The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

I thought Dean was ok and thought it was fucking stupid that they ended his campaign because his voice cracked on his scream. Even Edwards was respectable in debates regardless of his affair and problems with campaign funds as these are not atypical problems, sadly enough. Hell, I even liked Clark, but as throwaway as some felt 2004 to be, it was still a VERY close finish for Bush again and the Democrats didn't go "full-retard" like the Republicans this time around. I mean shit, Kucinich, Frank, AND Sanders would have to primary Obama while talking about Maoism and Leninism while promoting a modern day French Revolution and Great Leap Foward while reciting from Marx's Capital and Communist Manifesto to even compare.
 
I love how Romney complained about being taken out of context, given that he said this defending taking Obama out of context:

"What's sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander"
 
Ron Paul did better than I expected him to in NH.

At least he's not a generic, manufactured candidate like Romney, and his black version, Obama.

It's becoming a 2 man race... hopefully, the Republican leadership is sweating...
 
They shouldn't be, Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do half the things he campaigns on doing, which means he'll basically be just another republican. Sometimes I think that's the point, when you know you can't win then you can say whatever you want without being held accountable to doing it.
 
[quote name='Clak']They shouldn't be, Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do half the things he campaigns on doing, which means he'll basically be just another republican. Sometimes I think that's the point, when you know you can't win then you can say whatever you want without being held accountable to doing it.[/QUOTE]

For a politician, doing half of what one promises would be a great success.

Sure, there are limitations to what he would be able to do, but I feel as though it would be a good step in the right direction.

As an aside, I feel bad for whoever will win this election... I have a feeling that after the election ends and our fake statistics and adrenaline infusions are taken away, we will see the truth behind how bad off our economy truly is... our only choices will be to massively inflate our currency or to drastically reduce spending... it will be a shit-show.
 
[quote name='Clak']They shouldn't be, Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do half the things he campaigns on doing, which means he'll basically be just another republican. Sometimes I think that's the point, when you know you can't win then you can say whatever you want without being held accountable to doing it.[/QUOTE]

The stuff Paul would be able to do is what scares Republicans, it's what Santorum has been trying to use against him. The wars on terror and drugs would be gone and can be done without usurping Congressional authority. Outside of the above, there's not much he'd be able to do aside from vetoing bills.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Kerry was boring but capable.

I can say the same for Huntsman, but none of the other jokers in the pack.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to say I think Romney capable as well, at least far more capable than a Bachmann or Cain, but the whole changing his views to suit whatever race he's in doesn't really inspire much hope. Of course, going back to Kerry, it's highly amusing how the same sorts of people that are getting behind Romney are the same sorts who were going off on Kerry for being a "flip-flopper". Romney has proven to be a much bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was, but that's ok, because he's saying what they want him to now.

As far as Huntsman goes, it's sort of frustrating to me that he hasn't really gotten the same consideration as the other candidates, especially the ridiculous ones. Out of the pack, he appears to be the most sane and reasonable, but then maybe those are marks against him now...
 
What would he be able to do regarding the Departments he thinks are unconstitutional? Technicaly they're members of the Executive branch, couldn't he say 'hey EPA inspectors, stay in your office and shuffle papers and stop doing inspections'? Couldn't he tell FDA inspectors to stop inspecting?
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I'd like to say I think Romney capable as well, at least far more capable than a Bachmann or Cain, but the whole changing his views to suit whatever race he's in doesn't really inspire much hope. Of course, going back to Kerry, it's highly amusing how the same sorts of people that are getting behind Romney are the same sorts who were going off on Kerry for being a "flip-flopper". Romney has proven to be a much bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was, but that's ok, because he's saying what they want him to now.

As far as Huntsman goes, it's sort of frustrating to me that he hasn't really gotten the same consideration as the other candidates, especially the ridiculous ones. Out of the pack, he appears to be the most sane and reasonable, but then maybe those are marks against him now...[/QUOTE]

Both Kerry and Romney are massive douchebags! Huntsman is too... what was that with him talking in Chinese during the NH debate... who does that? It made him seem like a nerdy little kid trying to show off to win class president in high school... but failing... Romney's response wasn't much better...

Kerry = Romney = Huntsman = Obama = Bush
Take your pick, they are all the same...
 
If Romney is smart he would wait until 2016. The Democratic Party really have no one aside aside Hilliary. Romney is really the only candidate that could get a few Blue state to change vote.
 
What Romney, or any other candidate should've said was, "We speak ENGLISH in AMERICA, sir! If you want to speak Chinese, you should've stayed in China and run for president there."

THAT would've made HUGE headlines and made me :rofl: I don't agree with that sentiment and it's racist/xenophobic, but hey, that would've been an epic moment.
 
[quote name='62t']Probably not Romney since he can speak French and lived in France for a period of time.[/QUOTE]
Shhh, don't let the chest pounders know that.
 
So we're down to...Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Paul, and Romney? I feel like I'm forgetting someone.

Dropouts: Cain, Bachmann, (soon to be) Huntsman. I thought there were 9.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So we're down to...Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Paul, and Romney? I feel like I'm forgetting someone.

Dropouts: Cain, Bachmann, (soon to be) Huntsman. I thought there were 9.[/QUOTE]

Pawlenty. There were 10, if you want to count Gary Johnson. Though I don't think there were ever 10 people on the debate stage at one time.
 
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and this surprised even me.

http://www.kcra.com/politics/30224960/detail.html

Mitt Romney is all tied up with President Barack Obama in a likely general election matchup, with the president showing signs of weakness on the economy and Romney seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans, according to a new national survey.

And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday also indicates that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is also even with Obama in another possible showdown this November. The survey also suggests the Republican advantage on voter enthusiasm is eroding, which could be crucial in a close contest.
Click to expand...
If you read further it's a "statistical tie," if you care about such things as confidence intervals. In any case, Paul remains unelectable.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm a Ron Paul supporter and this surprised even me.

http://www.kcra.com/politics/30224960/detail.html

If you read further it's a "statistical tie," if you care about such things as confidence intervals. In any case, Paul remains unelectable.[/QUOTE]

If you look at the crosstabs in those types of polls, Paul typically does better than Romney with democrats and independents, but much worse with Republicans. Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIKxLr_AWj8

The neo-cons would seriously vote for Obama instead of Ron Paul.
 
Ugh... I have to restrain myself from vomiting whenever I see Bill Kristol on TV...

Obama is a war-hawk and quasi-neo-con!!!!! He's just more palatable overall to the masses because he happens to be black and is labelled a democrat.

I'm a true Republican and I fully support Ron Paul!!! We have to counter the untrue "unelectable" talking point that the party base has been promoting!
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm a Ron Paul supporter and this surprised even me.

http://www.kcra.com/politics/30224960/detail.html

If you read further it's a "statistical tie," if you care about such things as confidence intervals. In any case, Paul remains unelectable.[/QUOTE]

Mid-January ≠ First Tuesday in November. Most citizens aren't invested or paying attention yet.

I'm interested in the 2012 MLB season, but haven't been paying attention to many of the trades and acquisitions that teams have made. And that's only 10-12 weeks away, let alone 10 months!
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah polls showed Kerry beating Bush way before the actual election, not quite how it played out in November 2004.[/QUOTE]

It was, except the Supreme Court gave Florida to Bush
 
So now the Republicans (the "anti-tax party) are going to boast about who paid more in taxes?

Newt: I paid 31%! Rommey: "I paid 15%!"

Or are they trying to portray themselves as the greater martry. "Look what the government has done to me!"
(Even though the government has been your primary source of employment)
 
Obama gave his race speech in PA in 2008 to address the Wright controversy.

Doesn't Romney need to give a similar speech, but more akin to Gordon Gekko's 'Greed is Good' speech? To clarify why Bain is a good thing for America?
 
So Perry is going to drop out and endorse Gingrich. The same Gingrich who Perry's PAC has spent multiple millions of dollars denigrating.

I love these people.
 
I'll never understand that, delegates should always be bound by the results of the vote, otherwise it isn't really even a vote if the results can be ignored.
 
[quote name='nasum']isn't it the difference between a caucaus and a primary?[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. I think even some primary states don't have delegates bound 100% to the vote.

Hell, even in the general election not all states bind the electoral college delegates to the vote. Though most do vote according to the results as it would be a big controversy not to.
 
and some can split their votes too which is also a bunch of fun. But hey our system is the best right?

Also, beat you on the Perry thing by 7 minutes! SCOOPMASTA!

p.s.
I've had like 4 sodas so far, prepare for a weird day
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think so. I think even some primary states don't have delegates bound 100% to the vote.

Hell, even in the general election not all states bind the electoral college delegates to the vote. Though most do vote according to the results as it would be a big controversy not to.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I think the electoral college is a joke. I mean "the people" don't even elect the president in the grand scheme of things. That's why when I hear someone say it's "your patriotic duty to vote" or some other platitude, I just roll my eyes. Most of them don't even know how the president is elected. If you're lucky to live in a state where the electoral college delegates are bound by the popular vote it's different, otherwise I don't really see the point, especially after the 2000 debacle.
 
[quote name='Clak']Which is why I think the electoral college is a joke. I mean "the people" don't even elect the president in the grand scheme of things. That's why when I hear someone say it's "your patriotic duty to vote" or some other platitude, I just roll my eyes.[/QUOTE]
If you want direct elections go vote for a congressman. The president isn't the only office we are voting on. There are many local matters that you should be educating yourself on as well.

Presidential election? It's overrated. In my state we have ballot initiatives to worry about. Now that's some batshit insane direct democracy right there.
 
The popular vote and the electoral vote have only differed twice ever, one was a theft in 2000 and the other was in the 1800's. To the extent that they have been consistently aligned, I dont find it to be that problematic.

If I've done this math right - Romney currently has 14 delegates between Iowa and New Hampshire. South Carolina is the first winner take all state, with 25 delegates up for grabs. That puts Gingrich up on Romney 25-14 if he wins South Carolina. What this means, if anything, I dont know - but its a legit lead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']If you want direct elections go vote for a congressman. The president isn't the only office we are voting on. There are many local matters that you should be educating yourself on as well.

Presidential election? It's overrated. In my state we have ballot initiatives to worry about. Now that's some batshit insane direct democracy right there.[/QUOTE]
You're quite the condescending individual.
 
So let me get this straight, Newt wants a walk on the allegations of his ex-wife, acting as if ti's a personal matter that shouldn't be discussed. Now if we backtrack to the 90s, he and other conservatives were trying to crucify Clinton for what was also a personal matter.
 
[quote name='Clak']So let me get this straight, Newt wants a walk on the allegations of his ex-wife, acting as if ti's a personal matter that shouldn't be discussed. Now if we backtrack to the 90s, he and other conservatives were trying to crucify Clinton for what was also a personal matter.[/QUOTE]

Allegations of rape, alongside allegations of what amounts to sexual harassment in the workplace are a "personal matter"?
 
[quote name='Clak']So let me get this straight, Newt wants a walk on the allegations of his ex-wife, acting as if ti's a personal matter that shouldn't be discussed. Now if we backtrack to the 90s, he and other conservatives were trying to crucify Clinton for what was also a personal matter.[/QUOTE]

Clinton was accused of murdering people by right wing liars.

He also could not try to kill Bin Laden without the loonies going after him.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Clinton was accused of murdering people by right wing liars.

He also could not try to kill Bin Laden without the loonies going after him.[/QUOTE]

Uh, while I find Newt and Santorum some of the biggest hypocrites and pieces of trash on the planet, saying the fruitloop opposition to any sitting president is honest and fair is a joke. The Democrats lobbed BS crap at both Bushes, the Republicans did/do the same to Clinton/Obama. It's why so many people in the system are immoral degenerates. They say what gets them re-elected, and even in great times, it's always popular to bash the sitting president if he's from the other party. That's hardly a right wing phenomenon.

And regarding "blocked" efforts by anyone to prevent Clinton from killing Bin Laden...do you have a credible source for that? Who in either party was saying Clinton shouldn't kill Bin Laden, given the chance? Didn't they bomb, hell, where was it...Sudan or something, at an alleged terrorist camp where they thought Bin Laden was hanging out?

Party politics are such an enormous crock of shit, because die-hards from each party have their rose-colored glasses on when talk of their guy comes up. It's a much more liberating feeling to be in the middle and dislike both parties, and not feel compelled to only defend or attack one side.
 
When Clinton went after Bin Laden he was accused of trying to "Wag the dog" and distract us from the most important issue of the day, his penis.
 
[quote name='Msut77']When Clinton went after Bin Laden he was accused of trying to "Wag the dog" and distract us from the most important issue of the day, his penis.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's a pretty big leap from: "could not try to kill Bin Laden without the loonies going after him."

I remember people also accusing him of causing a diversion, but I don't remember anyone saying, "but whatever you do, don't get a BJ in the Oval Office or kill Bin Laden, both of those things are terrible!"
 
and then, after 9/11, the world renowned bullshit artist Ahmed Chalabi became a darling on the right (and also a Fox News analyst) for perpetuating the myth that he handed Bin Laden to Clinton "on a silver platter" (as the talking point was phrased) in Sudan, and Clinton wasn't interested (ergo, 9/11 is Clinton's fault in the Republican mind).
 
[quote name='berzirk']Well, that's a pretty big leap from: "could not try to kill Bin Laden without the loonies going after him."

I remember people also accusing him of causing a diversion, but I don't remember anyone saying, "but whatever you do, don't get a BJ in the Oval Office or kill Bin Laden, both of those things are terrible!"[/QUOTE]
Bob Barr, R-GA:
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.”
Click to expand...
That's kind of exactly what he's saying in political speak. The US political world was in frenzy mode and there was no such thing as a "good day". Doing it a week before would have gotten exactly the same reaction. Ergo, it was more important that the focus be kept on his cock than some turrist in Sudan or whatever. Because it wasn't just Bin Laden. It was everything. Remember the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?

Phyllis Schlafly:
“First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a ‘wag the dog’ public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the ‘life is truer than fiction’ movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to ‘move on’ from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.”
Click to expand...
Or when Iraq violated the no fly zone?

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader:
“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” Lott said in a statement. “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
Click to expand...
Rep. Gerald Solomon:
“‘Never underestimate a desperate president,’ said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). ‘What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed?’”
Click to expand...
Rep. Tillie Folwer:
“‘It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,’ said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). ‘I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.’”
Click to expand...
And on and on.
“Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton’s decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote ‘is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.’”
Click to expand...
Wall Street Journal editorial: “It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment.”
Click to expand...

Reality was that consensual (and extremely stupid) sex was more important that anything and everything. Period. To suggest they cared about anything else is completely absurd. The damned fools said it themselves right there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top