US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
err yes. Willard is afraid of the Ryan Budget and the Medicare Cuts.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-ryan-budget.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Click to expand...

This article says he likes it.

"Romney has shown no inclination to challenge Ryan, praising him fulsomely and even promising him, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, he’d enact Ryan’s plan in the first 100 days."

http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/

The fact Ryan's budget isn't causing widespread outrage is quite disappointing, people don't even know what's good for them.
 
gooDevil said:
This article says he likes it.

"Romney has shown no inclination to challenge Ryan, praising him fulsomely and even promising him, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, he’d enact Ryan’s plan in the first 100 days."

http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/

The fact Ryan's budget isn't causing widespread outrage is quite disappointing, people don't even know what's good for them.
Click to expand...

just saw Meet the Press. The GOP surrogates were saying Romney will not be implementing everything in the Ryan Budget. But all in all it will be difficult to split hairs I think.

Social Security and Medicare will be the big issues. Also Ryan voted for all the debt increases he is now railing against.

EDIT: Here is a good post I saw

"Paul Ryan excerpt "Dear Diary. I was swept off my feet by that scoundrel Bush. I knew it was wrong, but it felt so right. I was young and in love. I cried and cried, and when it was over, and I lost my most precious asset.......My..[sob]....reputation. I'm with a new man now, but he already seems distant. Am I doing the right thing? Will he break my heart? I don't know, but I do know that this time its' real. I'm hesitant, but I just can't help but love him. I guess I'm just too emotional. sigh........"
 
You'd think that most people would see the Republicans as much less capable of handling budget reductions and debt repayment, it's been under Reagan, Bush I & II that the vast majority of our debt was created. So I can't see why any independent would suddenly think the Republicans should be the ones to fix what they created. And let's not forget it was under Clinton that the budget was balanced, until Bush II changed that.

But Republicans have always had the reputation as the fiscally conservative, I'd say that's mostly just from their opposition to spending on social programs and their focus on lowering taxes. Of course these expenses pale in comparison to their military spending, but the Republicans have that nationalist 'defending liberty' rhetoric all sewn up, I can't see the Dems trying to attack them on that.
 
That's good to hear. I just meant that you probably couldn't hammer the Republicans on their military spending, as part of an attempt to show them as being economically weak, because the response would be for them to puff out their chests and claim the Dems are being unpatriotic and don't appreciate the soldiers saving their freedom from the terrorists, et cetera. It wouldn't be most politician's first choice, to have to battle being called unpatriotic. Rove used that to great effect under Bush.
 
For folks arguing over whether Romney supports the Ryan budget or opposes it, I'd remind you that this is Mitt Romney we're talking about. When does he ever only come down on ONE side of an argument?
 
“It is not enough to say that President Obama’s taxes are too big or the health-care plan doesn’t work for this or that policy reason,” Ryan said in 2009. “It is the morality of what is occurring right now, and how it offends the morality of individuals working toward their own free will to produce, to achieve, to succeed, that is under attack, and it is that what I think Ayn Rand would be commenting on.” Ryan’s philosophical opposition to a government that forces the “makers” to subsidize the “takers”—terms he still employs—is foundational; the policy details are secondary.

http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/index2.html

It's the opposite of socialism, those that do the work are 'takers' and those that move money around and file papers are 'makers'.

Let's just forget that this guy never 'made' anything in his life, to start.

I wonder how this guy would enjoy a world with no social contract at all, just the law of the jungle. I mean, why should the strong let the weak, white collared nerds of the world have all the toys?
 


:lol: So, will the GOP alter their beliefs to jive with Reagan or will they do the same thing they do with Jesus and interpret it the way they want to?
 
That's my main fear with a second term for Obama. With the Republicans controlling the House and possibly the Senate, it'll be about as lame duck as lame duck can get. Absolutely nothing will get done for four years. With the world economy in the situation it currently is in, can we take that kind of inaction from the biggest economy?

Doesn't make me want a Romney win but it's certainly food for thought.
 
That does seem to be a flaw in the American system. Checks and balances are all very well, but when the out party controls half or all the legislature, and the election of the executive tends to be a referendum on the state of the economy, you have a situation in which the party with much of the power has a strong incentive to make the economy shit.

Especially when that party is the GOP, and 'shit' tends to mean 'shit for everyone except the rich'.
 
What I find odd, trawling forums an shit, is that if you raise Ryan voting for the GM bailout to repubs, you're met with "yeah, so?"

Obama does it and "its them socialist pigs wanting to nationalise everything again...."
 
senorgregster said:
the senate is looking 50:50. If the repubs get 1 more Obama will be using his veto pen a lot.
Click to expand...

a couple of teaparty candidates beat modeartes in the primary. (Indiana and North Dakota) That will help the Democrats.

But a lot of money will be thrown at these races from both sides. The Ryan pick helps because the GOP will have run away from the Social Security and Medicare issues his budget raises. The GOP chair was stuttering about it when asked on Meet the Press. The Democrats will drive the wedge.

Same goes for the House. Make the GOP stand up for Ryan's budget, which is now right center of the ebate.
 
Red-Indian said:
That's my main fear with a second term for Obama. With the Republicans controlling the House and possibly the Senate, it'll be about as lame duck as lame duck can get. Absolutely nothing will get done for four years. With the world economy in the situation it currently is in, can we take that kind of inaction from the biggest economy?

Doesn't make me want a Romney win but it's certainly food for thought.
Click to expand...

Definately, a very good chance that would be a problem for Obama in his 2nd term if the repubs have control of both house and senate or even just the house or senate.

Obama could run into some lame duck issues even with a democrat controlled house and senate if he and the leadership in the house and senate did not see eye to eye. Especially if any of those leaders are eyeing a run in 2016 themselves. Not saying it would happen, just that it could.
 
Just was on the CNN website and they have a poll about whether you are more likely or less likely to vote for Romney because of the choice of Ryan as VP. What is missing is the choice of "no change" which lets face it the majority of people are not going to be swayed one way or the other.


Also, Romney has picked up a celebrity endorsement.....sort of....maybe....all depends on if she was serious or not.......:lol:

http://www.yidio.com/news/jenna-jam...blicans-everywhere-collectively-facepalm-6846



"I’m very looking forward to a Republican being back in office,” the bendy self-promoter declared. “When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office.”
Click to expand...
 
What is an electoral vote? Is it the number of valid votes based on the population of the state? And is the electoral vote the deciding vote?
 
or Google "outdated crummy idea".

Way past it's time it is. I've heard a few rather stretched attempts to justify it, but they don't hold up.

It's really awful. Amongst the more obvious problems, for national elections it:

1. Dissuades independent thinkers from voting (why bother voting "y" when it's a dead certaintly your state is going to vote "x".
2. Puts undue attention on "swing states" during a campaign.
3. Encourages gerrymandering.
4. Bush wouldn't have won vs. Gore.
5. etc.
 
brad-dyrak said:
or Google "outdated crummy idea".

Way past it's time it is. I've heard a few rather stretched attempts to justify it, but they don't hold up.

It's really awful. Amongst the more obvious problems, for national elections it:

1. Dissuades independent thinkers from voting (why bother voting "y" when it's a dead certaintly your state is going to vote "x".
2. Puts undue attention on "swing states" during a campaign.
3. Encourages gerrymandering.
4. Bush wouldn't have won vs. Gore.
5. etc.
Click to expand...

1) Voting is not higher in proportional representation countries.
2) Irrelevant.
3) Not so much in the presidential race.
4) True, but historically the states should choose their president.

This is a system that works, and has been incredibly stable for the USA, and given it some great strong presidents.
 
I doubt Romney will take Florida. Voter enthusiasm comes into play it its a very tight poll but I bet Obama will be well clear in November.
 
Jaz said:
1) Voting is not higher in proportional representation countries.
2) Irrelevant.
3) Not so much in the presidential race.
4) True, but historically the states should choose their president.

This is a system that works, and has been incredibly stable for the USA, and given it some great strong presidents.
Click to expand...

1. That's interesting, but that's still doesn't necessarily prove Americans would be any less likely to vote. Why wouldn't it dissuade them?
2. Relevant. Very. What good is a disproportionate focus during and campaing (and perhaps stretching into a presidential term).
3. It's still a factor.
4. Exactly, historically. Take a current poll of US citizens and you'll find the public preference is different.

How does anything in the electoral college layer point to better representation of an individual wanting to vote for a particular other individual? There an inherent and obvious logic to a directly representational system that isn't lost on people. Why obfuscate the process?
 
brad-dyrak said:
1. That's interesting, but that's still doesn't necessarily prove Americans would be any less likely to vote. Why wouldn't it dissuade them?
2. Relevant. Very. What good is a disproportionate focus during and campaing (and perhaps stretching into a presidential term).
3. It's still a factor.
4. Exactly, historically. Take a current poll of US citizens and you'll find the public preference is different.

How does anything in the electoral college layer point to better representation of an individual wanting to vote for a particular other individual? There an inherent and obvious logic to a directly representational system that isn't lost on people. Why obfuscate the process?
Click to expand...

The argument I have heard against the electoral college is that then, candidates will only go to the heavily populated areas to campaign.

Proportional representation does make sense. The majority elect the President. What do you think about 2 senators for every state in spite of population?
 
Red Dreams said:
The argument I have heard against the electoral college is that then, candidates will only go to the heavily populated areas to campaign.

Proportional representation does make sense. The majority elect the President. What do you think about 2 senators for every state in spite of population?
Click to expand...


The Seats in the House of Representatives are based on population, the Senate is a balance to that to make sure heavily populated states don't dominate all discussion. At least that is the theory. And in truth it has not worked all that badly, it is not the structure of the Senate that is the cause of the problems we have.
 
Has there been a president to win the election without winning the popular vote before GW Bush?

I have to say I agree that the president should be voted on by the population. The Elector College is there, in part, to make sure the people don't elect someone that the political establishment doesn't like, because the people that cast the Electoral Votes are not obligated to vote the way the people of the state have voted. At least I read that once, it's never really come up, though a few voters have abstained as a protest or picked the VP instead of the Pres as the candidate.
 
Apologies if this comes as a bit random...


I thought we'd dodged the extremist views of Santorum in regard to abortion, however i heard on the news last night that Paul Ryan is also opposed in cases of incest and rape, is that right? An opponent of Planned Parenthood but i suppose that is a given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.