2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah, well search those 2 keywords. The Governor is as vague or in depth as he needs to be. He had crafted specific policy positions 4-4 years ago and lost the primary. He will begin to draw well thought out policy positions as issues come up. Remember now, Hope and Change was not specific and that won the last election. We need to find a generality delivers a winnable segment of the electorate. Mitt Romney is not a micro-manager. His big lesson from the health care plan is that you can have a good idea, get it done and have it work pretty well, but if you get mired in explaining the specifics it is easy to find folly. A good manager talks very little about details, he understands them himself, but allows the experts that he manages to craft and explain those for him. The main point is to allow local governing bodies to design detail. We want to draw the blueprints that helps them to do this rather than decide national details wholesale. A good President is vague in most areas of speech, explicit in the few that he must be.

Here is a 49 minute comparison of the affordable health care act and the massachusets plan, done by Romney. I've watched it and liked it. I've got lots more like like this if you would like to watch them. If you want to get to know the candidate watch his town halls from 2007.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know Romney's platform better than most. I knew it 4 years ago even better than I do now. I've met him, I own (and skimmed) both of his books and watched many of his town hall style discussions. I follow the campaign and the people he hires, the endorsements that he receives. I followed the endorsements that he made at the mid-terms. What would you like to know? If you have a question on a specific policy issue I will go over his evolution on that issue. If you want the stump, go to his website.

Do I need to get a doctorate in Romney to have an idea what I'm talking about? Here is a link to "Romney, tuffstuffmcgruff" keywords. Peruse, leisurely, on your own time. Can I get a witness? I'm obsessed with Romney and I DO question your grasp of reality if you haven't picked up that much about me.

You know who has also written a lot of books? Donald Trump. And I'm ashamed to say that I actually have read every single one of them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You know who has also written a lot of books? Donald Trump. And I'm ashamed to say that I actually have read every single one of them.

Why would you do that? I can't even say I've read both of Romney's books. I was about half way through turnaround and stopped reading. I barely even cracked open No apology. I only read a ton of 3-15 page articles, legal statutes, watch talks, but I have no interest in reading books. Ironically, I probably read 500 pages a day, I just hate reading books. I dislike fiction because I feel like I am spending my time not learning about facts and corrupting my understanding of real things - I'd rather watch a movie or mini-series with a time limit. I can only read about 20 pages of nonfiction at a time because I get bored. I'd rather space it out all day and read about as much as possible on as many topics as possible. Most people only have a few articles of things worth saying anyway, so why not cut to the chase, eh?

[Lemur]

This is more my speed ...

[Lemur]

[Lemur]

[Lemur]

Candidate Romney is having a very bad week or four. For anybody who hasn't been following, here's the basics (bolding for what I believe is the most relevant bit):

Thursday morning, the Obama campaign released a tough ad attacking the record of downsizing and outsourcing at Romney's old firm, Bain Capital.

The Romney campaign reacted with outrage. That same day, it announced a multimillion-dollar purchase of airtime for an ad that bluntly accused President Obama of lying.

In support of the ad, Romney's team argued that he had left Bain Capital in February 1999; the incidents alluded to by the Obama campaign all occurred after that date and had nothing to do with Romney.

Wham. The first attack on Romney had been a jab, dropping Romney's guard against the haymaker: On Friday, the Obama team counter-charged that it was Romney who was lying in his ads or who had committed a felony, lying on 140 official forms that he signed as CEO and sole shareholder of Bain between 1999 and 2002.

Romney now chased the Obama story, granting five TV interviews to reiterate his version of events. The more he talked, the more deeply into trouble he sank. By Sunday, even Romney supporters were urging the thing he wants least: release of more income tax returns.

And here again, what got Romney into the trouble was his war room. It was the too-fierce response to Attack 1 -- the adamant insistence that Romney had nothing, nothing to do with anything that happened at Bain after February 1999 -- that set up Romney for Attack 2: Did he lie on SEC forms? And now he will struggle through the rest of the election trying to reconcile his answers. [...]

Romney's core problem is this: He heads a party that must win two-thirds of the white working-class vote in presidential elections to compensate for its weakness in almost every demographic category. The white working class is the most pessimistic and alienated group in the electorate, and it especially fears and dislikes the kind of financial methods that gained Romney his fortune.

Romney has a strong potential defense: Bain was in the business of making companies more efficient and profitable. Downsizing and outsourcing were necessary -- and often indispensable -- means to that end. In a growing economy, the workers who lost their jobs should find new jobs elsewhere, and it's precisely the relentless search for profitability that causes economies to grow in the first place.

That's an argument that, to borrow an old joke of Henry Kissinger's, is not only convincing but has the additional merit of being true. However, it's not an argument that appeals much to the voters Romney most intensely needs to win. Hence his unleashing of the war room -- but in the end, there's only so much a war room can do.

[Hooahguy]

Id say Obama has it pretty bad too.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Whelp, once again, on the fence. As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.

Interestingly enough, I cant find any major news source save for Fox News that even mentions that. But then again, I didnt look very hard. Still, the fact that the media is taking sides, regardless of which side they take, is disturbing,

[Lemur]

As someone who actually has friends who have started small businesses, to say that they didnt build it themselves it atrocious.

Actually, if you read what he said, it's obvious he was talking about things like infrastructure. Or as a conservative intellectual put it:

The first thing to say about the president’s argument is that most of it is true, and is very, very obvious. No one would disagree with the specific things he says, except perhaps the vague and strange “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Who? But the president clearly thinks that some people do disagree with his more general point that everyone depends on society. It’s very evident from this passage and from a great deal of what he has to say about his opponents that Obama thinks he is running against a band of nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivists who champion complete and utter radical individualism.

Or, if you'd rather get your interpretation of the quote from someone who actually is a nihilistic Ayn Rand objectivist who champions complete and utter radical individualism:

I'll tell you what. I think it can now be said, without equivocation -- without equivocation -- that this man hates this country. He is trying -- Barack Obama is trying -- to dismantle, brick by brick, the American dream.

There's no other way to put this. There's no other way to explain this.

He was indoctrinated as a child. His father was a communist. His mother was a leftist. He was sent to prep and Ivy League schools where his contempt for the country was reinforced. He moved to Chicago. It was the home of the radical-left movement. He hooks up to Ayers and Dohrn and Rashid Khalidi. He learns the ruthlessness of Cook County politics. This is what we have as a president: a radical ideologue, a ruthless politician who despises the country and the way it was founded and the way in which it became great. He hates it.

[Hooahguy]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

[Lemur]

Oh dont you go and put me in bed with that idiot Rush.

Indeed, the man is so toxic (to all but his 1.4 million-or-so listeners), I'm kinda surprised no Republican presidential candidate has had a Sister Souljah moment with him. Alas, Romney does not have the conservative bona fides to do so, so it ain't gonna happen this cycle.

[Centurion1]

What is with right-wing pundits trying to equate "American" with "Republican"?

There's nothing un-American about leaning to the left, but there's a lot of things un-American about trying to paint all the opposition as unpatriotic. People like Rush Limbaugh up there really need to just quietly go away.

I concur with your second point. However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals. Democrats are not necessarily wrong because of that it is simply a fact.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love the whole "you outsource jobs" argument that is going on, when Democrats are just as guilty of it, and the POTUS job creation ad about the green energy jobs that fails to mention the cost per job.

I had the pleasure of viewing half a dozen Senators and Reps financial disclosures the other day. Dems and Repubs. I was thoroughly disgusted at how these people have their filthy little fingers in virtually everything, and we allow them to "self police" when it comes to conflicts of interest, etc.

And meawhile we pay for their conventions

[a completely inoffensive name]

However, I think that in its essence America how it was conceived by our forefathers is quite clearly in line with republican ideals.

Let's see we have:

1. Generalized statement about mythical, homogenous "Founding Fathers".
2. An unfounded connection between 18th century political science and 21st century labels.
3. An overall point that is of no relevance whatsoever because as Thomas Jefferson said:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.

[...]
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

EDIT: I guess I should post the continuation of that statement for the full context. More context was added. Source is listed as "Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816"

[Major Robert Dump]

Good post. I'd also like to throw in the obvious observation that if the constitution wasn't meant to be altered then it wouldn't have provisions within its very pages that allow for it to be altered.

No.

The Consititution is a read-only document. Benjamin Franklins and Thomas Hamilton would roll over in their graves if they found out that women were voting when there are tasty cakes to be baked. If the Chinese had built our internet tubes without equal protection under the law -- like they did our railroads and telegraph lines -- we would all have free internet, a better economy and probably more rain because God would reward us for being awesome

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyhow, I get the point about working together. But I do think the way Obama phrased it was very, very poor.

Indeed, it was exactly what you would expect from a man who has never run a business. Yes, yes, I know the comment was made in the midst of the standard liberal straw man on taxes (as if anyone is actually arguing for no taxation), but it reads like a Freudian slip. If you've spent your life in academia and on the government dole and never actually had to take a loan out against your house to make payroll, it's very easy to view business as dependent on the state's largess. It wasn't your time, resources, and soul that built that internet business - it was Al Gore. The reality is quite different, however. Without the business community, Al wouldn't have had the tax base to invest in the military's internet R&D budget. Whether Obama cares to admit it or not, business was here long before the government built the interstates or the internet - and paid for much of both of them.

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resources to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Edit: Also, I think Romney needs to go nuclear on Obama. The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In general, the attacks on business and wealth creation disgust me more than the overt racial appeals and class warfare. I fear the GOP simply doesn't have the time or resource to explain creative destruction to an American public completely detached from the realities of globalism and the international business environment.

Tbh I think you are just reading too much into a reality you have painted in your own head. Talking about class warfare is rush's territory.

[Major Robert Dump]

I knew these girls once who would shoplift as a team

The hot one would show her breasts, and the fat one would run out with the beer

By giving us free boobies,

The government steals all of our beer


I cannot beieve GM and the Green Energy stimulus is actually being used as a pro-Obama campaign message. The fact that they are certainly shows how jacked up things are, and what we consider successful.

[Centurion1]

Let's see we have:

1. Generalized statement about mythical, homogenous "Founding Fathers".
2. An unfounded connection between 18th century political science and 21st century labels.
3. An overall point that is of no relevance whatsoever because as Thomas Jefferson said:


EDIT: I guess I should post the continuation of that statement for the full context. More context was added. Source is listed as "Letter to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816"

Ah yes of course because republican ideals revolve completely and utterly around allowing the Constitution to be altered. Interesting you used Mr. Jefferson who was essentially the father of Americans States rights and small central government.... whose principles does that mirror??? Ah yes the GOP.

Such gems as

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every
generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save
one-half the wars of the world.

My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much
government.

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

Very impressed with your go at trying to humiliate me though.

1. Your right such homogeneous statements such as "founding fathers" is foolish. I would encourage you to choose better subjects to quote, men such as hamilton and adams would have served your purposes much more aptly.
2. Political thought has been through some changes of course.... did I say they were mirror images of each other though? No, I said they were in line. There are differences and alterations of course.
3. Well we went over what I think of drawing individual quotes and the overall message Thomas Jefferson would likely have wished for America.

It is quite in line with republican ideals, I'll give you that. Its just a shame the republican party hasn't followed those ideals since before you or I were born.

Doesn't mean the ideal have changed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yep, ineffectual leadership on the part of the GOP has prompted hardliners to urge a "go bold or go home" response, even among the non religious like PJ. This is the essence of how politics as a game destroys a liberal democracy from the inside out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah yes of course because republican ideals revolve completely and utterly around allowing the Constitution to be altered. Interesting you used Mr. Jefferson who was essentially the father of Americans States rights and small central government.... whose principles does that mirror??? Ah yes the GOP.

Except it doesn't, unless doing so helps them. This is the delusion that you need to crack. States rights become important for the GOP, until they are in power on the Federal level. Tell me again why Ron Paul and his young libertarians are isolated and delegated as resident "crackpots" by the GOP leadership and mainstream. I can think of no one else more in favor of states rights and following a narrow view of the Constitution.

Such gems as

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

This is not a Jefferson quote, it does not appear in his works.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...#Misattributed

It is incumbent on every
generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save
one-half the wars of the world.

You act as if the GOP are the only ones who care about the debt. Yawn.

My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much
government.

My research tells me that this is not a Jefferson quote either.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

You forgot the end of that quote, the most important part. "...within his own lands."

Very impressed with your go at trying to humiliate me though.

Are you impressed with my second go? Knocking 2.5 out of 4 is pretty good.

2. Political thought has been through some changes of course.... did I say they were mirror images of each other though? No, I said they were in line. There are differences and alterations of course.

More differences than similarities. Either way, no one advocates for a non republican style of government any more than libertarians advocate for no taxation.

The GOP is not inspired or following the line of republican ideals. They are following the money. Same as every politician.

3. Well we went over what I think of drawing individual quotes and the overall message Thomas Jefferson would likely have wished for America.
Doesn't mean the ideal have changed.

No we didn't because you can't even give real quotes from the man. You just hear pretty words from some internet liar on the other side of the country and it made you more than happy to dig no deeper.

[Centurion1]

Except it doesn't, unless doing so helps them. This is the delusion that you need to crack. States rights become important for the GOP, until they are in power on the Federal level. Tell me again why Ron Paul and his young libertarians are isolated and delegated as resident "crackpots" by the GOP leadership and mainstream. I can think of no one else more in favor of states rights and following a narrow view of the Constitution.



This is not a Jefferson quote, it does not appear in his works.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...#Misattributed


You act as if the GOP are the only ones who care about the debt. Yawn.



My research tells me that this is not a Jefferson quote either.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation



You forgot the end of that quote, the most important part. "...within his own lands."


Are you impressed with my second go? Knocking 2.5 out of 4 is pretty good.


More differences than similarities. Either way, no one advocates for a non republican style of government any more than libertarians advocate for no taxation.

The GOP is not inspired or following the line of republican ideals. They are following the money. Same as every politician.



No we didn't because you can't even give real quotes from the man. You just hear pretty words from some internet liar on the other side of the country and it made you more than happy to dig no deeper.

A. Ron Paul is a crackpot.
B. I'm talking about party ideals not the men who twist party ideals for their own agendas on either side of the aisle.

Fine, you want more quotes?

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.


I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.


My point is that I could find a thousand more quotes that probably support me and that Jefferson wasn't the best man to support your defense what with his being a gentleman farmer and his dream of an american run by state governments and consisting of yeoman farmers.

[Strike For The South]

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Well shit. That settles it.

You know what my favorite thing to do is? Listen to the farmers bitch and moan about welfare queens, then I ask to see their government checks for Ag subs, they pucker up like an armadillo in July.

Does anyone care to look up how much in gov't receipts the rice farmers in Pauls district gets? It was top 20 in the country last time I checked.

Make no mistake, small gov't is a pipe dream payed lip service by the GOP to solidify votes and convey an easily digestible message.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A. Ron Paul is a crackpot.
B. I'm talking about party ideals not the men who twist party ideals for their own agendas on either side of the aisle.

Fine, you want more quotes?

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.


I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.


My point is that I could find a thousand more quotes that probably support me and that Jefferson wasn't the best man to support your defense what with his being a gentleman farmer and his dream of an american run by state governments and consisting of yeoman farmers.

You re-used one of the previous quotes, which turned out not to be a legitimate quote at all. But let's pretend that it's 1991 and Google isn't around yet and get back to the heart of the matter.

My argument wasn't that Jefferson was a modern day liberal. You made a call to authority towards the wise sages known as the "Founding Fathers" and the Constitution "they" wrote. You asserted a link between the ideals of the Constitution and the Republican Party. The point was that I showed you the words of one of the Founding Fathers warning us not to treat the Constitution as a modern day bible. Thus, we should not care which party is "in line" with the Founders. I'm exposing the hollow talking point and following up with a relevant Jefferson quote yet again.

The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead.

The Constitution is not perfect. Discussions on the American government should be based around people courageous enough to debate on the merits of what the Founders said and implemented and not based around the degree to which we try to imitate them in life and spirit.

Also if Ron Paul is a crackpot, than Ayn Rand is a garbage writer on the same level as Stephenie Meyer. And I am fine with that conclusion.

[Lemur]

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Man, you are full of fake quotes! The earliest attribution of that line is from 1913, brutha; the first attempt to link it to T. Jefferson was 1950. That's almost as sloppy a fake as the invented Lincoln quote my rightwing friends keep posting on Facebook.

If you're going to show up to a quote fight, at least check your sources. This is kinda ... discrediting ... and what's worse, ACIN already pointed this out, and then you said it again.

Maybe you're living in an alternative universe of your own construction, where all of the Founding Fathers were Republican fantasy sexbots, quoting Ayn Rand and the National Review in between enshrining the Prosperity Gospel as the national religion and clearly writing into the Constitution that ALL TAXES ARE TEH BAD.

[Kralizec]

Fine, you want more quotes?

Quotes suck- or at least, the very short ones do. I could selectively quote bits of texts from James Madison to discredit democracy and argue that the USA was never intended to be one. The catch being that in those days "democracy" was understood to mean direct democracy only. When a short quote is both real and not ripped out of context they're often no more than aphorisms that give no insight in the author's reasoning behind it.

[Lemur]

The president has set the tone... err... lowered the bar... early this cycle, and, unfortunately, Romney needs to follow suit or go the way of John Kerry. It's time to bust out the s-word.

Actually, if you remember from the primaries, candidate Romney's complaints sound an awful lot like what we were hearing from Santorum, Gingrich, et al. This means Romney is more than capable of going negative when he sees a profit in it. And as soon as he sees a stronger upside than downside to attacking candidate Obama personally, he will do so. Romney is nothing if not practical and opportunistic.

In fact, Romney's surrogates and spokescreatures (Sununu in particular) spent the last two days qustioning the American-ness of Obama. I suspect they did this in an attempt to fire up the base, which is not (and may never be) enthusiastic about Romney.

I think Romney is in a funny position; most Americans like Obama the person, even if they disagree with Obama the politician. (I know, on the far right Obama is the mutant spawn of Satan and Hugo Chavez, but that's a take largely limited to the GOP echo chamber. Polling shows that most Americans think Obama is okay, even if he's misguided.) So personal attacks on Obama are chancy. On the other hand, the GOP base is not real excited about Romney. So what to do? Argue policy and watch the base go to sleep? Or fire up the Obama-as-Antichrist crowd and risk alienating indy voters, who decide the elections?

Not an easy path to walk.

[Major Robert Dump]

HAHA

Pantywaist

http://news.yahoo.com/star-pro-obama...182157898.html

[drone]

Since someone brought up Rush:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-...is-named-bane/

Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bain?
…
You may think it’s ridiculous, I’m just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. These are the kind of people that they are attempting to appeal to.

Rush is entering Beck territory here. Sure the villian is "Bane", but isn't the hero a rich white guy? Maybe Nolan's movie symbolizes the struggle for Mitt's soul.

[Major Robert Dump]

I believe the character Bane was invented in the 70s.

I saw the headline where the "Obama Administration" was allegedly trying to make a tie to Bane and Bain. Then I read the article. It was a Dem analyst. A blogger. Some random talking head. And of course the right wingers pick it up and start running with it.

This is why America is so sad.