Literal cock-blocking?
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
The Rasmussen Report has Ass Juice within 3 points in South Carolina! NH should be a boring win for Romney, but SC looks exciting.
South Carolina Primary: Romney 27%, Ass Juice 24%, Gingrich 18%
Election 2012: South Carolina Republican Primary - Rasmussen Reports™
South Carolina Primary: Romney 27%, Ass Juice 24%, Gingrich 18%
Election 2012: South Carolina Republican Primary - Rasmussen Reports™
I wish Perry and Gingrich would drop out now, would make this all the more interesting.
Though Paul's attack on Gingrich for being a chickenhawk was both hilarious and apt.
Though Paul's attack on Gingrich for being a chickenhawk was both hilarious and apt.
Any chance of Huntsman sneaking in in the last minute?
No.
No.
No.
Yeah it seems the "moderate" crowd are firmly sticking to Romney, and unless he makes a ridiculously huge gaffe he won't lose that support. Plus, Huntsman's about the only candidate left that has no chance of being supported by the "anyone but Romney" bunch. Might come third in New Hampshire, but that'll be his high point.
Another general question - if Romney wins in South Carolina, is the nomination pretty much sewn up?
Another general question - if Romney wins in South Carolina, is the nomination pretty much sewn up?
I think his nomination pretty much is sewn up already, regardless of SC. Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich don't have the organization to fight a long, drawn-out campaign, and Perry's already got the "too stupid to be President" label pretty firmly attached.
Romney will easily win the nomination, and Obama will eat him for breakfast.
It was excellent seeing tubby get called out as a chicken hawk.
'Romney the job creator'
Bain is proof....
Bain is proof....
I think Huntsman owned him in the debate yesterday when he said a Republican should not serve under a Democrat, and then later made a big point about how he was able to work with a Democratic legislature very well.
Wait, did Romney say a repub shouldn't serve under a dem?
What kind of fecking bollocks is that?
What kind of fecking bollocks is that?
Hunstman is reasonable.
That one fact eliminates him from the GOP nomination.
That one fact eliminates him from the GOP nomination.
He did, what utter rubbish indeed.
Huntsman hit him hard after that but if I were him I'd ask (from his perspective) would he rather a Democrat or a Republican was your ambassador to China.
Though I am not fond of how ambassadors are political appointees as opposed to career diplomats, the current US ambassador in London is a Democrat fundraiser from the Midwest.
Ambassadorships have always been used as rewards. You do expect that competent people get the trickier posts though.
I'd imagine that real US/UK affairs are handle at cabinet level rather than Ambassadorial.
Well I don't really count the UK gig as tricky.
I wouldn't say that, obviously our relations couldn't be better but that is kind of the point - the amount of military, political and intelligence treaties between us is not matched anywhere else across the world - the sheer volume of relations makes it a difficult post.
Though Excal is going to be right, an Ambassador to Britain from Washington would be a facilitator of whatever Hague and Clinton, Hammond and Panetta and of course Cameron and Obama get up to.
British Ambassadors are said to be very close to the White House - Christopher Meyer especially in the run up to Iraq.
Exactly right. Ambassadors are diplomats, not policymakers. When it comes to "the special relationship", our national interests are so closely-aligned that anything beyond ceremonial and lower-level embassy/consular functions are going to be handled by those with real input into policy. So why not stick a big fundraiser in London? His duties will be ceremonial and administrative anyway. A fundraiser should be good at those.
Meanwhile, if you look at the Ambassadors to nations like China, Russia, and India, you'll see one former Governor and Secretary of Commerce, and two lifelong FSOs (foreign service officers) who've been in the State Department for decades.
You know your American officials overseas (or have been frantically googling in the last few minutes!).
It is just an alien concept to me, the idea that in the UK someone who hasn't been in the FCO since the Great Reform Act of 1832 who hasn't been knighted and doesn't have more titles than the American president does could ever be one of our top diplomats overseas would be quite a bizarre notion.
Having said that, in 1992 following the general election - Chris Patten who was a career MP who lost his seat was appointed as the Governor of Hong Kong.
It is just an alien concept to me, the idea that in the UK someone who hasn't been in the FCO since the Great Reform Act of 1832 who hasn't been knighted and doesn't have more titles than the American president does could ever be one of our top diplomats overseas would be quite a bizarre notion.
Having said that, in 1992 following the general election - Chris Patten who was a career MP who lost his seat was appointed as the Governor of Hong Kong.
Well we don't really have donors to reward.
Indeed, plus the civil service as an institution is very powerful here - if the Foreign Secretary started proposing politicians as ambassadors the FCO permanent secretary would start playing the blocking game.
the bigger gafff is when he said he was in a position to be afraid to get the pink slip....
when you see him blinking super fast when he said that....you can see what an obvious lie that was.
Newt really went after him for Bain's strategy about how they made money by draining the funds and firing employees.
Good on Newt.
It's hilarious to see Republicans lining up to berate Romney for being a corporate whore
Look at fecking Perry with the egalitarian bit between his teeth:
Socialism!
Look at fecking Perry with the egalitarian bit between his teeth:
Socialism!
Only shows two things:
1) They need all need to take PoliSci 101 and Econ 101
2) They will eat their own babies if it helps them win.
1) They need all need to take PoliSci 101 and Econ 101
2) They will eat their own babies if it helps them win.
Knowing any Econ 101 immediately disqualifies you from being a member of the human race for being too rational.
He is a hypocrite. But he is dead on right about Romney.
They're all corporate whores FFS! This problem isn't inherent to repubs. It's a problem at nearly all high levels of politics. The fact that any of these guys call out another for sucking up to Wall St is hilarious. And then to watch the President do the same is equally hilarious.
they may all take coporate money..true. That is a fault of the system....which gives very little option other than both parties 'play ball' so to speak.
so how many companies did Obama close down the way Romney did and pocket the money?
Your constant argument that both parties are bad as each other does not hold water.
The Democratic party with all its faults is miles better than your party which uses bigotry to get elected and then go against the very people who elected them and everyone else.
they actually only serve only the very small minority at the top...yet even the majority of them want their tax rates increased if it helps to balance the budget...for the good of the country.
Cause they realise..in the long run they too will go down the ladder if there is no one to buy what they are selling....
And the hypocrisy comes from all of these candidates being massive right wing bellmets who knock themselves off to pictures of Reagan and Thatcher, whilst constantly espousing their ideals of financial and economic deregulation as a means of solving the current situation. In addition to constantly (and laughably) labelling Obama a socialist, of course.
See here's the problem with your argument, its not my party. And furthermore the fact that YOUR party and it's people can't see the short comings and parallels makes you no better than their party.
Both sides pack their administration with Wall St fat cats. The dems are more hypocritical because then they come out as the everyman party. Which they are not. They are the same bunch of millionaires, billionaires, Wall St CEOs, etc.
Another funny fact is that you assume because I don't agree with your partys platform I must be from the "other" party. You are aware there are other political parties right? Or another group called Independents? In fact your party bragged about how many of them voted for your candidate in the last election. Maybe you forgot.
I bet you'd howl if it was proposed to raise taxes to finance campaigns though.
The Dems have taken more money from Wall St, insurance firms and (I think) Big Pharma in the last few years. As well as unions obviously.
The Republicans have taken more from oil firms and the arms industry.
The Republicans have taken more from oil firms and the arms industry.
Of course I would. You are actually proposing to take money from people so someone can run for office? Why? There needs to be campaign reform because it boils down so much to who has the most money to spend wins, at least most of the time. I'm not versed enough to say how exactly. But clearly money rules in a campaign.
I'm not opposed to raising taxes to get us out of the current financial situation but it needs to be tempered with some cuts as well. My biggest problem is the gov't takes a dollar and spends a dollar-fifty. And does is wastefully at times too.
See here's the problem with your argument, its not my party. And furthermore the fact that YOUR party and it's people can't see the short comings and parallels makes you no better than their party.
Both sides pack their administration with Wall St fat cats. The dems are more hypocritical because then they come out as the everyman party. Which they are not. They are the same bunch of millionaires, billionaires, Wall St CEOs, etc.
Another funny fact is that you assume because I don't agree with your partys platform I must be from the "other" party. You are aware there are other political parties right? Or another group called Independents? In fact your party bragged about how many of them voted for your candidate in the last election. Maybe you forgot.
thou protest too much me thinks.
It is Your party...so which party did you vote for in the last 4 elections just for argument?
Independents are a group. But it is not a party that stands for elections. The merits or otherwise is a matter for another discussion.You may be sick about what you see happening to the Republican party...but that does not change the fact it is increasingly marginalised. It does not represent the needs of the majority.
No matter how much you bleat on about Wall Street, it does not mean that the democratic party with those who play footsie with them have policies that does not help the majority. Could they do more? of course they can. Unlike Bob, I am not entirelly against all Wall Street. I just feel it needs to be regulated so that their workings do not put the majority of the population at risk the way it did in 2008.
I think the needs of the many needs to outweigh the needs of the few.
You are right the Democratic party won many independent votes in 2008...but the time is coming fast when it will simply be the case of democrats far outweighing republicans...because of changing demographics. That will pose its own problems. But it is a problem I would rather have than these corporate raiders and pure crooks running to take over this country.
Tell me, who would you vote for this year? Obama or Romney Mr. Independent?
campaign reform is a separate issue. Both parties will fight it....
until it is made legal that public funds only be used to finance debates on national tv.
lets weigh this....would I rather pay higher taxes that will ensure I get a government which will Actually represent my interests or would I rather not pay taxes but have corrupt businesses who Will dtermine who gets elected and be at the mercy of a government that does not represent my interests????
...ahhh tough one that.
I think I will pay the higher taxes...at least initially. because then I will have a government that will actually try and cut wasteful spending, enfore safe regulations and actually encourage business that not only makes an honest profit but also helps employment and job gowth in This country.
- Status