GOP Nominee

[Centurion1]

Jews don't dominate finance and wall street that much its simply too large at this point. Finance as a whole is incredibly revolvent around stereotypes however. White racism as a whole is very much alive throughout the North East in general.

[gaelic cowboy]

Jews don't dominate finance and wall street that much its simply too large at this point. Finance as a whole is incredibly revolvent around stereotypes however. White racism as a whole is very much alive throughout the North East in general.

Actually now I think on it sure it makes no sense there was plenty anti jewishness in protestantism to go around too.

It's the colleges they go to isnt it?? certain ones favour finance as a profession and there culturally protestant.

[Strike For The South]

The simple fact of the matter is you think you know everything when you simply don't.

And yes really Strike. You grew up in Texas, you went to school in Texas you live in Texas. What other places have you lived for extended periods of time. If you have lived anywhere else I will obviously retract said statement.

Other than the fact anecdotal evidence is :daisy:. I have spent extended time in New England.

The fact that you don't understand Mainline Protstentism (also wealthier) tends to be more moderate, less rigid about social values, and more willing to side with the other in national elections when compared to poorer evangelical protastents only shows youre out of your depth.

This has been a demonstrable trend for about 50 years now, There is a litany of data

[Centurion1]

Actually now I think on it sure it makes no sense there was plenty anti jewishness in protestantism to go around too.

Antisemitism is alive and well in the US unfortunately. Even among the 'cultured' educated population. I remember hearing a story where Jews were literally not allowed to buy certain properties in the Upper West Side (very very wealthy Manhattan neighborhood) because they were undesirable and bad for property values.

All this about a ethnic group that is ridiculously overachieving along with East Asians.


It's the colleges they go to isnt it?? certain ones favour finance as a profession and there culturally protestant.

Eh not necessarily. Very few schools are protestant affiliated. The few that are tend to be in the South and are what you would imagine. Top tier institutions especially in the North East come in three varieties. Catholic, Private-nonreligious, and Public. Schools like Harvard would fall under the second while schools like Georgetown are theoretically the first and then you have like your good state schools. I must ask though who do you mean by "they"


Other than the fact anecdotal evidence is bullshit. I have spent extended time in New England.

The fact that you don't understand Mainline Protstentism (also wealthier) tends to be more moderate, less rigid about social values, and more willing to side with the other in national elections when compared to poorer evangelical protastents only shows youre out of your depth.

This has been a demonstrable trend for about 50 years now, There is a litany of data

I as I have said multiple times which makes me question whether or not you actually read posts I did not say that poor southern bible thumpers are any better or worse nor whether they are more moderate or not. You are trotting out basic fact that everyone is aware of. All we are arguing is that old anglo saxon money stereotypes about poor immigrant catholics is still present.

And all of this is being drawn from a comment that you took completely out of context from the start.

[Lemur]

I remember hearing a story where Jews were literally not allowed to buy certain properties in the Upper West Side (very very wealthy Manhattan neighborhood) because they were undesirable and bad for property values.]
Um, have you been to the Upper West Side? As for redlining neighborhoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining), yeah, that was going on at various points throughout history, but in the last thirty years it has been almost exclusively deployed on darker folks, not the Chosen People. If you've spent any quality time in NYC, you would need to be borderline insane to invoke anti-Semitism. Unless, of course, you're referring to people who do not agree with 100% of the Likud platform. According to some folks, that qualified as anti-Semitism, too. (In my opinion, a bit of an overreach.)

[Centurion1]

Um, have you been to the Upper West Side? As for redlining neighborhoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining), yeah, that was going on at various points throughout history, but in the last thirty years it has been almost exclusively deployed on darker folks, not the Chosen People. If you've spent any quality time in NYC, you would need to be borderline insane to invoke anti-Semitism. Unless, of course, you're referring to people who do not agree with 100% of the Likud platform. According to some folks, that qualified as anti-Semitism, too. (In my opinion, a bit of an overreach.)

Sorry I meant Upper East side. I'm trash at directions I have trouble even remembering the address of places off campus I drink at. The anecdote was from around the 90's I believe.

Just because they make a large portion of the population does not mean there is not antisemitism.

[scottishranger]

As a Catholic I can't say I agree with Centurion. At least in the midwest there has never been any examples of anti-catholicism that I have heard of. Sure there is the historical joke that we are all controlled by the Pope, but the Church Hierarchy, at least for most Catholics, is becoming increasingly irrelevant to much of the catholic youth. Amongst Protestants I have yet to hear of any any such prejudices. If there are they are certainly well concealed.

On a side note, as a liberal I am watching this whole thing with a mix of embarrasment, horror, and glee. I am embarrassed that to share the same religion as Santorum, who is (along with many Church leaders) out of touch with the vast majority of catholic voters. I watch with horror at the march to the far right of the candidates (and their failure to propose anything that would solve our problems). And I watch with glee because this race is just to damn funny.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As a Catholic I can't say I agree with Centurion. At least in the midwest there has never been any examples of anti-catholicism that I have heard of. Sure there is the historical joke that we are all controlled by the Pope, but the Church Hierarchy, at least for most Catholics, is becoming increasingly irrelevant to much of the catholic youth. Amongst Protestants I have yet to hear of any any such prejudices. If there are they are certainly well concealed.

On a side note, as a liberal I am watching this whole thing with a mix of embarrasment, horror, and glee. I am embarrassed that to share the same religion as Santorum, who is (along with many Church leaders) out of touch with the vast majority of catholic voters. I watch with horror at the march to the far right of the candidates (and their failure to propose anything that would solve our problems). And I watch with glee because this race is just to damn funny.

Catholic laity has traditionally been a bunch of classless hedonists, by and large. Nothing has changed. Legitimately disciplined Religious people are now and have always been a rarity. The rest of us come back to the trough when we've done something awful. Religious groups are arguably more religious now than at any time that I can remember through my perusal through history. I don't mind it.

I look for a world with individual religiousness and public libertarianism. People need the freedom from misguided government morality to debauch their own lives if they see fit, and choose instead with no temporal punishment, to control themselves and provide and individual example. Abolish government, demand personal restraint through chaos alone.

[Strike For The South]

look for a world with individual religiousness and public libertarianism. People need the freedom from misguided government morality to debauch their own lives if they see fit, and choose instead with no temporal punishment, to control themselves and provide and individual example. Abolish government, demand personal restraint through chaos alone.

translation: Things aren't going the way I want, I quit!

That wonderful institution the catholic church. REMOVED

The fact you put so much faith an instituiton (which like any other multination corparation) only seeks to further its own interests by keeping the poor poor and scaring the flock with cannoical stick.

For someone whom talks so much about breaking govermental tyranny I find it so odd you are ready to put on a much worse yoke when it comes to your religous life.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I can take off that yoke any time I'd like. The Government that is being discussed is inescapable.

I'd be against the Catholic church if we were dealing with the Church as it existed at various points over the past 2000 years. They are not a threat in their current form.

[Strike For The South]

I can take off that yoke any time I'd like. The Government that is being discussed is inescapable.

I'd be against the Catholic church if we were dealing with the Church as it existed at various points over the past 2000 years. They are not a threat in their current form.

The catholic church is the embodiment of tyrrany. Seperating people from God by who claim to be laymen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The catholic church is the embodiment of tyrrany. Seperating people from God by who claim to be laymen.

Written like a true Texan; Stereotypical, with no first hand experience, and missing words. I have also lived Texas

[rvg]

The catholic church is the embodiment of tyrrany. Seperating people from God by who claim to be laymen.

This statement begs the question...

[gaelic cowboy]

church is the embodiment of tyrrany. Seperating people from reality by those who claim to know Gods mind.

There just a differ sort of politician really.

Governmental politicians are loopers so we can hardly expect religious ones to be differ.

Which reminds me we should probably update this old quote


Man will never be free until the last king politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.


Whereupon the world will likely descend into a Mad Max world ruled over by Omar Lord of the Desert with 6 litre engines naturally.

[Strike For The South]

Having Rick Santorum as a canidate is awesome

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL

1. Where is his PR team?
2. Does this fall under retroactive justice?
3. Can we stop calling Santorum a "conservative" and call him by his true name "Theocratic Job Protecting" Populist"

[Askthepizzaguy]

At least Bush had folksy charm. Santorum has all the charm of fecal discharge wrapped in a wond'rous bow of rabid ignorance.

Please do not inflict this man upon my country.

[PanzerJaeger]

Please do not inflict this man upon my country.

Working hard to do just that down here in Tennessee. Usually elections in this state are a foregone conclusion, but Santorum's 20 point lead has shrunk to a mere 4 points in just a week. I usually don't bother with primaries, but Santorum has 'energized' me to get involved and bring as many friends and family as possible.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Working hard to do just that down here in Tennessee. Usually elections in this state are a foregone conclusion, but Santorum's 20 point lead has shrunk to a mere 4 points in just a week. I usually don't bother with primaries, but Santorum has 'energized' me to get involved and bring as many friends and family as possible.

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely.

Honestly, I know I'm a Democratic-voting person and Santorum opposing Obama should make it a landslide in Obama's favor, but I'd like a party I can take seriously when the Democrats' incompetence becomes intolerable yet again. I need to be able to threaten to vote Republican, in fact we all do, in order to make the Democrats function in the slightest. Only the threat of losing power makes them give two cents about anything, and they still barely do anything. Santorum being the Republican nominee will ruin the Republican party, and perhaps even cause it to divide into the nutty wing that is only concerned with bedroom activities and religion, and the corporate wing and is only concerned with lowering taxes and undoing safety regulations. And at that time, neither one of those wings will be popular enough to matter.

I seem to remember at one time there was a moderate, politically sane Republican party. The Republican party that was actually serious about balancing the budget, which they did even with Clinton in office. The Republican party which stopped Saddam Hussein and contained him as a threat without massive bloodshed and years of warfare. Gosh, the late 80s and the 90s were a time when I remember things Republicans did and I went, wow, that stuff is good no matter what your political beliefs. What the heck happened? Why are my choices between these limp-wrist Democrats which are basically timid Republicans-lite, and a frothing mad, ideologically extreme Republican party which never picks its battles, it just fights them all to the death, no matter how unpopular or losing they might be?

The Democrats aren't unassailable by any stretch of the imagination. A few short months ago the economy was so bad that we were predicting one-term for Obama even after he made the decision and gave the order which ended Bin Laden. But it didn't matter, the state is in too rough a shape, and that always hurts the sitting President. And he's even alienated liberals by making too many concessions to the Republicans on things that matter the very most to liberals. That watered-down health care reform really soured us on him. Obama should be so politically weak and vulnerable due to the incredibly slow economic recovery that he's got to come up with a strong case for re-election or he should lose it by default... but the Republicans have gone so far into crazy town that it actually makes me sad.

To even make the Democrats have to fight in this election and make promises to their base to work harder, just to energize them and get them out there voting, I'd like to see a real Republican threat on the other side, one that forces there to be a debate about...

The economy
The wars
The budget
Welfare
Etc.

If Santorum is the nominee, what's the debate going to be about? It's going to be about stupid nonsense that only appeals to people who want the government to babysit you while you engage in bedroom activities to make sure everything is still kosher. And that's before you even touch his not-insane-just-stupid policies which would make him a horrible President regardless.

This guy doesn't even know how to censor himself, so he's going to continue to say really dumb things in spite of all advice to the contrary. It will be a one-sided slaughter, Obama won't have to own him in a debate, the media will eat him alive every single day and moderate Republicans will stay home on election day just to send a message to the Republican establishment to never let anything like him happen again.

It doesn't just hurt the Republican party if this windbag gets the nod, it distracts us from the business of governing, steering the ship of state. It makes things easy on the Democrats, and being able to retain power by default is bad for democracy. Between all the corruption and special interests and partisan bull, it seems to me the only time anything rational ever gets done by either party is the threat of being FIRED.

I think I am preaching to the choir a bit, though. Most of the sane conservative political commentators I've seen have been on this guy from day one, or at least day one of him being taken seriously. They're right. They know how bad he will be for the party at least, let alone the country. This guy needs to have his bags packed for him and he needs to be sent home.Go with Romney. I know it sucks, but the election will at least be a contest, and Obama will have to make an actual case as to why he's better.

I want him to have to ask me again for my vote, and tell me what he's going to do with it. I don't want to have to vote for Obama because he's "Not Santorum", I'd like to vote for him because he has a policy I'd like enacted and he's promised to enact it. That's more like a functioning democracy in my mind. It's a small difference but it's an important one.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Santorum's crusade over the nations morals is unfounded as well as most of the GOP's fear mongering over the state of our souls.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/morals

[CountArach]

Santorum's crusade over the nations morals is unfounded as well as most of the GOP's fear mongering over the state of our souls.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/morals
Rhetoric will always demand a great deal of embellishment. An interesting article though.

Looking ahead to super tuesday, Nate Silver has done the math on the likely outcome and here are his estimateions based on polling and likely results.

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/6954023107_0ba1ab00e8.jpg

If ROmney can pull half the delegates on offer then there should be little to stop him from taking the nomination at the end of the day.

[Lemur]

I'd like a party I can take seriously when the Democrats' incompetence becomes intolerable yet again.
I'm not going to vote for any of the Republican candidates, but I'll conditionally agree with you on this; there are no sure things. Putting Santorum as the GOP nominee would give him a realistic chance of becoming Prez, which is not acceptable. So thank you, PJ, for doing work on your side to make sure the alternatives are at least thinkable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Santorum's crusade over the nations morals is unfounded as well as most of the GOP's fear mongering over the state of our souls.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/morals


out-of-wedlock births have increased in America so that now at least four in ten children are born to unmarried women.

But according to Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University, "In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well..."

Very comical :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

How so?

[rvg]

How so?

Because this ain't Sweden.

[PanzerJaeger]

Romney has just edged out Santorum by a point in the latest poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tn/tennessee_republican_presidential_primary-2043.html) here. I've convinced at least nine family members and friends to come with me tomorrow. Most were apathetic, but two had to be argued out of pulling the lever for Santorum.

This is all very exciting for this political nerd. I've always wanted to get directly involved but this state just isn't competitive. Considering that we'll go red no matter who the nominee is, this is probably as close of a race we'll see for many years.


Go with Romney. I know it sucks, but the election will at least be a contest, and Obama will have to make an actual case as to why he's better.

Romney's already got my vote on Tuesday and in November if he goes on to win the nomination. I'm not even holding my nose. He's not my ideal candidate, but there is a lot to like and respect about the man and his record. If he does become the nominee, I encourage you to give him an honest look. One of the biggest indictments against the current administration in my book is gross mismanagement at all levels, whether it be in their major legislative advances or their handling of nation's finances. We can do better, and we should expect a level of efficiency from government and proficiency from our leaders that we just aren't getting. The federal government isn't so enormous that it cannot be made more effective at at all levels. One president in four or eight years cannot deliver miracles, but change does start at the top, and Mitt Romney has built his career on that kind of organizational change.

[Hax]

Who said it, Khamene'i or Rick Santorum (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party?page=0%2C0)

I got seven points!

[Kralizec]

Six.

(your URL brackets in your post are a bit off; I had to copy-paste the link)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Eight if I remember correctly from last night, (I saw this on reddit yesterday).

[CountArach]

5 for me.

Good news for sane people as Santorum slumps in the polls just before Super Tuesday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/super-tuesday-polls-2012_n_1318693.html). Romney should get enough momentum from the states that vote then in order to take him straight through to the nomination.

[Tuuvi]

I don't think I'll be voting this year. This election cycle has really highlighted everything I hate about our political process.

Me neither. Waste of my time.

[rvg]

Me neither. Waste of my time.

I'll be voting. From the looks of it this election cycle I will have a choice between a guy I hate and a guy I really hate. Thus, it is paramount to cast my vote for the guy I hate.

[Strike For The South]

I'm voting twice

[PanzerJaeger]

Ok, why isn't this running more often? If they have a successful night, the Romney campaign needs to pivot hard to building him up instead of tearing the others down. There is a lot of material there to work with.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5WI1FrUNzA

[a completely inoffensive name]

No offense, I never really cared for pure emotional appeals. I would like Romney to win the nomination but that ad is fundamentally no better than the fear mongering Rush and other pundits do.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No offense, I never really cared for pure emotional appeals. I would like Romney to win the nomination but that ad is fundamentally no better than the fear mongering Rush and other pundits do.

How is it a pure emotional appeal?

[Lemur]

Ok, why isn't this running more often? If they have a successful night, the Romney campaign needs to pivot hard to building him up instead of tearing the others down.
According to reports, he has been hearing that for weeks from various Republican officials, both on state and national level. Romney is no dummy, so he must have had some reason for remaining negative so long.

[PanzerJaeger]

No offense, I never really cared for pure emotional appeals. I would like Romney to win the nomination but that ad is fundamentally no better than the fear mongering Rush and other pundits do.

I understand the limitations of emotional appeals, and I was not suggesting that anyone should cast his or her vote based solely on them. However, I do think the story shows a side of Romney that contrasts favorably to the cold hearted businessman character that is often used against him. A large part of building enthusiasm is presenting a candidate that people can get enthusiastic about. At some point, Romney will need to show voters why he is more than a default not Obama choice. Stories like the above would go a long way to define him as a candidate people could be proud to back.

I have no idea how the ad is equivalent to fear mongering.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How is it a pure emotional appeal?

Well I may be using bad terminology here but this is how I group ads.

1. Ads that are straight factual. No mention of feeling with only generic adjectives describing himself or opponent. "He voted for this or opponent voted for that and that makes him a bad leader because it was a bad decision."
2. Ads that are semi emotional. An emotional appeal that is based off a fact. "He voted for this or opponent voted for that, and would you really want someone who doesn't care about you/some value in charge?"
3. Ads that are purely emotional. No facts about their voting record or stance on some subject, just a feel good story about himself or a feel bad story about someone else. The video linked is an example of this. I found a daughter for someone/ saved someone from a burning house/ my opponent punches kittens while laughing.

Now, that's not to say that ads that just emotional stories have no worth. But no one can really doubt Jimmy Carter is a really decent man with all his help for Habitat for Humanity, yet he really wasn't the best president at all.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I understand the limitations of emotional appeals, and I was not suggesting that anyone should cast his or her vote based solely on them. However, I do think the story shows a side of Romney that contrasts favorably to the cold hearted businessman character that is often used against him. A large part of building enthusiasm is presenting a candidate that people can get enthusiastic about. At some point, Romney will need to show voters why he is more than a default not Obama choice. Stories like the above would go a long way to define him as a candidate people could be proud to back.
But wouldn't his voting record show just as well he isn't the character people label him as? And Obama has done a lot of good work as well, stuff that turned the phrase "community organizer" into the slur back in the 2008 election.



I have no idea how the ad is equivalent to fear mongering.

They both lower the discourse in my opinion. If someone is buying into the idea that Romney is a cold hearted businessman, a story about him saving a daughter might change that person's opinion, but now instead of an ignorant vote against him, we have an ignorant vote for him. I know you would still take that because you want Romney to win, but I don't like ignorant voters. I would rather have youth stay home and study than vote for Obama for nonsensical reasons.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Usually the "he voted for this" ads are the worst, because there's no way to explain what the bill was and what the context was in an ad.

There's more to politicians then a checklist of there stance on the issues.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Usually the "he voted for this" ads are the worst, because there's no way to explain what the bill was and what the context was in an ad.
Well there is the internet. Typing a bill into google will usually give you thomas.gov and all the info you need. I think the limited information that "he voted for this" ads provide are better than nothing, if only because at least the curious can educate themselves on a subject/bill that wouldn't have been brought to their attention otherwise.



There's more to politicians then a checklist of there stance on the issues.
I don't recall disagreeing with this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Character matters. Nobody wants to vote for someone they do not perceive to be a good person. Nobody wants to walk neighborhoods and knock on doors in support such a candidate. People side with parties largely based on policy, but they get out in the cold on Tuesday night to vote for candidates they connect with.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Character matters. Nobody wants to vote for someone they do not perceive to be a good person. Nobody wants to walk neighborhoods and knock on doors in support such a candidate. People side with parties largely based on policy, but they get out in the cold on Tuesday night to vote for candidates they connect with.

I never denied this. I'm simply saying that people who do such things because they "connect" on an emotional level are stupid. Ron Paul supporters "connect" to him very well. And yet they are all in denial about his connections with racist organizations. Is this something we should be proud of?

[PanzerJaeger]

I never denied this. I'm simply saying that people who do such things because they "connect" on an emotional level are stupid. Ron Paul supporters "connect" to him very well. And yet they are all in denial about his connections with racist organizations. Is this something we should be proud of?

As I said before, most people choose their party based on policy. Personal intangibles impact intensity more than anything. For example, in 2008 the space between Obama and Clinton on the issues was virtually nonexistent. Obama connected with voters better and went on to win. Those voters weren't 'stupid', however, as they had already made their policy decision by decided to support a democrat. They were only more motivated to go out and actually vote.

A lot of people may identify more closely with the GOP on policy positions, but many of them may not be bothered to vote in November if they cannot identify with the candidate specifically.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not a choice between one or the other, and the character stuff is more suited to a positive tv ad than the other stuff. We are actually reasonably well equipped to judge peoples characters based on soundbites (compared to judging them as a politician based on short blips of their voting record).

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is not the best night for Romney. It seems like a pretty good one from a delegate standpoint, but if we only win 3 states out of a Super Tuesday 10, that's not good for PR. That's what it's looking like. Our only hope left for a 5 run is Idaho and Wyoming.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is not the best night for Romney. It seems like a pretty good one from a delegate standpoint, but if we only win 3 states out of a Super Tuesday 10, that's not good for PR. That's what it's looking like.

And two of those states (Mass. and Virginia) were given to him.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is not the best night for Romney. It seems like a pretty good one from a delegate standpoint, but if we only win 3 states out of a Super Tuesday 10, that's not good for PR. That's what it's looking like. Our only hope left for a 5 run is Idaho and Wyoming.

Actually you should cheer up. Romney will probably get a majority of delegates today and he looks on track to win Idaho, although Ohio is quite a sting.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh wow, I just looked at the break down. Romney will barely win Ohio actually. All of the rural areas have checked in, Romney is catching up as the urban areas continue to send in results.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh wow, I just looked at the break down. Romney will barely win Ohio actually. All of the rural areas have checked in, Romney is catching up as the urban areas continue to send in results.

Auto recount! This would be 6 states out of 10 if he can do it with a major delegate lead. That is a solid win by any standard. Fingers crossed

[PanzerJaeger]

Well Tennessee turned out to be as uncompetitive as ever. WeAskAmerica is no Quinippiac. Looks like the lead just switched to Romney in Ohio and they just called Idaho for him as well. Not a bad night, especially considering the delegates he will get.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, Romney won the nomination.

[Sigurd]

He got Idaho? Would have thought Paul had that one from the get-go, even if he is a secret nazi (after all, so is most of Idaho).

:creep:
Isn't Idaho 90% Mormon or something?

[Ironside]

To open up a bit more policy debate and since it came close to a point PJ has done about Romney. I don't have the time to factcheck it myself so I rather put it here. It was a column noticing that even with the economic competence that is one of the points for Mitt, he's suggested economic policies are dubious. The intended goal is 17% of the GDP, while expenses is 20%. This is also hinted to be achieved by tickle down tax cuts giving high growth a la Bush (and those didn't exactly work well, unless the US economy was expected to shrink several % IIRC, I've done some quick calculations on that years ago).

And Sanatorum's and Gingritch's budgets are even worse.

So to quote the ending: "The US needs to reform their taxes. The large social programmes aren't sustainable in thier current form. And Obama doesn't seem to have plan against the deficit than to clamp down on the rich.

But a new Republican president looks to be a financial nightmare."

Is the columnist accurate? Missing something important? Anything else?

[Sigurd]

No, no, that's Utah. Idaho's known chiefly for white supremecist movements, great potatos, and blue astroturf.

Right... I was basing this on something I heard a long time ago.

I guess in some parts of Idaho, there is a large percentage of Mormons:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/LDS_Percentage_of_Population_2000.png

[Centurion1]

To open up a bit more policy debate and since it came close to a point PJ has done about Romney. I don't have the time to factcheck it myself so I rather put it here. It was a column noticing that even with the economic competence that is one of the points for Mitt, he's suggested economic policies are dubious. The intended goal is 17% of the GDP, while expenses is 20%. This is also hinted to be achieved by tickle down tax cuts giving high growth a la Bush (and those didn't exactly work well, unless the US economy was expected to shrink several % IIRC, I've done some quick calculations on that years ago).

And Sanatorum's and Gingritch's budgets are even worse.

So to quote the ending: "The US needs to reform their taxes. The large social programmes aren't sustainable in thier current form. And Obama doesn't seem to have plan against the deficit than to clamp down on the rich.

But a new Republican president looks to be a financial nightmare."

Is the columnist accurate? Missing something important? Anything else?

I do not want to get into it with you about trickle down economics through theories such as the laffer curve and loose corporate taxing. The fact that the US economy shrunk is not Bush's fault. Is it bush's fault the entire globe had shrinking economies? Sweden's economy shrunk by over 5% following 2009.

And some would say that Bush's economic policies were tremendously successful as the US experienced an immense period of growth following his election after the minor losses in 2001. The economy did not suffer any sort of setback until 2008. Many people would argue that Obama's policies compounded the problem.

Democrats... and liberals to a greater extent hold a very naive and irresponsible view on finance. In fact they appear to struggle with it to begin with. Republican theories on economics tend to stagnate economies at worst while democrats theories destroy them.

[Centurion1]

Hah, wow nice map. Just stare at it for a moment, and consider all the differences beteen the eastern half and the western half, and not just the mormons.

its a us county map. i personally love the ones where they show voting results in red or blue. absolutely fascinating to see like one lone county in states like orange county in southern california or my home county in maryland standing as bastions for one party or the other.

[gaelic cowboy]

And some would say that Bush's economic policies were tremendously successful as the US experienced an immense period of growth following his election after the minor losses in 2001. The economy did not suffer any sort of setback until 2008.


But we now know that was just an increase in liquidity and credit which sowed the seeds for a real estate boom and finaly the crash in 2008.

[CountArach]

I do not want to get into it with you about trickle down economics through theories such as the laffer curve and loose corporate taxing. The fact that the US economy shrunk is not Bush's fault. Is it bush's fault the entire globe had shrinking economies? Sweden's economy shrunk by over 5% following 2009.
You are aware that global economies are inherently linked, right? So you know that a decline in the American economy will be felt elsewhere, right? To claim that Sweden's economy shrinking is their fault, as you seem to, is ridiculous. I'm not saying that this is all Bush's fault, or even all America's fault, but I do think that the brunt of the blame falls on quite a number of people, who happen to be American and operating through American systems.

[Centurion1]

You are aware that global economies are inherently linked, right? So you know that a decline in the American economy will be felt elsewhere, right? To claim that Sweden's economy shrinking is their fault, as you seem to, is ridiculous. I'm not saying that this is all Bush's fault, or even all America's fault, but I do think that the brunt of the blame falls on quite a number of people, who happen to be American and operating through American systems.

And you play precisely into my point. The point being that we are a GLOBAL economy. So GWB is the man to blame for the economic woes of today? He and he alone is the reason millions are unemployed and countless dollars lost? please.

And to some extent I do blame sweden for their economy shrinking just as I blame Japan for theirs shrinking or Greece, etc. Should I blame Australia? At the end of the day the blame lies with your own sovereign government you can only blame external factors for so long despite the intertwined nature of the western worlds economy.

[gaelic cowboy]

And you play precisely into my point. The point being that we are a GLOBAL economy. So GWB is the man to blame for the economic woes of today? He and he alone is the reason millions are unemployed and countless dollars lost? please.

He presided over an unprecedented credit expansion in the economy (the data was there if he had bothered to look) then he jumped headlong into a second massive war and finaly he bailed out all your banks when there debts came time to pay.

He dug the foundations and laid the blocks on which the house was built, there is plenty blame to go around but he needs more than a good chunck of it.

[Kralizec]

And to some extent I do blame sweden for their economy shrinking just as I blame Japan for theirs shrinking or Greece, etc.

No, no and no.


Should I blame Australia?

Yes, of course.

[Ironside]

I do not want to get into it with you about trickle down economics through theories such as the laffer curve and loose corporate taxing. The fact that the US economy shrunk is not Bush's fault. Is it bush's fault the entire globe had shrinking economies? Sweden's economy shrunk by over 5% following 2009.

And some would say that Bush's economic policies were tremendously successful as the US experienced an immense period of growth following his election after the minor losses in 2001. The economy did not suffer any sort of setback until 2008. Many people would argue that Obama's policies compounded the problem.

Democrats... and liberals to a greater extent hold a very naive and irresponsible view on finance. In fact they appear to struggle with it to begin with. Republican theories on economics tend to stagnate economies at worst while democrats theories destroy them.

I do not talk about the 2008 crash. I talk about budget balance. And none has actually proven where the opimal point on the Laffer curve is, for extra bonus (it probably varies from country to country for an extra bonus).

That immense growth 2000-2008 (2008 was still a growth year totally) were less than during the 90-ties, or the 80-ties. And that lower growth still needs to consist of about 25% of tax cut tickle down effect, for the tax cuts to been useful. Conclusion. Big tax cuts + lower than expected growth. I can see the magic.

Well atleast 17% of GDP is a small tax increase, even if 18% has been the standard baseline. There's some somewhat sound stuff in Mitt's vague goal policy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm actually in shock that anyone could look back on Bush and think anything other than "Oh, the horror." Patriot Act stole your freedom and the War on Terror stole your money. I hope posterity is incredibly unkind to him and all his advisors.That's a NeoCon for ya.

[PanzerJaeger]

To open up a bit more policy debate and since it came close to a point PJ has done about Romney. I don't have the time to factcheck it myself so I rather put it here. It was a column noticing that even with the economic competence that is one of the points for Mitt, he's suggested economic policies are dubious. The intended goal is 17% of the GDP, while expenses is 20%. This is also hinted to be achieved by tickle down tax cuts giving high growth a la Bush (and those didn't exactly work well, unless the US economy was expected to shrink several % IIRC, I've done some quick calculations on that years ago).

And Sanatorum's and Gingritch's budgets are even worse.

So to quote the ending: "The US needs to reform their taxes. The large social programmes aren't sustainable in thier current form. And Obama doesn't seem to have plan against the deficit than to clamp down on the rich.

But a new Republican president looks to be a financial nightmare."

Is the columnist accurate? Missing something important? Anything else?

To quote Colin Powell, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. None of these broad economic plans have any chance of making it through Congress in their current forms, and everyone who understands how Washington works knows that. The structure and extent of Bush's tax cuts differed greatly from what he campaigned on. The current administration's 2008 economic plan lies in tatters, much of it not even attempted. Thus, these plans have really become cynical marketing exercises. If one votes for a politician expecting to see the specifics of his or her plan implemented exactly, disappointment awaits. Romney's tax plan was initially a pretty sober center Right, pro-business model. As it became clear that ultraconservatives were not embracing him even after his initial wins, it was changed to a much less realistic slate of cuts. Assuming he wins the nomination, I expect that plan to be revised yet again, at least to eliminate the 1.3% tax increase on the bottom 20%. (That was an appeal to the hard right that will not play well in the general.)

When assessing US politicians running for president (or really any office), it is more productive to examine the candidates holistically instead of getting into the weeds of policy proposals that may never be enacted. It is better to take an overall measure of the man (or woman), his temperament, his judgment, and his record. We can generally assume from both plans put forward so far that taxes will be cut under a Romney administration, but the specifics of such cuts are subject to countless variables. I would expect corporate taxes to be cut much more than personal taxes under Romney, but that is just an educated guess on my part.

I personally support Romney because he has shown a propensity throughout his career to transcend ideological barriers to find workable solutions. He leaves organizations in better shape than when he arrived. There are some serious legacy issues facing this country that neither Bush nor Obama could tackle due to ideological constraints. I could see Romney actually reforming things like Medicare and the tax code. Those reforms probably wouldn't be as Right-leaning as I'd like, but they would be reality instead of ideological battle cries that never come to fruition. I do not, however, put much credence in any of the specific policy proposals that he (or any of the GOP candidates or Obama) have put forth. They are all election-year pandering, so surrogates and campaign workers can claim Romney will cut your taxes by 20% or Obama will soak Wall Street.

[Strike For The South]

The more Panzer talks the more I think about pulling the Romney lever


I love it when you talk politics my dirty little Fraulein

[Lemur]

Yes, PJ has evolved into quite an articulate and appealing advocate of the right. Kudos to him, even if he is DESTROYING AMERICA.

[CountArach]

And you play precisely into my point. The point being that we are a GLOBAL economy. So GWB is the man to blame for the economic woes of today? He and he alone is the reason millions are unemployed and countless dollars lost? please.
I think you only read the first sentence of my post.

[rory_20_uk]

It is often the case that a politician from one side of the divide can implement more changes of the other than would other wise be achieved - few Conservatives would have had the balls to do the number of Right wing policies that Tony Blair did in his time, from the PFI fiasco where private companies financed and in some cases ran hospitals for very large profits (bankrupting some Trusts) to feels for Uni students. Since he flew the Left Wing flag he got them through.

So, PJ may well be right that the best way of getting through changes to America's unwieldy welfare state would be a Republican. He can get support from his own side - and a fair number of Democrats as well.

Tax cuts? I am sure Romney would be happy to increase his own wealth and that of others. I am not saying that all tax cuts are bad and all tax rises are good, but I wish more politicians had at least some economic data in what they were doing, and not merely either political grandstanding or self interest.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well Santorum barely kept in the race by winning two southern states.

Interesting how it was so close to a 30-30-30 split in both with Ron Paul being that remaining 10.

Romney still has at this point more than 50% of current pledged delegates which means if he continues like this he will win easily at convention. Santorum needed to beat him in Michigan and couldn't, then he had to beat him in Ohio and couldn't. Now Santorum needs Illinois. If he strikes out for a third time, it's probably his last mistake.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well Santorum barely kept in the race by winning two southern states.

Interesting how it was so close to a 30-30-30 split in both with Ron Paul being that remaining 10.

Romney still has at this point more than 50% of current pledged delegates which means if he continues like this he will win easily at convention. Santorum needed to beat him in Michigan and couldn't, then he had to beat him in Ohio and couldn't. Now Santorum needs Illinois. If he strikes out for a third time, it's probably his last mistake.

And can he win Illinois ?

I must say I am frankly amazed that he is still codding people to vote for him.

[rvg]

It's time for Newton to leave the stage, then Ricky boy will have a real shot at stopping Robowillard.

[Major Robert Dump]

If Lincoln was the Shakespeare Of Politicians,
Santorum is &*%! My Dad Says

[CountArach]

And can he win Illinois ?
Yes he can (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/il-2012-primary-35-romney_n_1339328.html) though the odds are against him.

[PanzerJaeger]

Santorum promises (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/) a 'vigorous' crackdown on pornography.

[rory_20_uk]

First off: why?

Secondly, all this will do is make the Tor project more effective.
It would be effective for those sites in the USA. How many minutes before it is moved to proxy servers abroad?

Seems like a rather desperate attempt to get a few votes, and would most likely be quickly placed on the backburner, as there are more important issues in the world.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Santorum promises (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/) a 'vigorous' crackdown on pornography.
Hmm. He's working against his own base here. Red states are the biggest consumers of online porn.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgs5A3tHMyc

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmm. He's working against his own base here. Red states are the biggest consumers of online porn.



http://crookedtimber.org/2009/02/28/do-churchgoers-and-republicans-consume-more-porn/

[Lemur]

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/02/28/do-churchgoers-and-republicans-consume-more-porn/
So a blogger objects to the study involving credit card receipts, largely due to a lack of control variables. Which does nothing to answer Rutgers University's Omar Haq's study (http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154539), and the anecdotal accounts from people who actually own and operate porn sites.

More recently, in December 2011, Rutgers University researcher/blogger Omar Haq published the results of his study on Google searches for gay porn. Haq found that between 2004-2011, the top 10 states that had the most Google searches for gay porn included five states that McCain won in 2008 (Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia) and five states that Obama won (New York, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida). “People subscribe to a lot of porn in the southern Bible Belt states,” Haq noted. [...]

Colin Rowntree, founder/president of the BDSM-oriented adult membership Web site Wasteland.com, said that red states have some of his most loyal and enthusiastic customers. “Retention of porn membership in Wasteland is significantly longer for red states and the amount of content viewed, and the length of sessions in the member area is also significantly longer for red state members.”

Texas, Rowntree added, has “double retention from any other state.” Other states at the top of Wasteland’s list when it comes to loyal subscribers, he said, include Georgia, Ohio and Illinois. The state with the lowest membership retention for Wasteland, according to Rowntree, is Democrat-leaning Vermont.At the very least, one can objectively surmise that porn consumption is—at minimum—equivalent between red and blue states, and note that there is a respectable body of evidence that it is higher in the Bible Belt. Insert your own explanation as necessary.

-edit-

Yet another study (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php) linking cultural/political conservatism with high porn consumption (in this case on a more global scale):

Google ranks Pakistan No.1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in searches per person for certain sex-related content [...] Next in the running: India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Morocco, South Africa, Turkey, and trailing the pack, the United States and Australia.A further point of data would be the reports by hotel managers that consumption of PPV porn either stays the same or spikes during religious conventions (http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-you-do-in-your-hotel-room-gives.html):

I interviewed hotel managers about this when I was teaching in the sociology department at Univ of Virginia. All managers said that porn rates increase during conferences in general. That's normal because they have more guests. A few admitted that it seems to be the same or a bit more when Christian conferences come to town.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, I read that stuff. Why did you cut off the best part of Omar Haq?

"“People subscribe to a lot of porn in the southern Bible Belt states,” Haq noted. “I really believe it is suppression. Freud himself said that the more you suppress people, the more they are going to want to do something. It might be due to conservatism; I think that definitely plays a role.”"

lol.

This is just political garbage anyway you shake it. Liberal people tend to be younger and more knowledgeable about how to get porn for free. Conservative people are more likely to desire anonymity --> internet. Many conservative states have bans on porn stores. Blah blah blah. And why would democrats be pro-porn? The feminists often aren't. College students have no money. The research question here is fundamentally difficult to study, because these guys aren't trying to prove anything about google searches per state, they are trying to prove hypocrisy, and they are too brainless to see that even proving hypocrisy would be irrelevant...if most of the people against smoking turned out to be smokers, would that prove the point the pro-smoking people wanted?

Why do we waste our time with this crap? The blogger pointing out how bad the actual study is doesn't do anything to answer the "anecdotal evidence from people who actually own porn sites"? Are you serious Lemur? In the other thread you were talking about how bad rush limbaugh is and how 24 hour cable news should die, don't go posting this stuff now...

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's time for Newton to leave the stage, then Ricky boy will have a real shot at stopping Robowillard.

Newt is in it all the way until the convention. He thinks he draws away moderates from Romney and weakens him. His hurt ego over the attack ads in Iowa and Florida won't let him leave.

[Lemur]

This is just political garbage anyway you shake it.
Obviously I disagree.


Why do we waste our time with this crap?
You are not required by law to perpetuate and debate every point with which you disagree, especially one as arguable as this. I couldn't begin to count the number of dubious assertions I see on the board, the internet, or hear in real life, where I walk on by.

[Strike For The South]

If you cant find free porn on the internet you deserve to have the internet taken away from you

[Centurion1]

If you cant find free porn on the internet you deserve to have the internet taken away from you

People pay for porn?

-mind blown-

[ICantSpellDawg]

Legalise all drugs, legalize prostitution, all guns. Legalize everything. Ron Paul 2012

[Strike For The South]

Legalise all drugs, legalize prostitution, all guns. Legalize everything. Ron Paul 2012

I yawn at your reducto ad absurdims

[Ronin]

If you cant find free porn on the internet you deserve to have the internet taken away from you

this is one of those sentences you feel like having translated into Latin and tattooed on your back.....a true life lesson.
QFT :D

[ICantSpellDawg]

I yawn at your reducto ad absurdims

Im serious. In arguing the absurd I have failed to see justification for most of our governments policies towards anything. The government should exist to keep us from killing and robbing one another, making sure that we each have opportunities to educate ourselves to some extent etc, but micromanagement about seatbelt law for adults, porn, prostitution, relationships etc is stupid. I dont need laws telling me not to drink to know that it is tremendously damaging. I dont need to be forced to buckle up to know the risk. We need to demolish the governments hold over over us. Let local. Groups decide what they want to do with garbage and schools and the like. There are too many laws, the government needs to be widdled away as much as possible. My phone is aweful

[rory_20_uk]

I hate to say it, but I disagree. Call it the Nanny state if you will, but some people never get to a point of acting like an adult.

We do need laws to tell people not to drink and drive, or not to take drugs and drive.
We do need laws to stop people have landmines in the garden in case of burglars.
We do need them to stop underage marriages, harassment, abuse etc.

We have tried local in the UK. It is called a "Postcode Lottery" as... different areas choose different things and that seems to be even more hated than one size doesn't fit all. Local will quickly become ghettos then gated communities. Nutritional health in the UK was best last century during WW2. The poor were given a balanced diet and the rich had their luxuries cut. Sometimes, Nanny knows best.

I think that the state should do a lot less, and do what it does a lot better. I would argue for, in some cases, more intervention rather than less where currently the state merely wrings its arms and pretends to do something, rather than the cause. No point putting children serially into care from a mentally ill mother who herself is in care. Give her the depot injection and stop there being any more.

Individuals themselves are responsible. A child is killed by his/her parents. It happens. About one a week in the UK. What can be done about this? Sod all. Unless one is monitored 24/7 with someone always closer to the child than the parent there is a risk. But since there is intermittently a public outcry that "something Must Be Done" we get another commission, more Directives and entire departments set up to pretend to be doing something. All the time, those kids are being killed, but at least a lot of money is being ineffectively thrown at the problem, and hence like a cancer the state grows.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

We do need laws to tell people not to drink and drive, or not to take drugs and drive.


You can have laws about not drinking/taking drugs and driving because it affects others and endangers the lives of others. Laws that stop individuals from harming one another are good to an extent (not the absurd extent that the TSA goes to, for example). Laws that stop individuals from harming themselves are evil and wrong headed.

Most of these appropriate laws stop people from robbing and killing each other. Anti-trust laws can be a good thing to prevent the powerful from abusing their leverage and eliminating competition, essentially robbing the weak.

We need to discourage guys like Santorum and Obama from pushing nanny stat-ism on us. I like a Romney character because he seems like more in the direction of a hands off guy than what we are used to. Not quite, but enough that he doesn't scare the bajeezus out of me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Romney has already won. Once he finishes Santorum in Illinois, he is guaranteed to win the nomination. Santorum is going to stick around so he can be next in line for 2016 just as Romney did in 2008. The game is over, we can all chill until the general election now.

[CountArach]

I dont need laws telling me not to drink to know that it is tremendously damaging.
Who funded that research? Who ran public safety campaigns to spread the word?

Groups decide what they want to do with garbage and schools and the like.
Hmmm, if only we had some sort of system where people have agreed to work together and could run these things for us...

[PanzerJaeger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE&feature=player_embedded

[Lemur]

[video]
Wow, that must have taken ages and ages to edit. Well done with the rhymes, though. Talk about attention to detail ...

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow, that must have taken ages and ages to edit. Well done with the rhymes, though. Talk about attention to detail ...

Yeah, I don't know where people find the time. That guy definitely has a future in media, though.

And I don't mean to spam the thread with videos, but this made me stand up and cheer in my living room. Forget the size of the trees in Michigan or the cheesy grits in Mississippi, this is the Mitt Romney that should be front and center. He can win with this argument all over the country. :clapping:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R21FOKIN-J4

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yeah, I don't know where people find the time. That guy definitely has a future in media, though.

And I don't mean to spam the thread with videos, but this made me stand up and cheer in my living room. Forget the size of the trees in Michigan or the cheesy grits in Mississippi, this is the Mitt Romney that should be front and center. He can win with this argument all over the country. :clapping:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R21FOKIN-J4

The point is pretty straightforward and has been mentioned many times before. Government should narrow its focus and cut cost. If you have a specific interest in something, you should pay for it with the help of like-minded people. Government should be a lowest common denominator. I know that this is small potatoes, but I love WNYC, a local affiliate of NPR. I love them so much and listen to them so often that I donate money on occasion. Why do they get any amount of government money? They could scale back operations or request additional endowments to offset costs, but instead get money from the government for no reason. All it does is cost taxpayers money when the people who use it are obviously happy to pay directly. Why? No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. Likewise, eliminate natural gas subsidies and let the people who use gas pay for the damn gas, the people who extract gas pay to extract gas.

The government needs to wind down, not get its tentacles around more and more. LCD for government is a good general outlook.

[rory_20_uk]

Free contraception is not an area to skimp on. The poor are the last people you want breeding like rabbits. Paying for some pills is a very small price to pay.

Ideology is all very well, but it's much more pragmatic to look at returns on investment. If spending x amount of money today saves 10x in a few years it is worth it. For example, I am in principle against bariatric surgery. But although there is the up front cost, the overall savings on other healthcare items makes it a worthwhile investment, even though it is the individuals fault. Maybe in principle it would have been "good" to let all the major US car manufacturers go belly up, but pragmatically this would have caused far more problems than providing support and rehabilitating them.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

this is the Mitt Romney that should be front and center. He can win with this argument all over the country. :clapping:
He sounds a lot like Chris Christie in that clip. Which is a compliment.

-edit-

That said, contraception is a losing issue for the GOP, no matter how it's framed. I would have liked to see him pivot away from it more quickly and gracefully. (Yes, I know, as dudes we think his answer is fine, but I believe ovarian-Americans won't take it that way. As the Lord Humungus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfL4xKQeSfo&t=3m24s) put it so beautifully, "Just walk away and I spare you lives.")

-edit of the edit-

If Nate Silver, who has the most sophisticated mathematical tools (and the best track record) of any meta-pollster says it's over (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/in-illinois-santorums-chance-at-nomination-is-slipping-away/), then I guess it's over. Hmm. Well, he doesn't quite say it's over, he just does the math and figures it would take an act of Yaweh to deny Romney the nod. I guess Illinois was Santorum's last best hope.

It is also possible, of course, that we won’t need to go through all 50 states to determine this — that Mr. Santorum will drop out. Whether to do so is up to him, but he has essentially no chance of winning the nomination without a major breakthrough that would produce some sustained momentum.

Illinois had appeared to offer Mr. Santorum a chance at a breakthrough. Instead, unless the polls are very wrong, it may represent a breakthrough of sorts for Mr. Romney – by far his biggest delegate grab and margin of victory in a Midwestern state so far.

If Mr. Romney wins Illinois by that margin, it will take the political equivalent of the Bartman ball to cost him the nomination.

[PanzerJaeger]

Free contraception is not an area to skimp on. The poor are the last people you want breeding like rabbits. Paying for some pills is a very small price to pay.

Ideology is all very well, but it's much more pragmatic to look at returns on investment. If spending x amount of money today saves 10x in a few years it is worth it. For example, I am in principle against bariatric surgery. But although there is the up front cost, the overall savings on other healthcare items makes it a worthwhile investment, even though it is the individuals fault. Maybe in principle it would have been "good" to let all the major US car manufacturers go belly up, but pragmatically this would have caused far more problems than providing support and rehabilitating them.

~:smoking:

Well, this is the same confusion that arose in the contraception thread - the mandate completely subsidizes every contraception method for every woman in America, regardless of ability to pay. It is a shameless ploy to win support for the healthcare bill and from women voters in November. However, I was not talking about the contraception debate, but the broader argument he was making about an entitlement society verus fiscal sustainability.



He sounds a lot like Chris Christie in that clip. Which is a compliment.

-edit-

That said, contraception is a losing issue for the GOP, no matter how it's framed. I would have liked to see him pivot away from it more quickly and gracefully. (Yes, I know, as dudes we think his answer is fine, but I believe ovarian-Americans won't take it that way. As the Lord Humungus put it so beautifully, "Just walk away and I spare you lives.")

I agree about the contraception issue being toxic but completely disagree with your assessment of Romney's performance. The plants in the audience obviously wanted to draw him in to the debate and force him to speak to the issue, which would have been distracting at best and potentially damaging if it made the news cycle. Instead, he rather seamlessly transitioned to a broader, much more favorable argument. It was both politically savvy and, imo, drew a strong contrast between the fundamental difference that separates what the GOP should be and Democratic Party. Romney is getting better at driving a message.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"so you're all for like, yaaayyy freedom, and stuff, and pursuit of happiness you know what would make me happy? free birth control"

:freak:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree about the contraception issue being toxic but completely disagree with your assessment of Romney's performance. The plants in the audience obviously wanted to draw him in to the debate and force him to speak to the issue, which would have been distracting at best and potentially damaging if it made the news cycle. Instead, he rather seamlessly transitioned to a broader, much more favorable argument. It was both politically savvy and, imo, drew a strong contrast between the fundamental difference that separates what the GOP should be and Democratic Party. Romney is getting better at driving a message.

Romney is driving a much more simplistic message this time around, It is less effective for me, but fortunately I watched his performance in 2008 almost obsessively and understand that he has just adopted the McCain grand strategy. He needs to put all of his opinions into soundbites, twist irrelevant and useful facts where appropriate, and say as little as humanly possible in the primary. He can get a bit more interesting in the general, but not much.

Also fortunately, Romney is not as old as McCain was in 2008 and nowhere near as decrepit. He will not seem like a bad bet for the White House. I challenge any Republican to say with a straight face that McCain was fit for the presidency the second time he ran. He had already put a down payment on a casket.

[Lemur]

So Romney wins, but once again outspends his rivals by huge margins (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/santorum-outgunned-to-in-illinois-to-in-chicago-117953.html). I'd like to see how he would fare against Santorum without a 7-1 (or 21-1) handicap.

Rick Santorum’s campaign and super PAC have been outspent by a margin of 7 to 1 in the Illinois primary, with forces supporting Mitt Romney shelling out a total of about $3.7 million on the airwaves, according to a GOP media-buying source.

Romney’s campaign has spent $1,117,704 million in Illinois while the super PAC Restore Our Future has put in $2.556,353 million.

The Santorum campaign spent a comparatively modest $219,961 and the super PAC backing Santorum, the Red White and Blue Fund, put in $312,150.

The gulf was even more enormous in the crucial, expensive Chicago media market. There, Romney’s campaign spent $710,158 and his super PAC spent $1,367,125. The only pro-Santorum spending was $97,119 from the campaign, the same source said.

That amounts to a spending disparity of 21 to 1 in Romney’s favor.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So Romney wins, but once again outspends his rivals by huge margins (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/santorum-outgunned-to-in-illinois-to-in-chicago-117953.html). I'd like to see how he would fare against Santorum without a 7-1 (or 21-1) handicap.

Rick Santorum’s campaign and super PAC have been outspent by a margin of 7 to 1 in the Illinois primary, with forces supporting Mitt Romney shelling out a total of about $3.7 million on the airwaves, according to a GOP media-buying source.

Romney’s campaign has spent $1,117,704 million in Illinois while the super PAC Restore Our Future has put in $2.556,353 million.

The Santorum campaign spent a comparatively modest $219,961 and the super PAC backing Santorum, the Red White and Blue Fund, put in $312,150.

The gulf was even more enormous in the crucial, expensive Chicago media market. There, Romney’s campaign spent $710,158 and his super PAC spent $1,367,125. The only pro-Santorum spending was $97,119 from the campaign, the same source said.

That amounts to a spending disparity of 21 to 1 in Romney’s favor.

He needs to outspend the rest this round. He is the least "conservative" candidate running for G.O.P nomination in a generally conservative nation. If he can just get through the GOP gauntlet, I believe that his natural instincts are right in line with the the nations plurality. I think that people who are tired of the divisiveness of Obama want a competent guy who doesn't scare them to try his hand at this tough situation . I think that the GOP has a chance to win this in spite of themselves. We won't need to outspend in the general, we just need to match.

I was surprised when W won re-election. I didn't expect that. He was a likable guy who we all knew was a mental dwarf. Romney has competency and Obama seems to have failed at the one thing he was elected for - his unifying charm. We all knew that he wasn't ready for the job, but we thought that he would work his magic on his opponents. The nation leans right, we just need a candidate who leans right and doesn't piss off as many people as the guy in office right now. We don't need Torquemada.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama is only divisive because talk radio has made him so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama is only divisive becausewe dou talk radio h,as made him so.
Is that really the only reason? He has done just a bang up job over the last 3 years? I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first started. He is old news and did a poor job at articulating a unifying message or a solid rationale for what the heck he has been doing. This is the area that i least expected him to flop so badly in

[gaelic cowboy]

Is that really the only reason? He has done just a bang up job over the last 3 years? I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first started. He is old news and did a poor job at articulating a unifying message or a solid rationale for what the heck he has been doing. This is the area that i least expected him to flop so badly in

So the solution is to replace with someone having a poor time articulating his message to his own supporters.

[gaelic cowboy]

Obama is divisive because he hasn't kept to all his promises. He used a lot of campaign promises to a lot of groups to secure the election, and some of his key talking points involved closing guantanomo and undoing the executive over-extension caused by the Bush administration. He has totally failed to do that, and in fact you could argue he's expanded executive power even further.

There are other promises that you probably aren't familiar with, like overtures to the Native American community to give Leonard Peltier clemency, which are also holding him back because he not only failed to deliver, but he seems to be pretending people will forget.


None of these things would be delivered by a republican president either now would they, in fact I bet very few GOP voters would vote for a candidate based on his stance on these issues.

ACIN is correct in his assertion that Obama has been made a divisive figure due to conservo-media hysterics. They do it because it sells and not neccessarily to the advantage of the republican voters or the party establishment.

[gaelic cowboy]

That really is completely beside the point. Obama did not deliver on his promises, and in fact has done many things very differently than he led his supporters to believe back in '08. The fact that the Republicans are generally no better is not a redeeming factor at all.

I disagree your entire point is he is divisive because of the opinions and policies you listed and not due to ideology or talk radio.

However none of these are/were republican policies so they cannot be the reason a Republican would not vote for Obama.

To be honest the only promise of note in my view Obama didnt deliver on was closing Guantanamo Bay.
The ability of any President to close that place is restricted due to the nature of the prisoners in it and because of how they were arrested and imprisoned.

he said he would get healthcare and he did

he said he would ramp up Afghanistan and he did

he said he would pursue Bin Laden and he did

he said he would work to fix the economy and he has Most Americans Since 2004 See Economy Improving as Jobs Pick Up (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-22/most-americans-since-2004-see-economy-improving-as-jobs-pick-up.html) It might be weak but it there

he said he would reset relations with other powers and he did.

and he said he would get a budget through and he did even as Boehner tried to bring the world down on all our heads again

I dont see many failed promises what I do see are promises that dont appeal to republicans and are therefore ignored.

Crucially there promises more for the independent and middle voters basically pleasing republicans is the last thing any president even a republican should do.



Now to me I dont have an oar in this boat but I do have an interest in politics so I will comment from time to time. They way I see it a President of America has few real options in domestic policy, foreign policy is the main arena they can act.

I expect when he wins which I believe he will things like Iran, Russia and China will get more airing. (they will of course be the same for a republican Prez)

Iran especially as America needs time to manage the run up to whatever confrontation it takes be it political or forceful.(right now really would be a disaster for the USA hence the current situation)

[Strike For The South]

What promises has he not delivired on?

I'm sure there are some but I'm not sure they are more enumabrle than anyother president, dating back to when Jesus gave Moses the constitution.

Simply repeating "PROMISES WERE BROKEN" is a hollow talking point used to fill space

[PanzerJaeger]

ACIN is correct in his assertion that Obama has been made a divisive figure due to conservo-media hysterics. They do it because it sells and not neccessarily to the advantage of the republican voters or the party establishment.

Nope. The 'conservo-media' is largely an echo chamber, with a very narrow reach and audience. The same people who listen to Rush watch Fox and visit Drudge. These people were never Obama supporters. Apart from occasional stories like the ACORN meltdown, there is not much spill over to the mainstream media. While conservative media can gin up the Right, it really has little ability to persuade those who are not already politically inclined to conservative ideology.

GC is right. One of the reasons that Obama has become less popular with the broader public is because he over-promised and under-delivered. Hope and change were just catchy slogans to his campaign, but they meant something to a lot of young people who had never been involved in politics before. To see Washington remain... well... Washington turned a lot of his most ardent supporters off. Other reasons include the perceived failure of the Stimulus, the explosion of government spending and debt, the controversial healthcare bill, and the lackluster economy.

[Strike For The South]

Its the only talking point that matters, going as far back as you want to. If people held presidents accountable for not delivering on promises, maybe we wouldn't live in a country where people are afraid to admit the ship is sinking?

Obama is not a bad president, and I don't want anyone to think I rabidly dislike him. I would much rather have Obama over most of the Republican candidates, no doubt, but not enough to vote for him. The Patriot Act, and all of its follow-up acts and reforms, are still very much in place. Gitmo is still alive and well. Also, like I said above, a certain Native American political prisoner is still in jail after Obama hinted at clemency to get the native american vote (something Clinton did as well) although I doubt that matters to most of you.

You say hollow talking point, I say its the argument you people need to remember.

Using not delivering on promises as the crux of your arguement is dangerously close to gotcha moments

Obama has kept on the path of his campaign albeit with a slight move to the center. That is to be expected becuase comprimise is how politics work. These things matter if you can source them, Did he ever say he was going to reduce the scope of the patriot act



"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/179/revise-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/

Not really a call to dismantle it, in fact the language implies it is most deffinetly going to be kept.

[gaelic cowboy]

Nope. The 'conservo-media' is largely an echo chamber, with a very narrow reach and audience. The same people who listen to Rush watch Fox and visit Drudge. These people were never Obama supporters. Apart from occasional stories like the ACORN meltdown, there is not much spill over to the mainstream media. While conservative media can gin up the Right, it really has little ability to persuade those who are not already politically inclined to conservative ideology.

Conservo media has hampered the GOP race and forced there candidates to talk more trash than a binman.


GC is right. One of the reasons that Obama has become less popular with the broader public is because he over-promised and under-delivered. Hope and change were just catchy slogans to his campaign, but they meant something to a lot of young people who had never been involved in politics before. To see Washington remain... well... Washington turned a lot of his most ardent supporters off. Other reasons include the perceived failure of the Stimulus, the explosion of government spending and debt, the controversial healthcare bill, and the lackluster economy.

What a load of cobblers Washington remain Washington.

As I recall Obama was promising to use it to fix things, generally most Republicans lie and proclaim they will strangle it.

That is what every republican has promised since Reagan and it is plainly a lie, not one of them has delivered on that anytime ever not even Reagan. We all know full well they never will make governmet smaller but since the process of picking them demands it they keep saying it.

To be honest I find Republicans/Conservatives talking about how Obama broke promises to be a laugh sure if he had kept them all they would be even madder than now.

[Strike For The South]

.
The Patriot Act, and all of its follow-up acts and reforms, are still very much in place

This statment implies that Obama was at the very least going to reduce the scope of the act. I am refuetinng this point. In my refutation I provided credible evidence from a specific plank in the mans platform.


You listed 3 seperate promises. Gitmo I'll agree and I can't source the indian one becuase I have no idea where to start looking.

Don't complain becuase some of what you threw didn't stick

[Strike For The South]

it's impolite to talk about personal finances in polite company

TACT GOOD SIR

[PanzerJaeger]

Conservo media has hampered the GOP race and forced there candidates to talk more trash than a binman.



What a load of cobblers Washington remain Washington.

As I recall Obama was promising to use it to fix things, generally most Republicans lie and proclaim they will strangle it.

That is what every republican has promised since Reagan and it is plainly a lie, not one of them has delivered on that anytime ever not even Reagan. We all know full well they never will make governmet smaller but since the process of picking them demands it they keep saying it.

To be honest I find Republicans/Conservatives talking about how Obama broke promises to be a laugh sure if he had kept them all they would be even madder than now.

I don't know what any of that has to do with the assertion that conservative media has made Obama more controversial. Obama was already controversial with the people who subscribe to it. Obama is controversial because of real things he has and has not done.

[Strike For The South]

Well, you're right, if what's on paper is what matters. I think a president should be held accountable to the sentiment and the hype that his PR department creates. He was going out of his way to give off the impression that the patriot act and all the Bush wrong-doings would be somehow undone if he was elected.

I never thought that was realistic, but if I was a supporter of his I would be offended because not even the spirit of those "promises" has been kept. He's very much toed a centrist--almost right-wing--line with the patriot act, the wars, and gitmo.

If you're honestly trying to tell me that you think he never gave off that message, then fine. What's on paper is what's on paper. But I remember '08 in a different light, with a lot of hype, a lot of talk, and as it turned out none of it had substance.

The planks in the platform are what matter. I remember him being to the left of Hilirary and painting himself as an outsider. Other than that I was 18 years old and drunk I can't ring of specific speeches

I would say he is on the left side of the wars. A mass, quick pull out isn't really a viable option

If people chose to beilive he would be Kucinich that's their problem

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't know what any of that has to do with the assertion that conservative media has made Obama more controversial. Obama was already controversial with the people who subscribe to it. Obama is controversial because of real things he has and has not done.

So it's wrong that republican candidates claim they want smaller government everytime.

Obama might be less popular with his initial support but I dont see him being SO controversial they wont vote for him again. Your listening to your own echo chamber telling you that being controversial means he will lose.

It didnt stop Bush, Clinton or Reagan from getting a second term and they were all controversial and all of them broke promises. The differences is they were capable of explaining why they changed there minds apart from Bush who rode a wave really.

[PanzerJaeger]

.

This statment implies that Obama was at the very least going to reduce the scope of the act. I am refuetinng this point. In my refutation I provided credible evidence from a specific plank in the mans platform.


You listed 3 seperate promises. Gitmo I'll agree and I can't source the indian one becuase I have no idea where to start looking.

Don't complain becuase some of what you threw didn't stick

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position. The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed. Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...

[gaelic cowboy]

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position.

There is no votes in it so I cant see him change it nor explain it ever, plus there is no point trying to change it now he would never get it through anyway.



The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed. Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...

Change that to Romney and there is no differ the only fella who says what he means is prob Santorum none of us would like that very much.

[PanzerJaeger]

So it's wrong that republican candidates claim they want smaller government everytime.

Obama might be less popular with his initial support but I dont see him being SO controversial they wont vote for him again. Your listening to your own echo chamber telling you that being controversial means he will lose.

It didnt stop Bush, Clinton or Reagan from getting a second term and they were all controversial and all of them broke promises. The differences is they were capable of explaining why they changed there minds apart from Bush who rode a wave really.

I didn't say any of that! I've been pretty clear in this thread that I believe the election will hinge on the economy, and the trends are not going in the GOP's direction. I’ve also been clear as to my stance on the impact conservative media has had on the party. And speaking of the GOP, what does your assertion about conservative media's impact on people's perceptions of Obama have to do with Republican promises of smaller government? You're trying to lead me into a discussion wholly different than where we started.

[Strike For The South]

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position. The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed.

In 2003 he said this



Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).



But in 2006 he voted for extending it. The language in his statement isn't very strong, at most it is a rejection of the act in it's current form while stipulating that another incernation will replace it



Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...
I love a boy who can make me laugh

[gaelic cowboy]

Any word on how Romey is doing now did he win enough that he has it in the bag.

[Strike For The South]

Any word on how Romey is doing now did he win enough that he has it in the bag.

At this point it is practically impossible to reach the needed number of delegates to claim outright victory which would Santorum/Gingric/Paul would have to concede and that aint happening. I can see all 4 of them taking this thing to Tampa, at which point I am hopping for Chicago 68, it won't happen but a girl can dream.

[gaelic cowboy]

The only way he'll get that kind of support again is if he's running against a terrifying reactionary like Santorum, or if his PR department can make Romney look like a Bush III.

No need they should just make him out to be like Obama then Obama wins.

[gaelic cowboy]

At this point it is practically impossible to reach the needed number of delegates to claim outright victory which would Santorum/Gingric/Paul would have to concede and that aint happening. I can see all 4 of them taking this thing to Tampa, at which point I am hopping for Chicago 68, it won't happen but a girl can dream.

What happens to delegates pledged to candidates that concede are they allowed make there own choice or do they vote the way the former candidate wants them too?

How Political Primaries Work (http://people.howstuffworks.com/primary2.htm)

Hmm just read that they go to whoever they endorse afterwards, how is that a proper way to divide the delegates they may end up endorsing the lowest candidate from there state when they voted.

Strike that I didnt read it properly.

[Strike For The South]

What happens to delegates pledged to candidates that concede are they allowed make there own choice or do they vote the way the former candidate wants them too?


In general 2 things happen,

Canidate drops out and throws support behind another canidate thus swaying his delegates

Canidate drops out but state requries delgates to vote as they did during the primary

[gaelic cowboy]

Interstingly Romney is way ahead but with a smallish popular vote I take it that means he wons a lot of small population states the others couldnt campaign in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama is divisive because he hasn't kept to all his promises.

My word, a president with a divided Congress couldn't do everything he said he wanted done.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

2.746 times more promises kept than broken. 3.57 times more promises kept or done as a compromise than broken.

But let's just repeat talking points. Talking points that originate from conservative media.

[ajaxfetish]

Change that to Romney and there is no differ the only fella who says what he means is prob Santorum none of us would like that very much.

And Paul just continues to stay conveniently invisible ... :no:

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hello GC.

Romney continues to pile up wins in states where the GOP will not win the general. Illinois? New Hampshire? Virginia (with only Paul on the ballot with him)? Wins of weak value in Ohio and Florida -- must wins for the general.

Romney is a virtual lock on the nomination -- he has the money to contest everything the whole way -- but he doesn't inspire and doesn't appeal to the tea partyer wing as anything except an "anbody but Obama" choice.

"Anybody but Obama" will not turn out enough votes in the general to win it.

Four more years of same. Dems take WH, Dems keep Senate (maybe on 50-50), GOP gains a notch or three in house. Budget improves as military spending goes back to late 90's level and other programs rate of growth slowed. 1.8% growth for next 2-4.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Seamus. :bow:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just wanted to pop back in real quick to say that this is pretty laughable. First of all, the definitions of "kept" "compromised" and "broken" must be totally subjective, and secondly some of these are just gimmes.



What? We're spending federal money on this? This was a promise?






Okay, I'll give him this one. This is good.



Here's a broken one. Pretty big deal, too--the federal kleptocrat middle-management scum-buckets take up a very large chunk of your tax money. But its okay, we can break this one, because we have money to throw around right? Right? We must, because he kept some of his more wasteful and pointless promises, and simply didn't follow through on the hard ones.

Want some wasteful crap? Here ya go: kept promises that wasted your money, meant nothing, or were just easy gimmes:

Open new consulates "in the tough and hopeless corners of the world" - kept
Create White House performance team and chief performance officer - Kept

Are you a fan of Affirmative Action? Obama is:

Increase minority access to capital - Kept

Implement "Women Owned Business" contracting program (actually a Clinton-era plan, but Bush didn't enforce it.. Obama gets credit for enforcing it I guess?)- Kept

My point, of course, is that this website is stupid. Half of those promises meant nothing, the other half won't be enforced or was only ever intended for pork in the first place. Most of his kept promises listed on that site cost only money to keep, and not political capital. Hamstrung by congress? I understand. Perhaps he shouldn't have blown so much hot air and hope out of his face during the campaign season in '08 then.

Your arguments reveal how tainted you are by talking points.

A. Half of your mouth utters "party doesn't matter" while the other half complains about Obama over broken promises. If "party didn't matter, their both crooked" is true then why are you even complaining about Obama? By saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same, you equate Bush, Obama, Romney etc... as all being the more of the same but then lament how Obama should have done better. It makes no logical sense. This is the main Republican talking point that spews from Rush, hannity etc all the time and is regurgitated by the Tea Party. "No, we don't want either party because they are the same, but Obama is super BAD, and so we support Republicans."

This is not to mention the fact that the "both parties are the same" meme is laughably wrong. Everything Obama has done is something that Republicans hate and never would have done. Under McCain there would not have been health care reform, credit card reform, student loan reform. Oh but party doesn't matter guys.

B. I give you a website that details his promises and what he has done about them and because it doesn't fit your view of Obama and his "broken promises" you first dismiss it as subjective despite the fact that every status has a detailed summary of why it has that status of broken, kept, compromise. Then you go on to purposely cherry pick something you really don't like and say "SEE, THIS WAS BAD! ARGH OBAMA!" "Yeah, making information easier to access for voters was okay I guess. Affirmative action? NO NO NO NO NO NO!"

So what is it? Is the website to be disregarded or are you going to use it to support your argument against Obama?

C. Your complaints about money are completely misguided because anyone who has looked at the budget can tell you that the only things that matter when it comes to the Federal budget is 1. Defense 2. Medicare 3. SS Everything else is pocket change and purposely ignoring that so you can throw more mud at Obama and justify your anger is not reasonable.

[Lemur]

Not to get all nitpicky, but shouldn't an OBAMER SUCKZORS/NOPE HE DUZNT thing be its own thread? I know it's relevant, since that's who the GOP nom will face, but this is for the nominee. Who certainly looks like he'll be Mitt Romney.

Nate Silver has pretty much called it for Mittens, so I think this particular show is over. Even if the etch-a-sketch thing (http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/22/etch-a-disaster/?xid=gonewsedit) was a horrific gaffe. But that's the thing with Romney, ain't it? He wins, and then he says something forehead-smackingly-tone-deaf (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385498-503544/romney-i-have-friends-who-own-nascar-teams/), and then he goes on to win again.

This is why I'm curious to see how he fares when he cannot outspend his political rival by a seven-to-one margin.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not to get all nitpicky, but shouldn't an OBAMER SUCKZORS/NOPE HE DUZNT thing be its own thread? I know it's relevant, since that's who the GOP nom will face, but this is for the nominee. Who certainly looks like he'll be Mitt Romney.

Nate Silver has pretty much called it for Mittens, so I think this particular show is over. Even if the etch-a-sketch thing (http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/22/etch-a-disaster/?xid=gonewsedit) was a horrific gaffe. But that's the thing with Romney, ain't it? He wins, and then he says something forehead-smackingly-tone-deaf (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385498-503544/romney-i-have-friends-who-own-nascar-teams/), and then he goes on to win again.

This is why I'm curious to see how he fares when he cannot outspend his political rival by a seven-to-one margin.

Especially seeing as he is going to have to effectively waste money to explain how it's not a flip flop that what he said to get nominated doesnt apply now. He would have had a way easier time in the election I think but for the way the primary developed this time.

[rvg]

Especially seeing as he is going to have to effectively waste money to explain how it's not a flip flop that what he said to get nominated doesnt apply now. He would have had a way easier time in the election I think but for the way the primary developed this time.

Totally. Before the primaries began I actually preferred Romney over all other candidates. Now I wouldn't vote for him to save my life.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not to get all nitpicky, but shouldn't an OBAMER SUCKZORS/NOPE HE DUZNT thing be its own thread? I know it's relevant, since that's who the GOP nom will face, but this is for the nominee. Who certainly looks like he'll be Mitt Romney.

Nate Silver has pretty much called it for Mittens, so I think this particular show is over. Even if the etch-a-sketch thing (http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/22/etch-a-disaster/?xid=gonewsedit) was a horrific gaffe. But that's the thing with Romney, ain't it? He wins, and then he says something forehead-smackingly-tone-deaf (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385498-503544/romney-i-have-friends-who-own-nascar-teams/), and then he goes on to win again.

This is why I'm curious to see how he fares when he cannot outspend his political rival by a seven-to-one margin.

To be fair, Romney did not make the etch-a-sketch comment; which, by the way, made complete sense in context. Oddly enough, the DNC and his rivals worked together to make it into the mini-controversy that it was.

Also... this was actually said on a major cable news network on TV.


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

I love how Romney is just kind of thrown in there between two people who have actually made genuinely questionable comments on race. Because he doesn't wade into every latino-on-black shooting in the nation, he's now a) a racist and b) responsible for a young man's death. Did I mention he was a young BLACK man? I hope he has prepared himself, because the Left and the media are going to attempt to destroy his character.

[rvg]

Also... this was actually said on a major cable news network on TV.

It's msnbc. They blame everything on conservatives.

[Tuuvi]

"And Romney says nothing at all!"

I lol'd. Isn't it a good thing that Romney doesn't make racist comments like the rest of the candidates? Especially when he's known for making gaffes and controversial statements? The stupidity is mind blowing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This entire process would be more reasonable if we had some regulation on how involved the news is allowed to be with, well, the news. Never thought I'd support something that could be turned into a very ugly and vague peice of legislation if handled badly, but I think that's just what we need. They should be required to be objective and non-sensationalist. They should lose their jobs for trying to make the news, instead of report it.

Not an easy thing for me to say, since I'm normally against regulations (especially regarding free speach) but isn't it obvious that what's going on here isn't free speach, but profiteering that is detrimental to our political process?

You need a non-profit autonomous, government licensed and viewer funded broadcastes.

AKA, the BBC, but it won't haapen because Americans would never countenance a licence to watch TV, even though the system works and improves the quality of all broadcast news. The other thing we have is a law which prohibits "news" show hosts from offering opinions rather than actual facts. So Glenn Beck couldn't do his thing here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This entire process would be more reasonable if we had some regulation on how involved the news is allowed to be with, well, the news. Never thought I'd support something that could be turned into a very ugly and vague peice of legislation if handled badly, but I think that's just what we need. They should be required to be objective and non-sensationalist. They should lose their jobs for trying to make the news, instead of report it.

Not an easy thing for me to say, since I'm normally against regulations (especially regarding free speach) but isn't it obvious that what's going on here isn't free speach, but profiteering that is detrimental to our political process?

MSNBC is dousing themselves in fire. Fox news is no longer viewed by most as an objective news source after the years they've spent doing the same thing. Let them do it. Fox and MSNBC are political entertainment channels, if you want news get it from Reuters etc.

I encourage MSNBC to put people like Al Sharpton on as journalists. It literally forces sensible people to change the channel. BBC is great, but it has no place in the U.S.. Our government should never be in charge of news media. We'll just use yours.

[gaelic cowboy]

You need a non-profit autonomous, government licensed and viewer funded broadcastes.

AKA, the BBC, but it won't haapen because Americans would never countenance a licence to watch TV, even though the system works and improves the quality of all broadcast news. The other thing we have is a law which prohibits "news" show hosts from offering opinions rather than actual facts. So Glenn Beck couldn't do his thing here.

I agree you cant get a Glenn Beck in Ireland/UK due to the way telly is regulated BUT you can get material that is leftist/rightist or whatever your having yourself.

Eoghan Harris has admitted he was part of a conspiracy to promote a leftist agenda at RTE our version of the BBC essentially they were part of a secret Workers Party strategy.

Smartly he didnt put out opinion pieces so he might get caught instead he green lighted programmes about say the 1913 lockout like Strumpet City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strumpet_City) or historical pieces on James Connolly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Connolly) or Big Jim Larkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Larkin)

Now the things is these were all well put together pieces and probably actually deserving of there slot on telly too but signs on he didnt green light more conservative leaning stuff.


Having said all that though such a strategy only worked in 80s Ireland most people only had two channels. Nowadays the biggest danger of channels like RTE BBC is actually trying to compete with opinion based telly, witness the incessant use of twitter, emails and texts nowadays on show.

That craic just caused a man to lose an election here apparently due to sloppy vetting. (http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/tweetgate-leaves-rte-all-a-twitter-but-there-was-no-plot-against-gallagher-187080.html)

[PanzerJaeger]

When people talk about Rick Santorum's lack of discipline on the trail, this is what they are refering to.


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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

BBC is great, but it has no place in the U.S.. Our government should never be in charge of news media. We'll just use yours.

Clearly, you do not understand how the BBC is run. The BBC is established by statute, but it is independantly run and payed for by the license fee. Your government is far more involved with your news media bacuse the two are in each other's pockets.

If the BBC is a good thing and America's news media is a squalid cesspit, both things you have acknowledged, then you should copy the BBC - whole cloth if necessary. To do otherwise for some abstract and false feeling that it is "un American" is stupidity of the highest order, same goes for the NHS.

We saw what your unensured look like on our TV's (we pay the license fee and get Chanel 4), my father's response was litterally "my God, it's like a third world country."

You have Third World healthcare and news organisations about as reputable of those controlled by Vladamir Putin.

I think you should do something about that, because the "market" hasn't worked and it never will for news because people will only pay for what they want to hear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree you cant get a Glenn Beck in Ireland/UK due to the way telly is regulated BUT you can get material that is leftist/rightist or whatever your having yourself.

Eoghan Harris has admitted he was part of a conspiracy to promote a leftist agenda at RTE our version of the BBC essentially they were part of a secret Workers Party strategy.

Smartly he didnt put out opinion pieces so he might get caught instead he green lighted programmes about say the 1913 lockout like Strumpet City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strumpet_City) or historical pieces on James Connolly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Connolly) or Big Jim Larkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Larkin)

Now the things is these were all well put together pieces and probably actually deserving of there slot on telly too but signs on he didnt green light more conservative leaning stuff.


Having said all that though such a strategy only worked in 80s Ireland most people only had two channels. Nowadays the biggest danger of channels like RTE BBC is actually trying to compete with opinion based telly, witness the incessant use of twitter, emails and texts nowadays on show.

That craic just caused a man to lose an election here apparently due to sloppy vetting. (http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/tweetgate-leaves-rte-all-a-twitter-but-there-was-no-plot-against-gallagher-187080.html)

Ah, but you said it yourself - good quality left wing programs. There's bias with the way you present the facts, and then there's bias in the facts you represent. It's pretty clear that the BBC is just now coming out of a left-leaning Europhile phase, but they still had to present all the facts as they were and that's the most important part.

[Beskar]

We saw what your unensured look like on our TV's (we pay the license fee and get Chanel 4), my father's response was litterally "my God, it's like a third world country."

Was that the Panorama one, where in America they had a charity which provides childcare in Africa doing such in America due to the dire need of treatment, along with the stories how cancer patients have to sleep outside the hospital in a tent whilst going through chemotherapy because they cannot afford the cost of having a bed in the hospital?

I think I found it on youtube.

Panorama: What now Mr President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD65UKgB6hU

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was that the Panaroma one, where in America they had a charity which provides childcare in Africa doing such in America due to the dire need of treatment, along with the stories how cancer patients have to sleep outside the hospital in a tent whilst going through chemotherapy because they cannot afford the cost of having a bed in the hospital?

I think I found it on youtube.

Panorama: What now Mr President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD65UKgB6hU

Panarama, was it?

OK, yes, with the guy with ther hernia.

[PanzerJaeger]

Clearly, you do not understand how the BBC is run. The BBC is established by statute, but it is independantly run and payed for by the license fee. Your government is far more involved with your news media bacuse the two are in each other's pockets.

If the BBC is a good thing and America's news media is a squalid cesspit, both things you have acknowledged, then you should copy the BBC - whole cloth if necessary. To do otherwise for some abstract and false feeling that it is "un American" is stupidity of the highest order, same goes for the NHS.

We saw what your unensured look like on our TV's (we pay the license fee and get Chanel 4), my father's response was litterally "my God, it's like a third world country."

You have Third World healthcare and news organisations about as reputable of those controlled by Vladamir Putin.

I think you should do something about that, because the "market" hasn't worked and it never will for news because people will only pay for what they want to hear.

Heh, that is quite a lot of condescension based on relatively little source material. If we're looking for models to improve our own systems, neither the BBC nor the NHS would be at the top of the list, as both come with significant pitfalls of their own. Not to mention the fact that we already have a BBC for all intents and purposes in NPR, which comes with essentially the same strengths, weaknesses, and biases that accompany the BBC in Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Heh, that is quite a lot of condescension based on relatively little source material. If we're looking for models to improve our own systems, neither the BBC nor the NHS would be at the top of the list, as both come with significant pitfalls of their own. Not to mention the fact that we already have a BBC for all intents and purposes in NPR, which comes with essentially the same strengths, weaknesses, and biases that accompany the BBC in Britain.

The NHS provides universal cover for half the cost of the US system - there are other alternatives, but the tell is that you can have private insurrence in the UK but most people don't bother.

It is an indesputable fact that on the basic test of providing healthcare the NHS succeeds and the convoluted US system often doesn't.

NPR?

NPR is not like the BBC, it is payed for by a mixture of federal taxes and private funding, neither sources used by the BBC, and it just produces news and "cultural programming, the BBC produces the full suite of content.

So, really, you have even less information than I do.

[CountArach]

If universal = The population of the country and half the cost is literal, then isn't our healthcare system more effective? Not being argumentative, but it seems like the massive population difference is something to take into account.
I assume he means half the cost per head, and I also assume he wasn't being literal.

[Lemur]

I assume he means half the cost per head, and I also assume he wasn't being literal.
Actually, I think he understated the case, although it's hard to make head-to-head comparisons, given that different benefits apply. Still and all, a recent, rough comparison (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama).

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

I think anyone who has run the numbers can see that the US system involves the most cash for (at best) an average outcome.

[gaelic cowboy]

Doctor numbers are differ though I wonder if it is something to do with being able to charge or something whereas all the other stuff is seen as a cost.


Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?

Especially seeing as you wouldnt say the UK has some fabled mediterranean diet, they drink, smoke eat too much nor do they exercise blah blah and still the life expectancy is two years better with less wonga spent.

[Lemur]

Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?
Short version of my take: Single-payer healthcare has its ups and downs, but it appears to be the cheapest method for covering the population.

A purely market-based system of healthcare may be cheaper, depending on which economic theories you choose to believe, but it has never been tried on a national scale in a developed country. (I would be a lot more confident in the Republicans who advocate a pure market system if they could point to a single real-world example. Empiricism FTW.)

Here in the USA we've managed to take the worst aspects of single-payer and fuse them to the worst aspects of a broken market system, yielding the most expensive healthcare on Earth. Yay us.

The only upside to our system is that if you have a great deal of wealth (in the form of gold-plated insurance or good old cash), some low-percentage diseases and conditions can be treated at a much higher level of competence than in any single-payer system. So if you've got some weird variant of lymphoma, and your pockets are functionally bottomless, you can buy better treatment here.

And that's about it.

[Strike For The South]

Its all a plot by Obama to make us live longer so the terrorists have a better chance to kill us

[Lemur]

Getting back on topic, looks to me like Santorum must have some Fallout and/or Walking Dead fans on staff:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M

[Lemur]

And although he's not in the running anymore, Herman Cain still makes the best performance art. Die, bunny, die!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmGfzt-6i5w

-edit-

And fun factoid for the day, this is the first time that self-identified Christian Evangelicals have been a majority of voters (http://ffcoalition.com/2012/03/15/social-conservatives-impact-2012-gop-race/) in the GOP presidential primary.

Evangelicals have cast a majority of the vote in the Republican presidential primaries so far in the 2012 cycle, the highest percentage recorded in a presidential nominating process in the modern era, according to an analysis of entrance and exit polls conducted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Through March 12, an estimated total of 4.29 million evangelical Christian voters have gone to the polls in the 16 primaries and caucuses for which exit or entrance polls were conducted by news organizations, out of a total of 8.49 million total votes cast. This 50.53% evangelical turnout rate compares to a 44% turnout rate in the 2008.“Conservative people of faith are playing a larger role in shaping the contours and affecting the trajectory of the Republican presidential nomination contest than at any time since they began pouring out of the pews and into the precincts in the late 1970’s,” said Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “They are indispensable to any winning strategy for the eventual Republican presidential nominee in both the primaries and the general election. Any candidate who ignores these voters and the values that motivate them does so at their own peril.”

According to the exit polls, Rick Santorum has won a plurality of the evangelical vote with 32.85 percent, compared to 29.74 percent for Mitt Romney, 29.65 percent for Newt Gingrich, and 7.76 percent for Ron Paul.

[gaelic cowboy]

Right I'm confused so over 4million loons are forcing the candidate that is put before 300million people :sweatdrop: janey macks about an vested interest group.

[Lemur]

All primary voters are a subset of a subset, nothing strange in that. But to have a single party's primary dominated by evangelicals is noteworthy.

Meanwhile, Romney makes another weird statement, this time about how Russia is "our number one geopolitical foe." I have no idea what to make of that. One conservative's take (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/03/26/romney-russia-is-our-1-foe/):

Whenever Romney speaks about foreign policy, I never rule out that it could be driven almost entirely by shameless opportunism. He sees an opening to criticize Obama on policies related to Russia, he takes it, and then predictably can’t avoid ridiculous hyperbole. However, it’s not just opportunism. This seems to reflect the bizarre, outdated hostility towards Russia that his earlier policy statements have conveyed. Sometimes the U.S. and Russia have divergent interests, and sometimes these interests may conflict, but that’s true of the U.S. and any other major power. His description of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” suggests that Romney has a very warped, anachronistic view of the threats to the United States. It’s a good bet that “our number one geopolitical foe” wouldn’t be permitting the resupply of our military in Central Asia through their territory and airspace. For some reason, Romney wants us to think that his Russia policy would be defined by Cold War-era paranoia.

[PanzerJaeger]

The NHS provides universal cover for half the cost of the US system - there are other alternatives, but the tell is that you can have private insurrence in the UK but most people don't bother.

It is an indesputable fact that on the basic test of providing healthcare the NHS succeeds and the convoluted US system often doesn't.

I am aware of the relative strengths (cost, coverage) and weaknesses (care (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/19/patients-missing-nhs-waiting-time-target)) of the NHS. Why would we want to replace our own mediocre system with another mediocre system? As I said, there are much better models to choose from.


NPR?

NPR is not like the BBC, it is payed for by a mixture of federal taxes and private funding, neither sources used by the BBC, and it just produces news and "cultural programming, the BBC produces the full suite of content.

You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.


So, really, you have even less information than I do.

Well that could be true as I don't have access to the full suite of wonderful BBC programming to tell me what to think. :grin:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?

It is why I keep banging on about it.

It is litterally because I love you guys, but I would never visit your country so long as I am this poor and your healthcare is that expensive.


Short version of my take: Single-payer healthcare has its ups and downs, but it appears to be the cheapest method for covering the population.

A purely market-based system of healthcare may be cheaper, depending on which economic theories you choose to believe, but it has never been tried on a national scale in a developed country. (I would be a lot more confident in the Republicans who advocate a pure market system if they could point to a single real-world example. Empiricism FTW.)

Here in the USA we've managed to take the worst aspects of single-payer and fuse them to the worst aspects of a broken market system, yielding the most expensive healthcare on Earth. Yay us.

The only upside to our system is that if you have a great deal of wealth (in the form of gold-plated insurance or good old cash), some low-percentage diseases and conditions can be treated at a much higher level of competence than in any single-payer system. So if you've got some weird variant of lymphoma, and your pockets are functionally bottomless, you can buy better treatment here.

And that's about it.

Yes, but we have private in the UK, it's not quite as swishy but if you're that wealthy over here you just hop over the pond anyway. Your medical research is top notch, places like the Mayo clinic save lives the world over, but there isn't any trickle down if you don't have any money.


I am aware of the relative strengths (cost, coverage) and weaknesses (care (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/19/patients-missing-nhs-waiting-time-target)) of the NHS. Why would we want to replace our own mediocre system with another mediocre system? As I said, there are much better models to choose from.

In the last four years both my parents and my two surviving grandparents had life saving surgery (except for my Grandmother, she only had breast cancer), none of them complained about the care - only the food. Without the NHS my Grandmother would be dead (no money for cancer drugs) my Grandfather would be dead (no insurrence company would pay to put a stent in a 99 year old man's heart) my father might be dead (he had a ruptured apendix, in the US he might not have gone to the doctor for a bad bellyache) my mother would have survived (head trauma from falling from a horse) but we'd still be paying the ICU bill.

All for less than half what your country spends, less even than what your government spends.

Don't give me "one medicocr system for another" rubbish, the NHS saves everyone's lives, no matter their economic circumstances, it may be a bit ragged on the edges but the core life-saving work gets done, and done well.

Your system gives you a nice room and polite staff who know their jobs, but only if you pay.


You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.

Top Gear is a national joke (in the sense that it is made to make us laugh) and that Panarama showed something I've never seen a mainstream news program on a major chanel in the Us show, or even comment on.


Well that could be true as I don't have access to the full suite of wonderful BBC programming to tell me what to think. :grin:

The people who run the BBC are a bunch of limp lefties, but they lose their jobs if they falsify facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's some merit to that, actually. If we have to pick a big bad enemy superpower to fight against, I'd rather it be Russia than China.

Of course, non-intervensionism and a "please stop bothering us" foreign policy would be better.

One possible interpretation is that Russia has historically looked to extend it's reach, China historically looks inwards.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.

You're not still smarting about the time they went to Alabama, are you? Top Gear is just a heavily scripted entertainment show, though in the Alabama case I don't think it was the BBC who shot the "welcome to Alabama" sign... :inquisitive:

[Centurion1]

Right now Russia is of greater threat mostly because as PVC said regarding the views of those nations regarding the rest of the world. Also I see China as a paper tiger of sorts with revolution approaching as they create a stronger middle class and drift more towards capitalism.

[Hax]

I attended a lecture about that issue, I don't think the people in China are aiming towards a revolution. But then again, we said the same thing about the Arab world. Who knows?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney managed to get Pravda to endorse Barack Obama by saying what he said, so it was a smart move.

[Lemur]

Romney managed to get Pravda to endorse Barack Obama by saying what he said, so it was a smart move.
So Russia is a more clear and present danger than nuclear-armed Pakistan? May I remind you that Pakistan was hosting OBL, supports the Taliban when it suits them, and is in constant danger of falling to various Islamist insurgencies?

Russia is a greater geopolitical threat than Iran (http://csis.org/blog/deterring-iran-best-option), which can spike the price of oil, and thus endanger the Western economies, merely by threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz? (Admittedly, it's an empty threat, but the markets are so jumpy and skittish that it doesn't matter.)

In what mental universe should Russia be at the top of our threat list?

[Askthepizzaguy]

The one that still thinks the Cold War is going on, and that Reagan is still President.

Reagan; you know, the guy who would be mostly to the left of Obama, but the Republicans just looooooove. :grin:

[gaelic cowboy]

In what mental universe should Russia be at the top of our threat list?

No universe using logic thats for sure.


http://carnegieendowment.org/files/demos_www_calosc.pdf

Apparently this is what the serious people really think of Russia note the title is Modernization or Decline.

Page 9 pretty much tells you Russia is not a real threat and page 21 pretty much confirms it.

[rvg]

No universe using logic thats for sure.

That fits the U.S. election year universe like a glove.

[gaelic cowboy]

That fits the U.S. election year universe like a glove.

Every society has it's myths that are rolled out every so often regardless of the situtation.

Every single vote on the EU we ever had here always had one thing tacked on regardless of the treaty "Does this mean a Euro Army if so when/where can I vote NO"

Our myth is that were "Neutral" which is a big joke really, as if we could be really neutral or even allowed to be so.

[Lemur]

Okay, can we finally declare this thing over? Rubio endorses Romney; that's all she wrote, yes?


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

[rvg]

Okay, can we finally declare this thing over? Rubio endorses Romney; that's all she wrote, yes?

I'd rather see this drag on for as long as possible.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Okay, can we finally declare this thing over? Rubio endorses Romney; that's all she wrote, yes?


Wahoo! Paul Ryan has leaked that he has endorsed Romney, also(even though he can't).

Rubio, H.W.B., J.B., and now Ryan? That's a winning week. The primary is already a distant afterthought, isn't it? Romney leading in Wisconsin (thanks for all of your help there, Lemur ;-)), Romney tied in PA and a bunch of northeastern states coming up. Hopefully it won't be long now.

[CountArach]

Wahoo! Paul Ryan has leaked that he has endorsed Romney, also(even though he can't).

Rubio, H.W.B., J.B., and now Ryan? That's a winning week. The primary is already a distant afterthought, isn't it? Romney leading in Wisconsin (thanks for all of your help there, Lemur ;-)), Romney tied in PA and a bunch of northeastern states coming up. Hopefully it won't be long now.
To be fair, winning the establishment was never going to be the hard part for him.

[CountArach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egtaV6Pj8yI

Oh Santorum...

[Lemur]

Oh Santorum...
I don't hear it, sorry. To me it sounds like he has a stumbly moment, nothing more. You could just as easily read him calling Obama an "Inca" from the sound.

-edit-

Okay, listening more closely, he stumbles and says "nig," then moves on. Nothing too terribly exciting.

[CountArach]

Okay, listening more closely, he stumbles and says "nig," then moves on. Nothing too terrible exciting.
But what else could he possibly have been saying?

[Lemur]

Heck, he might have just been having a fumble-mouth moment. I would need much stronger evidence than this to believe a guy who survived this long in a presidential primary could say something so self-destructively stupid.

Santorum is extreme, yes, but he's not that sort of extreme. He's more Jimmy Swaggart than Stormfront.

[CountArach]

Heck, he might have just been having a fumble-mouth moment. I would need much stronger evidence than this to believe a guy who survived this long in a presidential primary could say something so self-destructively stupid.
Even Santorum? But truth be told I'm with you on this one. I just find little things like this amusing. If anything the thing that I found most amusing about it was that when he fumbled on "nig" he happened to stumble onto the uncertain "err"... an unfortunate choice of pauses.

[Strike For The South]

Rick Santorum doesn't care about black people

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But what else could he possibly have been saying?


Even Santorum? But truth be told I'm with you on this one. I just find little things like this amusing.

Change your mind, lol?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I go away for 3 days and people take my role of blowing up inane slip ups of GOP candidates. Sigh....It's like you guys don't even need me.

[CountArach]

Change your mind, lol?
No I just like winding people up.

[CountArach]

All US Presidential discussion should now be posted in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140899-2012-U-S-Presidential-Election).