The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

[quote name='speedracer']Reality was that consensual (and extremely stupid) sex was more important that anything and everything.[/QUOTE]

When did rape become consensual?

Also, with all this pooh-poohing of sexual harassment at work, I assume Ron Paul will get some more support from y'all with his position regarding sexual harassment in the workplace that was posted earlier?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']When did rape become consensual?

Also, with all this pooh-poohing of sexual harassment at work, I assume Ron Paul will get some more support from y'all with his position regarding sexual harassment in the workplace that was posted earlier?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I'm not tuned into your dog whistle freq. I'm talking about Monica. Who did he rape again? Juanita.. what was her last name? Foster?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Sorry, I'm not tuned into your dog whistle freq. I'm talking about Monica. Who did he rape again? Juanita.. what was her last name? Foster?[/QUOTE]

Two women came forward with accusations of rape against Clinton. I'm not sure what your ignorance of the facts (that women came forward with the allegations, not that they did or did not happen) has anything to do with "dog whistles". Unless, perhaps, Clinton liked putting those inside of his women like cigars....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Two women came forward with accusations of rape against Clinton. I'm not sure what your ignorance of the facts (that women came forward with the allegations, not that they did or did not happen) has anything to do with "dog whistles".[/QUOTE]
Those quotes I posted were about Monica and the impeachment hearings. You've decided you're going to talk about allegations of rape as if they're naturally connected. They're not. Sorry, I didn't realize I was required to know everything about the conversations you have in your head that you think other people are hearing.

I guess in some galaxy these three things are the same:

1. Improper consensual conduct with a subordinate
2. Sexual misconduct allegations that couldn't even survive summary judgment
3. Allegations of rape from someone who had signed a sworn affidavit saying she wasn't raped

tl;dr: ur dumb
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Allegations of rape, alongside allegations of what amounts to sexual harassment in the workplace are a "personal matter"?[/QUOTE]
I know I've said this before, but you are the most intellectually dishonest person on these boards. for the hell of it I'm going to indulge you and specify that I was referring to the BJ in the WH with Monica. Unless you think he raped her too.

Anyway, keep being a shill for the right bob, I'm sure you'll hit the lottery one day and they'll let you into the club.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Sorry, I'm not tuned into your dog whistle freq. I'm talking about Monica. Who did he rape again? Juanita.. what was her last name? Foster?[/QUOTE]

Technically anyone can be an alleged rapist. As in I am accussing Dick Cheney of sexual harrassment right now. Clinton was accused of hanging crackpipes on the white house xmas tree among other things.

Also note the faux victimhood of the cons.

Accusing Ron Paul of racism because there were racist articles written in his magazine with his byline and accusing Clinton of operating hit squads is the exact same thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I know I've said this before, but you are the most intellectually dishonest person on these boards. for the hell of it I'm going to indulge you and specify that I was referring to the BJ in the WH with Monica. Unless you think he raped her too.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']Now if we backtrack to the 90s, he and other conservatives were trying to crucify Clinton for what was also a personal matter.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of dishonesty and attempting to rewrite history...

The idea that anyone tried to "crucify Clinton" over him getting oral sex from Lewinsky is either an idea that is completely misleading or completely ignorant of the facts.

Lewinsky only came into the picture AFTER she was asked about her relationship with Clinton during the investigation surrounding Paula Jones' accusations. You might remember Paula Jones from Clinton's wonderful defense of "Meh, I'm the President, so I'm above petty things like harassment."

The Paula Jones investigation is what brought to light Lewinsky, Willey, Broaddrick and about half a dozen others which ranged everywhere from consensual extra-marital affairs to sexual misconduct in the workplace to the accusations of rape.

To try and bring up the Clinton sex debacle, then only focus on Lewinsky... well, again - either intentionally misleading or ignorant of the facts.

[quote name='speedracer']Those quotes I posted were about Monica and the impeachment hearings. You've decided you're going to talk about allegations of rape as if they're naturally connected. They're not.[/quote]

See above.

>1. Improper consensual conduct with a subordinate
Multiple subordinates.
2. Sexual misconduct allegations that couldn't even survive summary judgment
I'll freely admit to some bias here, but let's be honest - random chick vs. the frickin' President of the most powerful nation in the free world in court in what amounts to a he said/she said situation. Gee, the President won. If you're going to try and claim that the courts are fair and the system works, then I suppose we can stop talking about how Bush stole 2004, eh?
3. Allegations of rape from someone who had signed a sworn affidavit saying she wasn't raped
And Lewinsky signed a sworn affidavit that she was not having a relationship with Clinton. I guess that didn't happen either then, eh?
 
[quote name='berzirk']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.[/QUOTE]

It's basically like a sporting event where people support their own team... it's pretty silly. We should abolish political parties, abolish bribes (I mean lobbying), and should have a strict one term limit on all offices.

Newt is a horrible person. Dude was having an affair around the same time that he was trying to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing... Come on, that's just messed up! I would have a hard time voting for Newt even if he were up against Obama... it's amazing that all the sheep in the audience of the recent debate thought it was great when he totally avoided the question about his "open marriage" request... :applause:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
2. Sexual misconduct allegations that couldn't even survive summary judgment
I'll freely admit to some bias here, but let's be honest - random chick vs. the frickin' President of the most powerful nation in the free world in court in what amounts to a he said/she said situation. Gee, the President won. If you're going to try and claim that the courts are fair and the system works, then I suppose we can stop talking about how Bush stole 2004, eh?[/QUOTE]
I know I'm talking to a brick wall but you should probably understand what a summary judgment is before nailing Lady Justice to the cross for the sins of your ignorance.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I know I'm talking to a brick wall but you should probably understand what a summary judgment is before nailing Lady Justice to the cross for the sins of your ignorance.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely right... the court decided - without a public trial - that the singular case had no merits. Absolutely no chance for foul play there.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I know I'm talking to a brick wall but you should probably understand what a summary judgment is before nailing Lady Justice to the cross for the sins of your ignorance.[/QUOTE]

It's no use, UB is insane. That's not a joke or flippant put-down, the guy is really insane.
 
[quote name='BigT']It's basically like a sporting event where people support their own team... it's pretty silly. We should abolish political parties, abolish bribes (I mean lobbying), and should have a strict one term limit on all offices.

[/QUOTE]

I kind of like this idea.
 
I like term limits and have long supported strict public funding for campaigns. The problem it presents (as I think, early Sunday with a hangover and nary a drop of coffee in my body) is twofold:

1) Government oversight - yes, if we're going to have strict controls on campaign speeches, endorsements, commercials, etc. (i.e., if we're going to strictly enforce laws for public financing of campaigns), we need to be sure to avoid the kinds of loopholes that allow SupePACs that "do not collude or coordinate" with candidates to exist. Also, be prepared to spend a lot of money and resources challenging the wealthy in court, who will fight for their right to dictate the rules of the political game.

2) Political parties are "ideas," much like "terrorism" is an idea. Both are abstract concepts - how do you defeat or eliminate an abstraction? You can certainly eliminate "terrorists," because they are individuals who you've identified (though Hamdan v Rumsfeld and other associated cases show that it's not that simple, but I digress). But you can't eliminate "terrorism" anymore than you can eliminate "sadness." So, long setup - how do you eliminate "parties"? People will align naturally based on ideals that are at the forefront of the day. It may not be a party in name, but coalitions and alliances will emerge based on what they (and the public) deem to be important at the time.

Allowing more parties into the national level of politics might help somewhat, but that's a monumental task. Parliamentary systems are an improvement, as you have the same factions and coalitions as a two party system, but they waver. Your allied party on economic issues may become your opponent party on environmental issues. It's nowhere near as clean as that, but I think you sen the point. Now, there are a number of huge blockades there (such as carving out a territory for a third party that isn't framed as "OMG RADICALZ" by the media). In my view, the current Democratic party would be the fickle middle party (since they're almost all moderate corporatist apologists), and genuine leftists and progressives not named Sanders would enter into politics. It'd be perfect, since the current Democrats capitulate to what y'all on the right want most of the time anyway, so it would be a Parliamentary system with a genuine opposition! It might also help temper the "OMG SOCIALIST" zeal of the numbskull vocal right-wing public. Once you get a taste of genuine progressivism, then you can identify the current Democrats as stewards of the oligarchy all the same.

I think, BigT if your goal is to improve the public's knowledge of individual candidates, it's noble, but public's poor knowledge won't change due to that. It's a lack of effort on the public's part, so creating a scenario where *more* effort is required to gain the same base of knowledge won't work, sadly. There are a number of findings in political science research that are fairly consistent, and that includes the public (1) spending little to no time researching their candidates or reflecting on poor decisions (Sarah Palin the other week *dared* to imply that the media and public did not vet Obama as a suitable candidate in 2008, and *NOBODY* called her on that heap of bullshit! - if you think she might be onto something, that perhaps we did not give Obama enough of an examination, then you're exactly what the problem is). Also, (2) the "independents" in the middle of American politics are not the thoughtful, reflective individuals we frame them as. They are lazy, irrational, reactionary, fickle, and spend even less time making their voting decision than other voters.

So taking people with those characteristics and increasing the "barrier to entry" for knowledge development of candidates is noble, but sadly not a good idea.
 
Improving knowledge of candidates wouldn't help that much without other changes.

With the two party system its really only relevant in the primaries when it comes to national or state level elections. In the general election it really only matters if you're truly a centrist--and very few are. Most who call themselves centrists are just left on some issues and right on others. So knowledge can matter there depending on which of issues they care most about.

But for the most of us that are clearly on the left or right, when it gets to the general election there's really not much of a choice. For instances, I'm not thrilled with Obama right now, but there's no way I could vote for a Romney or Gingrich or Santorum as there views are mostly totally opposed to mine. And vice versa for someone on the right.



Point being that it's not just people rooting for their "team", it's that with a two party system there's really only one option if you lean left or right. Sometimes their may be a third party candidate on the ballot, or that you can write in. But most people don't as it's pretty much throwing away a vote since that candidate has no chance and they'd rather vote for "the lesser of two evils" to try to keep the other party's guy out.

And as Myke noted, there are tons of challenges with making a viable party, tons of challenges in parliamentary systems etc. At the end of the way there's just no ideal way to govern a large population. The citizenry is never going to be active in politics as most of this stuff just has very little impact on the average Joe's daily life. And as such, every system of governance will have it's own pros and cons.

I don't know that a multi-party system can ever work here. And as Myke noted, even a third party is tough as they get slammed as being extremist if they're far left or far right. And if they aren't pretty far left or far right, then they're not really different than the two parties we have and thus pointless.

But I do agree and support term limits for congress. Maybe then stuff will get done when everyone isn't just worried about getting re-elected repeatedly. And we also need a lot of tweaks to campaign financing. You shouldn't have to be rich, or have the ability to raise millions in donations, to successfully run for national office.
 
I like the *idea* of term limits... But I also like the idea of the people picking the candidate of their choice... and term limits prevent that. I'm torn.

As for getting rid of political parties - nada. That kinda spits in the face of the entire "freedom of assembly" thing. However, that doesn't mean that the government should give political parties any special recognition. No taxpayer-paid events or anything of the like. Best of all, ballots shouldn't have someone's political affiliation on them. This would prevent citizens from voting down the party line without, at a minimum, going out of their way to learn *something* about their candidates.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Improving knowledge of candidates wouldn't help that much without other changes.

With the two party system its really only relevant in the primaries when it comes to national or state level elections. In the general election it really only matters if you're truly a centrist--and very few are. Most who call themselves centrists are just left on some issues and right on others. So knowledge can matter there depending on which of issues they care most about.

But for the most of us that are clearly on the left or right, when it gets to the general election there's really not much of a choice. For instances, I'm not thrilled with Obama right now, but there's no way I could vote for a Romney or Gingrich or Santorum as there views are mostly totally opposed to mine. And vice versa for someone on the right.

Point being that it's not just people rooting for their "team", it's that with a two party system there's really only one option if you lean left or right. Sometimes their may be a third party candidate on the ballot, or that you can write in. But most people don't as it's pretty much throwing away a vote since that candidate has no chance and they'd rather vote for "the lesser of two evils" to try to keep the other party's guy out.[/QUOTE]


That's exactly my opinion on the party system. It keeps people ignorant. I know a lot of people who don't know the specific viewpoints of a candidate and simply vote for what ever party their friends/colleagues/parents champion. It's a joke.

—

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-stance-dream-act-magnified-florida-084240742.html

So, in essence, Gingrich supports the DREAM act. One area where I agree with Romney is his opposition of the DREAM act. It's a pretty big area. I'd vote for him to stop that bill from passing into law. But then again, he has a tendency to change his mind on topics.
 
404814_3164412229704_1247319314_3474428_1921384627_n.jpg
 
[quote name='Chase']

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-stance-dream-act-magnified-florida-084240742.html

So, in essence, Gingrich supports the DREAM act. One area where I agree with Romney is his opposition of the DREAM act. It's a pretty big area. I'd vote for him to stop that bill from passing into law. But then again, he has a tendency to change his mind on topics.[/QUOTE]


Tell me about it! It would be a shame to allow undocumented people( that are going to be here anyways) to PAY to get EDUCATED, and actually contribute to the Tax Paying Workforce!
 
Leaving party affiliation off ballots is an interesting idea. Although you could also just do a survey on whether people know which candidates belong to which party.
 
[quote name='Clak']Leaving party affiliation off ballots is an interesting idea. Although you could also just do a survey on whether people know which candidates belong to which party.[/QUOTE]

While this probably wouldn't make a huge difference in National elections (except maybe with the types who thought Sarah Palin was Obama's VP, etc.) it's probably make a bigger impact in local elections where you're voting for a list of positions you've never heard of filled with a bunch of people you've never heard of.

I know one person who, when they came to one of these on the ballot, they'd vote for whomever's signs they could remember seeing the most of.

:(
 
There is this to consider though, and I don't know how big the impact would be, probably not huge. Some people cannot fully read, and are probably only able to recognize an R or D next to a name at the most. Take that away and they'd have no idea who they were voting for and not even which party they belonged to.
 
[quote name='Clak']There is this to consider though, and I don't know how big the impact would be, probably not huge. [/QUOTE]

From a quick google it looks like the Adult literacy rate in the US is 99%--though that doesn't account for what level they read at.

In any case, I'd expect voter turnout is super low among the illiterate, so I can't see it being a major issue.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While this probably wouldn't make a huge difference in National elections (except maybe with the types who thought Sarah Palin was Obama's VP, etc.) it's probably make a bigger impact in local elections where you're voting for a list of positions you've never heard of filled with a bunch of people you've never heard of.[/quote]
Hold on there homie...is that really a thing? Cause I would love to read about that!

I know one person who, when they came to one of these on the ballot, they'd vote for whomever's signs they could remember seeing the most of.

:(
Click to expand...
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
How about this for an idea:
The standing President has to run his re-election as an independent and both parties must have a full primary process with 3 person debates for the ensuing presidential election. It can't be bullshit either (i.e. having Pawlenty go against Bush II and Obama, cause, well Pawlenty for christ sake!!!), both parties have to put up a new person and the standing president only gets public funding of say $200M for the re-election campaign.

By the way UB, there's a difference between actively trolling (baiting angered responses with misinformation or outright lies) and pointing out bullshit logic that is horrible incorrect. Someone over there pulled the "taxes are unfair" thing using the following example:
If two guys go to buy a suit, they don't get asked their income to determine the price of the suit.

This was their example of why progressive taxes don't work. It's so completely inane and doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The indoctrination of these people by right wing talking heads (essentially paid for members of the Karl Rove misinformation [see: propoganda] effort) needs to be corrected. It's pretty simple, if I'm convinced that the sky is orange, someone needs to step up and say that the sky is blue non?
Look, there are som good ideas from people on the (R) side and there are some terrible ideas from people on the (D) side. Same goes the other way. It's just that the mainstream media (if you'll believe the right, Fox News has higher ratings than all others combined, that kinda makes them mainstream) disguises commentary and opinion as journalistic fact.

Look at the example that I C/P from that forum. There was a guy that was convinced (CONVINCED) that the "insiders" of the GOP were the ones that kicked "the outsider" Newt out of his Speakership because he rocked the boat so much.
Well, no. He lost the speakership after his ethics violation investigations (for which he was fined and essentially "found guilty") and RESIGNED. He resigned saying that he didn't want to deal with the cannibals within the party. Newt is so deranged that he thinks that nothing he does is wrong, despite being proven otherwise with the fines and such.

THESE are the people that need to have a bit of light trolling as such, to show them that they're fucking insane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Did anyone notice that Gingrich proposed a 15% flat tax along with the zeroed capital gains and corporate taxes? LOLLERS[/QUOTE]

Mitt Romney will NOT stand for an increase in his taxes so fuck that plan.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hold on there homie...is that really a thing? Cause I would love to read about that![/QUOTE]

I'll freely admit to not having a source on hand for this. I'm sure it came from one of those election-time videos where people were walking the streets asking voters random questions and recording their stupid answers. Not a scientific survey by any means...

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woBC5b3Ti0M&feature=related
 
Romney is dipping in pools like he did in 2008 and this wealth thing might ironically do him in.

Gingrich will say something even dumber than child janitors and moon bases by April that will likely do him in.

Nobody will take a chance on Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum, if he avoids saying anything ridiculously stupid, just may be the de facto candidate already.

Better luck next time guys...
 
Why? Sounds like even Democrats didn't like her. What makes you think turnout would've been higher with her on the ticket?
 
[quote name='nasum']Romney is dipping in pools like he did in 2008 and this wealth thing might ironically do him in.

Gingrich will say something even dumber than child janitors and moon bases by April that will likely do him in.

Nobody will take a chance on Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum, if he avoids saying anything ridiculously stupid, just may be the de facto candidate already.

Better luck next time guys...[/QUOTE]

God help us all.

Then again, that would absolutely guarantee a win for Obama.
 
I think Romney will still get the nomination. Florida up next will be telling. If he gets that state, that should give him the momentum to win.

He'll struggle in the poor rural states, like he did in SC, but should do well in FL, Texas, Ca and other states with lots of delegates and lots of old, rich conservatives.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Romney won easily in Florida, with 46.4% of the vote compared to 32.9% for Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e-in-primary/2012/01/31/gIQAhq7xeQ_story.html

And then he offered another gem of a statement that will really help sure up his image as an out of touch rich guy, saying he wasn't very concerned about the poor since we have plenty of safety nets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-very-poor/2012/02/01/gIQAvajShQ_blog.html[/QUOTE]

Read: Poor don't vote much and when they do they vote democrat so I don't give a fuck about them. The middle class I can woo though so I'm gonna make it seem like I care about then but in reality fuck them too.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Read: Poor don't vote much and when they do they vote democrat so I don't give a fuck about them. The middle class I can woo though so I'm gonna make it seem like I care about then but in reality fuck them too.[/QUOTE]

Not a bad reading of that at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top