I just don't know that I trust anyone in their 50s who's that fit (sls, I'm looking at you :wink:).

Nice non-answer...  You should go into politiks...

Terry

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Likely Gary Johnson. Outside chance for Obama. Will not vote for Romney.

Voting against Rep. Alison Schwartz. Not sure about Sen. Bob Casey; if it looks like Romney will win, I'll vote for Casey because a GOP House/Sen/Pres is as scary as 2008-2010; if I think Obama will win, I'll go with GOP candidate.

Just remember, local elections is where it's at.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:59:52 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

How does that differ from non-Mormons?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:59:52 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

How does that differ from non-Mormons?

It doesn't, but the whole basis of their religion really does give me the creeps.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:59:52 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

How does that differ from non-Mormons?

It doesn't, but the whole basis of their religion really does give me the creeps.

Is it the magic underwear or the no coffee/swearing schtick? Because for me, all religions believe some crazy shit, but no caffeine? Fuck that, I'm out.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:59:52 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

How does that differ from non-Mormons?

It doesn't, but the whole basis of their religion really does give me the creeps.

Is it the magic underwear or the no coffee/swearing schtick? Because for me, all religions believe some crazy shit, but no caffeine? Fuck that, I'm out.

Well besides the fact that they did away with polygamy, I mean if you can institutionalize fucking around you probably should keep doing it, but the whole "black people are cursed" thing is kinda disturbing.

Also no alcohol, isn't there something in bible about Jeebus buying wine at a 7-11 because they were out of water?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 10:59:52 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

How does that differ from non-Mormons?

It doesn't, but the whole basis of their religion really does give me the creeps.

Is it the magic underwear or the no coffee/swearing schtick? Because for me, all religions believe some crazy shit, but no caffeine? Fuck that, I'm out.

Well besides the fact that they did away with polygamy, I mean if you can institutionalize fucking around you probably should keep doing it, but the whole "black people are cursed" thing is kinda disturbing.

Also no alcohol, isn't there something in bible about Jeebus buying wine at a 7-11 because they were out of water?

Shit, I forgot about no alcohol. What a bunch of dicks.


No surprises here:

CNN-ORC Post-Debate Poll (RVs/watched debate)

Who won the debate?
Obama: 48%
Romney: 40%

Can Obama handle job of Commander-in-chief?
Yes: 63%
No: 36%

Can Romney handle job of Commander-in-chief?
Yes: 60%
No: 38%

Who seemed to be a stronger leader?
Obama: 51%
Romney: 46%

Who was more likable?
Obama: 48%
Romney: 47%

Who spent more time attacking his opponent?
Obama: 68%
Romney: 21%

Who did debate make you more likely to vote for?
Obama: 24%
Romney: 25%
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 22, 2012, 11:52:28 PM
Yeah, really...  Mormons blew it at no alcohol...  How do they expect the normal person to join their Unit???  Come on, who doesn't like a beer or 6 every night???

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:53:30 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 11:52:28 PM
Yeah, really...  Mormons blew it at no alcohol...  How do they expect the normal person to join their Unit???  Come on, who doesn't like a beer or 6 every night???

Terry

You seem much more lucid than you appeared last night. But I guess the night is young for you.  :-P

Also, that didn't take long:
http://horsesandbayonets.tumblr.com/

ETA: this one kinda looks like a mattstick Phish poster

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbr99j3Ix1qg65muo1_1280.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 23, 2012, 01:04:50 AM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 22, 2012, 10:50:06 PM
not to mention a Mormon

You'd probably be hard pressed to find a M that calls him Jack...  But IMO Ms are the nicest people around.  They really keep to kill them with kindness.  All the Mormons I know are great people...

Terry

I work with/for Mormons, some of them are OK, but some of them are truly awful people.

I work with a bunch too.  And they are great people, even if they have magic underwear...  The "leader" of the bunch is a great dood and is a "bishop" in "the temple" (M-Speak for I have a big cock).  He is married to (1) woman, but his "

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 23, 2012, 01:06:05 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 22, 2012, 11:53:30 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on October 22, 2012, 11:52:28 PM
Yeah, really...  Mormons blew it at no alcohol...  How do they expect the normal person to join their Unit???  Come on, who doesn't like a beer or 6 every night???

Terry

You seem much more lucid than you appeared last night. But I guess the night is young for you.  :-P


Lucidity is a matter of clarity...  Maybe I've learned how to stroke you???

Damn I just pissed my pants for drinking too many beers...   :-P

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on October 23, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
U guyz r silly.


Vote for me as a write-in. A vote for phil means mandatory weed for everyone over 15 years of age and jail time as punishment for getting worked up over political b.s.

Yall can come hang with me at the white house, I hear the grub there is nice.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 23, 2012, 01:11:22 PM
Quote from: phil on October 23, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
U guyz r silly.


Vote for me as a write-in. A vote for phil means mandatory weed for everyone over 15 years of age and jail time as punishment for getting worked up over political b.s.

Yall can come hang with me at the white house, I hear the grub there is nice.

Not to mention, the chefs brew beer.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: sophist on October 22, 2012, 10:30:56 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-auto-bailout_n_1974906.html

Total bullshit.  If you google it, every article cited how he wanted to let the auto industry fail with the exception of private sector help.  Fucking soulless liar.

Well, not every article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/23/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-opposed-any-government-help-resc/

Also, fact checkers can be wrong too ya know (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/19/more-fact-checker-fail.html) (although not in this case).

And I was so confused last night by Hicks' outburst in Mormon hate until I saw Andrew Sullivan playing the M card (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/religion-race-and-double-standards.html) and realized it was just your defense mechanism in the face of a potential Romney presidency.

Intrade at 56% (down 7% today). Also, a Romney flash today proves (to the left) that Intrade is too easily manipulated to predict anything (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/10/intrade-manipulation-fail.html) (without recognizing that this somewhat illiquid, inefficient market corrected itself in a matter of mins).

Quote from: phil on October 23, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
U guyz r silly.


Vote for me as a write-in. A vote for phil means mandatory weed for everyone over 15 years of age and jail time as punishment for getting worked up over political b.s.

Yall can come hang with me at the white house, I hear the grub there is nice.

Is that "phil" or "phillip"?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 23, 2012, 09:07:11 PM
Lol, pretty sure I told you intrade wasn't scientific weeks ago.

Also, I've always hated Mormons just like anyone with half a brain who lives West of the Mississippi.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2012, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 23, 2012, 09:07:11 PM
Lol, pretty sure I told you intrade wasn't scientific weeks ago.

Also, I've always hated Mormons just like anyone with half a brain who lives West of the Mississippi.

I never said it was scientific, I said it was BETTER than science. Also LOL at calling predictive modeling and polls with a 9% response rate "science".
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on October 23, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
pshaw everybody knows there aint nothing better than science.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 23, 2012, 10:06:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 23, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
pshaw everybody knows there aint nothing better than science.

Don't tell that to Republicans.

Seriously, everyone should be watching Larry King in this 3rd party debate.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on October 24, 2012, 06:21:58 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

These people are downright scary. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on October 24, 2012, 08:00:48 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 24, 2012, 06:21:58 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

These people are downright scary.

Let's elect more of them!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sunrisevt on October 24, 2012, 10:09:14 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

Yeah, let's not any of us forget this little gem from our opposition VP candidate, offered a few short months ago... (Money line @ 1:05-1:15)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 24, 2012, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2012, 08:00:48 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 24, 2012, 06:21:58 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

These people are downright scary.

Let's elect more of them!

I WISH I could.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on October 24, 2012, 10:38:31 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

I have to say, as much as I disagree with them severely, I have to acknowledge that people who oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest are at least being consistent in their beliefs. For the sake of argument, let's accept as a premise that you are going to oppose abortion. It's entirely reasonable, under the belief system that leads people to that position, to take a no-exceptions stance on the issue. (I'll note here that I do think providing an exception to protect the life of the mother is actually consistent with that pro-life stance in the first place.)

In reading the guy's quote -- "I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen" -- I think it's fair to take the guy's word that his point was that God "intended" that the life be conceived there, not that the person be raped in the first place.

This guy is saying, "My belief is that sperm + egg = life; therefore, if a sperm meets an egg no matter what the circumstances, I believe at that instant the purpose is to create life and I don't want to interfere with that." You have to admit, they are sticking up for what they believe in, and there's something admirable about that.

Now, that being said, in these post-Todd Aiken days, you'd think that any pol would craft their words on this topic extremely carefully so as not to stir up a shitstorm they can't recover from. Just the construction of his sentence alone leaves the door open for someone to accuse him of expressing an belief that "God intends rape," and that itself is something you don't want to have to spend time defending or responding to.

Why couldn't he have just said, "Look, I believe that life begins at conception, and all such lifeforms are just as innocent as any others. I don't think it's right to terminate those innocent lives because of circumstances they had no control over"? Because think about it -- the debate in these specific cases isn't abortions vs. no abortions. It's about rape/incest exceptions or not. It's saying to the pol -- OK, you oppose abortion, but do you still oppose it in these cases? And he can say, "Yes, I make no distinction from the fetus' point of view. Why do you think I should?" This would throw it back to the opposition and make them explain why it's OK to oppose aborting some fetuses but not others.

The typical response to people who oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest is to portray them as being cruel to women. If I were advising these candidates, I'd have them turn the issue around and make it not about the mother but about the innocent life they are trying to protect. Make it about their own compassion and moral consistency, and not about their draconian views on women. Seems to me like they could put themselves in a more favorable light, and they never fully grab this opportunity.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 24, 2012, 10:50:49 AM
There's this lady my mom knows who is extremely pro-life. What has she done about it? She has fostered over 150 infants over the last 25 years. Most of them are born addicted to crack or heroin. She barely sleeps because they barely sleep. I have nothing but respect for this woman.

The people who spend all their time and energy into pro-life causes ought to look at this model. You want fewer abortions in this country? Give unwanted kids a chance. It's a much better use of your time and energy than protesting.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mattstick on October 24, 2012, 11:03:26 AM

David Bowie was right to be afraid of Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?_r=1&
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 24, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: mattstick on October 24, 2012, 11:03:26 AM

David Bowie was right to be afraid of Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?_r=1&

USA! USA! USA
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on October 24, 2012, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 24, 2012, 11:03:26 AM

David Bowie was right to be afraid of Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?_r=1&

He can't help it...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 24, 2012, 11:26:23 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on October 24, 2012, 10:09:14 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

Yeah, let's not any of us forget this little gem from our opposition VP candidate, offered a few short months ago... (Money line @ 1:05-1:15)

What a dick: unless you live there, you have ZERO business calling it Ma-ZUR-ah.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 24, 2012, 10:38:31 AM
I have to say, as much as I disagree with them severely, I have to acknowledge that people who oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest are at least being consistent in their beliefs.

Well said. It's kinda like saying let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: phil on October 25, 2012, 11:46:45 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 24, 2012, 11:26:23 PM
let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.

Throw LSD in there too and I'd be TOTALLY down with this statement.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 30, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
this one is really making me sick - actually Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-mitt-romneys-misleading-ad-on-chrysler-and-china/2012/10/29/2a153a04-21d7-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/romney-ad-wrongly-implies-chrysler-is-sending-u-s-jobs-to-china-20121028

QuoteRomney Ad Wrongly Implies Chrysler is Sending U.S. Jobs to China
The Jeep ad comes after the GOP nominee misinterprets a story about possible new Jeep production in China for Chinese customers.


By Jill Lawrence
Updated: October 29, 2012 | 10:38 a.m.
October 28, 2012 | 11:08 p.m.
(AP Photo/Madalyn Ruggiero)

Republican nominee Mitt Romney is running a new TV ad that implies Chrysler is planning to move U.S. auto jobs to China, though that is not the case.

Romney provoked an outcry after he told a crowd in Defiance, Ohio

on Thursday:  "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. I will fight for every good job in America."

The story, by Bloomberg News, starts out in a confusing manner by saying that Fiat, the majority owner of Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

The piece goes on to say, however, that Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models in Michigan
Michigan
and Ohio, and any production sites in China would be new ones making cars for Chinese buyers.

Romney's statement in Defiance prompted a blog post by Gualberto Ranieri, Chrysler's senior vice president for corporate communications. "Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation," he wrote.

Despite the controversy, Romney launched a TV ad Sunday that could lead viewers to conclude Chrysler was indeed going to shift Jeep production to China. "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job," the ad says. Text on the screen quotes Bloomberg's phrase about returning Jeep output to China.
With this ad, Romney is going right at Obama's major strength in Ohio: his 2009 bailout of the auto industry that is responsible for some 800,000 jobs in the state.

The ad is correct in saying that Obama took Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy (narration that's illustrated with footage of cars being crushed). What the ad doesn't say is that Obama helped the car companies through the process by providing government loans, which Romney opposed.

Romney, in his famous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed in The New York Times in 2008, said the companies should be required to rely on private capital until after the bankruptcy. But most analysts agree there was none available in the depths of the recession, and without the bailout the twocompanies would have likely died –possibly taking down with them the supply chain and Ford.

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on October 30, 2012, 05:05:06 PM
The next line from that quote you bolded was:

QuoteA careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

So yeah...just blatant lies.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 01, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: phil on October 25, 2012, 11:46:45 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 24, 2012, 11:26:23 PM
let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.

Throw LSD in there too and I'd be TOTALLY down with this statement.
hold the fuck up.  You're telling me LSD isn't mandatory in this country?  Fuck, this really changes things for me. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 08:40:27 AM
Nonfarm payrolls rise 171k a huge beat of expectations of 125k as well as  upward revisions to August and September of +50k and +34k respectively. That's still pretty slow, but clearly improving.

However, the unemployment rate crept up slightly to 7.9% (from 7.8%) which is the number more people will focus on since that's an easier (if less precise) metric to wrap their heads around.

Overall, probably a good report for Obama right before the election. Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 02, 2012, 09:16:36 AM
So, if we added jobs but the unemployment rate went up, that either means the 1% swing is within the margin of error (is the unemployment rate based on sampling or is it a real measurement?) or the overall labor force grew faster than jobs grew. If the latter, is that because of actual population numbers or because  more people declared that they are once again back looking for work and thus could be counted?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 02, 2012, 09:16:36 AM
So, if we added jobs but the unemployment rate went up, that either means the 1% swing is within the margin of error (is the unemployment rate based on sampling or is it a real measurement?) or the overall labor force grew faster than jobs grew. If the latter, is that because of actual population numbers or because  more people declared that they are once again back looking for work and thus could be counted?

The jobs number and unemployment rate are generated from two different surveys: jobs number is from survey of employer (nonfarm) payrolls while unemployment is from a survey that calls 50-60k households each month and asks about employment situation. In theory, those two things should show the same result; in reality, there are oftentimes differences (like this month or last month when jobs number was stagnant but rate dropped by most in 30ish yrs). Both surveys are statistical measures and as such subject to margins of error and revisions (jobs number is +/-100k, i.e., completely meaningless).

You pretty much nailed why it increased: the labor force participation rate (the denominator in the equation) increased due to more people being "counted" as unemployed, but the number of jobs (in the household survey) increased by a slower rate. It's all pretty esoteric and the past couple months and the politicization of everything really highlights the need for a more transparent metric.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 02, 2012, 10:17:54 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
You pretty much nailed why it increased: the labor force participation rate (the denominator in the equation) increased due to more people being "counted" as unemployed, but the number of jobs (in the household survey) increased by a slower rate. It's all pretty esoteric and the past couple months and the politicization of everything really highlights the need for a more transparent metric.

And yet, you can bet each side is going to sieze on the piece of the news they think is favorable to them and run with it. Remember when the rate dropped to 7.8% and the GOP scoffed that it's just because so many people got tired of looking and just gave up... now, the opposite has happened, but that, too, can easily be presented to back up the same anti-Obama premise. I agree with you -- the way stats and figures can be bent, distorted, contested and generally scrutinized but with no clear, agreeable conclusions made is a pretty aggravating thing.

Speaking of which, here's a great article on Deadspin about how some on the right have been trying to discredit Nate Silver because they don't like what his models predict, with a nice little sports lead-in for you sports fans:

Nate Silver's Braying Idiot Detractors Show That Being Ignorant About Politics Is Like Being Ignorant About Sports (http://updates.deadspin.com/post/34780905169/nate-silvers-braying-idiot-detractors-show-that-being)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 02, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 08:40:27 AM
Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...
yea - by now if you're undecided what is it that will help you decide? I doubt anyone who hasn't figured this out said - if there are more than 200k new jobs I'll vote for BO, if less I'll vote for Mitt.

Both sides are lawyering up. I'm afraid this is going to be drawn out.
I thought the drama was interesting in 2000 - will not feel that way now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 02, 2012, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 02, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 08:40:27 AM
Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...
yea - by now if you're undecided what is it that will help you decide? I doubt anyone who hasn't figured this out said - if there are more than 200k new jobs I'll vote for BO, if less I'll vote for Mitt.

Both sides are lawyering up. I'm afraid this is going to be drawn out.
I thought the drama was interesting in 2000 - will not feel that way now.

2000 was extremely disheartening for me and if it happens again it will be even more depressing. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 02, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 02, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 02, 2012, 01:05:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 02, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

Then it would be resolved with a 1-on-1 hoops game.
Make it, take it
First to 11 wins all.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 02, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 02, 2012, 01:05:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 02, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

Then it would be resolved with a 1-on-1 hoops game.
Make it, take it
First to 11 wins all.

Obviously that would be unfair to Mitt.

Now, 1 on 1 dressage...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 02, 2012, 01:05:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 02, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

Then it would be resolved with a 1-on-1 hoops game.
Make it, take it
First to 11 wins all.

Lulz

In case you were wondering, here are 32 scenarios that could lead to the Holy Grail of the Electoral College (http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/ties.php?party=dem&num_rem=68&st_remain=FL,PA,OH,MI,NC,VA,WI,CO,IA,NV,NH&me=&ne=). My money is on #29.

Romeny/Biden 2012!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on November 03, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
I think it will be a close election, but maybe not so close in the EC.
I think Obama is making strides again in VA,OH, FL, CO.. and he'll win IA/WI.
I think he at least grabs Ohio, and if he does, it's over IMHO.
He may very possibly get some help in Florida due to these long lines for early voting...
Nobody is going to wait around 4 hours to vote for Willard.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 03, 2012, 07:48:42 PM
(http://insightfulnana.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/i-voted.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2012, 11:56:39 PM
FiveThirtyEight at 84% (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/), the highest level since before the first debate.

Intrade stuck at 66% (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474), not buying the recent swings Obama gains.

I'm not sure what to make of the divergence of those two which have pretty much moved in tandem for the past 6 or so months.

Here's my final map:  http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgzI

I give FL, NC & VA to Romney. Note if Romney loses VA he's pretty much toast, but early voting there has been pretty favorable for Romney (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdGhrcnotRXU3SzZUcERPMW1JSWY5Q3c#gid=0) (EV turnout just 70% of 2008, but Dem stongholds down roughly 66% while Rep areas only down 75%).

MN, WI, MI, NH & PA go to Obama. Some recent polls show MN & NH are really tight and NH could go Romney, but Obama's led the whole time so I give both to him. PA is a tricky one for me: based on my own personal observations of the Philly surrounding counties, it feels like Romney is in the driver seat. But Obama's advantage in Philly is almost insurmountable; he won the state in 2008 by 600k votes, 450k of them from Philly which went 4-1 for Obama. Romney will close the gap, but I don't see how he overcomes the massive headstart Obama gets from Philly (which makes up 11% of the vote). Some GOP strategists seem to be holding out hope for a Romney upset, but I just don't see how it adds up (although I will not be as shocked as MSNBC will be if it happens either).

Out west, Obama wins NV (easily) but Romney takes CO. GOP early voting has outpaced Ds and Independents who favor Romney by 5 pts make up nearly a quarter of the early voting returns. At first I thought Amendment 64 would help Obama, but Gary Johnson is polling well enough in the state to suggest younger would-be Obama voters who come out to vote for legalization end up backing the only candidate who actually wants to end marijuana prohibition. Either way, CO feels like it's going back to red.

I think IA is Romney's. In 2008, Dems won early voting by 17% (Obama wins); in 2004, Dems won by 11% (Bush wins); today Dems up by just 11%. GOP traditionally wins the election day vote so unless Obama can pad the stats a little more there, he'll lose their 6 EVs.

Running score: Obama 257-Romney 263. Which of course means the crown jewel is OH. Recent polls suggest Obama is winning. RCP avg for OH gives Obama a 2.9 pt lead. But I can't help but feel there is something about this election that is going to give pollsters fits: a change in the composition of the electorate not being accurately sampled; external factors that complicate people's voting patterns; respondents who hide their true intentions for whatever reasons (Silver touches on these difficulties in his most recent post). Obama won OH in 2008 by 260k votes, largely on a strong GOTV operation with a focus on early voting. But GOP early turnout is up 100k while Dems is down 150k, eliminating the Obama margin of victory. This really is a tossup in every sense of the word, but I think Romney pulls this one out for a 281-257 victory. And I'd jump on Romney at the implied FiveThirtyEight odds of 6-to-1.

It could also be another drawn out legal battle as OH's provisional ballots won't even be counted until mid-Nov and both campaigns have already been lawyering up which, actually, may be the most fitting way for this god awful campaign to end. Whatever the outcome of the election, I am quite positive that the real winner of this whole shit show will be the good ole' status quo.

Oh, almost forgot, I went ahead and filled out Hicks' picks for him: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgDe

Also, for full disclosure, here is who I'll be voting for:

President - Gary Johnson/Jim Grey (L)

US Senator - Bob Casey (D)
US Congress - Patrick Meehan (R) (kinda bummed I forgot Congressional Districts were redrawn and I don't get to vote against Allison Schwartz)

State General Assmebly - Thomas Murt (R)
State Attorney General - Marakay Rogers (L)
State Auditor General - Eugene DePasquale (D)
State Treasurer - Diana Irey Vaughan (R) (really voting against current Treasurer who is a former VC/private equity guy investing pension funds in riskier assets with his buddies)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2012, 11:56:39 PM
FiveThirtyEight at 84% (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/), the highest level since before the first debate.

Intrade stuck at 66% (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474), not buying the recent swings Obama gains.

I'm not sure what to make of the divergence of those two which have pretty much moved in tandem for the past 6 or so months.

Here's my final map:  http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgzI

I give FL, NC & VA to Romney. Note if Romney loses VA he's pretty much toast, but early voting there has been pretty favorable for Romney (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdGhrcnotRXU3SzZUcERPMW1JSWY5Q3c#gid=0) (EV turnout just 70% of 2008, but Dem stongholds down roughly 66% while Rep areas only down 75%).

MN, WI, MI, NH & PA go to Obama. Some recent polls show MN & NH are really tight and NH could go Romney, but Obama's led the whole time so I give both to him. PA is a tricky one for me: based on my own personal observations of the Philly surrounding counties, it feels like Romney is in the driver seat. But Obama's advantage in Philly is almost insurmountable; he won the state in 2008 by 600k votes, 450k of them from Philly which went 4-1 for Obama. Romney will close the gap, but I don't see how he overcomes the massive headstart Obama gets from Philly (which makes up 11% of the vote). Some GOP strategists seem to be holding out hope for a Romney upset, but I just don't see how it adds up (although I will not be as shocked as MSNBC will be if it happens either).

Out west, Obama wins NV (easily) but Romney takes CO. GOP early voting has outpaced Ds and Independents who favor Romney by 5 pts make up nearly a quarter of the early voting returns. At first I thought Amendment 64 would help Obama, but Gary Johnson is polling well enough in the state to suggest younger would-be Obama voters who come out to vote for legalization end up backing the only candidate who actually wants to end marijuana prohibition. Either way, CO feels like it's going back to red.

I think IA is Romney's. In 2008, Dems won early voting by 17% (Obama wins); in 2004, Dems won by 11% (Bush wins); today Dems up by just 11%. GOP traditionally wins the election day vote so unless Obama can pad the stats a little more there, he'll lose their 6 EVs.

Running score: Obama 257-Romney 263. Which of course means the crown jewel is OH. Recent polls suggest Obama is winning. RCP avg for OH gives Obama a 2.9 pt lead. But I can't help but feel there is something about this election that is going to give pollsters fits: a change in the composition of the electorate not being accurately sampled; external factors that complicate people's voting patterns; respondents who hide their true intentions for whatever reasons (Silver touches on these difficulties in his most recent post). Obama won OH in 2008 by 260k votes, largely on a strong GOTV operation with a focus on early voting. But GOP early turnout is up 100k while Dems is down 150k, eliminating the Obama margin of victory. This really is a tossup in every sense of the word, but I think Romney pulls this one out for a 281-257 victory. And I'd jump on Romney at the implied FiveThirtyEight odds of 6-to-1.

It could also be another drawn out legal battle as OH's provisional ballots won't even be counted until mid-Nov and both campaigns have already been lawyering up which, actually, may be the most fitting way for this god awful campaign to end. Whatever the outcome of the election, I am quite positive that the real winner of this whole shit show will be the good ole' status quo.

Oh, almost forgot, I went ahead and filled out Hicks' picks for him: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgDe

Also, for full disclosure, here is who I'll be voting for:

President - Gary Johnson/Jim Grey (L)

US Senator - Bob Casey (D)
US Congress - Patrick Meehan (R) (kinda bummed I forgot Congressional Districts were redrawn and I don't get to vote against Allison Schwartz)

State General Assmebly - Thomas Murt (R)
State Attorney General - Marakay Rogers (L)
State Auditor General - Eugene DePasquale (D)
State Treasurer - Diana Irey Vaughan (R) (really voting against current Treasurer who is a former VC/private equity guy investing pension funds in riskier assets with his buddies)
Well, as seems to be the 'usual' here, I disagree with you completely.
I live in Iowa, and I'll be completely shocked if Iowa goes red.
Absolutely unbelievable to me that Romney will win Ohio... (traditionally when a Dem is up in the polls going in to election day, it swings their way).
If your count is right (and again, I think it's pretty off), then I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

I also voted, and I voted straight ticket. It's not necessary to tell you which side I voted because I don't make ass loads of money, and I'm not a completely selfish piece of shit.

In closing, I'd just like to say "Gary Johnson, LOL".

Let the flaming begin...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on November 04, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2012, 11:56:39 PM
FiveThirtyEight at 84% (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/), the highest level since before the first debate.

Intrade stuck at 66% (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474), not buying the recent swings Obama gains.

I'm not sure what to make of the divergence of those two which have pretty much moved in tandem for the past 6 or so months.

Here's my final map:  http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgzI

I give FL, NC & VA to Romney. Note if Romney loses VA he's pretty much toast, but early voting there has been pretty favorable for Romney (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdGhrcnotRXU3SzZUcERPMW1JSWY5Q3c#gid=0) (EV turnout just 70% of 2008, but Dem stongholds down roughly 66% while Rep areas only down 75%).

MN, WI, MI, NH & PA go to Obama. Some recent polls show MN & NH are really tight and NH could go Romney, but Obama's led the whole time so I give both to him. PA is a tricky one for me: based on my own personal observations of the Philly surrounding counties, it feels like Romney is in the driver seat. But Obama's advantage in Philly is almost insurmountable; he won the state in 2008 by 600k votes, 450k of them from Philly which went 4-1 for Obama. Romney will close the gap, but I don't see how he overcomes the massive headstart Obama gets from Philly (which makes up 11% of the vote). Some GOP strategists seem to be holding out hope for a Romney upset, but I just don't see how it adds up (although I will not be as shocked as MSNBC will be if it happens either).

Out west, Obama wins NV (easily) but Romney takes CO. GOP early voting has outpaced Ds and Independents who favor Romney by 5 pts make up nearly a quarter of the early voting returns. At first I thought Amendment 64 would help Obama, but Gary Johnson is polling well enough in the state to suggest younger would-be Obama voters who come out to vote for legalization end up backing the only candidate who actually wants to end marijuana prohibition. Either way, CO feels like it's going back to red.

I think IA is Romney's. In 2008, Dems won early voting by 17% (Obama wins); in 2004, Dems won by 11% (Bush wins); today Dems up by just 11%. GOP traditionally wins the election day vote so unless Obama can pad the stats a little more there, he'll lose their 6 EVs.

Running score: Obama 257-Romney 263. Which of course means the crown jewel is OH. Recent polls suggest Obama is winning. RCP avg for OH gives Obama a 2.9 pt lead. But I can't help but feel there is something about this election that is going to give pollsters fits: a change in the composition of the electorate not being accurately sampled; external factors that complicate people's voting patterns; respondents who hide their true intentions for whatever reasons (Silver touches on these difficulties in his most recent post). Obama won OH in 2008 by 260k votes, largely on a strong GOTV operation with a focus on early voting. But GOP early turnout is up 100k while Dems is down 150k, eliminating the Obama margin of victory. This really is a tossup in every sense of the word, but I think Romney pulls this one out for a 281-257 victory. And I'd jump on Romney at the implied FiveThirtyEight odds of 6-to-1.

It could also be another drawn out legal battle as OH's provisional ballots won't even be counted until mid-Nov and both campaigns have already been lawyering up which, actually, may be the most fitting way for this god awful campaign to end. Whatever the outcome of the election, I am quite positive that the real winner of this whole shit show will be the good ole' status quo.

Oh, almost forgot, I went ahead and filled out Hicks' picks for him: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bgDe

Also, for full disclosure, here is who I'll be voting for:

President - Gary Johnson/Jim Grey (L)

US Senator - Bob Casey (D)
US Congress - Patrick Meehan (R) (kinda bummed I forgot Congressional Districts were redrawn and I don't get to vote against Allison Schwartz)

State General Assmebly - Thomas Murt (R)
State Attorney General - Marakay Rogers (L)
State Auditor General - Eugene DePasquale (D)
State Treasurer - Diana Irey Vaughan (R) (really voting against current Treasurer who is a former VC/private equity guy investing pension funds in riskier assets with his buddies)
Well, as seems to be the 'usual' here, I disagree with you completely.
I live in Iowa, and I'll be completely shocked if Iowa goes red.
Absolutely unbelievable to me that Romney will win Ohio... (traditionally when a Dem is up in the polls going in to election day, it swings their way).
If your count is right (and again, I think it's pretty off), then I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

I also voted, and I voted straight ticket. It's not necessary to tell you which side I voted because I don't make ass loads of money, and I'm not a completely selfish piece of shit.

In closing, I'd just like to say "Gary Johnson, LOL".

Let the flaming begin...

This will be the only election I've participated in that I vote straight ticket.  Ballot measures are still up for debate. but I'm 99% sure there as well.    I would have voted already, but I promised my daughter that I would take her to vote, so I will be taking my mail ballot to the polls to show her how its done. 


ETA: Next volunteer that comes to my house, my side or not, is going to get a promise to vote for the opposite person if they remind me to vote again. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Well, as seems to be the 'usual' here, I disagree with you completely.

Imagine my surprise :wink:

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
I live in Iowa, and I'll be completely shocked if Iowa goes red.

OK, why is that exactly? As I pointed out, Obama won IA in 2008 on early voters. It appears that advantage is gone. That makes IA problematic for him. But, in my scenario, IA doesn't really matter if Romney wins OH, CO, VA, FL & NC (275-263).

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Absolutely unbelievable to me that Romney will win Ohio... (traditionally when a Dem is up in the polls going in to election day, it swings their way).

OH is kind of bizarre to me this year. Josh Mandel, who is awful in every sense of the word, is in a tight race with Sherrod Brown. Now,while I don't always agree with Brown's positions, I respect him in that he seems to be a pretty smart dude and appears to have at least a shred of integrity and consistency in his positions. The fact that this race is close (in the polls which, as I said, I am skeptical of) is enough to make me think OH is a coin flip. In those cases, turnout is key and by the limited measures we've seen so far, the Obama campaign has not been able to recreate their 2008 magic, which is why I give Romney the edge. So, unlike you, while it would not be "absolutely unbelievable to me" if Obama won, it looks to me like Romney has a legitimate chance to win it.

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
If your count is right (and again, I think it's pretty off), then I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

Could be. Certainly conventional wisdom is in Obama's side. But again, I am not convinced in the polls accuracy for some reason. History shows it's stupid of me, an observer to doubt professional pollsters who have a vested interest in getting it right no matter which way they lean (Silver tweeted this little factoid this morning: "Since '88, POTUS candidates with a lead of 0.1 to 5 points in final likely-voter polling average in a state have won 30 of 33 times (91%)." Still, I just can't shake this hunch.

And, to be clear, mine is not a bet that Obama is losing in the polls because of intentional bias, but because there is something fundamentally different about this race and the external factors influencing it that is not being picked up in the polls. It's a turnout election, and IMO the GOP has the edge in the enthusiasm department. However, if Dem turnout is at or just slightly below where it was in 2008, Obama will win IA and OH and maybe even VA.

All I'm saying is that while I am in no way certain what the outcome, I think Romney's chances are much better than 16%.

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
I also voted, and I voted straight ticket. It's not necessary to tell you which side I voted because I don't make ass loads of money, and I'm not a completely selfish piece of shit.

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

Fair to say that calling anyone who votes Republican "a completely selfish piece of shit" is kind of a piece of shit thing to do?

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
In closing, I'd just like to say "Gary Johnson, LOL".

While he's not my ideal libertarian candidate (he has expressed some tolerance toward continuing Dr. Drone's policy of using a video game to kill a whole lot of innocent people and has questioned whether anyone committed a crime during the financial crisis), he is clearly much more closely aligned with my views than the two carbon copy candidates. And I always wonder, if everyone laments the failure of the two party system, why are people so scared of doing something to help break the duopoly?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 04:29:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Well, as seems to be the 'usual' here, I disagree with you completely.

Imagine my surprise :wink:
I strive to keep you on your toes, brother.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
I live in Iowa, and I'll be completely shocked if Iowa goes red.

OK, why is that exactly? As I pointed out, Obama won IA in 2008 on early voters. It appears that advantage is gone. That makes IA problematic for him. But, in my scenario, IA doesn't really matter if Romney wins OH, CO, VA, FL & NC (275-263).
Well, for me it's all about the real turnout. I know you believe that it's going to be a higher Republican turnout on election day, and although you are probably right, I just don't think there is any way around the early voting. 11% is a HUGE advantage, and it would take an unconscionable turnout (even for Republicans) to win the state. Not happening.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Absolutely unbelievable to me that Romney will win Ohio... (traditionally when a Dem is up in the polls going in to election day, it swings their way).

OH is kind of bizarre to me this year. Josh Mandel, who is awful in every sense of the word, is in a tight race with Sherrod Brown. Now,while I don't always agree with Brown's positions, I respect him in that he seems to be a pretty smart dude and appears to have at least a shred of integrity and consistency in his positions. The fact that this race is close (in the polls which, as I said, I am skeptical of) is enough to make me think OH is a coin flip. In those cases, turnout is key and by the limited measures we've seen so far, the Obama campaign has not been able to recreate their 2008 magic, which is why I give Romney the edge. So, unlike you, while it would not be "absolutely unbelievable to me" if Obama won, it looks to me like Romney has a legitimate chance to win it.
The early voting numbers are tight, but looking to surpass even the numbers (1.8 million so far) from 2008. When the turnout is higher, it's always advantage Dems. I believe Ohio is tighter than tight, and it will be interesting to watch for sure. Although nationally Republican voter turnout is higher on  election day, it's not true everywhere, and in a state this close, it would have to be pretty massively out-won. It would be "absolutely unbelievable to me" because I don't think that Romney can go around Ohio spouting off complete untrue things about Jeep, and expect to roll it in. In the end, let's just agree it's too close to call here.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
If your count is right (and again, I think it's pretty off), then I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

Could be. Certainly conventional wisdom is in Obama's side. But again, I am not convinced in the polls accuracy for some reason. History shows it's stupid of me, an observer to doubt professional pollsters who have a vested interest in getting it right no matter which way they lean (Silver tweeted this little factoid this morning: "Since '88, POTUS candidates with a lead of 0.1 to 5 points in final likely-voter polling average in a state have won 30 of 33 times (91%)." Still, I just can't shake this hunch.

And, to be clear, mine is not a bet that Obama is losing in the polls because of intentional bias, but because there is something fundamentally different about this race and the external factors influencing it that is not being picked up in the polls. It's a turnout election, and IMO the GOP has the edge in the enthusiasm department. However, if Dem turnout is at or just slightly below where it was in 2008, Obama will win IA and OH and maybe even VA.

All I'm saying is that while I am in no way certain what the outcome, I think Romney's chances are much better than 16%.
I get you, and I guess I just don't feel the same way. I think the Romney campaign did a great job of shoring up "fake momentum". Remember 2004 when Bush went to California spouting off about how he was going to make it "competitive"? Genius move by Karl Rove, absolutely genius. People bought it, and it really helped motivate their base... big time. Romney attempted to use this tactic a little bit here in the final stretch (remember all the talk about making Pennsylvania a competition? Yeah, that was bullshit), but people just aren't buying it as much as they did with Bush (probably because it's so much closer).
I think that the polls have been a little skewed as well, I just don't think the "Romney bounce" was nearly what we were seeing in the polls. We shall see.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
I also voted, and I voted straight ticket. It's not necessary to tell you which side I voted because I don't make ass loads of money, and I'm not a completely selfish piece of shit.

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

Fair to say that calling anyone who votes Republican "a completely selfish piece of shit" is kind of a piece of shit thing to do?
Usually, I'd agree... right now, I don't know how you can vote for Romney and have any shred of compassion. The "Republican party" right now is run by greed (Murdoch, Norquist, Koch etc.), that it's absolutely disgusting. They care about the average American about as much as I care who wins American Idol this or any season.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
In closing, I'd just like to say "Gary Johnson, LOL".

While he's not my ideal libertarian candidate (he has expressed some tolerance toward continuing Dr. Drone's policy of using a video game to kill a whole lot of innocent people and has questioned whether anyone committed a crime during the financial crisis), he is clearly much more closely aligned with my views than the two carbon copy candidates. And I always wonder, if everyone laments the failure of the two party system, why are people so scared of doing something to help break the duopoly?

Again man, I (and I stress this is me personally that I'm talking about) am not scared of breaking that "duopoly", but the general election is hardly the time to try to pull that off. That kind of momentum has to be established well before a general. I know you won't agree, but a vote for Gary Johnson (who I don't agree with on most things anyway, but he's arguably better than Romney) is a wasted vote. The facts are that the general election is about choosing REALISTICALLY who we can live with for the next 4 years.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 04, 2012, 05:31:32 PM
Gotta give you credit for idealism r-jimbo
I voted for John Anderson (?who) in 80
the best chance we've had recently for getting a 3rd party was Ross Perot - didn't happen then, doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 04:29:19 PM


Fair to say that calling anyone who votes Republican "a completely selfish piece of shit" is kind of a piece of shit thing to do?

Usually, I'd agree... right now, I don't know how you can vote for Romney and have any shred of compassion. The "Republican party" right now is run by greed (Murdoch, Norquist, Koch etc.), that it's absolutely disgusting. They care about the average American about as much as I care who wins American Idol this or any season.


I agree. I hope you don't get too disappointed by some Dems who care just about as much.
That said, Koch, Rove, Adelman, Cantor and company are scary individuals.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 06:15:59 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 04, 2012, 05:31:32 PM
Gotta give you credit for idealism r-jimbo
I voted for John Anderson (?who) in 80
the best chance we've had recently for getting a 3rd party was Ross Perot - didn't happen then, doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Quote from: aphineday on November 04, 2012, 04:29:19 PM


Fair to say that calling anyone who votes Republican "a completely selfish piece of shit" is kind of a piece of shit thing to do?

Usually, I'd agree... right now, I don't know how you can vote for Romney and have any shred of compassion. The "Republican party" right now is run by greed (Murdoch, Norquist, Koch etc.), that it's absolutely disgusting. They care about the average American about as much as I care who wins American Idol this or any season.


I agree. I hope you don't get too disappointed by some Dems who care just about as much.
That said, Koch, Rove, Adelman, Cantor and company are scary individuals.
You know, it would bother me equally as much if the Democrats (at least in my state) were on the take from that big money as well. That said, I can stomach big money more when it's not being dangled as a means to oppress (ie. abortion, gay marriage, tax breaks for billionaires, etc.).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 05, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
Still not sure who to vote for for prez? Take a quiz and find out. (http://www.isidewith.com/quiz)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: PIE-GUY on November 05, 2012, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 05, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
Still not sure who to vote for for prez? Take a quiz and find out. (http://www.isidewith.com/quiz)

not surprising, though I refuse to vote green...

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 05, 2012, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on November 05, 2012, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 05, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
Still not sure who to vote for for prez? Take a quiz and find out. (http://www.isidewith.com/quiz)

not surprising, though I refuse to vote green...

83% Stein here and samsies, fuck Ralph Nader.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 05, 2012, 06:34:57 PM
95% Jill Stein
86% BO
68% Johnson
1% Mitt (appropriate)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 05, 2012, 06:37:28 PM
I took that a couple of weeks ago

94% Stein
80% Obama
53% Johnson
2% Romney

Gonna vote for Obama though...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 05, 2012, 06:58:18 PM
97%  Jill Stein
88%  Rocky Anderson
84%  Barack Obama
2%  Mitt Romney
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: aphineday on November 05, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
96% Jill Stein
83% Barry O
75% Rocky Anderson
0% Willard Romney
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 05, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
50% Hugo Chavez
50% Jesus of Nazareth
LOL% Mitt Romney
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 05, 2012, 07:58:10 PM
Can't tell you how psyched I am that my Virgil Goode score was higher than Romney + Obama.

(http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/213003179.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 05, 2012, 09:11:48 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 05, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
50% Hugo Chavez
50% Jesus of Nazareth
LOL% Mitt Romney

well played. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 05, 2012, 09:18:51 PM
I like how adding your own stance lowers the accuracy of your results.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on November 05, 2012, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 05, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
50% Hugo Chavez
50% Jesus of Nazareth
LOL% Mitt Romney

I'd vote for Chavez. He's the only one of that group that hasn't sent people knocking at my door.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 07:20:17 AM
There's a longer line than I've ever seen at my voting location. I didn't have time to wait this morning, so I'll have to go back later!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 06, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
Well today is the day.
Not sure where this map came from but someone posted it on FB. Scary at first look.

(http://s9.postimage.org/jea5vru4f/396241_4795094792874_467902440_n.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on November 06, 2012, 07:53:49 AM
If it was on FB, it's true. We're all fahked!  :crazy:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 06, 2012, 08:06:09 AM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 06, 2012, 07:53:49 AM
If it was on FB, it's true. We're all fahked!  :crazy:

haha yeah pretty much. I am just not sure of the source where he got it from. I guess freedomslighthouse.net? Not sure how reputable that site is...
But if those states do go red, then yes, we are indeed fucked.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 06, 2012, 09:41:04 AM
Current polls show VA trending more in the other direction so... I think that map is just wishful thinking.

If nothing else it should be motivation for the obama supporters to get out and prove it wrong.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
Well today is the day.
Not sure where this map came from but someone posted it on FB. Scary at first look.


was it posted by the same guy who told you there was a shark swimming around his house?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 06, 2012, 09:53:03 AM
Today's google doodle will direct you to your polling place.

or you could simply go to http://yourfuckingpollingplace.com/

Either way, remember that Republican voting starts Wednesday at 6am.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 06, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J1UDh9kji6k/SQ8HfLeYwDI/AAAAAAAAACM/CH0m0r2MKc4/s320/I-Voted.gif)

Took 1 hr 40 mins. It was a long wait 4 years ago, not sure I remember it being quite that long.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 06, 2012, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
Well today is the day.
Not sure where this map came from but someone posted it on FB. Scary at first look.


was it posted by the same guy who told you there was a shark swimming around his house?

haha nah that was a picture message via the cellular phone. So it was a little more believable.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 06, 2012, 10:49:14 AM
I was bummed to see so many uncontested races on my ballot. I know my district is pretty monolithic, but still, the Republicans couldn't be bothered to run out a candidate for U.S. Congress? Or state senate, or state house, or sheriff, or coroner? Even the soil and water board commissioner, which is a nonpartisan office, was running unopposed.

Ideology aside, I think it's fundamentally better for society to have accountable officials who run in contested elections.

Shit, maybe I should run for office next time. How hard could it be?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 06, 2012, 10:49:14 AM
I was bummed to see so many uncontested races on my ballot. I know my district is pretty monolithic, but still, the Republicans couldn't be bothered to run out a candidate for U.S. Congress? Or state senate, or state house, or sheriff, or coroner? Even the soil and water board commissioner, which is a nonpartisan office, was running unopposed.

Ideology aside, I think it's fundamentally better for society to have accountable officials who run in contested elections.

Shit, maybe I should run for office next time. How hard could it be?

Lets do it! But we'll have to include Igbo. I have to give him credit for his idea of encouraging tailgating in the lots at voting locations! I'll be your campaign manager though! Straight to the top!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 06, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J1UDh9kji6k/SQ8HfLeYwDI/AAAAAAAAACM/CH0m0r2MKc4/s320/I-Voted.gif)

Took 1 hr 40 mins. It was a long wait 4 years ago, not sure I remember it being quite that long.

I absolutely love being able to mail in my ballot
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on November 06, 2012, 11:10:28 AM
we're all doomed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 06, 2012, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 06, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J1UDh9kji6k/SQ8HfLeYwDI/AAAAAAAAACM/CH0m0r2MKc4/s320/I-Voted.gif)

Took 1 hr 40 mins. It was a long wait 4 years ago, not sure I remember it being quite that long.

I absolutely love being able to mail in my ballot

I could have done absentee, but didn't plan ahead for that. On one level, I like the ritual of going to vote in person. Don't really dig the waiting, though.

Quote from: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 06, 2012, 10:49:14 AM
I was bummed to see so many uncontested races on my ballot. I know my district is pretty monolithic, but still, the Republicans couldn't be bothered to run out a candidate for U.S. Congress? Or state senate, or state house, or sheriff, or coroner? Even the soil and water board commissioner, which is a nonpartisan office, was running unopposed.

Ideology aside, I think it's fundamentally better for society to have accountable officials who run in contested elections.

Shit, maybe I should run for office next time. How hard could it be?

Lets do it! But we'll have to include Igbo. I have to give him credit for his idea of encouraging tailgating in the lots at voting locations! I'll be your campaign manager though! Straight to the top!

Now that is awesome. Get a little grill going, some burgers, some beers, a few laughs...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 06, 2012, 11:52:30 AM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-eats-breakfast-at-dunkin-donuts-every-morn,30259/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 06, 2012, 12:12:55 PM
will vote after work.

for now, underneath my "professional looking" shirt and tie, is a Deadheads for Obama t shirt
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 06, 2012, 12:32:06 PM
Excerpted from a local story (http://www.thestate.com/2012/11/06/2509543/election-day-update-9-am-long.html#.UJlFzOye7Rs):


QuoteDavid Eddy of Northeast Richland complained that he could not find a place to park at 8:30 a.m. at Ponder Elementary School precinct and was told there was a two-hour wait to vote. He decided to leave and come back. Three hours later, he said, he was told the wait would be three hours.

"This is outrageous," Eddy said. "Only people without jobs and living on entitlements can waste this much time. I feel disenfranchised by this mess. Heads should roll for preventing working people from voting."

LOL. So only people "living on entitlements" can afford to "waste" their time voting. Ironic that here, in of the new voter ID states (effective next year), you have someone complaining that everyone except those entitlement-sucking mooches (cough minorities cough) is getting disenfranchised.

He does have a point about the effect on working people, but maybe the answer to that should be, I don't know, don't have elections on a freaking weekday. Or, plan ahead and vote absentee.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 12:42:09 PM
I was in and out in 10 mins at 7:30 this morning in my first presidential election in our new(ish) neighborhood (compared to 1.5 hr wait in 2008). I let my daughters push the buttons, refused to show my PA ID, and made a smart ass comment when they told me I'd have to do it next time.

Agree with RJ that VA has been looking better for Obama the past couple of weeks but it's obviously gonna be tight. And for all the confidence re PA, the Obama camp is definitely scared as Clinton was campaigning in Philly and my county just outside yesterday: they wouldn't be calling in the Big Dog on the day before the election if they thought they were winning.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 06, 2012, 01:01:18 PM
take nothing for granted, leave nothing to chance - or as little as possible, anyway.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 06, 2012, 01:06:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCIEbLMaQg
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Vote by mail is the only sensible way to go.

I dropped mine off this weekend at the library while grabbing some books for the little one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 06, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
I strangely posted the wrong youtube link above...

Fixed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
MSNBC just announced that Obama has "a 91% chance of winning this election tonight"

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 06, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 12:42:09 PM
I was in and out in 10 mins at 7:30 this morning in my first presidential election in our new(ish) neighborhood (compared to 1.5 hr wait in 2008). I let my daughters push the buttons, refused to show my PA ID, and made a smart ass comment when they told me I'd have to do it next time.

Agree with RJ that VA has been looking better for Obama the past couple of weeks but it's obviously gonna be tight. And for all the confidence re PA, the Obama camp is definitely scared as Clinton was campaigning in Philly and my county just outside yesterday: they wouldn't be calling in the Big Dog on the day before the election if they thought they were winning.

how did you check in? 

In Georgia they scan our ID's, it's the only way we can get our electronic card to vote. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 06, 2012, 02:30:32 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
MSNBC just announced that Obama has "a 91% chance of winning this election tonight"

Same odds as Nate Silver is giving (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/).
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
MSNBC just announced that Obama has "a 91% chance of winning this election tonight"

The gospel according to FiveThirtyEight. Amen.

Quote from: sophist on November 06, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 12:42:09 PM
I was in and out in 10 mins at 7:30 this morning in my first presidential election in our new(ish) neighborhood (compared to 1.5 hr wait in 2008). I let my daughters push the buttons, refused to show my PA ID, and made a smart ass comment when they told me I'd have to do it next time.

Agree with RJ that VA has been looking better for Obama the past couple of weeks but it's obviously gonna be tight. And for all the confidence re PA, the Obama camp is definitely scared as Clinton was campaigning in Philly and my county just outside yesterday: they wouldn't be calling in the Big Dog on the day before the election if they thought they were winning.

how did you check in? 

In Georgia they scan our ID's, it's the only way we can get our electronic card to vote. 

In PA, if you have previously voted at your precint, you didn't have to show ID until this year when the state GOP passed one of the most onerous voter ID laws in the country. A court issued a temporary injunction, but they are still "asking" for it even though you are not required to show it, hence my conscientious objection. Unfortunately, the only other voter there to see it was my wife (who buried her head and gave the poll worker her "Do you believe this jerkoff?" look).

BREAKING: Black Panther intimidating voters outside of polling station.

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A7Cnrf5CcAEyD7I.jpg:large)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: nab on November 06, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
MSNBC just announced that Obama has "a 91% chance of winning this election tonight"

:Looks for the 92% win prediction for Romney from Fox:

:Waits an hour:

:Looks for the 93% win prediction for Obama from MSNBC:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: tet on November 06, 2012, 03:10:07 PM
not getting tired of this meme yet...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 03:16:30 PM
RCP has Obama up by .7%, and I tend to think that's how it's gonna go.

It'll be real close but Obama will squeak out the win.

Queue the lawsuits. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 05:26:26 PM
Taibbi'd

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/election-day-is-finally-here-tonight-is-going-to-suck-no-matter-what-20121106

Quote
Election Day Is Finally Here: Tonight Is Going to Suck No Matter What

So it's finally here – the big day. After eighteen months of relentless, ear-splitting propaganda, with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of reporters humping the horse-race (jumping on every single poll like heavily-panting boy-dogs with their little red wieners showing) and day after day swinging the heavy horseshit-hammer of Thor, braining us with one meaningless, made-up non-controversy after another – after all that angst and stress and directionless aggression, it's finally going to end.

That it's all going to be over finally, thank God for that. But today will still go down as a truly sad day, no matter who wins.

Years from now, when we look back at these last days and weeks before this 2012 election, what we're going to remember is how intensely millions of Americans hated during this time, how many shameless and dishonorable lies were told as the race tightened (we scratched and clawed at each other like sewer rats over every absurd factual dispute, finding ways to shriek at each other even over things that by definition are nobody's fault, even over acts of God like Hurricane Sandy) and how reflexively people on opposite sides of the race disbelieved each other and laid blame at each others' feet over just about every issue, important or (more often) not.

People who live in other countries, who grew up in the third world or live now in terminally wobbling mob states of the ex-Communist variety, they must look at our behavior now in election years and think we're crazy. You have to have lived in a country with real problems and real instability to realize this, but life doesn't change too terribly much in America no matter which party wins the presidency – not real change, the way people in the rest of the world understand real political change, i.e. in terms of reprisals and collapsed currencies and assassinations and other such disasters. For most of us, our day-to-day lives won't change a lick no matter who wins tonight. If we just turned off our cable channels and stayed off the net, it would take months, maybe years, for most of us to guess who won.

So all this freaking out and vicious invective-trading looks nuts from the outside: it looks like we're making up reasons to hate and fear each other, summoning the language of violent civil unrest with a hedonistic zeal that only people who haven't experienced the real thing could possibly enjoy.

What's become clear in the last few weeks is that the last real taboo in America is admitting that the world isn't going to end if the other guy gets elected. The corollary to that taboo is an apparent new national prohibition against having even the slightest faith in the essential patriotism of the other side.

When push comes to shove, we all should know most Americans want the same things, but just disagree on how to get there, which is why it should be okay to not panic if the other party wins. If some foreign agent attacks us, I seriously doubt a president Mitt Romney would wave the white flag and invite the enemy in. Right? He'll try his best as Commander-in-chief, just like Obama has, and just like Bush did, and Clinton did, and Reagan did and so on.

That should be the way we think. We should be confident that whoever wins has our collective best interests at heart, even if we don't agree with his or her ideology, the same way we reflexively assume that the pilot of any plane we board doesn't want to fly us into a mountain.

But we don't make that assumption about our politicians anymore. We don't believe the other side would have our backs even in an emergency. People today on both sides are genuinely terrified of a wrong outcome in this election. They've been whipped into a state of panic – people everywhere are freaking out and muttering to themselves and firing off vitriolic emails. That's incredibly sad. As a member of the media, I feel sick about it. I think all of us in this business owe America a hug, or something . . . All of this has gone too far, and man, we'd better pray this doesn't end in a 2000-style mess tonight. Year 2000 America seems like a veritable Buddha of perfect composure compared to the already-terminally-pissed, stress-crazed populace that has been dragged to the final lap of this terrible contest. Like crime victims, we deserve closure. Can we at least have that?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 06:29:31 PM
Just watched Fox news for a few and it sounded like they were already giving Obama the nod.  Good sign?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: kellerb on November 06, 2012, 06:38:58 PM
well, Indiana and Kentucky have closed their polls, and preliminary estimates are Romney with 68%

Indiana estimates also show that the Democrat and the "God loves when you get raped and it results in preggo-ness" guy are neck & neck.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on November 06, 2012, 07:33:08 PM
is it bad i'm getting my election coverage from this thread?  :laugh:

i'll chek Colbert and Daily show later for the REAL DEAL! :crazy:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:07:43 PM
Amidst all the presidential brouhaha, let's not lose sight of one of the more disgusting measures on the CA ballot this year: requiring porn stars to wear condoms (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/porn-stars-oppose-plan-requiring-condoms-on-adult-film-sets.html). Seriously, who wants to see that?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:10:43 PM
Romney on CNN just now speaking with reporters from earlier today sounded like he was conceding already.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:07:43 PM
Amidst all the presidential brouhaha, let's not lose sight of one of the more disgusting measures on the CA ballot this year: requiring porn stars to wear condoms (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/porn-stars-oppose-plan-requiring-condoms-on-adult-film-sets.html). Seriously, who wants to see that?

And dental dams, I think.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:27:14 PM
Quote from: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:07:43 PM
Amidst all the presidential brouhaha, let's not lose sight of one of the more disgusting measures on the CA ballot this year: requiring porn stars to wear condoms (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/porn-stars-oppose-plan-requiring-condoms-on-adult-film-sets.html). Seriously, who wants to see that?

And dental dams, I think.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Chris Matthews asking Charlie Crist if we can trust GOP Secretaries of State.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:42:00 PM
In MSNBC national poll, 42% say Hurricane Sandy response was an important factor in their decision (with 15% saying it was the most important factor). ADD Nation
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:07:38 PM
NBC calling MA for Elizabeth Brown. Not a fan.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 09:16:22 PM
NBC has Florida separated by 193 votes at the moment!  :crazy:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:20:19 PM
NBC and Fox calling PA for Obama. Obama matching his totals in exit polls from NoVA.

No joy in Beantown...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:21:46 PM
Not lookin good for Romney with him losing Pennsylvania, remember that California's 55 votes are a gimme for Obama.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 09:23:58 PM
go CO!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:07:38 PM
NBC calling MA for Elizabeth Brown. Not a fan.

This was apparently nans. Twitter jumps the gun again. Still too close to call.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 09:32:10 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:23:58 PM
go WisCO!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: birdman on November 06, 2012, 09:32:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:07:38 PM
NBC calling MA for Elizabeth Brown. Not a fan.

This was apparently nans. Twitter jumps the gun again. Still too close to call.
Elizabeth Brown. LOL
I hate him/her too.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 06, 2012, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:21:46 PM
Not lookin good for Romney with him losing Pennsylvania, remember that California's 55 votes are a gimme for Obama.

yup, combined w/ your state and WA, looks promising for Barack.  Huge win for Obama in MN if early results stand still.  Florida swinging back and forth... 29 electorals there.  Obama leading in Ohio but w/ only 21% reporting. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 09:40:39 PM
aphineday broadcasting live

http://ustre.am/QuYG
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 06, 2012, 09:43:06 PM
updates every :30

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: cleech74 on November 06, 2012, 09:44:19 PM
I voted. Got me a sticker and some Samoas, ftw.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 06, 2012, 09:46:20 PM
Quote from: cleech74 on November 06, 2012, 09:44:19 PM
I voted. Got me a sticker and some Samoas, ftw.

:-)

:beers:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: birdman on November 06, 2012, 09:32:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:07:38 PM
NBC calling MA for Elizabeth Brown. Not a fan.

This was apparently nans. Twitter jumps the gun again. Still too close to call.
Elizabeth Brown. LOL
I hate him/her too.

And Elizabeth Warren wins. Again.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:01:38 PM
Florida looking good for Obama.  Dade county still has only 40% counted, and will go 60-40 Obama. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:09:41 PM
Romney's choice for Ryan as VP was a shot in his own foot. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:11:26 PM
Quote from: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:09:41 PM
Romney's choice for Ryan as VP was a shot in his own foot.
Maybe he should have picked a hot hockey mom from Alas oh nevermind.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:11:26 PM
Quote from: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:09:41 PM
Romney's choice for Ryan as VP was a shot in his own foot.
Maybe he should have picked a hot hockey mom from Alas oh nevermind.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

ser though, I'm not a fan either way but Mitt blew it w/ Ryan.  What the fuck was he thinking?  Why, because Ryan is chair of the House Budget Comm?  Ryan came across as a feeble junior high student senator in his debate w/ Biden. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: khalpin on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
What about 2004?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:16:49 PM
Quote from: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:09:41 PM
Romney's choice for Ryan as VP was a shot in his own foot.

How's that? He's winning 65+ vote (in CNN's exit poll) by 13pts? They won the Medicare argument, they lost the demographic battle.

Sherrod Brown wins and McCaskill over the original rape guy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 10:19:34 PM
What a nail biter!!!!  :roll:

Hopefully Obama can pull it together a little better for round 2
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: khalpin on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
What about 2004?

As much as I despise W in the depths of my soul, I can understand why people found him likable. 

Also, Kerry was a giant bag of vaginas.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.

Maybe, but they had a chance to take the Senate until they went all rape-ity rape rape. And I'm not saying it should have been one way; Dems could have made a play for the House. It's just shocking to me that for all that money we get to hear about at least 2 more years of GOP obstructionism.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: khalpin on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
What about 2004?

As much as I despise W in the depths of my soul, I can understand why people found him likable. 

Also, Kerry was a giant bag of vaginas.

Kerry was a joke agreed, not really the best candidate to throw out there in 04, we needed "Big Change" back then
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: khalpin on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
What about 2004?

was thinking about that earlier, what a nightmare to see W win again.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 PM
Quote from: susep on November 06, 2012, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: khalpin on November 06, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
gonna be an ass whoopin.  :samurai:

The only question now who will be Marco Rubio's running mate in 2016?

Do I get to say I told you so yet?   :wtu:

Also, everyone knows it's gonna be Jeb in 2016.

Also, also Elizabeth "Brown" Warren won again. 

Sure, but it's gonna come back to bite you when legal weed stores in CO and WA start getting raided. :wink:

We shall see, but I'm still holding out "hope" that Obama 2.0 shows some sack on this and a few other issues like Guantanamo.

I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

Amazing: $6B spent, unpopular president and Congress, and a shitty economy and the balance of power is unchanged. GOP has some soul searching to do.

Cmon now, Romney was never gonna win.

People are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
What about 2004?

was thinking about that earlier, what a nightmare to see W win again.

that was a rough night
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:54:20 PM
Fox News' magic wall guy (their John King) says re FL "Do the math, Meghan, there's about 20, 25 thousand votes between them."

Actual score per Fox: Obama 3,924,349 - Romney 3,888,469.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 11:00:40 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

must you talk like palin?  it really upsets me.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:03:04 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 11:00:40 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:30 PM
I would be glad if you're right, but I don't share your hope-iness.

must you talk like palin?  it really upsets me.

lol, I almost went there too. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Gary Johnson's 40,000 votes in FL could help give the state to Obama. You're welcome, bitchez.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Gary Johnson's 40,000 votes in FL could help give the state to Obama. You're welcome, bitchez.

Meh, when Obama wins Ohio it won't matter anyway.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Gary Johnson's 40,000 votes in FL could help give the state to Obama. You're welcome, bitchez.

thanks even crazier republicans libertarians!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 11:14:05 PM
someone cue the music!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Gary Johnson's 40,000 votes in FL could help give the state to Obama. You're welcome, bitchez.

Meh, when Obama wins Ohio it won't matter anyway.

Denver Post calling it for Obama, i.e., game over.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:14:50 PM
He didn't need Florida anyway! 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 06, 2012, 11:16:26 PM
From the live Daily Show coverage:  "Nate Silver is now projecting a 65% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 race against Jeb Bush."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 06, 2012, 11:17:00 PM
Really close night!  :roll:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
MITT ROMNEY, LOL
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:18:13 PM
It's times like these I like to watch Fox News...   :-P
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:18:13 PM
It's times like these I like to watch Fox News...   :-P

I wish I could afford cable.

I still blame W for this.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 03, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Mitt Romney, LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:18:13 PM
It's times like these I like to watch Fox News...   :-P

I wish I could afford cable.

I still blame W for this.

Let it go, dude.

Fox News saying Romney campaign not ready to concede OH.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 06, 2012, 11:28:09 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 03, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Mitt Romney, LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:28:31 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 03, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Mitt Romney, LOL.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on September 13, 2012, 12:43:01 PM
Congrats on your re-election, Mr President

Beat you   :-P
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:28:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:18:13 PM
It's times like these I like to watch Fox News...   :-P

I wish I could afford cable.

I still blame W for this.
Let it go, dude.

Fox News saying Romney campaign not ready to concede OH.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Karl Rove says "Hold Your Horses"!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 11:31:21 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:28:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 06, 2012, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:18:13 PM
It's times like these I like to watch Fox News...   :-P

I wish I could afford cable.

I still blame W for this.
Let it go, dude.

Fox News saying Romney campaign not ready to concede OH.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Karl Rove says "Hold Your Horses"!!!

The Fox News reporter at the Romney HQ looks drunk as fucking shit.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 11:35:47 PM
Everyone hide the booze and the coke! Blonde bitch wandering aimlessly through the Fox studios. Kenny and Candice stop fucking in the corner!! We're on the air!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:36:45 PM
Meghan Kelly now grilling the dudes who called it.

Even without OH, FL, and VA, Obama still wins with NV and CO. Hilarious.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:37:16 PM
Fox is fucking hilariousness!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:37:16 PM
Fox is fucking hilariousness!

It's a preview of GOP talks behind closed doors over the next 4 yrs.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:44:00 PM
More good news (of the non-Rovian fashion): MD passes same-sex marriage (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/ballot-measures/maryland/)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:46:33 PM
Apparently Romney isn't ready to concede yet...  I was hoping to see Obama's speech before going to bed.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
There's a dude on here named Charles Krauthammer and he looks like an extra chimp from the original Planet Of The Apes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:49:14 PM
Fox keeps taking lots of breaks...
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 06, 2012, 11:55:01 PM
mitt romney, lol.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 07, 2012, 12:04:53 AM
Boehner - we have as much a mandate as he has.

not much optimism here - BO has to really go above and beyond
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 12:05:37 AM
Gay Marriage passed in Maine!  Good night!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 07, 2012, 12:14:26 AM
Quote from: barnesy305 on November 06, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
There's a dude on here named Charles Krauthammer and he looks like an extra chimp from the original Planet Of The Apes.

lol, fuck that guy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 07, 2012, 12:19:06 AM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 11:49:14 PM
Fox keeps taking lots of breaks...

the look on the FOX news folks faces is rather priceless.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
Wait, did Paul Ryan run for re-election in the House?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 07, 2012, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
Wait, did Paul Ryan run for re-election in the House?



Yep!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 12:32:25 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
Wait, did Paul Ryan run for re-election in the House?

Yes and he won...Not sure how that's legal!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/wisconsin
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 12:32:25 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
Wait, did Paul Ryan run for re-election in the House?

Yes and he won...Not sure how that's legal!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/wisconsin

It's not in PA and NJ (probably some other states too).

I cannot believe Romney still hasn't conceded.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 07, 2012, 12:35:56 AM
he was watching Back to the Future and thinking of 2000
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:38:18 AM
Michelle Bachmann holds a 307 vote lead (out of 205k). That'd be tits to kick that bitch to the curb

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/CongressionalResults/1?id=all

Also, Fox News just talking about CO Amendment 64 was almost as funny as the Karl Rove vs. the quants episode.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:40:31 AM
Obama takes popular vote lead and the Electoral College wins again ( I don't have to pay Hicks for that bet). Phew.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 07, 2012, 12:42:48 AM
Cmon Romney, call it a day already.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 07, 2012, 12:42:48 AM
Cmon Romney, call it a day already.

Concession coming soon per Fox
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 07, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
Concession coming any min now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 01:00:51 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 07, 2012, 12:42:48 AM
Cmon Romney, call it a day already.

What are you bitching about, what's it, like 7:30pm out there?

That was one of the most insincere concession speeches I've ever heard.

QuoteMichael Cohen ‏@speechboy71
So glad that I won't have see Mitt Romney pretty much ever again
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: ytowndan on November 07, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
And there it was. 

Officially over.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mopper_smurf on November 07, 2012, 06:31:44 AM
I watched the Romney and Obama speeches with the mopper family while having breakfast.

Some random quotes:

"Is this guy real? He shines like he's made of plastic". (my daughter on Romney)
"Stevie Wonder. Fuck, not again  (my son shortly before Obama hits the stage)
"He got his voice back" (my wife on Obama)
"OMG, that green skirt . It's all the way up to her armpits. Eeeeew! (my daughter on Obama's youngest daughter lack of dress sense)
"That sounds awful. Couldn't they afford a better sound guy? " (my wife on the Springsteen song playing over the Arena's PA).



Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: susep on November 07, 2012, 07:39:24 AM
Quote from: mopper_smurf on November 07, 2012, 06:31:44 AM
I watched the Romney and Obama speeches with the mopper family while having breakfast.

Some random quotes:

"Is this guy real? He shines like he's made of plastic". (my daughter on Romney)
"Stevie Wonder. Fuck, not again  (my son shortly before Obama hits the stage)
"He got his voice back" (my wife on Obama)
"OMG, that green skirt . It's all the way up to her armpits. Eeeeew! (my daughter on Obama's youngest daughter lack of dress sense)
"That sounds awful. Couldn't they afford a better sound guy? " (my wife on the Springsteen song playing over the Arena's PA).

:clap:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 07, 2012, 08:04:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXhO_-e3bM
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: gah on November 07, 2012, 10:48:37 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 06, 2012, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 03, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Mitt Romney, LOL.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 07, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
Here's Video Evidence of Why Everyone Thought Diane Sawyer Was Shitfaced On Air Last Night (http://gawker.com/5958389/heres-video-evidence-of-why-everyone-thought-diane-sawyer-was-shitfaced-tonight)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: antelope19 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Pretty proud of my home state today for passing same sex marriage
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Pretty proud of my home state today for passing same sex marriage
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: emay on November 07, 2012, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Pretty proud of my home state today for passing same sex marriage
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 01:51:39 PM
Enjoying Rush's Meltdown...

http://newstalk1290.com/listen-live/
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 07, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
Here's Video Evidence of Why Everyone Thought Diane Sawyer Was Shitfaced On Air Last Night (http://gawker.com/5958389/heres-video-evidence-of-why-everyone-thought-diane-sawyer-was-shitfaced-tonight)
Wow that's pretty wacked!  I didn't watch much of ABC last night and didn't notice her!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/07/an-insider-account-of-how-fox-called-ohio-on-el/191220

Quote
An Insider Account Of How Fox Called Ohio On Election Night
Rove Fought Decision To Call Ohio For Obama; Fox Decided To "Show Off Megyn Kelly's Legs" While Explaining The Call

Shortly after 11 p.m., Bret Baier went on-camera to read a script written by Fox's Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, based on an analysis by the network's decision desk, announcing Ohio for Obama. "That's the presidency, essentially," Baier said.

Instantly, Fox phones lit up with angry phone calls and e-mails from the Romney campaign, who believed that the call was premature, since tallies in several Republican-leaning Southern counties hadn't been been fully tabulated. "The Romney people were totally screaming that we're totally wrong," one Fox source said. "To various people, they were saying, 'your decision team is wrong.'" According to a Fox insider, Rove had been in contact with the Romney people all night. After the Ohio call, Rove -- whose super-PAC had spent as much as $300 million on the election, to little avail -- took their complaints public, conducting an on-air primer on Ohio's electoral math in disputing the call.

[...]

This time, it was the network divided against itself, and Fox News' top producers held a meeting to adjudicate. The decision desk stood their ground. They knew how momentous the call was. Earlier in the night, according to a source, before making the call, Arnon Mishkin, who heads the decision desk, told Fox brass, "let's remember this is Fox News calling Ohio. This will say something beyond Ohio going for Obama." Fox brass told Mishkin to get the numbers right and ignore the politics: "If we think Ohio has gone Obama, we call Ohio," said a Fox News executive.

With neither side backing down, senior producers had to find a way to split the difference. One idea was for two members of the decision team, Mishkin and Fox's digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt, to go on camera with Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier to squelch the doubts over the call. But then it was decided that Kelly would walk through the office and interview the decision team in the conference room. "This is Fox News," an insider said, "so anytime there's a chance to show off Megyn Kelly's legs they'll go for it."
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 07, 2012, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Pretty proud of my home state today for passing same sex marriage
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 07, 2012, 07:24:02 PM
A friend of mine, Derek Hurder, was quoted on CNN about gay marriage being passed in Maine.  Pretty cool stuff!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c2_7
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 07, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
2016
Corey Booker vs Marco Rubio
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 07, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
2016
Corey Booker vs Marco Rubio

Hard to see Booker going from mayor to Dem candidate (especially after being buried at DNC this year), but I'd like to see him challenge Christie in the next NJ governor race.

Rubio will almost certainly be on the ticket as the obvious way to ease the massive demographic headwinds facing the GOP right now (there's already been some grumblings he wasn't given the VP slot this year). The question is will it be as VP or will he be the top of the ticket.

And I almost made it through today without thinking about 2016. Thanks, sls :roll:  :wink:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mopper_smurf on November 08, 2012, 12:55:03 AM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 07, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Pretty proud of my home state today for passing same sex marriage

It's legal in The Netherlands since 2001. Yes, we were the first nation to do so.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 07:44:08 AM
Holy shit, this passed? The terrorists really have won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121107/us-la-county-porn-condoms/

Quote
LA County voters mandate condom use on porn sets

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County voters have approved a measure requiring porn performers to wear condoms while filming sex scenes, prompting a pledge by the adult entertainment industry to sue to overturn the measure.

With 100 percent of the county's precincts reporting, Measure B passed 56 percent to 44 percent in Tuesday's election.

The measure requires adult film producers to apply for a permit from the county Department of Public Health to shoot sex scenes. Permit fees will finance periodic inspections of film sets to enforce compliance.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the initiative, says the measure will help safeguard the public, as well as porn workers, from sexually transmitted infections.

But the adult film industry, which is largely centered in the San Fernando Valley in suburban Los Angeles, says the requirement is unnecessary since the industry already polices itself by requiring performers to undergo monthly tests for HIV and other infections.

The industry also says porn viewers will not watch sex scenes with condoms, forcing adult film producers to relocate to where they can make movies that will sell.

On Wednesday, the Free Speech Coalition, a trade group representing the adult entertainment industry, said it plans to file a lawsuit to overturn the condom requirement on constitutional grounds.

"We believe in the calm, serious deliberations of the legal system, we will find that Measure B is in fact unconstitutional," Diane Duke, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement. "The adult film industry will not just stand by and let it destroy our business."

In a letter sent to the county Board of Supervisors, the industry also requested that it be involved in discussions as to how the county will implement the requirements. It will also explore moves to neighboring states as soon as possible, the coalition said.

"While the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has tried to portray any move of jobs outside of L.A. County as unrealistic, the hard truth of the matter is that is exactly what this industry plans on doing now," said James Lee, communications director for the No on Government Waste Committee, which opposed the measure.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said he is not fazed by threats of a lawsuit or of relocation. The issue is one of public health and safety for workers who run a high risk for sexually transmitted illnesses, he said.

The industry argument did not convince voters, he said. "There was a very high degree of awareness about this proposition," he said. "Voters were educated about it."

About 200 companies produce adult films in Los Angeles. A two-year health permit would cost about $11,000, comparable to permits for tattoo and massage parlors, Weinstein said.

"We don't want one more person to get HIV," he said.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 08, 2012, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 07:44:08 AM
Holy shit, this passed? The terrorists really have won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121107/us-la-county-porn-condoms/

Quote
LA County voters mandate condom use on porn sets


The gubmint is taking away our freedoms!!!  Dammit!

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
One of the truest revelations I have ever had in my life came while I was tripping acid alone in my old apartment.  I was sitting on my couch, and the urge came to want to churn out a few loads in the early morning hours.  I decided that watching a porn would be the best route to accomplish this mission.  I fire up my cable box and pay my $15.99 for an over priced piece of digital ass.  Like a plinko jam, it unfolded too quickly.  I was beginning to be right in the heart of it.  Suddenly, I notice something.  Is that?  Really?  Can it be?  Whilst plowing a girl at a downward angle into a couch, the close up shot reveals a rubber partially covering a Johnson that could double as a white anaconda of death. 

I stop. 

Really?  They are using condoms.   Do you know why males watch porn?  Because it's our projection of all the dirty shit 95% of the male population is unable to do with sluts.  I only wish I could raw dog a woman in the ass, then rail her tainted beave like it's highway construction in the off hours of the morning.  And finish it up by putting it her mouth.  I don't know one male that has seriously hit the trifecta in the same session.  Superfreakie?  Maybe.  I'd believe that.  For the rest of us, porn is the feasible reality of the nasty. 

How are we ever going to have another arching shot of massive jizzism flying at her face like a bomb sailing for Baghdad?  If the money shot precedes a crew of people tossing out sterile wipes and jizz rags.  Color me a non consumer. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 08, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:20:57 PM

(http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Use_7b0864_1413323.gif)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?

They (Comcast) have rental shit on-demand.  It was a Bree Olson flick.  If you're ripping on me for buying porn in general, then yeah, that is what I did. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: McGrupp on November 08, 2012, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?

I bet he still uses realplayer and netscape navigator.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 08, 2012, 09:16:22 AM
The gubmint is taking away our freedoms!!!  Dammit!

See, I tried to warn you. First they're all "You're not allowed operate heavy machinery while under the influence" and "You can't dump used motor oil into rivers". Before you know it, a goddamned Big Gulp is illegal in NYC and now you can't even watch a decent porno without having to see a dude busting out of his Magnum. Oh the humanity!

Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
How are we ever going to have another arching shot of massive jizzism flying at her face like a bomb sailing for Baghdad?  If the money shot precedes a crew of people tossing out sterile wipes and jizz rags.  Color me a non consumer.

First, +k for the story; this thread stayed on topic waaaaay too long.

Second, don't worry about having to give up your porn addiction: if they lose their appeal, I'm sure they'll just pack up shop and take their dirty, cum stained tax dollars and move to the desert somewhere.

And third, did you say a few loads? Jesus, dude.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 08, 2012, 03:16:16 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 03:08:27 PM

Second, don't worry about having to give up your porn addiction: if they lose their appeal, I'm sure they'll just pack up shop and take their dirty, cum stained tax dollars and move to the desert somewhere.

No worries...  Bree and Charlie Sheen broke up last year...  She'll be back on her back soon enough...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 08, 2012, 03:17:39 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 08, 2012, 09:16:22 AM
The gubmint is taking away our freedoms!!!  Dammit!

See, I tried to warn you. First they're all "You're not allowed operate heavy machinery while under the influence" and "You can't dump used motor oil into rivers". Before you know it, a goddamned Big Gulp is illegal in NYC and now you can't even watch a decent porno without having to see a dude busting out of his Magnum. Oh the humanity!

Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
How are we ever going to have another arching shot of massive jizzism flying at her face like a bomb sailing for Baghdad?  If the money shot precedes a crew of people tossing out sterile wipes and jizz rags.  Color me a non consumer.

First, +k for the story; this thread stayed on topic waaaaay too long.

Second, don't worry about having to give up your porn addiction: if they lose their appeal, I'm sure they'll just pack up shop and take their dirty, cum stained tax dollars and move to the desert somewhere.

And third, did you say a few loads? Jesus, dude.


Tension from the ten strip was intense man.  Needed relief. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 08, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?

They (Comcast) have rental shit on-demand.  It was a Bree Olson flick.  If you're ripping on me for buying porn in general, then yeah, that is what I did.

Did you go buy a CD after?



anywho, want to apply for a job working for president elect romney?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 08, 2012, 07:12:23 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?

They (Comcast) have rental shit on-demand.  It was a Bree Olson flick.  If you're ripping on me for buying porn in general, then yeah, that is what I did.

Did you go buy a CD after?


Nah...  He bought a stack of vinyl...

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 08, 2012, 07:12:23 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 01:40:22 PM
You bought cable porn for $15.99?

They (Comcast) have rental shit on-demand.  It was a Bree Olson flick.  If you're ripping on me for buying porn in general, then yeah, that is what I did.

Did you go buy a CD after?


Nah...  He bought a stack of vinyl...

Terry

true story. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
So, this video of Obama thanking his volunteers is pretty goddamn amazing (no bullshit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBK2rfZt32g&sns=em
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 08, 2012, 10:22:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
So, this video of Obama thanking his volunteers is pretty goddamn amazing (no bullshit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBK2rfZt32g&sns=em

but you're gonna pick it apart line by line, right?   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 10:22:18 PM
but you're gonna pick it apart line by line, right?   

Let's just say I prefer Obama the man much more than Obama the politician.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 09, 2012, 12:21:16 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 08, 2012, 10:22:18 PM
but you're gonna pick it apart line by line, right?   

Let's just say I prefer Obama the man much more than Obama the politician.

Doesn't everybody??? 

Terry
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: twatts on November 09, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM

true story.

Tragic...

Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: whatapiper on November 09, 2012, 01:04:17 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
So, this video of Obama thanking his volunteers is pretty goddamn amazing (no bullshit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBK2rfZt32g&sns=em

good stuff, thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 09, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on November 09, 2012, 01:04:17 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
So, this video of Obama thanking his volunteers is pretty goddamn amazing (no bullshit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBK2rfZt32g&sns=em

good stuff, thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: tet on November 09, 2012, 09:08:07 AM
love that vid...

also, sophist - $15.99?   :shakehead:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 09, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 07, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
2016
Corey Booker vs Marco Rubio

Hard to see Booker going from mayor to Dem candidate (especially after being buried at DNC this year), but I'd like to see him challenge Christie in the next NJ governor race.

Barbara Buono, NJ State Senate majority leader has announced that she will be running.

She's pretty cool.



Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 09, 2012, 11:54:07 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 09, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 07, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
2016
Corey Booker vs Marco Rubio

Hard to see Booker going from mayor to Dem candidate (especially after being buried at DNC this year), but I'd like to see him challenge Christie in the next NJ governor race.

Barbara Buono, NJ State Senate majority leader has announced that she will be running.

She's pretty cool.

I had to look her up. Doesn't sound like my kind of candidate but if she can entice Christie into drop the C bomb on her a couple of times she'd have my full support. I can't stand that guy.

Not a bad looking older woman either.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 09, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 09, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM

true story.

Tragic...

I can't imagine settling in for a session of porn and flogging the bishop while tripping. Maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 09, 2012, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 09, 2012, 11:54:07 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 09, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 07, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 07, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
2016
Corey Booker vs Marco Rubio

Hard to see Booker going from mayor to Dem candidate (especially after being buried at DNC this year), but I'd like to see him challenge Christie in the next NJ governor race.

Barbara Buono, NJ State Senate majority leader has announced that she will be running.

She's pretty cool.

I had to look her up. Doesn't sound like my kind of candidate but if she can entice Christie into drop the C bomb on her a couple of times she'd have my full support. I can't stand that guy.

Not a bad looking older woman either.

I really didn't expect you to campaign for her... But she's a solid Dem and has taken Jabba Christie to task many a time.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sophist on November 09, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 09, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 09, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM

true story.

Tragic...

I can't imagine settling in for a session of porn and flogging the bishop while tripping. Maybe that's just me.

When in Rome dude.....
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: barnesy305 on November 09, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 09, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 09, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 09, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM

true story.

Tragic...

I can't imagine settling in for a session of porn and flogging the bishop while tripping. Maybe that's just me.

When in Rome dude.....

I still don't really know what that means.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on November 09, 2012, 06:45:51 PM
Quote from: barnesy305 on November 09, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: sophist on November 09, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 09, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on November 09, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: sophist on November 08, 2012, 08:18:14 PM

true story.

Tragic...

I can't imagine settling in for a session of porn and flogging the bishop while tripping. Maybe that's just me.

When in Rome dude.....

I still don't really know what that means.

Caesar was a big fisting aficionado.   
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 09, 2012, 09:04:18 PM
not to mention Caligula
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VDB on November 11, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
Frank Rich says election demonstrated GOP's complete detachment from reality:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/ (http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: mbw on November 11, 2012, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 11, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
Frank Rich says election demonstrated GOP's complete detachment from reality:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/ (http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/)

:samurai:
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 12, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
I agree but the Dems / left should remember;

Romney still got appx 49% of the popular
the House is still GOP

most of us are more moderate than the major voices of either party, imo. As much ast there needs to be regulations for the sake of the environment, fair business practices, etc, I don't think anyone likes over-regulation or the sense that govt is getting in the way of daily life.

if the Dems don't do anything, and if the loudmouths of the right learn their lesson, even just a little bit, things can change real fast.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on November 12, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Is it safe to come out from under my covers yet?
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Hicks on November 12, 2012, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 11, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
Frank Rich says election demonstrated GOP's complete detachment from reality:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/ (http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/)

I really think Rove's refusal to accept that Romney lost is pretty emblematic of the movement as a whole.

They consistently deny facts that are self evident to the majority of intelligent people and until they fix that they will continue to be a destructive force.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: rowjimmy on November 12, 2012, 12:57:36 PM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/


(http://i.imgur.com/3SFuH.png)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md6od1Iqh01rkd8gso1_500.png)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md6kpeA0PT1qav3ouo1_500.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: VA $l!m on November 12, 2012, 01:23:56 PM
that Colbert show intro was classic.
i LOL'd that night.
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Undermind on November 12, 2012, 08:10:49 PM
http://disappearingromney.com/
Title: Re: 2012 Election Thread
Post by: Superfreakie on November 12, 2012, 08:22:59 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on November 12, 2012, 01:23:56 PM
that Colbert show intro was classic.
i LOL'd that night.

ditto