GOP Nominee [Archive] - Page 4

Lemur

01-10-2012, 21:45

Honestly- I can't think of a more stupid, frivolous or misguided line of attack against Romney than to attack him for being a successful business man.
Oh, it's worse than that. By dishonestly attacking Romney's work at Bain, his opponents have forced many Republicans to defend Bain, a position that will be toxic in the general election. I don't agree with Bill Kristol often, but on this we are in agreement (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/special-editorial-bain-main_616568.html):

If this is where some in the conservative movement and the Republican party are inclined to go—four cheers for finance capitalism!—good luck. Indeed, it’s useful to flush out this tendency now, and subject it to debate. Because it’s a recipe for political disaster—and intellectual sterility.

Post 2008, capitalism needs its strong defenders—but its defenders need also to be its constructive critics. The Tea Party was right. What's needed is a critique of Big Government above all, but also of Big Business and Big Finance and Big Labor (and Big Education and Big Media and all the rest)—and especially a critique of all those occasions when one or more of these institutions conspire against the common good. What's needed is a willingness to put Main Street (at least slightly) ahead of Wall Street, and a reform agenda for capitalism that strengthens it, alongside an even more dramatic reform agenda for government that limits it.

Bain Capital shouldn’t be demonized. It may not even deserve to be criticized. But in laying out a way forward, conservatives might remember that Bain Capital isn’t capitalism, that capitalism by itself isn’t freedom, and that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Gospel of Wealth.

ICantSpellDawg

01-10-2012, 22:25

I just bought a Romney longsleeve tee and grey half zip with 2 window decals. Me and the little lady are going to wage war on our small-talk friendships this season. Lemur, I'm surprised you havn't attacked my facebook assertions. Is it that you agree with most of them, or that they are so stupid as to not warrant redress?

What do you all think about a Romney/Paul ticket? Strong on the life issue, it would define a new GOP that would be an actual alternative for voters. I believe that it would have a shot at shaking up the traditional dynamic in a bigger way than some might like to admit.

rvg

01-10-2012, 22:37

I guess Romney is going to be the nominee then...

It's looking like it, but I hope it doesn't happen. I really don't wanna vote for Obama but when it comes to Romney, I wouldn't trust the man to park my car. At least Paul is genuine, as Huntsman seems to be as well. Not too crazy about Newt, as for the Ricks, they are non-players this time around despite the Iowa surprise.

ICantSpellDawg

01-10-2012, 23:24

If Romney wins the nomination and loses to Obama—both of which seem likely right now—then we’ll likely see a swing to the right in 2016, as it would reinforce in the nominating electorate the notion that nominating moderates is a recipe for disaster. If Romney wins the nomination and beats Obama, he will, barring tragedy, be the nominee in 2016 and 2020 will proceed along something like the current path, with no lessons being learned.

The only real way to speed up the learning curve—and it might take two presidential cycles even then—would be if Santorum were to get the nomination and then lose in an Electoral College landslide to Obama despite a down economy. Were that to happen, it would be hard for the base to tell themselves that they got beaten because they didn’t get behind a Real Conservative.

You've never seen Romney seek the vote by appealing to the middle. You will see a big difference in style I would wager. He is a legitimate moderate and his game is balance and efficiency. Unfortunately at this point, moderation in the current GOP still looks like a mad butcher shop. You will be impressed in the general, I'm sure of it. A Romney Presidency with a Ron Paul influence will change the game.

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2012, 23:28

Are you sure? Traditional campaign spending has far outpaced PAC spending so far this primary season. Maybe Romney has been leading because the more conservative vote is fractured, his rivals are weak, he has the strongest ground game, he has worked hard to get the establishment behind him, and/or some other mix of traditional metrics. I think he has been declared the winner before NH because the polling suggests he is a prohibitive front runner there.

Not really a front runner if the majority of the people he will be representing don't want him. :shrug: You can have the Bush/Congressional buddies pat him on the back all day but when there are 5 straight months of a different "anti-romney" candidate spotlight moment, it's very telling.

I am not sure why Obama was included in that graphic. It almost gives the casual reader the idea that he is nearly innocent in the super PAC game instead of simply running unopposed. He will have hundreds of millions of dollars in super PAC money backing him in the general.

This is true... to an extent. This: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php is much more revealing. As we can see both Obama and Ron Paul have the same % of total donations coming from small individuals at 48%. What % of Romney is from small individuals? 10%. Again, very telling about what the Republican base actually wants vs why Romney has been declared winner from day 1.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 00:24

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 00:28

no once again not really. percentages are useless because of course romney has huge pac dollars as he should because he is the gop establishment choice. look at gross numbers i bet romney still has more donation than paul

Romney Total: $32,212,389

Romney from individuals (10%): ~$3.2 million

Ron Paul Total: $12,623,422

Ron Paul from individuals (48%): ~$6.0 million

No once again, you are wrong Centurion.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 00:28

A true politician in a representative Republic holds some values as sacred, but changes the tertiary ones with the times and electorate. Romney would be for marijuana legalization if he saw a good case for it and it was supported by a winnable segment of the electorate. I believe that will happen sooner or later, along with a reduction in the absurd "drug war". All of you non-aligned individuals have an opportunity to move the G.O.P. at this stage of its development. Everyone claims to be interested in dialogue and compromise out of one side, but out of the other side they abandon both parties to the fringe. Guys like Mitt Romney form consensus, people who sit on the fence and refuse to agree with one party or another are the ones abandoning compromise, abandoning consensus. Nobody thinks you look negotiable when you tell everyone that they are wrong.

Romney is a strategic and efficiency oriented moderate Republican. I believe that he is a bright man with a hard work ethic and good personal character. I like his record and believe in him as a candidate for President of the United States. I just donated $106 to the Romney campaign in exchange for some campaign clothes, so add me to that 10%.

BTW: This type of hostile vetting this far away from the General election immunizes the American electorate from the same charges down the road. If Romney can take NH and SC, These personal attacks will have been a good thing for him. If he loses SC and FL and the battle goes on for a few months, these attacks will harm him in the General.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 01:37

First votes coming in show Romney (35%) ahead by around 9%. Smaller than the 12-15% projected. Ron Paul is better than expected so far with 26.8%.

EDIT: AAAAAnd's it's already changed. Just found the breakdown by county. Vast majority of votes totaled so far coming in from one southern county, Hillsborough a supposedly heavily Romney county.

Hax

01-11-2012, 01:48

Dramatic results for Santorum so far.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 02:38

Impressive Romney Speech. I'm glad he tossed the bit about "amber waves of grain" and corn. This is the message. Huntsman will drop out either tomorrow or the day after his next abject failure in SC, no matter what he says. I wonder if Joe Scarborough will finally register as a democrat after the only straw-man Republican he could support drops out of the race.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 02:41

No surprise, Romney has been called the winner. It is still telling how the "frontrunner" is making by with

EDIT: The breakdown by counties is sort of misleading. If you look at the NYT's breakdown by towns you see that vast majority of Romney votes came from the big cities with many small towns swinging in favor of Ron Paul.

Exit polls showed that among those that classified themselves as Democrats the support went as follows:
Huntsman: 41%
Paul: 22%
Romney 12%

But we all know Romney has the best shot out of all of them right?

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 02:50

Nobody cares who self-described "democrats" would support. They will not vote for the Republican over the democrat. Huntsman is pro-life, against gay marriage, against tax increases generally, and a Mormon. Democrats like him because MSNBC has become obsessed with him over the past few weeks and they know that he used to be in the Obama administration. It is their way of harming the Republican nominee without seeming biased.

Lemur

01-11-2012, 03:02

Democrats like him because MSNBC has become obsessed with him over the past few weeks and they know that he used to be in the Obama administration.
What an interesting take. I had no idea MSNBC was such a controlling force. Here I thought people respected Huntsman for being a successful governor with real foreign policy chops.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 03:17

Don Corleone

01-11-2012, 03:24

With 2 primary elections, 6 fall elections and 6 town meeting elections under my belt since moving into small-town NH, I must say this was by far the most underwhelming turnout thus far. By a country mile.

In a usual election, we have people standing around holding signs supporting the proposition to spray for millweed all day.

Yet when I got to town hall tonight, there were 2 people outside. Obama supporters. In a heavily Republican small NH town.

4 more years, no doubt in my mind. It's going to be a landslide this fall.

Xiahou

01-11-2012, 03:39

Which is why 22% supported Ron Paul? Because he gets a lot of help from the media right?Ron Paul is mainly a protest vote. If Vermin Supreme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE) was in the GOP primary, he'd probably be getting some votes too..... actually, I think I'd vote for Vermin in the primary at this point.

Anyhow, Ron Paul may have a few sound ideas that are worth a look, but he would absolutely crater in a general election- just imagine the attack ads quoting statements (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?passthru=NjNkZTVlNTQ4OWUyMzllYWEzOTg3ZWQ2MDI4YzAzYTc) printed in his news letters.

Oh, it's worse than that. By dishonestly attacking Romney's work at Bain, his opponents have forced many Republicans to defend Bain, a position that will be toxic in the general election.I really don't see that getting much traction. The class warfare rhetoric from Obama has fallen flat again and again. I don't think anyone will be too shocked to learn that a presidential candidate was a rich elite.

What do you all think about a Romney/Paul ticket? Strong on the life issue, it would define a new GOP that would be an actual alternative for voters. I believe that it would have a shot at shaking up the traditional dynamic in a bigger way than some might like to admit. I think a Romney/Santorum ticket is much more likely- especially if he makes a good showing in SC. But probably even more likely would be a VP pick that wasn't among those running.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 04:37

Ron Paul is mainly a protest vote. If Vermin Supreme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE) was in the GOP primary, he'd probably be getting some votes too..... actually, I think I'd vote for Vermin in the primary at this point.

That is disparaging to a candidate with a real message. 50% of Ron Paul's message is excellent. It is a message that needs more influence in the party. The destruction of "homeland security", a re-evaluation of the FED, and the extent to which we use deficits to expand Federal liability for 3 examples. As palpable as the desperation of people like Chris Matthews has become, he and Fineman struck a good point; Pauls supporters need to be satiated in some way if they continue with the 20-25% of the electorate for the next 48 States - we want the voters that they can bring and the suppression to the vote of the young for Obama. If the economy continues in stagnation, Romney has a real shot.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 04:39

Which is why 22% supported Ron Paul? Because he gets a lot of help from the media right?

What are you talking about? I love Paul. He has a legitimate message that needs to be given more clout in the party. Ron Paul is very popular in the G.O.P., he also happens to be popular with independents.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 04:41

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 04:44

Democrats like Huntsman because he harms Romney. Democrats do not support Conservative Republican candidates that they don't know well. I know it sounds nice and agreeable that somehow numerous MSNBC anchors are in love with the guy who flops in the only state he competes, but it is smoke and mirrors. Don't buy Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow's lines, they have a clear agenda - they are Democratic politicians. I turn to CNN for mainstream political opinion - Every MSNBC anchor has been saying the exact same thing.

Xiahou

01-11-2012, 04:57

CNN's exit poll data. (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh)

Huntsman cleans up among Democrats, people who hate the Tea Party, and people who are satisfied with Obama. :laugh4:

There's some interesting data in there, but I'll leave it to others to parse it here- I'm going to bed.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 05:01

There is no explanation for that other than that he is a nominee irritant. He is a conservative. He won votes of people who were going to vote for Obama. What could have caused this? Could it have been the daily message that he is the favorite of GOP spoilers? I don't know what he was thinking. He made friends with people who laugh about his beliefs and he has alienated his potential voters. We've learned the tricks, Fox news is BS, but MSNBC isn't a new channel either, it is a Democratic spin channel, just like Fox is a Republican spin channel.

Rachael Maddow pretty much just implored Tea Partiers to rally behind either Santorum of Gingrich. Fortunately for us, Santorum is a Republican and will recognize that if Romney polls high in SC that Santorum will need to throw in the towel for the party shortly afterward. While Gingrich is a self-serving spoiler, he will feel the noose tighten and will not receive the backing of Rick Santorum. After Florida, it should only be Ron Paul and Romney, with maybe a delusional Huntsman giving victory speeches for his courageous third place.

BTW - Rick Perry is in the race to keep voters away from any other candidate than Romney. Perry had nearly half of the GOP dollars and he will drop out and favor the nominee. Why not help the nominee now by splitting the vote in SC?

BTWBTW: Turnout for the Republicans in NH was just about as high as 2008 (http://dyn.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html) probably a bit higher - 231,080 votes so far. In fact, Romney will have received nearly 12k more votes than McCain did in 2008. This "Anemic" charge is another MSNBC concoction, based primarily on the fact that in 2008 Democrats and Republicans both had primaries simultaneously. Voters are more fired up than you might want to believe. Media pundits can't get away with lying to us on any channel the way they used to.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 05:57

There is no explanation for that other than that he is a nominee irritant. He is a conservative. He won votes of people who were going to vote for Obama. What could have caused this? Could it have been the daily message that he is the favorite of GOP spoilers? I don't know what he was thinking. He made friends with people who laugh about his beliefs and he has alienated his potential voters. We've learned the tricks, Fox news is BS, but MSNBC isn't a new channel either, it is a Democratic spin channel, just like Fox is a Republican spin channel.

Rachael Maddow pretty much just implored Tea Partiers to rally behind either Santorum of Gingrich. Fortunately for us, Santorum is a Republican and will recognize that if Romney polls high in SC that Santorum will need to throw in the towel for the party shortly afterward. While Gingrich is a self-serving spoiler, he will feel the noose tighten and will not receive the backing of Rick Santorum. After Florida, it should only be Ron Paul and Romney, with maybe a delusional Huntsman giving victory speeches for his courageous third place.

BTW - Rick Perry is in the race to keep voters away from any other candidate than Romney. Perry had nearly half of the GOP dollars and he will drop out and favor the nominee. Why not help the nominee now by splitting the vote in SC?

The reason is that Huntsman is a very reasonable and sane person. He is closer to Reagan than anybody else on that stage and everyone liked Reagan. There is no left wing conspiracy telling people claim they like Huntsman so that Romney looks bad. But I agree with you Ron Paul. Go Ron Paul. I hope his young followers reshape the Republican party so we can have a discussion about how to reverse the erosion of our civil liberties.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 05:59

Still interesting to note how with all the backing that Romney has. 60% of Republicans didn't want him.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 06:01

He is closer to Reagan than anybody else on that stage and everyone liked Reagan. There is no left wing conspiracy telling people claim they like Huntsman so that Romney looks bad.

Reagan, as it turns out, was a center-right candidate who was popular with "Conservatives" and didn't alienate them. That is one of the differences.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 06:04

Still interesting to note how with all the backing that Romney has. 60% of Republicans didn't want him.
hahaha. That is a logical leap. Did they vote for who they didn't want? No, they voted for the candidate that they wanted the most. The sentence that you posted was not the question tonight and it is disingenuous for you to suggest it. I will not vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, does that mean that I don't want him? Not at all, I just want Romney instead.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 06:16

hahaha. That is a logical leap. Did they vote for who they didn't want? No, they voted for the candidate that they wanted the most. The sentence that you posted was not the question tonight and it is disingenuous for you to suggest it. I will not vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, does that mean that I don't want him? Not at all, I just want Romney instead.

I am looking at how the game is being played, this isn't like 2008 where both top contenders (McCain and Romney) were mirror images of each other.

This is the situation the Republicans have.

A. A front runner who is commanding a lead by being the most moderate.
B. A religious conservative who has no chance at being elected yet all the Jesus people come out to vote for him and not for Romney.
C. An outsider who has radical (by today's standards) views on fiscal policy and foreign policy.
D. The only other "establishment" conservatives that are in the same group as Romney (Gringrich and Perry) are doing absolutely terrible.

This isn't a case of pick the prettiest horse of the bunch. This is a case where your choices are a zebra (romney), a mule (santorum), a (hell i don't even know what ron paul would be in this analogy) and a bunch of horses who all have broken legs and have trouble walking.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 06:21

stuff

Romney is a solid candidate. If you think that he is another McCain or Dole I believe that you will be sorely mistaken. Those 2 were poor public speakers, looked old and were out of their depth. Romney is a political superman and I believe will surprise people. I've been following him for 5 years now. Depending on the political/economic environment later this year, the GOP has a shot at blocking out the incumbent. This is the first time that I really don't believe that the American political system has any control of the economic climate. They can't just "make things better" to win, only make things worse, which benefits Romney.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 06:28

Romney is a solid candidate. If you think that he is another McCain or Dole I believe that you will be sorely mistaken. Those 2 were poor public speakers, looked old and were out of their depth. Romney is a political superman and I believe will surprise people. I've been following him for 5 years now. Depending on the political/economic environment later this year, the GOP has a shot at blocking out the incumbent. This is the first time that I really don't believe that the American political system has any control of the economic climate. They can't just "make things better" to win, only make things worse, which benefits Romney.

Romney is such a political superman it doesn't matter that his career has been 1 election won and 3 lost. 25% is such a good track record.

ICantSpellDawg

01-11-2012, 06:39

Romney is such a political superman it doesn't matter that his career has been 1 election won and 3 lost. 25% is such a good track record.

Reagan ran 1 loss for 3 elections.

Romney is a Republican that won the governorship of Massachusetts during the Bush Administration. He ran an election against a Kennedy in Massachusetts. He was one of 11 candidates who lost the Republican nomination contest to a POW during wartime.

Voter Registration and Party Enrollment as of October 13, 2010[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts#cite_note-3)

Party
Number of Voters
Percentage

Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))
1,528,974
36.48%

Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))
474,798
11.33%

Unaffiliated
2,162,840
51.61%

Minor Parties
24,295
0.58%

Total
4,190,907
100%

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 06:57

Reagan ran 1 loss for 3 elections.
Partly true. His win rate is indeed 66% but he had 6 elections.

California Gov. 1966: Win
California Gov. 1970: Win
GOP Pres. Nom. 1968: Loss
GOP Pres. Nom. 1976: Loss
GOP Pres. Cand. 1980: Win
GOP Pres. Cand. 1984: Win

unless you meant to say 1 loss for every 3 elections he was in.

EDIT: I don't see how this helps you though. Romney's 25% win rate is abysmal to Reagan's 66%. This only reinforces that Romney is not a political superman.

Romney is a Republican that won the governorship of Massachusetts during the Bush Administration.
No, Romney is a Republican that won during the post 9/11, polls say 90% of country behind Bush days. Don't act as if he won despite Bush.

He ran an election against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.
At a time when Kennedy was at his weakest, especially since he was having a rape scandal and a public divorce renegotiation attached to him during the campaign. Romney still lost by 17.1 points.

He was one of 11 candidates who lost the Republican nomination contest to a POW during wartime.
An old man (older than Reagan) who has flip floped just as many times as Kerry and Romney has during their careers.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 08:26

Partly true. His win rate is indeed 66% but he had 6 elections.

California Gov. 1966: Win
California Gov. 1970: Win
GOP Pres. Nom. 1968: Loss
GOP Pres. Nom. 1976: Loss
GOP Pres. Cand. 1980: Win
GOP Pres. Cand. 1984: Win

unless you meant to say 1 loss for every 3 elections he was in.

EDIT: I don't see how this helps you though. Romney's 25% win rate is abysmal to Reagan's 66%. This only reinforces that Romney is not a political superman.

No, Romney is a Republican that won during the post 9/11, polls say 90% of country behind Bush days. Don't act as if he won despite Bush.

At a time when Kennedy was at his weakest, especially since he was having a rape scandal and a public divorce renegotiation attached to him during the campaign. Romney still lost by 17.1 points.

An old man (older than Reagan) who has flip floped just as many times as Kerry and Romney has during their careers.

Your not from Massachusetts. If a Kennedy ran for president from death row the day before his execution he would win.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 08:32

Why!? Why Romney, Republicans!?

Ugh. I'm depressed right now. If you people (as in everyone but myself) can't vote Paul in, at least go for Huntsman. Just not Romney! No, he's not crazy like Santorum or Bachman. Yes, he's got great business sense. Those things don't make him okay, they just make him potentially okay. Then I hear the man debate, and I'm thinking... "Wow, this guy's a tool." A tool for who? Not for you, normal people. Not for you.

A president has to have passion and consistency and actual political beliefs. That is how a strong president prevails against corruption and sycophants. Romney just wants the job. He changes his platform each debate. Why doesn't that concern anyone? And why hasn't it concerned anyone for a long time? The only thing we can say for certain about Romney is that he consistently likes money, he's consistently good at making more, and he's got a nice smile. And perfect gray temples.

Obama is a crappy public speaker. No man that well educated in that position should need to say ummmm that often.

Support for paul is naive support for a naive man. and dangeorusly naive. All i care about is foreign policy and economics and he fails abjectly in both categories. Economically he's an absolute idiot.

I don't give a **** about social issues if they do not pertain to money. Abortion is a woman's choice though i do think its the ending of a life, i like the death penalty, illegal immigrants are illegal, could care less about pot its an incredibly minor issue and anyone who thinks its important is likely a loser pot head, love gay people let em wed, and hate poor people so screw them just dont let them die of starvation because that looks bad. Health Care is not an inalienable right.

But all of those things except how they pertain to america's economics and the budget and how they affect the way we project power are absolutely meaningless to me. Anyone who runs on social issues is of the lowest grade of value in my eyes and anyone who votes based on those issues is even worse.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2012, 10:35

Look everyone! It's the man of the people, coming to help us average joes!
https://i.imgur.com/jHW71.jpg

gaelic cowboy

01-11-2012, 11:09

Obama is a crappy public speaker. No man that well educated in that position should need to say ummmm that often.

Keep telling yourself that and you will be looking at 4 more years for sure.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-11-2012, 11:21

Obama is a crappy public speaker. No man that well educated in that position should need to say ummmm that often.

Support for paul is naive support for a naive man. and dangeorusly naive. All i care about is foreign policy and economics and he fails abjectly in both categories. Economically he's an absolute idiot.

I don't give a **** about social issues if they do not pertain to money. Abortion is a woman's choice though i do think its the ending of a life, i like the death penalty, illegal immigrants are illegal, could care less about pot its an incredibly minor issue and anyone who thinks its important is likely a loser pot head, love gay people let em wed, and hate poor people so screw them just dont let them die of starvation because that looks bad. Health Care is not an inalienable right.

But all of those things except how they pertain to america's economics and the budget and how they affect the way we project power are absolutely meaningless to me. Anyone who runs on social issues is of the lowest grade of value in my eyes and anyone who votes based on those issues is even worse.

Congraulations - you're a steriotypical far-Right conservative, but an apathetic one.

So is Ron Paul, just at a slightly different angle.

The fact that America is still having fundamentsal arguments about healthcare, abortion and welfare tells you something. In most Western countries these arguments are largely settled, funds go up and down but basically the pattern is the same everywhere. Americans are still wasting money of things (like healthcare) because you guys can't have a proper debate about it, and now everybody hates Obame because he tried and failed. Conservatives hate him for trying to level out healthcare provision, and Liberals hate him for being half arsed and failing.

So, now you guys are deciding whether you want Obama (who everybody seems to hate) or one of a string of variously unpalatable or unelectable Republicans.

The mind boggles, this is like listening to Northerners talking about "evil" Tories over here!

InsaneApache

01-11-2012, 11:58

The mind boggles, this is like listening to Northerners talking about "evil" Tories over here!

Evil Tories. :evil:

tibilicus

01-11-2012, 14:04

Romney is a Republican that won the governorship of Massachusetts during the Bush Administration.

Speaking of Massachusetts, let's take time to discuss this. As a Republican are you pleased with his record? I forgot you guys were in favour of big government health care plans, I thought that was a feature of that other party! You're also a fan of gun control too? Romeny is. Tell me, wasn't Massachusetts also ranked pretty low under Romney? His leadership was so effective at state level, why not send him to the White House!

Also like how the media reports Romney's "runaway victory in New Hampshire". I would personally feel embarrassed if my rival came within 10% of me in my own home state. American media is funny, I like it.

Ronin

01-11-2012, 14:47

Look everyone! It's the man of the people, coming to help us average joes!
https://i.imgur.com/jHW71.jpg

so? he's rich....errr....I mean a job creator.
I thought those were the good guys according to the republican viewpoint

Ronin

01-11-2012, 15:08

Welcome to the confusing world of American politics. The name of your party is far more important than the platform. They call eachother the same names, to different people, who will never change their minds anyway. Makes me want to go become a mountain man and shun society.

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/jebediah-springfield3.jpg

I´ll just leave this here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-9-2012/indecision-2012---extremely-loud---incredibly-wealthy?xrs=share_copy

one of the funniest Daily Show bits as of late.
If I was a daily show writer I would start getting nervous.....this republican race is getting to a point where the jokes write them selfs.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 20:45

The responses I got were all I could ever hope for.

It should be noted I am what I am. I'm not a brainwashed conservative. I dislike fox news. I Live in NYC and tend to get my news from the WSJ with a smattering of NYT because its free on campus. THe only news personality I like is Anderson Cooper.

I am far right economically and foreign policy wise for sure. It should be noted that a very strong reason im far right conservatively because im going into the military. my entire career (especially in the army) revolves around foreign policy.

Economically, I'm a very well educated young man. The capital gains im going to have to pay for my etrade account according to my mother nearly brought me too tears. I'm opening up a roth ira later this year. I'm an intern at a huge IB firm in manhattan. So yeah shocker a kid who wants to be an investment banker is a pretty strong austrian school of thought kind of guy.

Socially i think you all would be surprised. I'm very very moderate.

TBH I AM the face of my generations conservative establishment, economically and foreign policy conservative but social moderate. I think it's great for the country I am like this.

Edit: alot of you responded to my post so It's a little hard to address everything everyone said.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 20:48

Keep telling yourself that and you will be looking at 4 more years for sure.

No he is it has nothing to do with what hes saying. As a public speaker giving speeches however his clipped deliveries are annoying. I really don't understand why everyone hypes him up as a public speaker. You can't even argue for the content of his speeches he doesnt even write alot of them.

Lemur

01-11-2012, 20:58

You can't even argue for the content of his speeches he doesnt even write alot of them.
No President in the 20th century (or 21st) has written all of his own speeches. Obama, on the other hand, is more of a writer (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/barack-obama-writing-books-writer-robert-draper) than most. So ding him for policy all you like, but by declaring he can't write you're pumping a dry well.

“I think he sees the world through a writer’s eye,” says senior White House adviser and former Chicago journalist David Axelrod. “I’ve always appreciated about him his ability to participate in a scene and also reflect on it. I mean, I remember when we were meeting clandestinely with the guys who were vetting the vice presidential candidates. There was this courtly southern gentleman who was doing the vetting. The president said to me, ‘This whole scene’s right out of a Grisham novel.’

“I also have to say, one of the great thrills is to watch him work on a speech. It’s not just the content—he’s very focused on that—but more than anyone I’ve ever worked with, he’s focused on the rhythm of the words. Like, he’ll invert words. He’ll say, ‘I need a one-beat word here.’ There’s no question who the best writer in the [speech-writing] group is.”

Recently, I had lunch with one of the nation’s leading conservative journalists. He had spent time with the president, and although he could find little to admire about the man ideologically, he also observed that there was simply no contest between Obama and George W. Bush when it came to the thoughtful evocation of images and ideas.

“He’s like us,” he said. “He’s a writer.”

That this journalist of the right would feel a kinship with the Democratic president suggests that the media’s affection for Obama may have less to do with ideology than is commonly supposed.
Hmm. I guess the primary is just about over if we're switching from debating the merits of the respective GOP candidates to Obama v. Romney.

Centurion1

01-11-2012, 21:37

david axelrod.... lmao.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't see that as a negative I'm well aware no politicians write their own speeches anymore. So as a result I don't want to hear about hw the content of one candidates speeches is better than another's hell hire a better speech writing team. I think Obama over hypes his "contributions" to his speeches as well.

For example I didn't find anything special in Obama's SOTU addresses certainly nothing I remember. Clinton had some damn good speeches I even remember a couple from when I was just a little kid and my parents forced me to listen. W had some epic lines though God knows he wasn't exactly the greatest speaker of our generation.

ICantSpellDawg

01-12-2012, 00:10

ICantSpellDawg

01-12-2012, 00:21

Centurion1

01-12-2012, 00:48

Barack Obama is an exceedingly bright, likable and clever man who is disciplined and enjoys being popular. He has done a good job with American military foreign policy and effectively continued on Bush administration policies regarding more than most would like to admit. His election has, fortunately, drawn statistically disaffected and apathetic voters into the nomination and voting process - incredibly important to cultivating an active citizenship. It has provided the traditional American smoke and mirrors act regarding our policies; put a new face and a different label on the same international policy and the sins are forgiven. For this I thank him. Plus, he put a stake in the heart of Hillary Rectum Clinton, for which every lover of freedom should kiss him on the lips.

I do not like who he surrounds himself with on economic issues. They are not right and their every breath trembles the markets. I am ok with half of his social policy, but the other half I abhor. He has failed to do the main thing that he promised and seemed likely to deliver on - forging workable consensus. The nation is more divided than it has been in some time and feels like it is going to hell. Simply put, if the economy stagnates or declines over the next year, Romney has a real shot at beating Barack Obama. It is always economics at the end. I don't believe that the American worker has any hope and I believe that we are at a long-term disadvantage against actual competition for the first time in our history.

Congratulations you sound exactly like I do. My biggest argument with Obama's foreign policy has been getting involved in Libya. I wish he had gotten rid of a few of our alliances *cough* Nato *cough* but I obviously don't expect him to do so. Not that displeased with his foreign policy he came in naive to an extent and is leaving looking pretty damn pragmatic. Socially the same. Economics we feel the same though you may not be as conservative as I am.

On education i'm the most ravenous pro-teacher person on earth. It's the only union I will argue for. You people who attack teachers as to why america lacks educationally can eat a fat one. (vitriol intended people who blame teachers..... go be a teacher for a day)

ICantSpellDawg

01-12-2012, 00:49

So, actually, never mind. You were right. It doesn't matter what side of the argument most of my generation claims to support, because all they really want is someone to yell at. It's a pretty pathetic state of affairs.

You know that is wrong. The people who abdicate both parties rebuke consensus. Everyone wants their own political ideology and refuses to agree with another group of people enough to further their own core interests. I say, pick your core beliefs and recognize that you need to defend your allies in order to form a general consensus. Find your core beliefs, find a message, and compromise all of the other stuff with what sounds good or is good based on your developing understanding of things. It is easier to get things done in groups, generally, and young voters need to see that.

ICantSpellDawg

01-12-2012, 00:53

Congratulations you sound exactly like I do. My biggest argument with Obama's foreign policy has been getting involved in Libya. I wish he had gotten rid of a few of our alliances *cough* Nato *cough* but I obviously don't expect him to do so. Not that displeased with his foreign policy he came in naive to an extent and is leaving looking pretty damn pragmatic. Socially the same. Economics we feel the same though you may not be as conservative as I am.

On education i'm the most ravenous pro-teacher person on earth. It's the only union I will argue for. You people who attack teachers as to why america lacks educationally can eat a fat one. (vitriol intended people who blame teachers..... go be a teacher for a day)

In this instance, One of the bright spots in my view of the administration IS it's involvement in Libya. I appreciate the revision of our spearhead from being one of manpower to one of technological power. I favor a more insidious approach to undermining weak totalitarian governments than the one supported by the previous administration, as I've learned over time - less commitment, seems more homegrown. Overt action works well less frequently than political pressure and shadow assault.

tibilicus

01-12-2012, 00:59

Congratulations you sound exactly like I do. My biggest argument with Obama's foreign policy has been getting involved in Libya. I wish he had gotten rid of a few of our alliances *cough* Nato *cough*.

You're anti-Nato? Wonderful. I would much rather prefer a pan-European defense policy rather than an Anglo-American policy which continues to send Britain's young citizens off to die in some desolate desert against a people who didn't really have anything against us. If anything our tying to you at the leg has made us more exposed to external threats. Such a shame foreign policy is one of those topics that's off the democratic radar. I mean, its almost accepted by electorates that no matter who they elect, should international conflict occur, we as citizens have no say in matter.

Centurion1

01-12-2012, 01:38

You're anti-Nato? Wonderful. I would much rather prefer a pan-European defense policy rather than an Anglo-American policy which continues to send Britain's young citizens off to die in some desolate desert against a people who didn't really have anything against us. If anything our tying to you at the leg has made us more exposed to external threats. Such a shame foreign policy is one of those topics that's off the democratic radar. I mean, its almost accepted by electorates that no matter who they elect, should international conflict occur, we as citizens have no say in matter.

Oh don't get e wrong. I think Britain is the greatest ally America has on earth. I appreciate fully your commitment to helping us. I hope that we can repay the favor some day. I would also suggest you not underestimate the immense help Europe receives technologically from the US. I'm aware you all produce your own materiel and systems.... but much more of it than you think is borrowed.

NATO as a whole is a joke and waste.

@GC

I hate the army values. Saying those at two in the morning in a 8 hour smoke session while being screamed at and other unspeakable acts doesn't make you appreciate LDRSHIP anymore

econ21

01-12-2012, 01:56

Barack Obama is an exceedingly bright, likable and clever man who is disciplined and enjoys being popular. ...He has failed to do the main thing that he promised and seemed likely to deliver on - forging workable consensus.

Is Obama at fault for failing to forge a consensus? Looking at the current crop of GOP candidates, they all seem to espouse a "take no prisoners" approach to any kind of bi-partisanship. Maybe Huntsman is an exception, taking the Chinese Ambassador posting, although I rather agree with him that it is a stretch to see such a diplomatic posting as anything to do with party politics. I recall in one debate all the candidates were against any compromise on the budget. The idea of trying to reduce a deficit without raising any taxes just seems bizarrely extreme to this economist. The favorite, Romney, seems the clearest case of Republican instransigence. Obama fashioned his healthcare reform on that endorsed by Romney in his home state. Looking at Romney, my impression is that - as a free agent - he would be a fairly pragmatic, reasonable "managerial" type leader who could do business with a centrist Democrat. But the party won't allow that, so he's obliged to adopt conservate positions that the conservatives don't believe he believes in. Gingrich is the other side of the same coin: a man who came into politics with the avowed aim of demonising the opposition and led the vendetta against Clinton.

I left your comments about Obama's persona in the quotation because they accord with how I see him. It's not obvious to me why he's regarded as such a polarising figure by the Republicans (any more than it is with the equally detested Clintons). Obama and Clinton seem exceedingly smart and charming centrists. If they could be faulted for their policies, it would more likely be because they have enacted too little change rather than because they have been too progressive. We've had some polarising political figures in the UK (Thatcher, lesser known leftists like Scargill and Benn) but the recent US Democrat Presidents are so far from those kind of ideologues, the venom they have stirred up is rather puzzling. They seem much closer to the UK politicians who have successfully forged a workable consensus like Blair and Cameron.

a completely inoffensive name

01-12-2012, 02:23

The only people at fault for not reaching a consensus are the Republicans.

If you want to legitimately attack Obama, talk about the NDAA and other bills he has signed. Don't pretend as if he is a do nothing president that can't get anything done.

a completely inoffensive name

01-12-2012, 02:29

Also, 150 evangelical leaders gather around on Friday to make plans on how to stop the evil cult that is Mormonism from taking control of America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservative-activists-scrambling-for-a-strategy-to-block-romney/2012/01/10/gIQAVFATpP_story.html

tibilicus

01-12-2012, 03:38

Oh don't get e wrong. I think Britain is the greatest ally America has on earth. I appreciate fully your commitment to helping us. I hope that we can repay the favor some day. I would also suggest you not underestimate the immense help Europe receives technologically from the US. I'm aware you all produce your own materiel and systems.... but much more of it than you think is borrowed.

NATO as a whole is a joke and waste.

@GC

I hate the army values. Saying those at two in the morning in a 8 hour smoke session while being screamed at and other unspeakable acts doesn't make you appreciate LDRSHIP anymore

I guess you do let us use your satellites. Cheers for that and all.

Centurion1

01-12-2012, 04:06

Well, this isn't a place to discuss that, but I think being able to appreciate those values while under incredible physical and mental duress is a trait you need to be a good soldier. Something lost on a lot of people, which is the reason why the Army has suffered a massive drop in quality over the last decade.

If you can't stay true to some basic principles of honesty and integrity while being yelled at and doing push-ups, how can you possibly do it in combat?

You do realize i was being facetious right? What kind of person can hate those values.....

Centurion1

01-12-2012, 06:54

Stay in the Army for awhile, and you'll find out. The good news is that they don't generally promote people that don't take them seriously. Especially among Officers.

You cannot be a decent human being let alone be successful in the military without having these rather basic values. I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that anybody who doesn't subscribe and believe the same things will fail in the armed forces.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-12-2012, 11:36

Stay in the Army for awhile, and you'll find out. The good news is that they don't generally promote people that don't take them seriously. Especially among Officers.

You think it's bad now, read Into the Stormby Gen Freddie Franks and Tom Clancy. In the 1970's-80's the US Army basically invented the Epic Fail, which is part of why marines still think the army sucks.

You cannot be a decent human being let alone be successful in the military without having these rather basic values. I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that anybody who doesn't subscribe and believe the same things will fail in the armed forces.

If you believe this you are beyond naive, and the military will eat you alive.

In my experience 25% of soldiers are genuinely honourable warriors, 50% are normal human being and 25% are scum who are extremely good at killing. In general military culture is pretty coarse and uncouth, for pretty obvious reasons.

drone

01-12-2012, 16:46

The downside to this being that a lot of shady people with combat skills will be released back into the general population, looking for jobs that don't exist.

Centurion1

01-12-2012, 18:18

If you believe this you are beyond naive, and the military will eat you alive.

In my experience 25% of soldiers are genuinely honourable warriors, 50% are normal human being and 25% are scum who are extremely good at killing. In general military culture is pretty coarse and uncouth, for pretty obvious reasons.
[/QUOTE]

be successful in the military

drone

01-12-2012, 22:24

There's a little black spot on the sun today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOq6h56sIOg

There's a rich man, sleeping on a golden bed
There's a Gingrich, choking on a crust of bread

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-12-2012, 23:42

Into the Storm is a fantastic book that also highlights how the Army transitioned into a sort of "Golden Age."

The War on Terror has totally messed that up, though. When I joined in '06, they were taking everyone. Felons, drug addicts, you name it. Heck, I'm a Highschool Drop-Out. I have a GED. If it wasn't for the War on Terror, I probably would never have been allowed in! My "Battle-Buddy" in Basic Training was a guy who kept a News Article in his wall-locker that was about how he got arrested after a 28-day-long Meth and Crime Binge.

Thankfully, standards are returning. Even before I got out, it was pretty clear that they were going to start booting people. I have a seriously messed up foot from a bad humvee accident, and they wouldn't let me re-enlist as a Combat Soldier, so I just got out when my time was up rather than do a job I wouldn't like--so I guess that's fair, and no hard feelings. However, bad soldiers had better watch out. Fail a piss test once? You're out. Fail a PT test? You're out. Cuss at your sergeant? You're out. As it should be.

A lot of Republicans have this idea that by throwing money at the Army, you're going to make it better. Not so! The larger the force has to be, the more the quality drops. Every single unit I was in had a drug problem. I don't mean Weed, I mean meth, cocaine, and heroin. Every single unit I was in over a four year span. Ten years ago, that would have been unthinkable (or maybe not? It's always possible I have an erroneous view of the past).

*Egads, how did I even get on this topic. My bad. On topic, though:

The Army can't possibly continue fighting these dumb little guerilla wars. They sap morale, they destroy conventional readiness, and they give bad politicians a really good distraction to use against YOU, the Voter. The fact that the Army remains as potent a weapon as it is, is quite a miracle.

I'd say that was a reasonable assessment. Into the Storm is an interesting book to read from a British point of view, the lack of formal instutional structures for training before the 1980's is extraordinary in a "modern" force. Clancy's failure to properly research the British in Iraq though is by turns dissapointing and hilarious. Sir Rupert Smith was a Major General during Desert Storm, we don't have "Brigadier Generals" in the UK, and they wouldn't be commanding Armoured Divisions in any case.

Also, "Sunray" is the Appointment Title for the formation's "Boss", not something Sir Rupert pull out his fundament.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Sunray

Everything you didn't want to know about the British Army.

Centurion1

01-13-2012, 00:02

Heey, cool. Good link. I like learning about other nations' Armies. The only useful thing I have to add to that discussion, though, is that I think Australian soldiers have awful uniforms.

Also, who uses the Steyr-Aug? I can't remember if it was the British or the Australians, but that thing is silly looking.

its the aussies. its a good weapon, solid bull pup design. The US army next gen infantrymans weapon needs to be a bull pup especially with how prevalent mout is in the kinds of conflicts we are likely to be facing in the future.

Centurion1

01-13-2012, 00:38

Actually, I'll agree with that, if only because optics have become the STANDARD. You don't use Iron Sights outside of training any more if you're in a combat unit. Personally I liked the M68 CCO, but lots of people swear by the ACOG or the MARS sight. Optics like to fall off M4s, which is why every M4 with an optic that you'll ever see is secured with all kinds of parachute cord or metal wire.

Used an acog once on the range with an m4. its frightening how easy it was to hit the target.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-13-2012, 00:55

Heey, cool. Good link. I like learning about other nations' Armies. The only useful thing I have to add to that discussion, though, is that I think Australian soldiers have awful uniforms.

Also, who uses the Steyr-Aug? I can't remember if it was the British or the Australians, but that thing is silly looking.

The British use the L85 A2, made by Enfield - it's the most accurate 5.56 in the world, and the heaviest.

ICantSpellDawg

01-13-2012, 03:10

There's a little black spot on the sun today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOq6h56sIOg

There's a rich man, sleeping on a golden bed
There's a Gingrich, choking on a crust of bread

This could hurt Romney short and long term. If this is what most people believe that venture capital does, then we are all in trouble. I understand Romney to be a civic minded decent guy. While I'm pretty sure that those people were really attached to producing decent laundry equipment, it may stand to reason that if productivity is low and the workers are a dime a dozen, that it might be best to turn the company around. All I kept thinking while watching that video is "why did those people ever have jobs to begin with". People with no talent, no ambition and no education have quite a bit to fear in the future no matter who is in charge. The best candidate recognizes that and will attempt to help those who help themselves. Make educations dirt cheap, accesible to everyone and let bright people create value, instead of just ridinging an ignorant wave of value from the end of WW2.

Also, Mitt Romney has 3 homes. His politifact record is pretty good (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/)

a completely inoffensive name

01-13-2012, 07:54

According to fivethirtyeight it looks like South Carolina is unpredictable at the moment. Recent polls show Romney dipping fast against Gingrich just as the wave of anti-Romney ads are coming out. Odds are neck and neck between the two right now on who should win.

If Gingrich makes a come back in the South, this also gives Ron Paul an opportunity to take his libertarian ideals to the west and in particular the southwest, where it is most received. States such as Nevada could have Paul coming out as #1. Exciting stuff.

econ21

01-13-2012, 15:29

Ron Paul does seem an interesting figure. I've never been aware of him until this contest, but from the youtube clips of his interviews and debates, he does seem an immensely attractive politician in many ways: kindly, gentle, thoughtful, honest and intelligent.

However, he is so ideologically "out there", he makes Thatcher and Reagan look like bland, middle of the road centrists. I can't take seriously a man with a "0-0-0" tax plan running to head a government that spends 40% of GDP. Or who plans to bring the boys home in a country with 1000 overseas military bases. Or who wants to legalise drugs, go back to the gold standard, get the government out of health care, end financial regulation after the credit crunch etc.

Lemur

01-13-2012, 16:16

For anyone who thinks South Carolina might deliver a surprise, a historian just noted that in 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2008 SC went for the establishment candidate every time: George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

-edit-

Newt Gingrich just scored a double (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/tim-lahaye-newt-gingrich-endorsement_n_1204466.html), both the Left Behind author and the undead voice of Jerry Falwell.

The former House speaker was endorsed by evangelical author and pastor Tim LaHaye, who is best-known for writing a series of books called the "Left Behind" series, an apocalyptic vision of what some Christians believe will happen when true believers in Jesus Christ experience the "rapture" to heaven and nonbelievers are left behind for a period of "tribulation." [...]

The most interesting portion of LaHaye's endorsement, however, came when the Los Angeles resident claimed that the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the best-known evangelical leaders for most of the past few decades, said before his death in 2007 that he thought Gingrich should be president.

"As my friend, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell told me personally, 'Speaker Newt Gingrich is the most qualified man in America to run as president of the United States,'" LaHaye wrote.

Ronin

01-13-2012, 18:04

In case you haven't already heard, in the upcoming South Carolina primary, Palmetto State Republicans may finally be able to cast their vote for an absurd clown whose candidacy makes a mockery of the entire convoluted electoral system. But enough about Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer; Stephen Colbert has formed an exploratory committee to run for President in South Carolina!

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2012/01/13/stephen-colbert-majorly-announces-presidential-exploratory-committee/

now I feel like I have a horse in this race.

Xiahou

01-13-2012, 18:31

I personally hope this is the election where we break the electoral grid-lock we've had for so long. Ron Paul has a chance to turn traditionally blue states into red states. If he were to get the nomination, you would see a very different electoral vote distribution than we're used to. I think.I think Paul would be more likely to turn red states blue. Seriously people, the guy has some good ideas- but waaay too much baggage. He'll never be a viable candidate. His small government platform might get him some attention in the primary, but he would be destroyed in the general. He's gotten a pass on any serious media scrutiny because he's been a bottom tier candidate- if he somehow stumbled into the nomination, Democrat opposition research would have a field day.

Lemur

01-13-2012, 18:35

[Ron Paul]'s gotten a pass on any serious media scrutiny because he's been a bottom tier candidate
That bottom tier candidate scored third in Iowa and second in Hew Hampshire, as opposed to a mainstream candidate such as Rick Perry, who came in 5th in Iowa and 6th in New Hampshire. Curious for your definition of "bottom tier."

rvg

01-13-2012, 18:43

Ron Paul is about 50/50 mix of very good and crazy. His biggest problem is that as a Libertarian he goes way too far promoting US isolationism and feeble federal government (as opposed to small government). If Paul gets the nomination I'll be screaming Soetoro 2012 atop of my lungs. Come to think of it, I think I'll be screaming that regardless of who grabs the nomination this year. Except for Gingrich maybe. I really do wish that Ron Paul was less of a nutcase but alas.

Soetoro 2012!!!

a completely inoffensive name

01-13-2012, 20:08

I love how everyone discounts Ron Paul because he proposes actual solutions to problems. Hint: If you only vote for guys that don't say things you don't like, ever, period, then you're gonna get bamboozled. Again. When will the GOP learn? Stop voting for fat cats and life-long politicians.No Cube, you are just young and naive. If we actually voted for someone with different ideas, things might become different for the worse! When you get older you will learn that the adult thing to do is always vote for the status quo. What if our great grandparents back in the late 1800s got caught up in those "progressives" that wanted some good things like workers rights but also wanted crazy things like the common woman to vote (imagine even proper ladies soiling their innocence by pulling the lever, absurd). It would have been disasterous.

Xiahou

01-13-2012, 20:11

I love how everyone discounts Ron Paul because he proposes actual solutions to problems. I discount Paul, first and foremost, because of his ties to racists, conspiracy nuts and truthers. Secondly, he is a textbook example of showing how to let perfect be the enemy of good. I believe that the federal government has grown far too large, but unlike Paul I don't think you can flip a switch and revert shrink it back to the level of 200 years ago. His platform is either unserious or disastrous- take your pick. His radical changes would either not be allowed to take place, or if they did, they would cause so much upheaval that we'd wish they didn't. Someone explain to me how he's going to phase out the Federal Reserve in one year and re-make our banking system without causing such an economic catastrophe that itd make the Great Depression look like a picnic? We need a serious small-government conservative with a real plan to walk back the scope of government- not a wild-eyed idealist(to bad we don't have one running).

On my first point, I don't believe Ron Paul to be racist and he says he's not a truther- so I'll take him at his word. But how do you think that would play out in the general election when The Ron Paul Report or whichever of the myriad publications he slapped his name on are quoted in attack ads citing articles that blame jews and blacks for our societal problems? Paul is damaged goods.

Edit:
Read (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/selections-ron-pauls-newsletters) some for yourself:
“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

Tellos Athenaios

01-13-2012, 20:11

But if you only vote for people who do things you don't like, then the question becomes: what's the lesser evil, to me?

EDIT: And for most Americans that really boils down to, take responsibility or pass it along to the next generation? For instance cutting heavily in medicare/medicaid isn't going to go down well with the current (powerful) group of (near) pensioners. But what is it to them if they let the problem get worse and pass the bill on to their grandchildren?

a completely inoffensive name

01-13-2012, 20:12

In seriousness, yes Ron Paul is crazy. No doubt about that. But **** it all, I want my civil liberties back even if it means putting up with some bad economic policies (which will be blocked by congress anyway). I'm not going to pick the economically "sane" person who hands my money to wall street and then tells me that we need cameras in airport bathrooms so female terrorists wont sneak a nuke in their snatch.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-14-2012, 16:38

Actually, I'll agree with that, if only because optics have become the STANDARD and most Bull-Pups seem to have a built-in Optic. You don't use Iron Sights outside of training any more if you're in a combat unit. Personally I liked the M68 CCO, but lots of people swear by the ACOG or the MARS sight. Optics like to fall off M4s, which is why every M4 with an optic that you'll ever see is secured with all kinds of parachute cord or metal wire.

Hang on, wait.

You guys only just started mounting optics as standard?

I do not understand America.

Really, at all.

I mean it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-15-2012, 02:43

Who knows when you're not going to have batteries, or if your optic breaks? Optics on an M4, as a rule, are much easier to use and shoot with than regular Iron Sights are, so any unit worth its salt will get everyone proficient with Iron Sights first.

That's one of the reasons I liked the M68 CCO. If you zero your Iron Sights good, then attach an M68, it's easy to "cheat" the red dot into the proper place by flipping up the backup iron sights and aligning the dot with the top-left-hand corner of the front sight post. Not perfect, and not by the book, but if you keep your iron sights zero'd you can slap on an M68, align the dot, flip your rear iron sight back down, and pop some 300M targets no problem with both eyes open. And considering the M68 is for much closer targets than that, I call it a win.

I'm wierd like that, though. A lot of people really, really hate the M68.

No, you misunderstood me. The British Army has used the SUSAT as standard for all front line troops since the 1990's.

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

Lovely sight, used it my self, has the slight disadvantage of being full of poisenous gas (makes the tip glow), but that's OK because I was told in weapons handling that you can run over it in a five ton truck and not break it.

For me, that fact just encapsulated how wierd your country seems to me. You have all this gucci kit, computers in your tanks that talk to each other, but no optical sights for your infantry.

a completely inoffensive name

01-15-2012, 10:08

If Mittens wins South Carolina, it's all over.

Lemur

01-15-2012, 18:08

If Mittens wins South Carolina, it's all over.
Yes, I don't see how any other scenario works.

I believe the Army is moving towards the psuedo sci-fi that people like to envision.
Blame Tom Clancy and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

a completely inoffensive name

01-16-2012, 05:29

rvg

01-16-2012, 15:27

Reports coming in say Huntsman will be dropping out and endorsing Mittens. Most of Huntsman's voters will be flocking to Mittens, so this just looks like another nail on the coffin for Mitten's competitors.

Yeah, it's a good day to be Mittens considering that his opposition is still as fractured as before.

Lemur

01-16-2012, 15:30

Speaking of fractured, here's a glimpse of the SC Tea Party attempting to unite behind someone (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/15/at-south-carolina-convention-tea-party-struggles-with-electability.html). Anyone.

Michael George, father of the Lean Six Sigma theory of managerial efficiency, took to the podium with his apocalyptically titled address: “The Tea Party at the Crossroads: Join or Die!” Far from a rallying cry in support of the movement, George was issuing a warning to Tea Partiers that the time has come to stop dithering and line up behind the only remaining candidate who can defeat President Obama: Newt Gingrich. “If you don’t support Newt, it’s a vote for Romney!” he cautioned, having made clear what a disaster that would be. “It’s time to join or die. Of course, if you decide to die, that’s your business.” [...]

The centerpiece of his speech was a slide featuring a man wielding a club, surrounded by the bloody corpses of a few dozen bludgeoned seals. If only these seals had joined together, he told the crowd, they could have taken the guy. For any dim enough not to follow his point, he smugly pointed out that, unless the attendees put aside their personal preferences to rally around Newt, they would meet a similar end.

Several annoyed listeners headed for the door. Others kept their seats but started shouting their disapproval. One ticked-off gal captured the sentiment in the room when she roared, “Tea Party members will not let anyone tell us who to vote for!”

Ronin

01-16-2012, 15:49

One ticked-off gal captured the sentiment in the room when she roared, “Tea Party members will not let anyone tell us who to vote for!”[/ind]
She went on to say "only Fox News can tell us who to vote for...but they have to be kinda less obvious about it" :P

PanzerJaeger

01-16-2012, 23:35

its the aussies. its a good weapon, solid bull pup design. The US army next gen infantrymans weapon needs to be a bull pup especially with how prevalent mout is in the kinds of conflicts we are likely to be facing in the future.

+1. Barring a revolutionary advancement in small arms, bullpups are the future, despite the fact that the awful British SA-80 has given them a terrible reputation. The FN F2000 is a good example - light, super reliable, incredibly ergonomic, and forward ejecting. It is doubtful that any of the major powers will have the budgets necessary to upgrade, though.

The British use the L85 A2, made by Enfield - it's the most accurate 5.56 in the world,

Who told you that?

No, you misunderstood me. The British Army has used the SUSAT as standard for all front line troops since the 1990's.

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

Lovely sight, used it my self, has the slight disadvantage of being full of poisenous gas (makes the tip glow), but that's OK because I was told in weapons handling that you can run over it in a five ton truck and not break it.

For me, that fact just encapsulated how wierd your country seems to me. You have all this gucci kit, computers in your tanks that talk to each other, but no optical sights for your infantry.

There are serious disadvantages to magnified optics on standard battle rifles, especially the SUSAT. Eye relief is awful, as is CQB capability. That's why the new ELCAN LDS has a goofy red dot setup stuck on top of it. It was a good decision to keep irons and then adopt red dots.

drone

01-17-2012, 00:45

And Huntsman is officially out.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-17-2012, 01:00

Who told you that?

Who told you otherwise? The barrel is a work of engineering beauty, and the bullpup design puts all the weight on the shoulder, so you're able to aquire target very quickly, not to mention it's a very stable weapon, especially prone, even for a little'un like me and it has almost no kick. Although, I do have a scar of my glasses from not properly adjusting the iron sights.

There are serious disadvantages to magnified optics on standard battle rifles, especially the SUSAT. Eye relief is awful, as is CQB capability. That's why the new ELCAN LDS has a goofy red dot setup stuck on top of it. It was a good decision to keep irons and then adopt red dots.

You forgot humid climates, regardless with a sight like SUSAT, if you can see it you can hit it, and you can see out to 500 metres better than out to 200 with the iron sights. I'll give you QCB, to a point, but ELCAN is optic + red dot, not iron sights, and to be honest, having used the more unwieldly L86 with SUSAT (while the range master was having targets pop up in my freaking face) aquiring the target and putting a bullet in it was not that much worse than with Irons, that I remember.

Of course, this was some years ago now and I have been shooting since I was a child.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-17-2012, 01:01

And Huntsman is officially out.

And has whole heartedly endorsed Mitt, so I hear.

So, we should start asking about Mitt's running mate.

a completely inoffensive name

01-17-2012, 01:03

And has whole heartedly endorsed Mitt, so I hear.

So, we should start asking about Mitt's running mate.

It won't be Huntsman, that's for sure. Probably will pull another McCain and look for another "real conservative" to bring out the base on election day.

PanzerJaeger

01-17-2012, 02:11

Who told you otherwise? The barrel is a work of engineering beauty, and the bullpup design puts all the weight on the shoulder, so you're able to aquire target very quickly, not to mention it's a very stable weapon, especially prone, even for a little'un like me and it has almost no kick. Although, I do have a scar of my glasses from not properly adjusting the iron sights.

I am always leary about such declarative statements regarding firearms. Yours seemed particularly interesting as it was applied to a weapon that is so widely regarded as being patently awful, even after the H&K redesign. I have read that one of its few redeeming qualities is its accuracy, but I also know that AR pattern rifles, SIG 55X series rifles, and several other assault rifle types are known for having very good accuracy. I am just wondering where you heard that from and how it was determined? Has it won in the accuracy field in MoD carbine competitions, and how did it fare in such competitions in countries with more objective testing? Has there been any emperical testing outside of the defense industry?

ICantSpellDawg

01-17-2012, 02:57

I've just sent this quick e-mail to the Romney campaign. I hope somebody over there reads it. Heck, it's better than not sending it.

I'm a very big fan of Mitt Romney.

My fiance and I talk him up in our circles of influence, try to convert the politically cynical, and have purchased the mug, the books, the sweater and the long-sleeve. Big Fans.

And while I know that Mitt will be the eventual nominee and that the G.O.P. will rally behind him, some charismatic supporters, others supporters of necessity - there is an insidious problem, or could be.

I've been watching ads like the "When Mitt Came to Town" and the "Colbert: Serial Killer" - and they are good, very good. Are they fair? No, but that doesn't matter if they are funny enough, scary enough or have a commanding narrative.

And that narrative is fast becoming; Slick, out-of-touch, anti-labor, elitist with no moral compass running for the highest office in the land.

And I was in the shower, thinking about the grand strategy that is needed to deal with this and I think it came to me.

Americans think like employees, laborers, the working class because we are those things. We are stuck behind that understanding and when faced with a scary prospect of someone who has a track record of "Creative Destruction" or "Tax Arbitrage", we naturally fall back into the laborer role. We all know that Mitt served the shareholders well, but the majority don't know what it is to be a shareholder.

But we should, because WE ARE SHARE-HOLDERS of the American system, the government itself. We hold equity in this most important of company's - and we do ourselves a dis-service to forget this simple fact. Every American needs to feel like a share-holder in a system that has derailed. They need to know that they are not employees who must wait for fate to find them, but the owners of the asset themselves - the ones who would be well served to seek the talent that Mitt Romney has shown in droves. The share-holders who call the shots and need someone who is tried and tested at making shareholders very happy, at turning around struggling assets.

This is the ground-shift that needs to occur. Over the next months, we need to work on creating this narrative, because gravity is against us. Americans fall into the comfort of the employee on their own, it is your job to make them wake up to the fact that this system is their asset, their business and the nest egg that they have to take them into retirement or pass on to their loved ones; not their supervisor at the shop or their general manager.

Do us all the favor and help us realize this.

Best Regards,
Your supporter for the better part of 5 years,

Cxxxx Wxxxxx
8xxx xxxxxxxx Rd
xxxxxx xxxxx, NY xxxxx

(xxx) xxx-xxxx
m (chriswright3@gmail.com)yname@gmail.com

In Your Service

Centurion1

01-17-2012, 06:01

actually you likely will own some stocks at some point in your life unless you never save a dime.

a completely inoffensive name

01-17-2012, 09:07

tibilicus

01-17-2012, 10:54

Ronin

01-17-2012, 14:18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYzsO8dNbY

About time someone raised this important issue, even if it is "Americans for a better tomorrow tomorrow"...that Stephen Colbert has nothing to do with.
I expect Romney's denial of his alleged serial killer past with bated breath.

Colbert 2012!!

drone

01-17-2012, 16:38

About time someone raised this important issue, even if it is "Americans for a better tomorrow tomorrow"...that Stephen Colbert has nothing to do with.
I expect Romney's denial of his alleged serial killer past with bated breath.

Colbert 2012!!
Epic! :laugh4:

Lemur

01-17-2012, 16:42

I guess it's pretty much over (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/national-polls-suggest-romney-is-overwhelming-favorite-for-g-o-p-nomination/). That was quick!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/itisoverpng.png

Now we can get back to the real business of talking about how Obama is the antichrist socialist evil-doer who hates freedom.

ICantSpellDawg

01-17-2012, 17:58

The debate was a horrific embarassment. Romney was on his D game and Gingrich is a blight on the GOP. The audience should be ashamed of itself. What a waste of a debate

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-18-2012, 00:07

I am always leary about such declarative statements regarding firearms. Yours seemed particularly interesting as it was applied to a weapon that is so widely regarded as being patently awful, even after the H&K redesign. I have read that one of its few redeeming qualities is its accuracy, but I also know that AR pattern rifles, SIG 55X series rifles, and several other assault rifle types are known for having very good accuracy. I am just wondering where you heard that from and how it was determined? Has it won in the accuracy field in MoD carbine competitions, and how did it fare in such competitions in countries with more objective testing? Has there been any emperical testing outside of the defense industry?

It's not a carbine, it's a full-size assault rifle, the L22 is the carbine. I know that when the SA80 replaced the SLR the marksmanship tests had to be redesigned, and the SLR is a full-size battle rifle that chambers the 7.62 NATO. The A2 is not "patently awful", it is really quite reliable, it's just damned heavy, going on for 12 pounds.

ICantSpellDawg

01-18-2012, 00:25

a completely inoffensive name

01-18-2012, 00:45

Just to add to the narrative: Romney took a salary of $1 as governor of Massachussets. He was a volunteer governor for 4 years. Also, of the 1.4 million he received for running the winter olympics, he donated the entire amount to charity. Plus, he threw in a million of his own cash to put his money where his mouth was. What a d-bag, right?

He called people who wanted higher taxes "jealous" of the rich. He said he didn't make that much from speeches and when the info came out, he made $370,000+.

He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and to pat him on the back for sharing the drippings that fall out from his mouth is laughable.

ICantSpellDawg

01-18-2012, 01:38

Imagine what the average Joe in Mogadishu, Kabul or Jakarta would say if they saw how much we spend on cups of coffee or clothing.

rvg

01-18-2012, 02:42

Yup. Romney is so out of touch it hurts. Donating to charity is awesome. Donating to charity so people will think you're less of a fat-cat (especially when you are, in fact, a fat cat) is pretty scummy. If he wants to convince me he's really selfless, he'll propose some things that would benefit little people.

The worst part about Romney is that he's willing to say anything and everything you want to hear just to get you to drive the car off the lot. He has consistently shown himself as untrustworthy.

ICantSpellDawg

01-18-2012, 04:42

The worst part about Romney is that he's willing to say anything and everything you want to hear just to get you to drive the car off the lot. He has consistently shown himself as untrustworthy.

How? He promised to govern Massachusetts well, to get good returns for share-holders, to reform the failed winter Olympics. He says that he has governed like a Republican and he did govern like a Republican. You guys are confusing political pandering in campaigns with coming up short in office. I don't mind that Obama promises a bunch of stuff and doesn't deliver. I mind the stuff that he has been doing in office. Promises on the campaign are for fools who need to feel good. The underlying issue is not what they promise, most of which is bunk, but what they deliver.

Tuuvi

01-18-2012, 06:49

I think politicians need to be honest about what they believe in and what their values are so we know what we're voting for. But as far as campaign promises go, I think we give politicians, and especially the president, too much credit for both their successes and their failures. The honest thing for a politician to do would be to not even make campaign promises in the first place.

Tuuvi

01-18-2012, 07:15

No don't worry GC I agree with you at least part of the way, in my first sentence I wrote "I think politicians need to be honest about what they believe in and what their values are so we know what we're voting for."

In my fantasy world, politicians campaign on what they believe are the best responses to the current issues, and what their principles are, rather than saying "When I'm president, I'm gonna end the war, and create jobs for all them poor folks that don't have none, and create a golden age of prosperity for America" as if they actually have the power to do all those things, most of what they promise is beyond their control. Sure they usually have some grand plan for accomplishing their promises but it's not like they actually know it's going to work. I also think it would be way cool if politicians debated with the electorate and tried to convince them they're right instead of pandering to certain groups and telling them what they want to hear.

a completely inoffensive name

01-18-2012, 07:30

He says that he has governed like a Republican and he did govern like a Republican. You guys are confusing political pandering in campaigns with coming up short in office.

Oh you poor delusional man.

What I have here is the official McCain opposition dossier on Mitt Romney during the 2008 GOP primary race.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78582788

Let's take a look at what the McCain campaign dug up on Romney.

Economics
State spending increased at well over rate of inflation under Romney’s watch, estimated at 24% - more than$5 billion – over Romney’s final three years.
Under Romney, Massachusetts dramatically underperformed the rest of the nation in terms of job growth.
Romney left his successor to fill a budget deficit exceeding $1 billion.
Romney raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts.
Romney raised fees by roughly $500 million in his first year alone, a figure that was highest in the nation.
Massachusetts’ state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration.
(What a real Republican amiright?-ACIN)

Iran
Bain Capital, the private equity firm that made Romney his fortune, currently owns a chemicals and paintcompany called SigmaKalon that operates an office in Tehran.
In 2004, Bain & Co. received a multi-million dollar contract from the National Iranian Oil Company.

These are just from the first few pages. There are 200 pages here, many with full quotations of his constant flip-flopping.

Romney is not a man of his word. His words are meaningless and his policies are liberal when he wants them to be for political advantages.

Xiahou

01-18-2012, 19:41

This past debate shows everything about why I will not vote Republican.

A. The fact that Romney's dad was born in Mexico is met with audible boos from the crowd. The mere fact of being born there now associates Romney with being the son of an illegal immigrant now?I think you completely misinterpreted this. The boo was for the questioner- trying to use his father's birthplace to call Romney's immigration views into question. I didn't boo, but I did think the question was classless.

C. Romney dodges every. single. question. And people still eat him up. It took Santorum to ask him TWICE to answer a question in order to get any direct response from him.I don't know if you're a Futurama fan, but Romney's response to being asked about his tax returns reminded me very much of the response Nixon's head when he was asked if he'd steal candy from a baby. :yes:Nixon: Uh, well, I, uh ... the question is-is vague. You don't say what kind of candy, whether anyone is watching or, uh... [He clears his throat.] At any rate, I certainly wouldn't harm the child.

D. Every question on Ron Paul was a gotcha question, where Ron Paul had to say first thing, "No, that's not what I said.".Yeah, he even said it wasn't what he said when he did say it...:dizzy2: His attempted walk back of his comments on the killing of Bin Laden were embarrassing.

E. The bloodlust from every single candidate. IF WE ARE AT WAR, WE WILL WAGE WAR UNTIL THEY DIE. ANY LESS IS COWARDICE! WAR ON ALL OF THEM.I think Gingrich was the worst offender here. His "Kill em all!" bravado was transparent audience pandering.

F. Newt's ridiculous claims, we should fire the janitors and have the kids who are spending their time in class now cleaning other classrooms. Wut?School cleaning staff works after school hours, FYI.

What I have here is the official McCain opposition dossier on Mitt Romney during the 2008 GOP primary race.That's nothing. Here's McCain endorsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34phsb4e6Eg) Obama at a Romney rally. :laugh4:

a completely inoffensive name

01-19-2012, 09:02

I think you completely misinterpreted this. The boo was for the questioner- trying to use his father's birthplace to call Romney's immigration views into question. I didn't boo, but I did think the question was classless.
Ahh ok, I am willing to accept that was the case.

I don't know if you're a Futurama fan, but Romney's response to being asked about his tax returns reminded me very much of the response Nixon's head when he was asked if he'd steal candy from a baby. :yes:Nixon: Uh, well, I, uh ... the question is-is vague. You don't say what kind of candy, whether anyone is watching or, uh... [He clears his throat.] At any rate, I certainly wouldn't harm the child.
Love Futurama, and that is spot on how it was.

Yeah, he even said it wasn't what he said when he did say it...:dizzy2: His attempted walk back of his comments on the killing of Bin Laden were embarrassing.
I will be the first to say Ron Paul did not do so great that debate. He had really good moments and really bad moments. The fact is, his anti-war stance doesn't jive well with angry southerner's whose economy runs off of military bases.

However, his distinction between defense spending and military spending was brilliant. Re-open bases here, the troops will be spending their money back in the local economies and we don't have to spend trillions of dollars on all these wars. Win-win for everyone.

I think Gingrich was the worst offender here. His "Kill em all!" bravado was transparent audience pandering.
Gingrich is political moss. This is how he sticks around for so long.

School cleaning staff works after school hours, FYI.
But that doesn't cover the many messes that are made during school hours. Who will clean up the cafeteria after lunch? Who will clean the bathrooms when some jerk pees on the wall? Who will clean the vomit after the sick kid? There is always some staff on hand for emergencies.

That's nothing. Here's McCain endorsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34phsb4e6Eg) Obama at a Romney rally. :laugh4:

I saw that. I would find it hilarious, but in all honesty, I have worked with enough old people to know that they can't help getting stuff like that mixed up from time to time. Those kind of bloopers don't really do much for me anymore.

drone

01-19-2012, 17:54

And Perry is out (endorses Gingrich?!? :inquisitive:). Everyone rejoices, except for Texans. Sorry, Strike, you are stuck with him.

rvg

01-19-2012, 17:57

Now the other Ricky needs to drop out. Then Mittens is gonna feel some real heat.

drone

01-19-2012, 18:05

endorses Gingrich?!?
Given a few minutes to think about it, I guess this makes sense. Both Perry and Newt are slimy influence peddlers of the highest order, so it fits.

rvg

01-19-2012, 18:11

Given a few minutes to think about it, I guess this makes sense. Both Perry and Newt are slimy influence peddlers of the highest order, so it fits.

True, but given the alternative it's the lesser evil.

a completely inoffensive name

01-19-2012, 20:02

Fivethirtyeight now giving Romney only 50% chance of winning SC in a virtual tie with Gingrich. Will this be an epic come back?

rvg

01-19-2012, 20:14

A double whammy considering the latest news that Romney did not win Iowa.

Xiahou

01-19-2012, 20:37

The White House's Romney = Bain = Evil line of attack looks to have taken a hit today....

Bain gives more campaign money to Democrats than it does to Republicans (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop)
Obama himself is among the recipients:
But President Obama received a sizable share as well. He has accepted more than $80,000 from Bain employees since the beginning of 2007. Bain Capital employees gave $27,500 to Obama during the first three quarters of 2011.

a completely inoffensive name

01-20-2012, 07:58

That GOP debate was....interesting.

Ronin

01-20-2012, 12:35

Newt - would ask Palin to take 'major role' in his presidency if elected (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/newt-gingrich-sarah-palin-2012_n_1214343.html)

what is this? Tea Party pandering? could anyone really want to commit a McCain style suicide against Obama again?

rvg

01-20-2012, 14:11

Lemur

01-20-2012, 16:04

Apparently Newt won the debate last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_005EqDM

rvg

01-20-2012, 16:07

Lemur

01-20-2012, 16:12

[Romney] is slick and you really WANT to like him.
Hmm, I think of Romney as sane, moderate and competent. Those are the big three positives in my prosimian mind.

Likable? I've never found him so. I'd bet that in person he's a warm, good man, but his public persona is not exactly friendly, or it does not register as such with me. He seems like a guy who will say and do anything to get what he wants. Which is fair in the pursuit of the highest executive office in the country; no hard feelings there. But he lacks the aw-shucks warmth of, say, Mike Huckabee.

To expand slightly: Reagan had the warmth and sunniness of a favorite grandfather. Clinton came off as a very empathetic person, who really might "feel your pain." Bush II had a charming rascal thing going, a twinkle in his eye; he seemed like the ultimate fun guy to have a beer with. Obama comes off like a Vulcan who cares; he might not empathize with the warmth of Clinton, but plenty of people feel that he wants to help them.

All of these candidates had a way of connecting with ~51% of the voters, some sort of humanizing trick, persona or attitude. I don't see it with Romney. Maybe (probably) I'm missing it.

gaelic cowboy

01-20-2012, 16:22

Really..? I can almost forgive people for voting for Romney. I mean, the dude is slick and you really WANT to like him.

Newt, on the other hand... really? Really!? Is this what we've come to? Why is Newt considered a valid contender? Give me one good reason!

The reason is quite simple really with the polarisation of the Republicans you can only get candidates who fulfil certain dogma.

naturally as the dogma usually contains various contradictions you end up with candidates who say anything for votes Romney/Gingrich or you get wacko's who actually believe it (insert loon here)

gaelic cowboy

01-20-2012, 16:32

@Gaelic Cowboy: If people are going for the polarizing candidates shouldn't they go after Santorum? He's consistently as socially conservative as it gets. If he was elected, I would seriously consider emigration but there are a lot of people that share his values. With Newt, I just don't see it. Not only do I think most Americans can't identify with him, but he also seems to have managed to disrespect EVERY set of values imaginable during his time as a politician.

Think on it this way at the moment you have a vocal minority in the party who can muck up your selection but not neccessarily win an election.

But you cant get elected unless you either split that minority or co-opt it, hence you get a man who is both Fraud/Fool at the same time, or you get the utterly cynical.

Newt is really quite frankly the most cynical of them all in my view, he preaches family values while not even attempting to live by the same.

Any person who with a straight can say they want smaller government, while advocating that it should get into the bedroom to monitor our morals is a fraud.

gaelic cowboy

01-20-2012, 16:58

Which is exactly my point. Despite my strong desire to assume the opposite, I really don't think most Americans are this stupid. They should know better.

There not that stupid, however they most likely still have not made up there mind who they like yet, that means that a dedicated appeal to a single minority block has a good chance at this stage.

By the time the vast majority turn the full attention to the thing the decision will have been made, then the hard part starts of explaining how what you said in South Carolina is no longer valid and why this is not a flip flop on your behalf.

It's not that Americans are stupid it is that you current candidates are pretty much frauds, who wouldnt even get a look in if the economy was not so sick.

I still think Obama will win though even with the economy, the average voter is likely to conclude there talking through the proverbial and either vote for status quo or not vote at all.

a completely inoffensive name

01-20-2012, 17:16

Last time I checked on fivethirtyeight, gingrich had a 67% chance of winning SC. Big dog is coming back.

Lemur

01-20-2012, 19:44

I am extremely jealous of South Carolinians who can attend Rock Me Like A Herman Cain South Cain-olina Primary Rally (http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=709988#.Txm16m_y8UU), the first ever Stephen Colbert/Herman Cain mutual event.

"Colbert says a vote for Cain would be a strong message that people want Colbert on the ballot." Sweet!

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

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-21-2012, 00:26

His opening was extremely strong. John King set himself up to be crushed and Newt absolutely crushed him. When it came to the discussions on the economy and spending cuts I couldn't help but admire Ron Paul.

It was an Epic Fail, mostly because King was right to ask. In a party which values marital fidelity the fact that Newt is a scuzzy philanderer who left his wife while she was in hospital with cancer matters.

Lemur

01-21-2012, 00:30

According to Pravda (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/), three wives make Putin strong president! He make sexytime and women cannot resist, much like Stalin.

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.Russia's bright day is dawning for nation with glorious leader! Read Pravda and avoid imperialist lies!

rvg

01-21-2012, 00:55

ICantSpellDawg

01-21-2012, 01:18

Gingrich is an over-rated moron and an indecent human being and I will not, under any circumstances, vote for him in November. I will vote for other offices. My presidential vote in NY doesn't mean anything, anyway.

We need to try harder to keep bad people out of the White House. I disagree with Barack Obama more often than not, but I don't believe that he is a bad man.

rvg

01-21-2012, 01:56

Mickey Mouse could always use a vote.

Lemur

01-21-2012, 03:13

... and now the all-important Chuck Norris endorsement (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/205501-chuck-norris-endorses-gingrich) is in.

Put some popcorn on the stove, this is going to be quality television.

PanzerJaeger

01-21-2012, 06:55

Really..? I can almost forgive people for voting for Romney. I mean, the dude is slick and you really WANT to like him.

Newt, on the other hand... really? Really!? Is this what we've come to? Why is Newt considered a valid contender? Give me one good reason!

I cannot think of one. It is difficult to believe that so many people could still be swayed by the same tired playbook he has been using since the 90's. Every difficult question is met with self righteous incredulity. As Rick Santorum (ironically) pointed out in last night's debate, the man is no more of a 'true conservative' than Mitt Romney. What he does bring to the table is an amazing amount of personal baggage, instability, and a leadership style that can only be described as self destructive.

As for Romney, the question Republicans must ask themselves is the same one they have had to contend with since TPaw left the race: If not Romney, then who? None of the remaining candidates are even remotely plausible opponents in a general election. On the bright side, after settling on Romney, I did quite a bit of reading on the man and I have actually warmed to him quite a bit - not for ideological reasons, but because he seems like a genuinely talented administrator of large organizations and a bit of a turnaround artist, a skill this country could seriously take advantage of. And as horrible as movement conservatives make him out to be on social issues, he actually seems to be a decent human being in the way he conducts his personal life. If conservatives could accept the fact that a Reagan is simply not going to emerge this cycle, there is a lot to like about Romney.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-21-2012, 07:10

Well, superficially Romney is horrible and newt is fine. I understand perfectly why people react that way.

I think my problem here specifically is that I'm accustomed to the rhetoric of a more liberal president like obama; I know what's just talk and pandering and what isn't. While with the republicans I tend to take it at face value through inexperience.

PanzerJaeger

01-21-2012, 07:34

Superficially, I find Romney to be rather bland and inoffensive most of the time, with occasional deviations into the inspirational when he gets off script. Newt seems completely obnoxious and egotistical, even for a politician.

Xiahou

01-21-2012, 07:52

Gingrich appeals to people because he's a scrappy debater and he needles the moderator or the media whenever he can. But he's also a loose cannon, unreliable and has a massive ego. Before Iowa he was going around telling people he had the nomination sewn up already. What a piece of work.....

Romney is officially the leper with the most fingers. My biggest problem with him is that he seems to just be more of the same. I think he'd be a competent administrator, but I'm not at all sure he'd have the courage to make any meaningful reform.

a completely inoffensive name

01-21-2012, 09:37

fivethirtyeight currently giving Gingrich an 82% chance to win. Since this is right before the election, I would think he has it locked up now.

a completely inoffensive name

01-21-2012, 10:18

Or nobody has a clue, and everyone's making up numbers and slanting stories. This happens ever four years guys.

If Newt gets it I'll eat my shoe. I will actually eat my freaking shoe. That is how impossible it is.

Hope I didn't jinx it. I hear shoe tastes rather gross.

fivethirtyeight has a sophisticated algorithm that takes the average of all the polls coming out with weights attached to individual polls based on it's size, methodology and time before the election.

Askthepizzaguy

01-21-2012, 11:29

Obama's scorecard with me is still in the positive, though that health care monstrosity was a bit too compromised to be anything to cheer about.

If I were Republican or heavily conservative, as a thought experiment, I am honestly puzzled as to who I'd support.

Romney's actual political record is the most moderate/sane in my view, since he's at least formerly liberal and the governor of a liberal state, and he is also used to governing in situations which require political compromises. That said, he also strikes me as dangerously unscrupulous, willing to say and be all things to all people, just to win votes. He's just a slick salesman, not a leader with a clear vision, either for a more conservative, more liberal, or more responsible future.

Santorum is a joke, and not a particularly amusing one. He's totally unelectable and Obama would crush him like a grape. His claim to fame is basically being an extremist bigot.

Ron Paul strikes me as the most politically consistent and honest politician I've seen in a long time. I think he rubs half the Republican base the wrong way because he's libertarian, not a modern "conservative". I approve of a lot of his social/values policies but think he'd be completely wrong for the country when it comes to economics, and his downright looney beliefs regarding the miraculous and mythical "free market" being able to fix everything on its own without outside regulators is easily bad enough for the country to keep him out of office. That said, his actual power while in office would be limited to a point where most of his wackier ideas cannot be implemented, and the stuff I like about him might shine through. He'd be the worst if he were running for dictator, but as a manager tied up by the straitjacket of bureaucracy, he'd be kept in perfect check.

Gingrich is probably the best politician of the bunch, intelligent and fierce. That said, he has no other redeeming qualities whatsoever. He's like a shyster lawyer... good at what he does, but not someone I want in charge.

I'd probably force myself to vote for Paul.

Meh. Are you Republican/conservative orgahs all that excited about these candidates, for real? I'd cop to it if all I had to pick from was Al Sharpton or Joe Lieberman, and I was an unhappy camper. I thought Obama would be more vulnerable, but against these candidates, the lesser of evils argument is really going to be a strong one amongst moderates. None of these Republicans strike me as very threatening to Obama. They're all extremely vulnerable on a wide variety of levels.

Polls seem to show some of these guys going neck-and-neck with Obama now, but I think their fate is going to be very similar to Palin's, they will appeal to the extreme right but alienate the center, or in Romney's case, appeal to no one. I don't think this election is going to be hard to call in Obama's favor, and that's with Obama's polls near their low point and not a whole lot of enthusiasm for Obama even among his base. The Republicans just look worse.

I haven't read this thread so I don't know if I'm alone in thinking this or not. Is anyone enthusiastic about any of these guys?

CountArach

01-21-2012, 12:43

ICantSpellDawg

01-21-2012, 23:53

Romney is awesome. The guy is navigating national level politics pretty well. I've been impressed with what I've seen of him over the years. Im still 100% behind that guy

rvg

01-22-2012, 01:26

Romney is awesome. The guy is navigating national level politics pretty well. I've been impressed with what I've seen of him over the years. Im still 100% behind that guy

Oh yeah, I remember you were solidly behind him back in 2008.

PanzerJaeger

01-22-2012, 01:28

ICantSpellDawg

01-22-2012, 01:49

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 01:52

What a bunch of freaking morons. Movement conservatives desperately want Obama re-elected, even if it means handing this thing to the ultimate flip-flopping Washington insider, a guy who attacks entitlement reform as 'right wing social engineering' and the evils of venture capitialism.

YOU ASKING ME ABOUT MY WIFE?!??! HOW DARE YOU!!!! THIS IS DISGUSTING! OUTRAGOUS! DISGRACEFUL! THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Yeah, I am sorry PJ, for the first time in my life I thought I might vote Republican, then after watching all these debates and seeing what the GOP base still is, I'm gonna have to go with Obama over that scumbag.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 01:56

Looking at the way these counties are breaking down, it looks like Gingrich is on the path to win it all. Only the Columbia and Charleston areas are still holding strong as Romney but they don't even have 1% in yet.

Also: How interesting is it that after the first three states, we have three different winners? That has never happened before I believe.

rvg

01-22-2012, 02:10

Newt has earned his SC win. Back a year ago he was not considered a serious candidate. That sentiment gradually changed through the debates. Yes, he comes with lots of political garbage and all that jazz, but the man is an good debater. You can personally dislike him and all, but he's not without merit.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 02:21

26% reporting and Gingrich is 14 points ahead. Wow.

EDIT: 65% reporting and Gingrich still has that 14 point lead. 4 counties have not yet reported anything but only 2 counties are still majority Romney, the major cities of Charleston and Columbia.

PanzerJaeger

01-22-2012, 03:31

I'm humiliated by the voters in SC. Newt Gingrich is the scum of the earth and I would vote for Barack Obama if it were a one on one.

Yeah, I am sorry PJ, for the first time in my life I thought I might vote Republican, then after watching all these debates and seeing what the GOP base still is, I'm gonna have to go with Obama over that scumbag.

Make that three. I would rather limp along in gradual decline with Obama and have the chance at a clear contrast in 2016 than commit the nation to the kind of kamikaze-style downward spiral a Gingrich presidency would entail. Patriotism has to take precedence over politics.

On to what I hope will be a Florida firewall for Romney.

Newt has earned his SC win. Back a year ago he was not considered a serious candidate. That sentiment gradually changed through the debates. Yes, he comes with lots of political garbage and all that jazz, but the man is an good debater. You can personally dislike him and all, but he's not without merit.

How? By using the democratic playbook against Romney?

Turning every uncomfortable or difficult question back on the moderator and/or media is not skilled debating. It is sophomoric at best, and the fact that the GOP base ate it hook, line, and sinker says a lot about them.

rvg

01-22-2012, 03:38

How? By using the democratic playbook against Romney? Turning every uncomfortable or difficult question back on the moderator and/or media is not skilled debating. It is sophomoric at best, and the fact that the GOP base ate it hook, line, and sinker says a lot about them.

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama? Obama is a freaking JFK. If anything, South Carolina raises lots of doubts about Romney's electability. Gingrich on the other hand would destroy Obama in debates. Gingrich is far from perfect and has tons of issues, but Romney is no better.

Lemur

01-22-2012, 03:46

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama?
This is a very legitimate question. Whatever anyone thinks of Obama's policies, we can all agree the man knows how to campaign. But if the choice for Repubs is now down to Romney, Gingrich and (distantly) Santorum, I dunno ... I guess Xiahou is in the right of it, that Romney is the leper with the most fingers.

PanzerJaeger

01-22-2012, 04:01

If Romney has trouble beating Gingrich into the ground then how the heck does he expect to beat Obama?

Because GOP primary voters are completely removed from the general election electorate, more so than they have been since Goldwater. Romney is polling better (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html) than Obama in swing states among people who will vote in the general. I wonder how Gingrich fares. It is difficult to imagine voters in the critical suburbs of Ohio and Pennsylvania, much less Wisconsin or Indiana, pulling the lever for him.

Obama is a freaking JFK. If anything, South Carolina raises lots of doubts about Romney's electability. Gingrich on the other hand would destroy Obama in debates. Gingrich is far from perfect and has tons of issues, but Romney is no better.

Why do you think Gingrich would destroy Obama in debates? He's a one trick pony, and that trick only goes over well with a very select group of voters. The conservative base hates the media, but attacking them will not resonate with the vast swathe of independents needed to win in November.

rvg

01-22-2012, 04:14

Because GOP primary voters are completely removed from the general election electorate, more so than they have been since Goldwater. Romney is polling better (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html) than Obama in swing states among people who will vote in the general. I wonder how Gingrich fares. It is difficult to imagine voters in the critical suburbs of Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, pulling the lever for him.

Romney has been blasting Obama for the past 12 months while Obama hasn't as much as laid a finger on Romney. Yet. Obama is a powerhouse of charisma and Romney cannot compete with him in that field. Romney cannot effectively criticize Obamacare without looking like a total hypocrite. Obama hasn't done anything to reign in Wall Street, but Romney cannot (or rather will not) call him out on that either. In the meantime the economy is slowly improving. Then comes in the question of character. Despite disagreeing with Obama on just about everything I believe that he is a good and genuine man. I can describe Romney in three words: used car salesman. I understand that many used car salesmen might take offense at being equated to Mitt Romney and for that I apologize in advance.

Why do you think Gingrich would destroy Obama in debates? He's a one trick pony, and that trick only goes over well with a very select group of voters. The conservative base hates the media, but attacking them will not resonate with the vast swathe of independents needed to win in November.

Gingrich's tactics reflect the best approach at any given moment. For example, he tried to run a clean campaign on 2011, saw that it didn't work and adjusted accordingly. Same with the debates: there's nothing to suggest that he is a one trick pony. Obama on the other hand is not that great of a debater: last time he grabbed the nomination because Hillary bled most of her superdelegates.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 04:19

Tonight was not a good night for Ron Paul's presidental campaign.

Tonight was an outstanding victory for Ron Paul's message.

Ron Paul's numbers:
2008: 15,773
2012: ~75,700

The exit polls don't lie. The young libertarians are the new wave for the GOP...once the GOP decides to embrace them. Those that follow Ron Paul are unlikely to switch back to neoconservatism. It will not happen this election, and Ron Paul is too old for 2016, but once Obama puts the nail in Romney/Gingrich's campaign, the GOP has nowhere to turn to except the ultra religious or the libertarians.

God help us if they choose the former.

rvg

01-22-2012, 04:25

Some day we'll get a viable third party out of it, and it'll destroy these status-quo machines we call parties.

That will be the day when America wins.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 04:27

There's just a ton of Libertarians out there, though. Either you're a libertarian because you want small government or you're a libertarian because you don't want social conservatives trying to run your life.

Some day we'll get a viable third party out of it, and it'll destroy these status-quo machines we call parties.

3rd parties are hopeless in the American system. Don't count on a viable 3rd party ever, it is a pipe dream.

It is inevitable that the GOP needs a fresh coat of paint, but they are still stagnating with the good ole boys club of the 80s, 90s, and the Bush decade. As soon as Gingrich looked strong, the base flocked away from Romney, they don't want a moderate. The GOP base as it stands today is too extreme, too radical, too gullible, too prejudiced, too religious and too stupid to understand who is the best candidate to go up against Barack Obama.

If the GOP base was full of smart people, Pawlenty would be standing in victory right now, not scumbag #2. In time, this will have to change.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 04:56

History says you're right-ish, but I do hope you're wrong. If the Libertarian cause is absorbed the into the GOP, it will have to come with too much social conservative and neo-conservative leanings. Its an Old Boys Club, and nobody gets the nod if they don't support the ultra-wealthy (who tend to support very non-libertarian causes quietly and with lots of money).

What I am saying is that in time, the old boys will be dead/out of the game and libertarians will not need to deal with neoconservatives anymore. The funny thing about the 1% being in charge, is that there is only 1% of them. Young republicans don't relate to them, they hate them and are opposed on a moral basis to neoconservatism on almost every single topic, especially foreign policy. It will be a war which is being waged in its early stages as we speak, and someone new is taking the top dog spot.

PanzerJaeger

01-22-2012, 04:57

Romney has been blasting Obama for the past 12 months while Obama hasn't as much as laid a finger on Romney. Yet.

False. Obama's campaign has been attacking (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/politics/democrats-target-romney-after-iowa-win.html) Romney for months now, as they know that he is the only viable candidate left capable of unseating him. Did you miss Obama's press conference where he jumped on board Gingrich's bandwagon and trotted out various business leaders attacking Bain?

Obama is a powerhouse of charisma and Romney cannot compete with him in that field.

That is certainly not a point in favor of Gingrich, one of the most despised politicians in America.

Romney cannot effectively criticize Obamacare without looking like a total hypocrite.

Neither can Gingrich, who supported the individual mandate on a federal level in 2008.... 2008!... long after Romney abandoned the notion.

Obama hasn't done anything to reign in Wall Street, but Romney cannot (or rather will not) call him out on that either.

So Romney will not lump a group of independent, competing businesses into a single group for the purposes of making broad brush, ham-handed populist attacks against them, the same kind of attacks Gingrich recently launched against private equity firms. That sounds like the very definition of a proper GOP candidate. If anti-Wall Street populism is what you are looking for in a candidate, you may want to consider the Democratic Party, or occupying something.

In the meantime the economy is slowly improving. Then comes in the question of character. Despite disagreeing with Obama on just about everything I believe that he is a good and genuine man.

Again, that is not a point in favor of Gingrich, who is by all account an awful human being in the way he conducts his personal life.

I can describe Romney in three words: used car salesman. I understand that many used car salesmen might take offense at being equated to Mitt Romney and for that I apologize in advance.

That is interesting. I came to the exact opposite conclusion. As I said earlier, he seems remarkably respectable for a politician. One thing is for sure, though; Mitt Romney surely beats Newt Gingrich on the question of character.

Gingrich's tactics reflect the best approach at any given moment. For example, he tried to run a clean campaign on 2011, saw that it didn't work and adjusted accordingly.

Yes, and how he adjusted was to revert to his natural state - a big government, anti-business, Washington insider, pro-lobbyist, populist democrat. If I want to vote for a populist democrat, I'll vote for the one that now has four more years of executive experience than Newt Gingrich.

Same with the debates: there's nothing to suggest that he is a one trick pony. Obama on the other hand is not that great of a debater: last time he grabbed the nomination because Hillary bled most of her superdelegates.

Obama is a fine debater, and will run rings around Gingrich if he become the eventual nominee. Independents are not interested in a bomb thrower, which is all Gingrich has ever been.

You have brought up a lot of Romney's vulnerabilities. I agree that he is not a great candidate, or even a really good one. However, in each area you highlighted, Gingrich is markedly worse, and that is not even including the virtual airport trolley (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-baggage-trolley-at-airport-image10937455) worth of additional baggage the man brings to the table.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 05:24

Ack, I hope you're right. My gut tells me that its very easy to find an heir-apparent who is willing to continue supporting policies that make him/her richer. For every corrupt congressman there's plenty of people who would be willing to take his place and be just as corrupt for exactly the same ends.

It's a matter of winning elections not perpetuating the elite. The GOP can't continue buying the elitist guy's victory in the primary every cycle only to have him lose consistently. The base eventually will radically change directions and become more chaotic and uncontrollable. Which is exactly what we are seeing right now.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 05:48

Kind of on that note, why do we still care so much about South Carolina? Is it not time to make this a bit more fair?

I'm not trying to say South Carolina is less important than the rest of the country, but they are certainly a lot more conservative and less educated than most voters (one of the worst school systems in the nation). That's not a good place for a campaign to be FORCED to make their stand--it means you have to get radical.

When was the last time we had a good national argument on trying to make the electoral system more fair?

The public is too afraid of change for that to happen. Everyone knows how the current system "works", so changing it is too scary.

Ask any of the UK residents in the backroom why First Past the Post was kept.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 06:02

Not just that, but what would you change it to? It seems like every election year there are examples of dead people 'voting' or other shady election practices, so going towards direct democracy might be just as ineffective.

To be honest, the current structure is fine, the voting method is terrible. If we did preferential voting or anything besides FTTP, the system would be a lot more fair.

CountArach

01-22-2012, 11:30

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2012, 13:20

To be honest, the current structure is fine, the voting method is terrible. If we did preferential voting or anything besides FTTP, the system would be a lot more fair.

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

Lemur

01-22-2012, 16:19

Nevermind that the polling firm is a GOP one.
Does not mean their methodology or results are wrong, though, especially when they publish the full questions and results here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120113_swingstate_memo.pdf)(PDF warning).

I don't automatically discard data that comes from partisan sources, especially a known science such as polling.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-22-2012, 19:26

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

It would take a tremendous amount of money to campaign in all 50 states in the primary. The state by state approach allows more time for the process.

I wouldn't mind seeing a switch to batches of 2 or three states at the start though. Small ones.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 21:32

No, the voting method is fine, it is completely fair, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Any other voting method would simply favour the most mediocre and inoffensive candidate, I suppose that's Rommey anyway, but it might have been Perry.

Except it's not fair and we need a voting system that produces mediocre and inoffensive candidates that are more likely to compromise. In case you haven't noticed, America has a problem with polarized politicians not working together.

The problem is the way the primary system works, in two ways. Firstly; not all votes are by secret ballot, totally unacceptable, and secondly; states vote in sequence, so early states influence the voting patterns of later states even though those early states are smaller.

It's an anti-democratic and highly corruptable system.

The GOP changed their primary system about two years ago so now despite candidates "winning" these early states, GOP primaries have delegates split proportionally until march 24th (with the exception of florida), after which then it becomes winner take all.

So all a candidate really gets from winning an early state is momentum. Santorum and Romney got the same amount of delegates from Iowa and in the end, it's not about the votes but the delegates.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 21:37

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2012, 21:53

Except it's not fair and we need a voting system that produces mediocre and inoffensive candidates that are more likely to compromise. In case you haven't noticed, America has a problem with polarized politicians not working together.

First Past the Post elects the candidate prefered by the greatest number of electors, it is a simple and efficient system, which is one of the reasons the UK has virtually no electoral fraud, we actually only have fraud by postal ballot in this country, and even then rarely. Postal ballots are a novelty in this country, and one I would make illegal were I in charge of our electoral system.

If you want to know what those mediocre candidates look like, take a look at Ed Milliband, bland and inoffensive train wreck.

FPTP only seems unfair if you look at parties, looking at individual candidates and constituancies it is obviously the simplest and fairest system, which is why it was prefered by the Founding Fathers, who did not want party politics AT ALL.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2012, 22:49

First Past the Post elects the candidate prefered by the greatest number of electors, it is a simple and efficient system, which is one of the reasons the UK has virtually no electoral fraud, we actually only have fraud by postal ballot in this country, and even then rarely. Postal ballots are a novelty in this country, and one I would make illegal were I in charge of our electoral system.

If you want to know what those mediocre candidates look like, take a look at Ed Milliband, bland and inoffensive train wreck.

FPTP only seems unfair if you look at parties, looking at individual candidates and constituancies it is obviously the simplest and fairest system, which is why it was prefered by the Founding Fathers, who did not want party politics AT ALL.

A. From my understanding alternative methods of voting were not even known about at the time the United States was formed. Single transferable votes were not even proposed until the early 1800s or something. Mathematicians in the 1800s worked out all these alternative styles that we now know today.
B. The only person who cautioned against party politics was Washington. Everyone else was more than ready to fall into their respective camps (Jefferson and Hamilton). Constitution as designed by Madison is completely constructed around curbing party politics and mitigating its effects since according to Madison in Federalist #10, attempting to remove the causes of factions is akin to removing liberty itself.

Fact is party politics may not be what many of the Founders wanted, but as Madison states: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,"
That is the reality of the situation, people no longer vote for individuals, they vote based on the letter D or R next to their name, with the exception of the presidency.

PanzerJaeger

01-22-2012, 23:06

Also, just a follow up on South Carolina, it appears that 42% of evangelicals voted for Gingrich the man who cheated on his first wife with cancer and broke up with his second wife with MS on Mother's Day.

13% voted for Ron Paul married to his wife for 54 years. And I am sure Romney's percentage wasn't great either despite his loyalty to his marriage.

Well you have to keep in mind that Mr. Romney - despite being married to the same woman for 40+ years, despite being a loving and devoted father, and despite being a man devoted to his faith and family - is also a Morman, or as the real Christians call them, the spawns of Satan.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-23-2012, 00:25

It would take a tremendous amount of money to campaign in all 50 states in the primary. The state by state approach allows more time for the process.

I wouldn't mind seeing a switch to batches of 2 or three states at the start though. Small ones.

Why would it take more money? You campaign, then you vote. It would take less money, because the overall campaign time would probably be less and you simplify the process, by just balloting the registered members of the party and doing away with state-by-state registration of the ballot. Given the power the modern Federal Government wields this state-by-state approach is unacceptable, it is inherently a corrupt process because those votes cast later in the campaign are worth less. Consider, both Huntsman and Perry dropped out on the strenght of TWO contests, of which only one was an actual ballot, and the other a series of town meetings. If Rommey had won in South Carolina he would have all but one, all it would take would be for Rommey to win one more state, Gringich one and Santorum one, then Rommey would be home after six states, leaving 44 states disenfranchised.

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2012, 01:40

Why would it take more money? You campaign, then you vote. It would take less money, because the overall campaign time would probably be less and you simplify the process, by just balloting the registered members of the party and doing away with state-by-state registration of the ballot. Given the power the modern Federal Government wields this state-by-state approach is unacceptable, it is inherently a corrupt process because those votes cast later in the campaign are worth less. Consider, both Huntsman and Perry dropped out on the strenght of TWO contests, of which only one was an actual ballot, and the other a series of town meetings. If Rommey had won in South Carolina he would have all but one, all it would take would be for Rommey to win one more state, Gringich one and Santorum one, then Rommey would be home after six states, leaving 44 states disenfranchised.

The primary system is not meant to be democratic. It is meant to gauge general election competitiveness - testing the positives and negatives of a candidates in various forums, simulating variables that you will meet and in the general election.If republicans wanted, they could just pick the nominee and send him to the general, like people are talking about happening at the delegation. The parties are private affairs, only the general is meant to adhere to our Republic's democracy as demanded in the Constitution.

CountArach

01-23-2012, 01:59

Does not mean their methodology or results are wrong, though, especially when they publish the full questions and results here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120113_swingstate_memo.pdf)(PDF warning).

I don't automatically discard data that comes from partisan sources, especially a known science such as polling.
They aren't at all open about the various break-downs that they use for society. It is also at odds with existing polling in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html) for instance. Further, question order s important in this and serves to make it entirely an election about Obama. For instance, note the way that the first question is about Favourability, then Job Approval and then about the election. With low approval ratings it is no surprise that you can skew a result slightly like this. Further, if you need any proof that they are picking and choosing their samples carefully, observe that his approval ratings are 2-4 points below the national average and his disapproval is at least 4 points above the national average.

a completely inoffensive name

01-23-2012, 01:59

Interesting view points around the Democratic table about Ron Paul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=q3AaO5BVCbI

PanzerJaeger

01-23-2012, 04:04

They aren't at all open about the various break-downs that they use for society. It is also at odds with existing polling in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html) for instance.

And more than half of that average is comprised of results from a Democratic polling operation.

My point in posting the poll was not to make a definitive statement about Mr. Romney's chances against Mr. Obama, but to draw a contrast between the electability of Mr. Romney versus Mr. Gingrich. Whether the numbers are skewed a few points towards Mr. Romney or not, I seriously doubt similar numbers could be found for Mr. Gingrich.

Thus, Mr. Gingrich represents a Christine O'Donnell moment for the GOP. If he is nominated, the movement conservatives will relish in his trash talk and bomb throwing against the 'food stamp' president all the way to defeat, and then blame the establishment.

I still contend that that there is a significant group of movement conservatives and thought leaders - Erick Erickson, Rush & the talk radio crew, certain elements of the Fox News channel - that want Obama to stay right where he is for economic reasons. They have figured out that people feel more comfortable when 'their guy' is in office and tend to tune out of politics, which is not good for site views or ratings. They are pushing the Bachmanns, Cains, and Gingriches - the unelectable candidates - almost to the exclusion of anyone with a chance to defeat the incumbent.

***

Ann Coulter actually... surprisingly... fantastically... makes a whole lot of sense (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/coulter-with-newt-gingrich-you-throw-out-the-baby-and-keep-the-bath-water-video/).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-23-2012, 11:36

A. From my understanding alternative methods of voting were not even known about at the time the United States was formed. Single transferable votes were not even proposed until the early 1800s or something. Mathematicians in the 1800s worked out all these alternative styles that we now know today.
B. The only person who cautioned against party politics was Washington. Everyone else was more than ready to fall into their respective camps (Jefferson and Hamilton). Constitution as designed by Madison is completely constructed around curbing party politics and mitigating its effects since according to Madison in Federalist #10, attempting to remove the causes of factions is akin to removing liberty itself.

Fact is party politics may not be what many of the Founders wanted, but as Madison states: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,"
That is the reality of the situation, people no longer vote for individuals, they vote based on the letter D or R next to their name, with the exception of the presidency.

As originally designed your Constitution makes the runner up for President Vice President, the system has become so corrupted it no longer even resembles the ideas of your founders.

As to voting, the maxim is, "One man, one vote", not "One man, one vote - subject to a complex mathematical formula which ranks candidates in preference, first to last, reasigning the votes of the lowest voted candidate until one has achieved 50% of the votes, according to first, second and third preference." for a reason.

Here's the Reason:

I vote Rommey because he's the only Candidate who will Obama and the onle one with any hope of dragging the US out of the coming slump, I don't do second preference votes because I'd rather have Obama than another of the other R candidates.

You vote Ron Paul, then Rommey, then Gringitch.

So I voted once, and you voted three times, so it's possible for my first vote to be ignored, as well as your first and second, but your third proppels Gringitch to the Nomination.

That is not a fair system. If you want preferencial voting, fine, but you do it via runoff, everybody votes again, and again, you don't do it on a single ballot.

Lemur

01-23-2012, 16:41

gaelic cowboy

01-23-2012, 17:09

First Past the Post elects the candidate prefered by the greatest number of electors,

Except when you have more than one party in a constituency, you could be elected on a very small amount of electors if other parties split the remaining larger share of votes.

As I am sure your aware if labour and lib dems get 66% of the vote between them and a Tory gets 34% the Tory is elected, and that would get worse if you have more parties naturally.

It is then that STV comes into its own as eliminating the lowest candidate increases the likelihood that the average voters intentions will be upheld through transfer.

rvg

01-23-2012, 17:40

Ramussen, which is the best outfit for polling the Repub base, gave Romney a 22-point national lead less than two weeks ago. Now they give Gingrich a 9-point lead. That's a 31-point swing in twelve days. Kinda stunning. I don't remember seeing that kind of swing in such a short time span ... ever. Not without, say, someone dying, or a politician being found with a wide stance in an airport bathroom.

I'm at a loss to explain it.

He really fumbled the tax-release issue. Loss of Iowa also helped extinguish his inevitability cigar. People love winners and only stick with struggling candidates in they REALLY like them and believe in them.

Lemur

01-23-2012, 18:16

He really fumbled the tax-release issue. Loss of Iowa also helped extinguish his inevitability cigar.
And perhaps Romney is running an even worse campaign than us bystanders believed. I thought this was from The Onion until I sourced it:

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love."

No, seriously, Romney said that (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn). To people. Who were alive. Gah.

Lemur

01-23-2012, 18:24

Did he stumble over that, or was it said with purpose and gusto? It the former, well done Bush impression there Romney. If the latter, I need to know if he said it with a straight face. :wall:
Well, according to Mark Steyn of NRO, it's from Romney's stump speech (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn):

Why is the stump speech so awful? “I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it’s lethal to him in a way that it wouldn’t be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs.

rvg

01-23-2012, 18:45

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love."

Oh man. They don't need any more negative ads against Romney, they just need a 30 second ad that keeps repeating this nonsense over and over. In the end it should pose a question: Mitt Romney. A human or an automaton?

Montmorency

01-23-2012, 20:30

Any links to a video recording of the speech?

Lemur

01-23-2012, 20:42

Any links to a video recording of the speech?
Don't have time to watch it right now, but here's the most recent stump speech video (http://kmmsam.com/mitt-romneys-stump-speech-in-new-hampshire-video/) that I could find.

-edit-

In unfortunate choice of acronyms news, Rick Santorum's latest fundraising effort was titled Conservatives Unite Moneybomb (http://hypervocal.com/news/2012/the-money-shot-santorum-unleashes-c-u-m/), or C.U.M. No, I am not making this up.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/CUM.png

As one web wag puts it, "When you’re looking for a money shot, an infusion of something big, it’s perhaps best to do a little research on the acronym you’ll be using [...]"

PanzerJaeger

01-23-2012, 21:45

Well, the latest polls have Gingrich way up in Florida. Republicans need think really hard about what they are about to do (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104-4170), and how big of a margin they want to give Obama. :shame:

Subotan

01-23-2012, 23:59

As to voting, the maxim is, "One man, one vote", not "One man, one vote - subject to a complex mathematical formula which ranks candidates in preference, first to last, reasigning the votes of the lowest voted candidate until one has achieved 50% of the votes, according to first, second and third preference." for a reason..

Oh come on. That's intentionally disingenuous. More complex voting systems are meant to more accurately map voter's preferences, and it's just elitism to suggest that the average system is too stupid to work out how to rank his or her candidates from least preferred to most preferred.

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2012, 00:35

Ramussen, which is the best outfit for polling the Repub base, gave Romney a 22-point national lead less than two weeks ago. Now they give Gingrich a 9-point lead. That's a 31-point swing in twelve days. Kinda stunning. I don't remember seeing that kind of swing in such a short time span ... ever. Not without, say, someone dying, or a politician being found with a wide stance in an airport bathroom.

I'm at a loss to explain it.

It is very odd. Oh well, it was a short experiment, being a Republican. Since I'm one of the only registered Republicans in my age group that I've ever met, i'm sure it will be a loss to the one young guy I know who is a registered NY Republican. These people are inexcusable morons.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-24-2012, 01:59

Oh come on. That's intentionally disingenuous. More complex voting systems are meant to more accurately map voter's preferences, and it's just elitism to suggest that the average system is too stupid to work out how to rank his or her candidates from least preferred to most preferred.

Churchill said voters were stupid, not me, but that actually has nothing to do with my point. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to be inherrently unfair and corrupt. STV benefits parties, not candidates or electors. FPTP ensures the candidate with the greatest appeal gets the seat.

a completely inoffensive name

01-24-2012, 02:25

Churchill said voters were stupid, not me, but that actually has nothing to do with my point. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to be inherrently unfair and corrupt. STV benefits parties, not candidates or electors. FPTP ensures the candidate with the greatest appeal gets the seat.

STV benefits ideologies, not parties. Gore lost because the left leaning people were split between him and Nader. Thus allowing the monstrosity of Bush Jr. to get in. You can't say that Bush Jr. had the greatest appeal when everyone points to Nader and says "spoiler'.

Centurion1

01-24-2012, 02:31

STV benefits ideologies, not parties. Gore lost because the left leaning people were split between him and Nader. Thus allowing the monstrosity of Bush Jr. to get in. You can't say that Bush Jr. had the greatest appeal when everyone points to Nader and says "spoiler'.

clinton, ross perot, HW.

democrats like to ignore that one and pretend their golden boy slapped around HW on his own. far more striking example and the GOPS greatest nightmare regarding paul

a completely inoffensive name

01-24-2012, 02:41

clinton, ross perot, HW.

democrats like to ignore that one and pretend their golden boy slapped around HW on his own. far more striking example and the GOPS greatest nightmare regarding paul

Why do you have to make this into a pissing contest? Oh wait, you are neoconservative....

a completely inoffensive name

01-24-2012, 08:22

Oh wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

One week ago fivethirtyeight had Romney winning Flordia with a 98% probability.

That now has shifted 79 points with Romney's 19% trailing to Gingrich's 81%.

What a friggen swing.

Centurion1

01-24-2012, 14:29

if that troll wins im simply not voting for anyone. my first possible presidential election and i wont be voting if gingrich and obama are my options.

Subotan

01-24-2012, 15:01

Churchill said voters were stupid, not me, but that actually has nothing to do with my point. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to be inherrently unfair and corrupt. STV benefits parties, not candidates or electors.
That's wrong - corruption in party systems has much more to do with funding than the electoral system.

FPTP ensures the candidate with the greatest appeal gets the seat.
No, it ensures the least intolerable candidate is elected. Don't make me open my big can of political science whupass on you to prove it.

STV benefits ideologies, not parties.
Ideologies aren't something that can benefit - they're concepts. Also, STV helps parties in countries with multi-party systems.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-24-2012, 15:48

That's wrong - corruption in party systems has much more to do with funding than the electoral system.

A more complex system is more difficult to track, and easier to cheat.

No, it ensures the least intolerable candidate is elected. Don't make me open my big can of political science whupass on you to prove it.

This is more true of AV than FPTP, but you are correct to a point, but as evidenced in this thread apathy does not equal support, and the apathetic/disolusioned tend not to vote to begin with. None of this aknowledges that FPTP is NOT "unfair", however.

gaelic cowboy

01-24-2012, 16:03

A more complex system is more difficult to track, and easier to cheat.

How???

The only way to cheat in our STV system is either to impersonate a voter or somehow stuff a balot box with your votes.
These are all easily stopped with the propers checks and safegaurds and I bet there the exact same as used in the UK for FPTP

This is more true of AV than FPTP, but you are correct to a point, but as evidenced in this thread apathy does not equal support, and the apathetic/disolusioned tend not to vote to begin with. None of this aknowledges that FPTP is NOT "unfair", however.

Well I most certainily acknowledge that FPTP is unfair, as it often imposes a candidate of less than half the total electors. That never happens here all candidate must get above a quota to be elected hence they are by default the actual choice of the electors.

Voters here are very aware of the makeup of the parliment they want and it works everytime, all attempts to bring in FPTP by Fianna Fail were rejected as they would have created a two party system favouring themselves naturally.

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2012, 16:59

if that troll wins im simply not voting for anyone. my first possible presidential election and i wont be voting if gingrich and obama are my options.

I'll be abstaining from the vote myself. I'll vote for other elected offices, but I'll probably pencil in Romney. I'm of the opinion that a second Obama term would be better than a Gingrich presidency. Plus, I owe Obama one for slaying the Hildabeast last cycle.

Strike For The South

01-24-2012, 17:19

I love how Gingrich was bringing up Clinton on charges on misconduct while he himself was doing the exact same thing

I consider myself fairly morally bankrupt and only able to meet the day due a strong combanation of anit depressants, alcohol, and adderal but even I think that's low

Coupled with asking his cancer stricken wife if she wanted to swing

I want him to lead us. I feel like out of 300,000,000 people he's the best we got

rvg

01-24-2012, 18:19

Strike For The South

01-24-2012, 18:22

Yes, that kind of hypocrisy takes serious guts. The man has no fear, he *deserves* to be president.

It's not a lack of fear, it's hubris

gaelic cowboy

01-24-2012, 18:26

Yes, that kind of hypocrisy takes serious guts. The man has no fear, he *deserves* to be president.

Change hypocrisy to hubris and it's more like it, and as we all know nemeis is never far away from such people.

PanzerJaeger

01-24-2012, 20:14

I'll be abstaining from the vote myself. I'll vote for other elected offices, but I'll probably pencil in Romney. I'm of the opinion that a second Obama term would be better than a Gingrich presidency. Plus, I owe Obama one for slaying the Hildabeast last cycle.

Don't give up yet. Even if Gingrich takes Florida, there will be a long pause between Nevada (which Romney is likely to win) and the next round of voting with few debates. That will give the GOP base, the establishment, and the media, a long period of time to consider a Gingrich candidicy and presidency. The negative stories will be endless, as there is such a deep and virtually untapped well to draw from. Gingrich is like Jäger, best downed in quick, mindless shots, as sipping it reminds you just how nasty it is. Gingrich won't have the opportunities in February to hold the GOP's proverbial hair back as he forces one-liners down their throats.

I still hold out hope that my party is not this crazy, this suicidal. They have been momentarily trapped in an Obama-like rhetorical spell and resent the perception that Romney is being pushed on them. When they wake up and realize that their chosen alternative is so much worse on every issue they hold against Romney, they will fall in line.

***

Also, for any fans of The Office:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396077_10150514434992939_360918602938_9104881_621688660_n.jpg

ICantSpellDawg

01-25-2012, 00:00

Or maybe they'll stop wanting to be force-fed information by Fox News, and vote for the candidate with no record of hypocrisy at all?

Vote Ron Paul!

By the way, Karl Rove is in charge of Romney's SuperPAC. No red flags there, guys? Really?

I don't think Karl Rove is a bad guy. I've always liked him and I'm not offended by what he says or has done. Plus, the fact that his mother killed herself has always made me see him differently. Should he run for President? Absolutely not. What has he done that is so horrible, other than help Republicans win elections (which, to some of you, should be on the books as a capital crime)?

rvg

01-25-2012, 00:17

Vote Ron Paul!

speaking of Ron Paul, Al Jazeera has a very scathing article about him...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211810446786665.html

PanzerJaeger

01-25-2012, 00:19

Karl Rove is a brilliant political strategist and a very insightful commentator, but the gay baiting done under his leadership in the 2004 and 2006 elections does raise questions about his character in my eyes. He certainly wouldn't be the first politico to trade in cynicism and division though; it kind of comes with the territory. He seems perfectly affable in person.

a completely inoffensive name

01-25-2012, 00:25

Out of all the Bush buddies, Karl Rove is the least offensive. He simply does his job and does it well. The two real scumbags are Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-25-2012, 00:30

Ron Paul is a great argument in favor of "hypocrisy" and "flip-flopping".

Subotan

01-25-2012, 00:40

A more complex system is more difficult to track, and easier to cheat.
Let's imagine you want to stuff a ballot box. This is much harder to do with ballots that must have all preferences marked, and in a rational ranking, than it is with FPTP ballots.

This is more true of AV than FPTP, but you are correct to a point, but as evidenced in this thread apathy does not equal support, and the apathetic/disolusioned tend not to vote to begin with. None of this aknowledges that FPTP is NOT "unfair", however.

FPTP has the potential for the spoiler effect. Take an election with two candidates, that will be close, say 55-45. If a new candidate suddenly appears on the extreme, and changes the vote distribution to 40-45-15, the second candidate will win, despite having less support than than the first candidate. Under AV, the spoiler effect doesn't exist, as the voters who vote for the third candidate will have their votes redistributed to the first candidate.

PanzerJaeger

01-25-2012, 00:43

Gingrich threatens to pull out of future debates (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-says-he-will-skip-debates-if-audiences-cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto) if the audience cannot cheer. What a joke.

Mr. Gingrich’s performance in the debate in Tampa on Monday night was far more muted. Critics noted that he seemed to be off his game. The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.”

Strike For The South

01-25-2012, 01:17

It's not a lack of fear, it's hubris

Change hypocrisy to hubris and it's more like it, and as we all know nemeis is never far away from such people.

The Irish are a theiving people

Tuuvi

01-25-2012, 03:14

speaking of Ron Paul, Al Jazeera has a very scathing article about him...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211810446786665.html

Idk I kinda thought that article misrepresented his viewpoints. Plus it's not fair to call him a "liar" just because his grasp of history is no better than an average American's.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-25-2012, 03:20

How???

The only way to cheat in our STV system is either to impersonate a voter or somehow stuff a balot box with your votes.
These are all easily stopped with the propers checks and safegaurds and I bet there the exact same as used in the UK for FPTP

Those "top up" MP's, how is that list ordered?

Well I most certainily acknowledge that FPTP is unfair, as it often imposes a candidate of less than half the total electors. That never happens here all candidate must get above a quota to be elected hence they are by default the actual choice of the electors.

Voters here are very aware of the makeup of the parliment they want and it works everytime, all attempts to bring in FPTP by Fianna Fail were rejected as they would have created a two party system favouring themselves naturally.

I fail to see how being returned with less than 50% of the electors is "unfair", the same is true in any other system if you consider first choice, the difference is that if you don't get the guy you want, you get to choose again. I have no objection to that in principle, but it should be done in runoffs, not by a single vote, actually present people with the new choice and force them to acknowledge who they are throwing their second and third votes behind.

As to the specific Labour & Lib-Dem votes vs Tory votes, I don't buy it. Labour and the Lib-Dems occupy political poles as distinct from each other as the Tories, and convincing the electorate otherwise is a huge con.

On America: ACIN, the narrative that Gore was the better candidate and should have won obscures the fact that Bush was much more likable and ran a better campaign.

Life's like that, sometimes the guy who "deserves" to win just screws up.

Gore losing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUcyfKESts

gaelic cowboy

01-25-2012, 12:41

Those "top up" MP's, how is that list ordered?

I dont understand what your saying here PVC please explain??

I fail to see how being returned with less than 50% of the electors is "unfair",

Were trying to pick representatives of the electorate, you can represent the view of the electorate if you less than half the electors.

You can certainly be the representative for parliment but your not representative of the electorate, there is a question of legitimacy here that is consistently ignored by FPTP.

the same is true in any other system if you consider first choice, the difference is that if you don't get the guy you want, you get to choose again. I have no objection to that in principle, but it should be done in runoffs, not by a single vote, actually present people with the new choice and force them to acknowledge who they are throwing their second and third votes behind.

It is important to remember we don’t actually get a second vote we get to choose another preference..

As to the specific Labour & Lib-Dem votes vs Tory votes, I don't buy it. Labour and the Lib-Dems occupy political poles as distinct from each other as the Tories, and convincing the electorate otherwise is a huge con.

Now you are trying to pull a fast one here PVC it doesn’t matter which end of the political spectrum the other parties are now does it.

All that matters is that having more than two helps to encourage a less than 50% election for one candidate.

On America: ACIN, the narrative that Gore was the better candidate and should have won obscures the fact that Bush was much more likable and ran a better campaign.

Bush having likability does not make it either right or proper that he does or does not win and it’s irrelevant to the discussion. He would have never got within an asses roar of winning under STV

Life's like that, sometimes the guy who "deserves" to win just screws up.

While we may like to use sport analogy for politics I think we have had enough of people who fulfil those criteria, they each and everyone of them led us off the proverbial cliff Bush, Blair and Ahern spring to mind.

Frankly I prefer to use vote's to elect candidates.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-25-2012, 14:10

I dont understand what your saying here PVC please explain??

STV elects constituancy candidates for an area and then uses an RP formula to elect "top up" MP's for a region. Well, depending on electoral math and the ordering of each candidates it is possible to ensure that at least one of your party's MP's is returned from that list, an unpopular mid-level minister for example, regardless of how the country feels about him. It's the same basic problem as RP, parties have 100% safe seats where they can be assured the party's loyal foorsoldiers are returned.

You can certainly be the representative for parliment but your not representative of the electorate, there is a question of legitimacy here that is consistently ignored by FPTP.

Well, you might not be representative of 50% of the elector's first preference, but that's true under ANY system, the only difference is that AV systems favour the least offensive candidate rather than, say, the most passionate. I can see how that might be appealing to some, but we have seen the result of grey beurocrats running countries on the continent, Germany's inability to elect a decisive leader is a case in point. Personally, I would prefer the more passionate or pugnacious candidate because he's more likely to trade blows for his constituants than a bland party man, someone Torridge has repeatedly (thank God) refused to elect.

It is important to remember we don’t actually get a second vote we get to choose another preference..

I know, that's my problem, one ballot and multiple choices means votes counted twice, and that's the same as voting a second time. I'd like to see a study where people are ballotted busing AV and then in successive runoffs.

Now you are trying to pull a fast one here PVC it doesn’t matter which end of the political spectrum the other parties are now does it.

All that matters is that having more than two helps to encourage a less than 50% election for one candidate.

Under any system he/she gets less than 50% of the votes, then the votes get reasigned - it doesn't change the level of the candidate's mandate in the slightest but is does allow the Labour and Lib-Dem movements to make use of a piece of propeganda (that they are two sides of the same coin) to shut out the Conservatives.

Bush having likability does not make it either right or proper that he does or does not win and it’s irrelevant to the discussion. He would have never got within an asses roar of winning under STV

While we may like to use sport analogy for politics I think we have had enough of people who fulfil those criteria, they each and everyone of them led us off the proverbial cliff Bush, Blair and Ahern spring to mind.

Frankly I prefer to use vote's to elect candidates.

You could do AV for Presidential elections, but not STV. In any case, Bush ran the better campaign, Gore came accross as out of touch, overly partisan and overly intellectual - then he tried to threaten Bush.

gaelic cowboy

01-25-2012, 15:09

STV elects constituancy candidates for an area and then uses an RP formula to elect "top up" MP's for a region. Well, depending on electoral math and the ordering of each candidates it is possible to ensure that at least one of your party's MP's is returned from that list, an unpopular mid-level minister for example, regardless of how the country feels about him. It's the same basic problem as RP, parties have 100% safe seats where they can be assured the party's loyal foorsoldiers are returned.

Since this unpopular minister could only get transfers if a surplus is available to be distributed they cant get elected unless they have potential to recieve transfers.

And they can only get transfers if they are within enough of being elected that the surplus amount is greater than the gap.

Bland candidates are a failing of politics in general terms not of any particular system of election

Also they will have to be marked as a preference they dont get vote simply cos there is some left over.

How PR-STV works in Ireland it's long and boring only for the real political junkie (http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf)

Lemur

01-25-2012, 22:13

Okay, I can kinda see this guy's point (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/01/the-gingrich-temptation.html):

At the end of the day, however, what likely will tip the scales for me is the sheer entertainment factor. Romney versus Obama will be a snoozefest, mainly because Romney elicits no passion from anybody.

Newt versus Barak, however, could be vastly entertaining. Two really smart guys, both of whom are good speakers, and both of whom will be at least affecting being really pissed off at the other and the other's base. If the Newt who tore into John King the other day shows up at the debates, they will be truly great TV.

Since I don't think anybody in Washington or running to be in Washington can fix the problems we face, why not vote for the circus?

CBR

01-25-2012, 23:14

Well, depending on electoral math and the ordering of each candidates it is possible to ensure that at least one of your party's MP's is returned from that list, an unpopular mid-level minister for example, regardless of how the country feels about him. It's the same basic problem as RP, parties have 100% safe seats where they can be assured the party's loyal foorsoldiers are returned.

And yet a few years back an unpopular Minister for Ecclesiastical affairs in Denmark crashed out of the parliament: the electoral district produced the same number of MP's for her party, yet she lost her seat because her unpopularity meant a 70% drop in personal votes. So, depending on how it's done, Proportional Representation does not necessarily mean a system of safe seats.

Subotan

01-26-2012, 00:47

Republicans roared onto the post-State-of-the-Union morning shows accusing President Obama of waging class warfare. Actually the class warrior in the field yesterday was in Florida, campaigning for the Republican nomination for president.

In Miami, having perused Mitt Romney’s tax returns, Newt Gingrich accused his rival (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-slams-romneys-world-of-swiss-bank-accounts-112234.html) of “making $20 million for no work.” Think about that line – he is ridiculing Mr. Romney for making a huge amount of money solely from investments and interest. Lots of rich people do that. Lots of retired people do it, too. There’s nothing wrong with it, unless you are actually a Marxist and believe that only toil counts as work and that capital is inherently evil.

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/the-class-warfare-canard/

a completely inoffensive name

01-26-2012, 03:15

More disgusting news about Romney.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter

Centurion1

01-26-2012, 03:24

class warfare is just jealousy and is pathetic. Sure obviously some people are lucky to have the obscene amounts of money they have.

Also yes romney got tons of advantages a normal person got growing up but im not a petty person and do not hold it against him. He is a smart man and he still worked very hard to get where he is. Harvard isn't easy no matter who you are especially when your already married. Anyone who acts like investing money is a joke and easy needs to get the hell out of dodge. Talk about fear and uncertainty. I'm personally after about 2 huge months doing really well running in the red for January right now. He worked hard despite all of his advantages and I do not begrudge him his money. Hell being successful in the business world is almost mind blowing as a mormon im surprised he did so well in it despite his connections from I've seen of wall street personally.

As for mormonism. You know the religion itself sort of creeps me out and yeah i know what its about and it makes me react much like south park. But they very creepily tend to be very attractive, successful, extremely kind people. The looks thing probably has something to do with a limited gene pool but they are often very pleasant and kind people. I have met other mormons besides white collar professionals and found this tends to hold true.

PanzerJaeger

01-26-2012, 05:18

The candidate who, by far, has invoked Reagan the most during this cycle (despite being little more than a footnote in his memoirs) also regularly insulted him on the House floor (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams).

Also, something I did not know. Gingrich co-sponsored (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/newt-gingrich-co-sponsored-the-1987-pro-fairness-doctrine-bill/) the 1987 effort to turn the fairness doctrine into law.

Drip, drip, drip.

a completely inoffensive name

01-26-2012, 05:25

I don't know if you have seen this yet PJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBd1atfhQ4

PanzerJaeger

01-26-2012, 05:59

I don't know if you have seen this yet PJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBd1atfhQ4

Of course I've seen it. Its just another drop in a very deep well.

The whole dynamic of this race is simply absurd. I understand why a lot of conservatives don't like Mitt Romney. I would have much preferred to see Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels run. I wish TPaw didn't jump out so fast. Hell, I even think, despite his awful positioning upon entering the race, Huntsman's record in Utah and his economic proposals (especially his tax plan) represent a better, more appealing version of conservatism for the 21st century than anything Romney has proposed.

However, all of those people are irrelevant at this point. To support Newt because you don't like Mitt is pure insanity. I could at least understand a surge for Santorum (despite his own big government leanings), but this makes absolutely no sense. On every issue conservatives have with Mitt (compiled together: inauthenticity, questionable conservatism), Newt registers even worse on the scale. It would be like saying 'I don't like Johnson because he's too libertarian, so I'm going to throw my support behind Ron Paul.' The cognitive dissonance of the pro-Newt movement is astounding. I can't count the number of times he has betrayed conservative principles during this race, much less during his career in politics. Attacking entitlement reform, capitalism, success and wealth, responsible immigration... the list goes on and on. He makes Romney look as ideologically consistent as Ron Paul. And, as I've said before, the vulnerabilities he brings to the table that Mitt doesn't are copious.

I'm sure that if Mitt goes on to win the presidency that he will be more of a GHWB than a Reagan. Although I agree with Xiahou that America needs a transformational leader willing tackle entitlements, that guy or girl simply hasn't emerged this cycle. I would much rather have a competent administrator and a personally honorable man leading the country than... well... Newt Gingrich and all that he represents.

Of course, that is all hypothetical as Newt has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency. Worse, his nomination would seriously threaten the House. With Mitt, its 50/50 dependent on the economy. I don't like those odds, but they are the best available.

Tellos Athenaios

01-28-2012, 22:34

For the Newt fans: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/gingrich_moon_base/

Gingrich recently said admiringly of himself that "I think grandiose thoughts." The Reg tends to agree, at least in his loony lunar pronouncements, seeing as how Webster's primary definition of grandiose is "characterized by affectation of grandeur or splendor or by absurd exaggeration."

Sasaki Kojiro

01-28-2012, 23:03

I think his campaign strategy is to say things like that and then get a boost of support when people read the catty things that journalists say about it.

Subotan

01-29-2012, 14:49

One of these days Romney, BANG ZOOM STRAIGHT TO THE MOON

CountArach

01-30-2012, 09:33

It looks like things are pretty much all over (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/mitt-romney-lead-florida-polls_n_1239969.html) for Gingrich in Florida. His momentum was too short lived to do much. Assuming Romney wins in Florida he should, I believe, be able to take almost all of February's votes and then seel it all in March.

Ronin

01-30-2012, 12:27

Snoop Dogg just endorsed Ron Paul on his Facebook page.
why are we still arguing about this??

Should go well with the traditional base.

Taxes down, G's up! who's with me?
rollin' down the street smoking indo, sipping on gin and juice!
with my mind on my money and my money on my mind

Lemur

01-30-2012, 16:14

Its the GOP's refusal to broaden its voter-base (and, perhaps, cast off some of that dead reactionary weight) that will be its undoing.
Or as David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/south-carolina-diarist.html) put it, "I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return."

Lemur

01-30-2012, 16:55

I would have a more firm opinion of [David Brooks], but for some reason it only let me view the article for a moment before telling me I need a login for the NY Times website. Ah well.
Must be a browser thing, I can see it fine with Chrome. Here, I'll cut and paste the text below the tag.

South Carolina Diarist
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 16, 2012

When I started covering presidential primaries, the best part was getting to know the candidates. We journalists would ride around in vans and buses with them and get an intimate look at what it’s like to endure this soul-destroying process. But the ubiquity of Web cams and tweets has ended that off-the-record culture. As the technology gets more open, the lines of political communications become more closed.

Now the best part is meeting the people who come to the rallies. It’s best to get to the events an hour early and treat the waiting crowd like a cocktail party. First, you ask people about the local economy. Then you ask them about their lives (about which they are always interesting). Then you ask them about what they think of the issues and candidates (they generally repeat the banalities they have heard one of us pundits utter on TV the day before).

This past weekend in South Carolina I met, among many others, a soldier leaving for Afghanistan who quoted the Book of Revelation from his iPhone, a Vietnam veteran who movingly described the death of his first wife, a textile factory middle manager whose job got sent to El Salvador and a pawnshop manager who supports Ron Paul and said he has clients who buy a new gun every time the government does something they don’t like.

I came here wondering how voters would react to the charge that Mitt Romney was a corporate vulture when he ran the private equity firm Bain Capital. I asked dozens of people. They were all familiar with the attacks, thanks to the TV ads. Almost everybody thought the charges were ridiculous, even supporters of Newt Gingrich.

A realtor looked at me dismissively: Sometimes deals work, he said, sometimes they don’t. You have to be efficient to survive. That’s the way capitalism works. Romney’s opponents probably would have been smarter to hit him for being a flip-flopper, not a businessman.

I was also struck, as in New Hampshire and Iowa, by the mood of this year’s rallies. Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.

The other pleasure of covering campaigns is getting to play American Idol judge, evaluating the political performances.

Mitt Romney is never going to be confused for Pericles on the stump. Every sigh and utterance is prescripted, so watching his rallies is like watching the 19,000th performance of the road show of “Cats.” And he has terrible reaction responses. When somebody else is talking and he means to show agreement, he mugs like someone from a bad silent movie. His wife, Ann, is much warmer and more natural on stage.

But Romney’s awkwardness seems to endear him to audiences, because he’s trying so hard. He spends an enormous amount of time after the speeches shaking hands, taking pictures and holding babies. Beads of sweat form on his forehead as he throws himself graciously into the crowds. He also has a nice startle response. When something unexpected happens, his face lights up and you get a burst of happy humanity out of him.

Newt Gingrich’s presentations are forceful. He has a genius for pithy formulations and a consistent theme: The solutions to everything are obvious if only the idiots would get out of my way.

Ron Paul’s supporters are so grateful. The world was once confusing, but then they read “End the Fed” and the scales fell from their eyes. Paul himself is fascinating because as some smart person observed (I’ve forgotten who), he thinks serially, not causally. The income tax happened and the Patriot Act happened and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, bailed out the banks and job growth stinks. Paul doesn’t bother with logical links. He just strings events together and assumes causation.

I brought my 12-year-old son on this latest trip. My rule is that if a candidate can’t relate well to a 12-year-old, they’ll never win a general election. He approached all the candidates, and they were all wonderful except Gingrich. But that wasn’t Gingrich’s fault. My son, whose heroes include John Boehner and Tupac Shakur, picked an argument about gay marriage. Gingrich engaged, but after 10 seconds signaled security to brush my kid away.

Rick Perry ran a poor campaign but seems like the guy you’d most want to have a beer with. He took the time to tell my son how important it is to study hard and prepare for whatever you do.

Dad really appreciated that one.

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 17:14

@Lemur and Cube:

He doesn't seem so much like a troll (topical) but the white people punch line is close. He claims a certain American race/culture is pining away for a way of life without defining it. That doesn't look like the heart of his article.

I love his comments about RP though.

Lemur

01-30-2012, 17:14

The Onion, in its sarcastic way, cuts to the core of why Romney's general election campaign faces an uphill slog.

Romneymania Sweeps America (http://www.theonion.com/articles/romneymania-sweeps-america,27155/)

TAMPA, FL—From coast to coast, town to town, and in nearly every public meeting place and private residence across America, millions have been captivated, inspired, and in some cases moved to tears by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who now finds himself campaigning before a nation in the throes of full-scale Romneymania.

"The raw energy and enthusiasm Mitt Romney stirs inside people is like nothing I've ever seen," Youngstown, OH auto mechanic Chris Ritenour said Wednesday. "Everything he says resonates with Americans. His moving story of growing up privileged, his inspiring rise from moderate wealth to overwhelming riches, his thrilling work in the highest echelons of corporate finance—he really speaks to the heart and mind of the common man."

"I don't think there's been a presidential candidate this exciting and magnetic in generations, if ever." Ritenour continued. "I am a Romneymaniac."

As Romneymania has grown, the Republican candidate has crossed over from political figure to cultural phenomenon. Countless reverent portraits of Romney have appeared in storefront windows and on building facades throughout the country, often accompanied by one of the candidate's signature inspirational phrases, like "Let Detroit go bankrupt" or "Corporations are people, my friend."

Internet sources confirmed "Mitt" has become the top search term of 2012, while the blogosphere and social media sites have been dominated by discussions of the star candidate's endearing personality quirks, gossip about the relationship statuses of his five sons, and continual chatter over which designers his wife, Ann, wears.

In addition, commemorative plates and various other trinkets featuring Romney's likeness have reportedly been sold out for weeks.

"Mitt's firm belief in unlimited corporate campaign donations is what first got me really excited," said 48-year-old pipe fitter David Flores, adding that another reason he joined "Romney Nation" was because he found it "pretty cool" that Romney pays a lower income tax rate than he does. "Money is speech—that's what the First Amendment is all about. Finally, there's a candidate who speaks directly to me."

As primary season continues, Americans from all walks of life tune in loyally to Romney's stump speeches, with those in attendance so overwhelmed by the candidate's rousing oratory skills that many pass out from the excitement.

While surveys show Romneymania has swept across almost every demographic, Romney's appeal among the nation's youth, in particular, is nearly unanimous. Many young Americans acknowledged they had felt disillusioned by politics until hearing Romney's explanation of how his coordination of corporate funding for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics renders him uniquely qualified to be president, an assertion they said immediately revived their faith in American democracy.

"Simply put, when Mitt Romney speaks, he inspires people to be better," said political scientist Deborah Klein of Brown University, adding that given his effusive charisma, people are likely to follow the Republican candidate anywhere. "Anytime he meets factory workers on the campaign trail or stands at the podium in a debate, his reputation as a highly relatable man of the people is indisputable."

"It's easy to see why Americans can't get enough Mitt," Klein added.

During a stop in Tampa, FL earlier this week, Romney was seen whipping a crowd of thousands into a delirious frenzy with his beloved, decade-old talking points about how he is not a career politician. The candidate reportedly inspired optimism and confidence by explaining he "never actually supported an individual mandate for health insurance at the federal level," a battle cry that prompted the audience to chant his name for five straight minutes.

In a moment his supporters called "genuine" and "down-to-earth," Romney then told the crowd that he, too, is currently unemployed and truly understands the fear of being laid off.

"It's amazing to hear your deepest convictions articulated so poignantly by a politician," said out-of-work Denver resident Austin Matthews, 36, admitting he had never before encountered a candidate—or any human being, for that matter—who had connected with him on such a basic emotional level. "He comes right out and says that any acknowledgment of income inequality in the United States is driven solely by bitterness and envy from the lower classes and shouldn't even be discussed publicly. It's like he's tapped directly into the soul of everyday Americans."

"Mitt Romney is the voice of our generation," Matthews added.

At press time, Romney's latest Twitter post, reading, "Had a surprise guest at today's event—my grandson Miles," had been re#tweeted more than 150 million times.

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 17:16

I'm glad someone did. Ambitious politicians are trouble but I at least want one that's passionate about leading the country.

Tuuvi

01-30-2012, 17:25

Ah, I was very wrong. My bad. He seems like a decent dude, but I disagree with him about Paul. Paul's blunt and honest, and it pains me that we've fallen so far as a culture that we see bluntness and honesty as signs of a raving lunatic. It worries me something dire when people don't immediately start hearing alarm sirens in their head when another puppet-man decides to run for office. That's got nothing to do with the article though, which I think is actually pretty good.

I think a lot of people that criticize Paul don't take the time to find out what he really thinks, and so they end up misrepresenting his viewpoints. I've also noticed that when more liberal thinking people criticize him, it's usually based on the assumption that state governments are either undemocratic or nonexistent, and that we need federal government to save us from tyranny. Or they're so lazy and stuck in their worldview that they just try to label him as your typical tea party evangelical conservative, because he's white, old, and belongs to the Republican party.

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 17:29

Yes, because Mittens wants the lead the country? Or does he just want to pick right up where Bush left off and hand the country back over to the Neocons? That's where the money's at, and Romney seems to like money.

If you don't like money can I have yours?

While I don't live in the conspiracy minded West I'm firmly rooted in the politically saturated East and that's the first time I heard someone make those connections.

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 17:37

Dude. Roswell.

What does that mean?

Lemur

01-30-2012, 17:45

Karl Rove is a well-known Neocon.
I would not apply the term "neocon" to Rove. He's a creature of Texas state politics, not one of the liberal-to-ultraconservative converts. Moreover, Rove reminds me a lot of Gingrich; huge plans, big ideas, poor execution. He was loudly proclaiming that Republicans would use the Iraq war and the GWOT to create a long-term Republican super-majority (50–60 years, according to him). Go ahead and look at how that worked out.

Some political operators punch above their weight, wielding immense influence while keeping a low profile. Rove is the reverse.

Lemur

01-30-2012, 18:06

I disagree. Rove is one of the founding fathers of the political attack ad machine that launched Bush into the presidency.
You sure you're not confusing him with Lee Atwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater)?

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 18:52

Karl Rove is one of the head dudes at Mitten's SuperPAC. Karl Rove is a well-known Neocon. It stands to reason, then, that much of the SuperPAC advertisement is from Neocon supporters. Last time we had a guy with Karl Rove's approval in office we blew up the deficit, passed the patriot act, and went to war.

But, hey, fool me twice right?

I think you're just falling for the anti-GOP hype about him being the architect of doom. Even if he is involved with Romney that doesn't taint him with evil.

The deficit blew up even more after W left than during, the "Patriot Act" (scare quotes) is a mewling baby compared to similar wartime acts, and the war thing was kinda out of Rove's hands.

Vladimir

01-30-2012, 19:33

The only thing I'm concerned about is that there are people that actually believe what you just wrote. Is it time to head to the hills yet?

Tellos Athenaios

01-30-2012, 19:40

Due process you say? Expect the plod to be cuffing you any moment now: http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-right-v-wrong,27077/

rvg

01-30-2012, 19:49

I disagree. Rove is one of the founding fathers of the political attack ad machine that launched Bush into the presidency. He is the very embodiment of dishonest and corrupt politics.

Its not about what he's said (especially since I consider him to be a liar in the first place). Its about the way he does business.

Swiftboat veterans for TRUTH!

The guy is a genius.

rvg

01-30-2012, 19:53

Every crappy ad campaign since 2000 has been a symptom of the disease that got started with that election. IMO they are the most damaging component of our current political landscape, for BOTH parties.

2004, but yeah, I agree.

Lemur

01-30-2012, 22:24

A good essay on why the LIBRUL MEDIA is in the tank (http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/newt-gingrich-2012-2/) for Newt.

[T]he very “liberal media” that Gingrich delights in excoriating are, in fact, in his corner in his battle with Romney. For Gingrich, this may turn out to be a crucial asset—especially if, as seems likely, he falls short in the Florida primary and is forced into survival mode. [...]

Indeed, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, in the ten days leading up to the New Hampshire primary, when the post-Iowa sense of Romney’s inevitability kicked in, the coverage of the former Massachusetts governor has been markedly more negative than that of the former speaker (or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul). Anecdotally, the same has been true since, with Romney’s stumbles and Gingrich’s surge dominating the news in the Palmetto State and Romney’s taxes receiving as much unhelpful attention in Florida as the orchestrated Establishment backlash against Gingrich.

What explains the imbalance? Though some ultracon conspiracists believe that the press is attempting to take down Romney and elevate Gingrich because of their relative strengths as opponents to Obama, the truth is less nefarious. “The tone of the coverage depends less on the candidates than on the overall dynamic of the race,” says CMPA director Robert Lichter. “Journalists love a horse race and hate a front-runner.”