You couldn't spot a right wing neo-con if one poked you in the eyes.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
You couldn't spot a right wing neo-con if one poked you in the eyes.
Only a lying, right-wing loon would believe the invasion of Iraq would have occurred under a Gore (or any democratic) presidency.
I cannot understand how the press, which is usually left leaning in most countries, is so right-leaning in the U.S. Other than MSNBC, which is the left wing tamer version of Fox, nearly all the U.S. tv seems to have a right wing bias. I don't think it was always that way but there is no way anyone who is objective could think Ryan won that debate last night. Sure Biden may have been a bit pushy but when you think of the vitriol that the right have launched at Obama for the last 4 years last night was child's play yet the press seem to be critiquing Biden's style rather than the content.
Its because you are a million miles off the American center. Many over here think CNN and NPR have a far left biased.
On last night debate: I didn't see a whole lot of it but I wasn't impressed with either of them. Ryan is a twat and Biden smirks, laughing and body language was irritating.
Or a persistent contrarian, of course.
They're called "idiots".
Maybe so but they are probably in the majority
That's not what you said on the idiots' forum!
Doubtful given that China's 9% annual growth is unsustainable, just as it was for Japan and S Korea in past decades. China will probably slow to about 5% because of its emerging middle class.
That's not what you said on the idiots' forum!
I thought that was where I was posting TBH. well when you show up at least.
CNN tries so hard to be Fox.
These debates aren't just graded on the substance of what candidates say but also on how likable they come across as. Ryan was relatively calm and composed and Biden probably came across as a bit over animated even by his usual standards, which may have put some people off. If you compare his performance against Ryan to his debate v Sarah Palin four years ago, he was remarkably calmer back then. That said, the mission four years ago was to not make any big mistakes as Obama had already opened up a sizable lead on McCain at that point. The mission v Ryan was to energize the base and blunt Romney's momentum.
But it was ok for Romney to talk over the moderator and even interrupt Obama?
This is what confuses me in how both debates are being compared.
This is what confuses me in how both debates are being compared.
The difference is that Romney just kept talking. Biden, at times, came across as bit unhinged, like a drunken Uncle at the Christmas party. Although it probably worked for him with the base, it may have not impressed others.
Biden annoyed everyone but the converted last night.
Ryan basically had coherence over Obama, that's it. Obama had accuracy, but pundits and people don't care much about that, it seems. Ryan had a hell of a lot more moments you can put in an attack ad, though.
Breaking News: shooting at Obama campaign office in Colorado. Fortunately no one was hurt.
Sick people.
Sick people.
I can imagine the spin from the conservative supporters and talk radio personalities...
"It's obviously staged by the Obama people to draw votes."
"It's obviously staged by the Obama people to draw votes."
people were in the office and no one was hurt fortunately.
This poster must be a moron, or a righty masquerading as a former democrat... logic escapes...
It's in the comments towards the bottom of the link.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t2
Czarrboro
I think Rush has it right: Biden IS the new "Progressive" Democrat party. They are arrogant, loud, lazy, out of touch (I mean, really, $250K per year income is Middle Class?), math-challenged, fear-mongering haters.That's what we all saw last night. Real Democrats have been fleeing the party ever since Obamacare.
October 12, 2012 05:41 pm at 5:41 pm |
It's in the comments towards the bottom of the link.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t2
Czarrboro
I think Rush has it right: Biden IS the new "Progressive" Democrat party. They are arrogant, loud, lazy, out of touch (I mean, really, $250K per year income is Middle Class?), math-challenged, fear-mongering haters.That's what we all saw last night. Real Democrats have been fleeing the party ever since Obamacare.
October 12, 2012 05:41 pm at 5:41 pm |
the later of course...
Joe Biden's smiling: Was there a method to his madness?
http://news.yahoo.com/joe-bidens-smiling-method-madness-190513313.html
http://news.yahoo.com/joe-bidens-smiling-method-madness-190513313.html
I am so glad I live in Canada as I see so much of the U.S. politics and it is truly awful. I know we have a right-wing government here but it is positively middle of the road compared with the Republicans. Also we do have health care for all and although it may not be perfect it's there when needed and I do not understand a country that cannot provide basic care for its people.
That is somewhat of a myth. Basic care is provided for everyone regardless of insurance. Even illegal immigrants get treated at many hospitals.
Yet despite Romneys claims, lots of people die every year due to lack of coverage.
What? It's not misleading at all. People without insurance can't afford checkups and chemo and dental care and a gazillion other things that are not treatable by walking in to an emergency room.
In case it's not clear I was replying to a deleted mjs post.
Basic care without going into ridiculous amounts of debt is probably what he meant.
And people avoid that kind of care as long as possible because of the debt issues. Thus, by default, they end up suffering from more serious complaints than a covered person would?
I'd imagine so, especially for preventative care that later snowballs into health problems. In a place like the States, its easier the uninsured to avoid regular checkups when they know it will result in their going into debt. Same applies for more serious medical issues, although in those instances its less optional, and yet those treated still have to deal with ridiculous hospital bills. The Republicans have been advancing the ridiculously disingenuous argument that everyone gets treated when they really need it (ie. emergencies), while not being able to account for the fact that either the uninsured patient or society at large have to ultimately pay for it. In either scenario, the GOP can't account for how to pay the bills without bankrupting the patient or asking taxpayers to subsidize the price gouging of hospitals and insurance providers.
Preventative care is crucial for the biggest killers known to man - heart disease and cancer.
Right wingers are usually black and white thinkers, they only seem to appreciate cause and effect in its most simple terms.
Is the core of the Republican belief on this issue, rooted in the age old American ethos that the government should play as little part as possible in the everyday lives of the American citizens?
Yeah, the Republican position is basically grounded in the idea that Government should have no role (or minimal role) in market logic. At least that's what they say. In truth, its actually grounded in the fact that corporations (specifically, insurance companies) have strong lobbying efforts to keep politicians on their side. The Dems are generally immune from this on health care, where as the GOP have taken a distinctly corporatist approach.
I seem to remember Noam Chomsky saying that Obama had received massive donations from the American automotive industry to push through 'Obama-care', as the major players in the industry were paying $1000 per year, per employee, for private health care insurance.
No matter which way you squint your eyes, the corporate influence at the very heart of American politics can not be conducive to a 'true democracy', it seems more like a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.
Sadly, with each passing year, Britain seems to resemble America more and more.
Not really. New restirctions on MPs may with second jobs are coming in soon.
Actually chronic diseases like obesity and diabeties are the two most problematic ones in the next ten years, due to the tsunami of greying population and our sedentary lifestyles.
PPP(D) tweeted overnight:
Ohio looks pretty darn close on the first night of our poll there. We'll do more calls tomorrow and have results in the evening
When we release the Ohio poll tomorrow there will be a breakdown of people who've already voted vs. have yet to vote
VP debate looks like a draw in the swing states where we launched polls tonight. Not a game changer either way
Ohio looks pretty darn close on the first night of our poll there. We'll do more calls tomorrow and have results in the evening
When we release the Ohio poll tomorrow there will be a breakdown of people who've already voted vs. have yet to vote
VP debate looks like a draw in the swing states where we launched polls tonight. Not a game changer either way
It doesn't matter who "won" the debate. It matters who energized their base more, and Biden probably did a fair bit better than Ryan in that regard. In either case, I'm expecting Obama to find his mojo and come out attacking Romney, who tends to get flustered when he's on the back foot.
I'd obviously have a lot of sympathy for the people who voted Obama, but the people who voted Romney would get what they deserve (except the rich, of course).
Romney has to be one of the (if not the) worst candidates ever. He's not likeable, his record is not particularly impressive (certainly not for what the position of POTUS entails), he's an awful and awkward politician and completely disconnected with the majority of the population, he's made a litany of mistakes over the course of his campaign, and his ideas are shockingly bad. It boggles the mind that he's doing so well in the polls, he really should be unelectable.
- Status