He's not going to attract much of the female vote, that's for sure.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
He's not going to attract much of the female vote, that's for sure.
I'm guessing you mean he's opposed in cases other than those? I ask because I can't be sure how insane these people are.
I heard last night that the Ryan budget eliminates 91% of the non-defense federal budget over 40 years. Hard to believe anyone would suggest such a thing.
Actually no, this one has a set of apartments in the asylum. From a recent in Washington Post i just grabbed:
I don't know if he has been as ridiculous as Santorum and told women who are victims of rape to accept the "gift" they have been given, but yeah he's on that page.
It comes under a similar category to when Ron Paul stated that even had he known of the existence of concentration camps beforehand, he would not have fought the Nazis.
Once a politician professes a belief like these you struggle to consider anything else they might have to say.
I've never understood pro-life religious people making concessions when rape and incest is involved. Surely if you consider an unborn baby to be a human being with the same rights as a born human being, and the abortion of the unborn baby to be murder, then how can you ever justify abortion beyond a live-or-death situation for the mother?
By stating that an unborn baby can be 'murdered' if it is the product of rape/incest, it is an admission that an unborn baby is not the same as a baby who has been born.
By stating that an unborn baby can be 'murdered' if it is the product of rape/incest, it is an admission that an unborn baby is not the same as a baby who has been born.
I think I completely misread your earlier post, I read it as if he was in favour of abortion usually, but opposed in those types of cases. Thought you'd typo'd but my mistake I think!
Ryan actually thinks there should be no exceptions. So at least he is consistent.
But what I cannot get over is how righties reconcile Ayn Rand thinking to Christinity...or are they really that thick?
Following the Ryan nomination, how likely is it that Obama changes his running mate for the election? Biden will be 75 by the time Obama finishes his second term.
I know there's speculation about Hillary but I don't know if she would bring any real spark to the ticket given that she's already closely associated with Obama and very familiar. Also i'm not sure if she would be willing to take what would effectively be step down in influence and visibility.
Is there anyone exciting on the Democrat's side?
I know there's speculation about Hillary but I don't know if she would bring any real spark to the ticket given that she's already closely associated with Obama and very familiar. Also i'm not sure if she would be willing to take what would effectively be step down in influence and visibility.
Is there anyone exciting on the Democrat's side?
I don't think a president has ever changed vice presidents for a re-election run.
Biden is still alert and a top VP.
Can see him and Hillary going at each other in 2016. Though my gut feel is it will be someone totally different.
I have mentioned Jim Webb. Progressives want Warren. Really it could be an unknown....
Can see him and Hillary going at each other in 2016. Though my gut feel is it will be someone totally different.
I have mentioned Jim Webb. Progressives want Warren. Really it could be an unknown....
Somewhere between "feck-all" and "absolutely none".
Fair enough. I just can't see Biden getting the nomination after Obama's done though. As I said 75 by the time of the next election.
The Dems need to start developing the next line of politicians. Its seems like a lot of young Republicans are in the news - Ryan, Cantor, Rubio and a few governors like Christie. Probably a factor of the Republicans having to chose a candidate as well as a running mate but even so.
The Dems need to start developing the next line of politicians. Its seems like a lot of young Republicans are in the news - Ryan, Cantor, Rubio and a few governors like Christie. Probably a factor of the Republicans having to chose a candidate as well as a running mate but even so.
VP changes and whatnot http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_a_US_President_changed_vice_Presidents_between_terms
Appears to only have happened due to death or resignation. That said, I highly doubt Biden has a shot at POTUS after Obama. He'll be too old and I just do not think he has that electibility about him. But anyone other than Hillary please.
Electoral colleges and national vote winners http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#ecpopulardiffer
The link has a segment that mentions over 700 proposals have been submitted in 200 years to change this process. I doubt we'll see a change in our lifetime taking that into account. Nor am I positive the electoral college should be changed. It gives the "small" states a voice.
--How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.
Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes. --
My two cents: Perhaps changing the vote to account for the overall percentage of each state would make a difference, i.e. a close state vote of say 52-48 would see roughtly 52% of state electoral votes to one candidate and 48% to the other candidate. This would ulimately mirror the national vote.
Appears to only have happened due to death or resignation. That said, I highly doubt Biden has a shot at POTUS after Obama. He'll be too old and I just do not think he has that electibility about him. But anyone other than Hillary please.
Electoral colleges and national vote winners http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#ecpopulardiffer
The link has a segment that mentions over 700 proposals have been submitted in 200 years to change this process. I doubt we'll see a change in our lifetime taking that into account. Nor am I positive the electoral college should be changed. It gives the "small" states a voice.
--How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.
Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes. --
My two cents: Perhaps changing the vote to account for the overall percentage of each state would make a difference, i.e. a close state vote of say 52-48 would see roughtly 52% of state electoral votes to one candidate and 48% to the other candidate. This would ulimately mirror the national vote.
Getting rid of the electoral college would change American politics for the better, and the notion that candidates would only focus on the most populous areas is propagated by people who are either liars or don't understand math.
Lincoln, Grant, FDR (twice), but none since 1944. I doubt it would happen again soon.
I have heard the arguments for and against. tbh I have no preference either way. I have seen a right wing group pushing the proportional representation argument.
Have to look and see when we actually had a President with a minority vote win...Bush 2000?
Going back and looking at past elections doesn't really tell the story, because it'd completely change the game in terms of where money goes. Because elections wouldn't be about winning swing states anymore, they'd be about turnout. California and Wyoming are in the same boat under the current system. Everyone knows which way the state will go, so no one spends any time or money there (except for fundraisers in California).
Minus the electoral college, California obviously gets attention, because even if Republicans can't win the state outright, they need their millions of voters to turnout, but Wyoming gets a look as well in the sense that, if you're a Republican candidate, what's a better expenditure of resources, a single ad buy in the San Diego market that might turn out a few thousand more votes or setting up precincts all across the Northern Rocky Mountain states, with commensurate (and far cheaper) ad buys there?
Minus the electoral college, California obviously gets attention, because even if Republicans can't win the state outright, they need their millions of voters to turnout, but Wyoming gets a look as well in the sense that, if you're a Republican candidate, what's a better expenditure of resources, a single ad buy in the San Diego market that might turn out a few thousand more votes or setting up precincts all across the Northern Rocky Mountain states, with commensurate (and far cheaper) ad buys there?
Seen groups on both sides push alternate plans, it is not an issue that one side or the other has a monopoly on.
The interesting thing to do would be to look at past elections and see how the proportional representation would affect other elections. Given the closeness of the 2000 Election, I wonder if either man would have ended up with enough Electoral Votes to win under a proportional award system.
I think in both Clintons election wins he had less than 50% of the popular vote, so he might also have been in a position of being hurt by a proprotional award of the electoral college.
Again would have to take the time to do the math, though I bet if I google it one of the groups supporting a proportional award system would have that all done for us.
Whose Plan Destroys Medicare — Obama’s or Romney-Ryan’s?
Stumping in Florida today, Mitt Romney charged President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will “cut more than $700 billion” out of Medicare.
What Romney didn’t say was that his running-mate’s budget — approved by House Republicans and by Romney himself — would cut Medicare by the same amount.
The big difference, though, is the Affordable Care Act achieves these savings by reducing Medicare payments to drug companies, hospitals, and other providers rather than cutting payments to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn’t keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs — thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries, who will have to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their Medicare insurance, according an analysis of the Republican plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Moreover, the Affordable Care Act uses its Medicare savings to help children and lower-income Americans afford health care, and to help seniors pay for prescription drugs by filling the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare Part D coverage.
The Romney-Ryan plan uses the savings to finance even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Spread the word. Don’t allow the GOP to get away with this demagoguery.
http://robertreich.org/post/29384825788
Stumping in Florida today, Mitt Romney charged President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will “cut more than $700 billion” out of Medicare.
What Romney didn’t say was that his running-mate’s budget — approved by House Republicans and by Romney himself — would cut Medicare by the same amount.
The big difference, though, is the Affordable Care Act achieves these savings by reducing Medicare payments to drug companies, hospitals, and other providers rather than cutting payments to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn’t keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs — thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries, who will have to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their Medicare insurance, according an analysis of the Republican plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Moreover, the Affordable Care Act uses its Medicare savings to help children and lower-income Americans afford health care, and to help seniors pay for prescription drugs by filling the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare Part D coverage.
The Romney-Ryan plan uses the savings to finance even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Spread the word. Don’t allow the GOP to get away with this demagoguery.
http://robertreich.org/post/29384825788
/\
I was debating a hardcore GOP fan on FB the other night and he stated that Ryan's plan "will save Medicare" to which I told him, "Yeah, if making it a voucher program is your view of "saving.""
No response.
I hate arguing with close-minded people. I've been one in the past but have since opened my eyes to reality.
I was debating a hardcore GOP fan on FB the other night and he stated that Ryan's plan "will save Medicare" to which I told him, "Yeah, if making it a voucher program is your view of "saving.""
No response.
I hate arguing with close-minded people. I've been one in the past but have since opened my eyes to reality.
The republicans: they'll look after you in the womb, but after that you're on your own.
tbf to him there is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there about the two opposing plans. There is a new Romney ad out hitting Obama on Medicare which is clever.
Must see how Obama team responds.
Both sides are hitting with clever but misinformation. Typical.
Actually they're not that big on looking after you in the womb. During the campaign, Santorum said that "a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions", claiming that insurance companies shouldn't be required to cover them.
Near as I can tell, the religious right doesn't actually give a feck about actually helping mothers bear those children, just in creating and enforcing laws instructing them what they can and can't do with their uteri.
Cory Booker
hmmm Cant see another 'black guy' being nominated. The Dems wont want to be painted as just a Black People's party..even if most black people vote for them. Also Booker burnt his bridges attacking the Obama tactic of attacking Bain.
The baton will be handed over to Hillary..but think she wont be up to it.
The more interesting choice would be where the GOP will be...still a hostage of the far right loons...or will sanity prevail and move to the center.
True but I cant see Hillary making it -- she is looking very ragged lately. All the botox can only do so much. Looking somewhat butchy too.
America always votes for a telegenic president since the days of Kennedy... with hair too.
I think by 2016, the Democrats have to brand position their party as the party of the future and progressives. As opposed to the all-white and increasingly far right, Reagan/Bush history -- somewhat like the Scousers always talking about the past? History Channel.
For the Democrats then what better that to tap into the Hispanics? How about Julian Castro? Brown Barack?
Someone just sent me the road closure map for when the RNC is in town...fecking hell its going to be chaos. They are closing a road that takes 50,000 cars a day, and pretty much all of downtown. I am sure the inbred twats will be popular in the greater Tampa area once we have endure a week of traffic jams.
True but I cant see Hillary making it -- she is looking very ragged lately. All the botox can only do so much. Looking somewhat butchy too.
America always votes for a telegenic president since the days of Kennedy... with hair too.
I think by 2016, the Democrats have to brand position their party as the party of the future and progressives. As opposed to the all-white and increasingly far right, Reagan/Bush history -- somewhat like the Scousers always talking about the past? History Channel.
For the Democrats then what better that to tap into the Hispanics? How about Julian Castro? Brown Barack?
Watch the Democratic convention and you may just see the first Hispanic President. Cant remeber his name, but I think he is from San Antonio.
I agree I don't think it will be Hillary.
too true. every time we come to elections at least one of the candidates talks about energy independence from the ME, Venezuela, etc, etc (no one mentions Canada where most of the US oil comes from).
And then, if it's a republican that gets elected, they'll have an secret energy meeting to make policy and the oil men make out like bandits.
feckin goldfish memories those people have, or they're just ignorant.
Romney is running like hell from Ryan's plan...but towards what?
The Obama team is going to enjoy this.
The Obama team is going to enjoy this.
The loons on FB are running the 2007 photo of Obama not covering his heart during the national anthem and an ad that claims he's trying to stop the military/veteran votes.
Even if he had the constitution tattooed on his back and the star and stripes on his face painted with the star and stripes each and every morning, there would still be some Americans claiming he is a sleeper agent for the Soviets who was born in a yurt in Outer Mongolia.
How is he supposed ot be achieving that exactly?
Have no idea but this is the ad the FB loon posted (he's ex-Airborne but also a massive conspiracy nut who supported Ron Paul).
The GOP adverts are coming thick and fast in Florida now. The assault is mainly attacking Obama's record.
Medicare voucher program....
boy I cant wait to get on that....
boy I cant wait to get on that....
It is telling that they refer to him as Hussein Obama.
On another forum i post on there was a truly offensive piece of scum who was also a Ron Paul fanatic, thankfully he got banned. I don't have much time for either him or his supporters based on what i've seen.
On another forum i post on there was a truly offensive piece of scum who was also a Ron Paul fanatic, thankfully he got banned. I don't have much time for either him or his supporters based on what i've seen.
- Status