Romney VP Announcement

[leadpipe]

When in doubt, go with the guy MacPhisto played touch football with.

[CleSportsTruth]

Soapbox time!

Has the power to dictate tempo and agenda in Congress, as we saw when Obamacare got jammed down the throats of a populace that was 65% against it.

Political gridlock has never been worse than the last two years. Nothing significant on the bill side has emerged from Congress ... and it is immensely frustrating.

Contradicting yourself, boss. We all want LESS gridlock, hell, the country NEEDS less gridlock. But the '09-'11 Congress got shit done. "Oh, not THAT shit. HELL NO!" They did stuff and promptly got punted.

Some context on Obamacare: Throughout '09, Dems. were practically BEGGING Pubs. to come to a deal, esp. in the Senate. Had they really negotiated in good faith, the final bill certainly would have been better than it ended up being. But the GOP made collective decision to oppose it and try to block it at all costs. Not b/c they all disagreed with the underlying notions (Teahadists did, but nevermind) but b/c they wanted to block anything the WH/Dems. wanted in order to defeat them later. So, when one party obstructs, calls it "socialism," partisan, etc., low-info voters are going to be skeptical.

But Dems. had one chance to do SOMETHING on health care. Congressmen are under no obligation to simply vote their constituents' wishes on every issue. Sometimes, the hard, important votes that get things done aren't popular. Further, some of the opposition (not 65%, BTW, unless you only read Rasmussen), was from liberals who thought it didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

Point is, gridlock is bad when nothing Joe Q. Voter (Dem. or GOP) likes gets done, but if it blocks something he/she doesn't like, it's "good." In truth, it hurts us all.

Blowing up the Senate flibuster would reduce a bunch of gridlock. Needing 60 votes to breathe in the Senate is madness. I've got more ideas too. But I gotta go for now.

[e0y2e3]

This is simple:

We are fucked and the republicans currently suck about 0% less than the Dems fiscally.

Fuck them all, vote if you feel some religious fuck is going to get into the supreme court or if you are dumb enough to think for a second Romney is better than Obama on the foreign policy shit (if you think this, you are a fucking moron). Otherwise, fuck you for voting for more of the same when it puts the SC and our current GREAT foreign policy at risk.

[e0y2e3]

BTW: CST just shit on you Rich, bad.

[Hikohadon]

Obama : Romney :: McCoy : Weeden

Let me fix that for you.

Obama : Romney :: Brady Quinn : Derek Anderson

[exiledbuckeye]

Explain to me like I'm a 5-year old why a consumption-based taxation system, in a consumption-based economy, is better than an income tax? Won't it just discourage people to buy -- the very thing that drives our economy?

**I ask this as someone who lived in Texas for several years -- a state with no income tax that raised revenue primarily via the sales tax -- and watched the state suffer a $27 billion budget shortfall when the consumption-based economy crashed to a halt.

[FUDU]

Explain to me like I'm a 5-year old why a consumption-based taxation system, in a consumption-based economy, is better than an income tax? Won't it just discourage people to buy -- the very thing that drives our economy?

**I ask this as someone who lived in Texas for several years -- a state with no income tax that raised revenue primarily via the sales tax -- and watched the state suffer a $27 billion budget shortfall when the consumption-based economy crashed to a halt.

Part of me agrees with ^, but deep down I don't believe we have the discipline as a nation to not spend our money, so part of me thinks a consumption base tax will be effective for most of the working class.

Ultimately any tax reform probably has to be a hybrid of sorts, income tax on small % of earnings (probably tiered) and a flat rate consumption %.

As to other matters like foreign policy I think we need to take some of our focus off of that as a pressing need in our candidates and re-focus most of our concerns on our own problems. Cut foreign aid drastically and stay out of other people's business and only work as a global coalition.

[danwismar]

I'm delighted with the selection of Ryan as VP, mostly because it steers the electoral conversation to where it needs to be...on the looming fiscal crisis...one for which the present administration has no plan, let alone any answers, on the rare occasions when it even acknowledges its existence.

But I came in here to make one quick (I hope) and off topic point about foreign aid...and the calls to cut it drastically, and stay out of other people's business, etc.

For starters, a lot of people think cutting foreign aid is a way to solve our budget problems. It's not, really. Total foreign aid has varied in recent years from $18 billion to $25 billion, or somewhere between one-half to two-thirds of one percent of federal spending.

The largest single recipient of foreign aid is Israel...to the tune of about $2-3 billion/year. Of this amount, more than half is required to be spent on (mostly military) hardware that is manufactured here in the US. To cut aid to Israel then, is to cost US workers's jobs, and the gov't the tax revenues from those jobs.

Second on the US aid pecking order has been Egypt ($1-2 billion approx)...money that has essentially helped guarantee their peace with Israel for roughly 30 years. Now that the MB has taken a large measure of power there, and certain factions wish to revisit the Camp David peace treaty, our aid should be revisited as well...as a carrot to reward responsible and peaceful behavior toward our ally...and to be withheld in its absence.

The other point is that our aid money has and continues to do a great deal of good...in the ME...in Africa...etc. We purchase influence with it...and if it is withdrawn, the vacuum we create will be filled with influences from elsewhere...and in the cases of our primary geostrategic rivals...China and Russia...that influence is likely to be malign. In other words...it's short-sighted and naive.

Cutting the foreign aid budget is tinkering at the margins of federal spending...a tiny drop in the spending bucket. We get far more bang for the buck with that .5% of our tax dollars than we do with the much more pressing budget issues that are on the verge of collapsing the system.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

None of this matters. Romney isn't going to win.

All this is, the GOP taking their best young Dressage horse out for a national prance before 2016.

So you're saying some American death merchants might lose their contracting jobs if we cut aid to a welfare state like Israel?

[FUDU]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Why don't we just cut defense spending by 30%? I see a giant fat hog that needs a good trimming anyhow.

We spent $150 million for each of our 187 operational F-22 cRaptors. The awesome money pit jet that needs a $4 million paint job after 80 hours flight time.

The XM-8 and laser plane also deserve mentioning.

[danwismar]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

As if we are insulated from or unaffected by "the rest of the world's problems"?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

As if we are insulated from or unaffected by "the rest of the world's problems"?

He's saying we take of our own before kiting checks on the morrow.

But obviously we cannot turn a blind eye on North Korea, middle east, and north Africa.

[leadpipe]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

As if we are insulated from or unaffected by "the rest of the world's problems"?

He's saying we take of our own before kiting checks on the morrow.

But obviously we cannot turn a blind eye on North Korea, middle east, and north Africa.

This is just it. There is a middle groud here.

For 60 or so years we have defended Japan and Germany, as a necessary investement in our own security. Two things have clearly changed in that time, 1. the threat of a hostile superpower poised to attack us is gone and 2. We can't afford it anymore.

Collective security is an obvious common goal for us and our allies. But it is not truly common. Look at military spending, those countries pay BILLIONS LESS than we do. They must accept more of the burden.

We all should have an interest in maintaining an American presence in Europe and Asia. All of us are aware the threat terrorist states pose to our safety. It's an uncertain future in an uncertain world, but it's no too much to ask of the European and Asian countries to share the burden.

[danwismar]

This is just it. There is a middle groud here.

For 60 or so years we have defended Japan and Germany, as a necessary investement in our own security. Two things have clearly changed in that time, 1. the threat of a hostile superpower poised to attack us is gone and 2. We can't afford it anymore.

Collective security is an obvious common goal for us and our allies. But it is not truly common. Look at military spending, those countries pay BILLIONS LESS than we do. They must accept more of the burden.

We all should have an interest in maintaining an American presence in Europe and Asia. All of us are aware the threat terrorist states pose to our safety. It's an uncertain future in an uncertain world, but it's no too much to ask of the European and Asian countries to share the burden.

Absolutely, LP...you are so right about Europe and Japan (and S. Korea) needing to start sharing the financial burdens of their defense. That gets into a whole different area of spending other than what I was talking about. Our bases overseas count as Pentagon/defense spending and not in the category of foreign aid. I get sick to my stomach just thinking about the many thousands of U.S. troops in harms way between the Koreas, subject to the whims of a 28-year old we know nothing about. But of all the unnecessary dollars we are pissing away, nothing gets me more ticked than protecting an unappreciative Europe from its enemies, (which, while different these days, still exist). They aren't even remotely inclined to take more of the burden on, however. Their welfare states are unsustainable as is, and their societies are more pacifistic than ours. We have spoiled them, and they don't want to change the status quo.

[CleSportsTruth]

This is just it. There is a middle groud here.

For 60 or so years we have defended Japan and Germany, as a necessary investement in our own security. Two things have clearly changed in that time, 1. the threat of a hostile superpower poised to attack us is gone and 2. We can't afford it anymore.

Collective security is an obvious common goal for us and our allies. But it is not truly common. Look at military spending, those countries pay BILLIONS LESS than we do. They must accept more of the burden.

We all should have an interest in maintaining an American presence in Europe and Asia. All of us are aware the threat terrorist states pose to our safety. It's an uncertain future in an uncertain world, but it's no too much to ask of the European and Asian countries to share the burden.

Absolutely, LP...you are so right about Europe and Japan (and S. Korea) needing to start sharing the financial burdens of their defense. That gets into a whole different area of spending other than what I was talking about. Our bases overseas count as Pentagon/defense spending and not in the category of foreign aid. I get sick to my stomach just thinking about the many thousands of U.S. troops in harms way between the Koreas, subject to the whims of a 28-year old we know nothing about. But of all the unnecessary dollars we are pissing away, nothing gets me more ticked than protecting an unappreciative Europe from its enemies, (which, while different these days, still exist). They aren't even remotely inclined to take more of the burden on, however. Their welfare states are unsustainable as is, and their societies are more pacifistic than ours. We have spoiled them, and they don't want to change the status quo.

I couldn't justify pulling out of S. Korea yet, but if the North starts to show some consistency and realism in it's actions, then I'd do it. And no, I am not keeping a huge mil. presence in the Pacific for China. If we go to war with China (we won't), we're fucked anyway.

Forget causes, attitudes, etc, our current large European presence is a pointless boondoggle. Keep Ramstein as a staging area/treatment base, but remove everything else.

On foreign, aid you are 100% right.

[FUDU]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

As if we are insulated from or unaffected by "the rest of the world's problems"?

Like CDT said, my point is we need to prioritize our problems ahead of everyone else's and do so much more often. Just one EG, we're in the middle of a HC crisis and we have lots of elderly (and will have tons more in the next 5-10 years), Vets and uninsured/under-insured...you how know far our foreign aid money would go in helping some of them.

We cannot go the strict isolationist route, but we can insulate ourselves to a degree from the rest of the world's problems, especially the problems they cause themselves.

LP brings up a great place to start, it's time for some other nations to start defending themselves, or in the least to start footing all of the bill for the protections we provide.

[danwismar]

we have lots of elderly (and will have tons more in the next 5-10 years), Vets and uninsured/under-insured...you how know far our foreign aid money would go in helping some of them.

Yeah...not very.

Every year, we throw three times our total annual foreign aid budget down the toilet in Medicare/Medicaid fraud alone (est. $60 billion/yr.)

[Orenthal]

People have no concept the total dollars in transfer payments...

[Cerebral_DownTime]

*cough* Rick Scott *cough*.

[Orenthal]

Bitch.

[mattvan1]

I would disagree Dan, in that cutting foreign aid and using those cuts as expenditures here at home would help us more. The focus should always be us (first), and solving our more serious problems (first) as opposed to getting tied up in the rest of the world's problems.

As if we are insulated from or unaffected by "the rest of the world's problems"?

He's saying we take of our own before kiting checks on the morrow.

But obviously we cannot turn a blind eye on North Korea, middle east, and north Africa.

This is just it. There is a middle groud here.

For 60 or so years we have defended Japan and Germany, as a necessary investement in our own security. Two things have clearly changed in that time, 1. the threat of a hostile superpower poised to attack us is gone and 2. We can't afford it anymore.

Collective security is an obvious common goal for us and our allies. But it is not truly common. Look at military spending, those countries pay BILLIONS LESS than we do. They must accept more of the burden.

We all should have an interest in maintaining an American presence in Europe and Asia. All of us are aware the threat terrorist states pose to our safety. It's an uncertain future in an uncertain world, but it's no too much to ask of the European and Asian countries to share the burden.

I take a much more cynical view. The DoD spending on US military bases in foreign countries should not be confused with military aid or peace keeping.

We are there to protect our own interests via a deterrent. Bottom line - we pull out of South Korea and then North Korea invades we are right back in at a 1,000X cost multiplier. Better to simply keep the presence in country.

Like it or not, we are the World Police. Cue theme song from Team America (fuck yeaaaaaaaaaaaa!)

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Paul Ryan's interview with Brit Hume was hilarious and almost Palinish.

[Orenthal]

Bottom line is the budget will be smaller under Republicans.

[Hikohadon]

Bottom line is who gives a fuck what they say.

[FUDU]

The bottom line is always the bottom line.

[Hikohadon]

The bottom line is always the bottom line.

How do we know?

No matter how low a line is, mathematically there is always something below it. Go as low as you can think of, and there's always something one step lower. Infinity bottom +1.

Thus, the concept of a "bottom line" is hypothetical at best.

There is no such thing as a bottom line.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

You can't have less than zero

[Hikohadon]

You can't have less than zero

Then what is -1?

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

The name of a movie.

[e0y2e3]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... gop/56227/

Is the intro to this hilarity:

http://www.firststatemanufacturing.com/

[dmiles]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/08/sher-valenzuela-didnt-build-her-own-website-and-why-it-may-haunt-gop/56227/

Is the intro to this hilarity:

http://www.firststatemanufacturing.com/

Holy christ after reading the first article I went over to Reddit, I had no idea that forum was so full of lefties. CDT is right, you guys control the internets.

That said, what a dumb-ass thing for the GOP to jump all over. I blame this on the silly 24X7 news cycle where these two parties have to manufacture some bullshit crisis as a reason for hating the other guys. I don't need to hate Obama for stuff like that, just the fact that he associated himself to fucktards like Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright and Frank Marshall Davis is good enough for me. Then again being from a hard-core dem in Y-town I probably associated with some commie's myself without even knowing it. Anyway, it's this Fox News, MSNBC faux outrage stuff that is so damn hard to watch.

Ryan is meh, when the chips are down he's a company man and going to vote for NDAA, Patriot Act., TARP etc. I don't see any Romney/Ryan bumper stickers anywhere either. Very few yard signs, does that stuff not come out until after the convention or is interest just that low?

We went to the Ron Paul rally at USF Sunday, pretty interesting, a ton of people there for a guy who is out of the race for all intents and purposes.

[Ziner]

Well that Clint Eastwood thing was really awesome....



Holy poop

[motherscratcher]

What did he do?

[Ziner]

I can't describe it to give it justice. You have to watch it. Single handedly the most awkward thing I have seen on live television.

Just know that Invisible Obama has over 20K followers on twitter already.

[StewieG]

I'm assuming you're talking about the speech, where he went senile and thought Obama was sitting next to him?

[Squints]

^^^^^^^

It was like watching Willie Mays fall down in center field. Unwatchable, turned it off after 5 minutes, probably missed the "best" parts.

[Ziner]

How in today's age of scripted politicians they let him get up there and ramble is simply amazing. Romney should can his advisers the second he walked off that stage. Nothing like getting zero attention after a halfway decent speech because you got upstaged by the crazy old senile dude talking to an empty chair.

[motherscratcher]

[StewieG]

@invisibleobama is well on his way to 29,000 followers. This is gonna be good.

Stewart and Colbert have to be like kids on Christmas this evening.

[swerb]

The poll #'s we'll see come out early next week will be very interesting.

See what kind of bounce Romney gets coming out of the Convention. McCain got that massive Palin bounce 4 years ago coming out of convention, which obviously ended up slipping away as he had zero response to the financial crisis and with Palin being TOTALLY exposed in the weeks after.

IMO, Romney needs a nice bounce coming out of this to have a good chance. And is less likely to piss away the momentum like the overmatched Repub ticket of four years ago.

All in all, I thought it was pretty well done. Convention message clearly targeted at Hispanics, females, small business owners, and independents that have suffered as a result of the complete lack of economic progress the last four years.

For the first time in a long time though, the Republican party seems to have some hope going forward. Ryan, Rubio, Christie, Condi ... all did very well in my mind (Rubio was REALLY good last night). The first three seemingly the future of the party. A move away from the same tired messages and stereotypes associated with the Dole/Bush/Bush era of the party. And hopefully we'll never see another primary ticket as weak as Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Romney 4 and 8 years from now.

The debates are going to be outstanding.

[FUDU]

Clint speaking at the RNC is the tit, Biden speaking at the DNC would be the tat.

From the controversial book of SEAL team member Bissonnette: "He says Biden told “lame jokes” no one understood, reminding him of “someone’s drunken uncle at Christmas dinner.”

[Hikohadon]

I was going to watch the conventions, but then I noticed my toenail and ended up staring at it for about 2 hours. I guess I'm just a slave to the superior entertainment value.

[FUDU]

"Government is the only thing we all belong to"

Man with these choices we really are fucked.