I find it more appalling that Obama's super pac accused Romney of murder, since Bain closed up GST Steel. One of the workers were laid off and his wife then died of cancer.
Major fallout from this ad ... On Obama's side.
Printable View
I find it more appalling that Obama's super pac accused Romney of murder, since Bain closed up GST Steel. One of the workers were laid off and his wife then died of cancer.
Major fallout from this ad ... On Obama's side.
Bush painted the same portrait of Kerry with a picture of him windsurfing - now that is meaningless. Especially when you consider that Bush is a Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I think the fact that a rich guy can get away with barely paying taxes is a big problem in this country. The capture of the government by the the rich is something that should be discussed more. It's not because the rich dictate the debate. But it's a problem.
Romney has wanted to be President since at least 2006. If his 2006-2010 tax returns are dodgy, he's a giant dumbass.
You can talk about Obama never having a "real job" but Romney is the son of a governor and CEO. He's basked in privilege his entire life.
That's my point. Romney wont wade into the Obama conspiracy weeds to wage a campaign. Romneys refusal to release his tax returns is going to be part of the campaign. We're not talking about his returns from 1990.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
All campaigns try to paint a picture of the candidate. Thts how campaigns work. The right is trying to make Obama into a business-hostile Marxist. College records don't play into that. 2009 tax returns are definitely applicable to the story Obama is trying to set up. That's why they aren't comparable.
Yeah, that kinda crosses the line.
But I do think there's a difference between a college transcript and recent tax return information. Does anyone really believe that he's stupid or something?
edit: beaten
I agree with all of this. The only people who care what Romney paid in taxes are the class warfare, jealous types, because whatever he paid was within the law that was passed by a Congress very likely with a Democratic majority, so who's really at fault there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
edit: This is a kin to being pissed that a football team beat you because they used the forward pass and you didn't. How can anyone be faulted for playing within the rules? Fault the rule makers.
No, it's akin to playing a sport where there might be one really large set of rules but the rules you can't take advantage of because you're never in a position to even take advantage of them are so ridiculous. And he will be a rule maker so...
The President isn't a rule maker by definition. And even if it were, he wasn't the guy that made the rules. It's catering to the whiners at its finest. It's just amazing there are so many of them with their boxes of tissues and their hands out. I don't believe it's the middle class that largely has an issue with what people pay in taxes, because they work hard and aspire to one day be that guy, no matter how realistic it is. It's no skin in the game burdens on society that bitch that they can't steal more of this money. And they shouldn't even get a vote.
But he wants to be president, right? So he can just sit around while other people make the rules? He can do that now. I can do that now. I am doing that now in fact.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make, since I am confident you understand the three branches.
Do you believe that as President you are responsible for shaping the direction of the country even if you don't have complete authority?
Obviously, but that's very much different than creating the rules. Of the three branches, the President has the least to do with that.
What is the relevance of Romney's tax returns? How often do we see the tax returns of our potential presidents? If you asked for my tax returns I'd tell you to go fuck yourself and not because I have anything to hide.
Can we talk about real reasons why Romney is terrible? He's just as unrealistic about spending as the last two presidents, he's just as shitty on civil liberties, he's just as bad on foreign policy. But I guess if we talk about those things we have to also admit that Obama is terrible too.
I'm just gonna leave this here...
I feel the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
No chance of winning, but christ do I wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
The best Ad.
Even if Gary Johnson was elected would it really change much? Congress is where the real rot is.
82% of the people watching that Gary Johnson ad play guitar on a hill.
76% of the people watching that Gary Johnson ad smile.
63% of the people watching that Gary Johnson ad go to the bar with that glass thing.
92% believe that happy families.
59% are in an office meeting.
99% are jumping up and down.
And an old guy in his house on the beach.
There's also this girl blinking at you.
Gary Johnson believes in everything you do and doesn't disagree about anything. Believe it.
I thought the old guy in that ad was Dick Cheney for a second.
This guy needs to bow out before he takes even 2% from Romney. There is a time for a third party to try to get traction, but not when it's so critical that we get the incumbent the fuck out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
There will never be a time for a third party. Our system is not built that way.
Unless we rip up the Constitution and start anew, there will never be a viable third party in American politics. Ever.
Theoretically over a long period of time a third party could replace one of the current two. I agree that I don't think you'll ever see three strong parties at once, but you could have one dominant one while the other two fight for scraps. Then one of the two smaller ones would eventually grow back to be the primary challenger.
True story: Many Obama supporters are also afraid of Johnson ruining Obama's shot. Frankly, I think they're closer to right, though libertarianism definitely pulls from both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Also, what will Romney do so different from Obama? Get us out of expensive wars? Nope. Repeal Affordable Care Act? At best, he'll try. End corporate welfare in form of bailouts and stimulus? Nope, he supported that. Make necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare? He will not. Kill the Patriot Act? Never. Eliminate the TSA? Of course not.
Romney is more likely than Obama to extend current tax rates and sign some shit like SOPA, though Obama would probably do both anyway. But I am really curious what benefits you think we'd get from a Romney administration versus Obama, and how those benefits justify electing another fuckwit politician.
Also, god save us if Republicans take the senate and win the presidency.
I don't think a dominant one party could ever happen under our electoral system either.
A third party cannot gain strength over a long period of time simply because our system doesn't award that sort of long-term coalition building. In a proportional system, you can pick up more and more votes over the years and decades and gain power. In our system, the guy with 50%+1 of votes wins. That's it. Everyone else gets nothing.
In a parliamentary system, a third party that wins 10% of the votes in every election would have 10% of the seats. If the other parties split 45/45 that third party would have real power and could influence policy. This isn't even theoretical - it happens all the time. Here, a third party that wins 10% of all votes gets nothing.
What has happened in our country is that one party becomes irrelevant fast and is replaced by another one. Federalists were replaced by Whigs and Whigs were replaced by Republicans. The few third parties that gained some traction in the electorate eventually just had ideologies folded into the main ones (Bull Moose, whatever Ross Perot was part of). Obviously the Democrats and Republicans of today are nothing like the Ds and Rs of the 1870s or even the 1970s, but there are still only two.
Yoshi doesn't care about how good or bad a job Obama has done, and he doesn't care what Romney will do. He only cares that Obama is a Democrat and Romney is a Republican. You can theoretically have a Democrat who is the greatest president this country has ever seen and Yoshi would still want to replace him with a shitty Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Hm... I already know Yoshi's response.
I know it too, but it's different from what you think it is.
Without even getting into any specifics, he can't be worse. Obama has done absolutely nothing of benefit, except for giving the order to kill Bin Laden after having the intelligence from interrogations he claims not to support land in his lap.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
If we want to get into specifics, I'd like to see some links where Romney would support corporate bailouts. I also firmly believe he will try to make some cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He wouldn't have picked Ryan otherwise. That is not an election pick but a strategic/governing one. Finally, taking everything you said at face value, I'll take the tax cut extension over nothing, especially since Obamacare, if not repealed, will continue to drive insurance costs to the moon. If you add a tax hike, which the expiration really is in net, to that, that's what the middle class can expect from Obama without anything positive unless they happen to have a pre-existing condition.
edit: I forgot the first part. The only way an Obama voter goes Libertarian is if they didn't understand what they voted for in 2008, don't understand what Libertarian is, or just don't want to vote for the other candidates, because an Obama vote was chic, but a Romney won't be. And the fact that an Obama vote is no longer historical or chic is huge, because he probably got 10+% just from that bullshit. Hopefully all those idiots stay home this time.
Well i'm disappointed.
Well, honestly, this depends on which brand of Republicans are in charge. If they're Huntsman, Charlie Crist types then I'm ok with that, maybe even Ron Pauls but Bachman's et al can stay the hell away.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
They were going to the moon anyways. Obamacare at least forces them to stop at a gas station so you can take a leak and grab a pop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The GOP has been chasing Huntsman and Crist types out the past 4 years. No, those people are gone and not coming back in the short-term. It's the party of Bachmann, DeMint, the Kings, and Cantor now. I agree with MarkRyan.
No, you can't, which is why your argument is bullshit. Painting with broad strokes, Democrats side with me on environmental issues, but Richard Nixon started the EPA. That's about the extent of their usefulness. The last really exceptional thing a Democrat did was JFK starting NASA. In other words, no Democrat has done a damn thing in which I see exceptional value in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
Republicans are far from perfect. If not for their valuable votes, I'd love to boot the religious types and make it a party of fiscal and military conservatism. Romney is way too liberal for my taste. So was McCain. So was Bush. So it's not that I am a Republican. It's that they are less far away from what I really want than the Democrats.
Wow is that a ringing endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
What the hell is this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
He forgot to mention the glory hole.
Besides interstates, it's essentially the only place the Fed should be spending money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Indeed, Obamacare does not go nearly far enough to address the healthcare problems we've got so that's about the best I can say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Just outta curiosity Yosh, would you agree to a taxation plan where only the Federal government collected taxes and then redistributed them to the states base strictly on population counts from the census adjust for any tourists or undocumeted peeps?
See?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. "military conservatism" is a phrase I never heard before. This country was a 3rd rate military power until World War II, which had a Democrat as CIC. Since then has seen the rise of the MIC and an endless series of pointless boondoggles and entrenched corruption. The past 10 years have been an utter disaster on all those fronts IMO. I see nothing conservative about a $700 billion military budget and a indiscriminate wars of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I shoehorned it in there to not miss a key point. The phrase itself doesn't have specific meaning. I don't think we can afford to be isolationist anymore, because the world has shrunk considerably since WWII. So you absolutely have to have the military strength to influence the rest of the world to ensure your own safety. I'm not going to claim we always use that in the most efficient manner, but it's a necessity in the 21st Century. I'd ensure that we can win a war fought on two fronts decisively.
I'm pretty sure that's the policy of every President since Truman. Including Obama.
I don't care about policy. I haven't seen the execution. Politics should be a results business, which is why Obama should be fired.
Who would/could directly attack and get away with it? China? No, a few well placed cruise missiles and their everything is screwed. Russia? Germany? War is too technical for us to need half the shit we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So you would be happier with Obama's "defense policy" if he started a bunch of stupid wars like Bush did? The military today is no less capable than it was in 2005. In fact, I would say it's more capable, since its only bogged down in one idiotic war instead of two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It wasn't capable enough in 2005, which is obvious since we're still fighting the same damn wars.
You don't live on this planet do you
China has a massive, massive troop advantage. They'd be a bitch to fight for that reason alone. I'm more thinking that China could try to take advantage once we're entangled somewhere else, likely in the Middle East. Germany's a nobody. They're every bit as much a threat as Switzerland. Russia would depend a lot on who is in power. They will never have the balls to directly attack us, but they could aid someone else or try some similar backdoor play as China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
But to your point, military isn't just jets and battleships and tanks. I'd invest heavily in cyberwarfare both defensively and offensively. Screw this tying up money shit we're doing to Iran. Granted, we'd never know if we were doing a lot more than that now, so it's possible.
They ARE doing that. The Pentagon talks about cyberwarfare all the time. And we already know they planted one virus in Iran (Stuxnet).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I don't care what they talk about. The decisive results are not there. Iran is nuclear, and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's not because we need to bail out with the job half done. The job should have been done years ago.
How would China get enough people over here? I'd be shocked if a single non-sub ship or a plane could actually get over here so they'd have to try some kind of roundabout stunt of "invading Poland" to draw us out. They still would have a very hard time keeping their troops equipped as we agent orange their crops and bomb their factories from miles away. We get tied up in military conflict because we play much much nicer than other nations have in history. Also, every one enjoys stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Who cares that Iran is nuclear? The only reason we have to worry about that is if we fool ourselves into thinking the Iranian government would martyr the entire country by bombing some one because their death would be on the way before their first ICBM touched down. A better course of dealing with Iran would be to leave them alone. Hell could be the only reason they want nukes is because we and Israel scare the shit outta them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Also what job are you talking about?
They wouldn't have to be here to benefit from having a billion people. You're absolutely right about us making things harder on ourselves though.
Paper boats. That's what i was told.
Also, if Yoshi thinks Romney, McCain, and Bush are too liberal for him, he is one scary dude.
Or, more likely, you don't understand what conservative means. Bush is probably the most conservative of those three, and he got suckered into bailouts for God's sake.
Did he also get suckered into all those other things the turbo right hates him for doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Goldwater is a guy I might be able to get behind in modern times....... although I haven't been able to do much research on his views yet.
Rest in peace, Barry.
I wrote Ron Paul and told him that if he EVER wore Barry Goldwater glasses he'd have my vote.
his response message was just a general "thanks, i appreciate my supporters". >:L
I don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I'd rank the bailouts and the Patriot Act as probably the two things I would have changed. Don't fuck with freedom or free enterprise. I get why the Patriot Act was attractive while in panic mode, but it's the President's job not to go into panic mode, and there's absolutely no excuse for the bailouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Promoting tax breaks without decreases in spending. I dunno why exactly but I hear Limbaugh types complain about the Medicare Prescription plan cost over runs. Federal No Child Left Behind stuff that "states only" peeps dislike. I'm sure there are some ultra right types that think him promoting anti-HIV spending in Africa was a bad idea. I'm sure I could think of more if I devoted more time to it. Bush promoted lots of things the super right detest and I've heard many peeps blast him for RINOing it up and not being a true conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Conservatives like Big Mac Bill Clinton lately too, beyond the "he's not Obama" thing. What's up with that? I remember when he was in office...
Yeah, there are certain things where he was just screwed by circumstance. Had 9/11 happened in 1993, Clinton would have never overseen a balanced budget either. But Bush did too many other expensive things outside of the necessary military response to that event. You know where I stand on social programs, though his heart was in the right place on No Child Left Behind. It just wasn't the right way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
I wouldn't go that far, but everything is relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
Illuminati 2016
I heard nothing matters in the long run anyway. Can someone confirm this for me?
Is that some bad Kojima game?
I watched all of the Republican debates, every time Social Security was brought up Romney was vehemently defending it. When Rick Perry referred to it as a "Ponzi scheme" (the smartest thing he managed to say), Romney got indignant and lauded SS. If you think Ryan can do anything about entitlement spending, he'll be more useful in Congress than as VP. And people accused Romney of being anti-GM bailouts (as if it was a bad position) when the primary got to Michigan and he swore up and down that he supported the bailouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The reasons why 2008 Obama voters could be suaded by Johnson: Johnson would actually close Guantanamo, end torture practices, end our wars, legalize pot (well, he would stop the Justice Department going apeshit on California dispensaries), and support gay marriage for longer than the last three months. And veto the NDAA, Patriot Act, and any stupid Internet shit Congress might someday pass (SOPA, PIPA, CISPA).
So is India. And Pakistan. And North Korea. And Romney will not end our dumb wars. To prove he's not a softy and prove he's a upstanding Republican he wants to fight Iran and Syria, and won't set a time table on Afghanistan because them terr'ists!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I will never consider the Libertarian party.
Not because i don't like the candidates.
Because of you.
Eh, fuck the party. I don't consider myself capital-L Libertarian.
NOT CONVINCED. I wanted to vote for Jill Stein, but i think i'm going to vote for Obama again instead.
I'm currently registered as Republican so I could vote in the primary but it feels pretty gross.
right now the main reason i want Mitt Romney to lose is so we can have a shot at Jon Huntsman 2016
I hope Washington burns to the ground and the banks fail.
~ I hope this with all my heart! ~
Right now, I really don't care if either Richie Rich or Token win.
I do. And so do you. But we can complain about it with icarus later and talk about how everyone's really the same, even though there are major differences in ideology. Let's let everyone else decide for us, because the Tea Party is an awesome group of people and i hope more of them are elected to office in the wake of no one giving a shit.
I mean, it would be awesome if we could get the Ron Pauls and Bernie Sandererseres into more public offices, but it's fine that no one really cares enough.
I will never vote for someone who does not represent my views. I refuse to be sucked into this "lesser of two evils" bullshit we call options. The congressional (and party) system is rotten to the absolute core. Business controls Washington. If you don't believe that, I don't know what to tell you.
Thus, I've never voted.
Don't confuse primary rhetoric with policy. As long as the GOP holds the majority in the House, it won't matter which chair Ryan sites in. The rank and file know how to line up, as oppose to the Democrats, thank God.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Obama didn't win because of any of that shit. He won because he it was "cool" to vote for him and because millions of black people who had never voted before and never will again voted at least once for him. It had nothing to do with his views or promises on anything.Quote:
The reasons why 2008 Obama voters could be suaded by Johnson: Johnson would actually close Guantanamo, end torture practices, end our wars, legalize pot (well, he would stop the Justice Department going apeshit on California dispensaries), and support gay marriage for longer than the last three months. And veto the NDAA, Patriot Act, and any stupid Internet shit Congress might someday pass (SOPA, PIPA, CISPA).
You missed my entire point on this, and it's too long to rehash. I guess the net is that my issue wasn't with the wars but the inefficiency with which we fought them. We absolutely had to go to Afghanistan in some fashion, but we should have been able to have a decisive victory a long time ago.Quote:
So is India. And Pakistan. And North Korea. And Romney will not end our dumb wars. To prove he's not a softy and prove he's a upstanding Republican he wants to fight Iran and Syria, and won't set a time table on Afghanistan because them terr'ists!
It wasn't a decisive victory because the neocon brain trust in DC decided to invade Iraq.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The "my hard-earned money" crowd?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
No we didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I always thought that non-violent conflict resolution was the answer to 9/11. Hugs, not guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
What did Afghanistan have to do with 911?
Saudi Arabia is too rich to bomb.
Bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan, and was given safe harbor by the ruling Taliban regime. There was absolutely a reason to go to war there. The problem is that you need to have concrete, attainable conditions for victory. Granted, it's a non-traditional conflict, so a peace treaty on the USS Missouri wasn't gonna happen. But you still need to set the bar somewhere.
Now that bin Laden and his lieutenants are dead, and al-Qaeda's ability to engage in international terrorism has been severely crippled, all reasonable military objectives have been met. The problem is that our military has an exceptional record when it comes to winning wars, and a very spotty record when it comes to nation building.
Something about history and repetition comes to mind.
This is why I'm so bullish on alternative energy. Even if you think Al Gore is a snake oil salesman, there's every reason in the world to get off of oil once and for all. And not a single good reason not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
money money money is all you need
You're thinking of love.
But I want some Ralph Nader!Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
So this doesn't effect your vote for Romney? I'm just curious because his Energy policy is geared towards fossil fuels and letting subsidies for alternative energy run out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Well sure. But Obama bad. Didn't you know that? Doesn't matter if the other guy is completely against my views. Obama bad
The Republican energy policy is just so reactionary and unserious. It's basically, "let's turn on all the lights in the house because the hippies in our heads will get mad at us"
The toilet over there will bring you luck, so give up, I got no time to spare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
I never dreamed it would be like this
I am the number one ruler of the seven seas
The skunk over here will bring you luck
The pump over here comes with a truck
Obama has proven himself ineffective in the energy realm (Solyndra, etc.) as it has become increasingly expensive over the past four years, even if is heart is in the right place. So my decision is between a candidate who can't get us off fossil fuels and a president who won't get us off fossil fuels. Splendid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
And let's not get crazy here. I'm still thinking about throwing my vote to Gary Johnson.
If the government is going to help get the alternative energy thing started, there will be Solyndras. It's part of the process. Question the political connections if you want, but some companies will hit and some won't. Hell the main reason why the company went bust was because the Chinese are dumping regular solar panels, aided by... the government.
Isn't some perspective in order? The Bush DoD "lost" $9 billion of taxpayer money on pallets of cash in Iraq. They gave money to contractors to build barracks that electrocuted and killed soldiers. And yet a $535 million loan guarantee with a good amount of upside is talked about like the worst thing ever.
George Bush was a 9-11 war hero!
Obama isn't running against Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
That's quite a misrepresentation. Everyone should be against letting all subsidies run out. The "alternative" part of alternative energy implies that it can stand on its own and be, well, an alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan