2012 Election Thread

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6a9392-197a-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

Operating a world-wide war of terror from a base established by the French... how cute.[/QUOTE]

Insane article. They get the contracts and expand the base / build new runways and taxiways , yet their operations are so numerous the runways are jammed. I get that they have other non-predator craft taking off and landing too, but still ,.. Jesus. The air traffic controllers are so over worked they needed another 7 million dollar contract to entice them to stay on the job. Yet they aren't regulated by the FAA. (A government agency that cant regulate government operations, just civilian. Beautiful)

And I loved the part of the article that indicated theres some Skynet-y BS taking place , with drones turning on their own engines. Wonderful.

Hands down the craziest article I've read all year.
 
I've come to the conclusion that no matter what someone accomplishes, people will always focus on what they didn't do. You could broker world peace, and everyone would focus on what you didn't do. That's why I'm sick of the Republican narrative that Obama has accomplished nothing. Do you folks live in a cave or something?
 
Obama has accomplished nothing, and at the very same time, has done a lot of harm through increasing the size of government/regulation/making us a European Socialist utopia/etc.

Someone really should tell these folks that doing lots of things and doing nothing generally are not conditions that exist simultaneously.
 
He's also increased the size of government so much that the public sector is the only area where there are fewer jobs than when Obama took office. Private sector gains are what actually did happen since the start of 2009. Next time you hear a "small government" person lament job growth under Obama, keep in mind that job growth under Obama - private sector growth, public sector shrinkage - is *exactly* the thing they want.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He's also increased the size of government so much that the public sector is the only area where there are fewer jobs than when Obama took office. Private sector gains are what actually did happen since the start of 2009. Next time you hear a "small government" person lament job growth under Obama, keep in mind that job growth under Obama - private sector growth, public sector shrinkage - is *exactly* the thing they want.[/QUOTE]

Recently? Yes. Overall? No. You could argue though that the dip at the beginning of his presidency was leftover from the Bush administration, and that Obama's numbers could improve with a second term.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/htt...-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/
 
1ratespending.jpg


I know, what a Big Gov't socialist!
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Why would you want to deprive people the ability to vote? That seems pretty sadistic. Everyone has a right to be heard.[/QUOTE]
It's slidecage...need I say more?:roll:
;)
 
By comparing proposed to actual spending, you see that percentage jump? That's how WaPo "demolished" that claim? That's silly.

(and it's not even proposed spending, it's CBO's projected proposed spending. Not actual actual, but one group's estimate of estimate of spending.

I respect the CBO, and those kind of estimates make sense, but they do not make sense in terms of taking that estimated estimate (heh) and comparing it to actual spending levels. Yeeeeeesh.

Though I agree politifact makes a lot of dunderheaded errors, for reasons other than this concept.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Though I agree politifact makes a lot of dunderheaded errors, for reasons other than this concept.[/QUOTE]


Which places are best for fact-checking and statistical analysis? I've been wondering about this for a while. I read NYT and Washington Post sometimes, but other than that, not much.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']By comparing proposed to actual spending, you see that percentage jump? That's how WaPo "demolished" that claim? That's silly.[/QUOTE]
No, they do gloss over the larger point somewhat but it still earned 3 out of 4 pinnochios.

A massive surge in one time or temporary spending occurred in response to the housing crisis/financial meltdown/recession/etc. The chart assigns most of this to the end of the Bush term and establishes this as the new baseline for Obama to grow from.

Anyway, this was discredited back in May and I'm disappointed but not surprised it's still floating around.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Which places are best for fact-checking and statistical analysis? I've been wondering about this for a while. I read NYT and Washington Post sometimes, but other than that, not much.[/QUOTE]
factcheck.org seems fairly neutral and has been around a long time. They don't have the same volume of articles as others but they're a little more thought out. Their Benghazi timeline is interesting.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']factcheck.org seems fairly neutral and has been around a long time. They don't have the same volume of articles as others but they're a little more thought out. Their Benghazi timeline is interesting.[/QUOTE]

Obviously that's a lie. I mean, Obama and his administration said more than once that the attack was part of a demonstration against that anti-Islamic Youtube video. Obviously, Factcheck.org is lying.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Obviously that's a lie. I mean, Obama and his administration said more than once that the attack was part of a demonstration against that anti-Islamic Youtube video. Obviously, Factcheck.org is lying.[/QUOTE]
Take that timeline, and read the new reporting from Jennifer Griffin at Fox in the last few days from sources who were there, and you have a shocking story which is being criminally ignored.

Obama was asked point blank if they denied their requests for help and he completely danced around the question. Those requests likely would have required approval from Obama himself.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Take that timeline, and read the new reporting from Jennifer Griffin at Fox in the last few days from sources who were there, and you have a shocking story which is being criminally ignored.

Obama was asked point blank if they denied their requests for help and he completely danced around the question. Those requests likely would have required approval from Obama himself.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any links?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Why would you want to deprive people the ability to vote? That seems pretty sadistic. Everyone has a right to be heard.[/QUOTE]

im not... im just saying it would be interesting to see what would happen .... Could anything be done for these people are would they just be out of luck...

has anything like that that happen in the past where the had to push the voting off to a later date
 
The original story:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true

Some additional quotes from the father of Tyrone Woods:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/

A timeline factcheck.org put together before the Fox story broke (to put things into perspective):
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


And before the outrage about Fauxnews, Jennifer Griffin is a very well respected reporter and her sources were on the ground at Benghazi.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The original story:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true

Some additional quotes from the father of Tyrone Woods:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/

A timeline factcheck.org put together before the Fox story broke (to put things into perspective):
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

And before the outrage about Fauxnews, Jennifer Griffin is a very well respected reporter and her sources were on the ground at Benghazi.[/QUOTE]

I think the troops being told to stand down is the most damning part of the situation, assuming it's true. It also seems like the fighting went on for a lot longer than in the factcheck timeline. And the Biden quote...sounds like Biden.
 
the "stand down" request AFAIK is only from one corroborated report.

Despite protests by the right, this is clearly being made a bigger issue because of election year/ dislike of Obama. The "we just want answers" line doesn't seem that honest to me when they were notably quiet during the previous Administration. Consulate attacks are down substantially under Obama.
 
[quote name='usickenme']the "stand down" request AFAIK is only from one corroborated report.

Despite protests by the right, this is clearly being made a bigger issue because of election year/ dislike of Obama. The "we just want answers" line doesn't seem that honest to me when they were notably quiet during the previous Administration. Consulate attacks are down substantially under Obama.[/QUOTE]
This would've been a big deal regardless, a US fucking Ambassador was killed and all the government sent to the battle were 8 Marines. Would Obama have covered up their response and tried to keep information from us in a non election year? Thats just as big a story.

There was only one report because one reporter got the scoop from sources who were there. These aren't the most accessible people.
 
I think the Benghazi thing summarizes this election perfectly. Candidates are debating, talking about issues that are for the most part relevant, stating positions, then a relatively minor, albeit tragic, event takes place thousands of miles away, and it's politicized to no end and derails the entire conversation.

This is such a national election non-issue, it's barely worth posting about on a videogames politics forum. Doh!
 
I have to actually agree with birzerk - but only because it's not as if either of the two main choices are likely to make substantial changes to foreign policy to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Likewise, while this whole incident highlighs an issues within the Obama adminstration (in particular, transparancy and accountability), it's not as if Republicans have a better track record there.

i.e.: Both sides do it.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I have a friend in Long Island. I hope him and his family aren't hurt. I'll be worried until I hear that the storm is over and they're fine.[/QUOTE]

Mandatory Evac. about 1/10th of a mile from me.

Yes, my friends are all kayaking on their front lawn.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think the Benghazi thing summarizes this election perfectly. Candidates are debating, talking about issues that are for the most part relevant, stating positions, then a relatively minor, albeit tragic, event takes place thousands of miles away, and it's politicized to no end and derails the entire conversation.

This is such a national election non-issue, it's barely worth posting about on a videogames politics forum. Doh![/QUOTE]
Downplay, deflect, deny. Follow the script.

How a President will react to a crisis situation is entirely relevant to the discussion. This is the 3am phone call from Hillary's old ads and he fumbled it. A US Ambassador is dead, assistance was denied, and the entire event is being hushed up.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Downplay, deflect, deny. Follow the script.

How a President will react to a crisis situation is entirely relevant to the discussion. This is the 3am phone call from Hillary's old ads and he fumbled it. A US Ambassador is dead, assistance was denied, and the entire event is being hushed up.[/QUOTE]

An attack in a hostile territory on an American embassy is a crisis? Jesus Christ man, I'd love to hear your definition of what it is when Applebees runs out of boneless wings during happy hour.

To me the crisis is that Obama keeps using drones all over the region, assasinated a US citizen, has continued Bush's wars, expanded a reduction of personal rights and privacy, and has broken several promises from his first campaign. Then to have Romney be right there with Obama on nearly every foreign policy issue shows that the two share the vision. THAT's a crisis.

edit: Oh, and for the record, I voted for President for the first time in 12yrs. 6-9 months ago I was going to vote for Obama, but more recently I came to the conclusion that I couldn't do so ethically. The same holds true for Romney. I wrote myself in, and at least as early voting numbers come back, it looks like I have somewhere between 5-10 votes. I came to the conclusion that I'm the least dangerous idiot on the ballot. Exciting times we live in. When I'm President, everyone in the country will have boneless chicken wings for dinner. Vote for Berzirk.
 
[quote name='camoor']Do you think he would actually dismantle the response system. This just seems like more blather from a ticket that is devoid of ideas. I doubt Romney would change anything (although I certainly don't want to give him the chance)[/QUOTE]

dismantle or defund? shrug.

pass on to a private contractor? you bet your sweet patoot.

also, keep in mind that Romney probably knows more people in fancy horse networks than Bush did, increasing the likelihood of another Michael Brown at the head of FEMA.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Downplay, deflect, deny. Follow the script.

How a President will react to a crisis situation is entirely relevant to the discussion. This is the 3am phone call from Hillary's old ads and he fumbled it. A US Ambassador is dead, assistance was denied, and the entire event is being hushed up.[/QUOTE]

umm Sorry but this isn't the 3am phone call. Not by a long shot, sparky


btw, you can go ahead and spare me the convenient outrage. I ain't buying the right's sudden interest in the well being of consulates or employees
 
It's definitely an issue to consider, but not admitting it isn't being heavily overplayed by the right is just naive. In all honesty, predicting the volatility of the Middle East at any given moment is a 50-50 shot for any President. The right would harp on him if he gave this too much attention and nothing happened, ala the "Obama wants to spread diplomacy and democracy but doesn't trust the Middle East. Debate ad naseum completely unbiased conservative panel."
 
[quote name='berzirk']An attack in a hostile territory on an American embassy is a crisis? Jesus Christ man, I'd love to hear your definition of what it is when Applebees runs out of boneless wings during happy hour.[/QUOTE]
I guess that's why what happened at Tehran in 79 is called the Iran hostage minor diplomatic incident, right? Oh wait.

When a US Ambassador is in real danger of being captured or killed and the host country lacks the ability to protect him, you are in crisis mode. Contingency plans go into effect, assets are redirected, it is a big, big fucking deal when a US Ambassador is under attack or killed. It's an act of war! I don't know if you're being willfully dense or if you just don't understand the significance. This isn't a couple of sailors off of Somalia.

If this really wasn't such a big deal as the new left narrative claims it is, then why wasn't Obama up front about what actually happened in the first place? Why the coverup? Why the huge nationally televised ceremony at which both Obama and Hillary spoke for this "non event"?
 
[quote name='RealDeals']It's definitely an issue to consider, but not admitting it isn't being heavily overplayed by the right is just naive. In all honesty, predicting the volatility of the Middle East at any given moment is a 50-50 shot for any President. The right would harp on him if he gave this too much attention and nothing happened, ala the "Obama wants to spread diplomacy and democracy but doesn't trust the Middle East. Debate ad naseum completely unbiased conservative panel."[/QUOTE]

This is a thoughtful, reasonable response. We can't have this in the vs. forum.

;)
 
If it's an act of war, who would be the metaphorical declarant of war? If we went to war, who would we be at war with?
 
So I've watched the Jeep ad causing all of this "comtroversy" and it really isn't as bad as it's made out to be. The quote of "returning jobs to China" is accurate. Jeep will be returning production jobs to China. The implication that these jobs are at the cost of american jobs however is not accurate.

Romney basically threw Jeep under the bus for his own political gain. Maybe he still wants Detroit to go bankrupt?
 
If it isn't costing the U.S. any jobs, then wouldn't that imply that they were never hear to begin with, and if so, how are they begin returned to China?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I guess that's why what happened at Tehran in 79 is called the Iran hostage minor diplomatic incident, right? Oh wait.

When a US Ambassador is in real danger of being captured or killed and the host country lacks the ability to protect him, you are in crisis mode. Contingency plans go into effect, assets are redirected, it is a big, big fucking deal when a US Ambassador is under attack or killed. It's an act of war! I don't know if you're being willfully dense or if you just don't understand the significance. This isn't a couple of sailors off of Somalia.

If this really wasn't such a big deal as the new left narrative claims it is, then why wasn't Obama up front about what actually happened in the first place? Why the coverup? Why the huge nationally televised ceremony at which both Obama and Hillary spoke for this "non event"?[/QUOTE]

I know it must have thrown you for a loop when I mentioned I'm not a Democrat, or even left-leaning, but I expected a better response. Clak already nailed it-who are we at war with due to this "crisis"? Libyans? The Taliban? The attacker, who they believe is already dead? I missed the declaration of war, and who the autonomous country or boundary is that we're at war with.

I was suggesting that probably a quarter of our ambassadors are in harm's way. Something tells me that them being on the ground there makes them quite aware. Do you really think that if one of them said they felt un-safe that the Obama administration would say 'Tough it out sparky!'? Come on now. I'm no Obama fan, but that's ridiculous.

Is it possible to give a cause for something, then later find out that your information was bad, or you were incorrect? There was another President that had that happen with something far more severe-was it the Blue Cheese Crisis at Applebees?...No...oh yah, Bush going to war in Iraq because WMDs were there...that weren't, then the Taliban was there...that weren't. I'd consider those far more severe blunders than whether a video or a band of terrorists were responsible for an ambassador's death.

It is a non-event that has been politicized, so because one side is trying to pin the death on Obama and his band of buffoons, they need to have a big media event surrounding the death, so Obama looks compassionate and offers his "response" to the accusations. You fed into the very issue I have with all of this, it was a small-scale event, that only grew because it was politicized by conservative talk radio, and we're nearing the election. This happens in 2011, it's in the news for a week at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top