Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by swerb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:55 am
by GodHatesClevelandSport » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:00 am
by swerb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:06 am
by noles1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:28 am
by Adverb Harry » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:21 am
by pup » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:49 am
Adverb Harry wrote:Wow, the campaign really took an unexpected turn this morning. Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States."
by swerb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:26 pm
pup wrote:Adverb Harry wrote:Wow, the campaign really took an unexpected turn this morning. Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States." Simple, Romney will be so shocked if he actually wins, he will have a heart attack and never officially take office.Still cannot believe the Repubs can do no better than McCain and Romney to keep us from 8 years of Obama.
by Govbarney » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:37 pm
by Hikohadon » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:46 pm
by motherscratcher » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:49 pm
Govbarney wrote:$ is the reason he made this choice, he needed to do something to get the Tea Baggers to open up their pocket books b/c right now the dems have almost a 3/1 advantage in spending cash.
by e0y2e3 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:51 pm
by Hikohadon » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:53 pm
swerb wrote:I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I will tell you this ... this economy needs him and Paul Ryan right now. Shame they're gonna lose.
by FUDU » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:19 pm
by Govbarney » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:57 pm
FUDU wrote:Tell me again why I should bother voting?
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:07 pm
by FUDU » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:45 pm
by Hikohadon » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:10 pm
FUDU wrote:Exactly, and I've said it for years.I know the usual reply is "how dare you, it's your duty to vote". Yeah I get it, voting is a privilege and should be revered, but FFS anymore our system is beyond broke. I respect the privilege of voting, I just despise that fact that in order to do so I have to give my vote to a guy (or gal) I do not stand behind.
by Govbarney » Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:42 pm
Hikohadon wrote:FUDU wrote:Exactly, and I've said it for years.I know the usual reply is "how dare you, it's your duty to vote". Yeah I get it, voting is a privilege and should be revered, but FFS anymore our system is beyond broke. I respect the privilege of voting, I just despise that fact that in order to do so I have to give my vote to a guy (or gal) I do not stand behind.I'll feel guilty if I don't vote, so I'm going to. I'm going to write someone in. Not sure who yet, someone I like who would be good at the job. Maybe Steven Wright.One could claim that's "throwing my vote away", but so is voting for Obama or Romney.Romney never had a chance with me anyway. I'd never vote for a Pro-Lifer. They come up with a party that has Republican fiscal responsibility without pandering to the religious right, then color me interested.
by FUDU » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:10 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:12 pm
by Commodore Perry » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:35 pm
noles1 wrote:Overall, 4 years from now we're no better off with either candidate because Congress is a fuckin mess and the populous are moronic sheep led by special interest groups and uber-wealthy that pay them what to think.
by CleSportsTruth » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:37 pm
by motherscratcher » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:15 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:On the "Ryan will be great for the economy" thing: Really? His plan resolutely, bravely, etc. kills the deficit by... 2040. And that's assuming we reach the totally realistic figure of 2.8% unemployment. Uh, good luck with that.All this while voucherizing Medicare* (but not for those currently most likely to vote GOP!), block-grant Medicaid to states in insufficient numbers (thus burdening states), decreasing the tax burden for the well-off/succesful, likely increasing it a bit for lower-middle classes (his math, shaky as it is, doesn't work at all if you don't) and instituting very sharp austerity (but not defense, oh no!) quickly.Even if you think these are all good, it has virtually nothing to do w/ short-term growth. In fact, sharp, quick austerity, esp. gutting non--discretionary social programs (food stamps, for one) will do the opposite. But hey, the Romney's of the world will be better off, so... *That could be a decent idea IF the voucher was to keep up with health care inflation. Ryan's plan doesn't.
by Hikohadon » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:16 pm
Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 wrote:As someone who fought for the right to vote, I respect the idea that a person's vote is worth more than the recycled trash that we get to choose from....That being said and as much as I despise the RR, I'd never let the abortion issue be the deciding factorThis country is in an economic death spiral and maintaining the staus quo of the past 4 yrs is going to be like riding Harry Reid's 6 billion $ bullet train from Nowhere, CA to Vegas where 70% of homes are underwaterA person would have to be a bluthering hopeless idiot to not vote against Barrack Obama in this election
by swerb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:31 pm
by Hikohadon » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:46 pm
by Orenthal » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:46 pm
by Adverb Harry » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:22 am
by swerb » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:32 am
Adverb Harry wrote:I've just always had to laugh when people say that a VP candidate really puts someone over the top, whichever side of the aisle you're talking about. I've personally never gotten the idea of how the VP pick "balances" the ticket or "strengthens" the presidential candidate, anyway. I mean, it's not like the two candidates do some crazy mind meld and come away speaking as one unified, complete being. Picking a veep who's an expert at the economy doesn't make YOU any better at the economy, just as picking a veep with foreign policy or defense credentials doesn't strengthen you in those areas, either. Besides, any ideological differences between the two (and there are always some) are tossed aside because the VP candidate is expected to toe the line of the presidential candidate in order to not contradict the campaign's messages. Even if elected, the VP doesn't make the policies, and it's basically a ceremonial position.(By the way, this has nothing to do with anything any of you have said so far in this thread...just pointing out something that's always bothered me. It gets pretty heated around here without politics coming into play, so I figured I'd better point that out.)
by Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:41 am
by FUDU » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:39 am
by motherscratcher » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:53 am
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:56 pm
by leadpipe » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:16 pm
motherscratcher wrote:The problem is that all of these guys (every one of them) has 2 priorities and 2 priorities alone.1. Get re-elected2. Stop the opposite party from doing anything...ANYTHING. It doesn't even matter if you think it will help or is the right thing to do. If the other party wants to do it, it must be stopped. At all costs.It's fucking ludicrous.Broken. Unfixable. Indefinite until the zombie apocalypse.
by noles1 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:45 am
by jerryroche » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:54 am
by Hikohadon » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:30 pm
jerryroche wrote:Will either Romney or Obama do everything in their power to force Congress to:1) cut defense spending2) replace the progressive income tax system with a flat consumption tax3) institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare4) restore welfare-to-work5) increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age by at least two years6) drastically cut foreign aid until the fiscal crisis is resolved7) Oh, yeah: create corporate tax breaks for businesses that bring jobs back homePer noles1: "Long story short, we're fucked."
by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:38 pm
Govbarney wrote:FUDU wrote:Tell me again why I should bother voting?No National election in history has come down to one vote, so no need to bother.
by jerryroche » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:49 pm
Hikohadon wrote:Who cares? Neither will get it done even if they try.
by rebelwithoutaclue » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:56 pm
Overall, 4 years from now we're no better off with either candidate because Congress is a fuckin mess and the populous are moronic sheep led by special interest groups and uber-wealthy that pay them what to think.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
by pup » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:58 pm
rebelwithoutaclue wrote:Govbarney wrote:FUDU wrote:Tell me again why I should bother voting?No National election in history has come down to one vote, so no need to bother.Right, because when something has never happened, it will continue to never happen. Tell that to the ~50% of registered voters in Florida circa 2000 who didn't vote, probably because their vote "wouldn't have mattered." It would have only taken 538 of the ~6,000,000 (538/6000000 = 1/10000 of a percent more voters) people who didn't vote to swing the entire election. Pure fallacy and it is thinking like this (similar to the bystander effect) that causes voter turnout for the entire nation, to not even reach 60% for presidential elections. Pathetic.
by Orenthal » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:00 pm
by Orenthal » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:05 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:25 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:28 pm
Orenthal wrote:I agree with the premise, as a non-supporter of Bush spending, but Obama's remedy has been more spending. Once stimulus was tried and failed he should have begun looking in other directions. It isn't that he hasn't had time its that he is making it worse.ETAJabba has a much better economic record.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:31 pm
by Hikohadon » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:23 pm
jerryroche wrote:At this point, I'm leaning Romney. Give the new guy a chance. And if he can't do it, in four years, we'll have the opportunity to give another person a chance. That's how our great country works.
by jerryroche » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:54 pm
Hikohadon wrote:Or one could argue that's why it doesn't work and why it's not great. Switching to new guys every 4 years gives them just enough time to frustrate the masses because they failed to get anything accomplished (and be damn certain the other side will do everything in their power to ensure that) so you switch again and the same thing happens.
by CleSportsTruth » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:24 pm
by swerb » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:31 pm
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest