You can't shoot Darth Vader, it's not that easy.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Hannity is such a tool.
Ryan seems far more popular than Romney. Palin ended up the same with McCain.
How often is the VP more favorable/popular than the POTUS?
How often is the VP more favorable/popular than the POTUS?
both are popular with the teaparty.
They were picked to energize the right wing base.
And by POTUS I was implying actual VP more popular than actual President, or VP candidate more popular than his running mate and POTUS candidate.
I don't know, I don't think Palin was more popular than McCain. Perhaps (definitely) from the hard right of the party, but not the general masses. Ryan though.. he just might be. He's not as obviously stupid as Palin.
Like Palin, Ryan is very popular with a particular subset of the far right, who like him intensely, but largely unpopular everyone in the middle of the political spectrum moving leftward. Like McCain, Romney's popularity is a bit broader (though in Romney's case, only just,) but significantly less intense.
His book was one of my favorite reads when I was a kid. It's a fictionalized account of a squad of infantry in Vietnam. I rangered at the Vietnam memorial for a time and the book was well regarded by some of the vets there that I talked to.
Edwards perhaps. That ticket was kind of like the Romney-Ryan ticket. A rich politician who lacked all charisma, who was a candidate at a time when their party was lacking an identity and in a time of transition, running with a VP candidate that was young, up and coming charismatic politician that only demonstrated what the Presidental candidate lacked
It's like he gets off on being withholding.
That's my opinion and it extends well beyond the U.S. elections alone. Our European version(s) are just as ridiculous.
No, no, no. I'm all for a healthy portion of cynicism about the political system, but I consider this particular line of thinking to be nothing if not lazy. It's such a grand, binding statement: "it doesn't matter who you vote for". Even in a system like in the US, a system that makes it nearly impossible for a third party to achieve anything, and where the two parties thus have to cater to fairly different people and opinions, it's patently not true. Do you think the health care bill as it is would be passed if the Republicans were in control?
You also mention the European systems, which seems strange to me. As far as I know, most countries have fairly healthy multi party systems. The UK is one exception, though perhaps that is more to do with tradition. Take Norway. For the last 7 years, we've had a majority coalition in power consisting of the Labour Party, the Centre Party and the Socialist Left Party. The alternative would have seen parties such as the far right Progress Party in government (with a fair share). It'd be ludicrous to suggest that a government with the Socialist Left party would be the same as a government with the Progress Party.
The "they're all the same" thing is just a lazy extension of the misguided "they're equally bad" balancing shtick.
Yeah. Its incredibly lazy thinking, and a load of bollocks.
If you're rich, the election probably doesn't matter that much. You may pay a few percent more in income tax under the Dems, IF they can cut a deal with congressional Republicans. If you're European, maybe it won't matter either... unless like me you're obsessed by US politics for no real reason.
If you're poor, spending that benefits you is going to be savaged, in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich. If for the first time find yourself covered by health insurance, you could well lose it again if the GOP wins. If you're old you see Medicare voucherised. If you're gay and want equal rights, you'll have to wait till the Dems get back in... probably not even then, if Romney gets to replace a Justice or two - which would have all sorts of unknowable but nasty effects down the line. If you're Iranian you probably have a higher chance of getting bombed by a Republican administration. If you're Muslim you'll be governed by a party that is now fairly openly hostile to you. If you're... well, rational, you see a party governing that is proudly anti-science on evolution and economics and, most importantly, Climate Change. I could go on...
The Dems are a fairly right-leaning and cynical bunch. The gap between rich and poor will keep growing under them, they won't do much to reduce emissions, and they'll probably keep droning Afghanistan and Pakistan, and abusing civil liberties at home. But on all of these things and more they'll be a whole lot less heartless and reckless than the alternative.
its a pity you cant vote here Plech 
all you say is correct....except we need to keep moving the Democratic party left.
Supreme Court justices is a big thing. Obama will probably change 4 of them in the next term.
all you say is correct....except we need to keep moving the Democratic party left.
Supreme Court justices is a big thing. Obama will probably change 4 of them in the next term.
It's important that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
The politicians and therefore Presidents and Prime Ministers don't have the power to make the big calls. The democracy is a fallacy, a fraud and is based on false media manipulation and a seriously delusional education system. That was the point of my image and post. The ideology behind a democracy is fine and dandy but in reality MONEY men run the show. Bankers and corporate CEO's. By not voting or voting "null" I am not supporting a corrupt system. I don't care who wins because I can't actually vote on the real leaders of this world. Those politicians I can vote for are simply puppets in the hands of the highest bidders. You keep voting and the system will never change. No point in saying I am lazy when you don't seem to have a grasp on reality and how the world works. "Money makes the world go round" is not just a saying, it's the truth.
That's a massive load of bullshit, if you'll excuse my choice of words.
I will not dispute that we are currently choosing between two 'corporations' . One is much worse than the other though.
But by not voting you are perpetuating the problem. The way to change the system is to participate. As has happened in the United States the most rabid (the worst) people chose to show up in the Republican party primaries and have now taken over the party.
The only way to change something is to participate...to vote.
The US system is admittedly highly flawed (though as you say, one side is still far worse than the other), but Ecstasio isn't even American. I don't know what country (Portugal or Spain presumably), but I very much doubt it's anything as bad as "two corporations".
Bernie Sanders is my new hero. That guy speaks some serious truth.
its a pity you cant vote here Plech
all you say is correct....except we need to keep moving the Democratic party left.
Supreme Court justices is a big thing. Obama will probably change 4 of them in the next term.
It sounds chumpish to say it, but I'd just about vote for Mr. Plech. Maybe running with that Mike Up North fella.
Tin foil hat alert
So take healthcare. Did Obama's health bill involve a stitch-up with big corporations? Yes. Insurance companies got tens of millions of new, enforced customers in return for accepting pre-existing conditions and exchanges. Big Pharma apparently agreed not to block the bill in return for the government backing off price negotiation. Doctors, hospitals, unions all got in on the Act.
The result? A ropey, compromised, rather conservative bill gets passed, vested interests profit as usual, and 30 million poor people without medical insurance get it.
Republicans, beholden to a different but overlapping set of interests, would have done nothing for these people. They tried their best to block the bill, and have pledged to repeal it. The effects of that would be: other money men profit, and 30 million poor people are left without medical insurance.
Appreciated Brad, but I'm not sure I'd be a great President. In my one spell as a manager I proved pretty bad at it... and that was managing two people.
It was largely the Caf's fault, mind...
love the man. but he will never get elected to the Presidency.
You do know he is a self confessed socialist right?
lardarse is on MTP defending Romney 
saying the 47% comment is just a bump in the road.
I cant wait to see Christie being voted out...corrupt scum.
saying the 47% comment is just a bump in the road.
I cant wait to see Christie being voted out...corrupt scum.
You know, Bernie Sanders would probably vote for SV in Norway. He'd certainly dislike Frp more
I know (well, I'd like to think that he wouldn't!), but the US needs something like SV to drag the centre towards the left. I think he's the only self-proclaimed socialist in Congress, and he's also mightily popular, oddly enough.
The 538 now-cast 'chance of winning' shows 2% for Romney and 98% for Obama.
saw MTP and all the GOP is banking on is that first debate. That's it. Even if Romney 'wins' it, the President will get his points across.
I don't see how Romney runs away from his 47% statement...which is what he really believes.
I don't see how Romney runs away from his 47% statement...which is what he really believes.
Yes, it's quite odd. Somehow, he has managed to completely avoid the usual connotations of "socialist" in the US.
Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html
these guys are funnier than Laurel and Hardy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html
these guys are funnier than Laurel and Hardy.
Actually for the simple minded mouth-breathers that will vote for them its a relief they wont have to use their brains to work it out.
"Republicans think that giving rich people money will make them work harder, but they think that giving poor people money will make them lazy."
saw this elsewhere. That is the GOP tax policy.
saw this elsewhere. That is the GOP tax policy.
Well, that's about right, isn't it? I mean, the poor people are poor because they're lazy, and the rich people are rich because they work hard. That's the American Dream.
Real clear Politics now shows Obama only needing one more vote - Obama is at 269
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
No matter the outcome FNC is going to declare Romney the winner after the debate.
- Status