2012 Election Thread

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I couldn't agree more. This is an absolutely terrible strategy for his campaign. All they are doing is dredging up a topic that had started to recede to the back burner in a way that isn't even going to resolve the issue. The only resolution to the issue is to release the full tax returns which he's not gonna do. Once again though, this will restart the obligatory Ann Romney response of "we've given you people enough."

Romney has shown himself time and time again as someone who wants to be President but doesn't want to be bothered to have to run for President.[/QUOTE]

One definitely has to wonder how transparent his administration would be when he can't even be transparent about his tax returns.

I can't remember back in the last election, but it would be interesting to see if Romney was one of the harpies crying about birth certificates.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I couldn't agree more. This is an absolutely terrible strategy for his campaign. All they are doing is dredging up a topic that had started to recede to the back burner in a way that isn't even going to resolve the issue. The only resolution to the issue is to release the full tax returns which he's not gonna do. Once again though, this will restart the obligatory Ann Romney response of "we've given you people enough."[/QUOTE]

That's the thing I find the most bizarre about this. In an attempt to sway the media news-cycle away from his most recent controversies, he decides to steer it back to an earlier controversy? I guess the video Drudge had with Obama saying he supports "wealth redistribution" didn't find the legs in the way they hoped, but still it really doesn't seem to bode well for Romney when his reaction to the 47% remark and his fake-and-bake before appearing on Univision is to say, "Haha, hey, remember when you guys were picking on me about my taxes? Let's go back to that."

(Though, to be fair, I did read Romney had said when he released his 2010 returns that he'd release his 2011 ones when they become available, but I'm really having a hard time believing that the timing isn't deliberate.)
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Exceptions do not a rule make. Besides, the claim was that libertarians were funding Romney's campaign. I guess I'd be expecting too much for some evidence that such an act was taking place?[/QUOTE]

Koch, an oil billionaire currently ranked number five on the Forbes U.S. billionaire list, has pledged along with his brother Charles to spend $100 million in their effort to oust President Obama this November.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/09/666081/david-koch-rnc/?mobile=nc

David H. Koch - Known for Philanthropy to cultural and medical institutions;
Political advocacy in support of libertarian and conservative causes
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch

What, he's not a "real" libertarian?

Give me a break, you're a joke fartman.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Depends on your criteria for what makes one part of a political party. Is it the position they hold on policy or is it their voter registration card?

I would err on the side of caution and say that as long as you're registered to the party, then you're a member, regardless of who you vote for.

My point was that if Romney wins the crown in November, you won't have libertarians to blame, even if a couple of our ranks did vote for him. I have no way of proving this, but I bet just as many, if not more will also vote for Obama.[/QUOTE]
Eh, libertarians are greatly conservative too, it isn't all about parties.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Obama's biggest regret is not pushing through immigration reform...while he's talking to Spanish-language TV?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-blames-...tion-reform-215329106--abc-news-politics.html

I do wholeheartedly get his point about McCain being vocal on this issue pre-campaign, and a bit during the campaign, but I don't remember a lot of other Republicans supporting it, rather they were cringing because they hated the idea.

But Obama's response when pressured on not getting immigration reform moved forward was about as weak as my son's when I ask why he didn't clean his room when he said he was going to:

"I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn't get it done," Obama said. "But I did not make a promise that I would get everything done a hundred percent when I was elected as president. What I promised was that I would work every single day as hard as I can to make sure that everybody in the country, regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they come from, that they would have a fair shot at the American dream. And that promise I kept."

Translated: I understand that I did not clean my room dad, but I didn't promise to clean the whole thing, but the entire time I was up here, I was cleaning...except for when I was playing. But some of those toys on the floor are my sister's. I blame her for not cleaning my room. I cleaned all of my room. Can I have a cookie now?

Well, there was also this biggest regret:
On “Meet the Press” December 26, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said President
Obama’s “biggest regret” is that the severity of the economic crisis
forced him to “spend almost every waking hour in Washington focusing
very hard on solving that crisis” and thus kept him from traveling the
country to connect with the American people.

So, immigration reform, his sincere regret, or his appeasement for the Univision audience in order to secure the hispanic vote? And I fully agree, and support his view that the Republican(s) who were vocally supporting immigration reform pulled a 180 on him for purely political reasons.[/QUOTE]


Was he just pandering to the Univision audience? Maybe, but I don't think a quote from Jarrett in Dec. proves anything. I'm sure he'll be asked this question again, though. So, we'll see if he's consistent in front of a different audience.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Matt Rhoades may never work again in DC. His managing of this campaign is about as inept as they come. Also, where is Paul Ryan? He is like the invisible man. I live in his district and they run more ads for his congressional run than they do for the ticket.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Purple Flames']Now that I think about it, that's a damn good question. I've barely heard a peep out of him since the RNC ended.[/QUOTE]

Well we found Ryan. He was being booed by old people.

http://news.yahoo.com/vp-candidate-ryan-heckled-booed-retiree-event-194856123.html
 
I heard about that on npr earlier. Doesn't sound like Ryan goes over too well with the conservative stable of old folks .
 
Re: Obama on Univision:

I like the part where Obama tries to defend his administrations record high number of deportations by saying he has no choice but to uphold current law.

While it's a nice idea in theory, it doesn't really mesh too well with his administration's directions regarding marijuana laws...

[quote name='dohdough']Neither. I'm telling you to go fuck yourself.[/quote]

Funny - I don't see how your earlier point about Warren being a Republican when she did the things that you're now trying to imply weren't that bad would have anything to do with me performing an impossible sexual task upon myself.

[quote name='Cantatus']And, of course, saying they paid all of the taxes they owe is a really specious argument.[/QUOTE]

Hey, paying 100% of what you owe in taxes is more than some of our government officials do.

As for abusing tax loopholes and havens, we already had this discussion:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268698

It was pretty much universally agreed that the politician did nothing wrong by gaming the system to limit his tax liability.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Re: Obama on Univision:

I like the part where Obama tries to defend his administrations record high number of deportations by saying he has no choice but to uphold current law.

While it's a nice idea in theory, it doesn't really mesh too well with his administration's directions regarding marijuana laws...[/QUOTE]

He's been cracking down pretty hard on medical marijuana dispensaries, so he's upholding the tyrannic law there, too.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, paying 100% of what you owe in taxes is more than some of our government officials do.

As for abusing tax loopholes and havens, we already had this discussion:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268698

It was pretty much universally agreed that the politician did nothing wrong by gaming the system to limit his tax liability.[/QUOTE]

I'm not making any moral judgments on it one way or the other. I am just pointing out that his wording is deceptive and doesn't do much to defend himself. It sounds great until you realize it's a fairly empty statement.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He's been cracking down pretty hard on medical marijuana dispensaries, so he's upholding the tyrannic law there, too.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's one thing to make a campaign promise and then not deliver, it's another to make a promise and then do the exact opposite. Unfortunately, he's done this in a few areas.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He's been cracking down pretty hard on medical marijuana dispensaries, so he's upholding the tyrannic law there, too.[/QUOTE]

True - but that's only part of the law.

Not that I'm saying I want the DoJ locking away kids picked up for small amounts of marijuana or such...
 
Has Obama given a reason for his surprisingly rigorous upholding of laws forbidding Marijuana, etc? I'm just thinking he probably didn't suddenly decide it was wrong, and in fact, you'd think as a minority who is also a highly educated President, he might have at least learned about the disproportionate arrests and jailings that are tied to the drug war, not to mention the costs of it, which should concern pretty much everyone.

Also of interest and having a little synergy with this is that he has said before that 'The Wire' is one of his favorite shows. There's just a lot of reasons for why he should want to treat this with some nuance, but for some reason he isn't.
 
Put this together for another forum where I'm currently discussing the election with a handful of "Anyone but Obama" folks... thought I'd share it here.

Washington Post gives Obama a 31 EC point lead over Romney,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/

Examiner gives Obama a 71 EC point lead,
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-polls-reinforce-obama-s-lead-on-the-electoral-college-map

RCP gives Obama a 56 EC point lead,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Your pals at Rasmussen give Obama a 41 EC point lead,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard

The discussion is over how voting third party is going to screw the country over because it's going to allow Obama to win the election. You shouldn't vote third party because that candidate has no chance of winning. I'm showing them that Romney has no chance of winning, so they should just vote for Obama if they only care about voting for a winning candidate.

Of course, they disagree. :D

But, anyway, thought I'd share the links - interesting data regarding the electoral college breakdown. Even if recent polls show that the general population's vote is running close, it's clear that Obama's pretty much got this all wrapped up.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Has Obama given a reason for his surprisingly rigorous upholding of laws forbidding Marijuana, etc? [/QUOTE]

From the little I've read, they've just been raiding dispensaries that weren't staying with in state medical marijuana laws that local law enforcement wasn't dealing with.

i.e. places selling to people with out prescriptions and things of that nature.

But it's been a while since I read anything about it, so maybe they've gone beyond that lately.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Even if recent polls show that the general population's vote is running close, it's clear that Obama's pretty much got this all wrapped up.[/QUOTE]

Here's hoping.
 
The R's moving the spending to down ballot races might be pretty effective if they truly have given up on Romney. They can make the next congressional session as useless as the 112th has been. Plus all the voter ID, etc work doesnt go to waste. They've laid a lot of groundwork here.

However, once the final provisions of ACA go into place, theres really no taking it back. It was idiotic to have the implementation take this long anyway.
 
Reid has said that he'll try to change the filibuster if D's take back the house. Hopefully he has the insight to also take a look at anonymous holds, or we're going to see a very silly thing happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']From the little I've read, they've just been raiding dispensaries that weren't staying with in state medical marijuana laws that local law enforcement wasn't dealing with.

i.e. places selling to people with out prescriptions and things of that nature.

But it's been a while since I read anything about it, so maybe they've gone beyond that lately.[/QUOTE]

In Oregon you can't sell it. The "medical" dispensaries are allowed to grow and provide to people with medical marijuina cards, but they can't sell it to those with cards, nor pay the people who work there.

Personally, I'd rather they legalize, regulate, and tax it like alcohol instead of people pretending smoking something has medical value.

Alcohol cures my anxiety and insomnia too, but I don't consider it medical.
 
Interesting to play what if and see how close it'd be if Romney chose Rubio (presumably giving him Florida), it'd be closer in some states I think.
 
I just want to remind everyone that months ago I said Obama would crush the Republican candidate by at least 10pts. I was called crazy and told it would be a close election. I'm still holding to my 10%+ guess! Just wait until the first debate. Obama's lead will increase by 5% minimum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']I just want to remind everyone that months ago I said Obama would crushe the Republican candidate by at least 10pts. I was called crazy and told it would be a close election. I'm still holding to my 10%+ guess! Just wait until the first debate. Obama's lead will increase by 5% minimum.[/QUOTE]
More than 10pts!? You're fucking crazy, dude!:rofl:

For the record, Obama beat McCain by 7.2pts by popular vote(52.9 to 45.7) with 365 to 173 electoral college votes. And you think it's going to be a wider margin this time around? I want what you've been smoking, man.:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']More than 10pts!? You're fucking crazy, dude!:rofl:

For the record, Obama beat McCain by 7.2pts by popular vote(52.9 to 45.7) with 365 to 173 electoral college votes. And you think it's going to be a wider margin this time around? I want what you've been smoking, man.:lol:[/QUOTE]

I do think it's going to be a wider margin. I think the debates are going to DESTROY Romney, and eventually he's going to annoy even his base, with a few more bad stories released, foot-in-mouth disease, and the Obama group has to be holding a couple of stories for closer to the election. The only thing that will keep this from being double digit is the number of votes 3rd party candidates get.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I do think it's going to be a wider margin. I think the debates are going to DESTROY Romney, and eventually he's going to annoy even his base, with a few more bad stories released, foot-in-mouth disease, and the Obama group has to be holding a couple of stories for closer to the election. The only thing that will keep this from being double digit is the number of votes 3rd party candidates get.[/QUOTE]
Care to make a friendly wager on it? Say $20 to Children's Miracle Network(the organization for the Extra Life Charity) if popular vote goes over a 8.6pt spread?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Care to make a friendly wager on it? Say $20 to Children's Miracle Network(the organization for the Extra Life Charity) if popular vote goes over a 8.6pt spread?[/QUOTE]

I don't bet $$$ on things, but we could do some sort of volunteerism wager, or something similar.
 
[quote name='camoor']Kind of funny how behind Romney is. We're down to talking about the point spread.[/QUOTE]

Yep. It's also not just Romney going down, but Obama is going up. Read earlier than 9 of 13 polls so far in September have his approval rating over 50%, compared to only 1 poll in August.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't bet $$$ on things, but we could do some sort of volunteerism wager, or something similar.[/QUOTE]
Even if you lost, I would've matched the $20 anyways and I'm already kicking in a Jackson through CAG, so it's more of a token gesture anyways since it's going to local children's hospitals. I figured it'd just be a little fun and add a little excitement.

I also didn't realize that it was against your religion. I should've been aware and I can't believed I missed it. Sorry about that.

[quote name='berzirk']Holy crap, doh, queue Vince Carter's "It's ovah" dunk and Kenny Smith's reaction. This just in:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-nascar-poll-140401668--politics.html[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...well, NASCAR fans are known to boo a lot of people.;)
 
[quote name='berzirk']I do think it's going to be a wider margin. I think the debates are going to DESTROY Romney, and eventually he's going to annoy even his base, with a few more bad stories released, foot-in-mouth disease, and the Obama group has to be holding a couple of stories for closer to the election. The only thing that will keep this from being double digit is the number of votes 3rd party candidates get.[/QUOTE]

There's no way it's a wider margin. Obama isn't even matching all the states he picked up in 2008 (Indiana for one, probably North Carolina).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Even if you lost, I would've matched the $20 anyways and I'm already kicking in a Jackson through CAG, so it's more of a token gesture anyways since it's going to local children's hospitals. I figured it'd just be a little fun and add a little excitement.

I also didn't realize that it was against your religion. I should've been aware and I can't believed I missed it. Sorry about that.


Hahaha...well, NASCAR fans are known to boo a lot of people.;)[/QUOTE]

Ah, no worries at all. Far less awkward of a situation than being at some business dinner and having a bunch of former fratboy douchebags try to convince me I should get hammered and make an ass of myself instead of downing virgin mohitos.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Anything is better than a young earth creationist, even Mitt Romney.[/QUOTE]

Who's the creationist?

Can we stop treating "NASCAR fans" as a monolithic voting block? That sport is huuuuuuuge, no matter how many of us are puzzled that it is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who's the creationist?

Can we stop treating "NASCAR fans" as a monolithic voting block? That sport is huuuuuuuge, no matter how many of us are puzzled that it is.[/QUOTE]

I could swear that someone on this forum posted a sports chart for voters. Not sure how legit it was, though.


Edit: It was this: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268824

Edit 2: I do agree, however, with what you said.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who's the creationist?[/QUOTE]
Palin and Santorum are, possibly Ron Paul as well. I could never justify putting Palin a 76 year old man's heartbeat away from the presidency.

I'm just afraid that after this Romney fiasco, the Republican party will swing hard in that direction and nominate a more charismatic Santorum type. The war on science is not what this country needs.
 
The party has gradually moved in that direction for decades now. The modern GOP concept of Ronald Reagan is a mythological being, a God-King who cut taxes, tore down the Berlin wall by himself, single-handedly destroyed the USSR, and everyone loved him.

They deny the legislation he was involved in that doesn't fit with their worldview, as if only the things they liked seeing him do effected the economy and our society.

If Romney gets creamed, it will surely, as you note, be blamed on his "RINO" status.

I hope he loses substantially, but I hope that he loses substantially in an election where GOP voter turnout is high. That will at least dispel the "not conservative enough, voters are unenthusiastic" theory of him losing.
 
I suspect voter turnout will be pretty low. It seems like some news organizations are already calling it for Obama, the way they keep mentioning he's polling ahead in battle ground states.

There's like a subtle undertone to the message of:
"Well, Obama's 3 points ahead in Ohio in Florida. Election's over, he won."
 
[quote name='berzirk']Ah, no worries at all. Far less awkward of a situation than being at some business dinner and having a bunch of former fratboy douchebags try to convince me I should get hammered and make an ass of myself instead of downing virgin mohitos.[/QUOTE]
Virgin mojitos? Is that just fresh lime juice, a few leaves of mint, seltzer, and a sugar rimmed glass?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Virgin mojitos? Is that just fresh lime juice, a few leaves of mint, seltzer, and a sugar rimmed glass?[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure. Asked the waiter for something good with no booze, and he rolled one of those out. Became my go to drink for the rest of the business trip. Looks legit to business guys who want everyone to be drunk with them, tastes awesome.

Are mohitos "chick drinks"? I usually ask for the most effeminate virgin drink available just for chuckles.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The party has gradually moved in that direction for decades now. The modern GOP concept of Ronald Reagan is a mythological being, a God-King who cut taxes, tore down the Berlin wall by himself, single-handedly destroyed the USSR, and everyone loved him.[/QUOTE]

It would be awesome to see the mythological version of Reagan fight the mythological version of Putin. Of course Putin once wrestled a bear to death so to even the odds I'd make it a two-on-one tag team match, letting Reagan tag out to Lincoln.
 
I just finished up My Father at 100, from Reagan Jr. It was an entirely non-political biography. The guy was a prodigy swimmer and lifeguard. Also played a lot of college football. He wouldve been a formidable opponent in his younger years.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Pretty sure. Asked the waiter for something good with no booze, and he rolled one of those out. Became my go to drink for the rest of the business trip. Looks legit to business guys who want everyone to be drunk with them, tastes awesome.

Are mohitos "chick drinks"? I usually ask for the most effeminate virgin drink available just for chuckles.[/QUOTE]

Ordering chick drinks? And you're a guy?? Wow that's pretty funny.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Pretty sure. Asked the waiter for something good with no booze, and he rolled one of those out. Became my go to drink for the rest of the business trip. Looks legit to business guys who want everyone to be drunk with them, tastes awesome.

Are mohitos "chick drinks"? I usually ask for the most effeminate virgin drink available just for chuckles.[/QUOTE]
Mojito's are a cuban drink that were the trendy drink of choice about 5-7 years ago, hence mojito; not mohito. It isn't really a girly drink at all because it has a lot of rum conventionally. Caipirinha is the Brazilian variant that's a little more sweet and without the mint, which is also a variant of the Portuguese version naturally.
 
The Connecticut Senate race will have their debate on Monday, October 15. Been anticipating how McMahon does in that setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top