Randomville

Politics => Political Discussions => Topic started by: Markalot on December 12, 2011, 07:29:10 AM

Title: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 12, 2011, 07:29:10 AM
So where did we leave off.

All candidates, including Obama, suck.  We're doomed.   

Something like that.

How about this.  Gingrich has made a remarkable comeback.  and the media (whoever that is)  is going crazy telling us how unelectable he is.  He just might win this thing unless Obama can consistently stand for something ... anything.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on December 12, 2011, 07:59:15 AM
I never saw Newt's upsurge coming -- well, that sounds dirty -- but he seems to have played it smart, saving it for a sprint as they approach the finish line. His only real competition now is Romney, and he looks to be imploding. I'd be surprised if Newt beat Obama, but stranger things have happened:

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ezTRU_wKgFg/TMmzcDBVGJI/AAAAAAAAAxc/K8LV5cukJcA/image%5B3%5D.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on December 12, 2011, 08:21:18 AM
If Newt wins the nomination, Obama won't have to do dick but watch Newt beat himself.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on December 12, 2011, 08:33:31 AM
watch Newt beat himself.
Ewww....
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 12, 2011, 09:18:21 AM
Newt's latest comments about the "invented people" is yet another good example of un-electability.  Plays well with the right, but way too inflammatory for people to forget during the national election.  You have to say things your base loves but that can also be forgotten.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 12, 2011, 11:02:40 AM
Here's an interesting blog entry on newt, and some interesting discussion IF you want to know what 'conservatives' are thinking. 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-the-establishment-doesnt-like-newt-gingrich/

via a Washington Post opinion piece.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on December 12, 2011, 06:22:49 PM
I dunno, I think, in a twisted way, Newt's bucking of the establishment may help him. No one likes one bit of anything having to do with Capitol Hill these days, and even though he has a rep as a consummate insider, Newt's ruffling of said insiders' feathers may endear him to voters who want someone to poke sticks in people's guts on Capitol Hill a bit. Drive out the demons, y'know?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on December 12, 2011, 09:52:48 PM
I hope Newt does not get the nomination he is too much of a crooked opportunist to be an ethical president.

For his efforts to stop conservative legislators from working to end government involvement in housing, Newt got $1.6 million from Freddie Mac for being their historian. He must have been the highest paid historian in history.

He called the Ryan plan "right wing social engineering"

He did a TV spot on global warming with Nancy Pelosi.

I bet he even had Callista sign the marriage license in pencil.

Maybe next time he changes his mind he will get one that works.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kenneth Toilethole on December 13, 2011, 07:41:31 AM
I dunno, I think, in a twisted way, Newt's bucking of the establishment may help him. No one likes one bit of anything having to do with Capitol Hill these days, and even though he has a rep as a consummate insider, Newt's ruffling of said insiders' feathers may endear him to voters who want someone to poke sticks in people's guts on Capitol Hill a bit. Drive out the demons, y'know?
The more I think about this, I really see the brilliance in it. If the Newt spins this correctly, it really could keep him a viable candidate through the whole race.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on December 14, 2011, 03:52:56 PM
How Fox News is helping Barack Obama's re-election bid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/13/fox-news-frighten-america-conservatives)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on December 14, 2011, 10:59:40 PM
Methinks it all doesn't matter. As weak as Obama has performed, there simply isn't a credible Republican candidate. Obama will win re-election.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on December 15, 2011, 08:00:13 AM
How Fox News is helping Barack Obama's re-election bid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/13/fox-news-frighten-america-conservatives)

That's a really interesting article.  Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on December 15, 2011, 10:41:14 AM
I've been saying for a long time that I think Newt is in a good spot. He's got good name recognition. He's politically experienced but he's been out of office long enough that you can't hold him directly accountable for any current problems and American's memories are short enough to forget why we grew to dislike him when he was in office. He's spent the last several years sucking up to the far right. He sounds like a grown up when he speaks and the GOP is in desperate need of a grown up right now.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 15, 2011, 11:17:57 AM
Well, there's that, but then there's his penchant for espousing his wacky ideas in public forums.  If he keeps up with his "made up people" and "make poor children clean toilets" comments he's going to have a hard time getting elected.  I'm not even discussing the merits of those arguments (he's essentially right about the Palestinians IMO) those just aren't things that you go out and drop on people during a campaign.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 16, 2011, 08:19:08 AM
Received an email from my congressman, Geoff Davis.  Not running next year.

I've sent him a few emails reminding him I am a registered repub and did not like the job he was doing.  I guess others did as well?  In short,  this country was founded on compromise, not division, and I don't want talk radio running the country.

It's probably not a sign of the repubs in real trouble, but I'm hoping it's at least a sign most incumbents are going to have a rough time getting re-elected.

Quote
Friends:

In order to devote more time to my family, I have decided not to seek re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is an honor to have the trust and confidence of the citizens of Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District.

I have been blessed with an exceptionally competent staff who have helped thousands of Kentuckians over the years.  Moreover, together we have passed critical pieces of legislation and enacted laws to reform our government, strengthen our national security, protect our veterans and service members, create economic revival and energy independence, and improve transparency and accountability of the government.

As Chairman of the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Human Resources, we have set a new tone that combines genuine concern for the least among us, with pragmatic process reforms that are both compassionate and conservative.  That attitude and focus have produced real results and proactive bi-partisan legislation, despite the negative partisan climate in Washington.  Indeed, we have proven that people of diverse world views can find common ground and produce meaningful results.

I thank the people of Kentucky's Fourth District for this honor and look forward to continued service to our community and to our Republic in other capacities as I return to the private sector.  I also want to thank my friend and mentor, former Senator Jim Bunning, for his example of steadfast character and unimpeachable integrity in service.

Most of all, I thank my wonderful wife Pat and our children for their unfailing love, grace under pressure, and tireless encouragement in answering this call to serve.

I am grateful that I live in a country where a boy like me, growing up with little hope, could walk a path by God's grace that has allowed me to encounter His peace, the joy of true love, and service at the highest levels of our elected national government.  Truly, we are blessed in this Republic.

Sincerely,

Geoff Davis
Member of Congress

Article:  http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20111215/NEWS0103/312150177/Davis-won-t-seek-re-election?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on December 16, 2011, 08:46:16 AM
I was quite admiring that resignation letter until he brought all that god shit into it
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 16, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Look at his voting record.  I think the entire thing is bullshit.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 16, 2011, 07:49:24 PM
I think that Gingrich has two dominant characteristics that come across no matter which side of the line you're on.

The first is that he's very smart.  As a political strategist, and even as a policy analyst the guy knows his shit.  I don't know if there is anyone who has a better fundamental understanding of core/traditional conservative values and how those values play out across current events.  I think he is better than Reagan (whose understanding was sort of innate, because that's just who he was) or Clinton.  That makes him dangerous.

The second thing though, is that pretty much everyone thinks he's an asshole.  I'm not talking about his political views if you're liberal, or the way he treated his wife if you care about his personal life.  Just on an every day, person-to-person sort of level no one really likes him.  I think that is true of voters, other politicians, and just as importantly the general wonks and PR types and campaign staffers.  And it's really hard to win the Presidency unless someone really, really likes you.  Because you're asking people to stake their careers on you while working insane hours and to fall on their swords if they have to.  I can't see anyone doing that for Gingrich.

Gingrich has a gift for sort of cutting through the crap and distilling things into nice, bite-size, somewhat friendly, logical chunks.  Unlike the Tea Partiers, he doesn't try to win every battle and get himself in a bad position defending something clearly stupid that really isn't that important.  He's the master of the talking point.  Problem is, he can't deliver the message himself.  You have to come across like "Hey, I'm just talking common sense and telling you what you already knew."  But Gingrich always comes off like "Hey, see how smart I am?  I just totally broke this down for you, because I'm a genius."  He's fundamentally unlikeable.

I thought that maybe taking some time out of the spotlight might have smoothed the rough edges, but I don't think it has.  You can make people forget about or forgive you for the whole infidelity thing, but he's still an asshole.   Which means he just creates new wounds and enemies all the time.

I will say one thing, though.  If you are conservative, a Romney/Gingrich pairing (Gingrich doesn't have to be VEEP, he could be in the cabinet or whatever as long as he's pulling strings behind the scenes) could potentially be a devastatingly effective combo.  I think that is true whether you are far-right/Tea Party, mainstream, or moderate.  These Tea Party idiots can't get anything done.  I don't care if you agree with their politics or not.  Just too stupid and too crazy.  You'd be better off voting for Romney/Gingrich as you'd actually get more policies you believe in implemented.

The real problem with the GOP is not so much the candidates they have running for President, but the candidates they have running in virtually every other election (state and local).  Conservatives can't seem to grasp that reducing the *size* of government does not reduce the power of government.  Reduce the government to just one guy.  Take away the budget so everything has to be done by rule.  That's not a free market.  That's a dictatorship.

As for Obama, if you're a liberal you really don't have that much to complain about.  The problem for him is can he get the sort of non-traditional, non-involved liberals to show up at the polls again?  And even if he wins, I doubt he's going to get much done given who else is going to be in Congress and in Governor's seats.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on December 16, 2011, 11:58:57 PM
If Gingrish somehow wins the Republican nomination, Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. But with the new system of proportional representation in the Republican primaries, I very much doubt that Gingrish can win the nomination, as this will turn into a long slug and I think he simply doesn't have the ground forces to content in the long run. Thank goodness.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 17, 2011, 09:44:18 PM
I'm really getting tired of conservatives complaining about how there are no quality candidates.  It's not like the GOP is trying to screw with the little guy.  The little guys are running the show, and they demand stupid Tea Party types.  You get who you ask for.

What's wrong with John Huntsman?

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on December 18, 2011, 01:51:42 AM
What's wrong with John Huntsman?


Nothing, and he'd make a great candidate. He just can't get any traction in this election for some reason.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on December 20, 2011, 08:37:46 AM
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t77/gandalf2373/GOPplans.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 20, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
I think Newt Gingrich just destroyed any remaining chances he had left with that "Let's start arresting judges" gambit.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 20, 2011, 10:41:48 AM
Well, maybe, but in complete context I think I understand where he is going.  Basically if a judge threatens to lock someone up for a so called crime, especially when related to speech, then that judge should be held responsible for his actions.  

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/a-judge-of-the-day-back-in-the-news-fred-biery/

In particular:

Quote
And he is prepared to back up his order with the power of the federal government, stating that violators could face incarceration for contempt of court.

So in this case, not only did he make an order that the religious right disagreed with, he threatened to lock people up if they did not comply with the order.  That's the step that angered so many and led to:

Quote
UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, the Fifth Circuit dissolved Judge Biery’s temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. You can read the Fifth Circuit’s per curiam order here and a press release from the Liberty Institute here

Locking people up for what they say is a bad bad thing.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 20, 2011, 11:55:44 AM
That's a pretty twisted interpretation of the case.  What he ruled was that you a student can't lead a prayer at a public school ceremony.  Therefore, that speech wasn't protected because allowing it to proceed would violate the separation of church and state in the First Amendment.

Regardless of whether you feel the judge over-reached in his ruling, IF he makes that ruling he has to issue an injunction.  One side is saying "Hey, I don't think the other side should be able to do this, because it strips me of a constitutional right."  Obviously they are going to ask for an injunction to preventing the other side from doing it.  The judge can't be like "I agree. It's a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights, but I'm not going to do anything about it."  He has to grant the injunction.

And if you disobey an injunction you are in contempt of court.  And if you are in contempt of court, you can go to jail.  In all likelihood you won't, but you can.  And if anyone was going to be charged with contempt it would have been the school district and not the student who gave the speech.

That's what judges do.  They decide what is and is a right/freedom and they prevent people from doing shit by issuing orders telling them not to do it.  Someone has to have that power, and we have given it to the judiciary.  How does the balance of checks and powers work if judges can't issue injunctions? 

I actually agree with the initial decision, but admittedly it's a tough case.  And at any rate, the guy's ruling got overturned on appeal.  So where is the problem?  It all got fixed without any intervention from the executive branch.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 21, 2011, 12:23:28 PM
For me the problem is simple.  I don't like locking anyone up for speech, and I don't recognize religious speech led by students as unprotected speech.  That is simply ludicrous, and the appellate court agreed.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on December 21, 2011, 01:17:33 PM
While I can certainly see where you are coming from, you have to look at it from outside of this case.  When a judge issues a ruling, there has to be some teeth behind it to ensure it is followed.  What Newt is saying is that if a judge rules in a way that I don't like, I will have him on trial as well.  So for example if a judge says "You are not allowed to go on TV and say that 'the president is a child molester who raped and knocked up Lindsay Lohan when she was 12 'because it has been proven false", there has to be consequences for ignoring the judge and doing that.  That is contempt of court.  According to your theory, they should still be allowed to go on tv and say that because threatening them with jail time is wrong.  It is not about whether you (or anyone else) agree with the original ruling, that is what the upper courts are there to decide.  Once a court rules on something, it should be enforced unless it is stayed or overturned, because it is the de facto law of the land at that point.

So while I agree with some parts of his ruling and disagree with others, the ruling should have been enforced unless it was overturned (which it was).  You can't throw out the system that is in place because of one bad ruling.  In the end, this is about rule of law, not this ruling.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 21, 2011, 01:56:58 PM
For me the problem is simple.  I don't like locking anyone up for speech, and I don't recognize religious speech led by students as unprotected speech.  That is simply ludicrous, and the appellate court agreed.

The appellate court in the FIFTH circuit agreed because that is the most conservative court in the country.

Had this been in the ninth circuit, it almost certainly would have been upheld because the ninth circuit is at the opposite end of the spectrum and there would have been strong legal precedent as well.

Lassonde v. Plesanton Unified School District (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4286619466005198784&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)






Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 21, 2011, 02:21:09 PM
Quote
So for example if a judge says "You are not allowed to go on TV and say that 'the president is a child molester who raped and knocked up Lindsay Lohan when she was 12 'because it has been proven false", there has to be consequences for ignoring the judge and doing that.  That is contempt of court.

But that ruling would be thrown out because it's protected, yet slanderous speech.  You can't pre-prevent someone from saying something illegal, but you can certainly apply the law after it's said if the speech is found to be illegal.  A subtle but important difference.  Fire in a crowded theater, etc.

There is nothing illegal about students praying, no matter how hard someone tries to make it so.  It can be illegal for the school to SPONSOR a prayer event.

I would also counter that it's the jail part that upset so many.  We have liberal judges letting all kinds of criminals walk free but god dammit if you pray at that school I'm locking your ass up!  I mean really, what reaction should be expected here?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 21, 2011, 04:05:54 PM
There is nothing illegal about students praying, no matter how hard someone tries to make it so.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you about that.  Should we fire them?

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 21, 2011, 06:35:07 PM
Quote
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting ....

Policy policy policy policy

From your previous example...

Quote
... Principal Coupe, who maintained control over all aspects of the graduation ceremony,

Also an important distinction.

Back to this case.

Quote
Biery ruled that students can express their religious beliefs in speeches, but cannot call the crowd to pray or deliver a message considered a prayer.

So what is a prayer?  He tried to go on to define it.

Quote
    Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

    He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

    “These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,’” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”


Now tell me something.  If a student calls for other students to bow their heads, what religion are they promoting?  Is the school or any official of the school demanding that people get religion during this event?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That's it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Basically you have to show that a policy does harm ... for example, if a school insists on a prayer at graduation, and that school is publicly funded, then it does harm by ignoring non-religion.  So what standing did Biery have to rule that a non sanctioned prayer by a student during a graduation was, in effect, illegal?

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 21, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
You are arguing the merits of the case which is an entirely different thing.  Decisions on standing are not based on the merits. You can't presuppose that the ruling is wrong and then go back and argue standing.  Essentially you are saying that judges have to rule a certain way decided by voters or Congress or you can totally ignore their rulings without punishment because they didn't have the authority to make it.  Which pretty much eliminates the whole point of having a judicial branch.

Do you see the distinction dirk and I are trying to make?  Your problem really stems from the fact you disagree with the court's holding.  But
IF a judge believes that an action would violate the constitutional right, the proper action is to issue an injunction.  And if that injunction is to have any meaning, there has to be a way to stop you from disobeying it.  Which is why the judge is empowered to grant injunctions and other court orders, and why disobeying those things is cause for contempt of court or obstruction of justice, and why you can go to prison for it.

In short, he has standing because that's his job.  People come to him asking for injunctive relief based on alleged violations of constitutional rights and he decides whether or not to award them.  Unless you want to go and toss out every case since Marbury v Madison, Biery unquestionably has standing to hear the case, to rule, and to issue an injunction preventing a violation of the constitution if he decides that is what is happening. 

SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT.  Yes, it's a scary power but that's the nature of the beast.  Gingrich's solution doesn't get you out of the "Who watches the watchmen?" paradoxes.  It just substitutes Congress for the judiciary in the role of watchmen.  He's talking about issuing subpeonas and arresting people for disobeying them.  So... same thing.  The subpeona's coming from Congress instead of a judge is all.

Also, you're missing the precedent being set by the court cases I cited.  I'm not saying the facts of this case are the same and the decision is controlling.  I'm saying those decisions pretty clearly set a precedent that there is a point at which a student's right to free speech and freedom of religion conflicts with the Establishment Clause.  So there definitely CAN be something illegal about student prayers.  And religious speech led by students can certainly be considered unprotected speech (although you could make the distinction that the speech is still technically protected by the first amendment as all speech is, but that the protection is trumped by the Establishment Clause).

What constitutes a "prayer" and under what situations that prayer can be considered "sanctioned" by the school is the question.  So yes, Biery tried to give a definition of what is sanctioned, and what is "prayer."  Which is exactly what he should be doing, following precedent.  He's recognizing both the Establishment clause and the Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech parts of the Constitution and trying to draw a boundary as to when one overrules the other. 

Maybe he drew the line badly.  But that's okay, because his decision clearly indicated the precedent for the case, the facts upon which the case hinged and his interpretation of those facts according to the constitution and prior holdings, and the exact words/actions he found violated the Constitution.  Which makes it easy for an appellate court to review his findings and reverse and/or modify them as needed.  Which is what happened.

And I mean, even though he got overruled, it was still 2-1 rather than unanimous.  And I didn't find the appellate court's written decision particularly harsh.  I've seen a lot worse.  It was pretty much a run-of-the-mill case other than Gingrich disagrees with it and wants to impeach the guy completely rejigger our system of checks and balances over it despite the fact that the courts ultimately gave him the resolution he wanted.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 22, 2011, 07:50:12 AM
Quote
I'm saying those decisions pretty clearly set a precedent that there is a point at which a student's right to free speech and freedom of religion conflicts with the Establishment Clause.  So there definitely CAN be something illegal about student prayers.  And religious speech led by students can certainly be considered unprotected speech (although you could make the distinction that the speech is still technically protected by the first amendment as all speech is, but that the protection is trumped by the Establishment Clause).

No, I think this is incorrect. :)  A students speech is NOT limited, the school has limits but not the student.  Yes, there can be something illegal about a school sponsored student prayer ... but there is nothing illegal about a student saying a prayer.   The so called establishment clause never ever trumps an individuals free speech rights.  Both cases you gave as examples dealt with either a policy that was correctly identified as illegal, or someone thinking they had free speech rights when they did not.  

As far as enforcement, I think it's ok for the judge to tell the school to set a policy and to 'punish' the school if they don't, but it's not ok for the judge to tell the students what they can and cannot say and threaten that if they sneak any of these words into a speech they will most certainly be punished and threatened with jail time.

Now let's be clear on this ... I have NO IDEA what Gingrich is thinking or how far he would carry this.  These are my understandings, not his.  I'm simply saying that if he singled out this judge _because_ of this particular case I can understand why.

Quote
It was pretty much a run-of-the-mill case other than Gingrich disagrees with it and wants to impeach the guy completely rejigger our system of checks and balances over it despite the fact that the courts ultimately gave him the resolution he wanted.

I agree with this, the system did work, but I still think the judge should be impeached since, in my mind, he obviously does not understand constitutional rights.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on December 22, 2011, 10:44:47 AM
George Will mostly agrees with you as far as letting the system work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrich-the-anti-conservative/2011/12/20/gIQALq8CAP_story.html

I don't think George Will is a big fan.  :)

Gingrich, the anti-conservative
By George F. Will,

When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary.

But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly to members of Congress, who rarely even read the laws they pass.

Gingrich’s most lurid evidence that courts are “grotesquely dictatorial” is a Texas judge’s aggressive decision concerning religious observances at high school functions, a decision a higher court promptly (and dictatorially?) overturned. Gingrich’s epiphany about judicial tyranny occurred in 2002, when a circuit court ruled unconstitutional the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation “under God.” Gingrich likened this to the 1857 Dred Scott decision that led to 625,000 Civil War dead. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the circuit court’s “under God” nonsense.

So, Gingrich is happy? Not exactly. He warns that calling the Supreme Court supreme amounts to embracing “oligarchy.”

He says that the Founders considered the judiciary the “weakest” branch. Not exactly. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch (Federalist 78) because, since it wields neither the sword nor the purse, its power resides solely in persuasive “judgment.” That, however, is not weakness but strength based on the public’s respect for public reasoning. Gingrich yearns to shatter that respect and trump such reasoning with raw political power, in the name of majoritarianism.

Judicial deference to majorities can, however, be a dereliction of the judicial duty to oppose actions irreconcilable with constitutional limits on what majorities may do. Gingrich’s campaign against courts repudiates contemporary conservatism’s core commitment to limited government.

Logically, Gingrich should regret the dictatorial Supreme Court decisions that have stymied congressional majorities by overturning portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation and other restrictions on political speech.

Logic, however, is a flimsy leash for a mind as protean as Gingrich’s, which applauds those decisions — and the Kelo decision. In Kelo, the court eschewed dictatorship and deferred to the New London, Conn., City Council majority that imposed a stunning abuse of eminent domain. Conservatives were appalled; Gingrich, inexplicably but conveniently, says he is, too.

Gingrich radiates impatience with impediments to allowing majorities to sweep aside judicial determinations displeasing to those majorities. He does not, however, trust democratic political processes to produce, over time, presidents who will nominate, and Senate majorities that will confirm, judges whose views he approves.

Although not a historian, Gingrich plays one on television, where he recently cited Franklin Roosevelt (and Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln) as “just like” him in being “prepared to take on the judiciary.” Roosevelt, infuriated by Supreme Court decisions declaring various progressive policies incompatible with the Constitution’s architecture of limited government, tried to “pack” the court by enlarging it and attempted to purge from Congress some Democrats who opposed him. Voters, who generally respect the court much more than other government institutions, reelected those Democrats and so thoroughly rebuked FDR’s overreaching that Congress lacked a liberal legislating majority for a generation.

To teach courts the virtue of modesty, President Gingrich would attempt to abolish some courts and impeach judges whose decisions annoy him — decisions he says he might ignore while urging Congress to do likewise. He favors compelling judges to appear before Congress to justify decisions “out of sync” with majorities, and he would sic police or marshals on judges who resist congressional coercion. Never mind that judges always explain themselves in written opinions, concurrences and dissents.

Gingrich’s unsurprising descent into sinister radicalism — intimidation of courts — is redundant evidence that he is not merely the least conservative candidate, he is thoroughly anti-conservative. He disdains the central conservative virtue, prudence, and exemplifies progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power. He exalts the will of the majority of the moment, at least as he, tribune of the vox populi, interprets it.

Atop the Republican ticket, Gingrich would guarantee Barack Obama’s reelection, would probably doom Republicans’ hopes of capturing the Senate and might cost them control of the House. If so, Gingrich would at last have achieved something — wreckage, but something — proportional to his swollen sense of himself.

(Disclosure: This columnist’s wife, Mari Will, is an adviser to GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry.)

georgewill@washpost.com

© The Washington Post Company
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on December 22, 2011, 11:04:57 AM
No, I think this is incorrect. :)  A students speech is NOT limited, the school has limits but not the student.  Yes, there can be something illegal about a school sponsored student prayer ... but there is nothing illegal about a student saying a prayer.   The so called establishment clause never ever trumps an individuals free speech rights.  Both cases you gave as examples dealt with either a policy that was correctly identified as illegal, or someone thinking they had free speech rights when they did not.  
While I want you to be right, unfortunately, you aren't.  The SCOTUS has limited students speech while in school.  One example is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier). This example deals with newspapers, but I believe the basic premise would still apply here.  The graduation is not a public forum for student expression, so it can be censored.   

Take for example if a student wanted to show a nude picture during their speech.  Assuming this is a tasteful nude, it would definitely covered under the 1st Amendment, but the school still has the legal right to censor that speech.  I am sure the school had to approve the students speech beforehand (every school I have ever heard of reads and approves the students speech beforehand).  They will then tell the student to change anything objectionable.  Why would this same censorship not apply to religious speech?  Therefore, by allowing a speech that is religious, the school is actually approving the religious message and therefore violating the first amendment.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 22, 2011, 11:24:37 AM
You've misread the case.

The plaintiff in this case was an agnostic student.  The defendant was the school district.  The plaintiff asked for injunctive relief against the defendant to prevent them from violating his rights under the Establishment clause.  The judge ruled for the plaintiff and granted the relief by ordering the school to (among other things) prohibit the use of certain terms in a graduation speech.

At no point in the holding does the judge ever threaten to send students to jail for giving a prayer at a graduation ceremony.  Nor would it happen.  The court order applies to the school, not the student speech giver.  In other words, the court is saying to the school "You can't do this."  Which is exactly what the courts did in all the other cases I cited.  So you don't need to worry about some crazy new precedent being set here.

And I haven't really been fussing about it, but if you really want to get down to legal brass tacks, you're not using the term "illegal" correctly.  "Illegal" implies a criminal charge and this is a civil case.  

And while I'm at it, something in print is libel not slander.  And libel is NOT protected free speech.  And courts CAN issue injunctions pre-prevent someone from saying/printing something.  They don't like to do it because of concern over free speech chilling effects so it's rare occurrence, but it does happen.  

Also, Dirk is right that student speech in schools does not enjoy the same First Amendment protection as other speech. The Hazelwood case he mentioned is an often-cited example.  Bethel School District v. Frazier is another.  Those are both cases you have to learn in first-year Constitutional Law.  There are a bunch of decisions governing school dress codes.  And the cases I already mentioned.  I don't agree with many of them, but I find it hard to criticize a judge too harshly for following precedent. 



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 22, 2011, 11:42:04 AM
George Will mostly agrees with you as far as letting the system work.

Yeah, stepping aside from the whole legal debate that is why I think Gingrich just totally screwed himself.

It's not just George Will.  I saw Bill O'Reilly hammer Gingrich on it as well.  And there's no shortage of powerful conservatives who are lawyers or judges or ex AG's for conservative administrations who are going to think this is stupid as well.  The guys on Volokh Conspiracy don't seem too happy either.

He overplayed his hand, as usual.  If he had just delivered a rant on "activist" judges and said that he was going to be extremely active in terms of vetting appointed justices and that judicial decisions need to be tracked and monitored or perhaps even that justices should no longer serve life tenure I think he would have scored big points.  

But when you talk about arresting judges, you're just coming on way too strong and immediately raising the attacking the whole libertarian framework at the heart of conservative philosophy.  You can't do that.  Even the craziest far-right nutjob believes in that libertarian framework, despite advocating many distinctly un-libertarian policies.  They'll massively distort facts and arguments to force fit the libertarian construct rather than abandon it.

Which is what Gingrich tried to do with his whole "No, I'm not putting the executive above the judicial, I'm making them equal!" spiel, but he didn't deliver it well.  The white paper he wrote isn't actually that bad.  But his personal responses when questioned were terrible.  He was all red-faced and Gingrich-y looking and he came across angry.  No conservative wants to see an angry government guy talking about arresting people.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on December 27, 2011, 09:11:29 PM
Gingrich Plummets in Polls as Voters Start Remembering Who He Is http://www.borowitzreport.com/ (http://www.borowitzreport.com/)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 28, 2011, 11:53:53 AM
Gary Johnson is running as a candidate for the Libertarian Party now.

Good for libertarians.  I'm sure they're happy to have a candidate on the ballot for their party.  And someone to vote for who is actually a REAL libertarian (ie. not Paul, not Barr).

Hell, I might even vote for Gary Johnson.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on December 29, 2011, 01:04:01 PM
Gary Johnson is running as a candidate for the Libertarian Party now.

Good for libertarians.  I'm sure they're happy to have a candidate on the ballot for their party.  And someone to vote for who is actually a REAL libertarian (ie. not Paul, not Barr)

I'm happy about it, hope it makes the national network news tonight.

The Libertarian party chooses it's nominee at the national convention by the state delegations rather than by primary elections. You will have to watch the national convention on C-SPAN to see who wins.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 04, 2012, 10:25:46 AM
I am guessing here but...

Bachmann and Perry should drop out today and tomorrow.  New Hampshire will be a contest between Romney and, well, no one.  Gingrich might gain some traction but not much, and the rest of the field has no chance.  Huntsman should drop out after NH, Gingrich and Santorum will stay till SC then one will drop. 

I'm not even going to hazard a guess about Ron Paul.

Romney will be the candidate, IMO, but I still think he loses to Obama, especially if the economic recovery picks up. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kenneth Toilethole on January 04, 2012, 12:59:48 PM
I really think Romney made a terrible move strategically by getting in the mud with Gingrich. I'm pretty sure Gingrich's number one goal now is to make sure Romney doesn't get the nomination. He's basically become Santorum's #1 cheerleader. And hell hath no fury as a Newt scorned. He may not be able to keep the nomination from going to Mitt, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Newt make attacks that wound Romney into November.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 04, 2012, 01:16:38 PM
Which is perfect, really.  I don't know about you but I prefer a divided government, and not divided like it is now where nothing gets done.  I'd like to see the repubs take the house and senate while Obama stays in the WH, then there's no hiding behind obscure doors.  Republicans have to pass things the public supports and Obama either signs or vetos.  With a veto the repubs have to get enough votes to override.  It's nice and simple and we can have some real compromise.   It worked very well with Clinton, I think it can work well with Obama.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 04, 2012, 01:37:14 PM
Back when Clinton was prez, the GOP seemed capable of compromise.  Now, they seem utterly opposed to it.  Anything that smells like compromise actually seems to equal weakness for them.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 04, 2012, 01:45:10 PM
Back when Clinton was prez, the GOP seemed capable of compromise.  Now, they seem utterly opposed to it.  Anything that smells like compromise actually seems to equal weakness for them.

I'm sure they would disagree with you.    ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 04, 2012, 01:46:45 PM
Back when Clinton was prez, the GOP seemed capable of compromise.  Now, they seem utterly opposed to it.  Anything that smells like compromise actually seems to equal weakness for them.

Well that's kind of my point.  The division now allows the tea party to obstruct and hide behind the republican establishment.  When the republicans control a branch they must show results.

Neither party is going to do us any good though, they all suck.  I like this piece:

Iowa and the future of history

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iowa-and-the-future-of-history/2012/01/04/gIQAlzYZaP_story.html

By Matt Miller, Wednesday, January 4, 11:35 AM

I was as shocked as anyone when Rick Santorum said from the Iowa stage that the real question in this campaign was the one Francis Fukuyama asks in the new issue of Foreign Affairs: “Can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class?”

Okay, I made that up. Mostly, the GOP candidates asked whether the republic could survive another four years of Barack Obama. But as 100 percent of the media obsesses over what .04 percent of the United States has done, Fukuyama’s piece, “The Future of History,” is essential reading for anyone who wants to mull the mega-question lurking behind today’s voter angst from Des Moines to Nashua.

For starters, it’s nice to see that Fukuyama, who made a splash 20 years ago with an essay (and then book) called “The End of History and the Last Man,” has decided that history has a future. In his earlier triumphalist work, he argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies after the fall of the Berlin Wall marked a kind of endpoint of human social and political development. From here on out, he suggested back then, we’d just be tweaking the ideal model.

Two decades on, the march of those infamous twin modern forces — globalization and rapid technological change — has Fukuyama thinking again. “Some very troubling economic and social trends, if they continue,” Fukuyama writes, “will both threaten the stability of contemporary liberal democracies and dethrone democratic ideology as it is now understood.”

His worry is the erosion of the middle class. What if the acceleration of current trends in global capitalism “undermines the middle class and makes it impossible for more than a minority of citizens in an advanced society to achieve middle class status?” To Fukuyama, this phase of development may already have begun. And no one is offering ideas that could stem the tide.

Take first the right. While the Tea Party’s energy is anti-elitist, Fukuyama argues, its members perversely end up supporting conservatives who do the bidding of the financial mavens Tea Partyers claim to loathe. And those conservatives who do sound a different note — notably Rick Santorum, whose empathy for and allegiance to everyday workers is his distinguishing trait — don’t have promising policy responses.

Santorum’s tribute to the dignity of work in his Iowa speech Tuesday night was moving, for example. And his call to renew America manufacturing is important. But as Adam Davidson’s powerful cover story, “Making It in America,” in the new Atlantic Monthly shows, millions of less educated Americans who win jobs in a revitalized manufacturing sector will still make only $13 to $18 dollars an hour. They’ll also live in constant risk of being automated or outsourced out of a job.

“For most of U.S. history,” Davidson concludes, “most people had a slow and steady wind at their back, a combination of economic forces that didn’t make life easy but gave many of us little pushes forward that allowed us to earn a bit more every year. Over a lifetime, it added up to a better sort of life than the life we were born into. That wind seems to be dying for a lot of Americans. What the country will be like without it is not quite clear.”

In the face of such grim new realities, Fukuyama sees the left as equally bereft of ideas. “It has been several decades since anyone on the left has been able to articulate, first, a coherent analysis of what happens to the structure of advanced societies as they undergo [this degree of] economic change, and, second, a realistic agenda that has any hope of protecting a middle class society.”

Yes, the battle for New Hampshire (and South Carolina and Florida) will be gripping, but the clash we need to clarify in this election isn’t Romney vs. Santorum, or Newt vs. Mitt, or even Obama vs. Romney. It’s globalization and rapid technological change vs. the middle class.

As things stand, the showdown between the GOP’s call for nostalgia and the Democrat’s call for resentment won’t get us where we need to go. It’s our perennial problem: The symbols and values the two parties manipulate to get to 50 percent plus one have nothing to do with developing real answers to our challenges.

We need a “ideologically androgynous” agenda to ensure opportunity and security in a global age, and we need to update our institutions and reallocate resources to do this. This will take, among other things, a full-tilt assault on the inefficient health-care and higher-education “industrial complexes” that increasingly put the ingredients of middle class life out of reach of millions with stagnant incomes and limited prospects. It will also take more redistribution, not less.

No one’s saying this is easy to devise or sell. But no one running for president is even trying to mobilize the country around ideas on a scale that match these challenges.

As Fukuyama concludes, “the alternative narrative is out there, waiting to be born.”

Matt Miller, a co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center,” writes a weekly online column for The Post. His e-mail address is mattino2@gmail.com.

© The Washington Post Company
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on January 04, 2012, 11:04:49 PM
I am guessing here but...

Bachmann and Perry should drop out today and tomorrow. 
as of now, you're half-right.
this whole thing has been weird- how she can win the straw poll then totally flatline. perry goes up, perry goes down. cain goes up, cain goes down. gingrich goes up, gingrich goes down, santorum wasn't even a thought when this all started and almost wins, paul seems to be the only steady one but he will never crack 20%.

what the hell?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Nate on January 05, 2012, 01:25:44 AM
My fear is that Bachmann runs again in my district.  They've been redrawn and now, she would be my representative if she ran this fall and won (which she handily has done every time).  Yeesh.  Some predict she should run for Senate and go after Amy Kloubachar's seat.  It would be an interesting matchup, considering it's hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about Kloubachar or her voting record. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on January 05, 2012, 11:10:46 AM
My fear is that Bachmann runs again in my district.  They've been redrawn and now, she would be my representative if she ran this fall and won (which she handily has done every time).  Yeesh.  Some predict she should run for Senate and go after Amy Kloubachar's seat.  It would be an interesting matchup, considering it's hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about Kloubachar or her voting record. 
I have a feeling that's Kloubachar's job for as long as she wants it.

I would think her brand has been damaged enough from her presidential run that she could lose her seat if she ran for re-election.  Especially after constantly playing up her Iowa roots.  If voters also realize that she has never really done anything while in office, I think that would be the end of it.  But, I also thought there was no way she was going to win after calling the president "un-American" while running against a candidate who had both the Democratic and Independence party nominations.  So, who knows?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 05, 2012, 11:14:33 AM
I think it's funny Perry can't decide if he should quit.  Hey, I was wrong about Perry being the best repub candidate (that's a bit of an understatement, don't ya think) so I may be wrong about this too, but I don't think Perry has a chance in hell of winning anything.

Santorum is now getting the media treatment, with reminders of just what a right wing wacko he is.

I can't see Romney losing, and then I can't see Romney winning.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 05, 2012, 11:16:45 AM
Santorum is now getting the media treatment, with reminders of just what an intolerant asshat he is.

Fixed that for me...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 05, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
Hey, I was wrong about Perry being the best repub candidate (that's a bit of an understatement, don't ya think)

We all tried to tell you. :P

Santorum's problem is that he's really stupid.  I don't mean stupid in that he likes stupid policy or stupid in that he's not hip because of his religious beliefs.  I mean that if you saw Santorum in a grocery store and had a conversation with him about the weather you'd walk away going "Man, that guy was stupid."  People do everything for him.

The up-and-down thing in the GOP primaries is because there were 4-5 candidates who were all pretty interchangeable in terms of their political views.  And pretty similar in their level of political incompetency as well.  The extreme right is voting for principles not politicians, so they don't care overly much who represents them.  Santorum was simply lucky or his people were smart to get into the race late.

The hardcore Tea Party people are more or less hopelessly blinded.  But there's still a decent chunk of what used to be the far right and who realize how bad these candidates are.  When you ask them who they'll vote for when there's nothing at stake they'll pick the most conservative guy to make a point.  But when they actually have to pull the lever they'll pick someone more competent.

I think I might actually prefer Santorum or Ron Paul win the Presidency than Romney. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 05, 2012, 12:04:19 PM
The Tea Party is now touting one of the heavier earmark/pork barrel guys in Congress whose wife also had an abortion.  Shows how little they care about who they vote for.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on January 07, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
I wonder how many people in foreign countries are googling "santorum" and throwing up a little in their mouths because they think it is a legit english word.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 10, 2012, 02:00:43 PM
Media is starting to ponder if Huntsman is going to have a stronger showing than expected.  I would rather see Huntsman as #2 instead of Santorum.  Here's hoping Gingrich has such a poor showing it hurts his standing in SC and is the beginning of the end.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on January 10, 2012, 02:25:11 PM
Media is starting to ponder if Huntsman is going to have a stronger showing than expected.  I would rather see Huntsman as #2 instead of Santorum.  Here's hoping Gingrich has such a poor showing it hurts his standing in SC and is the beginning of the end.
huntsman would be a big improvement over santorum.
and i haven't read this whole thread, but i thought you liked gingrich?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 10, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
Huntsman actually seems like a reasonable guy and, perhaps more importantly, sane.  He doesn't stand a chance at being the GOP nominee.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 10, 2012, 02:32:07 PM
It's New Hampshire.  People actually make sense in NH.

Even if Huntsman manages a decent showing there he's going to get smoked in SC and FL.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 10, 2012, 02:32:59 PM
Right, I wasn't commenting on his chances in NH... I was referring to the whole enchilada.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 10, 2012, 08:26:27 PM
Romney is poised to become the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and NH. Congrats, Mitt.

This is mostly likely due to the quality of his competition, however.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 10, 2012, 09:31:09 PM
It's New Hampshire.  People actually make sense in NH.

Even if Huntsman manages a decent showing there he's going to get smoked in SC and FL.

Still, it's refreshing to hear some buzz around the only candidate who seems remotely rational. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on January 10, 2012, 10:18:17 PM
Here's hoping Gingrich has such a poor showing it hurts his standing in SC and is the beginning of the end.

Right now an obese woman is warming up her singing voice.

Gingrich is not one to cut spending, but cut the spending increase. (To Renew America p.97)

I hope Santorum goes next.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 11, 2012, 07:42:06 AM
Media is starting to ponder if Huntsman is going to have a stronger showing than expected.  I would rather see Huntsman as #2 instead of Santorum.  Here's hoping Gingrich has such a poor showing it hurts his standing in SC and is the beginning of the end.
huntsman would be a big improvement over santorum.
and i haven't read this whole thread, but i thought you liked gingrich?

I do like Gingrich, but I would rather he not be president.  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on January 11, 2012, 08:59:07 AM
People are finally realizing that Romney is the only one with a chance of being elected in the general election.  Technically, Huntsman would probably have a good chance as well, but because he hasn't made any waves at all (or really been covered at all, I had forgotten he was even running still) he would have a long uphill battle just for name recognition.  Out of the field, I think Huntsman is the best choice, with Romney not far behind him. I don't necessarily like or agree with either of them on most things, but I think they wouldn't be terrible choices.  The rest of the field would be a disaster for the country.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 11, 2012, 10:28:04 AM
Any GOP choice other than Paul would be a disaster.  Actually, Paul would be a disaster as well but for a different reason.

I can't see Romney or Huntsman really trying (or having the ability) to reign in the crazies in Congress.  And they're not going veto any Republican bills.  Control of the Senate is going to be way more important than who is President.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 11, 2012, 10:41:07 AM
As much as I like Obama and think he isn't getting a fair shake I don't think he's going to do it either.  Other than the Cordray thing he hasn't really stood his ground on anything... maybe that'll change, I don't know.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on January 11, 2012, 11:07:20 PM
People are finally realizing that Romney is the only one with a chance of being elected in the general election. 
I'm hoping that Romney can do really well in SC and basically put this thing to bed. He's the clear and obvious choice unless you are a way off-right Republican (which I am not).
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on January 12, 2012, 07:44:30 PM
The "way-off right republican" vote is split among the rest of the candidates, Romney will start losing once the also rans drop out.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on January 13, 2012, 09:54:36 AM
People are finally realizing that Romney is the only one with a chance of being elected in the general election.  Technically, Huntsman would probably have a good chance as well, but because he hasn't made any waves at all (or really been covered at all, I had forgotten he was even running still) he would have a long uphill battle just for name recognition.  Out of the field, I think Huntsman is the best choice, with Romney not far behind him. I don't necessarily like or agree with either of them on most things, but I think they wouldn't be terrible choices.  The rest of the field would be a disaster for the country.

Heard an interview with Huntsman the other day on NPR and he really impressed me. He is so well spoken and non-political and seems so normal. I am not much for the whole rah rah rah cheerleading of politicians as I think they are as slippery as snake oil, but I admit, he was the first candidate I would consider sending money to. I won't but for a minute there, I considered it. Out of all of the candidates, he scares me the least and also seems the most presidential. Anyway, 2012 election day is probably going to be a coin toss for me. Not impressed with Obama and after hearing what Romney said about amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, I couldn't give him my vote either.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on January 13, 2012, 10:36:05 AM
I think Obama is still better than Romney, or any other Republican. I could tolerate Huntsman, but I wouldn't vote for him.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 13, 2012, 12:48:56 PM
There's nothing wrong with Huntsman, but he's definitely "political" in the sense that his policies are in line with traditional Republican views/philosophy all the way down the line.  Which is fantastic if you are conservative, and I don't know why he isn't winning the GOP primary easily other than most conservatives right now are idiots.  If I were conservative, I'd definitely vote for him.  But since I'm not, it's pretty tough for me to do so even though I consider him qualified, sort of like the guy personally, and would not be too terribly upset if he won (especially considering the alternatives).

Not that it matters, because it's going to be Romney unless he somehow manages to do something amazingly stupid.  It would take like a major sex scandal at this point for him not to win.

If it's close, I'll vote for Obama.  If Obama looks like he's going to cruise to victory and/or obviously get his ass kicked in Virginia, I'll strongly consider voting for Gary Johnson.

The major misgiving I have about Johnson is I'm not sure I want to vote Libertarian.  The party seems to be really split between stick-it-to-the-man hippy classical liberals (Johnson) and we-hate-commies paleocons (Paul). I'm cool with the classical liberals, but disagree strongly with and am rather afraid of the paleocons.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on January 13, 2012, 11:37:19 PM
I think Obama is still better than Romney, or any other Republican. I could tolerate Huntsman, but I wouldn't vote for him.
Why don't you just come out and say it: you are a die-hard liberal who will vote for Obama, regardless of his track record as President. Correct?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 14, 2012, 07:22:36 AM
I think Obama is still better than Romney, or any other Republican. I could tolerate Huntsman, but I wouldn't vote for him.
Why don't you just come out and say it: you are a die-hard liberal who will vote for Obama, regardless of his track record as President. Correct?
It's certainly correct for me. Sort of. I fancy myself a moderate. The current political spectrum has been pulled so far to the right that Obama IS a moderate. He's only liberal relative to yahoos like Bachmann and Perry.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 14, 2012, 10:06:37 AM
I think Obama is still better than Romney, or any other Republican. I could tolerate Huntsman, but I wouldn't vote for him.
Why don't you just come out and say it: you are a die-hard liberal who will vote for Obama, regardless of his track record as President. Correct?

Of course people will tend to vote for people whose policies they agree with.  I don't have a problem with liberals voting liberal or conservatives voting conservative.  Why wouldn't they?

I think you're showing your own bias.  Obama's had no major scandals.  He got rid of don't ask don't tell.  He passed universal healthcare.  We pulled out of the war.  The economy seems to be doing better.  The major beef right now going on is Obama's refusal to cut taxes to the rich, something which most liberals want him to hold the line on.  And an issue in which I think the conservatives ended up looking stupid because they got into a spat with themselves and refused to even negotiate.  And then ended up with that stupid committee which inevitably failed to come to an agreement on budget cuts which everyone knew they would.

Obama's had his problems, for sure.  But he was put into a pretty tough situation as well.  I don't know if he's been fantastic, but overall I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a liberal to be satisfied with what Obama's done.

YOU aren't satisfied, obviously.  But I bet if you really think about it, almost all of your beefs have to do with Obama deliberately passing something liberal and/or failing to do something conservative.  In other words, you don't like him exactly because he's been pretty good. 

Now contrast that to the amazingly shitty candidates the GOP's been touting.  They are so bad that I don't trust any GOP candidate in general.  One reason I won't vote for Huntsman is that I think the GOP Congress is going to be controlled by far-right clowns and Huntsman will have a much tougher time going against them.

Besides, neither buzzstein or I are even going to have an opportunity to vote for Obama over Huntsman because Huntsman is not going to win the GOP nomination.  I'm not going to get a chance to vote for Huntsman at all because he's not on the ballot in Virginia.  And by the time VA and OH vote, the GOP race will likely be over for him, if it isn't already. 

And that's the fault of Republicans and conservatives completely ignoring him for ridiculously unqualified candidates.  If anyone's blindly putting political bias over practical qualifications, it's Republicans.  So you're wasting your time tilting at liberal windmills.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: cyclone on January 14, 2012, 10:49:00 AM
^ Incredible post.  Thank you for writing it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on January 14, 2012, 11:33:41 AM
^ Incredible post.  Thank you for writing it.
x2
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 16, 2012, 07:28:39 AM

Besides, neither buzzstein or I are even going to have an opportunity to vote for Obama over Huntsman because Huntsman is not going to win the GOP nomination.  I'm not going to get a chance to vote for Huntsman at all because he's not on the ballot in Virginia.  And by the time VA and OH vote, the GOP race will likely be over for him, if it isn't already. 


It is...

Agreed with your post, well said.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 17, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
I don't see Romney being all that bad, but Romney plus a republican congress is bad.  I should have voted for McCain because of this single party in power crap, but he just had to go and pick Palin as a running mate.  Sarah Palin is responsible for all our troubles!

Zafer = Prole?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on January 17, 2012, 10:19:46 AM


Zafer = Prole?
i briefly thought that too.......
i hope so!
come back, prole!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on January 17, 2012, 03:08:29 PM
That is most definitely prole. Gee, you guys catch on quick. :D ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 17, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
I don't think this changes the primary much but I see this getting a lot of play in the general election, assuming Romney gets the nod:

Ronney Says He's Taxed At 15 Percent Rate (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/17/145342549/romney-says-hes-taxed-at-15-percent-rate?sc=fb&cc=fp)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on January 18, 2012, 08:12:08 AM
That is most definitely prole. Gee, you guys catch on quick. :D ;)

Lol. I figured you'd all known by now. I can spell it out for you, too, but that's really only his business so I won't.


Back on subject. I figure, as a democrat, that the best Republican candidate for the Republicans as a whole would be the one who scares me the most in their chances at defeating Obama. Right now it's Mitt Romney and no one else, and the jury is still out in my mind about whether he's actually a decent candidate.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on January 18, 2012, 09:51:09 AM
He's not a decent candidate. He's boring, stiff and weak. The Republican John Kerry indeed...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 19, 2012, 10:59:14 AM
Rick Perry to drop out and endorse Gingrich.  I'm sure the 1000 or so Perry supporters will make the difference.

Newts ex wife (the one that's not dead) gave an interview to ABC to air tonight.  I won't watch, since I don't watch TV, but can;t wait to hear about it.  I wonder if this will sink him?

I agree with Buzz, Romney is this elections Kerry.  Obama won't win, Romney will lose.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Poolio on January 19, 2012, 11:17:38 AM
Newts ex wife (the one that's not dead) gave an interview to ABC to air tonight.  I won't watch, since I don't watch TV, but can;t wait to hear about it.  I wonder if this will sink him?
Wish granted, a wrap-up of the Ex-wife's interview. (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-ex-wife-135852543--abc-news.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 19, 2012, 11:43:48 AM
I won't watch, since I don't watch TV, but can;t wait to hear about it.

Congratulations.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 19, 2012, 12:07:06 PM
Newts ex wife (the one that's not dead) gave an interview to ABC to air tonight.  I won't watch, since I don't watch TV, but can;t wait to hear about it.  I wonder if this will sink him?
Wish granted, a wrap-up of the Ex-wife's interview. (http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-ex-wife-135852543--abc-news.html)

Juicy!  Real question is,  who would screw Newt?

Butter, we've done a pretty good job at avoiding personal insults, don't you think?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on January 19, 2012, 01:32:01 PM

Butter, we've done a pretty good job at avoiding personal insults, don't you think?

I'm kind of curious about that.  What exactly were you going for with that little aside about not watching TV?  It had no bearing on what you were saying.  I don't know what you're reasons are for not watching TV, nor do I care, but when a person goes to such great strides I can only assume that they're trying to assert their superiority, or they're looking for some kind of validation.  I admit that it rubbed me the wrong way.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 19, 2012, 01:41:15 PM
I simply do not watch commercial TV.  Nothing superior or inferior about that, just that to see the interview I'd have to be awake and in front of a TV.  So I thought it was appropriate to note that I don't watch interviews, or the debates, I simply read about them, which is not always an accurate way to get the news.

I did not see that coming, my bad.  Ah, maybe because I left out 'commercial'?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 20, 2012, 07:52:31 AM
Butter, we've done a pretty good job at avoiding personal insults, don't you think?

If that's a personal insult, you seriously need to grow a pair.

We've had the "people who like to tout that they don't watch TV" debate around here before.  So that's partially where it came from.

You can do whatever you want, I don't begrudge it at all.  But in your post, it was definitely a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on January 20, 2012, 09:23:41 AM
I always find it hilarious when people attack the news media for publishing articles about them like Newt Gingrich did with the interview with his ex-wife.  They always claim the media is out to get them with the timing, which is hilarious.  It could be that you are now newsworthy, so people actually want to read about you again.  You don't hear anything about Al Gore or John Kerry now because no one cares about them.  But if they run for president in 4 years, I can guarantee that you will suddenly see more articles about them, both good and bad.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 20, 2012, 10:11:04 AM
Yea,

an open relationship shouldn't be news for a republican candidate for president.   ;D

I'm going to see how bad I can predict SC.

#1 Romney ~ 35%
#2 Gingrich ~ 25%
#3 Santorum (higher than expected > 15%)

Both Gingrich and Santorum stay in the race.



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on January 20, 2012, 10:57:59 AM
wasn't newt screwing around on wife #2 WHILE he was calling for clinton's impeachment?

if the dems know anything, it's don't pretend to be moral crusaders*...at least that's one thing that won't come back to bite you in the ass....



*depending on your definition of more crusaders
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 20, 2012, 11:12:18 AM
I don't think Romney will win SC at all, much less by 10 points.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 21, 2012, 10:24:07 PM
I don't think Romney will win SC at all, much less by 10 points.
Good call. Newt's got it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on January 21, 2012, 11:57:01 PM
no matter... Romny will get the nomination eventually
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Nate on January 22, 2012, 12:50:30 AM
Will he?  His refusal to come clean on his money cost him South Carolina.  If this continues, he won't win.

The best thing for an Obama re-election is a Newt win.  It's Mondale in 84-worthy.  (And I can say that because I'm in Minnesota).  :p
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 22, 2012, 02:46:29 AM
Yea,

an open relationship shouldn't be news for a republican candidate for president.   ;D

I'm going to see how bad I can predict SC.

#1 Romney ~ 35%
#2 Gingrich ~ 25%
#3 Santorum (higher than expected > 15%)

Both Gingrich and Santorum stay in the race.

What a perfectly bad prediction.  I'm at the top of my game.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on January 22, 2012, 11:23:47 PM

The best thing for an Obama re-election is a Newt win.  It's Mondale in 84-worthy.  (And I can say that because I'm in Minnesota).  :p
that is quite obvious, and probably you'd be right.

I still don't see Romney losing this thing, now that we are going to "more normal" states like FLA, where Gingrich cannot count on so many extreme-conservatives.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 23, 2012, 12:17:07 AM

The best thing for an Obama re-election is a Newt win.  It's Mondale in 84-worthy.  (And I can say that because I'm in Minnesota).  :p
that is quite obvious, and probably you'd be right.

I still don't see Romney losing this thing, now that we are going to "more normal" states like FLA, where Gingrich cannot count on so many extreme-conservatives.

From my blog. It was funnier in October.

FLORIDA GOP MOVES UP PRIMARY TO YESTERDAY (http://toomuchcredit.blogspot.com/2011/10/florida-gop-moves-up-primary-to.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 23, 2012, 12:57:54 AM

The best thing for an Obama re-election is a Newt win.  It's Mondale in 84-worthy.  (And I can say that because I'm in Minnesota).  :p
that is quite obvious, and probably you'd be right.

I still don't see Romney losing this thing, now that we are going to "more normal" states like FLA, where Gingrich cannot count on so many extreme-conservatives.

Florida's has more liberals than SC, but Florida's conservatives are still pretty conservative.  Gotta remember, the primaries are a completely different beast than general elections.  I think Gingrich will take FL.

Gingrich is a tough guy to run against.  He's extremely good at take his message to the general populace.  Plus, he fights dirty.  And you can't fight dirty back because all you do is drag yourself to his level and turn off the moderates.  Not only does the dirty fight play to Gingrich's natural strengths, but he's become even more untouchable now that everyone already knows he's a complete dick.  There's no way in hell Obama can beat Gingrich by engaging in bomb throwing warfare.  Remember that McCain vs Obama was actually a fairly clean campaign.

The way to beat Gingrich is to appeal to insiders and stay patient and hope Gingrich's big mouth will do him in.  No one in political circles really likes Gingrich (but they aren't in love with Romney either), but they fear him (and no one fears Romney).  So as soon as Gingrich appears weak, people will abandon ship in droves... but no one wants to be the first.  The longer it goes on, the more enemies Gingrich makes and eventually the whole thing implodes.  You just hope it happens before the election, which it probably will.  But it still sucks that your fate is in Gingrich's rather unsteady hands and not yours. 

If I were Obama I would be more afraid of Gingrich than Romney in the general election. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 23, 2012, 08:02:35 AM
If I were Obama I would be more afraid of Gingrich than Romney in the general election. 

I think you are high on crack.  Possibly meth, but more likely crack.

How long has Newt been on TV saying stupid shit?  It's like a potluck when it comes to making campaign ads designed to scare moderates off him.

Romney will get the nomination.  But what WOULD help Obama is this thing dragging out all the way to the convention.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 23, 2012, 01:06:27 PM
If I were Obama I would be more afraid of Gingrich than Romney in the general election. 

I think you are high on crack.  Possibly meth, but more likely crack.

How long has Newt been on TV saying stupid shit?  It's like a potluck when it comes to making campaign ads designed to scare moderates off him.

Romney will get the nomination.  But what WOULD help Obama is this thing dragging out all the way to the convention.

Gingrich turned a scandalous revelation from his ex-wife into the biggest applause line in the SC debate. He's as shrewd as he is shameless. He has more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747, but it's old baggage and voters have short memories. He could stand on the stage across from Obama and come off as tough and confident and wise while spewing bullshit from his mouth like a busted water main.

As for it dragging out, I'm not sure if that's good or bad. In 2008, by the time we got to the general election, all the good cheap shots against Obama had already been used up.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 23, 2012, 01:23:34 PM
Yeah, that's how I feel about it as well.  Romney is a known quantity.  Obama, assuming the economy stays good and nothing freaky happens is also a known quantity.  And Obama beats Romney.  So if things go according to plan, Obama's going to win.  I don't think there is much Romney can do about that.

Gingrich is way more likely to fall completely on his face, and I think he probably will.  But he's also the guy who is capable of completely reframing the election and changing all the rules.  And he's the one who can get voters to the booths that otherwise wouldn't go.  He might also get a lot of opposing voters to the booths that otherwise wouldn't go... but at this point I think Republicans are starting to realize that they need to shake things up or they will lose.  And Gingrich is awesome at shaking things up.  The party's back is against the wall just Gingrich's back is against the wall so just go nuts.  You have nothing to lose.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 26, 2012, 09:51:37 AM
Newt promises the Moon (base) (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120126/newt-gingrich-promises-moon-base-2020)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 27, 2012, 07:53:08 AM
A lot of people like that.  Space exploration is huge, and he will gain support because of crazy fun ideas like that.  It's interesting that someone as nuts as Newt can actually have a chance.   

I was transferred to the moon. Worse pay, better hours.

I'm also waiting for the implosion, but isn't there a theory about chaos and no one noticing?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 27, 2012, 08:43:01 AM
A lot of people like that.  Space exploration is huge, and he will gain support because of crazy fun ideas like that.  It's interesting that someone as nuts as Newt can actually have a chance.
Just so I understand, conservatives hate the idea of spending billions on the needy, but like the idea of spending billions on space exploration?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on January 27, 2012, 08:48:52 AM
....yeah....other than neil armstrong, i'm not sure what fiscal conservatives think that's a good idea.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 27, 2012, 10:03:16 AM
A lot of people like that.  Space exploration is huge, and he will gain support because of crazy fun ideas like that.  It's interesting that someone as nuts as Newt can actually have a chance.
Just so I understand, conservatives hate the idea of spending billions on the needy, but like the idea of spending billions on space exploration?

Yeah, they're only fiscally conservative when it suits their agenda. And only on the side of expenditures, not revenues. This is where I think having Ron Paul (and Libertarians in general) around is useful. I'm not likely to agree with their answers, but at least they ask some interesting questions. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 27, 2012, 10:59:05 AM
You know what they don't have on the moon?  Blacks and gays, that's what!

Hey wait... why don't we send them there?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 11:35:27 AM
i have just a small feeling that ron paul won't win the republican nomination.  i'd like to not choose anyone for president therefore.  but i will.  and i hope it's romney and not newt that i choose.  our country's too dumb to elect ron paul.  although i do love newt's face.  it reminds me of a dog i once met. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 27, 2012, 11:42:40 AM
although i do love newt's face.  it reminds me of a dog i once met. 
Which end of the dog?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 27, 2012, 11:48:31 AM
our country's too dumb to elect ron paul.

Yes, that is all that is keeping Ron Paul from the White House.  OUR stupidity.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on January 27, 2012, 12:17:15 PM
Criterion Releases GOP Presidential Debates Complete 1st Season Box Set (http://toomuchcredit.blogspot.com/2012/01/criterion-releases-gop-presidential.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 12:18:18 PM
our country's too dumb to elect ron paul.

Yes, that is all that is keeping Ron Paul from the White House.  OUR stupidity.

yup.  we don't deserve someone as sound and as pragmatic as him.  we label him extreme, but when in reality, his ideas just make a lot of sense.  the electorate just can't handle the notion of an honest politician.  frankly, a majority of the electorate should do us all a favor and just sit the elections out.  besides, voting for the president is like voting for the prom king.  people get swayed by these bullshit debates, campaign ads, looks, charisma, etc...  integrity might as well just stay at home.  
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on January 27, 2012, 12:20:59 PM
Not questioning Ron Paul's honesty, just his ideas: 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Not questioning Ron Paul's honesty, just his ideas: 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)

what a website!  i love the leading bold headlines.  some of those links don't go where they wish they would.  look, he's about state's rights and personal responsibility.  kinda like those right wing extremists who wrote the constitution intended. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 27, 2012, 12:56:21 PM
yup.  we don't deserve someone as sound and as pragmatic as him.  

There is nothing pragmatic about Ron Paul.  Besides, there's going to be true a libertarian candidate this year so you won't have to vote Romney.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
what that blog fails to mention are the reasons why ron feels the way he does.  if you'd listen to his reasoning, you'd be compelled to agree.  it's a cold, harsh, unforgiving world.  give a man a fish, feed him for a day.  teach a man to fish, feed him his whole life.  
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
yup.  we don't deserve someone as sound and as pragmatic as him.  

There is nothing pragmatic about Ron Paul.  Besides, there's going to be true a libertarian candidate this year so you won't have to vote Romney.



i happen to beg to differ.  i feel he's as practical as they come.  i'll have to learn more about roger gary before i cast my vote.  i don't want to say "no obama's better than obama," but i might. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 27, 2012, 01:36:34 PM
There is no way Paul can cut $1 trillion off the debt in one year.  Or eliminate Foreign Aid.  Or repeal the 16th amendment.  Or eliminate the Federal Reserve.  Or return the US to the gold standard.

That's not to say those might not be good ideas.  Just that are not very pragmatic ones.  They will never work because Congress and the tax payers will never approve them. 





Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 02:11:28 PM
There is no way Paul can cut $1 trillion off the debt in one year.  Or eliminate Foreign Aid.  Or repeal the 16th amendment.  Or eliminate the Federal Reserve.  Or return the US to the gold standard.

That's not to say those might not be good ideas.  Just that are not very pragmatic ones.  They will never work because Congress and the tax payers will never approve them.  


 ;D  true!  ok, the ideas are pragmatic.  probably the exercise of them isn't.  but he can try his damnedest!  maybe a more pragmatic role should be head of the fed.  or maybe take over for geithner.  congress is just career politicians who like the status quo.  term limits dammit! 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 27, 2012, 02:12:59 PM
Did someone suggest conservatives were not hypocritical? Really?   :laugh:

It's a populist conservative position that brings back jingoistic romance.  (If I was smarter that might make sense)

Latest polls show Gingrich falling behind again.   So much for the romance.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 02:36:25 PM
Did someone suggest conservatives were not hypocritical? Really?   :laugh:

It's a populist conservative position that brings back jingoistic romance.  (If I was smarter that might make sense)

Latest polls show Gingrich falling behind again.   So much for the romance.

it might make more sense if you quoted somebody.  i'm drawing blanks (though i was really only seeing if you meant to quote me)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
i'd also like to say that ron paul could reduce the deficit, but the numbers are so astronomically high, that it wouldn't even make a difference. but he wouldn't raise it. 

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

and for the people who call mitt romney "boring."  is it ironic that i call that attack lame?  in the world of 24 hour news, charisma, good looks mean more than principles and sound, fiscal judgment (not saying romney is necessarily those things).  but having just a good speaker seems to work for the lot of you. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on January 27, 2012, 03:37:13 PM
Well he is boring. That's just an observation. It's not why I don't like him. But people do vote based on superficial things.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 27, 2012, 03:54:22 PM
He was actually very good in the debate last night.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 03:55:26 PM
Well he is boring. That's just an observation. It's not why I don't like him. But people do vote based on superficial things.

exactly.  see my post about why most people shouldn't vote
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 27, 2012, 04:28:39 PM
Latest polls show Gingrich falling behind again.   So much for the romance.

He just needs another debate on CNN so that he can scold one of the questioners for asking a completely legitimate question, and zoom he'll be sky high in no time!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 27, 2012, 04:31:31 PM
That's not to say those might not be good ideas.  Just that are not very pragmatic ones.  They will never work because Congress and the tax payers will never approve them.

I will say those aren't good ideas.  Those are ridiculously awful ideas.  But I'm too stupid to be allowed to vote, so don't mind me.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 27, 2012, 04:32:14 PM
Latest polls show Gingrich falling behind again.   So much for the romance.

He just needs another debate on CNN so that he can scold one of the questioners for asking a completely legitimate question, and zoom he'll be sky high in no time!

a perfectly legitimate question to lead with.  is this the national enquirer or the republican primaries?   :P
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 27, 2012, 04:38:36 PM
A debate on who should be the leader of a party who flouts family values and the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  I think it is wholly valid to learn just where Newt stands, personally, on marriage as an institution.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on January 27, 2012, 11:30:38 PM
the latest Florida polls thankfully show Romney gaining the upperhand on Newt, leading by 8 points (39% vs 31%), I can only hope this holds up until Tuesday.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 28, 2012, 12:03:15 AM
What does it matter?  These Republican debates are taking place in bizarro-world. 

candidate:  That idea was pretty stupid.  But check out my even stupider idea!
audience:  YES!  THAT WAS WAY MORE STUPID!

Romney and Gingrich at this point are completely interchangeable. 

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 28, 2012, 10:22:00 AM
A debate on who should be the leader of a party who flouts family values and the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  I think it is wholly valid to learn just where Newt stands, personally, on marriage as an institution.

how does that affect how he'll govern a country?  look, i don't condone infidelity, but it's really none of my business.  and i'm no newt fan.  hell if anything, this should make newt more relatable.  what's the divorce rate in this country? 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on January 28, 2012, 10:51:29 AM
A debate on who should be the leader of a party who flouts family values and the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  I think it is wholly valid to learn just where Newt stands, personally, on marriage as an institution.
I think this assumes an entire party runs on a platform of family values and sanctity of marriage. I see candidates themselves wrapping themselves around these fuzzy visions of some 50s/60s- era white picket fence perfect world non-existent past ideals, but I've yet to hear this as an official party platform.
I think dd hits an important point- most voters see through this facade and either don't care, or know it's typical voter pandering to other undecided voters as they still vote the party lines knowing full well this is just typical campaign rhetoric.
In other words, there are probably enough voters who vote along this alleged "family values" party line whether candidates are bullshitting the undecided masses or not, simply because, as dd said, why should anyone's personal life matter? Any debate or discovery of personal issues of the party candidate will not change the minds of consistent party-line voters. It would take more than simple personal life transgressions. The only minds you're going to change will be the undecideds, and you have to have them get past any support they may have had in the past for the Clintons of the world first.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on January 28, 2012, 11:00:11 AM
look, i don't condone infidelity, but it's really none of my business.  and i'm no newt fan.  hell if anything, this should make newt more relatable.  what's the divorce rate in this country?

For not being a fan, you are doing a lot of defending.

Infidelity should make Newt more relatable?  What kind of parallel universe are you living in?

There is an entire plank of the GOP platform entitled "preserving traditional marriage".  John Edwards campaign was essentially torpedoed due to his infidelity to his wife.  Now, since it's Newt, everything is fine and he shouldn't have to field questions on it?  That's BS.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 28, 2012, 11:25:04 AM
look, i don't condone infidelity, but it's really none of my business.  and i'm no newt fan.  hell if anything, this should make newt more relatable.  what's the divorce rate in this country?

For not being a fan, you are doing a lot of defending.

Infidelity should make Newt more relatable?  What kind of parallel universe are you living in?

There is an entire plank of the GOP platform entitled "preserving traditional marriage".  John Edwards campaign was essentially torpedoed due to his infidelity to his wife.  Now, since it's Newt, everything is fine and he shouldn't have to field questions on it?  That's BS.

i guess you missed that part about "what percentage of marriages are dissolved."  if people want a candidate that's relatable, newt's your guy!  i could care less about john edwards' personal life much like i care less about newt's.  that shit's none of my business.  but to a vast majority of a tabloid crazy electorate, it's huge news.  now, is his infidelity going to disrupt him running the country?  if it gets in the way of doing your job, then it's a problem. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on January 28, 2012, 02:34:49 PM
I think this assumes an entire party runs on a platform of family values and sanctity of marriage. I see candidates themselves wrapping themselves around these fuzzy visions of some 50s/60s- era white picket fence perfect world non-existent past ideals, but I've yet to hear this as an official party platform.

From the 2008 Republican Platform:

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on January 28, 2012, 10:14:59 PM
Yikes!
Politicians have no place sticking their noses into marriage.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on January 28, 2012, 10:36:30 PM
Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Unless the children or adoptive parents are homosexuals.  Then we think they are an affront to all things holy and should be stoned.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on January 30, 2012, 02:13:23 PM
Looks like Gingrich is fading fast, so in the interest of trying to be as wrong as possible....

Romney 45
Gingrich 25
Santorum 15
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on January 31, 2012, 10:51:19 PM
Yikes!
Politicians have no place sticking their noses into marriage.

you also have to realize how traditional and stupid the electorate is.  and i'm not saying i'm completely up to date with current events, even though as a poli sci grad, i should be.  pander pander pander.  the official mascot of the 2012 prez election should be the pander bear.   his arms all outstretched throwing money in every direction. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on February 01, 2012, 08:45:29 AM
pander pander pander.  the official mascot of the 2012 prez election should be the pander bear.   his arms all outstretched throwing money in every direction. 

Ha! I love it. And I agree. On a slightly different note, I heard how much Obama was expected to spend on his campaign (a billion I believe). Then there is the guy in Vegas funding Newt his 10 million or so. Makes me sick. There are millions out of work, out of homes and they are throwing money away. I won't even watch those ads: TIVO is a lifesaver during campaign season.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on February 08, 2012, 01:35:07 PM
I think Obama just won the election.  Romney too weak, Santorum too suck.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on February 08, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
santorum is scary. he is just happens to be this week's beneficiary of romney's moderation and mormonism, and newt's creepiness and questionable morals. i'd be surprised if he gains any more momentum.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on February 08, 2012, 10:40:51 PM
I think Obama just won the election.  Romney too weak, Santorum too suck.
you may be right of course, but there are still many months to go (9 months), and that's an eternity in the political landscape. So many things can happen between now and then. A terrorist attack, another economic downturn, you name it.

Despite the Sanctorum wins yesterday, I really believe they are pretty much meaningless, and that Romney remains the "inevitable". He's the only one that can grind out the primaries all the way, if need be. And that may not be a bad thing actually.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on February 09, 2012, 08:41:09 AM
santorum is scary. he is just happens to be this week's beneficiary of romney's moderation and mormonism, and newt's creepiness and questionable morals. i'd be surprised if he gains any more momentum.

Of the three, Romney is the only one who is Presidential in appearance. I am really tired of this race already: can we just have the election tomorrow and get it over with? Not that I know who I am voting for, perhaps a write-in. All I know is that the GOP continue to sound stupid, creepy, pander to the masses with their fear mongering (ie war on religion and homosexuals) and can't get it through their heads that women do have rights too and we should be allowed to dictate what we do to our bodies. If a man wouldn't put with up it, then why should we? And then just when I think Obama might do something I think is a great idea/good for the country, etc., he then wimps out. And yes, there is a difference between compromise and being a weeny. Just because he might be nice or cool or a great family man who is also intelligent doesn't necessarily make him a good or effective president.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on February 09, 2012, 08:59:02 AM
And then just when I think Obama might do something I think is a great idea/good for the country, etc., he then wimps out. And yes, there is a difference between compromise and being a weeny.
As much as I hate to say it, I have the same complaint with him.  The only backbone he's shown so far has been the Cordray appointment., otherwise he rolls over better than my dog does.  I still like him, and think he's capable of great things, but he really needs to learn to stand his ground.  Then again, if he gets reelected he'll have no incentive to... being a pushover got him this far and he'll have nothing to lose at that point.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on February 09, 2012, 09:05:05 AM
As much as I hate to say it, I have the same complaint with him.  The only backbone he's shown so far has been the Cordray appointment., otherwise he rolls over better than my dog does.  I still like him, and think he's capable of great things, but he really needs to learn to stand his ground.  Then again, if he gets reelected he'll have no incentive to... being a pushover got him this far and he'll have nothing to lose at that point.

It's the Clinton argument.  Bill was a much better president when he was not worrying about getting re-elected those last 4 years.  Of course, he WAS worried about getting impeached, but that's a whole different story.

Obama has not been a terrible president, but he hasn't been very good.  I think he has a lot of his own party in Congress to blame for how bad he has looked at times.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on February 16, 2012, 07:30:22 AM
This made me LOL:

Dave Mustaine Endorses Santorum (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/16/146971947/santorum-wins-endorsement-from-megadeth-singer?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on February 16, 2012, 08:12:50 AM
This made me LOL:

Dave Mustaine Endorses Santorum (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/16/146971947/santorum-wins-endorsement-from-megadeth-singer?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw)

Particularly this part
Quote
calls Newt Gingrich an "angry little man.
:D I definitely LOLd when I heard that in the car this morning. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on February 16, 2012, 08:22:20 AM
so THAT'S what it takes for people to give a crap about dave mustaine these days..
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: nemonster on February 20, 2012, 11:52:46 AM
I've always followed what Dave has to say - it's always interesting and entertaining.  If you read the guitar magazines at all, he's a pretty constant presence.  That's what makes his weighing in on the GOP race kind of funny.  He's had a LOT of anger management issues himself.  As have most of his former band mates in Metallica.  And not all that far in the past.  Most of what's put it behind him is financial solvency from the way it sounds.  He's a big time born again Christian and loves to flash his sobriety tokens all the time as well.  The typical reformed drunk.  The comments aren't really a stretch, because if you read his interviews he hammers almost all the former Megadeth members, as well as pointing out all the shortcomings of the current ones.  He's become kind of the typical small businessman Republican who runs his organization like a feudal keep.  Lot in common with Ted Nugent, actually.  These guys see themselves as the masters of their own destinies(and to be fair, they often are) so they tend to veer towards God and that conservative "I take care of myself" philosophy.

But don't underestimate his influence.  I would expect that on the basis of that remark, you will see a remarkable number of young, white, male metal heads who will ape that Santorum support simply because they think Dave rules.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on February 20, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
I've always followed what Dave has to say - it's always interesting and entertaining.  If you read the guitar magazines at all, he's a pretty constant presence.  That's what makes his weighing in on the GOP race kind of funny.  He's had a LOT of anger management issues himself.  As have most of his former band mates in Metallica.  And not all that far in the past.  Most of what's put it behind him is financial solvency from the way it sounds.  He's a big time born again Christian and loves to flash his sobriety tokens all the time as well.  The typical reformed drunk.  The comments aren't really a stretch, because if you read his interviews he hammers almost all the former Megadeth members, as well as pointing out all the shortcomings of the current ones.  He's become kind of the typical small businessman Republican who runs his organization like a feudal keep.  Lot in common with Ted Nugent, actually.  These guys see themselves as the masters of their own destinies(and to be fair, they often are) so they tend to veer towards God and that conservative "I take care of myself" philosophy.

But don't underestimate his influence.  I would expect that on the basis of that remark, you will see a remarkable number of young, white, male metal heads who will ape that Santorum support simply because they think Dave rules.

just to clarify, are you slamming him for being a born again christan, small business owner? 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: nemonster on February 20, 2012, 03:51:13 PM
just to clarify, are you slamming him for being a born again christan, small business owner? 
No, I'm slamming him for endorsing Santorum.  And talking about Gingrich's anger issues when his own still tend tosimmer extremely close to the surface.  Even after his conversion and sobriety.  What I was stating is that given his background those comments really weren't all that surprising.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on February 20, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
So gas prices look to be the next big thing, though the dems want it to be birth control.   How does Obama handle the fact we are trying to solve our problems with Iran peacefully yet we still pay the price?  At least that will be the talking point, factual or not.  $5 gas will bring out the Bomb Iran bumper stickers.

Oh, and welcome nemo, nice to see you here.  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on February 21, 2012, 10:59:43 AM
though the dems want it to be birth control.

You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on February 21, 2012, 11:24:04 AM
Not watching, but surfing, as I always do.  First there was the odd debate question, etc. etc.  I think Rush brought it up first.  It's the odd reverse right wing talking points.  Claim it will be an issue, make it an issue, claim you knew they were going to make it an issue.  Only problem is Stephonopolis brought it up first ... why?  Not that I care, just entertainment.

I think the real issue will be gas prices.  When they go above $4 people start to react, what will that reaction be?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on February 22, 2012, 10:15:33 AM
I don't know, man.  I wonder if there will be a current event/economic occurrence wedge issue that defines the campaign. 

If you look at Virginia, it's all about guns, gays, abortion, and illegal immigrants.  There's hardly been any economic debates.  We are supposedly somewhat of a swing state with a Vice Presidential candidate as Governor, but we're all over SNL and The Daily Show for the crap we're doing.  Obama *might* still carry VA depending on how NoVA is feeling, but it's not going to be based on economics.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on February 22, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
How about the VA governor backing off on the ultrasound rule?   Politicians can get all excited about their core constituent issues but eventually someone reminds them that catering to 20% of the electorate will not raise ones popularity.  Economic issues will be front and center once (if?) the nomination process is over ... the longer it goes on the better chance Obama has to win. 

IMO this is exactly what would happen if the a political party is dead (let's use zombie) and they don't know it yet.  Funny, dems are having some of the same issues, just not front and center this year since Obama is a lock to run.

Santorum, really?  Did I suddenly become a democrat?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on February 22, 2012, 12:04:06 PM
There's no reason for McDonnell to get caught up in General Assembly battle when all he has to do is shut his mouth and sign the bill when it comes across his desk.  The better measure of McDonnell is not that he's attempting to play the diplomat now, but that he stuck his neck out in the first place. 

The guy is about as far right and socially conservative as it gets.  His thesis was about how feminists and working mothers destroy the economy.  The 20% of the electorate he is catering to are the moderate conservatives.  You think that is unwise?

They'll make one or two surface changes, sit on it until as late as possible, then give it to McDonnell at the last minute so it sneaks by everyone or at least McDonnell doesn't look like the bad guy.  Which is what was always going to happen.  That bill will pass, the "personhood" bill will pass, the gun bills will all pass, the no gay adoption bill will pass.  McDonnell won't veto any of them. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on February 29, 2012, 10:22:49 PM
i guess outspending everybody is your ticket to ride.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on March 07, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
Did the Super Tuesday results guarantee a fight to the convention?  Or will we see some kind of deal before then that lets Mitt carry on with being THE CANDIDATE.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on March 07, 2012, 04:39:40 PM
I think the real issue will be gas prices.  When they go above $4 people start to react, what will that reaction be?
What do you mean "when"? My daughter (college student in DC) texted me the other day that gas in downtown DC was $4.99. Yup, $4.99.

Much will depend as well on Iran. If there is any real conflict in the next 6 months, gas prices are going to rocket up. On the other hand in war time the sitting Prez usually gets a huge boost.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on March 07, 2012, 05:59:54 PM
Did the Super Tuesday results guarantee a fight to the convention?  Or will we see some kind of deal before then that lets Mitt carry on with being THE CANDIDATE.
Delegates are something along the lines of 415-176 in favor of Romney. Santorum needed more than an even split yesterday.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on March 07, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
Despite what everyone is trying to spin this as, it was a very good night for Romney yesterday. Now it's just a matter of time. And it could be a few months, but no matter. He will be the nominee, simply by continuing to accumulate delegates. He's got more delegates now than the other 3 COMBINED still in the race, hello?

And how about Jean Schmidt losing in the primary to Brad Wenstrup, a St.X grad... Go Bombers!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 08, 2012, 12:37:18 AM
It still matters a little, because Romney has to get to 50%.  And until he gets to 50% that's more time for Santorum and Gingrich to try to dig up dirt and attack him, and its more money he has to spend campaigning in the primary instead of the general election.  It also makes it a little harder for the GOP to get an agenda together and get all their donations and endorsements because even if the other candidates only get 20% of the vote, that's still enough to worry about.

Is Romney going to be the Republican nominee?  Yes, without a doubt.  Is a protracted primary campaign even with inevitable victory assured going to hurt him in the general election?  Probably not, but it makes a difference at the margins if it comes to that and its brings just enough uncertainty that I'm sure the GOP mainstream and Romney wish it was over. 

The problem is that there are too many influential conservatives who are crazy and have nothing to lose.  Santorum is actually okay, but Gingrich is definitely one.  Plus all your talking heads who would love to say they influenced the election.  If Santorum or GDoingrich pulls off an improbably victory, they can take credit.  If they don't, well they are not really politicians so they can continue to spiel their crap and it's not a strike against.

It happens to both sides.  Don't forget all the ridiculous PUMAs from last election who not only didn't support Obama but treated him as worse than McCain just because Obama beat Hillary.  And there was virtually nothing to distinguish either the policy or general attitudes of Obama and Clinton, nor was that campaign particularly nasty.  The situation in the GOP right now is much more unstable.  There's so many potential grenades out there.  The trick for Romney will be trying to ignore that and just acting like he already has it won and there's no crazy people in the ranks.  His job is going to be a little harder because he has run his campaign so far acting like the crazy people weren't crazy a has zero leadership qualities or charisma.  There was a "cult of Obama" last election, there is definitely no "cult of Romney."


 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 12, 2012, 10:05:16 AM
A little earlier than I expected.  Maybe the warm weather?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html?hpid=z1


(http://img.wpdigital.net/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/03/11/Web-Resampled/2012-03-11/_tn_1000.3.3520981182_3VKyfGvUEeGJcBxAW26urA_w-poll12-PROMO--296x195.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on March 13, 2012, 08:27:55 AM
i'm a little surprised by that also. does any rational human being think you can fix 8+ years of problems overnight?

more importantly, newt was stumping with jeff foxworthy yesterday.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on March 14, 2012, 10:08:47 PM
newt was stumping with jeff foxworthy yesterday.

That begs the question, Is Newt smarter than a 5th grader? Maybe a redneck one.

If you think your girlfriend is fat because your 4th wife's clothes fit her, then you may be a Newt supporter.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on March 15, 2012, 03:14:50 PM
There are rational human beings??
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on March 15, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
Santorum Wants To Ban Porn (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html)

As long as we are going to scrap the 1st amendment it's time to ban Santorum's evil catholic religion, they are not allowed to use condoms so all their priests are barebacking little boys and giving them AIDS.

The next president will be Romney or Obama, the democrats are all voting Santorum in the republican primaries because they know he is too "out there" to win the general election.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 16, 2012, 01:36:43 AM
Santorum is doing well because goofy-ass conservative Republicans are voting for him.  He actively courted liberals in Michigan, and they still only constituted 10% of the primary vote.  And even then, only half of them voted for Santorum.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on March 16, 2012, 10:35:34 PM
HJV85DLBL40
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on March 20, 2012, 10:10:18 PM
santorum should be saying "i quit" after tonight, but god's will is often stubborn.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on March 21, 2012, 07:34:00 AM
santorum should be saying "i quit" after tonight, but god's will is often stubborn.
I want him in the race as long as possible. The longer the Religious Reich is in the national spotlight the more likely moderates will not vote GOP.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 21, 2012, 08:01:42 AM
The media wants to keep this race alive, it's money to them, so here's how they operate.

It's wire to wire in Mississippi ... then Santorum wins big and Romney ends up third.

It's wire to wire in Illinois, then Romney wins big, 47% to 35% for Santorum.  Yea, it's close??  Polls show a dead heat? 

Now the media says Santorum, still has a chance so he stays in.  He could win Wisconsin, and he'll certainly win LA cause it's southern.  He lost 2 weeks ago but, well, math is hard.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 23, 2012, 09:06:44 AM
Are the losing republican candidates really holding up etch-a-sketches?  Really?  Obama must be wetting his pants with laughter at this point.  And Santorum says we'd be better off with Obama than Romney.   

Ok.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on March 23, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
We would be better off with Obama than Santorum.

We would probably be better off with Sheila Jackson Lee than Santorum.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on March 24, 2012, 12:44:09 AM
we would be better off with Kermit the Frog than Santorum.

That said, Romney will be the Republican nominee, that much is clear.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on March 26, 2012, 08:50:56 AM
Are the losing republican candidates really holding up etch-a-sketches?  Really?  Obama must be wetting his pants with laughter at this point.  And Santorum says we'd be better off with Obama than Romney.   

Ok.

And the company that makes Etch-a-Sketches are peeing their pants at all this attention. I hear their sales have been up. Now, if we could just do a little shake and Santorum would be "erased" from this election process. He has set back more than just his party about a 150 years.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 26, 2012, 09:16:08 AM
Did anybody else hear Gingrich's commenting on Obama's response to the Trayvon Martin shooting?

Quote
What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.

Seriously, he thinks this isn't a racial issue?  Racist people think this is racist... get real, Newt.  Also, nobody is suggesting that had it been a person of another race that had been shot that it would not have been tragic.  What they are arguing is that if it had been anything other than a white man shooting a black boy that we'd probably be having a very different conversation.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 26, 2012, 12:40:11 PM
I've decided that I'm going to retire from voting after 2012.

I don't have any kids, and I think the country will manage to hold itself together for another 20 years or so which is all I care about.  If I keep on voting, I'm just going to start casting grudge votes.

People are idiots, and they elect idiots, and that is no longer my affair.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on March 26, 2012, 01:08:11 PM
newt, whose ivory dome makes him even whiter, is grasping for straws.

i also heard some numb nuts who is a friend of the killer say he believes the word "goon" was used, not coon. right.

will ferrell, of all people, got it right.....he said we live in a country where you can dump flour on kim kardashian and be arrested on the spot, and yet zimmerman walks free......

as for stepping out of the voting system....i know many who do that very thing. i see both sides of that argument and say to each his own.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 26, 2012, 01:29:02 PM
"Goon"?  My ass.

Several people have made that same comment that Ferrell did and it's right on the money.  KK is at worst inconvenienced... maybe she had to take a shower and change clothes.  This kid is dead... game over.

If you don't vote you can't complain about elected officials.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on March 26, 2012, 02:20:02 PM
We need as many smart people voting as possible.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 26, 2012, 02:45:51 PM
If you don't vote you can't complain about elected officials.

Donkeys live a long time.  None of you have ever seen a dead donkey.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 29, 2012, 01:59:30 PM
I would like to believe that if the health care law, or just the mandate, is overturned the republicans will be the ones to suffer the consequences.

Yes, the law is horrible and the mandate should be overturned, it's unconstitutional and really un-defendable, but the general idea that everyone needs to pay and ends up paying anyway, is the truth.   Liberals seem to think we can just ignore the constitution here, I tend to think we need to re-write the law as a a tax due to the fact everyone ends up paying it anyway.   

Of course republicans will admit everyone pays, but will not admit we need a tax.  The republicans have no alternative plan, no response for lifetime limits, bankrupting medical expenses (oh, this is a big lie, never happens, lalala), etc.

Maybe something good will come of this mess.

Oh, and for me, the argument by Scalia was the best.  You can't make people buy cars just because not buying a car will raise the price for everyone else, including those who need cars.   I agree, you can't legislate on inaction, only action.

If you want to drive a car the feds could require insurance.

If you want to receive healthcare we could also require insurance.  We're not willing to turn away people without insurance, so we need another answer.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on March 29, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
Oh, and for me, the argument by Scalia was the best.  You can't make people buy cars just because not buying a car will raise the price for everyone else, including those who need cars.   I agree, you can't legislate on inaction, only action.

Why couldn't you?  In theory, they could.  I don't see the Constitutional argument against, but then I am rusty on my Constitution.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 29, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
Last time I checked, I don't attend public school and neither does anyone in my family.  Guess what I'm paying for?  That's right.  Someone else's public schooling.  oooh, I'm being punished for my "inactivity."  

There is no such thing as "inactivity" and "activity."  Only CHOICES.  Everything you do is an economic choice.  Even Geddy Lee figured it out, and he's a libertarian.

People who think this law is unconstitutional because of "an attempt to regulate inactivity" are clueless idiots without the first understanding of economics, law, or public policy.  Hence, why Scalia likes it.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 29, 2012, 02:51:46 PM
You are taxed to support public schools, most likely property tax, and not through the federal government.  I am also taxed for medicare, which I don't use but most likely will in the future.

The healthcare law levies a FINE if you do not participate.  I can't believe you don't see the danger of that precedence.  Yes, it matters how the law is written ... same thing, only different.  Once you start to coerce people into an activity then the government knows no bounds.  But I would agree, in the end it's semantics, but the semantics ARE important. 

Marriage would be a good topic to argue about here, since the federal government, you could argue, penalizes people for inactivity, but the counter argument is ... there is no FINE for not getting married.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 29, 2012, 03:37:10 PM
There is a valid argument in that cars are not the same as health care.  EVERYBODY needs/uses health care... I challenge you to find a person that's never been seen by a physician of any kind for any reason.  The same cannot be said of cars.  Those who do not have healthcare are one step in the wrong direction for being hit by a bus and racking up a huge emergency room bill which effects those of us that did have access to health care and bought it.  People that don't have cars on the other hand just use another method to get where they are going which affects the rest of us not one bit.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 29, 2012, 03:43:33 PM
Once you start to coerce people into an activity then the government knows no bounds.  But I would agree, in the end it's semantics, but the semantics ARE important. 

If the mandate were called a tax, it would not be any less coercive.

So if your argument is that the only thing that makes this unconstitutional is the use of the word "penalty" instead of "tax," aren't you actually sort of giving the government free reign to do what they want as long as they are smart enough to avoid the naughty word?

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 29, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
Everything now is going to devolve into some vague test of whether something is a "penalty" vs a "tax" and arguing over what the market it is so that we can classify you as "inactive" or "active."

I choose to participate in the "car market" therefore I am active, and so I can be taxed/registered and I get a little square sticker for doing so.

OR I choose to participate in the "car market" but I have not chosen to participate in the "sticker market" so why are you forcing me to exchange cash for a sticker or pay a penalty?



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on March 29, 2012, 04:13:01 PM
I don't think it's obvious that the healthcare law is unconstitutional, although I don't think that it's obviously constitutional either. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law I don't think I could say for certain that they were wrong. Mybe it would be a good thing to just start over with the healthcare thing and start working on having a real public option. I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing for-profit companies. I'm wondering, would it be constitutional to ban private insurance companies from making a profit on basic health care? That's what they do in Germany. But honestly I'm not sure we can fix health care until more of the American people are on the same page.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 29, 2012, 04:20:39 PM
The public option would never be supported by the general populace of the US, at least not the current general populace.  If you don't believe me I can get you in touch with my mother and she can fill you in on her insane point of view.  Why, the death panels will kill us all, cause it's cheaper!

Also, I can't see not for profit insurance succeeding here.  You think the current for profit insurance companies are hard to deal with... just imagine how they'd be if there wasn't money to be made.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on March 29, 2012, 04:40:45 PM
My biggest fear (which is quite personal, as it impacts my job and paycheck) is that they strike down the entire law. I really hope that severability is allowed if the individual mandate is struck down, because the bill also created the Public Health Prevention Fund. With all the budget cuts to discretionary spending over the past couple of years, federal public health spending has been supplanted with the fund. If the entire law is gone, there goes a lot of support for public health prevention activities across the country. Ironically, these activities' goal are to increase prevention so that the overall cost of health care goes down - including Medicaid and Medicare. Also, from a business perspective, isn't it much better to have healthy workers? (Of course, if the business has shipped all the jobs overseas, they aren't concerned about the health of the US labor market.) Unfortunately, when prevention works, there's nothing to show for it because the unwanted outcome doesn't happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 29, 2012, 04:51:44 PM
I personally don't think the mandate is severable. 

In reality, it should be but you're looking at public policy and what we think is and isn't related and stuff like that.  Which is not the role of Supreme Court.  Unless it's very clear that you can lop of a part of a bill and it doesn't change anything-- almost like just eliminating a double-word typo-- you have to get Congress to redo it.

I also don't think they will get Kennedy to cross over.  Which means we're going to get a landmark ruling of some kind here.  Because no matter what a bunch of conservative knobs with no legal background claim, the law is constitutional under present interpretation.  Not that the S. Ct. can't reverse itself, of course.  But then, I suppose that's just because I'm a liberal who loves "activist" judges.

At any rate, we're going to see some new balancing test/standard/interpretation come out of this.  I am hoping Thomas writes the opinion with maybe a Kennedy concurrence.  I think Scalia might be a disaster.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on March 29, 2012, 06:34:00 PM
Amer
Also, I can't see not for profit insurance succeeding here.  You think the current for profit insurance companies are hard to deal with... just imagine how they'd be if there wasn't money to be made.

Isn't that pretty much the same argument conservatives use against government run healthcare? I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit at all. I just think they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit on the basic things people need, like proven treatments for cancer and heart disease. Let them make profits on peripheral stuff.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 29, 2012, 10:39:07 PM
The problem is health insurance companies get massive government subsidies in order to make their profits.

I think the issue in the US is that health care has gotten needlessly tied in to health insurance and jobs.

I think that everyone should be entitled to a certain level of medical care.  And that doctors should be able to make a living so that they can provide a certain level of medical service to those who need them.  That's the linkage I care about-- doctor and patient.  Community health.

I don't care at all if the middlemen health insurance companies are able to make a profit skimming off the top or not. If they can do it without government help, fantastic.  If they can't, fuck 'em.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on March 30, 2012, 07:58:05 AM
I'm going withe the WP editorial this morning.  I think it states the case well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-courts-civics-lesson/2012/03/29/gIQASfdZjS_story.html

Civics lessons from the Supreme Court
By Editorial Board, Published: March 29

AMERICANS WHO CHOSE to listen to, or read the transcripts of, three days of oral argument at the Supreme Court this week were treated to a challenging civics lesson on federalism, liberty and the limits and potential of government authority. Three points in particular struck us.

Sadly, even before the sessions on health-care reform had ended, some liberals were preemptively trying to delegitimize a potential defeat at the court. If the justices strike down the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, they said, they will prove themselves partisan, activist and, essentially, intellectually corrupt.

We share in the disappointment that the justices on both sides of their ideological divide are, for the most part, so predictable. That’s not, in the ideal world, how judging is supposed to work. But we also think there’s a kind of cynicism, or at least intellectual laziness, in asserting that this is an easy or obvious call — that no justice could possibly strike down the mandate out of honest, reasoned conviction. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. had his hands full defending the mandate, not because he’s a bad lawyer, but because it’s not an easy question.

If the federal government can force young adults to buy health insurance that they do not want, then what can’t the government do? That was the challenge from the mandate’s opponents. Liberal justices tried to come up with other cases where the government forces citizens to take affirmative action — to have pollution controls installed on their cars, to drive faster than 45 mph on the freeway. But no one has to buy a car, and you can choose to stay off the interstate.

Mr. Verrilli, in fact, had a persuasive response: The health-care market is different from all others because virtually everyone, like it or not, will become entangled in it. You can choose not to buy a car; you can’t necessarily choose not to be hit by one. If you end up in the emergency room, you will be cared for, as federal law demands. The government, already deeply involved in regulating the health-care market, has a legitimate interest in encouraging you to prepare for such an eventuality.

Given the court’s responsibility to err on the side of modesty and deference to elected legislators — who can be turned out of office if voters object to the health-care reform they design — the government’s argument is strong enough to carry the day. But it is not, as we said, a slam-dunk. We wouldn’t assume anyone who disagrees is a hack.

But — and here’s our second point — the idea that no American should go without health care, and that society as a whole should be willing to pitch in toward that end, strikes us as much more of a slam-dunk. There was, in some of the conservative argumentation over three days, a distressing undertone of me-firstism. Congress wanted to “capture” young people, attorney Paul D. Clement argued on behalf of the states objecting to the health-care plan, because they are “the golden geese that pay for the entire lowering of the premium.”

Well, yes, that is how insurance works: Premiums from young, healthy people help pay for the health care of older, sicker people. Some day the young people get old, and they, too, get cared for. You can look at them as geese getting exploited or as members of a community paying their share. It is, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, the principle underlying Social Security. Some people might think their 401(k) is big enough, so they’d just as soon not participate in that government program. But the United States decided as a nation that no elderly person should go hungry, and to make sure of that, every American worker must contribute into the system.

There would be other ways (as Mr. Clement agreed) to bring about this result in health care. Congress could have created a system of incentives to draw in young, healthy people. Or it could have enacted a broadly based tax to pay for the health care it wants to subsidize.

It didn’t — and this brings us to the third point — for a couple of reasons. One was that reform advocates didn’t seriously entertain the constitutional vulnerability of the mandate. But the bigger reason is a more familiar one in Washington these days: None of the politicians wanted to acknowledge the costs.

The pols love to bash insurance companies that exclude anyone with preexisting conditions. They demand that the companies charge less for old people than the actuarial tables would dictate. They want to give insurance to poor people who can’t afford it. But they, like their voters, don’t want to pay for the subsidies implied by any of those rules. When President Obama was running in 2008, he insisted he could deliver universal coverage without a mandate. Once in office, he found that wasn’t true. But he still didn’t want to use the word “tax,” and neither did anyone in Congress.

It’s the same wishful thinking embodied in Mr. Obama’s fervent pleas for “investment” in infrastructure, unaccompanied by calls to raise the gasoline tax. It’s the spirit of the budget of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which drastically reduces income tax rates without saying which deductions will be taken away. But you can’t get something for nothing, not even something as noble as universal health-care coverage.

© The Washington Post Company
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on March 30, 2012, 08:10:34 AM
So was there a reason why Congress didn't take the opportunity to draft a bill that severs the tie of insurance with employment? I don't remember hearing a reason for this. It just makes too much damn sense? Seems like the "threat" to religious institutions wouldn't be an issue now if they had done so. I also wonder how many times we are going to go to court over the health care bill because Congress didn't spend more time drafting this bill. Considering it will affect every American, it shouldn't be hastily put together and it really worries me that so many members of Congress don't really know what is in it because it is over 2000 pages.

Also, in response to E: there is actual talk of prevention in health care now? I thought insurance companies wouldn't cover preventative medicines or alternate health initiatives if they could get away with it because they made more money off of someone who gets sick (I am talking triple bipass type sick not a cold)? I am not explaining this well and I could be wrong here but I thought I heard this somewhere. I am happy if, a. that I am correct in the current/past policy and b. prevention is the new method of treatment. It never made sense to me that doctors couldn't advise a patient and that your insurance wouldn't cover someone talking to a dietician (say) if they needed to lose weight so they could avoid diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 30, 2012, 09:27:06 AM
I think it would have been rightly challenged in the Supreme Court no matter what because it is a rather sweeping use of Congressional power.

There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives Congress the power to do this.  So if you are of the belief that unless a power has expressly been given to Congress in the Constitution then they can't do it, then this is unconstitutional.

The problem is, liberal justices have been rather cheesy about over the years and decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows the government to pass legislation if the legislation impacts interstate commerce.  Which is total and complete BS because that was NEVER what the Interstate Commerce Clause was about.  It was for like if New Jersey introduced a tarrif so that Virginia tomatoes were taxed 200%. 

In 2012 there is pretty much nothing that does not impact interstate commerce.  Which means that the ICC pretty much lets Congress do anything.  And this has conservatives rightly riled up.

Except that now they are trying to pull a fast one themselves by introducing some sort of crap activity/inactivity matrix.  There is nothing in the constitution that draws a distinction between activity and inactivity.  Nor is there anything in any prior precedent.  It's true that previous courts have generally referred to "activity" but you know?  Because no one ever tried to make the stupid inactivity argument before and they didn't foresee anyone making that argument for the very simple reason that it is crap.

The heart of the argument is the ridiculously misguided notion that-- as markalot put it-- the government can't "coerce people into an activity."  How does the government not coerce people into activities?  That's pretty much it's sole purpose.  You weren't going to do something, so we write a law that forces you to do it.  Are you gay?  Well you're being coerced into being single.  Did you diddle some little kid?  Well you're being coerced into living a certain distance away from schools. 

The government could ban health insurance and make the practice of medicine illegal.  But that's okay, because some doctor "chose" to practice medicine, and they can be rightly sent to jail for their activity.  Even though really, the people that are paying the price are the potential patients who are now going to die.  Did they engage in an "activity?"  So if you ask me that's far more big brother-y than forcing someone to pay $30 a month or whatever to join a national group health insurance plan.

People do not engage in activities.  They make choices.  And the government takes away your ability to make choices. 

This is why I actually side with Clarence Thomas on this.  What is happening now is not covered in the constitution and was never intended to be covered because people 200 plus years ago had no idea what the country would be like now.  So we really should have to go back and rewrite the constitution to make it clear what the government can and can't do instead of torturing the ICC.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on March 30, 2012, 11:18:58 AM
So was there a reason why Congress didn't take the opportunity to draft a bill that severs the tie of insurance with employment? I don't remember hearing a reason for this. It just makes too much damn sense? Seems like the "threat" to religious institutions wouldn't be an issue now if they had done so. I also wonder how many times we are going to go to court over the health care bill because Congress didn't spend more time drafting this bill. Considering it will affect every American, it shouldn't be hastily put together and it really worries me that so many members of Congress don't really know what is in it because it is over 2000 pages.
My guess is that they didn't do this because the people would have rebelled.  So now suddenly you are responsible for paying for your insurance and your employer probably won't give you a pay raise to cover the money they are saving on not paying your insurance.  Plus, most companies get better rates because of their size and that is suddenly gone, so everyone is paying even more for the insurance.  It's a great idea, but would never fly with the people because of the changes, so politicians won't do it.

Quote
Also, in response to E: there is actual talk of prevention in health care now? I thought insurance companies wouldn't cover preventative medicines or alternate health initiatives if they could get away with it because they made more money off of someone who gets sick (I am talking triple bipass type sick not a cold)? I am not explaining this well and I could be wrong here but I thought I heard this somewhere. I am happy if, a. that I am correct in the current/past policy and b. prevention is the new method of treatment. It never made sense to me that doctors couldn't advise a patient and that your insurance wouldn't cover someone talking to a dietician (say) if they needed to lose weight so they could avoid diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Actually, you have this backward.  They make a lot more money off of people that don't get sick, because they never have to pay anything for them.  Healthcare makes more money off of sick people, health insurance makes more money off of healthy people.  The problem is that they could just drop you when you did get sick.  They can not pay for prevention and then if you did get sick, they could hopefully find a way to drop you so they still don't pay.  So they save money by not paying for well care.  The reason prevention is being talked about is that the law forced them to cover well care (and generally for free). 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on March 31, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
The problem is health insurance companies get massive government subsidies in order to make their profits.

I think the issue in the US is that health care has gotten needlessly tied in to health insurance and jobs.

I think that everyone should be entitled to a certain level of medical care.  And that doctors should be able to make a living so that they can provide a certain level of medical service to those who need them.  That's the linkage I care about-- doctor and patient.  Community health.

I don't care at all if the middlemen health insurance companies are able to make a profit skimming off the top or not. If they can do it without government help, fantastic.  If they can't, fuck 'em.

Are you saying the government is already giving private insurance companies subsidies? If so, I was not aware of that. Do you think we should bypass the private health insurance companies altogether? Should we have Medicare for all or more of a British style system? I would personally like us to get away from private health insurance. But as long as the government is going to try to give everyone health care through private insurance companies, then I think they have to limit how much profit those companies can make on certain things. Somehow, somewhere, doesn't profit need to be taken out of the equation to some extent?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on April 06, 2012, 12:52:32 PM
This is pretty damn boring.  I'm now rooting for Santorum to get waxed in Penn, but he'll probably bow out if he sees the polls turn against him.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on April 06, 2012, 01:09:59 PM
The VP candidate search is kind of interesting.

Who is out there that could:

1) Bolster Romney's Presidential chances (most likely by appealing to the far right)
2) Is a team player who won't just cause further division
3) Wouldn't damage their own career by pairing up with Romney

I really can't think of anyone. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on April 10, 2012, 08:59:43 PM
I guess polling for Santorum on PA was not going so well.  Romney is it, let the games begin.

I think Obama wins fairly handily, 5 to 7 percentage points.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on April 11, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
I don't know.  It will be a little closer than people think because of the stupid Jim Crow voter ID laws.  But Romney's such a crap candidate it won't make much of a difference in the end.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on April 11, 2012, 06:06:07 PM
Mitt Romney 2012 = John Kerry 2004
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on April 11, 2012, 06:55:22 PM
Kerry came way closer to winning than Mitt will.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on April 11, 2012, 09:57:08 PM
...i don't know man....i never write off any of these turds. you'd think it would be a cakewalk for obama but the swing voters are just so damn weird sometimes.


and i do agree that the VP candidate will be pretty significant at this point, whoever it is.
my worst fear is that they bring back donald rumsfeld, so that i joke about that it will probably now happen.

wasn't there some speculation too that the dems might swap biden for hilary or were those just rumors?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: iconoclast420 on April 17, 2012, 12:04:34 AM
Obama is about to encounter some trouble.

GSA math - $822.000/300 people=more than a lot of people make in a year.

Secret Service + Columbia = Hookers n Blow!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on April 17, 2012, 01:18:37 AM
I have a feeling that isn't going to be nearly the big deal people think.

The GSA controls $50 billion in procurement contracts.  Those conferences are like .001% of their budget.  They are not a waste of money so much as a celebration of wasted money.  Start looking at where the money goes, and you're going to make things pretty uncomfortable for a lot of big donors.  It would end up making both sides look bad, but probably the GOP more.  So I think they'll try to score a few points off it and then a few words will be spoken into the right ears to make this quietly go away.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on April 17, 2012, 01:02:38 PM
Kerry/Bush was close until it wasn't.  The media has a vested interest in keeping this election close and capitalizing on anyone from either side who claims voting irregularities.  Kerry only lost by 3 million votes (popular vote) but in 2004, apparently, the popular vote no longer mattered as much as that damn state of Ohio and its electoral votes.



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on April 17, 2012, 11:13:12 PM
As I've mentioned before, if everything stays pretty much the same as it is right now, I'd think Obama wins, and pretty easily at that. But IF, a big IF, there are some significant intervening events in the next 7 months (unemployment rising, gas prices going up and up), that will change the whole she-bang.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on April 18, 2012, 10:18:03 AM
Romney is going to have to have a pretty goddamn attractive running mate before he's got a real shot, still won't win.  Running mate is going to be a big deal after the fiasco that was Palin.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on April 25, 2012, 11:51:41 AM
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/newt-gingrich-suspend-campaign-somewhat-topical-ecards-someecards.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on May 02, 2012, 10:19:18 PM
glad that goon has finally left the race. what was that crap he was threatening us with about being a citizen?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on May 02, 2012, 11:13:37 PM
Romney is going to have to have a pretty goddamn attractive running mate before he's got a real shot, still won't win.  Running mate is going to be a big deal after the fiasco that was Palin.
Rob Portman (from Ohio) would be a great choice, but that's just the Ohio guy in me... (I happen to know Rob quite well) It just might get Ohio closer into the Romney column, but it's still a stretch
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on May 03, 2012, 06:27:42 PM
Portman would actually not be a bad pick if the GOP is interested in rebuilding some credibility and willing to concede the election to achieve it.  They also may not have a choice as I think most of the high-profile candidates will want to stay away.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on May 23, 2012, 08:28:45 AM
After President Obama’s announcement, opposition to same-sex marriage hits record low
By Scott Clement and Sandhya Somashekhar, Updated: Wednesday, May 23, 12:01 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html?hpid=z3

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

The poll also finds that 59 percent of African Americans say they support same-sex marriage, up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama’s announcement of his new position on the matter. Though statistically significant, it is a tentative result because of the relatively small sample of black voters in the poll.

The poll comes two weeks after Obama unexpectedly endorsed same-sex marriage after a year and a half of “evolving” on the subject. Gay rights groups predicted the president’s announcement would have a far-reaching impact on public opinion, in part because Obama described how he came to his own decision, referring to his gay friends and the influence of his young daughters, Sasha and Malia.

“By speaking in very personal terms about his own journey, the president has helped to build a larger and stronger majority in support of full equality for committed gay and lesbian couples,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that supports Obama’s reelection.

Seventy-one percent of Americans have a friend, family member or acquaintance who is gay, according to the Post-ABC survey, compared with 63 percent in 2010 and 59 percent in 1998.

The poll offers some insight into how same-sex marriage might affect voters’ decisions at the ballot box this fall. But the issue remains a significant wild card for the president as he seeks to overcome skepticism about his handling of the economy.

The president’s announcement may prove to be a wash: Most Americans say Obama’s stance on gay marriage will not play a big role in their vote for president. And the number of voters who say it makes them more apt to support Obama’s bid for reelection is roughly the same as the number who say they are now more likely to oppose a second term for him.

Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, a prominent group opposed to same-sex marriage, called into question the accuracy of the poll, noting that polls frequently have overestimated support for same-sex unions in advance of votes on state ballot measures.

In all 30 states where voters have been asked to approve or reject same-sex marriage, they have rejected it. In places where it is legal — six states and the District — it was made so by an act of the state legislature or the courts.

Americans divide about evenly — 49 to 46 percent — on whether gay-marriage laws should be made at the state or federal level. Most backers of same-sex marriage support a federal approach, while opponents prefer letting states decide. That is a stark shift from 2004, when a CBS News-New York Times poll found widespread support for federal authority over gay marriage among its opponents, not its supporters.

Schubert was deeply skeptical that support for same-sex marriage was increasing among African Americans.

“There is not a chance in God’s green earth that African Americans support same-sex marriage,” he said, drawing from his experience organizing anti-same-sex marriage campaigns in California, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. The president’s endorsement has likely “created a lot of angst and conflict in that community, but his opinion of same-sex marriage is not going to be changing the opinion of African Americans in a significant way.”

Polling director Jon Cohen and polling manager Peyton M. Craighill contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 01, 2012, 08:34:09 AM
Uh Oh,

US Economy Created 69,000 Jobs in May, Far Less Than the 150,000 Expected; Jobless Rate Rises to 8.2% From 8.1%

Just released, no reports yet.

edit:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47643788

The American jobs engine hit stall speed in May, with the economy adding just 69,000 new jobs while the unemployment rate climbed to 8.2 percent.

As another summertime swoon looms, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that job creation missed economist estimates for 158,000 new positions, and said labor force participation remains near 30-year lows though incrementally better than last month.

In May, stocks suffered through their worst month in two years, and the job-creation figures only added to the gloom.

Stock market futures indicated a sharply lower open for Wall Street, while investors continued to pour into bonds, sending the 10-year Treasury note yield tumbling to near 1.50 percent.

The bulk of the gains came from the service sector, which added 84,000 jobs, while manufacturing grew 12,000.

The report comes a month after the government reported that just 115,000 new jobs were added in April, a number that helped contribute to a general malaise about economic growth.

Even that number was worse than thought: The BLS revised the April number down to 77,000.

With worries swelling over the state of the global economy, another weak employment report in the U.S. adds to fears that a sharp slowdown is on the way.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 01, 2012, 08:37:33 AM
It's interesting that some on the right have accused the government of inflating the jobs numbers, then revising them downward every time.  See my bolded part in the article above.  So if they are still inflated, just how bad is this number?  Revised down to ... 5 jobs created.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 06, 2012, 10:31:05 AM
The Walker result ... what bothers me most is the commentators on the left talking about this post citizens united landscape and in the same breath talk about the power (or lack of) of the unions to get out the vote.  How about the new landscape being that now both sides have the same ability ... and it's still wrong, neither side should.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: twentyshots on June 06, 2012, 11:14:36 AM
didn't help that the right had about a 30 million dollar advantage.....
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on June 06, 2012, 11:17:27 AM
I haven't heard the commentary, but in theory Citizen's United should work to the advantage of both unions and corporations or any large organization with deep pockets.

I personally don't care about it and think it was a good decision.  I mean, if Ford has a million dollars and wants to buy an ad talking about how great Ford is, why can't Ford buy an ad talking about how great Romney or Obama are?  That's freedom of speech.  Do they distort the truth about their candidate and the issues?  Sure.  Just like they do when they tell you how great their cars are

If we're suddenly under the illusion that the airwaves are public and should be politically neutral and filled with facts, then why are FOX and MSNBC allowed to exist?  It's like Murdoch (or whoever) can buy an entire STATION and shovel shit 24/7/365 but someone else can't buy a 30 second ad?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 06, 2012, 11:24:20 AM
Well,

you can't make false claims when advertising a product.  Fords get better gas mileage than any other car!  Political speech is not exactly the truth, it's propaganda.  So if you have enough money and can skirt the law using propaganda then you have a better chance.

All that said,  money has never been shown to win an election.  Exit polls in WI tell us that most felt the recall was not valid and should only be used for incompetence or serious legal issues and not policy.  It was a vote against WI democrats and that's about it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on June 06, 2012, 12:08:46 PM
Don't forget the facts of Citizen United.  The ads were not anti-Hillary ads per se, but rather to get people to see a movie.  Most of them were just a trailer of the movie, with some overdubbed commentary "'Best movie ever!' says Rush Limbaugh."  How is that different from any other movie ad on TV?

I am sure there are people who dispute say, Margaret Thatcher's dementia and what impact it had on her life and decisions, but you're allowed to run ads for The Iron Lady on TV complete with snippets from the movie that make Thatcher look all crazy.  I really can't see a difference.

Even if I were to somehow believe that political ads were more misleading than other ads, there are rules in place governing false advertising. 

Pretty much, I think that if people believe in advertisements, they fully deserve to be lied to.  Obviously these are people are incompetent tools.  "Oh noes, I saw this ad and I totally believed it.  But now I hear these corporations might be lying to me.  Hey government, why don't YOU tell me whether it's a lie or not?"

At least with independent groups there is likely to be pro-Obama and anti-Obama voices.  If the government is controlling what can run, how many anti-government, anti-incumbent ads are we going to see?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 06, 2012, 12:55:11 PM
I cannot argue with that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on June 28, 2012, 04:24:58 PM
Obamacare.

How can the repubs fight this?  Repeal and what?  The parts the public overwhelmingly likes ... older kids on your plan, no preexisting condition limits, no lifetime limits.  If they go with straight repeal these will be questions they have to answer.  If they go with repeal and replace the insurance lobbyists are going to be asking how the hell they can afford it without a mandate to cover everyone.

A smart democrat would immediately pick up on this, plus suggest the following talking point.

Romneycare won!

In any case it seems politicians will be forced to deal with the real issues, not the bullshit, or they stop talking about it.

I think Romney tries to duck out of this just as fast as he can and pivot back towards the economy.  Obamacare is a done deal.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on June 28, 2012, 07:04:14 PM
In any case it seems politicians will be forced to deal with the real issues, not the bullshit, or they stop talking about it.

I like the optimism, but when have politicians EVER been forced to deal with the real issues? 

Because you are right--- it is Romneycare.  But let's face it, the American public is not the most consistent group of thinkers in the world.  Even now, the GOP could rewrite the playbook and appeal to fiscal conservatives and say "Look, the thing with this bill is it costs a ton of money.  That is our big objection.  It's just not good policy."  And a decent chunk of their base will just flip-flop with them and forget that the whole time they made this into some sort of moral/freedom issue with the Government Death Panels, constitutional challenge, cries of socialism and whatnot.  They've dug themselves pretty deep, so it would take some political capital but still... it can be accomplished.

Except they don't want to.  It doesn't matter a bit to the Republicans whether Obamacare gets repealed or not.  Just that it is cast as the most evil thing imaginable.  Actual fiscal talk is boring and complicated and not conducive to soundbites. It is also small potatoes.  You get the Individual Mandate or the whole bill repealed and people are like "Good job.  What's next?"  Better have an answer.

So there is much more to be gained by saying that if you don't vote GOP, the Dems will appoint lots more evil justices who will strip away all of your rights and send us all to hell-- literally and figuratively. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on July 05, 2012, 04:58:46 PM
It's not a tax ... no, it's a tax.  :)

The longer it stays int he headlines the worse for Romney.  Gogo Obamacare!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on July 05, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
Yeah, the whole thing is amusing.  It's a tax, it was always a tax.  Obama said it wasn't, that was massive spin.  He totally deserves to get busted for acting like it wasn't.  Too bad the GOP blew it by attacking the constitutionality of it based on really awful arguments (and there are actually good arguments for why it isn't constitutional which Roberts clearly wanted to rule on, so they screwed themselves that way, too) instead of just pointing out that Obama was lying.

The whole "not an activity" thing was just such a silly argument and a terrible idea to boot.

It was never clear to me why the GOP were so mad about the government forcing people to pay for stuff anyway.  Because isn't that EXACTLY what they wanted?   Remember the shitfit they threw a couple years back about how so many Americans don't pay taxes?  Yeah, that's because they chose not to engage in "activities" like... having a job, or taking birth control. 

The argument wasn't just that if you don't put anything in, you shouldn't get anything out.  It was that everyone should have to put something in, even if they just get it right back in services rendered and end up in the positive.  You should have no choice but to pay taxes.  Well here at last is something everyone has to pay!  No more skimming off the system!  Everyone with "skin in the game!"   No one will could possibly abuse government healthcare because they know they are paying for it now.  This is *exactly* what they wanted. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on July 06, 2012, 10:43:19 PM
Also on the health care thing, the GOP seemed so smugly assured that it would be overturned that now they have a considerable amount of egg on their collective face. The Romney camp especially seems to have no idea how to spin it, which should come as little surprise since it was largely his plan to begin with.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on July 07, 2012, 03:12:25 PM
Yeah, it's really a combination of two things.

One is that they lost.  The other is that they have no jumping off point to easily spin this into some other argument even one that is a 180 degree turn.  The bad guy here is not Obama but Roberts who is a GOP appointee.  And as you and markalot noted, its difficult to criticize the substance of the plan when it is so similar to Romney's.  So they can't really even get mad about it.

So it seems like they are temporarily at a dead end as far as healthcare goes.  Like markalot said, this would appear to present a clear opportunity/need for the GOP to actually start talking about real issues and coming up with some solutions of their own.  I'm just too cynical to believe that will ever happen, even if it costs them some elections.  Not because I hate conservatives, just that's how politics works.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on July 08, 2012, 11:44:17 PM
Nobody seems to have mentioned here that Obamacare is still deeply unpopular in the polls. I have no idea what that means for the election, but that is what it is
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on July 09, 2012, 08:30:01 AM
I wish everybody would shut up about "obamacare" and repealing it.  Reform was needed, nobody is going to say otherwise, if the details are that unpopular roll up your sleeves and fix it.  The house has no desire to do something positive with this, they just want to rake Obama over the coals.

The repeal vote coming up this week is the 31st.... yes, 31st, vote that's been taken to repeal the ACA.  You never hear the people bitching about tax and spend democrats complain about how their elected officials waste money hand over fist with political maneuvering when they could be getting something done.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on July 09, 2012, 09:57:15 AM
Nobody seems to have mentioned here that Obamacare is still deeply unpopular in the polls. I have no idea what that means for the election, but that is what it is

Sure, it is ... until you start breaking out the things that people like about it.  It's really an awful bill with a awful number of things people like.  Regardless of what you or I think about it, trying to repeal the bill without a replacement means those repealing it don't care about pre-existing conditions or kids on their parents plan, or no more lifetime max benefit amount (which I believe might be called rationing in another universe).

I'm interested to see how this plays out.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on July 09, 2012, 11:02:56 AM
Nobody seems to have mentioned here that Obamacare is still deeply unpopular in the polls. I have no idea what that means for the election, but that is what it is

Yes, but you have to be able to capitalize on it.  A majority of Americans hate Obamacare because it's almost a guarantee that a majority of Americans hate everything.  What the GOP needs is for people to like Romney's version of healthcare more than Obama's.

That's the problem.  If the GOP talks about how stupid and evil Obama's health care plan is, then why should anyone vote for Romney who did the same thing?

Environmental protection and National Parks are always popular.  And yet the liberals can win while proposing tax increases, and conservatives win with poor environmental track records.  It's all in how you frame specific issues to create your wedges.  eg. conservatives are not anti-environment but pro-business.

When you try to gain the upper hand on an issue and it twists out of your grasp, you are screwed.  Everyone was actually all for universal health care until Obama actually proposed it and the GOP told them it was crap. 

I think you will see the GOP stop talking about health care and focus on the economy.  The only time you'll hear health care mentioned is that it costs a lot of money and maybe we can do it cheaper.  Not any of this evil Socialist, government death panel stuff.  It'll be just another government program.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: yoshomon on July 10, 2012, 10:27:08 PM
I blame the media blamers.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on July 10, 2012, 11:07:57 PM
I blame the media blamers.
I blame the blamers that blame the media blamers
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on July 30, 2012, 09:28:41 PM
Wow.  Mitt Romney is terrible at Foreign Relations.  Possibly even worse than Bush.

I never like it when Presidential hopefuls go overseas and try to score points back home.  It's amazingly hard to pull this off without making other countries mad and it's the President who has to clean it up.  And yes, I criticized Obama for doing this as well.

But I mean, at least if you're going to get in hot water do it with a political purpose.  Don't get in trouble for saying stupid things because you don't know any better.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on July 31, 2012, 08:31:25 AM
I love this CBS Article. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162-57482981/romney-angers-palestinians-with-pro-israel-comment/)


Quote
As criticism mounted as he traveled from Israel to Poland later Monday, campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the candidate's comments were "grossly mischaracterized."

Really, the campaign that's STILL riding the "you didn't build that" train wants to hide behind the ol' 'my comments were mischaracterized' excuse?  Especially ironic given that you can't even make a good argument for that in this case... he's not at all being mischaracterized.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on July 31, 2012, 09:58:25 AM
Wow.  Mitt Romney is terrible at Foreign Relations.  Possibly even worse than Bush.
I would say worse than Bush. At least Bush had a bit of a "bumbling idiot" vibe about him, whereas Romney just comes across as an utter prick. I think he'd make a much worse president than Bush, too, he seems quite willfully ignorant and vindictive.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 01, 2012, 12:10:19 AM
Why is Romney touting his 2002 Olympics efforts?  I mean, people got convicted for bribery, it was a huge disgrace.

I'm not accusing Romney of criminal activity.  He actually came in and cleaned up the mess, and from most accounts did a good job.  But still, he's linked to all those criminals because if you're trying to pull off a successful Games with not much time you have to work with those guys.  So he's attached to all these repugnant people.  Plus, the Olympics is a dirty business.  If you DON'T pay kickbacks and do some questionable crap you'll never pull it off.  So it's not hard at all to dig up tons of stuff that makes him look really bad. 

I doubt any of the far right cares at all, but the point is to try and win over the people in the middle.  Or does he just think that mobilizing the far-right base is enough? 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 01, 2012, 08:46:51 AM
I think Romney has learned that he can say just about anything he wants and the tide against Obama among far-right wing-dings will carry him, even if he is lying through his teeth.  People like my mother, who would vote for Hitler over Obama at this point and can't put together a cohesive argument as to why, are not concerned with the details of those things. 

He helped with the Olympics?  I like the Olympics, and he's not Obama... yay Rommey!

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on August 01, 2012, 11:53:21 AM
far-right wing-dings
Am I wrong to think that would make a great name for a Republican PAC?

"The Far Right Wing-Dings funded and approved this message"
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 01, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
It would be truth in advertising, at the very least.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on August 02, 2012, 02:41:08 PM
Why is Romney touting his 2002 Olympics efforts?  I mean, people got convicted for bribery, it was a huge disgrace.

I'm not accusing Romney of criminal activity.  He actually came in and cleaned up the mess, and from most accounts did a good job.  But still, he's linked to all those criminals because if you're trying to pull off a successful Games with not much time you have to work with those guys.  So he's attached to all these repugnant people.  Plus, the Olympics is a dirty business.  If you DON'T pay kickbacks and do some questionable crap you'll never pull it off.  So it's not hard at all to dig up tons of stuff that makes him look really bad. 

I doubt any of the far right cares at all, but the point is to try and win over the people in the middle.  Or does he just think that mobilizing the far-right base is enough? 

From what I've been reading lately, he "saved" the Olympics mostly by lobbying Congress for a big pile of money which doesn't really play well for a guy trying to appeal to the small government crowd.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on August 06, 2012, 09:40:23 AM
I learned if you are going to take a summer vacation during a Pres. Election year, try to do it in a non-swing state.  More commercials in Florida than there are in Ohio, if that's possible.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 08, 2012, 08:43:40 AM
A good writeup over this welfare to work ad.  I am becoming more and more confident Obama will win this election.

Romney again puts GOP governors in delicate spot
By Greg Sargent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-again-puts-gop-governors-in-delicate-spot/2012/08/07/fa15e2d6-e0c7-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_blog.html?hpid=z3

Another interesting angle on today’s war over welfare: Mitt Romney has again put GOP governors in a delicate position, in which they are caught between the need to defend their own policies and the need to avoid saying anything that detracts from Romney’s campaign message.

As many other reporters have been doing today, I asked the offices of the Republican governors in Utah and Nevada for a response to Romney’s new ad, which claims that Obama’s new waiver policy “guts” the Clinton welfare reform law and sends “welfare checks” to people who don’t work. The new Obama policy was a response to a request from governors — led by the leaders of those two states — for more flexibility in implementing it.

Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the assertions in Romney’s ad, both offices declined to say, instead sticking to defendiing the policies their own states were pursuing under the waiver. They also would not answer when asked whether the White House, in rolling out the new policy, had simply given them what they wanted.

The statement from Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s office said: “Utah’s request for a waiver stems from a desire for increased customization of the program to maximize employment among Utah’s welfare recipients,” adding that the state had needed “flexibility to customize work-focused solutions.”

Meanwhile, the statement from Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval’s office maintained that its request to the White House was “not a request to weaken work requirements“ or a request for a “waiver to eliminate welfare work requirements for recipients.”

So neither office views the policy changes they are implementing in the wake of Obama’s new directive in the terms Romney has described. The natural follow up question: Do they believe the Obama policy change they requested would allow any states to weaken the work requirement? Both offices declined to comment on today’s charges and countercharges.

The Romney camp insists that the new Obama policy opens the door for a weakening of the work requirement because it allows states to prioritize the type of employment recipients get over their participation rate. But the policy explicity says wavers will only be granted to state proposals that make the realization of work goals more effective.

This isn’t the first time a Romney political imperative has forced GOP governors to do a delicate dance. Multiple Republican governors have found themselves caught between defending their states’ economic records and stepping on Romney’s message about economic doom in them.

More broadly, the Obama camp’s aggressive pushback on the Romney charge today highlights both their sense that the attacks could resonate — and the degree to which Dems now think anything that even hints at weakening the work requirement for welfare recipients is politically unthinkable.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on August 08, 2012, 01:36:03 PM
Today there was a headline that said Romney is big for the white working class. Isn't that the biggest class there is?

It also said that Obama was popular with women. So who knows?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 08, 2012, 01:41:43 PM
A good writeup over this welfare to work ad.  I am becoming more and more confident Obama will win this election.


People will still vote for him in droves because he's the non-Obama candidate.  Not sure how much pointing out his screw-ups are going to do to reverse that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 08, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Things like that can still make a difference.  It's hard for the governor to talk about how great your policies are when you visit his state if those policies are in direct opposition to his.  And it also makes the governors trust and like you a little less, which means maybe at some fundraising dinner the best, most energetic speech doesn't get given and then you raise less money.

It's not going to make a Romney supporter into an Obama supporter, but candidates can gain more or less votes without having to change people's minds.

Romney has run an amazingly sloppy campaign.  It's really kind of puzzling to me.  But Obama's run a pretty loose campaign himself, which is equally confusing.   
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 09, 2012, 08:31:44 AM
The Obama decision gives states the flexibility to alter how they run the welfare to work program.

States Rights and all.

Romney and his team have no clue what they are doing.  They are running a negative campaign and politicians have never won on negativity alone, he has to come up with an easy to understand comprehensive plan to turn things around.

He won't be able to since his policies will only make our finances worse.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 09, 2012, 09:51:44 AM
As a principle, conservatives value state rights more more than liberals but it's so far down the list that as a practical matter it makes no difference.

States rights only comes up when the Feds want to do something conservatives from conservative states don't agree with.  It's a fallback position that at least means they can have their way.

I don't think many conservatives are truly okay with abortion being legal in one state and not in another.  If they were, they wouldn't be trying to limit the ways in which FEDERAL funds are spent.  Same thing with gay marriage.  Very few people are like "Hey, Massachusetts or Hawaii wants to legalize gay marriage. Totally up to them, man. Whatever."  They are talking about constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

It's not that conservatives are hypocrites, because principles collide in politics.  But it's better from a PR standpoint not to reveal those things publicly.  It's also better not to act like smug, uncompromising douchebags about everything because then you're just asking for it.


Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on August 09, 2012, 02:47:11 PM
In June and July, $5.4 million was been spent on presidential ad campaigns in the Raleigh-Durham TV market. No wonder I can't escape the ads!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on August 09, 2012, 06:28:36 PM

Romney has run an amazingly sloppy campaign.  It's really kind of puzzling to me.  But Obama's run a pretty loose campaign himself, which is equally confusing.   

It seems like it would be a lot harder to control a campaign these days, what with the super PACs, the blogs, the 24 hour news cycle. I just saw something today about the Romney camp attacking the Obama camp over a super PAC's ad. So instead of a couple monkeys flinging shit at each other, you have a thousand monkeys flinging shit everywhere.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on August 11, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Awesome tweet from Ken Jennings (of Jeopardy fame)

"Paul Ryan likes Ayn Rand, so on behalf of Mormons everywhere: we are pretty relieved to now be the *2nd* weirdest religion on the GOP ticket"
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 13, 2012, 08:12:51 AM
I didn't realize that liking Ayn Rand was a religion?  I like Ayn Rand.... I'm Baptist.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on August 13, 2012, 09:22:44 AM
It's not, but some people like Ryan are just a bit too fanatical about it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 13, 2012, 10:50:05 AM
I didn't realize that liking Ayn Rand was a religion?  I like Ayn Rand.... I'm Baptist.

Objectivism is completely cult-ish.

If you think about any Rand uber-protagonist... they are never wrong.  It's like the greatest architect ever and the guy who builds the best steel ever and the woman who totally runs her own railway against all odds.  Every protagonist is of genius level intelligence, hard-working, courageous, and honest (though ruthless in business).  And every antagonist is pretty much lazy, stupid, cowardly, and corrupt.

There are people who take the book rather literally.  And in that sense, Galt is Jesus.  I mean, you're not going to debate truth with Galt.  You're not going to beat him in any way really.  Either you think like him in which case you are both uber-powerful and agree on everything so there's really no conflict, or you think differently than him in which case he crushes you like a bug. 

At least Jesus could be said to have been somewhat on quest for truth/understanding/teaching of the masses.  Galt is questing for anything philosophically.  He's the world's biggest badass.  He's not really even on a quest to rid the world of evil as some moral goal.  He just wants to get rid of evil because its like, in his way.  That's why at the end of the book the heroes are just like, screw it we're just going to start our own society and cool people will eventually pass initiation and join and uncool people will eventually drown in their own incompetence.  It's not like Galt actually *helped* anyone.

So for those people who take objectivism way too seriously, it's a total cult.  There's no reason for them to debate the truth with you.  They are right, you are wrong.  You are not even going to get the benefit of the doubt like "Hey, this guy might be wrong but he's well-meaning."  Wrong and evil are the same thing.  Therefore, you trying to stop them from doing what they want is exactly what they'd expect from the enemy, and they have a moral obligation not to listen to and certainly not to compromise with "evil" in any form. 

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 13, 2012, 01:14:48 PM
Interesting.  I guess it was the use of "like" that threw me.  As I said, I "like" Rand.... but "like" to me is a pretty small word i.e. I read A book, and liked it enough to read it again a couple of times.  I don't apply her philosophies to my job or anything.  How into Rand is he?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on August 13, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
I think speaking at a think tank based on her principals is a fairly strong indication. From a New Yorker article this weekend:

Quote
Two years later, in 2005, Ryan paid fealty to Rand in a speech he gave to the Atlas Society, the Washington-based think tank devoted to keeping Rand’s “objectivist” philosophy alive. He credited her with inspiring his interest in public service, saying, “[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

More here: http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand.html He also gave out copies of Atlas Shrugged to all his interns in 2003. I just get books about finding my strengths from my boss.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 13, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Yuck, that's a little much.  I mean, it's a nice idea... but so is communism, doesn't mean it works in the real world.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 13, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
Read a bunch of editorials, so these words are not my own ... but the best idea I read is that this is a big mistake.

Instead of making the election about the economy he's making it about radical changes to government spending.  In other words, this won't help.

I still say Obama wins, and I think he wins bigger than many think.

Hopefully I didn't jinx it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on August 14, 2012, 08:00:17 AM
Hopefully I didn't jinx it.

I will track you down if you did...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on August 14, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
Read a bunch of editorials, so these words are not my own ... but the best idea I read is that this is a big mistake.

Instead of making the election about the economy he's making it about radical changes to government spending.  In other words, this won't help.

I still say Obama wins, and I think he wins bigger than many think.

Hopefully I didn't jinx it.

That's because it is a big mistake.  He should've just picked someone blank and made it about the economy.  But as you say, it is now about a fundamental difference between the parties... of which, the GOP does not have the better of it considering the state of the economy.

I guess he is going to rally the base with this, but how much more rallying did the base need to get rid of Comrade Obama?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on August 14, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
I think they thought Ryan would help because he actually has a concrete budget plan, whereas Romney never put out anything.  But the problem is that Ryan's budget plan is horrible and most people hate it.  It is all about cutting taxes for the rich, adding taxes for the poor and middle class, and cutting services to the poor.  Hell, under his plan, Romney's tax rate in 2010 would have been 1% because he wants to eliminate the capital gains tax all together! 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 14, 2012, 10:02:16 AM
On the old WOXY boards I was on record supporting partial privatizing of social security.  I think I said this seconds before the big crash.  Ryan is a fan of it as well, and now it's getting some traction in the press.  Talk about a huge disaster if this idea was actually implemented, this is yet another item that can be pinned on Ryan.

I understand their ideology, I share a lot of it, and I really think they believe it will help the economy, but for me the bottom line is spending.  Poor people don't spend, and if you reduce the safety net so that retirees have less money to work with, and you have more and more retirees, spending will drop, the economy will be hurt.

Not rocket science IMO, but then neither is evolution.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 14, 2012, 10:16:17 AM
I think we have enough proof that people are too dumb to manage their own finances to know what a horrid idea that is.

Wow!  You're gonna give me a loan for $250,000 house?   I work at Chuck E Cheese and I can barely pay my bills now, but where do I sign?  Oh and give me a loan for a Hummer, a boat and a camper while you're at it.  15% interest?  I can afford the payments because I have 8 credit cards.  No probalo.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 14, 2012, 11:50:49 AM
The thing is, the government invests the money at least as stupidly as people do.  And in with this last recession, even in a  best case scenario with no kickbacks or lobbyists or political appointees who know zilch about investment, they would have put it in exactly the same stuff that caused people to have a large chunk of their retirement funds wiped out.

It's supposed to be INSURANCE, not the government managing your portfolio for you.  So to me, that means you know you will likely lose money on it.  It's a premium you pay to avoid catastrophic loss.   So you should put in as little as possible.  Basically just enough to cover the worst-case scenario where you can't absorb the loss on your own.  If you retire rich, you don't get it back.  Just like if your house never burns down, you never collect.

The market goes hand-in-hand with the economy.  So if the government invests in the market then they lose money when everyone else does, meaning they'll be least able to provide support just when people need it most.  It's like buying hurricane insurance for your beach house and then your insurance company invests it all in beach front property.  It's not lowering the risk, it's multiplying it. 

The government should just sit on the money, and if that means they have less to give out because the market was good and they forewent those returns by not investing, who cares?  The economy was great and everyone made tons of money, so no one needs social security anyway.

If by "privatizing social security" people mean "drastically reducing social security so that most people invest (or not) on their own, and we only take enough to help really poor old people" then I'm all for it.  But if it means the government invests your money privately so that there will be even more money in the markets and the markets will be more distorted and crash that much harder with less of a safety net, then that is a bad idea.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on August 14, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
I think we have enough proof that people are too dumb to manage their own finances to know what a horrid idea that is.

Wow!  You're gonna give me a loan for $250,000 house?   I work at Chuck E Cheese and I can barely pay my bills now, but where do I sign?  Oh and give me a loan for a Hummer, a boat and a camper while you're at it.  15% interest?  I can afford the payments because I have 8 credit cards.  No probalo.

You are probalo right.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on August 14, 2012, 01:53:25 PM
In June and July, $5.4 million was been spent on presidential ad campaigns in the Raleigh-Durham TV market. No wonder I can't escape the ads!

I wish this would become an issue.  The amount of money that is spent on campaigns is obscene.  I know it would still take a lot of money to run a campaign, but I wish there would be a negative stigma attached to spending a ridiculously huge amount of money.  There are so many better uses for that money.  Can you imagine what could be done with that money?  What if half of what they spent over 2 months in 1 market went to cancer research or food shelves or homeless shelters or women's shelters or a myriad other charities?  I bet they could all use $2.7 million.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 14, 2012, 03:10:21 PM
It does seem wasteful, but then think about how important the President of the United States is.  It really trips you out when you start talking money.

You're talking about spending $2.7 million to control to at least 4,000 times that amount of funding to the homeless over the next ten years.  That's the difference between Obama and Romney.  That's not even counting Medicare or Social Security.  I'm just talking about Medicaid and associated HHS discretionary spending is easily $1 trillion.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 14, 2012, 03:41:34 PM
If by "privatizing social security" people mean "drastically reducing social security so that most people invest (or not) on their own, and we only take enough to help really poor old people" then I'm all for it.  But if it means the government invests your money privately so that there will be even more money in the markets and the markets will be more distorted and crash that much harder with less of a safety net, then that is a bad idea.

I thought privatizing social security meant that individuals would be given the ability to manage how their SSI money is invested?

Anyway, I agree with everything you said.  I'm certainly not counting on SSI.  I just don't know what people are thinking... we have relatives that spend borrowed money like water and have absolutely nothing saved for retirement nor emergencies.  These same people complain about taxes and socialized medicine... completely missing the irony that they are the reason the government has to be involved in these things.  They also complain about government "handouts" like welfare and WIC.  They are one unforeseen expense away from financial ruin.  What do they not get about that?

I think it was a Freakonomics podcast I was listening to recently* in which they were talking about a poll that determined that some ungodly high percentage of the population are $2000 away from a financial rabbit hole that they couldn't conceivably get out of... so in perspective if their transmission went out on their car and they had to pay for a minor medical procedure at the same time they'd be missing a house payment.  That is in-fucking-sane.

*It was Freakonomics. (http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/04/26/lottery-loopholes-and-deadly-doctors-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)  It was a Harvard survey and the ungodly percentage was 50.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on August 14, 2012, 05:00:26 PM
It does seem wasteful, but then think about how important the President of the United States is.  It really trips you out when you start talking money.

You're talking about spending $2.7 million to control to at least 4,000 times that amount of funding to the homeless over the next ten years.  That's the difference between Obama and Romney.  That's not even counting Medicare or Social Security.  I'm just talking about Medicaid and associated HHS discretionary spending is easily $1 trillion.

Right.  I also know that $2.7 million is merely a drop in the campaign finance bucket.  I just seems like they could still run effective campaigns on far less money, especially when it comes to the super PAC bullshit, and the rest of that money would be better served somewhere else.  But what the hell do I know.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 14, 2012, 07:58:20 PM
Quote
The thing is, the government invests the money at least as stupidly as people do.

But it's not really invested, it's a ponzi scheme, right?  Except this ponzi scheme might actually work if social security benefits and taxes are adjusted so that current workers pay the right amount to support current retirees.  More workers, lower taxes, fewer workers, higher taxes.  There's room to work since the government handles all of the social security money. 

If someone blows all their self invested cash the government will still have to step in and support them, it will still cost us money. We aren't going to let old people starve in the streets, no matter how much I want it to happen.

Is that amount of money less than the waste in the current system?

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 14, 2012, 09:05:02 PM
Actually, I think you just turned it into a Ponzi scheme.

Each generation puts in enough money to pay for their own retirements.  It's not the present generation of workers paying for the present retirees.

If I put in $100 and you invest it at a 10% rate of return for me and then a year later I get $110, everything is fine.  If there are five of us, we put in a collective $500 and and a year later we get $550 back. 

You can't get caught in a bind because when the retiree pool is big and you need to pay out you'll have lots of cash in hand because you collected a ton of cash when they were working and the worker pool was big.  And that cash has been sitting around collecting interest and it's ready to be paid out.

If baby boomers were only putting in enough to pay for the current retirees back in the 70's they would have paid very little because the worker to retiree ratio was high.  And then you spent all the money.

Now fastfoward to present day and there's ton of baby boomers retiring and the worker to retiree ratio is low and there's nothing in the fund collecting interest because you didn't save anything.  So the worker to retiree ratio is low and the present workers are going to get hammered because suddenly they have to pay for all of these retired guys and they have to pay it all right now.

I mean, I get what you're saying.  It works in the sense that you are redistributing funds from one group to the next and it's simpler to manage in that you just take what you need right now.  But it kind of negates the whole point of INVESTING as opposed to spending and the insurance aspect of it.  The way to insurance against loss is if I pay $100 of insurance you put enough of my money into a risk-free pool so that you can ALWAYS meet my expected payout.  It's my own money paying for myself so you know you got it covered.  As opposed to my money paying for you and your money paying for someone else, etc.  That's the definition of Ponzi scheme isn't it?  Just shuffling money around as opposed to actually investing it?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on August 14, 2012, 10:11:45 PM
But the only way to start investing SS money at this point would be to increase the amount of money coming in by a huge amount.  Since it started as a ponzi scheme (since originally there was no money and they started paying out right away) and congress foolishly spent the extra money that should have been saved to help cover now, there is no way to start letting people actual invest money.  If 100% of the money I am putting in now is going to pay for the baby boomers retirement, how can you put 40% into a retirement account and still be able to cover the boomers retirements? The only way it would work is if there was already a bunch of money in reserve to start covering the money going into the retirement accounts, which there isn't.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 15, 2012, 03:18:24 AM
It didn't start off as a Ponzi scheme.  I don't know the exact specific history, but remember that at that time there was no deficit, no debt, and no entitlements.  Which makes it impossible to run a Ponzi scheme.  And I think that's what markalot was getting at.

It's only a Ponzi scheme when you start promising people they will get a certain amount back and then you start borrowing to make it happen.  You've got $100k owed and $50k in hand so you borrow $50k to pay that first guy.  Then you have to borrow $50k from the second guy to pay the first guy, etc.  You need an endless succession of people to "loan" you $50k to cover the loss.  Except sooner or later you run out of people to borrow from and the last guy in loses his $50k.

When they started Social Security there was an immediate injection of cash because prior to FICA there were no payroll taxes and now suddenly there were.  So congress decided okay we have 60 old people and we think they should get $10 a year so we need to collect $600 in payroll taxes.  We have 100 people in the work force, so that's $6 s person.  So those are the rules for now.  You don't start off in debt.  You start off with an extra $600 put into the program that costs you an extra $600 so you're even.

So each year every old person got $10, and every worker paid $6.  And this scheme generally works.  It's a rainy day fund.  When you get to the mid-1960's then you have a huge explosion in workforce and not many retirees on account of not of life expectancy wasn't that high yet plus you had a huge chunk of people who died in the depression or the war.  So at that point you have a surplus, and the surplus goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.

Later the baby boomers get old, and the ratio reverses and so you aren't taking enough current revenue to meet your current expenditures, but that's okay because you draw from the surplus.  As long things stay within certain parameters and your expenditures don't keep growing and growing you'll be okay.

At worst, you get in an emergency and the government cuts spending elsewhere to cover the  hole or they raise taxes or they cut your benefits for a bit. The Social Security Trust Fund just gives a cushion so hopefully you don't suddenly have to raise taxes a whole ton in an emergency.  So I guess in that sense, markalot's plan is not so much a Ponzi scheme but more bad financial planning in the area of risk management which tends to lead to borrowing and Ponzi-ness.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on August 15, 2012, 07:27:07 AM
I really dislike the way everything related to the government is described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

So, how much money is IN the trust fund?  How the hell can one describe it when the government money is so fluid (maybe leaky is a better word).  There's not some bank somewhere with this much money sitting around, it's all about accounting gimmicks to show how much should be in there.

Quote
"Income including interest to the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $805 billion in 2011. ($564 billion in net contributions, $24 billion from taxation of benefits, $114 billion in interest, and $103 billion in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury—almost exclusively resulting from the 2011 payroll tax legislation.)

...

The assets of the combined OASDI Trust Funds increased by $69 billion in 2011 to a total of $2.7 trillion.

...

The cost of $6.4 billion to administer the program in 2011 was 0.9 percent of total expenditures.


It's a ponzi scheme in my opinion, so might as well make it a better ponzi scheme.  It says the trust fund contains 2.7 trillion, but isn't that just on paper?  Isn't most of that money spent (loaned to the government), but the government acts like they have it so calculates interest paid to them for the full amount even though it doesn't actually have the money?  It holds the money as treasury bonds, lol, so it's more government debt. 

My money goes from my paycheck into my Dad's social security check.  That's how it works, and I honestly have no problem with that.  What I was trying to say before was that if I was allowed to invest some of that money myself then there would be less money available to pay my dad, which means the government would have to borrow to make the payments.  In addition, if I lost the money the government would still have to support me in retirement through various programs for the poor.

I'm all for keeping and investing more of my money, but I also believe in a strong safety net, and I can't reconcile the two.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on August 15, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
...think about how important the President of the United States is.

Sorry, the cynic is me is laughing at this statement.

And I disagree wholeheartedly that just because their role SHOULD be important, I don't think money should be the method that gets them back in office. You shouldn't have to be a millionaire (or more) to even get elected into any political office.

This is such a pointless argument I am trying to make, I will stop now. As far as I am concerned, both parties can stop f*ing us over, demonizing the other party and just do their jobs (because demonizing the other side and driving a big wedge seems to be the only thing they are good at anymore).
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 15, 2012, 09:46:35 AM
It's a ponzi scheme in my opinion, so might as well make it a better ponzi scheme.  It says the trust fund contains 2.7 trillion, but isn't that just on paper?  Isn't most of that money spent (loaned to the government), but the government acts like they have it so calculates interest paid to them for the full amount even though it doesn't actually have the money?  It holds the money as treasury bonds, lol, so it's more government debt.

Yeah, I don't know how big a deal that is.  Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it doesn't.

All money is just on paper, literally.  A dollar bill is just a government promise that people accept is worth something.  I mean, even if we tied it to gold bars we don't know if the government is actually issuing $150 of currency for every $100 of gold.  So at some level you just have to trust the Full Faith and Credit clause.

On the other hand, what's in the Fund isn't even a dollar bill.  It's an IOU.  If there were actual bills in there we would at least know that there is supposed to be 1 million units of currency in there, and there they are.  Maybe those 1 million units are worthless but there's still at least 1 million just like promised.  Even if they were regular Treasury Bonds that would be okay.   But these are "special bonds."  So yeah, having a sketchy IOU in there is disquieting.

But it also avoids the real issue.  The problem is really the borrowing.  If there's an IOU for $100 in the Trust Fund but we all know the government has $100 somewhere, it is just sort of accounting.  The government owes $100 and it HAS $100.  Whether it comes from general funds or some other fund... those are just kind of arbitrary names for pools of money.

The thing is we all know the government does NOT have the $100.  We're in debt. And the reason we're in debt is not being caused Social Security.  Social Security (for now) is technically solvent.  If we're going to designate pools of money, the pool of money in the Trust Fund is enough to pay for the current expenditures.

We're in debt because of (pick your most hated subsidy, pork barrel project, tax break).  And we're taking money out of the Social Security pool to pay those debts.  It's the same as when we talked about state pensions on the WOXY board.  The state pensions were all fine until the Governor's decided to spend general fund money they didn't have, and then they "borrowed" against the pension to fund it.  And then they try to make it look like it was the pensions driving the state bankrupt.

So I'm sort of with seniors in that Social Security does get villified for being the cause of our problems.  It isn't.*   On the other hand, I'm totally NOT with seniors in demanding that Social Security somehow be immune from cuts.  We spent borrowed against the money like it was all in one pool, so to pay back the debt we have to cut spending like it's all one pool.  

If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, the Social Security Trust is the victim, not the perpetrator.



*Not yet anyway, it will be in 20 years because of the funding/payout formulas but that's a different story.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 30, 2012, 12:53:04 AM
Decent speech by Ryan tonight. 

Ignoring the standard political lack of substantive ideas and the cheap shots and stretching of truth which we can pick on anyone about, I thought he got the tone and message about right.  Thought he gave the base and even independents a reason to get fired up, while at the same time conveying he knew what he was talking about even if he offered little in the way of substantive proof.  I would give that an A-, which is about as good as you can expect given the circumstnaces.  Condaleeza Rice also good. 

Christie, not so much depending on your interests. His tack was interesting.  He did a great job of pimping himself and his platform, but maybe not so much Romney.  Then again, given the state of the GOP he had legit policy (not just political) reasons to ignore the candidates and focus on his own views.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on August 30, 2012, 08:12:23 AM
Big Sug posted on Facebook last night that Christie was a badass.  One of his first commenters said "I think you mean lardass".  I nearly did a spit take.

Love that the RNC has distanced itself from GWB but they were eating out of Condi's hands.  Pretty superficial.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on August 30, 2012, 10:53:57 AM
I feel like Chris Christie is the Mark Cuban of the GOP.  Both are actually somewhat smart. 

But on the other hand they both gets too much credit for saying the obvious and not being totally incompetent.  Then again, they are two of a select few that aren't totally incompetent.  They also both really love to hear themselves talk, and they both think they are smarter than they are, which is more dangerous than not being smart and knowing it.

Christie is really in the perfect role as the GOP omsbudman/critic.  He's a solid party guy while at the same time being a bit of an outsider.  He's kind of a younger, less loathsome Gingrich. 

I don't think he will ever be able to run for national office because I think being governor of New Jersey is a dirty job.  You can't come out of that with your nose clean.  And his mouth and him being a little too in love with himself means he can't do damage control.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on August 30, 2012, 04:18:24 PM
Since I only have 1  1/2 bottles of bourbon left in the house, I decided not to watch Paul Ryan's speech. Most of what I'm reading today seems about how brazenly misleading, if not outright dishonest, it was. Admittedly, many of my sources are biased but I'm seeing plenty of articles from very mainstream sources like CBS and even Fox. My partisan hope is that most voters didn't actually sit through the speech either, and the general vibe they'll take away was that it was dishonest.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on August 30, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
I mean, can the GOP seriously not make a case that Obama has sucked without outright lying?  It's not fucking hard.

I don't think he's been good at all, but there's no way I'm voting for Mitt "Silver Spoons" Romney.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on August 30, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
factchecker.org gave it a pretty low score

one of the "experts" on the Today show said he didn't think Christie could ever be President because he comes off as way too much of a bully. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on September 04, 2012, 07:54:26 PM
I mean, can the GOP seriously not make a case that Obama has sucked without outright lying?  It's not fucking hard.

I don't think he's been good at all, but there's no way I'm voting for Mitt "Silver Spoons" Romney.

It's really kind of telling that the race is so close. I mean, a candidate with even a small amount of personality should be blowing Obama away in the polls, and the Repugnicans are managing to waste what should be a cakewalk. Shows how little they have this year.

And, of course, don't vote for that guy with all the car elevators and yachts and stuff. Vote for the guy who merely has chauffeurs, nannies, and butlers. Because that's a man of the people.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on September 05, 2012, 06:07:46 AM
Vote for the guy who merely has chauffeurs, nannies, and butlers. Because that's a man of the people.
Stupid question perhaps, but did that guy have all of those before he moved to the White House?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on September 08, 2012, 10:19:17 AM
Vote for the guy who merely has chauffeurs, nannies, and butlers. Because that's a man of the people.
Stupid question perhaps, but did that guy have all of those before he moved to the White House?
Good question.
I'd heard he had many father figures as a child while moving all over the globe, but then had some rather impressive strings pulled for him in his young adult life.
Did he earn that silver platter or did it get handed to him?
Very few reach Capitol Hill without a little Sugar Daddy help, is all I'm sayin'.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on September 08, 2012, 05:34:37 PM
As far as nannies go, in some situations it's not much more than child care. I have several friends who have them. With 2 corporate incomes that combine easily for a 6 digit household income, they are able to afford it. I also have friends who worked as nannies just after college. While they didn't get paid much, housing and transportation was provided, which were my biggest post college expenses. So my guess is household income of $150,000 with $25,000 for nanny may be happening quite often all over the US.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on September 09, 2012, 08:51:02 PM
I have a co-worker with a nanny.  He's 30 hrs a week, and his wife is a school nurse.  It's cheaper for them to have a nanny than daycare.

My other co-worker is about to have a second child, and childcare (at the daycare center) is going to be over $1400 a month.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 10, 2012, 12:02:35 PM
And, of course, don't vote for that guy with all the car elevators and yachts and stuff. Vote for the guy who merely has chauffeurs, nannies, and butlers. Because that's a man of the people.

I think it has less to do with Obama and Romney both being somewhat affluent and having hired personal staff than Romney being son of the Secretary of HUD, CEO of AMC, Governor of Michigan, and GOP presidential candidate.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 10, 2012, 12:55:41 PM
So even according to Rasmussen polling, which tends to lean to the right, Obama is getting a big convention bounce.

Daily tracking poll

(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8909/romneyvsobamaseptember1.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 13, 2012, 12:25:59 PM
So will Foreign policy end up being a deciding factor in the election?

I have to be honest and say I don't know what policy shift can help in the middle east besides one that educates and employees the millions of desperate youth so easily swayed by propaganda.  Polls show are standing has not improved at all, so the current policy is not working.  I could go all right wing and pull a Romney, but I think that position is too extreme as well.  

We helped overthrow a dictator ... and apparently that didn't do anything.  When you have violent protests over a video most Americans don't even know about you have a very difficult problem to fix.  They don't know how to protest a video, only a government that would dare allow it to be produced.  There's a huge disconnect on how and why a free society can allow that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 13, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Foreign policy probably won't end up a deciding factor, which is unfortunate because Romney sucks really, really, really, bad at it.  Dude makes W look like Kissinger.  I'm fairly certain if Romney wins there will be a war.

I don't think our foreign policy goals are to actually improve the Mideast or to achieve peace.  It's to get as much cheap oil out of there as possible and in this regard, Clinton/Obama aren't actually doing too badly.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 14, 2012, 12:11:27 PM
Quote
Foreign policy probably won't end up a deciding factor

Let me know if you change your mind.  :D
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 14, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
Opinion piece I generally like...

Editor's note: Ed Husain is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Islamist." He can be followed on Twitter via @Ed_Husain

(CNN) -- The fall of dictatorships does not guarantee the creation of free societies. There is often a period in which we witness the legacy of tyranny. The Arab uprisings have overthrown tyrants in Egypt and Libya, but the populations and lawmakers have yet to grasp that democracy is not only about free elections but creating free societies.

When sexual harassment of women increases on the streets of Egypt, when centuries-old shrines of Muslim saints are destroyed with explosives in Libya, when screenings of films such as "Persepolis" trigger riots in Tunisia and Christian minorities across the Middle East feel under siege, then we must stop pretending that all is well with the Arab Spring. But all is not lost either.

Arab societies are on a journey. They can easily take the wrong turn. The attacks on the American embassies in Libya, Egypt and Yemen are examples of the ongoing presence of intolerant, tyrannical actors in Arab societies.

These are people who were born and raised in dictatorships. They are accustomed to thinking that a government controls its citizens -- that a film or documentary cannot be produced without government approval. For decades, this has been the reality of their lives, and they strongly believe that the Western world and its citizens have a similarly controlling relationship between individuals and government.

In light of this assumption, they hold the U.S. government responsible for the tacky and distasteful film produced by a right-wing Muslimphobe.

Little wonder, then, that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy has called for the prosecution by the U.S government of the filmmakers, and Egypt's top cleric, Mufti Ali Goma, has called on the United Nations to forbid denigration of faiths. Morsy studied in the United States and Ali Goma regularly visits the West on the interfaith circuit, yet both men don't yet grasp that religious freedom and the freedom of expression are inextricably linked in America.

It is hard for younger Arabs not born into freedom to understand how individual liberty works in real life.

The freedom to proselytize also guarantees the right to apostatize. Heresy and blasphemy are essential parts of free and democratic societies. Arab activists cannot seek to emulate the West's political and social achievements by looking at the United States and Europe today, but must observe and learn from the religious battles of 17th-century Europe, the smashing of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church, the ending of burning witches and the forbidding of hanging heretics.

It is this history of unbolting the doors of dissent that led to the conditions in which John Locke and John Stuart Mill could write and think freely and then influence Thomas Jefferson and the other U.S. Founding Fathers. There are no shortcuts to freedom, except to learn from the mistakes of the West in the past.

The Arab uprisings are not over yet. They are still unfolding and shaping the future. This culture of shouting and killing those with whom Muslims disagree must end. When the Prophet Mohammed's companions shouted "Allahu Akbar," (meaning "God is Greatest," a popular slogan for those yelling outside embassies today) the prophet reprimanded them saying "Our Lord is not deaf."

When a Bedouin Arab entered the most sacred mosque of the prophet in Medina and violated its sanctity by urinating in this place of divinity, the prophet cleansed the mosque himself and forbade anybody from even reprimanding the Bedouin, let alone attacking the man. This is the way of the Prophet Mohammed. Where is this spirit of mildness, forgiveness and compassion amid Islamist activists today?

The millions of protestors last year in Arab capitals that chanted "hurriyah, karamah, adala ijtima'iyya" or "freedom, dignity and social justice" cannot allow for the emotions of bigots to derail their revolution.

Freedom is not only about majority rule, but ensuring that women, religious minorities and intellectual dissenters are able to flourish without fear.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/husain-arab-spring-democracy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1#
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 18, 2012, 05:53:15 PM
Can anyone understand what the hell Romney is talking about?

Assuming it's true that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes (which it's not), isn't 47% of Americans not paying taxes a GOOD thing?   I mean, we want small government and small taxes don't we?  As few people as possible should pay tax.

But wait, now you say people LIKE paying taxes.  You want to create jobs so more Americans will have the opportunity to do so.  That's fantastic. 

So these rich Americans (including yourself) who have worked so hard to get this money should be able to partake in the joy of paying taxes.  The more taxes the better, because it just shows how rich you are.  And yet you are trying to cut their taxes.  Why are you penalizing the rich, Mitt Romney?  Let them pay their taxes, they've earned it! 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on September 18, 2012, 06:29:38 PM
Not only is he saying 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, but he's saying since 47% of Americans support Obama they must be too poor to pay taxes and they think they are victims and he doesn't care about them.  But, since this is not true he's insulting (and writing off) all of Obama's supporters and anyone who doesn't earn enough income to pay taxes, even though they have votes too.  Since Mitt Romney is an American, though, he pays taxes, but only as little as he legally can even if it is very ethically questionable, like a real American (which we don't really know since he won't release his tax returns).

Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people, he doesn't care about middle-class people, he doesn't even really care about the filthy rich.  Mitt Romney only cares about himself, but since he is filthy rich those are the people that benefit.  Plus, they have the ability ($$$$) to influence him.  This is why he has been for both sides of every issue at some point in his political career.  He says whats most beneficial to him at the moment.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Rafe on September 18, 2012, 06:53:58 PM
Romney is pissing in the wind if he thinks he'll win the election (says today's guest overseas politcal correspondant, reporting for WACK). If that's sadly not the case, then it ought to be. It really doesn't matter what his politics are, where his head is at on domestic policy, all of that malarkey. he's ostensibly, from an outsiders perspective, a poisonous, detatched, farcical cunt.

It's alright, we've had a fair few of those ourselves, I know what I'm talking about  ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on September 18, 2012, 09:26:57 PM
The statistic is that 47% don't pay federal income taxes. I was going to comment on this last night, but wasn't sure yet if his comment was rumor or substantiated. Here's a handy graph to explain it (one time that a pie chart is appropriate):
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/17/who_doesn_t_pay_taxes_/1347922367747.gif)
(Original data from http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm - which I hope is considered to be independent as its advisory board has the Assistant Treasury Secretaries for Tax Policy from both the Reagan and Clinton administrations.)

The 10.3% elderly leans much more towards Romney, so does he realize he's lumping some of his own supporters into the group?

And then there's this map, which is a bit of a conundrum
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg)
Aren't those red states also going to Romney? Derek Thompson's commentary (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/commentary-four-graphs-to-explain-the-47-percent-20120918) better addresses the nuances that I can.

Ironically, we ended up with 47% not paying income taxes primarily due to Republican tax cuts.

For the "dependent on government aspect", there's the poll from 2008 that shows that of 57% of surveyed Americans who said they'd never used "a government social program," 94% actually had used at least one, and on average had used 4. I suspect some of my friends from high school who seem to be tea party supporters fall into this group. (NY Times article from last year with more details (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/our-hidden-government-benefits.html)). Of course, this includes the home-mortgage-interest deduction, which I'm sure some would argue isn't a government social program (but I would - as it subsidizes housing costs).

As said tonight on Marketplace (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/campaign-trail/47-who-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-include-middle-class-poor), Americans just want to pay less taxes but have more benefits - which is why we are where we are with the deficit.




Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on September 19, 2012, 01:07:23 AM
Had a chat with a friend tonight who flat out said that we are currently in a dictatorship (!) and that she's scared that if Obama is reelected the whole country will be destroyed. (!!)

Anyway, she was saying that Obama has ruined any possibility of small businesses being able to succeed, due to changes in tax structure, unemployment taxes, etc (I can't remember what the etc was)  My question is: how HAS Obama's administration affected small business, and does she have a leg to stand on? 

For the record, we've decided to never talk politics again.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 19, 2012, 08:44:06 AM
Had a chat with a friend tonight who flat out said that we are currently in a dictatorship (!) and that she's scared that if Obama is reelected the whole country will be destroyed. (!!)

Anyway, she was saying that Obama has ruined any possibility of small businesses being able to succeed, due to changes in tax structure, unemployment taxes, etc (I can't remember what the etc was)  My question is: how HAS Obama's administration affected small business, and does she have a leg to stand on? 

For the record, we've decided to never talk politics again.

In my opinion it's not the policy details that matter as much as consistency.  Businesses don't know what to expect next year so many are just sitting on money.  There is plenty of blame to spread around for this.

Dictatorship?  Really?  Not even my far right wing brother in law has used that term.  Of course I haven't spoke to him in a few months, maybe it's a new talking point I'm not aware of.  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on September 19, 2012, 09:48:01 AM
Had a chat with a friend tonight who flat out said that we are currently in a dictatorship (!) and that she's scared that if Obama is reelected the whole country will be destroyed. (!!)
Haha, at least you guys have a president that was voted in, and congress that were voted in. In the UK we have a coalition government nobody wanted and the Tories going against the public interest at every opportunity. And we still have three years until the next election. We are catastrophically fucked.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on September 19, 2012, 11:23:17 AM

Dictatorship?  Really?  Not even my far right wing brother in law has used that term.  Of course I haven't spoke to him in a few months, maybe it's a new talking point I'm not aware of.  :)

Yes, I was so surprised that she was serious about it I actually laughed! The first thing I said was that if we were in a dictatorship, there would not be an election happening in 50 days! She is far, far right-- and would be very happy to have a conservative Christian state to live in.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on September 20, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Best campaign ad ever!
v52FLMOPSig
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on September 21, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
Political blog Squashed does a really good review of what it would take for a low income earner to actually pay income tax (http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/31757816989/mitt-romney-thinks-you-need-to-take-responsibility-for).

In short, for a family of 4 with a single income making minimum wage working 5 days a week and taking no sick days and no vacation, the person would have to work 24 hours a day to make enough income to pay federal income tax. The lazy bum then has all weekend to sleep.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on September 25, 2012, 02:52:41 PM
From Rasmussen Polling, has anyone noticed.  The generic ballot, which has favored republicans, seems to be flipping as we get closer to election. Edit: It appears most of the dems gains are coming from other, I guess people who feel like they have to commit to a party as we get close to election time.

Screenshot:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img210/7559/zztempu.jpg)


Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 27, 2012, 10:06:30 AM
So... in order to show you care about poor people who pay no taxes, you're going talk about how you provided universal health care? ???
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 04, 2012, 11:21:16 AM
Romney did well at the debate.  He also did well on 60 minutes (though I think Obama did better). 

It's funny.  He's actually less boring when he gets wonky.

The problem is, what he actually says when he talks real policy is completely at odds with what Ryan says, and what he's been saying to the far right.  He'll cut tax rates, but he will also close loopholes so no one really pays less taxis.  I like it... but will the rich?  And then right after he tried to do the straight talking "Listen, let's be clear... the rich won't see a deduction in effective tax rate" thing on 60 minutes, they ran an add where it was like "Romney's plan reducing taxes by 20%!!!!"

He's talking like a moderate conservative, which is probably what he truly is so maybe not surprising that he speaks with a bit more energy and conviction.  But you can't reconcile "47% of the country want handouts" with "I'm going to restore all the cuts in Medicare."

I don't think Obama was really as bad as people are saying.  He maybe didn't have the best tone/demeanor, but he offered up quite a bit more substance in his responses than Romney did.  I would say he "lost" the debate, but not sure of the impact on voters.  I feel like Romney probably made a lot of conservatives feel a lot more comfortable about voting for him, but many of them would have bit the bullet and voted for him anyway.  And Obama didn't win over any new voters, but was nowhere near bad enough to make any of his supporters change their mind.  The people that are truly in the middle will wait until after the next debate. 

So... definitely an auspicious start for Romney but not the hammer blow some pundits are claiming.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 04, 2012, 12:15:24 PM
So... definitely an auspicious start for Romney but not the hammer blow some pundits are claiming.
Oh, definitely not for either man, seeing as how many arguments, from both podiums, were dubiously true at best.  The thing is, Romney sounded like he was pleading with Obama to see his point of view, and Obama sounded like he was annoyed that anyone would challenge his, so in that aspect Romney looked a bit better.
One thing I'm wondering is whether or not Romney's closings of the tax code loopholes will actually be enough to balance out those cuts he was proposing and really make it revenue neutral.
Another is, when Romney cited the disparity between the $4.8 billion or so in tax breaks that Obama wants to take away from the oil companies and the $60 billion Obama wants to give (or did already, not sure) to such industries such as wind and solar power, why oh why did Obama not preach about "investing in the future of our country and clean energy industries?"  It would have been so easy!  Obama needed to hammer home that he wants to secure the long term future success of America.  That would be a great way to contrast with Romney.
Other thoughts too, but there are other debates to go.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on October 04, 2012, 12:19:58 PM
I got through about 5 minutes and turned it off.  So boring.  I taped it in case I felt the need to watch it later.  I don't think that is going to happen.  I used to be interested in this stuff, but I just felt like in the first 5 minutes that Obama seemed completely disinterested and that Romney was just going to lie his ass off about most of his positions... so I watched an NFL Network documentary on Cleveland Browns football in '95 moving away, which basically was an hour long paean to Bill Belichick.  So I got doubly fucked.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on October 04, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
I worked until 915ish last night, so I did listen to the debate on the radio on the drive home, and we did DVR it, but haven't watched yet.

Jim Lehrer is getting trounced in the reviews of the debate.  Poor Jim.
Sad that if Romney gets in that he'll cut PBS.  Safe to assume that NPR gets the cut too I guess.  Poor Big Bird, Elmo, Ira Glass and Garrison Keillor.  
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 04, 2012, 05:17:14 PM
Well, I Romney seems to be big on moving federal responsibility to the states, so I think that's what he plans on doing with PBS funding and the like.  Or am I misinterpreting?  I wonder what the effect would be.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 04, 2012, 10:56:14 PM
They would all get cut. Are you kidding me?  The states are broke as hell, man.  We just cut the crap out of public broadcasting in Virginia.

The lie they tell is that these programs would be better run at the state level.  The truth is a lot of these social programs-- not just the arts but medicaid stuff and education ARE run at the state level.... via Federal grants.  So the states have the autonomy, just not the money.  You pull the plug on the money, the programs have to go.  To the extent the states lack autonomy its because fiscal conservatives at the Fed level are convinced everyone is corrupt and/or incompetent and try to micromanage them.  The somewhat honest ones, anyway. The corrupt ones of course divert the funds to their own friends/favorite causes.  eg.  Christian non-profit broadcasting and religious charities.

On the other hand, I believe this to be an acceptable Republican lie.  Because the underlying truth behind it is that these programs SHOULD be run at the state level.  I think they would be more efficient that way, plus the cost of the programs would be more transparent.

The truth is that people probably wouldn't pay for these programs if they really knew the costs.  But instead its like "Hey we got the big Federal bloc grant for No Child Left Behind or I Have a Dream.  Good job governor!  You got extra money for the state!"  Fact is every state got that same grant.  So you're NOT getting money from other states for the most part.  It's your own money. 

The irony is that the states that actually come out the most ahead in terms of getting Federal funds are of course red states, which also typically have low tax rates and small government spending.  I'm sure you've seen the map.  Basically as states they are the poor/leaching/47% they complain about.

The bad guys here are really the governors, who are almost all conservative because they get elected for slashing taxes and "creating jobs."  They then claim the jobs are created by slashing taxes, when in fact the jobs are created by them getting money from the Feds that doesn't get seen as part of the state budget.  Give me a hundred million dollars "for free" and I can make some jobs, too.

So if Romney were truly sincere about telling states "You want it, you pay for it" that would fine with me.  But I don't think he can be.  Not unless he wants to lose all the hardcore red states.  But at least he's telling the right message... kind of.  And I can't blame him for not committing political mass suicide for himself and probably half the GOP.

Let's not forget that liberals are telling massive lies themselves.  They will tell you that the rich should pay for the poor and the adults should take care of the kids and stuff like that.  But the reality is these are not wealth redistribution programs.  They really are free handouts. It's not that they are free to the poor because really who cares they're poor that's why we're giving them stuff.  They're "free" to us because we aren't really paying for them.  That's not sustainable.  So what happens when the money runs out?

Each of the parties has a bit of the truth, but none of them want to face the unpleasant reality of what happens when you tell the WHOLE truth.  The liberals want the Feds to pay for it (which they won't).  The conservatives want the states to pay for it (which they won't).  The libertarians want the people to pay for it individually (which they won't).  The problem of there are going to be poor people who got screwed and things we'd like to have but they cost too much are not ever going to go away.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on October 05, 2012, 12:02:22 AM
ZK: "The truth is that people probably wouldn't pay for these programs if they really knew the costs."

This, x1000. It's like the dumping more money into schools for more testing, administration, and ipads when teachers and supplies are being cut. Invest in the people, not the technology.  And that is just one partial example.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 05, 2012, 08:59:47 AM
Making any mention of PBS when talking about funding is a misdirect anyway.  Funding for PBS is a wedge 1/10th of the width of a human hair on the pie chart that is public spending.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 09:36:19 AM
People do make too big a deal out of it. I don't think most Americans have any idea how small a percentage of the budget goes to support public broadcasting.

Still, between the CPB, grants for various projects they do, and subsidies/fee waivers my guess is it's still probably over $1 billion a year.  You would think that a small but frivolous expense would be the easiest thing to cut in times of need.  If we can't even cut CPB, how are we going to figure out what to do with Social Security?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on October 05, 2012, 10:28:42 AM
I spent a portion of my day arguing with my sister that some of these pbs shows, especially sesame street really do act as a day care.  if you can't afford to send your kid to daycare, then that is your alternative.  she argued that i send my kid to a private program, not the one done by the school, and that most schools have prek programs.  I argeud that they didn't, and that they were not on the same level as either the private daycare (really, we're not the 1%, I'm not talking the expensive fancy schools, she goes to a community run group 3 days a week for 2 hrs a day.  It's $90/month, which my mom, who is Nora's babysitter pays for, out of what we pay her for the month...anyway).  Yes, there is technically a pre-k here, but she couldn't start it until she was 4, and it's a head start program for kids with disabilities, and my sister's older kid did it, and didn't learn a thing, except how to be more inclusive of kids with disabilities, which yes, that's a great lesson, but she didn't learn the alphabet or whatever junk nora is learning now. 

Anyway.  My sis made the arguement that yes, it's a SUPER small portion of the budget, but that you "have to start somewhere."  Then I started talking about how NPR and PBS were always these punching bags for the right, along with programs like heating assistance for low income and the elderly, then I started crying, because PEOPLE DIE FROM THE COLD IN THE WINTER IN PLACES LIKE CHICAGO so I stopped arguing. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on October 05, 2012, 10:45:48 AM
I think what bugs me the most about the whole argument is that it is such a tiny amount of money for a public good.  If you get fired and need to cut your budget, are you going to start with trying to save 1 cent a month?  Or are you going to look at the big stuff that will actually save you a decent amount? 

The only reason PBS gets brought up is that the right doesn't like it. Everyone agrees PBS and things like Sesame Street are great and everyone likes them.  PBS programs are watched by something like 80% of children.  So why are we arguing about defunding them when everyone agrees they are good and they are such a small amount?  Because the right has decided that public media is a liberal concept so it has to be killed.  Even if it is good, it something liberals like and conservatives don't, so it must die. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on October 05, 2012, 11:50:05 AM
There's one thing I don't understand. What's the point of lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes if it won't increase the effective tax rate? Would that just be an attempt to simplify the tax code? Or would it just make people feel better about paying the same amount of taxes?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 11:57:59 AM
I think what bugs me the most about the whole argument is that it is such a tiny amount of money for a public good.  If you get fired and need to cut your budget, are you going to start with trying to save 1 cent a month?  Or are you going to look at the big stuff that will actually save you a decent amount? 

The only reason PBS gets brought up is that the right doesn't like it. Everyone agrees PBS and things like Sesame Street are great and everyone likes them.  PBS programs are watched by something like 80% of children.  So why are we arguing about defunding them when everyone agrees they are good and they are such a small amount?  Because the right has decided that public media is a liberal concept so it has to be killed.  Even if it is good, it something liberals like and conservatives don't, so it must die. 

I could (and would) just as easily say the liberals refuse to cut CPB because the politicians deliberately blur the lines between funding and the voters like to remain willfully ignorant.

CPB funds public broadcasting in general and is a quasi-governmental organization.  NPR and PBS are private non-profit companies that broadcast shows.  They are no more a "public good" than CBS or ESPN.  Sesame Street/CTW is a production company that produces a show.

Cutting CPB wouldn't impact Sesame Street at all.  Sesame Street is a total cash cow.  It's got a huge, built-in audience already.  A good portion of that audience lacks the physical and mental skills to even change the channel.  Another huge chunk is prevented from doing so.  For their viewing group, Sesame Street is the only TV show they really get to see.  The characters are puppets, so the actors don't need to be replaced.  The audience is constantly changing so you really don't need much in the way of character development or exciting plot twists.  You can pretty much just cycle the same four seasons and no one's going to be the wiser. 

It's a licensing goldmine.  There are all the Elmo Dolls and the Fisher Price stuff, there's that Sesame Street Live! show that sells out in like .000001 seconds every time it comes to Richmond, there's the Sesame Street section in Busch Gardens, they have some kind of deal with Build-A-Bear.  I see clothes, key chains, license plate frames, and all sorts of junk with Sesame Street IP on them.  Plus the DVD's and cartoons and stuff.

It has to be one of the most revenue generating shows ever.  Sesame Street doesn't get money via CPB. My guess is they probably get some grants from DOE or other agencies, but the vast majority of their revenue comes from advertisers and licensing, and maybe a couple of rich donors.  It's all private.  And they don't need to be on PBS either.  I'm positive any number of cable channels would pay a HUGE amount for that show.

Public broadcasting funding doesn't do much All Things Considered, NOVA, or Masterpiece Theater, or Ken Burns documentaries.  It funds that ridiculous shit that you have never even heard of, except sometimes you wander past it and wonder who watches it.  The real-life non-funny versions of Wayne's World, Delicious Dish, Daily Affirmation and stuff like that. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
There's one thing I don't understand. What's the point of lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes if it won't increase the effective tax rate? Would that just be an attempt to simplify the tax code? Or would it just make people feel better about paying the same amount of taxes?

Yeah, it just simplifies the tax code.  But I think that has benefits beyond making it easier to fill out taxes.  Because right now, none of us knows how much Romney really pays in taxes so whenever they talk about the rich are paying too much or too little vs the poor everyone just makes up figures.  It would be nice if we knew that the rich pay 22% and the lower middle class pay 10% and decide from there if it is too much or too little.

But yeah, that's the thing about Romney.  He keeps talking about how he will lower taxes but then he comes out and says actually you will pay the same amount.  It's kind of weird because a bunch of my conservative idiot acquaintances were all fired up about how he "beat" Obama in the debate.  Why would you get excited about that.  He beat Obama in large part by contradicting many of his prior campaign messages so you should like him LESS now, not more. 



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 05, 2012, 01:30:29 PM
Yeah, you have to simplify the tax code, if for no other reason that you cut out a lot of the unfair bullshit that's hidden in there.

Closing the tax loopholes doesn't do anything.  The plain and simple fact of the matter is that entitlement spending isn't in line with revenue, period.  You can cut every other form of spending in it's entirety and the debt still goes up because our entitlement spending is out of control.  Question is do you think there is anything to be cut from entitlements.  I'm sure there is, but nobody wants to hear about it, or talk about it and they don't want to pay more to cover for that ambivalence.  Stupid.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 02:34:43 PM
I look at it like there are six things you have to do.  One on the revenue side, and five on the spending.

Revenue:

Raise taxes (not just repeal the Bush cuts, but probably add on top of that) and mostly on the rich since they are the only ones with enough money to cover the debt.

Spending:  Take the budget and break it into four chunks.  SSN, FICA, Defense, Non-defense discretionary.  The chunks aren't equal in size, but the debt is massive enough that you will have to spread the pain and take something from each one.

1)  Change the rules for Social Security and add a means test and raise age so as to keep it from getting bigger and bigger in the future.  Screw some people over to get by the current debt crisis.  Either cut some money to old people, or make young people contribute more.  The FICA fund needs to be replenished.

2)  Reduce healthcare overlaps to be funded by either Medicare or Obamacare.  Obamacare was supposed to replace parts of Medicare, but the GOP won't let that happen.  The GOP wants to repeal Obamacare but that won't happen either.

3)  Massive cuts to Defense.  The amount of discretionary spending on defense is actually about 75-80% of the amount of mandatory spending on FICA or Medicare.  It's also larger than the rest of the discretionary budget put together.  Thus, it gets its own chunk.

6)  Fairly significant cuts to education spending.  It's the largest of the also-rans.  You want to get most of the budget under control via the big guns in the top 5 above, but there's still a decent 20% chunk coming out of non-military discretionary.  And education is the biggest program here.

As a practical matter, I consider FICA, Medicare/Obamacare, Defense, and Education all as "entitlement" programs because they are all pretty much impossible to cut.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on October 05, 2012, 03:02:23 PM
I look at it like there are six things you have to do.  One on the revenue side, and five on the spending.

Revenue:

Raise taxes (not just repeal the Bush cuts, but probably add on top of that) and mostly on the rich since they are the only ones with enough money to cover the debt.

Spending:  Take the budget and break it into four chunks.  SSN, FICA, Defense, Non-defense discretionary.  The chunks aren't equal in size, but the debt is massive enough that you will have to spread the pain and take something from each one.

1)  Change the rules for Social Security and add a means test and raise age so as to keep it from getting bigger and bigger in the future.  Screw some people over to get by the current debt crisis.  Either cut some money to old people, or make young people contribute more.  The FICA fund needs to be replenished.

2)  Reduce healthcare overlaps to be funded by either Medicare or Obamacare.  Obamacare was supposed to replace parts of Medicare, but the GOP won't let that happen.  The GOP wants to repeal Obamacare but that won't happen either.

3)  Massive cuts to Defense.  The amount of discretionary spending on defense is actually about 75-80% of the amount of mandatory spending on FICA or Medicare.  It's also larger than the rest of the discretionary budget put together.  Thus, it gets its own chunk.

6)  Fairly significant cuts to education spending.  It's the largest of the also-rans.  You want to get most of the budget under control via the big guns in the top 5 above, but there's still a decent 20% chunk coming out of non-military discretionary.  And education is the biggest program here.

As a practical matter, I consider FICA, Medicare/Obamacare, Defense, and Education all as "entitlement" programs because they are all pretty much impossible to cut.
I think the biggest issue you are going to have with all of this is in your counting skills. :-)

For SS, I think we need to raise the age a little bit, but I would just uncap FICA taxes.  Right now, FICA is only paid on the first $105000 of income.  Uncap that and have people pay it on all of their income. This alone would make a big difference and combined with raising the age to say 70, I think that would cover the majority of SS issues.

Defense definitely needs to be cut, but everyone is afraid to touch it.  We spend as much as the next 19 nations combined.  To say we can't cut anything from that is ridiculous.  Why do we keep buying loads of fighter planes when all of wars involve guys hiding in caves? Yes, we need to keep the military on a high level, but we could easily cut 10%  (and probably closer to 25%) of the defense budget and it would make no difference at all in our actual safety and military readiness.

For education, I think there are things that need to be fixed that will lower costs, but saying "cut education spending" I don't think addresses them.  We need to fix thew way for profit schools are operated and get college tuition under control, and then we could cut some of the grants and loans that are done, but I think in general, education spending shouldn't be cut.  That is something that would negatively effect us down the line.  there are ways to save money in education without simply cutting funding.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
There's tremendous amounts of waste in educational spending simply because, like defense it's untouchable.

But it's not that I hate educational expenditures or want reform.  It's that I just don't think we have a choice. 

If it comes down to Defense or Education, I'd probably pick Defense, but I already marked them down for the maximum cut I think they can take.  Not just for security reasons, either.  DoD is the nation's largest employer and because the workforce tends to be clumped it has impacts on local economies.   Even if you want to cut DoD spending in half, you have to do it in stages. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 05, 2012, 04:21:08 PM
Agree with your FICA and SS points Dirk.  It's a safety net.  If you're expecting to retire on it, you're screwed and we should fund it as such.

Military Spending... I don't think cutting military spending addresses all that much but, there are definitely areas it can be improved.  The problem with the price of planes is that the price of planes is set by the people that build them and they know the gov't will pay it.  Still we just bought a new round of fighter planes, why?  Wasn't there a kerfuffle a few years ago where congress forced the military to buy a bunch of planes the military didn't want to save jobs in some Senator's district?  That's the kind of shit you have to curtail.  Oh, and not fight stupid wars.  Let the Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Israelis, Palestinians and the like blow each other up... not sure why we care so much.  We don't get THAT much oil from the Middle East.  And get photo proof of those WMDs and Nuclear enrichment plants before you start a ten year engagement while you're at it.

I don't know that cutting education spending is the right thing to do, but as ZK said, there's a lot of stupid spending there.  Needs reformed, for sure, but I don't think I agree with cuts.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on October 05, 2012, 04:47:25 PM
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the unemployment rates are rigged this month. I thought for a moment that these will be the last ones released before Election Day, but there is a release schedules for 11/2.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Buzzstein on October 05, 2012, 08:15:59 PM
Agree with your FICA and SS points Dirk.  It's a safety net.  If you're expecting to retire on it, you're screwed and we should fund it as such.

Military Spending... I don't think cutting military spending addresses all that much but, there are definitely areas it can be improved.  The problem with the price of planes is that the price of planes is set by the people that build them and they know the gov't will pay it.  Still we just bought a new round of fighter planes, why?  Wasn't there a kerfuffle a few years ago where congress forced the military to buy a bunch of planes the military didn't want to save jobs in some Senator's district?  That's the kind of shit you have to curtail.  Oh, and not fight stupid wars.  Let the Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Israelis, Palestinians and the like blow each other up... not sure why we care so much.  We don't get THAT much oil from the Middle East.  And get photo proof of those WMDs and Nuclear enrichment plants before you start a ten year engagement while you're at it.

I don't know that cutting education spending is the right thing to do, but as ZK said, there's a lot of stupid spending there.  Needs reformed, for sure, but I don't think I agree with cuts.

How does cutting military spending not address much? It's a huge, huge chunk of government spending. HUGE! (with a silent "H")
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 09:56:23 PM
I think that pulling troops out of Afghanistan is only projected to save about $3 billion a year in that region, which is really not much.  There would be all sorts of cascading effects like fewer people in VA hospitals and less weapons and junk needed or whatever, I'm not good with military budget.  But still, it probably doesn't add up to all that much.  We have a gigantic-ass military and military budget regardless of war.

I wonder what is the maximum amount you could reduce military spending by in five years?  There are ongoing contracts that we'd have to honor, and I'm guessing there are fairly high costs to close a base.  Plus there's pensions you'd have to start paying as well as unemployment benefits and it would hit military towns really hard and you'd have to spend on unemployment/social benefits for everyone who gets caught in that fallout.  And if you'd have to do a whole bunch of re-organizing within the organization which costs money and takes time.  You cut too fast, it could end up costing more than if you reduced slowly.

Could we cut it by 25% in five years?  That seems like about the maximum you could do.  That would be about $150-$200 billion, so a mere $800 billion left!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on October 06, 2012, 10:56:16 AM
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the unemployment rates are rigged this month. I thought for a moment that these will be the last ones released before Election Day, but there is a release schedules for 11/2.
I can apparently predict what the conspiracy theorists think, as I've heard several news stories where people have thought this. I wonder what their response will be if they go back up in November (which is likely).
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 08, 2012, 08:33:29 AM
How does cutting military spending not address much? It's a huge, huge chunk of government spending. HUGE! (with a silent "H")

It's not though, not in terms of the overall picture and you can't cut enough of it to really make a dent, as ZK laid out.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 08, 2012, 10:49:05 AM
Means testing SS and/or medicare is an interesting thing.

If I save enough to retire above the test level then I have to pay my medical bills until I'm poor enough for medicare?  If one retires with a 401K amount and social security, how does one means test?  Is it my total net worth, which will always be dropping as I use my savings, or is it how much money I decide to make each month?  :)

If I stay healthy I'm living large, if I get sick my savings are wiped out quickly.

There's an incentive to save more!

Too bad I don't have a better idea...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 08, 2012, 10:58:21 AM
No, it's definitely a gigantic chunk of government spending.  It's half the discretionary budget and somewhere slightly less than 25% of overall expenditures, when you add in military pensions and a some other items that end up in outside of DoD budget.  That's not much smaller than the two big mandatory programs.  And you can't cut Social Security or Medicare by 25% in five years either.  Well, maybe Medicare but only because of Obamacare so not really that much of a net savings and politically it's still nearly impossible.

Slashing DoD would make a pretty decent dent, it's just that a dent is not nearly enough.  You HAVE to cut military expenditures significantly but also do all those other things as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on October 12, 2012, 06:25:19 PM
From Peter Berg
Quote
Governor Romney:

I created the show Friday Night Lights and came up with the phrase Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose.

I was not thrilled when I saw that you have plagiarized this expression to support your campaign by using it on posters, your Facebook page and as part of your stump speeches. Your politics and campaign are clearly not aligned with the themes portrayed in our series.

The only relevant comparison that I see between your campaign and and "Friday Night Lights" is the character Buddy Garrity — who turned his back on American car manufacturers selling imported cars from Japan.

Your use of the expression falsely and and inappropriately associates "Friday Night Lights" with the Romney/Ryan campaign. Mitt, we all wish you and your family the best. We are grateful for your support of our beloved show, but we are not in any way affiliated with you or your campaign. Please come up with your own campaign slogan.

Sincerely,
Source (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/friday-night-lights-creator-accuses-378606)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on October 16, 2012, 10:58:15 AM
If you're looking for details about Romney's tax plan, go here (http://www.romneytaxplan.com/).
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on October 16, 2012, 02:33:10 PM
From Peter Berg
Quote
Governor Romney:

I created the show Friday Night Lights and came up with the phrase Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose.

I was not thrilled when I saw that you have plagiarized this expression to support your campaign by using it on posters, your Facebook page and as part of your stump speeches. Your politics and campaign are clearly not aligned with the themes portrayed in our series.

The only relevant comparison that I see between your campaign and and "Friday Night Lights" is the character Buddy Garrity — who turned his back on American car manufacturers selling imported cars from Japan.

Your use of the expression falsely and and inappropriately associates "Friday Night Lights" with the Romney/Ryan campaign. Mitt, we all wish you and your family the best. We are grateful for your support of our beloved show, but we are not in any way affiliated with you or your campaign. Please come up with your own campaign slogan.

Sincerely,
Source (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/friday-night-lights-creator-accuses-378606)

Dude may be the "creator" (but certainly not the Creator).

But I do hope you realize that H.G. Bissinger,  the AUTHOR of the original book Friday Night Lights, from which the creator created the TV series that was based on the movie that was based on the book, in fact has endorsed Romney. Just sayin'
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 16, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Well well.  Obama showed up this time, that much is clear.  There were several interesting points, but one that stuck out to me was this:

Quote
QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
 
ROMNEY: ...Number two, we're going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who've come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who have come here illegally.
For some reason that didn't sound like the answer she wanted to hear.

Also, it seems the President got significantly more time to speak, if that means anything.

Was a good debate.  Less of a numbers debate and more of a fact debate, if that makes any sense.  Town hall format went better than I thought, even though both candidates seemed to dodge questions a bit at one time or another.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 16, 2012, 11:57:28 PM
That debate was kind of crazy.

I feel like most of the time, candidates deliver answers that are consistent with campaign promises, and those campaign promises are what voters want but they won't actually deliver on those promises and will instead sort of screw over the voters.  This time, they delivered answers that were totally inconsistent with campaign promises and were things that voters DIDN'T want to hear, but they will actually not follow through on them an

Government doesn't create jobs?  I mean, I actually agree with this but haven't both candidates and both parties spent the last bazillion years touting job creation?  Romney was talking about raising taxes on big corporations.  Obama was defending bailing out big banks.  Wha?  Romney saying the Libya attacks were terrorists... doesn't that cut against the whole mideast muslims are a bunch of savages mindset?  Because it was calculated 9/11 response and not just a bunch of idiots reacting to a film.  And then Obama was like all tough on furriners and Romney was all let's withdraw.  Romney also talking about his MORMON religion also crazy.

The conservative stance on immigration continues to make no sense to me.  Okay, so we're all about jobs and government benefits are not an entitlement people have to work hard to get them and keep them.  So let's say that someone from Mexico works hard and qualifies for college.  We're not going to give that dude financial aid because he lacks a slip of paper testifying he was born in the US through no fault of his own in favor of some slackass dude just because that guy was born here (and promptly pissed away all his advantages?).  In what way is this either fiscally responsible or morally justifiable to conservatives?  You can't help the circumstances under which you were born.  All you can do is work your ass off to overcome those disadvantages and those are precisely the people they want to pull the rug out from underneath of.

Anyways, I thought that Obama was being dickish just because that's what polls were telling him to do, and I thought the moderators gave him a lot of slack.  It seemed like it was all attitude.  To me, Romney won the debate by not appearing so crazy and actually putting forth rather moderate viewpoints.  I mean, he was lying his ass off but sttll.  If I was conservative I would be like Romney easily won that debate and all of this spin is liberal media.  Then again, if I was conservative (and I'm talking even mainstream, not crazy right wing) I'd be like "What the hell is Romney talking about, he just sold out!"

From a political strategy perspective, I think Romney messed up a bit.  Because he knew Obama had to act like a dick.  So he should have just gone all passive aggressive and made it look like Obama was crazy like "Yeah, whatever dude. Scoreboard."  Substance wise, he did the right thing by challenging Obama's record and making him look like guy who talked big but could not back it up.  But tone wise, I think if he wants to win moderates he should have been less confrontational.  I can't imagine how that sort of ridiculous testosterone laden dick contest appeals to women. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 17, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
Oh come on.  You know all potential women voters are turned on by this.  It's the political pheromones.

Besides, Romney went out and got women for his cabinet.  That's just game over!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 17, 2012, 10:39:49 AM
Yeah, that answer cracked me up in its chauvinistic enlightenment.

"Yeah, I tried to hire some women because I'm cool like that.  Only thing is, women are totally incompetent so I couldn't find any!"

"But I felt like I had to have some women for the PR so we had to do this massive search just to find anyone who wouldn't suck.  Only thing is, that was going to take a lot of effort so I was like eff that, I don't care."

"So you know what I did?  I found a bunch of women to look for other women for me because you know, women are good at that kind of thing."
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on October 18, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
Yeah, that answer cracked me up in its chauvinistic enlightenment.

"Yeah, I tried to hire some women because I'm cool like that.  Only thing is, women are totally incompetent so I couldn't find any!"

"But I felt like I had to have some women for the PR so we had to do this massive search just to find anyone who wouldn't suck.  Only thing is, that was going to take a lot of effort so I was like eff that, I don't care."

"So you know what I did?  I found a bunch of women to look for other women for me because you know, women are good at that kind of thing."

Yeah, as entertaining as the "binder full of women" line is, the substance (or lack of) in his answer is much more revealing. Also, I'm reading now that he didn't initiate any effort to compile those binders as he implied in the debate, but rather they were given to him by outside organizations interested in seeing women in Romney administration.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 23, 2012, 08:59:52 AM
Oh man, more good jabs.
Quote from: Obama
You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.  And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting slips. It's what are our capabilities.

Seems like Obama was able to keep control all night.  Had an answer for everything Romney threw at him, but neither candidate was eager to talk about the administration's response to the ambassador's death.  Thought Romney would use that.  What they were eager to talk about was domestic issues again.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on October 23, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
I liked the "we have these things called aircraft carriers" line, but in practice that actually comes out sounding pretty douchey... like something you would say in an internet debate.

I think Romney was resigned to play second fiddle during the debate, because there couldn't be a worse foreign policy president than he, and I think he knows it.  I don't think it moves the needle much, if at all.

In the end, I think Obama wins, but it's going to end up being much closer than it should've been.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on October 23, 2012, 12:19:38 PM
Oh no doubt it sounded like a little bit much, but I was cracking up.  I was also pondering what the vote results would be.  I'm probably putting the numbers too far in favor of Obama, but I happen to think third parties won't take too much of the vote this time.  Very polarizing campaigning.  55-42?  Unless it's closer than I think.  Which it probably is.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 23, 2012, 01:15:13 PM
Are you talking about the popular vote?  It's going to be way closer than that.  In fact I think Romney will win it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 24, 2012, 08:46:27 AM
I am doubting my prediction that Obama can win this thing.  I will still vote for Obama mainly because I have no clue who Romney is or how he will lead, at least Obama is a know entity.  If I could be convinced Romney would be a moderate compromiser that conservatives would hate I would vote for him without a second thought.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 24, 2012, 09:23:21 AM
If I could be convinced Romney would be a moderate compromiser that conservatives would hate I would vote for him without a second thought.

You don't know enough about him by now to know that this is not going to be the case?  You must be watching a different guy than I am.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 24, 2012, 09:54:24 AM
If I could be convinced Romney would be a moderate compromiser that conservatives would hate I would vote for him without a second thought.

You don't know enough about him by now to know that this is not going to be the case?  You must be watching a different guy than I am.

I guess I'm old enough to know not to pay any attention to what he says.  He needs votes from the right and the center so he has to dance and say nothing important.  Republicans have a long history of hating who they elect since most of them go to the center after election.  Hell, my brother in law ended up disliking Bush because of his immigration stance.

Obama is not a liberal and Romney is not a conservative.  Both have created managed health care plans, both pretty much agree on our foreign policy.  The differences come down to the size of government and tax policy, or so they say. Neither one of these guys can do the job, IMO.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 24, 2012, 10:02:30 AM
I guess I'm old enough to know not to pay any attention to what he says. 

Unless you're a mind reader I'm really not sure how else you're going to make that call.  Besides, not all of what he says is bluster, you know he believes what he says about taxes... all you have to do is look at HIS taxes, what few he's released.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 24, 2012, 10:29:02 AM
I guess I'm old enough to know not to pay any attention to what he says. 

Unless you're a mind reader I'm really not sure how else you're going to make that call.  Besides, not all of what he says is bluster, you know he believes what he says about taxes... all you have to do is look at HIS taxes, what few he's released.

I'm not making the call, I'm voting for Obama.  :)  I agree with lower taxes on small businesses (the rich).  It's a valid argument, at least while the economy is in the toilet.  A couple of years down the road I think all taxes need to increase ... ALL of them.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 24, 2012, 10:58:46 AM
Obama's plan is good for small business, should you be stupid enough to care about small business.  Precisely because most small businesses/small business owners actually *aren't* rich and the vast majority of small businesses fail.  Those lower tax rates are good for most poor/middle-class people at least in the short-term and small business owners just happen to be part of that group.

But small businesses don't create jobs, since most of them don't employ many (if any) employees and the employees they do have are generally poorly paid since they don't have that much money and can't provide healthcare.  And because job creation is a myth in the first place.

Basically, you're paying someone to run a shitty business.  I have no idea why people are so sympathetic to small business owners as if there is some divine right to run a crappy bar or give people bad financial advice.  Pretty much if someone in your family or a close friend came up to you and was like "You know what?  I'm thinking about starting my own business" your advice to that person is likely going to be "Don't be an idiot.  You've got a job with benefits and security.  It's really risky.  Most businesses fail, etc. etc."

So why are we trying to pay people to do something most of us think is stupid while providing a "benefit" none of us plan to use?  The world needs *less* bad attorneys, shady contractors, bad restaurants, and asshole "inventors," not more.

Granted, dumping money into the economy can serve as a short-term stimulus.  But if you feel like you must do that, just give the money to everyone who is likely to keep it in the US and to spend it (which is what Obama is doing).


Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 24, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
I don't think starting a small business is stupid.  Most fail, some make it.  I also don't agree they don't provide jobs.  I know of one startup here in town that provides jobs for the owner (of course) and 2 other people.  I worked for a startup when I first got out of school and at it's peak it provided 50 jobs.

I'm not going to argue the point because I don't know for sure if anything I read is accurate or not, I can only go on my experience which I doubt is very unusual.

I'm comfortable with the idea no taxes should be raised on anyone until the economy improves.  First, do no harm.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 24, 2012, 11:29:48 AM


I'm not making the call, I'm voting for Obama.  :)  I agree with lower taxes on small businesses (the rich).  It's a valid argument, at least while the economy is in the toilet.  A couple of years down the road I think all taxes need to increase ... ALL of them.

I'm all for lower taxes on small businesses.  And if you think owning a small business makes you rich let me introduce you to my inlaws sometime.  They're not poor by any stretch but they're cetainly not rich.  Business taxes is not the problem it's personal income taxes.  Why should he pay 19% when I pay 25% - 30% and just scrape by?

But small businesses don't create jobs, since most of them don't employ many (if any) employees and the employees they do have are generally poorly paid since they don't have that much money and can't provide healthcare.  And because job creation is a myth in the first place.

Basically, you're paying someone to run a shitty business.  I have no idea why people are so sympathetic to small business owners as if there is some divine right to run a crappy bar or give people bad financial advice.  Pretty much if someone in your family or a close friend came up to you and was like "You know what?  I'm thinking about starting my own business" your advice to that person is likely going to be "Don't be an idiot.  You've got a job with benefits and security.  It's really risky.  Most businesses fail, etc. etc."

So why are we trying to pay people to do something most of us think is stupid while providing a "benefit" none of us plan to use?  The world needs *less* bad attorneys, shady contractors, bad restaurants, and asshole "inventors," not more.

I have to take issue with this.  Generalizing all small business as "shitty" because they are small is really going over the line.  The folks emplyed by my father in law may not be paid awesomely, but it's not minimum wage either and it is 15 to 20 jobs that would not exist without him and these are people that basically would be unemployable anywhere else.  You take away jobs like that, the ones that are viable for poorly educated types that have nothing to offer the work force except the sweat of their brow, and what's unemployment going to look like then?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on October 24, 2012, 12:17:56 PM
The problem I have with tax cuts to businesses for the sake of "job creation" is that giving a business (any business) more money does not equate more jobs.  There needs to be a increased demand for a business's products or services before jobs can be created.  Just having more cash on hand isn't going to do squat.  I've seen companies layoff workers because they aren't hitting their projected growth numbers for the year and not because they are losing money.  That's why I really don't get how cutting the personal income tax rates to the wealthy is supposed to create jobs.  That extra cash is better of in the hands of middle class consumers who are largely responsible for driving demand in most markets.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on October 24, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
I'm with Jcar on this.  Hiring people is the last resort for a business, no matter the size.  They only hire people when they have no choice and have exhausted all other options, because hiring people is expensive.  It's the same reason who giving business a $2000 tax break for hiring people doesn't work.  Sure, they save $2000, but they spend way more than that hiring someone.  The only people benefiting from that are the people who were going to hire someone anyway.  It won't make someone hire a person when they have other options.

The other problem is that there are really 2 definitions of small business.  What people on here are talking about is small, mom and pop type businesses.  I think when most people talk about small businesses, that is what they think of.  When politicians talk about small businesses, they are thinking of businesses with anywhere from 50 to 500 people.  Most of the government programs in no way help really small businesses, they are designed for companies that are decently sized with higher revenues.  You can find the government regulations regarding what a small business is here (http://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standards-industry).  It is anything from under $7 million dollars in annual receipts to under 500 employees.  The majority of small business owners aren't making anywhere near enough to be hit with the higher tax bracket (assuming it is over $250000).  If my memory serves, it was something like less than 3% of small businesses would actually be affected by the higher tax rate.  The fact is, what politicians think of as small business is completely different than what the average person does.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 24, 2012, 02:21:25 PM
Exactly.

It's not a real "job" unless you are providing enough value to the marketplace to justify your continued employment without a government subsidy.  Otherwise, when the subsidy goes, so does your job because you are really being paid with government $$. 

So pretty much by definition, the government can't "create jobs" because any position occupied solely based on government funding is not a real job from an economic perspective.  It's no different than welfare.  Not that I have anything against welfare, necessarily.  Just saying that "job creation"

And yeah, why doesn't the consumer get any credit?  Where would your business be if I didn't buy your products and services?  If you give ME more money, I'll probably buy more junk.  Which means you can sell more junk and make more money and therefore your business will grow and hire more workers.  Of course, I'll be buying junk I probably don't really need and once the subsidy to me goes I'll be back on a budget so you don't come out ahead that way either.  I'm just saying it's no different.

If you really care about job creation, the obvious solution is to have the biggest, most inefficient government ever.  We all pay zillions into the government and have all these huge programs.  Now it'll take 10 people to get you your social security check instead of 2.  That's 8 more hires, and 8 jobs "created."  You can even write it into the legislation to force the government to hire, which you can't do with "trickle down." 

Except if that were to happen, everyone would complain about how bloated the government is and how their tax dollars are wasted, and how we need to downsize the government because if it weren't for high taxes and inefficient programs none of these lazy, useless government workers would have a job.

Now take the same scenario only instead of the government hiring 8 more people, they hire a private contractor who hires 8 people.  Now suddenly the contractor is a private entrepreneur and All-American hero for creating 8 jobs and driving the US economy with sheer blood and guts.  And the workers aren't lazy people doing nothing.  They are blue collar lower-middle income heroes who the government should try and support.

The whole thing is just stupid.  People need to understand that just because you hired someone doesn't mean you created a job.  The only way that happens if without you there is one less job in the US economy.  That means more than just that you wouldn't have hired the person, or even that that person wouldn't otherwise have been hired.  It means that if that the money spent on that person's annual salary of went to anywhere else in the US-- consumer, government, private business or some combination, it would not have been spent on a job. 

That is impossible to even try and prove, and it's almost never the case.  The reality is that all the employers in the world, and all the unions, and all the employees, and all the consumers conspire together to make a lot of people get slightly better jobs than they would otherwise and maybe create like .0001 of a job each.

Job creation as a way to stimulate the economy in the short-term is a stupid idea even beyond that.  It takes time to hire new employees, and the employees don't get gobs of money right away.  It takes them awhile to get to the point where they will start spending again.

Stimulus only works when you free up the flow of cash to bridge you past short-term liquidity issues.  So what you want is to flush the system with cash and direct it to people who will spend it all immediately.  Which to me means I would be giving it all to poor and unemployed people as they have don't have the option of investing long term or saving.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on October 24, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Can't this all be simplified into:

We need a way to get more people into jobs so those people start paying more taxes.  Who cares who creates them as long as it increases the number of tax payers and gets people off unemployment and welfare.  Right?

I'm not going to pretend I know the best way to do that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 24, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
I agree with you that the whole thing is stupid and needs to be completely rethought from every angle.  But the argument that small businesses are a wash and just shouldn't happen doesn't seem like the answer to me.

And from what I know of gov't agencies it already takes 8 more people than is necessary to process an SSI check.  My mother worked for the IRS for years and it's astonishing that they accomplish anything from what she would tell me.

Here's another one, my co-worker's son is in the military.  Dude is a heavy equipment operator.  When he's not deployed, do you know what he does on a daily basis?  Jack squat.  They report for formation, sit around for a while and then get sent home for the day.  Meanwhile the gov't contracts outside companies to repave the roads on base and do the construction for new barracks etc.  Your tax dollars at work.

The waste and stupidity in every sector of the economy really just makes you want to give up, if you think about it too hard.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 24, 2012, 04:42:51 PM
Can't this all be simplified into:

We need a way to get more people into jobs so those people start paying more taxes.  Who cares who creates them as long as it increases the number of tax payers and gets people off unemployment and welfare.  Right?

No.  Your statement is at least a lot better in that it takes the focus away from job "creation" at the owner level and recognizes that everyone plays a role in the economy and the job market.

But we shouldn't be concerned about unemployment or welfare at all from an economic policy perspective.  No one is coming out ahead.  The government is paying for your job and then taking taxes from you so that it can afford to pay you to have a job. 

From a pure economic perspective, paying someone to do a bullshit job is WORSE than just giving someone welfare. 

We actually do this.  That's how we regulate some of the fisheries.  If its a bad year for sea bass or something, we don't want the fisherman catching all the sea bass and extincting the species.  But because we don't want them to lose their jobs, we pay them-- literally-- to catch sea bass and throw them back in the water. 

We pay farmers for cheese we don't need.  Then the cheese ends up in government warehouses.  So we pay Dominos to make ridiculous pizza with five toppings of cheese and cheese in the crust and you put it in a cheese box you can eat.  Then we have to pay doctors and government employees and ad agencies to fix all the people who get obese and make PSA's saying "Don't eat crazy Dominos pizza, it's bad for you are you nuts?!?"  How much money was wasted just so some farmer could have a fake job?  We don't need cheese, stop paying people to make cheese.  Pay them to learn to do something else that actually benefits society.

Quote
But the argument that small businesses are a wash and just shouldn't happen doesn't seem like the answer to me.

I'm not blasting small business.  I'm saying businesses that get money from the government are basically getting welfare.  Welfare is welfare whether it's individual welfare, corporate Welfare, or small business welfare.  There might be good moral or long-term investment reasons to give someone welfare, but at least let's acknowledge it's all the same.

And yeah, I get that the government is inefficient in many ways.  But the point is, people are super pissed-off about it.  To the extent that even when the government is doing a good job, people still don't believe it.   Public school teachers make a ton less than private school teachers while teaching larger classes.  All we do is talk about how shitty public school teachers are and how we should fire them all.

When a small business fails, no one says they are doing a shitty job. It's like the government somehow failed, not the business. 

But look at Curt Schilling.  He was the Mr. Superconservative posterboy for  small business owners and look how much he cost Rhode Island.  Ask the 38 Studio employees whether they think Schilling "created" jobs for them.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on October 31, 2012, 03:34:27 PM
Anybody here been polled?  If so, remember who it was or anything about it?

I think we've been called by PPP, SurveyUSA, and one other.  I think PPP has hit us a couple of times.  I think all of them were computer-based, but don't know that for sure.  I can't wait for the next election that Ohio is not a swing state in.  Maybe then I can enjoy local television for the 6 months preceding the election.

Only 6 more days!  

I do believe during the 2008 election, the Wednesday morning after saw political ads still being burned off on local TV, which was wildly humorous.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on October 31, 2012, 06:49:51 PM
Public school teachers make a ton less than private school teachers while teaching larger classes. 
That is an incorrect statement, at least here in Greater Cincinnati. Teachers in Catholic and Christian schools earn less, and in a number of cases substantially less, than teachers in public schools.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 31, 2012, 07:37:48 PM
Per student, I mean.  Not raw salary.  My point being that private school teachers only teaching a few students isn't deemed inefficient but rather a sign of quality whereas public school teachers are comparatively efficient while teaching on a more massive scale (and thus more feasible for an entire societal population of kids), but that's viewed as government waste.  I would be very surprised if that is not the case in Cincinnati.  It's true in almost all urban areas. 

In more rural areas the class sizes are more comparable, but the private school teachers there really do make more than public school teachers.  (This is somewhat deceptive though, as the data is skewed by comparatively large uber-rich boarding school "academies" often being located in bucolic country-ish areas.)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 01, 2012, 04:01:56 PM
It's too bad that Obama is not running for president of my e-mail inbox.  He's burning that shit up.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 02, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
1.6 million Christians pledge to vote for Jesus (http://www.examiner.com/article/1-6-million-christians-pledge-to-write-jesus-christ-for-president)

Good news for Obama...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 02, 2012, 08:21:58 AM
Yeah, I'm guessing those people are lying.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 02, 2012, 09:26:08 AM
I just want to know if Jesus or Jimmy Buffet will get more write-ins.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 02, 2012, 09:37:44 AM
I'm going to write in Joe Walsh.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: foolsgold on November 02, 2012, 09:43:00 AM
Voting for Jesus is a wasted vote.  a) he's not a natural born citizen of the US b) he died when he was 33 c) he's far too liberal to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 02, 2012, 09:53:44 AM
Shhh... this takes 1.6 million right-wing nutjobs out of the voter pool, don't jinx it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on November 02, 2012, 12:20:00 PM
Wouldn't Donald Trump have something to say about Jesus, a man born in the middle east, as our president?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on November 02, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
Could you imagine the birth certificate debacle that would ensue? I mean, he doesn't even have an official father!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 02, 2012, 04:59:25 PM
Yeah it's weird that his mom wasn't nailed but he was.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 02, 2012, 06:28:54 PM
Yeah it's weird that his mom wasn't nailed but he was.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/1/8/7/6/5/3/oh-snap-90414794228.jpeg)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on November 02, 2012, 11:44:33 PM
According to Channel 5, there were 30,000 people at the Mitt Romney ralley tonite here in West Chester (suburban Cincy for you out of towners). Wow.

Obama will be here tomorrow (Saturday), which I'm sure will also attract a large crowd.

It's all about O-H-I-O!!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 03, 2012, 09:06:44 AM
Let's have a think: Kid Rock or Stevie Wonder? Hmmmm....
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 03, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/virginia-voter-fraud-case-expands-to-focus-on-gop-firm/2012/11/02/76285252-24eb-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Cockney Rebel on November 04, 2012, 03:15:55 PM
Yeah it's weird that his mom wasn't nailed but he was.
Yes she was. Joseph had rohypnol.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on November 04, 2012, 07:25:03 PM
The Redskins lost their last home game before the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 05, 2012, 12:46:08 PM
According to Channel 5, there were 30,000 people at the Mitt Romney ralley tonite here in West Chester (suburban Cincy for you out of towners). Wow.

Obama will be here tomorrow (Saturday), which I'm sure will also attract a large crowd.

It's all about O-H-I-O!!!!

I heard that 30k number too, and it sounds... I just dont' think there is any way.
Where was the rally?  Where in West Chester is there room for 30k people TO rally?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on November 05, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
According to Channel 5, there were 30,000 people at the Mitt Romney ralley tonite here in West Chester (suburban Cincy for you out of towners). Wow.

Obama will be here tomorrow (Saturday), which I'm sure will also attract a large crowd.

It's all about O-H-I-O!!!!

I heard that 30k number too, and it sounds... I just dont' think there is any way.
Where was the rally?  Where in West Chester is there room for 30k people TO rally?

It was on Union Center in the open field by the library.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 05, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
Smoker29 was there, lets ask him.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 06, 2012, 12:36:09 AM
I'm going to call this for Obama, and I say he will win by over 100 electoral votes.  It would be nice he he won by a bigger margin than 4 years ago but I don't see that happening.  Republicans will lose seats in both the house and senate.

I still say the republican party is a zombie.  What would a dead party do to win?  Try every trick in the book to prevent people from voting.

Let's see just how wrong I can be.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Bubba McBubba on November 06, 2012, 07:43:13 AM
According to Channel 5, there were 30,000 people at the Mitt Romney ralley tonite here in West Chester (suburban Cincy for you out of towners). Wow.

Obama will be here tomorrow (Saturday), which I'm sure will also attract a large crowd.

It's all about O-H-I-O!!!!

I heard that 30k number too, and it sounds... I just dont' think there is any way.
Where was the rally?  Where in West Chester is there room for 30k people TO rally?

I was there, and most of the time I was up on the traveling press risers.  People were packed shoulder-to-shoulder in the main area that was in front of the press risers.  And, from my vantage point, I could see people in the field behind me as far as I could see.  And then there was a mob of people trying to get into the event even as it was ending.  If you include all those groups, I believe there were at least 5000 more people than the press estimated, but its not like I'm any kind of expert on something like that.

And I can't believe how many people were at the polls this morning.  I arrived about fifteen minutes before the polls opened, with more than 50 people in line in front of me, and that was apparently on top of an additional 50 or so already in the auditorium.  When I left, there was that same number (or maybe more) waiting to get in.  I am very curious to hear the final numbers on voter turnout.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 08:29:37 AM
I think Obama wins a tight one.  272-266 in the electoral vote.  Ends up losing NC, Florida, Virginia, AND Ohio, but carries Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire.  Nevada finishes as the decider.

There were a shitload of white people at my polling place this morning.  I just don't think that bodes well.  I think the angry white guy/redneck crowd has been under-reported in the run-up polling.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 06, 2012, 08:31:13 AM
My wife and I voted last week and there was a line out the door at the Cincinnati Board of Elections.  Took about 45 minutes form getting in line to finishing voting.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 06, 2012, 08:42:57 AM
The line for me was quite a bit shorter than it was four years ago.  Last time, the line went out the door and along side the building for 50-60 feet.  This year I started off inside the building by a little bit. 

But they got better voting machines and seemed a lot more organized this year so I'm sure that had something to do with it.  I may have also just beat the rush as the line was starting to fill up as I left.  But I still think turnout will be down and that does not bode well for Obama considering my district votes 90% Democrat.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 06, 2012, 08:44:57 AM
We got to our election place a little after 6:30 and ended up waiting in a line of about 30 people just to get into the building.  Once inside it was probably 20 people ahead of us to vote.  

Our polling place was really poorly thought out.  The thing was in a gym... there was plenty of room inside they could have roped off the line in such a way (think turnstyles at an amusement park) that we could have all waited inside.  It wasn't so bad for me I guess but some poor senior citizen waiting outside in the cold like that would have been shitty.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 06, 2012, 08:51:37 AM
I'll vote around 3pm in Kentucky, and my vote won't matter one bit ... I'm after that sticker.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 09:06:40 AM
I have two stickers.  I plan to tell people that I voted twice since I own 2 houses and see what kind of reaction that gets from the anti-Obama folks at work.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: c-lando on November 06, 2012, 09:19:56 AM
I have two stickers.  I plan to tell people that I voted twice since I own 2 houses and see what kind of reaction that gets from the anti-Obama folks at work.
Snortle.

Took me about 40 minutes to vote. The place where I voted was awesdome because they 1) offered free coffee and baked goods (as well as offering items for a bake sale) and 2) did their best to keep us in line inside so that we were dry. Some people were complaining about the line snaking through the hallways and a room, saying it felt like they were in an amusement park line that wouldn’t end. COME ON, PEOPLE!!! Would you rather be in a long, straight line OUTSIDE in the hard rain!?!?!?!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 06, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Ezra Klein prediction:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/my-election-prediction-the-polls-will-be-right-and-obama-will-win-with-290-electoral-votes/?tid=pm_pop

...

So here’s my prediction for tomorrow: The polls will prove to be right. President Obama will win with 290 electoral votes. I’m not extremely confident in the precision of that estimate: Some swing states are close enough that it’s entirely possible for a good ground game to tip, say, Florida into Obama’s column, or Colorado into Romney’s. Virginia is basically tied, and I’m giving it to Romney based on the assumption that challenger wins in a tie, but it could easily go the other way. So if Obama ends up winning with 303, I won’t be surprised.

That said, 290 is what a conservative read of the polls says, as of this moment. And I trust the polls more than I trust my intuition, or the fragmented, impressionistic reporting on the two GOTV efforts. So I’m going with that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 06, 2012, 09:31:34 AM
Nate Silver seems pretty confident as well:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/nov-5-late-poll-gains-for-obama-leave-romney-with-longer-odds/
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on November 06, 2012, 09:48:13 AM
Going to vote around 2 pm with my son and a acouple of other folks down the street, and then treating ourselves to a nice late-lunch in celebration of Election Day. Greatest privilege of being a US citizen. Haven't missed a vote since getting US citizenship in early 2008  8)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on November 06, 2012, 10:21:32 AM
Nate Silver seems pretty confident as well:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/nov-5-late-poll-gains-for-obama-leave-romney-with-longer-odds/

Yeah, that number was 85% yesterday, and now it's 91%. It's crazy how it's just been going up since the dip after the first debate. He also moved Ohio into the dark blue, which is the first time that's happened at all. Ohio's always been in the 60-70% (for Obama) range since I've started checking his site in mid-Sept.

Silver's track record is impressive. Let's hope it stays that way.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 10:32:11 AM
91% seems way too high to me.  But today is the day that he is either going to earn a shitload of money, or basically lose all credibility and most future earning power.

We shall see.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on November 06, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
I have some questions.

How long have the non-swing states been that way (i.e. when was the last time any of them switched political sides)? Do people factor that in when they move to a different state or does it not really bother most people?

How come Ohio is considered the key swing state when Florida has so many more electoral college votes?

What time is the result predicted to be determined tonight?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on November 06, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
I'll vote around noon in Tennessee, and my vote won't matter one bit ... I'm after that sticker.

Fixed that for me!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on November 06, 2012, 10:50:03 AM
What time is the result predicted to be determined tonight?

Probably 11 pm EST. That's when the California polls close, etc. But the swing states are the important ones, so Colorado is the last one to close in that regard, which means... 10 pm? I don't know when Colorado closes.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on November 06, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
I have some questions.

How long have the non-swing states been that way (i.e. when was the last time any of them switched political sides)? Do people factor that in when they move to a different state or does it not really bother most people?

How come Ohio is considered the key swing state when Florida has so many more electoral college votes?

What time is the result predicted to be determined tonight?

I can only comment about whether people factor in voting behavior when moving for myself. I moved from a semi-conservative state to a very conservative state this fall-- and I'm fairly liberal. It was a factor, but I also think that there need to be other voices out there. I was outvoted most of the time in my last state, so it's nothing new to me.

 I overheard a conversation at my grandmother's retirement home from a major Nashville political player that if Tennessee ever went Democratic in a presidential election, hell would have frozen over. That being said, I think you have to keep chipping away at the closed-mindedness of people.

An example of bizarro local politics: My hometown has an initiative on the ballot to allow liquor stores inside the city limits. (We got liquor by the drink less than 10 years ago)  All of the candidates for mayor are personally opposed to drinking, at least on their platforms, but none are saying that they oppose the initiative. I'm hoping it passes because it's ridiculous to have to go to the next county to buy booze!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 11:28:33 AM
I have some questions.

How long have the non-swing states been that way (i.e. when was the last time any of them switched political sides)? Do people factor that in when they move to a different state or does it not really bother most people?

Many of the non-swing states have been that way for quite a while.  Reagan carried everything except Minnesota in 1984, so I would say since at least then the blue states have been blue.

This is a good link that notes all the states. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Quote
How come Ohio is considered the key swing state when Florida has so many more electoral college votes?

It has to do with how many electoral votes that Romney is essentially "guaranteed".  Even if Romney wins Florida but loses Ohio, he won't have enough EVs to win.  He has to win both Florida AND Ohio to win.  It also matters how close the battleground states are.  If Romney loses Ohio, he will lose, barring some miracle happening like Romney winning Pennsylvania or Michigan (which not even the most conservative of conservatives think will happen).  It is that simple.

Quote
What time is the result predicted to be determined tonight?

I think most people assume it will take into the 11-midnight hour, possibly even later.  It essentially can't be earlier than that, because California and its 55 electoral votes won't close until 11 PM, and no one will call it before the polls close there (unless Obama wins in a landslide... unlikely).
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 06, 2012, 12:05:30 PM
I voted at 6 a.m. in Kentucky, and my vote won't matter one bit ... I'm after that sticker.
Fix'd for me
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 06, 2012, 12:07:02 PM
Silver's track record is impressive. Let's hope it stays that way.

Tell that to Ichiro Suzuki!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on November 06, 2012, 12:12:52 PM
Cheers for the answers, guys :)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 06, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
As a social/cultural phenomenon, the red states have been red pretty much since the Democrats made the huge error of allowing black people to attend schools with white people and drink from the same waterfountains.  And even marry white people!

That basically killed off the "Southern Democrat."  It took awhile for many of those states to actually turn red because there were some powerful Democrats who had been in power for some time, and they kept redistricting the voting areas.  But all those guys kept retiring and gradually the Republicans chipped away.  Sometime during either the initial 1992 Gingrich-led revolution or perhaps in the 2000 Bush wave they managed to get ahold of the state legislatures.  Then they redistricted everything red, red, red.  And those states are not going back blue for a long time, both because of current power structure and popular voter sentiment. 

Virginia, for example is probably more conservative than it's ever been and is only "swing state" on account of Northern Virginia really being more of a DC suburb than having anything in common with the rest of the state.  That, and the GOP consistently runs awful candidates and the far-right splits votes with the slightly-less-far-right.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on November 06, 2012, 12:38:24 PM
Our options for state rep are pretty terrible. I don't like the incumbent b/c she's racist, sexist, and I disagree with every piece of legislation she's proposed. She's a republican. The dems. didn't put anyone up against her. There are two independents running- one is farther to the right of her (pro guns everwhere, anti schools, anti public service) and the other is the Green Party. So I check him out (finally finding a website with his platform). He's pro-environment because he thinks green jobs are what will save Tennessee.  He's anti choice, anti equal rights, and at least as right as the other independent.  I'm leaving that section blank.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 01:00:59 PM
This week's "This American Life" is a pretty good look at the loss of civility in political discourse among regular Americans.  Worth a listen.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on November 06, 2012, 01:03:30 PM
I think if you vote by mail, they should send you a voting sticker.  I feel left out and people probably think I am a horrible person because I don't have a voting sticker, even though I voted last week!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 01:14:25 PM
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2012/11/121106_BB_votingStickers2.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 06, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
What I thought was interesting was that they gave each voter a paper with a number on it we could call after the election to find out if our vote counted.
Oh great! Uh........  Thanks?
They have the votes EARLY.  Just count them!  Not that hard!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 06, 2012, 01:48:03 PM
This week's "This American Life" is a pretty good look at the loss of civility in political discourse among regular Americans.  Worth a listen.

Worth repeating, it was indeed a good listen.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Dan on November 06, 2012, 01:51:10 PM
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2012/11/121106_BB_votingStickers2.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg)

The second one applies to me.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on November 06, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
Reagan carried everything except Minnesota in 1984, so I would say since at least then the blue states have been blue.
The last time Minnesota went Republican in a presidential election was Nixon in 1972.  Prior to that was Eisenhower in '52 and '56.  From there you have to go back to the 1920s.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on November 06, 2012, 02:27:02 PM
Greatest privilege of being a US citizen.
I know what you mean with this, but I really don't like to see the word privilege in regards to voting.  That is your right and nobody should forget that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 06, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
It wasn't so bad for me I guess but some poor senior citizen waiting outside in the cold like that would have been shitty.

Our our 3 year old who already has a cold.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 06, 2012, 04:19:28 PM
A 3 year old voting?  Shenanigans!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 06, 2012, 04:56:07 PM
They even gave her a sticker
She was SUPER excited to go "bote"
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on November 06, 2012, 10:00:52 PM
As of 10 PM, Rosanne Barr has 10,427 votes, placing her in fifth place (but no EC votes, of course). I just don't know what to think...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on November 06, 2012, 10:53:25 PM
As a social/cultural phenomenon, the red states have been red pretty much since the Democrats made the huge error of allowing black people to attend schools with white people and drink from the same waterfountains.  And even marry white people!

That basically killed off the "Southern Democrat."  It took awhile for many of those states to actually turn red because there were some powerful Democrats who had been in power for some time, and they kept redistricting the voting areas.  But all those guys kept retiring and gradually the Republicans chipped away.  Sometime during either the initial 1992 Gingrich-led revolution or perhaps in the 2000 Bush wave they managed to get ahold of the state legislatures.  Then they redistricted everything red, red, red.  And those states are not going back blue for a long time, both because of current power structure and popular voter sentiment. 

Virginia, for example is probably more conservative than it's ever been and is only "swing state" on account of Northern Virginia really being more of a DC suburb than having anything in common with the rest of the state.  That, and the GOP consistently runs awful candidates and the far-right splits votes with the slightly-less-far-right.

I'd argue that some of the old Democrat system still lingers at the state and local levels. At least it seems to here in Kentucky. In my lifetime, we've elected one Republican governor. Our Blue Dog representative just got his ass handed to him tonight.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 06, 2012, 11:05:00 PM
Getting sleepy.  Watching live talk and BS on thedailybeast.com

I figured a call soon after 11, maybe midnight.  Seems obvious at this point, Florida and Ohio for Obama and a win.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on November 06, 2012, 11:11:51 PM

I figured a call soon after 11, maybe midnight.  Seems obvious at this point, Florida and Ohio for Obama and a win.
I don't know what you see as being so "obvious at this point" as FL, OH, VA  and NC are super-super close and I don't know we'll know anything soon, in fact it appears we may be heading to a recount in several of those states.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: va-vacious on November 06, 2012, 11:13:57 PM
Y'all. What really matters is the ballot initiative in my hometown to allow liquor stores-- and it sailed through, passing with over 70%! Woo hoo! Maybe I can get a job at the new liquor store!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on November 06, 2012, 11:16:16 PM

I figured a call soon after 11, maybe midnight.  Seems obvious at this point, Florida and Ohio for Obama and a win.
I don't know what you see as being so "obvious at this point" as FL, OH, VA  and NC are super-super close and I don't know we'll know anything soon, in fact it appears we may be heading to a recount in several of those states.
well never mind, they just called Ohio for Obama.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 06, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Last chance for republicans to win was to somehow deny democrats from voting.  Now they must change or continue the road to a completely defeated and outcast party.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on November 06, 2012, 11:36:08 PM
I'd argue that some of the old Democrat system still lingers at the state and local levels.
Here's the statewide breakdown in North Carolina in 2012 (at 98.9% reporting)
President - Romney 50.6%, Obama 48.4%
Governor - Republican 55%, Democrat 43% (who was at a disadvantage, as our current Democratic governor announce in January she wouldn't be running for re-election, so the Democratic Party had to scramble)
Lt. Gov - tied at 50%
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Democrat 54%, Republican 46%
Secretary of State - Democrat 54%, Republican 46%
Treasurer  - Democrat 54%, Republican 46%
Auditor - Democrat 54%, Republican 46%
Commissioner of Agriculture - Republican 53%, Democrat 47%
Commissioner of Insurance - Democrat 52%, Republican 48%
Commissioner of Labor - Republican 53%, Democrat 47%
Attorney General - Democrat 100%

So we're a challenging state to figure out.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 07, 2012, 12:04:20 AM
I'd argue that some of the old Democrat system still lingers at the state and local levels. At least it seems to here in Kentucky. In my lifetime, we've elected one Republican governor. Our Blue Dog representative just got his ass handed to him tonight.

Because of redistricting from both sides over the years, there are liberal (sometimes crazily so) areas in the Southern states.  My district is a joke.  Republicans have no chance.  But then, they splintered off part of the district so that the more neutral-ish areas around me are all in Cantor's district along with a huge swath of conservative strongholds.

And Mark Warner is tremendously popular here in large parpt because he enjoys support in the rural areas of VA that are usually Republican.  So yeah, the Southern/boll weavil/Blue Dog Democrat isn't entirely dead and can rear up its head in surprising places but overall on a state/national level its GOP city. 

It may be different in KY, but here in VA while there are some last vestiges of the old system, for the most part the vote runs along pretty strict lines.  Richmond is urban and has a large black population and is hugely liberal.  NoVA is a DC suburb and is really different from the rest of the state.  Charlottesville has UVA and is an "intellectual elite" stronghold.  Roanoke is the liberal comparatively "cultured" part of Southwest VA.  Everywhere else is conservative.  It's a lot like the US in general.  The GOP wins in a landslide by surface area, population makes it closer.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 07, 2012, 12:49:51 AM
Wow,

Virginia goes to Obama (CNN) and so now it's 303 to 203.  Damn, he will win with over a 100 electoral votes.  I figured I'd be completely wrong, as usual.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: lutz on November 07, 2012, 02:39:30 AM
Y'all. What really matters is the ballot initiative in my hometown to allow liquor stores-- and it sailed through, passing with over 70%! Woo hoo! Maybe I can get a job at the new liquor store!
Excellent news :D

I'm so glad Obama was re-elected. Mitt Romney would have been terrible for international relations.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 07, 2012, 07:23:52 AM
Romney spent close to a billion dollars to flip North Carolina and Indiana.  Good job, empty suit.

Oh, and fuck you Jon Husted.  I can only hope that the large turnout in Florida and Ohio was in part spurred by the transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote.  Hopefully, he will suffer the same fate that Ken Blackwell suffered.  A quick firing, never to be seen again (except in an odd on-camera interview with MSNBC last night).

Finally, if you can get footage on the Karl Rove Fox News freakout shortly after the election was called for Obama, do it.  It was well worth staying up so late just for that.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: c-lando on November 07, 2012, 07:55:30 AM

Finally, if you can get footage on the Karl Rove Fox News freakout shortly after the election was called for Obama, do it.  It was well worth staying up so late just for that.
That's awkward.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Poolio on November 07, 2012, 08:07:55 AM

Finally, if you can get footage on the Karl Rove Fox News freakout shortly after the election was called for Obama, do it.  It was well worth staying up so late just for that.
That's awkward.
Oh dear, Methinks I need to hit the youtubes for this. Once I left my friend's house (who are staunch Repubs), I didn't see Fox News so I completely missed it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 07, 2012, 08:16:03 AM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/karl-rove-freaks-at-fox-news-for-calling-the-elect
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 07, 2012, 08:17:58 AM
To be fair, right when they called for Ohio, Romney actually took a several hundred vote LEAD in the count.

But CNN explained it really well (if very much later at just past midnight), when they showed that despite the apparent closeness, nearly all of the uncounted vote was in Hamilton, Cuyahoga, Lucas, Franklin, and other Democratic stronghold counties.  And by morning sure enough, Obama leads by over 100,000 votes.

It just shows, however, that pundits are no match for the number-crunchers in getting the facts right.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 08:29:31 AM
Hilarious.  Go back to crying over the money you spent and will never see again, Carl.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 07, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
When I looked online about midnight last night, I saw Obama ahead in the Electoral votes and Romney ahead in popular votes.  I thought, "Oh here we go again."  Luckily, nothing crazy happened.  The House races are still on though.  Tons of close ones.  Interestingly, it looks like Michele Bachmann will win in Minnesota.  Lol.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 09:04:49 AM
Let me just say how happy I was that Josh Mandel got his ass handed to him in the senate race.  His Senatorial career was a disaster waiting to happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 07, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Let me just say how happy I was that Josh Mandel got his ass handed to him in the senate race.  His Senatorial career was a disaster waiting to happen.
x2
All he's done during his tenure as Ohio State Treasurer is campaign for Senate.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 07, 2012, 10:26:14 AM
Oh I was wondering about that one.  I never got around to looking up the fact checking on those particular political ads.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 11:15:35 AM
It's true that he rarely showed up for work and hired a bunch of cronies.  I don't know to what degree the attack ads were overstating it, but it was certainly based in truth.

It was really irritating me last night that everytime NBC mentioned that race they referred to him as "Two Tour Iraq War Veteran Josh Mandel".  How about "Smug Ass Thirty Five Year Old Josh Mandel"?

ETA: factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/mandels-deceptive-defense-against-sen-brown/) says Brown's ads check out and Mandel's don't.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 07, 2012, 11:17:59 AM
Last chance for republicans to win was to somehow deny democrats from voting.  Now they must change or continue the road to a completely defeated and outcast party.

You would think.  They took a pretty bad ass-kicking last night.  Given the current socioeconomic/culture at the moment, conditions were good for them to make some gains.  Instead they lost the Presidency and a bunch of seats in the Senate and their social agenda was pretty strongly repudiated.

If you're going to lose, it's better to lose under your own terms than someone else's.  The Tea Party lost under their own terms and can blame the GOP for the loss in conservative values.  The GOP lost under the Tea Party's terms and yet has no one to blame but themselves.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Based on McConnell's and Boehner's comments last night the republicans don't sound like they're going to become suddenly cooperative.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 07, 2012, 12:18:23 PM
Yeah, those two are pieces of work.  Fortunately, no one cares what those two think including the GOP.  Unfortunately, the people who actually do have some influence over the GOP might be equally stupid.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on November 07, 2012, 02:15:22 PM
The NC Republican Party has its act together. They successfully gerrymandered 3 (possible 4) new US representatives in NC. Our state house has gone from 68 of 120 seats being Republican to 77. They picked up at least 1 seat in our Senate to have 33 of 50 seats. It's going to be interesting to see how our newly elected moderate Republican governor deals with a very conservative legislature.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 02:27:00 PM
Ohioans struck down a ballot measure yesterday that would have kept gerrymandering in check.  Have to believe that 95% of the people that voted against it had no idea what they were voting on.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Butter on November 07, 2012, 02:31:41 PM
I voted for it on principle, but the actual law itself was worded for shit.  I strongly thought about voting against it so that maybe someone who knows how to write a constitutional amendment might present and write it next time instead of the 4th grader that wrote this one.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 02:37:27 PM
That would have showed them...

I agree it wasn't worded well, and whomever got it on the ballot did a shit job of making sure people knew what it was for and how it affected them but we needed it and it was probably the only chance we had of getting it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 07, 2012, 03:06:58 PM
I was surprised Mass legalized medical marijuana, but equally disappointed we shot down assisted suicide. We sure have a hard time letting other people have the right to choose something we wouldn't want for ourselves.  ::)
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 07, 2012, 03:15:09 PM
I was surprised Mass legalized medical marijuana, but equally disappointed we shot down assisted suicide. We sure have a hard time minding our own business.

Fixed that...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on November 07, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Interestingly, it looks like Michele Bachmann will win in Minnesota.  Lol.
Ugh... I was getting really hopeful she would be defeated.  Her district was redistricted to make it even more conservative and she still only won by 1% of the vote.  She keeps winning by small margins, but remains as bat shit crazy as ever.  That's a district that I think most any other republican candidate would get at least 60% of the vote.

That was 1 of only a couple disappointments for me last night.  I was happy to see many tea partiers ousted after only 1 term (at both state and national levels) and the MN house and senate went back to the dems.  The gay marriage ban and voter ID amendments were defeated.  Those were both polling so close that I was worried they'd pass.  I was excited to see Tammy Baldwin beat Tommy Thompson across the border and I was also excited to see Elizabeth Warren win.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and all the marriage equality initiatives passed!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on November 07, 2012, 04:08:25 PM
It's true that he rarely showed up for work and hired a bunch of cronies.  I don't know to what degree the attack ads were overstating it, but it was certainly based in truth.

It was really irritating me last night that everytime NBC mentioned that race they referred to him as "Two Tour Iraq War Veteran Josh Mandel".  How about "Smug Ass Thirty Five Year Old Josh Mandel"?

ETA: factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/mandels-deceptive-defense-against-sen-brown/) says Brown's ads check out and Mandel's don't.

So it's back to work for Mandel...do you think he'll actually do his job now? And, when he has been campaigning, has he had a sub? How does that work? When the Ohio votes were first posted, Mandel was in the lead...I nearly went berserk. Then I noticed the 0% reporting. It actually didn't take long for Brown to be ahead. Phew!

Also, hard for Boehner to go anywhere when he runs unopposed.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 07, 2012, 04:53:06 PM
It's definitely interesting to see, on each election day, the gradual spread of the approval of initiatives such as gay rights and marijuana use. 
Some day soon I hope every state rewrites their constitutions guaranteeing equal rights.  It's a shame they haven't already, but really, the sooner the better.  We need to actually reach the future someday.  It's absurd, really.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 07, 2012, 06:12:54 PM
Also, hard for Boehner to go anywhere when he runs unopposed.

True, but at this point he is the Speaker in name only.  The title affords him the opportunity to run his yap and all, but he doesn't control his own party as Cantor showed last year.  In my opinion, he's finished.  His district might let him hang around for awhile but his days as an important power broker are over.  I don't know whether someone (likely Cantor) will actually challenge him for the Speaker position or if they'll let him hang out as a figurehead so they can do their sneaky things on the side.  The latter is probably the best option.  If Obama refuses to deal with the Speaker of the House the he looks like a jerk.  If on the other hand Obama tries to work with Boehner, the rest of the GOP can just totally ignore it so it wastes Obama's effort.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 07, 2012, 07:05:35 PM
So it's back to work for Mandel...do you think he'll actually do his job now?

It depends on what Rove tells him to do I guess.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 07, 2012, 10:22:14 PM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: juggles on November 07, 2012, 10:58:03 PM
To be fair, right when they called for Ohio, Romney actually took a several hundred vote LEAD in the count.

But CNN explained it really well (if very much later at just past midnight), when they showed that despite the apparent closeness, nearly all of the uncounted vote was in Hamilton, Cuyahoga, Lucas, Franklin, and other Democratic stronghold counties.  And by morning sure enough, Obama leads by over 100,000 votes.

It just shows, however, that pundits are no match for the number-crunchers in getting the facts right.

I agree, it was a little surprising to see them actually call when there were still so many votes out there. Rove, of course, had a lot at stake in all of this so it's no shock that he'd resist giving in. I'd love to see him and America in Crosshairs go away, but I know that's not realistic.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 08, 2012, 08:27:07 AM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.

I don't know about that.  He has zero personality, every single thing he said was scripted to the Nth degree.  I think he's a wingnut dork that really thinks he's got a shot at being president someday.  Not the kind of guy that bothers with boning interns.  And then there's the fact that even tremendous power couldn't make this guy seem like somebody you'd want to bone.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Jen on November 08, 2012, 08:36:59 AM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.

I don't know about that.  He has zero personality, every single thing he said was scripted to the Nth degree.  I think he's a wingnut dork that really thinks he's got a shot at being president someday.  Not the kind of guy that bothers with boning interns.  And then there's the fact that even tremendous power couldn't make this guy seem like somebody you'd want to bone.

My favorite moment of the campaign was the third debate when Chuck Todd handed him his ass by asking him about his constant job changes used as a stepping stone...
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 08, 2012, 10:06:37 AM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.
I agree. Unlike Kwij's notion of him boning an intern, I think it will more likely involve rape or children. I really, really hope I am wrong. But dude is damned creepy.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: The Hegemo on November 08, 2012, 10:13:21 AM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.

There was a rumor going around, but take it with a HUGE grain of salt, because I heard it from Ohio Democratic circles, that Mandel's wife is filing for divorce after the election.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: jcarwash31 on November 08, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
He has zero personality...  And then there's the fact that even tremendous power couldn't make this guy seem like somebody you'd want to bone.
You'd be surprised.  The 40 year old version of Ann from Arrested Development, who was the MN Senate majority leader, was having an affair with a senate staffer.  I still haven't wrapped my head around that one.  All I can think is, "Her?"
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 08, 2012, 10:35:25 AM
Mandel seems like the type of dude who will have a major sex scandal in a couple years.
I agree. Unlike Kwij's notion of him boning an intern, I think it will more likely involve rape or children. I really, really hope I am wrong. But dude is damned creepy.

I guess that's possible, I was thinking along the lines of consensual sex scandals.  If anything he seems like the kind of guy that turns out to be a closet sociopath.  He'd be the guy you'd vote most likely to go on a sniping spree, or drive a u-haul full of fertilizer into a Federal Building.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 08, 2012, 10:48:53 AM
You would think.  They took a pretty bad ass-kicking last night.  Given the current socioeconomic/culture at the moment, conditions were good for them to make some gains.  Instead they lost the Presidency and a bunch of seats in the Senate and their social agenda was pretty strongly repudiated.

If you're going to lose, it's better to lose under your own terms than someone else's.  The Tea Party lost under their own terms and can blame the GOP for the loss in conservative values.  The GOP lost under the Tea Party's terms and yet has no one to blame but themselves.

I'm not sure I'm so sad as to how they don't seem to get it.  The old school republican stance on many social issues is people need to learn for themselves, so let's see the republican party continue into the abyss until they learn for themselves.  Rush is already touting the 'more conservative' line.  :)  

My belief is the house stayed republican not because people like them but because there is no real motivation to shake things up while democrats control the senate and white house.  In other words when many voters go to the polls and look at their representative choice I believe they will tend to stick with who they have unless they feel a need to change the way things work.  Since most (barely) are still uncomfortable with how healthcare was rammed through when the dems controlled everything they didn't feel a need to vote for a change to their representative.

I believe if the polls had shown a big victory margin for Romney then we would have seen the dems picking up a lot of seats in the house.  In the same vein, the reason the dems were able to get it all in 2008 was because the polls were so close and voters could not be certain who would be in power.  Continuing in this theme the repubs will continue to hold the house in 2014 and many will believe this is a sign people like them.  It's not, it's a sign people know how they need to vote in the crappy 2 party system we have.  In 2016 the republicans will once again lose the presidency, probably worse than this time around (assuming the dems don't nominate a really bad candidate).  Then, maybe, they will get it.



Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 08, 2012, 11:04:31 AM
The old school republican stance on many social issues is people need to learn for themselves, so let's see the republican party continue into the abyss until they learn for themselves.  Rush is already touting the 'more conservative' line. :) 
Got this press release yesterday.

Tea Party Vows "No Retreat"
 
Promise to search out candidates with clear conservative records; no more Dole-McCain-Romney nominees
WASHINGTON D.C. - Leaders of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) and TheTeaParty.net offered an unflinching assessment of Election Day results.  Todd Cefaratti, editor of the Tea Party News Network said, "We're disappointed in Governor Romney's loss. But this goes to the heart of what we have been saying all along. Bob Dole didn't win. John McCain didn't win. And now Mitt Romney hasn't won. The lesson the GOP and Americans need to learn is that weak-kneed Republicans do not get elected. Conservatives do."

"The Tea Party has not yet begun to fight. It's time for a wholesale reassessment of the D.C. establishment politicians and party grandees who have no commitment or courage to reduce the size of government. We now have another four years ahead of us with Barack Obama leading the charge against liberty,"  TPNN News Director Scottie Hughes said.  "There were some bright spots tonight from Ted Cruz to Jeff Flake, to a decisive win in the U.S. House where Tea Partiers have a mandate to stand against Obama's big government second-term agenda. "

"I eagerly await the day the GOP establishment figures out that the 'safe' candidates are not getting the job done," stated Hughes. "The GOP needs to adhere to stricter ideological purity and put forth candidates that represent a significant difference in viewpoint from the Democrats that are creating devastating policies for Americans. The Republican Party has been shoving 'their' candidate down the throats of conservatives for years, and it's not working. It's time for them to wake up."

Cefaratti said, "We are disappointed tonight, but tomorrow morning the work begins. We will search every corner of this country for strong conservatives, not wishy-washy moderates. There's a change coming to our national politics, and TheTeaParty.net and the Tea Party News Network will be on the frontlines waging this battle."
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 08, 2012, 11:24:11 AM
Those that don't learn from history ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Go go tea party!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 08, 2012, 11:52:09 AM
Yes, because Romney's problem was that not enough republicans voted?
really?
I heard that this am on NPR too, that Rove and Trump were saying that it's because the candidate didn't appeal enough to the conservatives.  Hello, that's the ONLY group that was appealed to.

Also, can't belive that this wasn't brough up, but what the HELL is wrong with Trump?
I mean, besides the obvious.
Those Tweets were insane.  I mean, really, they were nutz.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 08, 2012, 12:18:51 PM
I'm not sure I'm so sad as to how they don't seem to get it.  The old school republican stance on many social issues is people need to learn for themselves, so let's see the republican party continue into the abyss until they learn for themselves.  Rush is already touting the 'more conservative' line.  :)  

Perfect summary of the state of the Republican party, especially the more extremist side.   They prefer to take silly stances, act like children, lose and complain about it than to actually try and get something done. 
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: dirk on November 08, 2012, 12:44:16 PM
Almost every person on every station (even FoxNews) nailed exactly what the repubs have to do, but I doubt any of them are going to listen.  They have crafted themselves almost entirely a party of old, white men.  They lost the youth vote. They lost the women's vote.  They lost every minority's vote. The only thing they won was white men over 40.  They need to figure out that excluding everyone but white men is just a bad idea. The US is changing, and the republican party needs to figure out they need to change with it or they are going to become irrelevant fairly quickly.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Juliana on November 08, 2012, 12:51:04 PM
Wed on the Today show, Chuck Todd basically said that if the Repubs dont' start courting the Hispanic vote FOR REALZ, that they will lose TX and AZ in the near future.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 08, 2012, 01:52:11 PM
Yes, because Romney's problem was that not enough republicans voted?
really?
I heard that this am on NPR too, that Rove and Trump were saying that it's because the candidate didn't appeal enough to the conservatives.  Hello, that's the ONLY group that was appealed to.

I heard the NPR comment too and it gets a hearty WTF? from me.  If you're the type that had your mind made up to vote republican he was fine, even my mother (a hardline evangelical type that would be the kind to not vote for him just because he's mormon) voted for him.  If he didn't appeal to anybody it was the people that didn't have any particular affiliation in the first place, to those people he seemed like a massive douche.  A lot of those people voted for Obama because they prefer simply being slightly disgruntled over being governed by someone they saw as an uppity asshole.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 08, 2012, 03:21:42 PM
Almost every person on every station (even FoxNews) nailed exactly what the repubs have to do, but I doubt any of them are going to listen. 

What I have found interesting about all the quotes about that is the phrasing that was used.  It was like "cater to minorities" or "target minorities" or "bring women into the fold" or something.

You don't have to "cater" to those groups, you just have to stop going immensely out of your way to be absolute cocksucking assholes to them.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 08, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Almost every person on every station (even FoxNews) nailed exactly what the repubs have to do, but I doubt any of them are going to listen. 

What I have found interesting about all the quotes about that is the phrasing that was used.  It was like "cater to minorities" or "target minorities" or "bring women into the fold" or something.

You don't have to "cater" to those groups, you just have to stop going immensely out of your way to be absolute cocksucking assholes to them.
In other words, they have to stop being themselves.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 08, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Well yeah.   ;D   No actually that's a bit of a cheapshot.

But I meant it in a more cynical/political way.  I think that Romney just doesn't hate gays, or women, or blacks.  I mean, maybe he has some religious issues with gays and doesn't think they should marry but it's not something that fuels his fire.  I just don't think he's that passionate about things, which is why he came across so badly when he tried to be all right-wing. He's not a rabble-rouser, but his milque-toasty ways make him very reliable.

The thing is, if the conservatives somehow passed an anti-gay marriage amendment and got it to Romney's desk, does anyone think he would actually veto it?  The far-right is just too paranoid.  It's not enough to be pro-life, you have to be more pro-life than everyone else which leads to stupid people saying remarkably stupid things about rape.  If you put Romney in the Oval Office he will appoint some conservative justices and you get your way.  Abortion banned, victory achieved.  You don't have to go for the extra point by personally kicking women in the uterus.

As a liberal, I don't worry about the Tea Party.  I worry about people like Bob McDonnell here in VA.  He is personally as conservative as they come, but as a governor he has steadfastly avoided going too far right.  Like when the GA wanted to have transvaginal ultrasounds, he told them to back off.  Granted, he still signed a bill to mandate jellybelly ultrasounds so I'm not saying I would ever elect the guy nor do I like him.  But that is probably the most controversial thing he's done.  For the most part he has stayed mainstream.  I don't trust the guy for a second but it is more about what he MIGHT do than his actual track record.  I could see a lot of mainstream Republicans voting for him.

But conservative as he is, McDonnell still comes across as far less of a hater than most of Congress.  And Romney is far more reasonable than McDonnell.  Plenty of other strong conservatives are as well.  Christie is another guy who is not afraid to speak his mind strongly when he hates something, but he doesn't hate EVERYTHING... he has some sort of priority list and he also doesn't go farther than he needs to to get the job done.  It's about policy (and ego, but ego in a smart political way). 

Romney lost by a pretty small margin, so even with gays and minorities on the upswing compared to white old men I don't think this was quite the seachange swing liberals hoped for.  And I think Romney lost less because of what he said, but because no one believed what he said on account of some other conservatives saying stupid stuff that made people not trust too much power in conservative hands. 

It kinda goes back to what markalot said.  If the GOP were more moderate I think Romney would have won.  But I think a lot of voters were worried that the Tea Party would actually be calling the shots and Romney wouldn't stop them and some of the stuff the Tea Party was saying was insane even to fairly social conservative voters.  And they were right about it.  So if the Tea Party would have just kept their mouths shut secure in the knowledge that they would get their way I think Romney would have won.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: frizgolf on November 08, 2012, 08:08:04 PM
Ohioans struck down a ballot measure yesterday that would have kept gerrymandering in check.  Have to believe that 95% of the people that voted against it had no idea what they were voting on.
The way I read it gerrymandering would be done by state-paid appointed committee as opposed to the present system.
I have no trust in government-funded boards to do any better than what is being done now.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 08, 2012, 08:41:48 PM
There were rules in the bill governing how the districts could be drawn.  

Also, the commission would have been chosen by judges, not the legislature, which removes the conflict of interest of legislatures drawing up the districts that elect them and others they serve with.  And there were rules saying that if you held office, were a candidate for office, worked as a staffer for a politician, or were a paid lobbyist within X amount of years you were ineligible for the commission.  It would be pretty hard for party leadership to sneak a bunch of cronies into the commission as the legislature is pretty much entirely removed from the process.

So I think it was about as apolitical as you could possibly make it.  So much so that I think it would have been ruled unconstitutional.  

I do kind of get what you are saying though.  The problem with turning something that is inherently deeply political into something non-political is that you meet in the middle.  If judges have the power to choose who will draw up the districts, that impacts who gets chosen as judge.  And since the judicial system does a whole lot of other important things like send people to jail and crap, I wouldn't want the districting issue to impact who gets made judge and screw up all the REAL tasks of the judicial branch.

You can say that even the judges don't have that much say, as an effort has been made to remove them from too much control as well.  But I don't think that solves the problem.  Politicians are going to look for any edge they can find.  And if you make it really hard to find an edge, they'll work that much harder and not care about the collateral damage it causes along the way.

Then again, I don't buy the whole "keep it the legislature because if they re-district badly you vote them out" argument.  No, you can't vote them out because they just effectively disenfranchised you that's the whole point of gerrymandering.

I don't know.  It's a tough call.  Don't know whether I'd vote for it or not.  I think right now, I probably would but I don't know if I'd be all that psyched about it.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 08, 2012, 08:59:38 PM
Well yeah.   ;D   No actually that's a bit of a cheapshot.
Cheap shot? Perhaps. Accurate assessment? You betcha.

Now that the election's over it's no longer about what Romney would or wouldn't have done in office. It's about the GOP in general. Roughly half of the Republicans I know are in fact sexist, racist, and homophobic. (I may live in a liberal state, but my workplace is predominantly Republican, and I hear shit that makes me cringe several times a week.) For the GOP to be more attractive to various non-white-male groups they have to pretend they're something they're not. They have to act as though they don't have a problem with immigrants, or gays, or whatever, because at their core they do.

At least, that's how it looks to me.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 08, 2012, 10:06:52 PM

Cheap shot? Perhaps. Accurate assessment? You betcha.

Now that the election's over it's no longer about what Romney would or wouldn't have done in office. It's about the GOP in general. Roughly half of the Republicans I know are in fact sexist, racist, and homophobic.

Don't forget alarmist and fear-mongering....
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 09, 2012, 01:08:14 AM
I don't know about that. 

I know plenty of Republicans that aren't the least bit racist.  In fact I would say for some of them their greatest failing is that they are so not racist that they greatly underestimate the race problems in the US because it seems unfathomable to them there are that many racists around.  Or sometimes I might find them biased in that the only racism they see is reverse-racism because they are white and it impacts them.  While I find that super annoying, I wouldn't say any of them are racist in the sense that they personally hate black people or latinos. 

I suppose one of the odd things about being a minority is that I probably see at once both more and less racism than the average white guy.  I mean, the racist stuff I get is blatant and superevil because you know, you're doing it in my face. Intentionally.  At the same time, I'm probably not privy to as many behind closed doors just-between-us kind of racist remarks.

As for sexism and homophobia I guess I'm on the majority (in terms of power anyway) team.  I don't find Republicans any more sexist or homophobic than Democrats.  Yeah, I know some Tea Party-type assholes.  I also know some blue collar liberals who are "liberal" only in the sense that they are union.  Otherwise they're pretty much complete jerks.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 09, 2012, 07:02:25 AM
Tell your Republican friends to move to Massachusetts. We need more of that sort around here.

It would be interesting to compare these two groups of conservatives to try to see what makes them tick. For example, education: Many of the folks I'm talking about didn't go to college. The military was their post-high school education. One of them even thinks the past tense of "bring" is "brang."
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Homsar on November 09, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
One of them even thinks the past tense of "bring" is "brang."
What an idiot.  Everyone knows it's brung.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 09, 2012, 08:47:16 AM
One of them even thinks the past tense of "bring" is "brang."
What an idiot.  Everyone knows it's brung.
This is what I'm saying.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 09, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
Have you heard or read about the Path to Citizenship?  Suddenly some (most?) republicans think this is a good idea.  The loss of the cuban-american vote shook them to the core.

Can't wait to have this conversation again with my brother in law.  I think this was discussed over at WOXY but back when W was president, who my BIL loved, he turned on a dime when W proposed amnesty.  I asked him how the hell we were going to deport thousands (millions?) of illegals.  What about the families, the kids ... isn't this what America is all about?  He would have nothing to do with actually THINKING about the issue.

Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 09, 2012, 10:22:36 AM
I remember pointing that out on the WOXY board.  That regardless of what you think of illegal aliens, trying to deport them all would be a hugely inexpensive, messy affair that would tie the courts up.  The constitution allows them the right to go through an administration process which includes a hearing and appeals.And if the border aren't secure then they can just come right back in.

This is also why I hate the term "illegal aliens."  It's not that I'm PC.  It's that people need to get that they are not currently criminals.  You are just a guy without papers.  That is NOT a crime.  They may or may not have broken a law coming into this country but until you actually try them for it, they aren't illegal.  And it's not worth it to try them criminally as that just eats up more money and I think you would be likely to lose.  "How'd you get here?"   "Dunno.  Border guard just waved me through."  Burden of proof is on the state.  Unless you have concrete evidence of them sneaking in, they win.

The term "illegal aliens" implies that they are already criminals and have no rights and you can just grab hundreds of them, load them on the bus and dump them in Mexico or fly them to wherever.  It's not that easy.

The Path to Citizenship is good policy.  The Dream Act is even better policy.  Have you seen the wage differences between college educated and non-college educated people?  Those illegal immigrants have already been in this country for years spending taxpayer money while going to school (although probably also their parents are working under minimum wage so they are generating money).  If you send them to college and they get their degree they become productive citizens.  Don't we WANT college-educated immigrants coming over?  Or you can keep them illegal in which case they'll continue to stay here and not be able to get a job and mooch off society the rest of their lives.

Honestly, the only reason to go against the Dream Act is because 48% of Americans think they are entitled to a college education simply because they were born in America.  Which hardly seems very anti-entitlement or personal responsibility-like to me.  But my job is not to worry about that 48%.  I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: MissKitty on November 09, 2012, 03:13:22 PM
I know plenty of Republicans that aren't the least bit racist.
Could we possibly do a trade? Ohio and KY would gladly take some of your state's GOP if you will accept some of ours.

Please?
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: Markalot on November 12, 2012, 08:45:07 AM
With Florida now decided it appears all my predictions, as lame as they were, came true. 

Final electoral tally:  332 Obama, 206 Romney  +126
Republicans lose 6 house seats
Republicans lose 2 senate seats

Mercy.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: luisterpaul on November 12, 2012, 09:02:19 AM
The GOP probably would have done much better if they just kept their mouths shut on the topic of rape.
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: daytime drinking on November 12, 2012, 01:59:43 PM

This is also why I hate the term "illegal aliens."  It's not that I'm PC.  It's that people need to get that they are not currently criminals.  You are just a guy without papers.  That is NOT a crime.  They may or may not have broken a law coming into this country but until you actually try them for it, they aren't illegal.  And it's not worth it to try them criminally as that just eats up more money and I think you would be likely to lose.  "How'd you get here?"   "Dunno.  Border guard just waved me through."  Burden of proof is on the state.  Unless you have concrete evidence of them sneaking in, they win.

The term "illegal aliens" implies that they are already criminals and have no rights and you can just grab hundreds of them, load them on the bus and dump them in Mexico or fly them to wherever.  It's not that easy.

i'm pretty progressive when it comes to illegal immigration.  though the issue is murky for me.  what they provide for our society goes well beyond monetary borders, it's ashame that most folks cannot appreciate the culture they bring and with it the diversity.  i dare say they are a vital component to our economy.  why should china (and others) have all the cheap labor?  that said, what kind of person cannot produce the proper documentation stating they are here legally?  what would happen if i were to sneak into mexico illegally?  their illegal immigration stance sounds like vlad the impaler compared to ours.  don't you think, since you're already considered "suspicious"  cuz you look the way you do, that you'd have your papers ready within an hour or so of being detained for whatever reason?  now should they be considered "suspicious" to begin with isn't a question i'm going to touch.  i don't mind illegal immigrant labor, i love it, though we can't just open the borders.  and anyone caught here without papers, anyone who cannot prove their legal status, i have no problem being deported.  ever seen born in east la?  it's a huge risk they take, and they got some big assed balls.  i think a one time amnesty for anyone in the country to declare wouldn't be a bad thing.  hell, maybe in 50 years or so, offer another one.  but don't let them know.  i haven't thought this over very well. 

Quote
The Path to Citizenship is good policy.  The Dream Act is even better policy.  Have you seen the wage differences between college educated and non-college educated people?  Those illegal immigrants have already been in this country for years spending taxpayer money while going to school (although probably also their parents are working under minimum wage so they are generating money).  If you send them to college and they get their degree they become productive citizens.  Don't we WANT college-educated immigrants coming over?  Or you can keep them illegal in which case they'll continue to stay here and not be able to get a job and mooch off society the rest of their lives.

i think they already are productive citizens.  i think i missed some sarcasm?

Quote
Honestly, the only reason to go against the Dream Act is because 48% of Americans think they are entitled to a college education simply because they were born in America.  Which hardly seems very anti-entitlement or personal responsibility-like to me.  But my job is not to worry about that 48%.  I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

oh there it is!
Title: Re: 2012 Elections
Post by: euro60 on July 14, 2018, 12:13:55 AM
6 years later... and still relevant