GOP Nominee

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Seamus.

[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 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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.



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 or historical pieces on James Connolly or Big 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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

[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 or historical pieces on James Connolly or Big 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.

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.



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:

[Lemur]

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



-edit-

And fun factoid for the day, this is the first time that self-identified Christian Evangelicals have been a majority of voters 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 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:

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) 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.

[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) 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.

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.