McCain never suspended his campaign. It was just a ploy to get support for his Country First slogan he was running on. His own campaign said they were going as normal when asked.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Turns out there's a debate today. I don't know where it came from, since I'm sure the list I'm using said that the next debate was on the 10th. It's the "Huckabee" debate, on FOX. Trying to find a stream for when it starts. It should be in an hour, I think.
Oh, and in other news, Ron Paul said that having a debate moderated by Donald Trump (as is planned for December) is beneath the office of the President, and has refused to accept the invitation. Huntsman won't be going either.
Edit: Hang on.. it was supposed to start at 8PM ET, and as far as I can tell it's now 8:17PM? I can't seem to find any stream that is on.
Oh, and in other news, Ron Paul said that having a debate moderated by Donald Trump (as is planned for December) is beneath the office of the President, and has refused to accept the invitation. Huntsman won't be going either.
Edit: Hang on.. it was supposed to start at 8PM ET, and as far as I can tell it's now 8:17PM? I can't seem to find any stream that is on.
Live Video Stream: Republican GOP Debate, Mike Huckabee Presidential Forum, New York City, 12-3-11 | Presidential Debates
CastAlba.TV - Free Live Streaming Service To Share With Friends and Family
I don't know what this is. Doesn't seem like a debate.
Edit: Ah. They're going to be individually questioned. I guess that gives us more of an opportunity to see more of the likes of Santorum and Bachmann, and make us remember why they're idiots too.
On that note, Santorum is a fecking idiot.
Oh my, it's Perry now. *giggle* One minute in, and he's already got that wild, deer caught in the headlights sort of look. Of course, this time he's being questioned by people who at least nominally know what they are talking about.
CastAlba.TV - Free Live Streaming Service To Share With Friends and Family
I don't know what this is. Doesn't seem like a debate.
Edit: Ah. They're going to be individually questioned. I guess that gives us more of an opportunity to see more of the likes of Santorum and Bachmann, and make us remember why they're idiots too.
On that note, Santorum is a fecking idiot.
Oh my, it's Perry now. *giggle* One minute in, and he's already got that wild, deer caught in the headlights sort of look. Of course, this time he's being questioned by people who at least nominally know what they are talking about.
I just turned back to the stream, and there's Bachmann, and the first words I hear are literally "subsidized abortion". This is going to be great.
crazy amount of debates this time around.
cannot remember this many last time....or I may not have been paying attention.
cannot remember this many last time....or I may not have been paying attention.
I didn't watch a single one last time (from the primaries), but I've watched quite a few of these. Mostly because of the candidates, though, the entertainment factor.
It's really strange listening to Paul. He has such an immense belief in the constitution. Every single one of his arguments revolve completely around the question "is it in the constitution?". I'm having problems understanding where this reverence for the constitution and the founding fathers comes from.
Sure, I've got a lot of respect for the people who, in 1814, set up the Norwegian constitution, but the constitution of 1814 is no more than a historical document. Life in 1814 was fundamentally different from life in 2011, so whether or not something was in the constitution then shouldn't really matter on whether it should be there in 2011.
For example, in the original Norwegian constitution Jews were not allowed to enter the Kingdom. Obviously that wasn't correct, and it was eventually changed. They didn't "interpret" it differently, they outright changed it.
It's just not something I really get.
Sure, I've got a lot of respect for the people who, in 1814, set up the Norwegian constitution, but the constitution of 1814 is no more than a historical document. Life in 1814 was fundamentally different from life in 2011, so whether or not something was in the constitution then shouldn't really matter on whether it should be there in 2011.
For example, in the original Norwegian constitution Jews were not allowed to enter the Kingdom. Obviously that wasn't correct, and it was eventually changed. They didn't "interpret" it differently, they outright changed it.
It's just not something I really get.
I suppose he would say that some changes have been for the worse. Certainly I don't see any reason to see the 'Bill of Rights' as antiquated. And let's not turn that into a debate about guns, if we can.
What struck me the most about this forum is that Romney was a bizarre shade of orange!
He's also worried that America will become a country that is governed by the government! What a nutter.
He's also worried that America will become a country that is governed by the government! What a nutter.
Romney is freakish because you can just see he believes in....nothing.
its scary...the possibility this guy could become the President of the US.
its scary...the possibility this guy could become the President of the US.
No he can't.
A closer look at Mitt Romney's job creation record
A look at Mitt Romney's job-creation record at Bain Capital - latimes.com
hmmm. no wonder this guy was saying we should have let the US auto industry go bankrupt...
A look at Mitt Romney's job-creation record at Bain Capital - latimes.com
hmmm. no wonder this guy was saying we should have let the US auto industry go bankrupt...
"One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich ... I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff," - Nancy Pelosi
They are praying the Newt pulls off the nomination.
They are praying the Newt pulls off the nomination."One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich ... I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff," - Nancy Pelosi
they should not bleat so much about him now....
the primary voters may wise up and nominate Romney
Wising up would mean voting Huntsman. He's their best candidate by a mile. I hope he runs in the next election when he can afford to be honest and ditch the wacky stuff that he has to say currently.
You incurable optimist, you.
You think the right is gonna get LESS crazy after Romney gets the nomination, loses, and we hear for the next four years how Obama won because they didn't nominate a "real conservative", just like they say about McCain?
Well...let's not forget how many crazy, old, white bastards will have died off by then!
It's not really a good strategy for a party to base their future on a rapidly dying base.
Romney, Newt, Perry etc. - Its win win for the Dems, especially if unemployment keeps falling betewen now and next summer. The shit economy narrative won't be viable for the GOP, and given Obama is quite strong on foreign policy, they won't have much to go with.
It's amazing that party has any luck considering their narratives are always that nutty. Yeah, if only they ran a 'real man' like maybe Rumsfeld, now there's a man you know beats his kids with a belt!
Negotiating is for Frenchman, damn it! We tell, the world listens.
I'd love to know what the repubican forums think about this. I'm sure they like Bachmann, Santorum and Perry but do they genuinely think they are electable? Anybody know any good (i.e. not batshit insane) forums?
Its a pity they don't have candidates like McCain and Guiliani this time around. However much you disagreed with them, you didn't have contempt for them. How has the field gotten so poor in 4 years?
Its a pity they don't have candidates like McCain and Guiliani this time around. However much you disagreed with them, you didn't have contempt for them. How has the field gotten so poor in 4 years?
Republican forums? Those old farts can't use computers.
Last time Giuliani and Thompson were jokes...Rudy ran the worst campaign in history and FT was just dumb as shit. McCain picked the worst VP in history out of desperation and sheer contempt fot the voters.
Last time Giuliani and Thompson were jokes...Rudy ran the worst campaign in history and FT was just dumb as shit. McCain picked the worst VP in history out of desperation and sheer contempt fot the voters.
Yeah it a pity sensible guys like Huntsman don't stand a chance. If the Repubs don't win this one with the economy in the state it's in, they're in for a long period on the sidelines and perhaps even a longterm decline.
I'm still expecting Romney to win this nomination though. And despite everything, it will be a very close election. For all his flip-flopping, the republican base is really motivated to take back the presidency and will turn out in their droves to vote. The Democrats not so much.
I'm still expecting Romney to win this nomination though. And despite everything, it will be a very close election. For all his flip-flopping, the republican base is really motivated to take back the presidency and will turn out in their droves to vote. The Democrats not so much.
Its quite strange as the old generation that are dying off are the neo cons of the 70 and 80's and this new breed is the quasi religo conservatives the neo cons used to help them acheive their goals. I'm for the life of me trying to figure out what comes next in the generation of American conservatives after the likes of Palin, Perry, and Bachman. Hopefully a more reasonable and realistic educated conservative.
some of these discussions go to the heart of where we are as a country.
If reasonable people withdraw from the process, we are handing over the keys to the lunatics and they will be running the place.
The Republican party has been taken over by the hard right because the reasonable people have stopped showing up....
On the other hand if the Occupy folks want to change things....participate in the political process...show up.
Take over the parties.
If reasonable people withdraw from the process, we are handing over the keys to the lunatics and they will be running the place.
The Republican party has been taken over by the hard right because the reasonable people have stopped showing up....
On the other hand if the Occupy folks want to change things....participate in the political process...show up.
Take over the parties.
Can't you guys come up with an alternative to the 2 parties?
I mean, it's not as if there are no more than 2 basic positions - Christian fascist and to the right of Atilla the Hun!!!
Yours is the country that represented the best hope of the West and the Enlightenment.
Now, it has become the refuge of dying imperialism.
Christ, when China represents the next place this thing is headed because you lot have given up, moved to gated communities and decided it's all about comfort - God help us.
I may be cynical about the Republic to the south of me - but it sure as hell didn't start out that way.
Romney or Gingrich - how feckin' jaded can you get?
I believe in whatever the polls tell me v I believe in whatever the polls tell me but I can make it a tad more believeable.
you are talking about proportional representation. It has its merits and demerits like everything.
there is also talk of getting away from the electoral college and just having the President elected by popular vote, which I think is good. The argument against that is the candidates will only show up at heavily populated areas and avoid the flyover states.
The main issue imo is allowing the huge amounts of money being spent on these elections...
For this next election for President it is estimated the winning candidate will spend close to a billion dollars.
As for the house, these guys are in perpetual election mode as elections are every two years.
as for the GOP primaries...it used to be funny...but Newt and Romney???
These monkeys should not be allowed near a soup kitchen much less running for President.
there is also talk of getting away from the electoral college and just having the President elected by popular vote, which I think is good. The argument against that is the candidates will only show up at heavily populated areas and avoid the flyover states.
The main issue imo is allowing the huge amounts of money being spent on these elections...
For this next election for President it is estimated the winning candidate will spend close to a billion dollars.
As for the house, these guys are in perpetual election mode as elections are every two years.
as for the GOP primaries...it used to be funny...but Newt and Romney???
These monkeys should not be allowed near a soup kitchen much less running for President.
The problem with making any sort of fundamental change to the system of American elections, such as proportional representation or doing away with the electoral college is that it'll almost certainly require amending the Constitution, a difficult process under any circumstance, and one almost impossible to accomplish in the current environment, especially given that Congresspeople would be voting to change the system they all got elected under.
I don't see a problem with someone changing the system they were voted under, just getting 3/4 of all the state legislators to ratify the amendment as well. That's a lot of bureaucracy that has to move at the same time and agree. Only worked out 27 times in history.
But the popular sentiment is there, in general on both sides, that we need change.
However I can't see the Republicans going for a popular vote if that would mean the population centers would become the focus. In general, and especially in the last election, every single metropolitan area outside of McCain's home state of Arizona went to the Dems. Nearly ever rural county went to the Reps.
But the popular sentiment is there, in general on both sides, that we need change.
However I can't see the Republicans going for a popular vote if that would mean the population centers would become the focus. In general, and especially in the last election, every single metropolitan area outside of McCain's home state of Arizona went to the Dems. Nearly ever rural county went to the Reps.
But as the Tea Party/Occupy dichotomy shows, there's little agreement as to what that change needs to be. Without that popular sentiment all coalescing behind some specific ideas, there's no real pressure on elected officials to make those changes.
The fundemental changes discussed will happen...but it will take time.
Everything follows the demographics.
Everything follows the demographics.
So...the Trump 'debate'...I think it's disgusting in principle and cheapens the political process but feck me, I don't think I can stop myself from watching!
It's a complicated conundrum this. I've long despised the partisan nature of American politics, which is essentially an inevitable conclusion of having only 2 parties, but having an open forum of niche competing parties also has a dire inevitable consequence, and that's the collusion and corruption of countries like Italy, who've had as many PMs as they've had years and are at the constant mercy of who can make the best deal with who for a sustainable coalition, which then naturally falls apart in chaotic bickering bibble.
In the UK we have at face value 3 prevalent parties, which should seem ideal, but it's a facade as proved by the last election when the Liberals, despite having the largest public profile in an election for nearly a century, ended up being themselves at the mercy of whichever mainstream party could get them in power. Which resulted in an unholy alliance of left & right and the party they were most at odds with getting into power due, in part, to them.
Basically, politics is fecking annoying. The more I engage with it, the more fascism seems like the most sensible option. We just need to find a really good dictator.
I like the idea of expanding the Congress. If it tripled in size then the lobbyists/big business would have a real problem trying to buy influence on a scale large enough to get what they wanted.
But the larger governmental processes get, the more they'll end up bickering over trival issues, colluding with other, unsuitable parties over these trivial issues, and a "strong government" as conservatives like to call it, is a completely lost cause. I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but the problem with us is, we're idealists. And idealism is always shot down by the practical pursuit of power by dickheads.
The problem is the politicians themselves. Not nearly enough of them are in it for the right reasons, and not nearly enough of them can resist personal gain. If we had governments comprised of suitable, intelligent, egalitarian people, we could have a thousand parties and people would debate and agree for the public good marvellously.
We don't though, we have governments full of thundercunts.
The problem is the politicians themselves. Not nearly enough of them are in it for the right reasons, and not nearly enough of them can resist personal gain. If we had governments comprised of suitable, intelligent, egalitarian people, we could have a thousand parties and people would debate and agree for the public good marvellously.
We don't though, we have governments full of thundercunts.
US politics will never be rid of the thundercunts until free speech is limited and corporations/unions/rich fecks are banned from giving campaign donations.
I agree we need to get money out of politics.
As for free speech...the media needs to be honest.
They need to challenge politicians when needed.
Well, if you get the direct money out of politics, you can't stop rich fecks from still buying airtime for their guy under their right to free speech. It needs to be limited but that will never, ever happen.
The very concept of a two party system seems antithetical to democracy. I've heard arguments that claim it makes the government run more smoothly and without as much politicking, as opposed a multi-party system where many different parties form coalitions to govern, but look at the US. It's pretty much impossible for any President to get anything done if the other party has the house, which happens fairly frequently.
In the similar situations in a multi-party system, the governing party would have to compromise with other parties to achieve enough support for the government. In Norway we essentially just have the one parliament, and if the government doesn't have enough support to push their agenda through, they won't be the government for long.
Of course, I can't see how a multi-party system would even begin to emerge from the current situation in US politics.
In the similar situations in a multi-party system, the governing party would have to compromise with other parties to achieve enough support for the government. In Norway we essentially just have the one parliament, and if the government doesn't have enough support to push their agenda through, they won't be the government for long.
Of course, I can't see how a multi-party system would even begin to emerge from the current situation in US politics.
I realize you're probably saying "never, ever happen" as in the context of the US, but in Norway there's already a complete ban on televised political ads. Whether that would ever be allowed in the US is another issue..
oh christ...if only. We get inundated with ads from POTUS, senate, governor, state legislators, sheriff, judges the fecking lot. It's so bad you have to leave the room during primetime telly ad breaks in the election run up.
- Status