Is it me, or is it becoming more and more obvious that it's going to be Tim Pawlenty?
WTF are you talking about?
Learn some fucking English, man.
This whole thread makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Haven't been paying attention to whom mr Mormon will pick as his veep.
The only buzz I'm catching is about Marco.
Boy can talk up a storm.
Quote from: katmai on July 06, 2012, 06:04:58 AM
Haven't been paying attention to whom mr Mormon will pick as his veep.
ah, now it's starting to make sense.
Altough why does it matter?
-not even Americans can be stupid enough to make President out of Romney
-he is a rich white man, who would assassinate him, making the VP choice relevant?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
The only buzz I'm catching is about Marco.
Boy can talk up a storm.
I'm a big fan of Marco. But I think this'd be a mistake for him, he should keep his powder dry for 2016.
Also I think it could be risky for Mitt to choose a VP who's that much more base-friendly and that much more charismatic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
The only buzz I'm catching is about Marco.
Really? He sorta seems to have tapered off the last 2 weeks or so; I've seen Pawlenty in front of more than one podium though.
I dunno...I can see why the GOP would consider Marco an attractive candidate, but he's a bit unseasoned, and I think there's a lot of gun-shyness after The Grizzly Mom Experiment.
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
Christie :showoff:
Michael Savage
Quote from: Caliga on July 06, 2012, 06:49:15 AM
Christie :showoff:
No way, man. As much fun as Biden v Christie would be, Mittens would never go for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
I don't know - given how meh everyone is it'd be nice to have some invigorating in the wings.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 07:42:54 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 06, 2012, 06:49:15 AM
Christie :showoff:
No way, man. As much fun as Biden v Christie would be, Mittens would never go for it.
I can't see what's in it for Christie. He could've had a shot at the presidency, so why settle for VP?
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2012, 08:47:32 AM
He could've had a shot at the presidency, so why settle for VP?
Realistically he didn't.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2012, 08:47:32 AM
I can't see what's in it for Christie. He could've had a shot at the presidency, so why settle for VP?
If he takes the veep spot on a losing ticket he gets national exposure and face time with all the players. If he takes the veep spot on a winning ticket he gets all that plus a shitty job for 4 to 8 years.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
I don't know - given how meh everyone is it'd be nice to have some invigorating in the wings.
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
I've not seen anything from this recent Obama campaign either, so maybe I'm just hoping that someone pull something out.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
I've not seen anything from this recent Obama campaign either, so maybe I'm just hoping that someone pull something out.
YOU'RE NOT LEANING FORWARD
Isn't Pawlenty a boring white dude with weird religious beliefs, so essentially Mitt Mk 2.0?
I know Romney is determined to lose these elections, but even he must realize that he needs to choose someone who will appeal to the part of the demographic that considers him currently unelectable. So either someone more "hip" like Christie or someone Latino.
Quote from: Tamas on July 06, 2012, 06:20:42 AM
Altough why does it matter?
-not even Americans can be stupid enough to make President out of Romney
Historically, we've made Presidents out of guys like Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B. Hayes, Warren Harding, and Bill Clinton.
Quote-he is a rich white man, who would assassinate him, making the VP choice relevant?
Interestingly, all of our Presidents who have been assissinated have been white men, though I guess none of them were as wealthy as Romney.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 09:35:57 AM
Interestingly, all of our Presidents who have been assissinated have been white men, though I guess none of them were as wealthy as Romney.
Interestingly, all your Presidents bar one have been white men, you idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 09:33:32 AM
Isn't Pawlenty a boring white dude with weird religious beliefs, so essentially Mitt Mk 2.0?
A little more aw-shucks folkiness, with less money.
Raised Catholic, became Lutheran when he got married, now an evangelical Baptist. Talk about playing the field.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 09:37:42 AM
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 09:35:57 AM
Interestingly, all of our Presidents who have been assissinated have been white men, though I guess none of them were as wealthy as Romney.
Interestingly, all your Presidents bar one have been white men, you idiot.
Someone's sarcasometer is broken.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 09:37:42 AM
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 09:35:57 AM
Interestingly, all of our Presidents who have been assissinated have been white men, though I guess none of them were as wealthy as Romney.
Interestingly, all your Presidents bar one have been white men, you idiot.
Someone's sarcasometer is broken.
:P
Pick Christie, he'll have Biden for Breakfast.. literally.. at the VP debate.
Quote from: Viking on July 06, 2012, 09:44:24 AM
Pick Christie, he'll have Biden for Breakfast.. literally.. at the VP debate.
It's not his fault! :weep:
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 09:33:32 AM
So either someone more "hip" like Christie
:blink:
By Republican standards. :P
I thought he has been making centrist noises on stuff like pot or gay rights?
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 09:33:32 AM
So either someone more "hip" like Christie
:blink:
By Republican standards. :P
I thought he has been making centrist noises on stuff like pot or gay rights?
I should have known you have your own definitions for English terms.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
I thought he has been making centrist noises on stuff like pot or gay rights?
Don't know about gay, but certainly not pot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 10:09:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
I thought he has been making centrist noises on stuff like pot or gay rights?
Don't know about gay, but certainly not pot.
Also Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill. :D
Oh yeah, he's hip alright.
Why wouldn't Christie have had a shot? He's way more charismatic than Romney, and comes off as unabashedly conservative. He isn't, and has been able to work with Democrats in NJ, but as a successful GOP politician from a blue state he's done very well.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Why wouldn't Christie have had a shot? He's way more charismatic than Romney, and comes off as unabashedly conservative. He isn't, and has been able to work with Democrats in NJ, but as a successful GOP politician from a blue state he's done very well.
Does the GOP really need another ticket where the Veep outshone the POTUS candidate?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 10:37:00 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Why wouldn't Christie have had a shot? He's way more charismatic than Romney, and comes off as unabashedly conservative. He isn't, and has been able to work with Democrats in NJ, but as a successful GOP politician from a blue state he's done very well.
Does the GOP really need another ticket where the Veep outshone the POTUS candidate?
We were talking about my contention about the presidency. I think.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Why wouldn't Christie have had a shot?
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney had to reinvent himself completely to get through, and only after Republican voters gave everyone from Gingrich to Crazy Cat Lady a temporary lead in the nomination race first.
QuoteHe's way more charismatic than Romney, and comes off as unabashedly conservative. He isn't, and has been able to work with Democrats in NJ, but as a successful GOP politician from a blue state he's done very well.
I'm sure all that would come out in the primaries, and he would be slammed for it. For New Jersey, Christie is clearly a conservative, but you don't have to scratch the surface a lot to see a somewhat reasonable man by national standards.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney...
So, they can't, but they can. :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on July 06, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney...
So, they can't, but they can. :huh:
There are a couple of Mitt Romneys out there. The one that won the latest primary was not the one that was a Northeastern Republican politician. Christie can't disassociate himself from new Jersey the way Mitt disassociated himself from Massachusetts.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 06, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney...
So, they can't, but they can. :huh:
You have to excuse him. Like a lot of people, if reality doesn't conform to his preconcieved notions, he has to try to redefine reality, instead of reconsidering his preconceptions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
I don't know - given how meh everyone is it'd be nice to have some invigorating in the wings.
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
Mittens? Who?
Is Antti Miettinen suddenly running for office? :huh:
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 10:19:16 PM
You have to excuse him. Like a lot of people, if reality doesn't conform to his preconcieved notions, he has to try to redefine reality, instead of reconsidering his preconceptions.
The reality is that Candidate Romney had to distance himself a lot from Governor Romney.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 06, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney...
So, they can't, but they can. :huh:
You have to excuse him. Like a lot of people, if reality doesn't conform to his preconcieved notions, he has to try to redefine reality, instead of reconsidering his preconceptions.
Oi! You're stealing my bit!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2012, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 10:19:16 PM
You have to excuse him. Like a lot of people, if reality doesn't conform to his preconcieved notions, he has to try to redefine reality, instead of reconsidering his preconceptions.
The reality is that Candidate Romney had to distance himself a lot from Governor Romney.
I wouldn't argue against that statement, but it's not as broad as what DGuller was claiming.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2012, 10:38:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
I don't know - given how meh everyone is it'd be nice to have some invigorating in the wings.
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
Mittens? Who?
Is Antti Miettinen suddenly running for office? :huh:
Mitt Romney. He's hard to keep track of, constantly changing and adapting. For instance, in 2004 he was known as "John Kerry". I'm still waiting for someone to make a clever picture joke with Romney and one of those German Belt Buckles. Gott Mit Uns.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2012, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2012, 10:38:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
They may have no choice but to play it safe with another boring white guy, but not one that can show up Mittens in the personality department. The Veep'll have to be even duller.
I don't know - given how meh everyone is it'd be nice to have some invigorating in the wings.
Has the Mittens campaign ever given you a single reason to see anything invigorating in it at all? Anywhere? So why start now?
Mittens? Who?
Is Antti Miettinen suddenly running for office? :huh:
Mitt Romney. He's hard to keep track of, constantly changing and adapting. For instance, in 2004 he was known as "John Kerry". I'm still waiting for someone to make a clever picture joke with Romney and one of those German Belt Buckles. Gott Mit Uns.
You apparently don't know that Finnish-born Miettinen of the Winnipeg Jets is often nicknamed "Mittens" due to his last name. <_<
This made me chuckle.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/423807_317099118352091_156994304362574_919088_1710236351_n.jpg)
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
You apparently don't know that Finnish-born Miettinen of the Winnipeg Jets is often nicknamed "Mittens" due to his last name. <_<
Keep your faggity expansion team out of the thread.
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
You apparently don't know that Finnish-born Miettinen of the Winnipeg Jets is often nicknamed "Mittens" due to his last name. <_<
How would anyone possibly know that?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 02:42:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
You apparently don't know that Finnish-born Miettinen of the Winnipeg Jets is often nicknamed "Mittens" due to his last name. <_<
How would anyone possibly know that?
Maybe BB's the guy who gave him the nickname.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2012, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 06, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Because a successful Northeastern Republican simply cannot win a Republican primary. Mitt Romney...
So, they can't, but they can. :huh:
You have to excuse him. Like a lot of people, if reality doesn't conform to his preconcieved notions, he has to try to redefine reality, instead of reconsidering his preconceptions.
Like, for example, ignoring a follow-up post clarifying the point? Is that the kind of reality not conforming to preconceived notions you're talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
The only buzz I'm catching is about Marco.
Boy can talk up a storm.
God, I read that as Macro at first. Emperor Willardus would send the grain ships back to Egypt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
The only buzz I'm catching is about Marco.
Boy can talk up a storm.
I saw him on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago. He plugged his new book in, literally, every answer he gave. So he's got the self-promotion down. As VP for Romney he could take over ESPN Bracketology/late night talk show duties that currently burden Obama.
I don't think Marco will take it. For the same reason he didn't run for President. He want's to be President. He'll throw his hat in the ring in 2016. I think the GOP will have a good field that year. It'll be their year.
Yeah, but by then, the Tea Party fetish of lauding the most ignorant elements of society might wane.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2012, 12:42:13 PM
Yeah, but by then, the Tea Party fetish of lauding the most ignorant elements of society might wane.
I think it already has. This year had such a piss poor selection because the best people in the party are holding back. Defeating a sitting President is difficult. The smart guys want to maximize their chances. That left the Republicans field full of the desperate, the stupid, and the insane.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2012, 12:48:23 PM
I think it already has. This year had such a piss poor selection because the best people in the party are holding back. Defeating a sitting President is difficult. The smart guys want to maximize their chances. That left the Republicans field full of the desperate, the stupid, and the insane.
I think they missed an opportunity here. There's always a sizable chunk of the electorate ready to blame the sitting President for a soft economy.
Maybe, but they made their decision two years ago. They would have a hard time predicting what the economy or political situation would be like in 2012.
I have a feeling Jeb Bush will run in 2016.
Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I have a feeling Jeb Bush will run in 2016.
Had Hilary won in 2008, and made it through 2 complete terms, we would have had 28 straight years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. A Jeb Bush win in 2016 and re-election 4 years later could have pushed that to 36 years. Maybe then it would have been Chelsea's turn.
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2012, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I have a feeling Jeb Bush will run in 2016.
Had Hilary won in 2008, and made it through 2 complete terms, we would have had 28 straight years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. A Jeb Bush win in 2016 and re-election 4 years later could have pushed that to 36 years. Maybe then it would have been Chelsea's turn.
I don't see why that is inherently a problem.
Veep will probably be a woman. Probably a more intelligent woman than last time.
Terri Schiavo?
Hey Guller, did you send your check by gound mail? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
Hey Guller, did you send your check by gound mail? :hmm:
It's in the mail. :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 10, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
Hey Guller, did you send your check by gound mail? :hmm:
No Paypal for Lofi YI?
Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I have a feeling Jeb Bush will run in 2016.
I think it depends on how much the Tea Party wing dissipates; if the HNIC wins reelection, they'll be just as strong in 2016, as his existence is the only reason why they're in existence.
Nikki Haley Not Being Vetted for VP Spot
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/10/nikki-haley-not-being-vetted-for-vp-spot/
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2012, 08:46:47 AM
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2012, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I have a feeling Jeb Bush will run in 2016.
Had Hilary won in 2008, and made it through 2 complete terms, we would have had 28 straight years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. A Jeb Bush win in 2016 and re-election 4 years later could have pushed that to 36 years. Maybe then it would have been Chelsea's turn.
I don't see why that is inherently a problem.
It isn't, though it's a bit of interesting trivia. Actually, I guess it's less than that--it's would-have-been or might-have-been trivia.
Apparently, the Veep Shortlist:
Jindal, Pawlenty, Portman, Rubio, Ryan.
Ick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2012, 08:48:26 AM
Apparently, the Veep Shortlist:
Jindal, Pawlenty, Portman, Rubio, Ryan.
Ick.
Natalie Portman and Meg Ryan could warm Mitt's image a bit.
I don't know if Natalie will be considered a natural born citizen or not, but at any rate she has to wait 'til 2016 due to age requirement.
Wikipedia tell us she was born in Jerusalem plus she married a frenchman. I think that's also unconstitutional.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 11, 2012, 12:16:08 PM
Wikipedia tell us she was born in Jerusalem plus she married a frenchman. I think that's also unconstitutional.
She was also a brilliant young scientist and quite multilingual. With her acting abilities, she might be a good political leader. :)
Drudge is reporting that Condi Rice is the front-runner for the Veep spot. That would definitely be an interesting choice- a total 180 from Sarah Palin. I imagine the data-driven Romney personally feels more comfortable with an academic/wonk type as opposed to a flashy politico with less depth like Rubio, so the report doesn't surprise me if it's true..
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm
Quote
ROMNEY NARROWS VP CHOICES; CONDI EMERGES AS FRONTRUNNER
Thu Jul 12 2012 19:30:01 ET
**Exclusive**
Late Thursday evening, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign launched a new fundraising drive, 'Meet The VP' -- just as Romney himself has narrowed the field of candidates to a handful, sources reveal.
And a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!
The timing of the announcement is now set for 'coming weeks'.
MORE
It was Condi who received two standing ovations at Romney's Utah retreat a few weeks ago, and everyone left with her name on their lips.
Rice made an extended argument for American leadership in the world.
In recent days, she emailed supporters:
"2012 is perhaps a turning point for the United States."
"The upcoming elections loom as one of the most important in my lifetime," she warned. "I'm very often asked to speak about our current foreign policy and the challenges that lie before us. However, we, as a country, are not going to be able to address any of those international challenges unless we first get our domestic house in order."
Developing...
Rice has never been involved in a political campaign in her life, so I wonder how she would play on the campaign trail, particularly considering that veep candidates are supposed to be attack dog.
Other issues:
-If she's selected, there's no way it's a demographic play-her "home" state is California, and I doubt the Romney campaign is counting on her to attract blacks or women.
-She would be the first non-married person on a presidential ticket in a while.
-She has no electoral executive experience whatsoever. She was a provost at Stanford, which is a leadership position, and the Secretary of State, but that's it. But then again neither Joe Biden and plenty of other veep candidates have lacked executive experience. The most important characteristic of a vice president is that he or she be capable of becoming President. Her lack of executive experience would be a con in this regard, but on the other hand she passes a general gravitas test pretty easily, so I doubt this will be much of an issue.
-She balances Romney out in several aspects- obviously in gender and race, but also in the fact she's an evangelical. One of Romney's big problems is the fact he's a boring old white guy; she's not that, except that's she somewhat boring as well.
-She brings in foreign policy experience which helps. It won't swing any votes, but it helps Romney rebut the argument that he lacks foreign experience.
-One negative is her ties to the Bush administration. She played a big role in the decisions surrounding the Iraq war .
-A possible negative involves her political views. I googled her and found an article which suggests that she supports abortion rights and civil unions for gays:
QuoteFormer Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared in a recent interview that she is proudly evangelical but also distanced herself from many of her fellow believers by saying that she tends to support abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples, and she feels evangelicals too often alienate others with in-your-face rhetoric.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/condi-rice-pro-choice-libertarian-and-evangelical/
One of the big knocks against Romney in the primary was that he was liberal because he used to be pro-choice and pro gay civil unions. The fact he's picking a pro-choice/pro civil-union running mate might upset the evangelical wing of the Republican party.
Edit: A National Review writer has said that this is bogus, according to his sources:
QuoteTop Romney source tells me "no Condi." More: Romney wants someone more comfortable in 'attack dog' mode
I hear a few UT retreat attendees (donors, etc.) are stirring Condi buzz. Per people I trust, it's not Boston-driven
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/12/drudge-condi-rice-near-the-top-of-romneys-vp-shortlist/
I'd be gobsmacked if it's Condi. She's pro-choice and she doesn't want it.
QuoteI imagine the data-driven Romney personally feels more comfortable with an academic/wonk type as opposed to a flashy politico with less depth like Rubio, so the report doesn't surprise me if it's true..
I'm not sure. Romney's been running for office, mostly unsuccessfully, for the best part of two decades. I actually think a key part in why he's been such an unsuccessful career politician is that he lacks depth. He's as shallow as a puddle reflecting the changing clouds.
Rubio at least has some depth, some substance and seems to have some hinterland.
Also given that his list includes Pawlentey I think he can get a non-flashy politico :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2012, 08:55:01 PM
I'm not sure. Romney's been running for office, mostly unsuccessfully, for the best part of two decades. I actually think a key part in why he's been such an unsuccessful career politician is that he lacks depth. He's as shallow as a puddle reflecting the changing clouds.
Rubio at least has some depth, some substance and seems to have some hinterland.
Also given that his list includes Pawlentey I think he can get a non-flashy politico :P
Agreed; depth wasn't the right word to use there. Perhaps gravitas or intellectual heft might be more appropriate. Rubio is certainly well rounded: he's charismatic, young, and has some interesting ideas. I wouldn't necessarily call him a wonk though.
Still, there are two other aspects of Rubio that Romney might not like. First, Rubio has been financially irresponsible in the past- I think he still has outstanding debt from law school, and he's far under water on his mortgage. He paid for ordinary living expenses with a Republican Party of Florida credit card for a while. I'm pretty sure he's a net debtor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/marco-rubio-vp-gop-candidates-florida-primary_n_1233480.html
Romney is a notorious spendthrift. This is pure conjecture, but it wouldn't shock me if Romney is uncomfortable with Rubio's history of lack of financial discipline. Some people view financial irresponsibility as a moral defect, and Romney strikes me as the kind of person who might feel that way.
Second, Rubio went from being Catholic to Mormon back to Catholic and is now Evangelical/Catholic. As a Mormon, Romney might be uncomfortable with that as well- then again Romney used to be pro-choice and pro gay-rights, so he's pretty comfortable with flip-flopping himself.
Quote from: stjaba on July 12, 2012, 09:19:24 PM
Romney is a notorious spendthrift. This is pure conjecture,
Yeah it is pure conjecture, considering he had no problem running the Olympics over budget and begging the federal government to bail out the overruns.
And let's not forget the cost overruns of the Big Dig. Yeah, he's a notorious spendthrift, when it's his money. Got no problem spending tax dollars.
I think the Rubio will keep his powder dry for next time. Besides a Hispanic wouldn't help them much when the anti immigrant lobby is so strong in the GOP. Condi Rice is an off the wall candidate. I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting it. Jindal might actually try for it, but I'm not sure if it'll help the ticket. Romney needs to appear as the white protestant choice, an Indian won't help that. Pawlenty is a solid, and dull choice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 12, 2012, 09:19:24 PM
Romney is a notorious spendthrift. This is pure conjecture,
Yeah it is pure conjecture, considering he had no problem running the Olympics over budget and begging the federal government to bail out the overruns.
And let's not forget the cost overruns of the Big Dig. Yeah, he's a notorious spendthrift, when it's his money. Got no problem spending tax dollars.
Mitt Romney was called in to run the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, not anything government-related. The Games had a $379 million deficit when he took over. He left it with a $40 million surplus. It was hailed as among the most successful Winter Olympiads in history. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fneutral.gif&hash=9d06ed14e645dcdf4fdf72c914489ff025871efa)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Yeah it is pure conjecture, considering he had no problem running the Olympics over budget and begging the federal government to bail out the overruns.
And let's not forget the cost overruns of the Big Dig. Yeah, he's a notorious spendthrift, when it's his money. Got no problem spending tax dollars.
:lol: The Big Dig was supposed to be finished before Romney ever became governor and he had no control over the project's funding or pacing... in fact when I lived in Mass. Romney was my governor and I recall him bitching about what a joke the Big Dig had become quite often.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 13, 2012, 03:07:51 AM
Mitt Romney was called in to run the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, not anything government-related. The Games had a $379 million deficit when he took over. He left it with a $40 million surplus. It was hailed as among the most successful Winter Olympiads in history. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fneutral.gif&hash=9d06ed14e645dcdf4fdf72c914489ff025871efa)
So he didn't need that $400 million for the Olympics after all. Good, he can give it back.
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2012, 05:07:36 AM
:lol: The Big Dig was supposed to be finished before Romney ever became governor and he had no control over the project's funding or pacing... in fact when I lived in Mass. Romney was my governor and I recall him bitching about what a joke the Big Dig had become quite often.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...keep defending Mitten's poor management.
There are plenty of other things you could poke at Romney about... like things he actually had something to do with, for example. :sleep:
CdM is the Democrat's heavy machine gunner. He isn't worried about accuracy, it is all about volume of fire.
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2012, 06:44:20 AM
There are plenty of other things you could poke at Romney about... like things he actually had something to do with, for example. :sleep:
Like SEC filings? Merely clerical errors.
Quote from: sbr on July 13, 2012, 06:51:43 AM
CdM is the Democrat's heavy machine gunner. He isn't worried about accuracy, it is all about volume of fire.
In the name of Her Majesty and the Continental Congress, come here and feed me this belt, boy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftf2wiki.net%2Fw%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FMeettheheavy4.PNG%2F350px-Meettheheavy4.PNG&hash=6d60883c59927cf169f63ac241b80823e5d8fb06)
You are so small! It's funny to me!
My Nerd reference for July.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2012, 06:44:20 AM
There are plenty of other things you could poke at Romney about... like things he actually had something to do with, for example. :sleep:
Like SEC filings? Merely clerical errors.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Ffact-checker%2FStandingArt%2Fpinocchio_3.jpg%3Fuuid%3DuLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA&hash=02018204542a8aa6212301dd96c33eae044e7d88)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 06:52:45 AM
Like SEC filings? Merely clerical errors.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Ffact-checker%2FStandingArt%2Fpinocchio_3.jpg%3Fuuid%3DuLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA&hash=02018204542a8aa6212301dd96c33eae044e7d88)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal? No. Silly question.
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is an under-the-table, no-good, shady-ass Richie Rich that likes to play shell games with his money with a public relations problem his campaign can't seem to get out from under? Yes. But we knew that already.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:22:12 AM
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is an under-the-table, no-good, shady-ass Richie Rich that likes to play shell games with his money with a public relations problem his campaign can't seem to get out from under? Yes. But we knew that already.
Eh, no they don't. And I don't see any evidence that the Obama campaign's misguided attacks are having much of an effect in voters' minds.
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 02:07:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:22:12 AM
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is an under-the-table, no-good, shady-ass Richie Rich that likes to play shell games with his money with a public relations problem his campaign can't seem to get out from under? Yes. But we knew that already.
Eh, no they don't. And I don't see any evidence that the Obama campaign's misguided attacks are having much of an effect in voters' minds.
Of course you don't; your mind is thicker than VonMoltke's bed frame supports. Quinnipiac, Pew and Rasmussen are saying otherwise.
I hope President Romney outsources your entire family straight out of Dumbfuckistan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 02:07:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:22:12 AM
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is an under-the-table, no-good, shady-ass Richie Rich that likes to play shell games with his money with a public relations problem his campaign can't seem to get out from under? Yes. But we knew that already.
Eh, no they don't. And I don't see any evidence that the Obama campaign's misguided attacks are having much of an effect in voters' minds.
Of course you don't; your mind is thicker than VonMoltke's bed frame supports. Quinnipiac, Pew and Rasmussen are saying otherwise.
I don't see much change in those, other than the normal weekly ebb & flow. If Obama were doing as well (and Romney doing as poorly) as you seem to think, it'd be about 65 to 35 in Obama's favor.
Quote
I hope President Romney outsources your entire family straight out of Dumbfuckistan.
I'm not even sure what that means.
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2012, 06:44:20 AM
There are plenty of other things you could poke at Romney about... like things he actually had something to do with, for example. :sleep:
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
I'm not even sure what that means.
Have you noticed that the deeper we get into the campaign, the more Seedy sounds like bmollsen?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2012, 03:14:42 PM
Have you noticed that the deeper we get into the campaign, the more Seedy sounds like bmollsen?
Wait until September.
RADIO HOSE YOU DID POTTED PLANT SHORN :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
:(
I think Seedy will appreciate this link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/ghost_of_leaves_of_absence_past.php
Nothing you don't already know, of course :cheers:
I've not followed this thing enough to comment on the substance, but I've two superficial thoughts.
It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.
Also Romney should never, ever have asked for an apology. He's in politics, running for President. Weak, weak, weak.
Also I suspect, though may be wrong, that this story could gain traction in defining Romney especially in Mid-Western swing states.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:22:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 06:52:45 AM
Like SEC filings? Merely clerical errors.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Ffact-checker%2FStandingArt%2Fpinocchio_3.jpg%3Fuuid%3DuLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA&hash=02018204542a8aa6212301dd96c33eae044e7d88)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal? No. Silly question.
Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is an under-the-table, no-good, shady-ass Richie Rich that likes to play shell games with his money with a public relations problem his campaign can't seem to get out from under? Yes. But we knew that already.
Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?
Quote from: Scipio on July 13, 2012, 08:06:40 PM
Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?
Nope. $350k is peanuts compared to Mittens profiteering.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2012, 06:29:02 PM
So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.
Well, he did do the evening news interview circuit tonight. To his credit, he only used "I don't recall" a few times.
QuoteAlso Romney should never, ever have asked for an apology. He's in politics, running for President. Weak, weak, weak.
Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him. For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.
QuoteAlso I suspect, though may be wrong, that this story could gain traction in defining Romney especially in Mid-Western swing states.
Doubtful. I don't think midwesterners pay much attention to the news, other than there's a black dude in Der Weiss Haus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him. For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.
It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 13, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him. For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.
It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.
Oh I dunno...'88, '00, and '04, they certainly knew how to dictate the terms of combat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 13, 2012, 08:06:40 PM
Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?
Nope. $350k is peanuts compared to Mittens profiteering.
At least he worked.
Quote from: Scipio on July 13, 2012, 10:29:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 13, 2012, 08:06:40 PM
Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?
Nope. $350k is peanuts compared to Mittens profiteering.
At least he worked.
:lol: Yeah, he worked, alright.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 13, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him. For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.
It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.
:yeahright: Republicans are very good at making the country argue on their terms, especially when it comes to economic matters. Obama is just an unusually competent knife fighter when it comes to negative campaigning, unlike most of his fellow Democrats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2012, 06:29:02 PM
It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.
The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain. Bizarre defense.
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Ffact-checker%2FStandingArt%2Fpinocchio_3.jpg%3Fuuid%3DuLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA&hash=02018204542a8aa6212301dd96c33eae044e7d88)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html
This is also odd commentary.
I am a little surprised a securities lawyer in the post-Enron, post Sarbanes age would still refer to these kinds of disclosures as "boilerplate".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2012, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2012, 06:29:02 PM
It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.
The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain. Bizarre defense.
The "SEC attack" has two prongs to it:
1.It suggests that Romney lied or misled the public about his involvement at Bain. He has always said that he retired in 1999, and these documents, at first glance, contradict that narrative.
2. It also suggests that Romney is responsible for any "bad stuff" (i.e. factory closings) that Bain was involved with post 1999.
His rebuttal, IMO, is effective as possible,as far as the first prong. Anyways, what else could he possibly say, other than "I in fact did retire in 1999 and the language in the filings was boilerplate."
As far as the second prong, there really is no effective rebuttal, since Romney is running partially on his record of a job creator at Bain, and because plenty of bad stuff happened while Romney was in charge of Bain. So, whether he was in charge of Bain post 1999, he gets to take credit, as well as responsibility for everything that happened at Bain prior to his retirement.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 13, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.
I disagree. I think Republicans are pretty good at framing the debate. It seems they've framed the debate for more or less the past 20 years or so.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2012, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Ffact-checker%2FStandingArt%2Fpinocchio_3.jpg%3Fuuid%3DuLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA&hash=02018204542a8aa6212301dd96c33eae044e7d88)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html
This is also odd commentary.
I am a little surprised a securities lawyer in the post-Enron, post Sarbanes age would still refer to these kinds of disclosures as "boilerplate".
I'm not sure why they would be considered boilerplate, but he was discussing filings in the pre Enron pre Sarbanes Oxley world.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
I'm not sure why they would be considered boilerplate, but he was discussing filings in the pre Enron pre Sarbanes Oxley world.
That was kind of my point: that whatever attitudes may have existed pre-SOX, it is eyebrow raising for someone to claim now as a present tense statement that these statements are boilerplate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
That was kind of my point: that whatever attitudes may have existed pre-SOX, it is eyebrow raising for someone to claim now as a present tense statement that these statements are boilerplate.
But it's OK now, since Ed Gillespie explained yesterday how Mittens was "retired retroactively" for 3 years. Whatever that means.
Quote from: stjaba on July 14, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2012, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2012, 06:29:02 PM
It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.
The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain. Bizarre defense.
The "SEC attack" has two prongs to it:
1.It suggests that Romney lied or misled the public about his involvement at Bain. He has always said that he retired in 1999, and these documents, at first glance, contradict that narrative.
. . .
His rebuttal, IMO, is effective as possible,as far as the first prong. Anyways, what else could he possibly say, other than "I in fact did retire in 1999 and the language in the filings was boilerplate."
He could tell the truth (as I understand it) which was - I took a leave of absence in 1999 with the intent to come back but after my experience at the Olympics I committed to public service and my leave of absence became permanent.
Otherwise he is the position of trying to explain why he was submitting information to the SEC *as a filing person* and personally signing those statements which is an acknowledgment of responsibility for the information contained inside.
This is a person whose pitch for the presidency is based in significant part on his claim to be a competent manager based on his business experience; to suggest that at certain times in that career he viewed the position of CEO to be of no significance and disclaims all responsibility during the period creates some tension.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 09:15:31 AM
But it's OK now, since Ed Gillespie explained yesterday how Mittens was "retired retroactively" for 3 years. Whatever that means.
I sort of get that.
He took a leave of absence. He planned to come back. But when it was time to come back, he had changed his mind. And in negotiating his separation from Bain at that time, it probably made some sense to date his departure date back to 1999.
The problem is where his people try to suggest that he had absolutely no role or contact with the company in the intervening three years. Either someone was forging those filings and not telling Mitt or that claim is not very believable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
The problem is where his people try to suggest that he had absolutely no role or contact with the company in the intervening three years. Either someone was forging those filings and not telling Mitt or that claim is not very believable.
Well, he's used the "leave of absence" thing before in '94 to dodge LBO criticism, so it's a convenient excuse.
When you're the founder, the CEO, and the sole shareholder, you
are the business. Doesn't matter if it's a hot dog stand or a private equities firm worth hundreds of millions: you keep tabs on what's going on with your company, and your money, in your absence.
Sole shareholder? Wut? :huh:
It means when you are the only shareholder, god what do they teach at Georgetown!?!?! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 10:03:37 AM
Sole shareholder? Wut? :huh:
I believe Romney's listed as sole shareholder in the SEC documents.
Apparently the Veep announcement can come as early as Friday.
Think there's any chance it'll actually be Petraeus?
Quote from: dps on August 08, 2012, 06:04:34 PM
Think there's any chance it'll actually be Petraeus?
No
last i heard it was three man race with, Pawlenty, Portman and...I forgot the third.
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: dps on August 08, 2012, 06:04:34 PM
Think there's any chance it'll actually be Petraeus?
No
last i heard it was three man race with, Pawlenty, Portman and...I forgot the third.
Natalie Portman?
Might have to reconsider not voting...
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2012, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: dps on August 08, 2012, 06:04:34 PM
Think there's any chance it'll actually be Petraeus?
No
last i heard it was three man race with, Pawlenty, Portman and...I forgot the third.
Natalie Portman?
Might have to reconsider not voting...
She is so bendable. :)
I thought katmai was hinting at Rick Perry. :x
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2012, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: dps on August 08, 2012, 06:04:34 PM
Think there's any chance it'll actually be Petraeus?
No
last i heard it was three man race with, Pawlenty, Portman and...I forgot the third.
Natalie Portman?
Might have to reconsider not voting...
She was quite an accomplished young student scientist and academic before becoming an actress full-time; would also help with the Jewish vote. :)
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
By all means, please put the guy that's trying to take old people's healthcare away from them on the ticket. Please oh please oh please.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 08:02:44 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
By all means, please put the guy that's trying to take old people's healthcare away from them on the ticket. Please oh please oh please.
Well, he gets Yi all hot and bothered.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 08:02:44 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
By all means, please put the guy that's trying to take old people's healthcare away from them on the ticket. Please oh please oh please.
It could be the second coming of Al Haig and you'd slander him all the same.
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2012, 10:51:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 08:02:44 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
By all means, please put the guy that's trying to take old people's healthcare away from them on the ticket. Please oh please oh please.
It could be the second coming of Al Haig and you'd slander him all the same.
And it could be Sarah Palin on the ticket again, and you'd vote for her.
Romney is the best example why business and politics should not mix, at least not directly. Why? Because it is bad for business.
The "shady dealings" Romney is being accused of (e.g. setting up a LuxCo structure to optimise tax treatment of the cash you repatriate from your investment) are pretty much a standard fare in all private equity deals, expected by investors and practiced by everybody. But to an uninitiated eye of the bloodthirsty public they look like a crime of crimes. Sigh.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 13, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him. For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.
It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.
Are you kidding me? Republicans are perfect at framing the debate - it's the Democrats who suck at it. Why do you think anti-abortion lunatics managed to get themselves called "Pro-Life"?
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:32:58 AM
Are you kidding me? Republicans are perfect at framing the debate - it's the Democrats who suck at it. Why do you think anti-abortion lunatics managed to get themselves called "Pro-Life"?
:mellow:
Abortion proponents call themselves Pro Choice.
They did pretty good at framing the debate in the Health Care thing. Ask a person if he supports "Obamacare" and he'll likely say no. Ask him about the individual provisos and he'll likely say yes on all the major ones.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2012, 03:05:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:32:58 AM
Are you kidding me? Republicans are perfect at framing the debate - it's the Democrats who suck at it. Why do you think anti-abortion lunatics managed to get themselves called "Pro-Life"?
:mellow:
Abortion proponents call themselves Pro Choice.
And considering news organizations are apt to use the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice", they haven't been all that successful. Marty's being an idiot as usual.
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2012, 10:51:58 PM
It could be the second coming of Al Haig and you'd slander him all the same.
The General would ever propose the kind of budget proposal bullshit Ryan invents. The General was an economic pragmatist, not an unyielding ideologue bent on the destruction of the economy to score partisan points.
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:27:25 AM
Romney is the best example why business and politics should not mix, at least not directly. Why? Because it is bad for business.
The "shady dealings" Romney is being accused of (e.g. setting up a LuxCo structure to optimise tax treatment of the cash you repatriate from your investment) are pretty much a standard fare in all private equity deals, expected by investors and practiced by everybody. But to an uninitiated eye of the bloodthirsty public they look like a crime of crimes. Sigh.
He didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2012, 11:44:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2012, 10:51:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 08:02:44 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 08, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There's been a hell of a lot of chatter in the Teabagger community over Ryan.
That was the third!
By all means, please put the guy that's trying to take old people's healthcare away from them on the ticket. Please oh please oh please.
It could be the second coming of Al Haig and you'd slander him all the same.
And it could be Sarah Palin on the ticket again, and you'd vote for her.
Probably would depend on who was running for President. After all, I voted for Palin though she was more of sore spot when casting my ballot for McCain.
Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2012, 08:32:21 AM
Probably would depend on who was running for President. After all, I voted for Palin though she was more of sore spot when casting my ballot for McCain.
I remember my Dad was leaning McCain about 70/30, right up to the point Palin demonstrated exactly how vapid and uneducated she really was. No way in hell after that.
And this is the guy that voted Bush in 2000, because he was comfortable with the fact that Dick Cheney would really be the one running the White House. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 08:41:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2012, 08:32:21 AM
Probably would depend on who was running for President. After all, I voted for Palin though she was more of sore spot when casting my ballot for McCain.
I remember my Dad was leaning McCain about 70/30, right up to the point Palin demonstrated exactly how vapid and uneducated she really was. No way in hell after that.
And this is the guy that voted Bush in 2000, because he was comfortable with the fact that Dick Cheney would really be the one running the White House. :lol:
I couldn't vote for the promise of chocolate milk in drinking fountains.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 06:35:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2012, 10:51:58 PM
It could be the second coming of Al Haig and you'd slander him all the same.
The General would ever propose the kind of budget proposal bullshit Ryan invents. The General was an economic pragmatist, not an unyielding ideologue bent on the destruction of the economy to score partisan points.
And yet, if The General were running for Veep on the GOP ticket opposing Obama, you'd throw him under the bus the first chance you got.
Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2012, 09:13:15 AM
And yet, if The General were running for Veep on the GOP ticket opposing Obama, you'd throw him under the bus the first chance you got.
No, I wouldn't. Because he's dead now.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 09, 2012, 08:21:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:27:25 AM
Romney is the best example why business and politics should not mix, at least not directly. Why? Because it is bad for business.
The "shady dealings" Romney is being accused of (e.g. setting up a LuxCo structure to optimise tax treatment of the cash you repatriate from your investment) are pretty much a standard fare in all private equity deals, expected by investors and practiced by everybody. But to an uninitiated eye of the bloodthirsty public they look like a crime of crimes. Sigh.
He didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.
I don't get your point.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 08:41:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2012, 08:32:21 AM
Probably would depend on who was running for President. After all, I voted for Palin though she was more of sore spot when casting my ballot for McCain.
I remember my Dad was leaning McCain about 70/30, right up to the point Palin demonstrated exactly how vapid and uneducated she really was. No way in hell after that.
And this is the guy that voted Bush in 2000, because he was comfortable with the fact that Dick Cheney would really be the one running the White House. :lol:
Dick Cheney may be evil but he is not a fool.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2012, 09:13:15 AM
And yet, if The General were running for Veep on the GOP ticket opposing Obama, you'd throw him under the bus the first chance you got.
No, I wouldn't. Because he's dead now.
Nice cop out, wuss :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 09:22:18 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 09, 2012, 08:21:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:27:25 AM
Romney is the best example why business and politics should not mix, at least not directly. Why? Because it is bad for business.
The "shady dealings" Romney is being accused of (e.g. setting up a LuxCo structure to optimise tax treatment of the cash you repatriate from your investment) are pretty much a standard fare in all private equity deals, expected by investors and practiced by everybody. But to an uninitiated eye of the bloodthirsty public they look like a crime of crimes. Sigh.
He didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.
I don't get your point.
Someone else did that.
Here ya go, derspiess. Mittens is your boy. Gee, I wonder what he'll do as President.
QuoteSheldon Adelson Pressing Mitt Romney To Call For Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard's Release: Report
Casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, a major contributor to Mitt Romney's election effort, is pressing the Republican nominee to come out for the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, a major Republican donor and associates of Adelson and Romney tell The Daily Beast.
Romney has rejected the request so far, telling Adelson he would have to review the relevant intelligence material accessible to him as president before granting Pollard clemency, said the sources, who are relaying accounts of conversations from both Adelson and Romney. Romney "could not consider the Pollard situation because he doesn't have access to the classified information," one source said.
The issue is apparently one of a handful where Romney differs from Adelson on Israel. The billionaire has also asked Romney to state publicly that Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are a waste of time because the Palestinians are unwilling to make peace, according to the sources—and he wants a firmer commitment from Romney to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in what would be a de facto recognition of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. For his part, Romney has not said peace talks are a waste of time and has gone only partway on the embassy question, saying he would undertake the move in consultation with the Israeli government—a campaign promise other presidents have made. (Adelson has pressed Romney to pledge to move the embassy without consulting the Israeli government.)
Spokespeople for both men declined to comment on the private talks between Adelson and Romney. Ron Resse, a spokesman for Adelson, was willing to say that the two men were not always on the same page. "People that support candidates are bound to disagree with these candidates on some particular issues," he told The Daily Beast. But he said Adelson and Romney agree "on most big issues." Asked what Adelson expected from Romney in return for his support, Reese said the billionaire has no expectations in terms of foreign or domestic policy. "He hopes to be invited to the Chanukah party at the White House," Reese said.
Adelson himself has acknowledged that he has a channel to Romney. "I have talked to Romney many, many, many times," Adelson told The Jewish Journal in March, when he was still supporting the failed candidacy of former House speaker Newt Gingrich. "As recently as when he was here in Vegas for the caucuses. He's not the bold decision maker like Newt Gingrich is. Every time I talk to him, [he says] 'Well, let me think about it.' Everything I've said to Mitt, he's said, 'Let me look into it.' So he's like Obama. When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, 186 times he voted present. Because he didn't want to damage his record."
Despite these disparaging remarks, Adelson assured the former Massachusetts governor during the primaries that he would have his support if he became the nominee, according to Romney donors and an associate of Adelson's. And, in recent months, the two have indeed found common cause in the quest to oust Obama from the White House. Adelson has said he would give up to $100 million in this election cycle to defeat President Obama, and he recently accompanied Romney on his tour of Israel at the end of July. At a fundraiser at Jerusalem's King David Hotel, he even introduced the candidate to the 50 or so donors in the room, according to two people present. (Participants paid between $25,000 and $50,000 to hear Romney speak.)
Yet the two appear to have a significant difference on Pollard. A former naval intelligence officer, Pollard was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for selling U.S. secrets to Israel—a crime that he acknowledged committing at the time, and which the Israeli government itself formally acknowledged in 1998. In recent years, a string of former and current national-security officials and politicians have come out in favor of granting clemency to Pollard in part because he is the only spy for an allied nation to receive a life sentence. At the top of the list are James Woolsey, a former CIA director; Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon official at the time of Pollard's arrest in 1986; and Sen. John McCain.
Nonetheless, successive U.S. presidents have refused to pardon him on the recommendation of security officials and due to the severity of his espionage. Pollard stole a huge volume of documents, including some of the intelligence establishment's most sensitive secrets. Former CIA director George Tenet wrote in his 2007 memoir that he threatened to resign his post in 1998 if President Clinton granted Benjamin Netanyahu's request to release Pollard. (Netanyahu, now in his second stint as Israel's prime minister, made the same request of Obama in January 2011.)
In December Romney was asked for his view of Pollard at a meeting with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, the group's CEO, "He did not say what people wanted to hear. Instead he gave a more nuanced response and pointed to the fact that when he was governor of Massachusetts, he did not review decisions of the court unless there was judicial misconduct. When some in the audience raised information about the disproportionate sentence and some of the allegations of judicial misconduct in the Pollard case, Romney said he would review the facts when he was president."[/b]
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things? I mean, if nothing else, Romney has shown himself the master of taking people's cash, pretending to agree with that person and then doing what ever the fuck he wants.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things? I mean, if nothing else, Romney has shown himself the master of taking people's cash, pretending to agree with that person and then doing what ever the fuck he wants.
Yeah, every President since Pollard went to jail has been pressed to pardon him, and there's always been some people who want to move the US embassy to Jerusalem (well, always as in since the Isrealis took it). I don't see anything in the article that suggests that Romney is actually going to grant any of these requests. If there is any evidence that he will, I'd like to see it. I don't think I could vote for him in good conscience if he's going to do any of the stuff in the article.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things?
He's managed to do the bidding of the radical right everywhere else along the line, why would this be any different?
I don't believe he's got the spine to say no to the guy giving his election campaign $100 million. He hasn't demonstrated any spine yet on any other policy issue his handlers have demanded.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things?
He's managed to do the bidding of the radical right everywhere else along the line, why would this be any different?
I don't believe he's got the spine to say no to the guy giving his election campaign $100 million. He hasn't demonstrated any spine yet on any other policy issue his handlers have demanded.
Well not to his face, but I don't think Romney is honest with conservatives. He's a corporate type, he's all smiles and encouragement one day, and the next you get a pink slip.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things?
He's managed to do the bidding of the radical right everywhere else along the line, why would this be any different?
I don't believe he's got the spine to say no to the guy giving his election campaign $100 million. He hasn't demonstrated any spine yet on any other policy issue his handlers have demanded.
???? The article you yourself posted said that he's pretty clearly just putting the guy off.
And I certainly don't see the idea of pardoning Pollard to be a right-wing issue. I hate to put it this way, but essentially it's not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it's a Jewish issue.
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
???? The article you yourself posted said that he's pretty clearly just putting the guy off.
For now. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
QuoteAnd I certainly don't see the idea of pardoning Pollard to be a right-wing issue. I hate to put it this way, but essentially it's not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it's a Jewish issue.
Israel just loves it some American right-wingers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2012, 10:07:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 09:22:18 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 09, 2012, 08:21:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2012, 02:27:25 AM
Romney is the best example why business and politics should not mix, at least not directly. Why? Because it is bad for business.
The "shady dealings" Romney is being accused of (e.g. setting up a LuxCo structure to optimise tax treatment of the cash you repatriate from your investment) are pretty much a standard fare in all private equity deals, expected by investors and practiced by everybody. But to an uninitiated eye of the bloodthirsty public they look like a crime of crimes. Sigh.
He didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.
I don't get your point.
Someone else did that.
Elaborate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things?
He's managed to do the bidding of the radical right everywhere else along the line, why would this be any different?
Did he really? While in a position of power?
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 12:51:10 AM
Did he really? While in a position of power?
You going to tell me that the presidential nominee for the Republican Party, and the pre factum head of the Party itself, isn't a position of power when it comes to the party planks?
Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you. You don't even know law, let alone US politics. Fuck off and molest a hospitalized 15 year old, make a sandwich, go do something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 01:00:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 12:51:10 AM
Did he really? While in a position of power?
You going to tell me that the presidential nominee for the Republican Party, and the pre factum head of the Party itself, isn't a position of power when it comes to the party planks?
Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you. You don't even know law, let alone US politics. Fuck off and molest a hospitalized 15 year old, make a sandwich, go do something.
Well, I think that if you are going to respond to the "so he is spouting the right wing rhetoric on this issue but won't do it", the "well, he also spouted a lot of right wing rhetoric on other issues but hasn't been able to do anything yet" is not the best retort.
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Is there any indication that Romney would actually do any of those stupid things?
He's managed to do the bidding of the radical right everywhere else along the line, why would this be any different?
I don't believe he's got the spine to say no to the guy giving his election campaign $100 million. He hasn't demonstrated any spine yet on any other policy issue his handlers have demanded.
???? The article you yourself posted said that he's pretty clearly just putting the guy off.
And I certainly don't see the idea of pardoning Pollard to be a right-wing issue. I hate to put it this way, but essentially it's not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it's a Jewish issue.
I think it's a right wing issue in Israel. Bibi is big on it. No idea why. The guy is a loser, he wasn't even a good spy. The Navy shouldn't have hired him, or kept him when it became clear he was a loon. The Israelis shouldn't have accepted his offers to spy, if not for the moral reason of not spying on the US, for the practical reason that anyone who spent time with him knew he was flake and that Intelligence agencies should know better then to just accept walk-ins.
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
And I certainly don't see the idea of pardoning Pollard to be a right-wing issue. I hate to put it this way, but essentially it's not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it's a Jewish issue.
The Jewish issues tend to be hard-right issues, which I find personally disappointing. While there are a lot of left-wing Jews, they tend to not be organized as a recognizable Jewish force.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 09, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
He hasn't demonstrated any spine yet on any other policy issue his handlers have demanded.
Sometimes politicians say things they have no intention of following through on. See: Obama, 2008.
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
And if Romney doesn't tell us, we don't know what he did as governor? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
And if Romney doesn't tell us, we don't know what he did as governor? :huh:
Nobody wants to believe the Boston Globe. That's the Lamestream Media.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
And if Romney doesn't tell us, we don't know what he did as governor? :huh:
Nobody wants to believe the Boston Globe. That's the Lamestream Media.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:18:22 AM
I don't even know what you are trying to say here.
If the candidate and his campaign isn't going to tell us about his record in Massachusetts, who else can we rely upon? You sure as shit aren't going to listen to the Boston Globe, right?
Who is "you"? Me?
I don't think the Boston Globe is the only news source that had articles about Romney as governor.
Lastly, what do you care about records? Didn't you vote for Obama in '08?
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Who is "you"? Me?
Yeah, you.
QuoteLastly, what do you care about records? Didn't you vote for Obama in '08?
Because it's part of the democratic process. Why wouldn't he run on his record in Massachusetts, as a demonstration of his experience in pragmatism and bipartisanship? Hell, if I lived in Boston at the time, I probably would've voted for him myself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
Unlike Obama, who...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 09:28:50 AM
Yeah, you.
Why couldn't I look at the Boston Globe? I mean I did when I lived in that state. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 09:28:50 AM
Because it's part of the democratic process. Why wouldn't he run on his record in Massachusetts, as a demonstration of his experience in pragmatism and bipartisanship? Hell, if I lived in Boston at the time, I probably would've voted for him myself.
I'm not sure if you are being serious. If he ran on what he did in Massachusetts, he would never have gotten his party's nomination and he'd do poorly in the general.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
Unlike Obama, who...
Indeed. Didn't have a record and then made tons of promises that he never intended to keep.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:37:01 AM
If he ran on what he did in Massachusetts, he would never have gotten his party's nomination and he'd do poorly in the general.
Then that's the real shame, isn't it? Instead of being a moderate, he'd rather be an empty suit willing to toss years of moderate convictions aside.
Quote from: Kleves on August 10, 2012, 08:41:31 AM
Sometimes politicians say things they have no intention of following through on. See: Obama, 2008.
Shock and, indeed, horror.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 09:39:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:37:01 AM
If he ran on what he did in Massachusetts, he would never have gotten his party's nomination and he'd do poorly in the general.
Then that's the real shame, isn't it? Instead of being a moderate, he'd rather be an empty suit willing to toss years of moderate convictions aside.
No, I don't think it is a shame (beyond the fact that political campaigns are about pandering). Political campaigns are all about getting votes. Then once in place Pols do whatever they were going to do with no credence to campaign posturing. As the refrain goes - See Obama.
To me both Obama and Romney are empty suits on 99% of all issues - the living conditions of an average American won't change in the slightest no matter which one of them is elected. Sure, different people will get their panties in a bunch if one of these guys bows to the Japanese emperor or the other guy tells Israelis they are a master race, but beyond that there will be no fucking difference.
I can't believe people get up in arms so much about this.
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 09:50:30 AM
To me both Obama and Romney are empty suits on 99% of all issues - the living conditions of an average American won't change in the slightest no matter which one of them is elected. Sure, different people will get their panties in a bunch if one of these guys bows to the Japanese emperor or the other guy tells Israelis they are a master race, but beyond that there will be no fucking difference.
I can't believe people get up in arms so much about this.
"Empty suits" in American politics pander to their bases, which means significant differences depending on which party the suit belongs to even if their (lack of) convictions are the same.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
Unlike Obama, who...
Indeed. Didn't have a record and then made tons of promises that he never intended to keep.
I was thinking more about how he's too afraid to run on his record right now, but yeah.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 08:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Really, we wouldn't know; he refuses to run on his record, or even talk about it.
Unlike Obama, who...
Indeed. Didn't have a record and then made tons of promises that he never intended to keep.
Yeah, Obama promised to step up the search for Bin Laden, I don't think we're even looking for the guy anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2012, 10:54:23 AM
Yeah, Obama promised to step up the search for Bin Laden, I don't think we're even looking for the guy anymore.
That's one.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:46:05 AMI was thinking more about how he's too afraid to run on his record right now, but yeah.
I haven't been following it that closely, but from what I've seen Obama is running on Obamacare, repealing DADT, the bailout of the auto industry and getting bin Laden amongst other things.
Is he not in fact running on those things? Or are they not his record?
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:46:05 AMI was thinking more about how he's too afraid to run on his record right now, but yeah.
I haven't been following it that closely, but from what I've seen Obama is running on Obamacare, repealing DADT, the bailout of the auto industry and getting bin Laden amongst other things.
Is he not in fact running on those things? Or are they not his record?
He mentions those things when he goes & speaks with particular interest groups, but makes no mention of them in his campaign ads. Those are 100% negative Romney attacks.
If I were Obama I wouldn't run on my record, either.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
If I were Obama I wouldn't run on my record, either.
And you would call yourself Barry :)
Quote from: dps on August 09, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
???? The article you yourself posted said that he's pretty clearly just putting the guy off.
And I certainly don't see the idea of pardoning Pollard to be a right-wing issue. I hate to put it this way, but essentially it's not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it's a Jewish issue.
Hell no it's not.
It's some deranged ultra-Zionist issue. "Israeli infallibility" or something like that.
Plenty of Jews including yours truly think that traitorous shit should stay where he is.
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
That was evil twin Mitt; didn't you see "Romney: the Sequel" aka the 2012 GOP primary? The Massachusetts Romney was a changeling. A doppleganger. A disguised double inflitrated by the Liberal Media Conspiracy while the real Mitt was kept drugged and under wraps deep in the bowels of the national HQ of ACORN. Or maybe it was all just a dream . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
In fact, if you look at his record as the governor of Massachussets, he is the exact opposite of what you claim.
That was evil twin Mitt; didn't you see "Romney: the Sequel" aka the 2012 GOP primary? The Massachusetts Romney was a changeling. A doppleganger. A disguised double inflitrated by the Liberal Media Conspiracy while the real Mitt was kept drugged and under wraps deep in the bowels of the national HQ of ACORN. Or maybe it was all just a dream . . .
Was he a governor in the 2012 GOP primary? Seems more like he's just gung-ho on telling people what he thinks he wants to hear. What worked in liberal Massachusetts doesn't play as well on the GOP mainstage so his campaigning points have take a sharp right.
Fox News has him down 9 points. Mitt's campaign really sucks. If you can't do better than that against a president running with our economy, you are entering "worst candidate ever" territory.
Well, our economy hasn't really been doing all that well since 2000.
If you want the economy to be as good as in the 90s just do what Bill Clinton did.
Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2012, 01:04:36 PM
If you want the economy to be as good as in the 90s just do what Bill Clinton did.
Put Hillary in the White House?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2012, 12:44:19 PM
Fox News has him down 9 points. Mitt's campaign really sucks. If you can't do better than that against a president running with our economy, you are entering "worst candidate ever" territory.
Oh yeah, *now* you guys take something seriously from Fox News.
Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 among likely voters. Gallup has them dead even.
CNN also has him down.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:46:05 AMI was thinking more about how he's too afraid to run on his record right now, but yeah.
I haven't been following it that closely, but from what I've seen Obama is running on Obamacare, repealing DADT, the bailout of the auto industry and getting bin Laden amongst other things.
Is he not in fact running on those things? Or are they not his record?
He mentions those things when he goes & speaks with particular interest groups, but makes no mention of them in his campaign ads. Those are 100% negative Romney attacks.
If I were Obama I wouldn't run on my record, either.
C'mon, you know I could find one positive ad just for the joy of proving someone wrong, don't open yourself up like that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2012, 12:46:45 PM
Well, our economy hasn't really been doing all that well since 2000.
2000-2008 was :huh: , 2008-2012 has been :x.
Not really all on Obama, but I don't know how many voters will make the distinction.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2012, 12:44:19 PM
Fox News has him down 9 points. Mitt's campaign really sucks. If you can't do better than that against a president running with our economy, you are entering "worst candidate ever" territory.
Oh yeah, *now* you guys take something seriously from Fox News.
Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 among likely voters. Gallup has them dead even.
I don't know if we should take Rasmussen seriously, but the others make sense--Obama has a decent but not overwhelming lead. Intrade has Romeny's odds just under 40%. I guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.
Well it isn't like it is news that Romney isn't the ideal candidate. :D
Romney has been laying low since securing the nomination, giving no clear message, just raising money (beating Obama in the money race). Voter attention is still utterly low now compared to 2008. Let's see what happens when Romney has the Republican National Convention and picks his running mate. Then we will see if he tries to "change" as voters finally tune in.
For perspective, here is the tracking of average polls from 2004: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_bush_vs_kerry.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_bush_vs_kerry.html)
and 2008: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_obama_vs_mccain.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_obama_vs_mccain.html)
Both races did not decisively turn until September/October.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 10, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
Romney has been laying low since securing the nomination, giving no clear message,
No kidding.
If things start to cement in September, that is less than a month than now. A lot of money isn't going to do much good without a message.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2012, 01:59:08 PM
I don't know if we should take Rasmussen seriously, but the others make sense--Obama has a decent but not overwhelming lead. Intrade has Romeny's odds just under 40%. I guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.
Rasmussen was on the money in 2008, and it only surveys likely voters. Obama wins nearly every poll that surveys registered voters. That's great for him & all, but he is going to need to convince some of those people to actually get out and vote. There's no denying that enthusiasm for Obama is less in 2012 than it was in 2008.
Now obviously the Likely Voter demographic isn't as important now as it will be in October/November, but I still think it's worth paying attention to.
And if it makes you feel any better, my gut at this point is still that Obama gets reelected.
QuoteI guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.
I think Romney is a good enough candidate to win and Obama is vulnerable. As long as Romney doesn't bungle the Veep choice and the GOP doesn't step on its crank with the convention (which otherwise I think should be a net gain for Romney between the two conventions), I think we'll see a very tight race by the last month or so.
For what its worth, I put the most weight on the betting odds at this point, which have Romney as a decided underdog but with a punchers chance.
I don't think that Romney will get much of a bounce from a VP pick, because he doesn't have any good options. The talent in the Republican Party just isn't there. I don't think I have partisan blinders on when I say that: I think the depth among VP capable democrats is poor too.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
For what its worth, I put the most weight on the betting odds at this point, which have Romney as a decided underdog but with a punchers chance.
I don't think that Romney will get much of a bounce from a VP pick, because he doesn't have any good options. The talent in the Republican Party just isn't there. I don't think I have partisan blinders on when I say that: I think the depth among VP capable democrats is poor too.
I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful. And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful. And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.
I'm curious which ones you are thinking of....
Petreaus I'd say would be one, but I doubt he is in play. He is the only one that isn't going to seem a bit flaky or scare people.
Good choices policy-wise from his perspective maybe.
I think AR is right that neither side have anyone in the bullpen who would excite people.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
And I think Romney has some good choices for VP,
They're all keeping their powder dry for 2016.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2012, 03:13:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful. And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.
I'm curious which ones you are thinking of....
Petreaus I'd say would be one, but I doubt he is in play. He is the only one that isn't going to seem a bit flaky or scare people.
Petraeus would be a home run but obviously he's a longshot. He's the only game-changer, so if that's what you were saying I agree with you. But I think Rubio, Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels would be net positives. Portman would be a safe, boring pick if Mitt isn't willing to roll the dice.
For Obama, Hillary would've been a great VP pick this go-around. I think anyone who can keep his/her mouth shut sometimes would be an improvement over Crazy Joe.
Yeah, having Hillary a lynch mob away from the White House would be awesome. :rolleyes:
Obama would be leading polls by double digits if Clinton was his VP nominee.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 02:42:46 PM
Rasmussen was on the money in 2008, and it only surveys likely voters.
See below, all from Nate Silver:
QuoteOne definition of how "scientific" a poll is is the percentage of the adult population that it can potentially hope to reach. That isn't a complete definition, mind you -- it's more of a necessary than a sufficient condition -- but it isn't a useless one. By this definition, Rasmussen's polling isn't very scientific: because of certain shortcuts that they take, well over half of the American population will be physically unable to take one of their phone calls.
Rasmussen typically conducts its polling on weeknights, calling between 5 PM and 9 PM over the course of a single evening. They do not call phone numbers back, as most other pollsters do, in the event they don't get an answer the first time. They don't call cellphones -- only landlines. And they speak to the first person they get on the line if they speak to anybody at all; other polling firms use carefully-designed procedures to randomize the selection of respondent within the household (a typical mechanism is something like asking that the adult with the next birthday come to the phone).
QuoteThe bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen's polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.
And on the 2010 midterms:
QuoteThe 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
One more thing: just focusing on the fact the Rasmussen polls using only landlines, one would expect that such a methodology, while perhaps not too distorting in the middle of the last decade, would become more systematically error prone over time.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 10, 2012, 04:03:14 PM
Obama would be leading polls by double digits if Clinton was his VP nominee.
I don't think there's that many garbons out there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 10, 2012, 04:03:14 PM
Obama would be leading polls by double digits if Clinton was his VP nominee.
I don't think there's that many garbons out there.
I don't know that I agree with Philip V about how much she'd change it - but Hillary does seem to have high public appeal these days.
I did see an interesting stat today, though: Mittens has the lowest "approval/likeability" ratings for a presumptive nominee during the month before his party's convention since Walter Mondale in 1984.
Walter. Fucking. Mondale.
For those of you that are too young to remember the 1984 race: that is a really, really bad statistic.
How far in advance of '84 dem convention did Mondale pick Geraldine?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 06:40:35 PM
I did see an interesting stat today, though: Mittens has the lowest "approval/likeability" ratings for a presumptive nominee during the month before his party's convention since Walter Mondale in 1984.
Walter. Fucking. Mondale.
For those of you that are too young to remember the 1984 race: that is a really, really bad statistic.
Yeah, most people don't want to elect Gordon Gecko to the White House. Except maybe Tamas, and he can't vote.
Quote from: katmai on August 10, 2012, 07:02:06 PM
How far in advance of '84 dem convention did Mondale pick Geraldine?
Pretty sure it waited until the actual convention.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2012, 07:56:28 PM
Except maybe Tamas, and he can't vote.
Hey, I like to make fun of Tamas as much as anyone, but I'm sure he'd be able to figure it out if he puts his mind to it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 12, 2012, 09:19:24 PM
Romney is a notorious spendthrift. This is pure conjecture,
Yeah it is pure conjecture, considering he had no problem running the Olympics over budget and begging the federal government to bail out the overruns.
And let's not forget the cost overruns of the Big Dig. Yeah, he's a notorious spendthrift, when it's his money. Got no problem spending tax dollars.
'Spendthrift' means to spend money excessively, not to be thrifty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 06:40:35 PM
I did see an interesting stat today, though: Mittens has the lowest "approval/likeability" ratings for a presumptive nominee during the month before his party's convention since Walter Mondale in 1984.
Walter. Fucking. Mondale.
For those of you that are too young to remember the 1984 race: that is a really, really bad statistic.
I seem to remember thinking that Eleanor Mondale was pretty good-looking.
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2012, 09:50:30 AM
To me both Obama and Romney are empty suits on 99% of all issues - the living conditions of an average American won't change in the slightest no matter which one of them is elected. Sure, different people will get their panties in a bunch if one of these guys bows to the Japanese emperor or the other guy tells Israelis they are a master race, but beyond that there will be no fucking difference.
I can't believe people get up in arms so much about this.
It is the least meaningful vote I cast. UNless you live in a swing state it is sort of amusing to see people freaking out about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 06:40:35 PM
I did see an interesting stat today, though: Mittens has the lowest "approval/likeability" ratings for a presumptive nominee during the month before his party's convention since Walter Mondale in 1984.
Walter. Fucking. Mondale.
For those of you that are too young to remember the 1984 race: that is a really, really bad statistic.
Yeah but Obama is no Ronald Reagan either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 10, 2012, 06:40:35 PM
I did see an interesting stat today, though: Mittens has the lowest "approval/likeability" ratings for a presumptive nominee during the month before his party's convention since Walter Mondale in 1984.
Walter. Fucking. Mondale.
For those of you that are too young to remember the 1984 race: that is a really, really bad statistic.
Obama's likeability and Romney's unlikeability/unknown is what is keeping the President floating above the economy and retaining a slight edge in polls. People are still giving Obama a fond benefit of a doubt. Whether that free smile card lasts until September/October is the question, and whether Romney can shift personal opinion/knowledge of him.
Rumblings saying the announcement will be tomorrow
Romney will announce his running mate in 9 hours.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said that he was called by Romney and not chosen. Good.
Political pundits are guessing U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
I want David Petraeus.
Paul Ryan up over 90% odds on Intrade (started the day 70% lower).
Quote from: Phillip V on August 10, 2012, 11:16:58 PM
Romney will announce his running mate in 9 hours.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said that he was called by Romney and not chosen. Good.
Political pundits are guessing U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
I want David Petraeus.
It hurts me to see you disappointed.
Glad to see the Republicans don't want the race to go on much longer either.
Quote from: katmai on August 10, 2012, 11:22:49 PM
Glad to see the Republicans don't want the race to go on much longer either.
Yeah. I like Ryan personally, but the Dems have had a big head start dragging him through the mud.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 11:54:14 PM
Yeah. I like Ryan personally, but the Dems have had a big head start dragging him through the mud.
It's not that difficult. He's makes it easy enough, what with being a douchebag. Only Eric Cantor could be a bigger box of Summer's Eve squirt bottles.
Politico has went ahead and declared that Paul Ryan is the VP pick.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79582.html
That's the twerp with the deficit reduction plans that always increase the deficit, right?
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 01:16:13 AM
Politico has went ahead and declared that Paul Ryan is the VP pick.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79582.html
Well, he wrapped up the Yi vote.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 11, 2012, 01:22:17 AM
That's the twerp with the deficit reduction plans that always increase the deficit, right?
Yeah, pretty much. Big fan of catastrophic austerity measures. Because they work so well, you know.
What'll be really interesting, as the Veep nominee on the campaign, is how he's going to convince the nation's codgers and bluehairs that taking away their medicare and giving them a flat amount this-is-all-you-get-this-year-and-the-rest-of-the-costs-are-on-you-regardless-of-what-happens-to-you voucher check is going to work.
Should be fun as balls to watch the four-pronged walkers and oxygen tanks fly at the podium.
Oooh, it's gonna be announced in Norfolk, at the USS Wisconsin, no less!
Neil just voted in his pants.
Both John Boehner's top press people, Mike Steele and Brendan Buck--who left for the campaign earlier in the week--are going to work directly for Paul Ryan, as opposed to Romney.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2012, 01:53:41 AM
Neil just voted in his pants.
IMO rather stupid of him (Romney)
Seems desperation to me
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 01:47:25 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 11, 2012, 01:22:17 AM
That's the twerp with the deficit reduction plans that always increase the deficit, right?
Yeah, pretty much. Big fan of catastrophic austerity measures. Because they work so well, you know.
What'll be really interesting, as the Veep nominee on the campaign, is how he's going to convince the nation's codgers and bluehairs that taking away their medicare and giving them a flat amount this-is-all-you-get-this-year-and-the-rest-of-the-costs-are-on-you-regardless-of-what-happens-to-you voucher check is going to work.
Should be fun as balls to watch the four-pronged walkers and oxygen tanks fly at the podium.
That's not fair. They weren't real austerity measures. Austerity measures are suppose to reduce deficit, his plan had tax cuts.
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 02:28:53 AM
Seems desperation to me
I'm not sure who else he could pick. The bigger stars in the GOP don't want to go, and even if they did they'd overshadow him. His other choices are some governor or senator nobody knows about (and most people don't know who Paul Ryan is), or one of the losers he defeated in the Primary. The person this benefits the most is Paul Ryan. When Romney loses, Ryan will be in a position to run for higher office in the future, possibly even President.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 02:30:05 AM
That's not fair. They weren't real austerity measures. Austerity measures are suppose to reduce deficit, his plan had tax cuts.
Good point. Tax cuts and increased defense spending isn't very austere.
Too funny, Mittens walking down the gangplank of the USS Wisconsin to a movie soundtrack, about as comfortable as a nine iron.
Classic gaffe, Mittenses.
"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States...Paul Ryan!"
Classic, Mittens. Classic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 08:29:14 AM
Classic gaffe, Mittenses.
"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States...Paul Ryan!"
Classic, Mittens. Classic.
Maybe he knows something about his health that we don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 01:51:14 AM
Oooh, it's gonna be announced in Norfolk, at the USS Wisconsin, no less!
That's terrible. Abusing a dreadnought battleship the most noble of all locations, with a display of a doomed VP candidate who also has despicable views about taxation and state finances.
I like that 16-year-old Paul Ryan found his father dead in their home; built character.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 09:50:59 AM
I like that 16-year-old Paul Ryan found his father dead in their home; built character.
Are you buying that story at face value? Has an autopsy been done to establish there was no foul play involved?
Similar to how McCain subconsciously picked a young attractive female to boost his ego with praises (Palin), Romney picks a young fatherless male to serve as an adopted son?(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/39.gif)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-UD393_ryan08_G_20120811094725.jpg&hash=9874f896562cc40ed8d9e29235eacdb60438be43)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F20120812-ROMNEY-slide-XIGT%2F20120812-ROMNEY-slide-XIGT-hpLarge.jpg&hash=5a087b986b250ddaccf65e8097019f927ad1609c)
Awww, they look so cute together. :)
I'll give Romney one thing, for a 65 year old he looks damn good.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 09:39:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 01:51:14 AM
Oooh, it's gonna be announced in Norfolk, at the USS Wisconsin, no less!
That's terrible. Abusing a dreadnought battleship the most noble of all locations, with a display of a doomed VP candidate who also has despicable views about taxation and state finances.
I'm not sure what the movie soundtrack was, that was playing--wasn't Armageddon, wasn't Transformers--but it was something recent, patriotic and action-oriented, very Michael Bay-ish. It's right *there* in my head, can't think of the movie.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2012, 10:12:16 AM
I'll give Romney one thing, for a 65 year old he looks damn good.
A lifetime of exercise and no alcohol or caffeine will do that to you.
But Romney looked much better at age 64. He put on some facial weight over the winter and has not yet gotten rid of it. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:08:30 AM
Similar to how McCain subconsciously picked a young attractive female to boost his ego with praises (Palin), Romney picks a young fatherless male to serve as an adopted son?
Right, because he doesn't have enough of them with the WASP preparatory version of the Boys From Brazil.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:16:02 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:08:30 AM
Similar to how McCain subconsciously picked a young attractive female to boost his ego with praises (Palin), Romney picks a young fatherless male to serve as an adopted son?
Right, because he doesn't have enough of them with the WASP preparatory version of the Boys From Brazil.
There can never be enough. Always need moar.
The Romney sons are currently looking at Paul Ryan with great jealousy.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
The Romney sons are currently looking at Paul Ryan with great jealousy.
You think they'll start with banging him in, Pelican Bay SP Latin Kings-style, or will they just do the hyena thing and wait for him to be separated from the pack?
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
Hey, they did it in front of a battleship. That'll be enough for FOX.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
Hey, they did it in front of a battleship. That'll be enough for FOX.
This pretty much seals it for me. Looks like I'll be voting Obama again.
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
And no military veterans on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:14:03 AM
I'm not sure what the movie soundtrack was, that was playing--wasn't Armageddon, wasn't Transformers--but it was something recent, patriotic and action-oriented, very Michael Bay-ish. It's right *there* in my head, can't think of the movie.
Air Force One. :smarty:
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:36:54 AM
And no military veterans on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. :(
Different generations coming into play. Mittens is the last of the generation of elitist Vietnam draft dodgers, Biden got his deferments and got bounced from the draft with asthma issues, Obama was too young for Vietnam, too old for Desert Storm, and Ryan...well, he went to college.
Don't worry, the next generation of ex-servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan will be joining the political process; some already have for mixed results. Would be interesting to see how things look another 12-16 years down the road. I have a feeling a lot of vets from these two wars will have a significantly interesting opinion on foreign policy.
Quote from: Kleves on August 11, 2012, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:14:03 AM
I'm not sure what the movie soundtrack was, that was playing--wasn't Armageddon, wasn't Transformers--but it was something recent, patriotic and action-oriented, very Michael Bay-ish. It's right *there* in my head, can't think of the movie.
Air Force One. :smarty:
Fuck, you are so right. It was right *there*, man!
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:36:54 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
And no military veterans on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. :(
As seedy alluded to, our time will come. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:47:41 AM
Quote from: Kleves on August 11, 2012, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:14:03 AM
I'm not sure what the movie soundtrack was, that was playing--wasn't Armageddon, wasn't Transformers--but it was something recent, patriotic and action-oriented, very Michael Bay-ish. It's right *there* in my head, can't think of the movie.
Air Force One. :smarty:
Fuck, you are so right. It was right *there*, man!
Recent? :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2012, 11:06:02 AM
Recent? :lol:
Well, it has been on cable the last couple months...:unsure:
Weird that Obama's the only Protestant on either ticket. With the Supreme Court, a definite end to WASP America.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 01:07:49 PM
Weird that Obama's the only Protestant on either ticket. With the Supreme Court, a definite end to WASP America.
Obama's a Muslim. ;)
Soon an end to WHITE America.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fafro.gif&hash=f61870c5353f3bef50ffec83d196bf3153bd522e) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fosama.gif&hash=82e9c0ac9ad92f2e64e6806f3ff729f2ef913486)
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2012, 10:12:16 AM
I'll give Romney one thing, for a 65 year old he looks damn good.
A lifetime of exercise and no alcohol or caffeine will do that to you.
But Romney looked much better at age 64. He put on some facial weight over the winter and has not yet gotten rid of it. :(
The color of his hair is coming out of can.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 10:21:24 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
The Romney sons are currently looking at Paul Ryan with great jealousy.
You think they'll start with banging him in, Pelican Bay SP Latin Kings-style, or will they just do the hyena thing and wait for him to be separated from the pack?
Here is one Romney son offstage who looks to be crying with jealousy and shame.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F20120812-ROMNEY-slide-73A9%2F20120812-ROMNEY-slide-73A9-hpLarge.jpg&hash=3411c797d6a549bfe2e93f6cf0fd0c4405a84864)
As Seedy has pointed out the choice of Ryan gives Obama a mountain of ammunition for negative ads. It also elevates deficit reduction as a campaign issue.
Bad choice for Romney, great choice for the US.
Honestly, I think he'd have been better off with Pawlenty.
Sure, a boring white dude, but at least when he speaks publicly on the stump, he actually connects with people with that folksy-aw-shucks shit that worked for Huckabee.
Pawlenty would've been a natural counterbalance to Mittens' Close-Encounters-of-the-Country-Club-Kind lack of humanity and personality. I KNOW NASCAR TEAM OWNERS I LIKE TREES HARDWARE STUFF
The only benefit Ryan provides for Romney is if he actually wins: as a Vice President, driving the agenda in the Congress he knows, he'd work wonders. But not a candidate.
Personally, with picking Ryan, I think they just gift-wrapped Florida for the President.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
As Seedy has pointed out the choice of Ryan gives Obama a mountain of ammunition for negative ads. It also elevates deficit reduction as a campaign issue.
Bad choice for Romney, great choice for the US.
I agree with Ezra Klein, which is rare, Ryan's not a deficky hawk, he's a conservative reformer. I also think he may be one of the best choices Romney had available. I think it's the best move by Romney in a while.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 02:57:58 PM
I agree with Ezra Klein, which is rare, Ryan's not a deficky hawk, he's a conservative reformer.
Sounds to me like a repackaging of the old Democratic claim that deficit reduction is not "real" unless it includes tax increases.
More that it's not real if it cuts the top rate of tax to 25% and eliminates capital gains tax entirely. But on that point no deficit reduction plan is credible without some tax increases, it's never happened.
But you're right I believe that's why he couldn't endorse Bowles-Simpson.
But it's not necessarily a negative, unless your only issue is deficit reduction.
I am confident that President Romney will raise revenue via taxes and fees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 02:57:58 PM
I agree with Ezra Klein, which is rare, Ryan's not a deficky hawk, he's a conservative reformer.
Sounds to me like a repackaging of the old Democratic claim that deficit reduction is not "real" unless it includes tax increases.
That claim isn't exclusive to Democrats. You shouldn't forget about independents and reasonable Republicans.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 04:02:35 PM
That claim isn't exclusive to Democrats. You shouldn't forget about independents and reasonable Republicans.
It's spin. The bond market doesn't give two shits whether defict reduction comes from taxes or spending.
If you mean that it's not just Democrats that would prefer to cut the deficit through a mix, I don't disagree (although I would argue that Democrats are still more interested in kicking the can down the road). That's not the same thing as saying Ryan's plan is not "real." Disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreal.
Let's say someone put out a plan to reduce carbon emissions by outlawing gas powered vehicles in the US.
Would that be a "real" plan?
Watching Mittens' doing a rally in Virginia right now. Oh, man. He's about as inspiring as a vending machine.
And he's still doing the Obama "if you have a business, you didn't build that" schtick. Isn't that over two weeks old already? Isn't the expiration date on sloganeering over once the rest of America figures it out?
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:27:46 PM
Let's say someone put out a plan to reduce carbon emissions by outlawing gas powered vehicles in the US.
Would that be a "real" plan?
Presumably the Ryan plan where most of the cuts are back ended and the budget is balanced 10 years down the line. Of course, that's not kicking the can.
Quote from: sbr on August 11, 2012, 04:27:46 PM
Let's say someone put out a plan to reduce carbon emissions by outlawing gas powered vehicles in the US.
Would that be a "real" plan?
Sure. If enacted it would achieve it's goal.
Obama wanted to cap and trade. Politically impossible now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a real plan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 04:02:35 PM
That claim isn't exclusive to Democrats. You shouldn't forget about independents and reasonable Republicans.
It's spin. The bond market doesn't give two shits whether defict reduction comes from taxes or spending.
If you mean that it's not just Democrats that would prefer to cut the deficit through a mix, I don't disagree (although I would argue that Democrats are still more interested in kicking the can down the road). That's not the same thing as saying Ryan's plan is not "real." Disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreal.
You're the one who brought in the language of 'real' or not. The bond markets may not care about the composition of fiscal consolidation but they care about its political feasibility and its credibility. On both counts, the Ryan plan fails. So the question is then whether deficit reduction or his view on tax cuts etc matters more. My view is that he's primarily a reformer and that that's the priority, not deficit reduction.
Also from historical examples no significant deficit reduction plan has ever been solely composed of spending cuts. So to use your language of 'real' or not, it may be a real plan, but only in the way fusion's a real energy policy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 04:39:25 PM
You're the one who brought in the language of 'real' or not. The bond markets may not care about the composition of fiscal consolidation but they care about its political feasibility and its credibility. On both counts, the Ryan plan fails. So the question is then whether deficit reduction or his view on tax cuts etc matters more. My view is that he's primarily a reformer and that that's the priority, not deficit reduction.
Also from historical examples no significant deficit reduction plan has ever been solely composed of spending cuts. So to use your language of 'real' or not, it may be a real plan, but only in the way fusion's a real energy policy.
No I'm not. It's a term several posters here have used before. It's not unseen in the media or from Democratic spin doctors.
Look, if political feasibility is a determinant of a plan's "reality," then any deficit reduction is by defintion unreal.
Also I hate the kicking the can down the road thing. The can's already down the bloody road. The major issue for long-term fiscal policy is an ageing society and the associated pension and healthcare costs. The deficit matters far less in the medium to long-term than that, the issue is how to kick the can.
For example the government here's passed pension reform speeding up the increase of pensionable age. It matters not one jot to our current deficit, but does help the long-term debt situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:44:11 PM
No I'm not. It's a term several posters here have used before. It's not unseen in the media or from Democratic spin doctors.
Okay but you were talking to me when you brought it up.
QuoteLook, if political feasibility is a determinant of a plan's "reality," then any deficit reduction is by defintion unreal.
Nonsense. Your deficit's falling and there are examples in the US of deficit reduction plans happening in the past. There are numerous international examples too. Though, as I say, not one was solely made up of spending cuts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 04:02:35 PM
That claim isn't exclusive to Democrats. You shouldn't forget about independents and reasonable Republicans.
It's spin. The bond market doesn't give two shits whether defict reduction comes from taxes or spending.
If you mean that it's not just Democrats that would prefer to cut the deficit through a mix, I don't disagree (although I would argue that Democrats are still more interested in kicking the can down the road). That's not the same thing as saying Ryan's plan is not "real." Disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreal.
I don't think either side is especially eager to deal with the deficit. Otherwise, they wouldn't be passing around nonsense like the Ryan Plan.
One thing that the bond markets like even better than deficit reduction is political stability.
My definite favorite Paul Ryan quote today from the rally: "Our rights come from nature and God, not government."
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 04:52:45 PM
Okay but you were talking to me when you brought it up.
OK, fair enough. There is a small difference between Klein's argument and calling Ryan's plan unreal.
QuoteNonsense. Your deficit's falling and there are examples in the US of deficit reduction plans happening in the past. There are numerous international examples too. Though, as I say, not one was solely made up of spending cuts.
Codswallop. There is no overlap between what the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats consider acceptable deficit reduction. You were talking about politically credible. The fact that Clinton reduced the deficit doesn't change that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 05:24:51 PM
My definite favorite Paul Ryan quote today from the rally: "Our rights come from nature and God, not government."
That's not a bad one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 05:24:51 PM
My definite favorite Paul Ryan quote today from the rally: "Our rights come from nature and God, not government."
QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Seedy falls to friendly fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:25:33 PM
Codswallop. There is no overlap between what the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats consider acceptable deficit reduction. You were talking about politically credible. The fact that Clinton reduced the deficit doesn't change that.
I was talking about politically feasible which is in part about the parties and in part the public, and that it's credible, by which I mean it would reduce the deficit. I think there are policies which could meet both criteria after the election. I don't think a plan that eliminates capital gains and cuts income tax substantially is either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:32:40 PM
Seedy falls to friendly fire.
I was under the opinion that the concept of "Natural rights" was a central tenet of Common law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:32:40 PM
Seedy falls to friendly fire.
No, I mean
I liked it. What I do find interesting, though, is Ryan's political works just doesn't seem to jive with the concept.
You went to Georgetown, you know where I'm coming from. YOU TOOK THE SAME FUCKING COURSES TOO
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 05:37:06 PM
I was under the opinion that the concept of "Natural rights" was a central tenet of Common law.
Don't really have an opinion on the matter, but a tip of the hat to you for not just dog-piling Seedy's Ryan bashing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2012, 05:34:58 PM
I was talking about politically feasible which is in part about the parties and in part the public, and that it's credible, by which I mean it would reduce the deficit. I think there are policies which could meet both criteria after the election. I don't think a plan that eliminates capital gains and cuts income tax substantially is either.
I'm fairly certain it's the second.
Not sure how to respond to your argument about hypothetical future political feasibility.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 05:39:14 PM
No, I mean I liked it. What I do find interesting, though, is Ryan's political works just doesn't seem to jive with the concept.
You went to Georgetown, you know where I'm coming from. YOU TOOK THE SAME FUCKING COURSES TOO
My bad.
Not sure what you're getting at. Fully socialized medical care in old age is a right given by God?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 05:37:06 PM
I was under the opinion that the concept of "Natural rights" was a central tenet of Common law.
Don't really have an opinion on the matter, but a tip of the hat to you for not just dog-piling Seedy's Ryan bashing.
Raz, how does Yi's back of the hand feel like?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:45:00 PM
Not sure what you're getting at. Fully socialized medical care in old age is a right given by God?
That there's an implicit moral obligation by man within nature to pursue the good, and the good of the society. So yeah, St. Thomas Aquinas would agree that God would want fully socialized medical care for old people. He sure as shit wouldn't cut them a check for $6,000 and say, here, you're on your own the rest of the way. Enjoy your cancer treatments.
But it was very smart of Ryan to hit the topic today, because it's chock full of heady Teabaggery goodness for the Dumbfuckistanis that think natural law applies to abortion, the 2nd Amendment, and barring niggers from voting.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2012, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 05:37:06 PM
I was under the opinion that the concept of "Natural rights" was a central tenet of Common law.
Don't really have an opinion on the matter, but a tip of the hat to you for not just dog-piling Seedy's Ryan bashing.
Raz, how does Yi's back of the hand feel like?
Not to bad. I treasure all of Yis words. Then I print them out and paste them to my wall.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:59:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 05:56:42 PM
<snip>
Ah, the old positive rights argument.
Can't spout bullshit about natural law on the stump, and then use Ayn Rand for your budget.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 02:00:57 PM
Honestly, I think he'd have been better off with Pawlenty.
Sure, a boring white dude, but at least when he speaks publicly on the stump, he actually connects with people with that folksy-aw-shucks shit that worked for Huckabee.
Pawlenty would've been a natural counterbalance to Mittens' Close-Encounters-of-the-Country-Club-Kind lack of humanity and personality. I KNOW NASCAR TEAM OWNERS I LIKE TREES HARDWARE STUFF
The only benefit Ryan provides for Romney is if he actually wins: as a Vice President, driving the agenda in the Congress he knows, he'd work wonders. But not a candidate.
Personally, with picking Ryan, I think they just gift-wrapped Florida for the President.
If they lose Florida, they can't win.
I'm not saying you are wrong on Pawlenty, but I see the reason to pick Ryan. I don't think Romney's problem is so much that he is rich--lots of candidates including Obama are really rich too--but that he rather transparently doesn't stand for anything. The fact he won't talk about his religion, his time at Bain, or what he did as governor really leaves him as just an old rich guy with good hair wanting your votes. Ryan at least gives the impression that some part of the ticket cares about doing something other than getting elected.
Also, mentioning all of Ryan's bad ideas will sort of undermine the Obama campaign's characterization of republicans as the party of no that were simply obstructionist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 06:10:17 PM
Can't spout bullshit about natural law on the stump, and then use Ayn Rand for your budget.
The only people who are going to buy that line are the people that already believe in the right to free money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 04:24:59 PM
If you mean that it's not just Democrats that would prefer to cut the deficit through a mix, I don't disagree (although I would argue that Democrats are still more interested in kicking the can down the road). That's not the same thing as saying Ryan's plan is not "real." Disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreal.
Ryan's plan is not real.
The lack of tax increases is not what makes it unreal. What makes it unreal is that it is not properly specified, and hence not a plan at all. The plan just says that future domestic discretionary spending (including military) must be reduced to certain numbers, without any specification of how to achieve that. The problem is that under any reasonable projection of entitlement spending even under Ryan's proposal, domestic discretionary spending plus defense spending approaches zero after about 20-30 years out.
The only way to avoid an absurd result is the postulate massive savings from Ryan's medicare reform even though there is no change in medicare in the first 12 years and the replacement vouchers after than are supposed grow faster than GDP.
This is magical thinking not a serious plan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:45:00 PMNot sure what you're getting at. Fully socialized medical care in old age is a right given by God?
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 11, 2012, 10:13:52 PM
Ryan's plan is not real.
The lack of tax increases is not what makes it unreal. What makes it unreal is that it is not properly specified, and hence not a plan at all. The plan just says that future domestic discretionary spending (including military) must be reduced to certain numbers, without any specification of how to achieve that. The problem is that under any reasonable projection of entitlement spending even under Ryan's proposal, domestic discretionary spending plus defense spending approaches zero after about 20-30 years out.
The only way to avoid an absurd result is the postulate massive savings from Ryan's medicare reform even though there is no change in medicare in the first 12 years and the replacement vouchers after than are supposed grow faster than GDP.
This is magical thinking not a serious plan.
Lack of specifity is a knock, but not a damning one. With entitlement reform it makes absolutely no sense to talk about a reduction in spending without a change in the rules, because the rules determine how much you spend. That's not true of budget areas like defense. You can say knock a couple billion off defense spending and hash out the details later.
You seem to be contradicting yourself in the part about overall discretionary spending amounts and reaching zero in 20-30 years. Either he provides hard numbers for discretionary spending, including zero, or he specifies discretionary spending as whatever residual is needed to meet deficit targets, in which case it could reach zero but then the unspecified caps make no sense.
I assume what you're saying is that he builds in unrealistic growth factors in entitlement spending into his plan. That's fine, but I think it invariably leads to the tiresome issue of who is making this determination and what their methadology is.
And then even if his plan is smoke and mirrors, so what? It's a low bar to meet, somebody else put a plan on the table that uses realistic growth factors. Hopefully a plan that's a little more proactive than raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires and appointing another commission or "reexamining the issue when the economic recovery is not so fragile."
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Fine. It's also the mark of a civilized society. So there.
I have a plan for tackling deficit. Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses. I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later. What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2012, 11:24:09 PM
I have a plan for tackling deficit. Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses. I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later. What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.
This is not clever even by your standards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:27:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2012, 11:24:09 PM
I have a plan for tackling deficit. Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses. I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later. What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.
This is not clever even by your standards.
I know my audience. :)
I think i may have been insulted...:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:17:26 PM
[You seem to be contradicting yourself in the part about overall discretionary spending amounts and reaching zero in 20-30 years. Either he provides hard numbers for discretionary spending, including zero, or he specifies discretionary spending as whatever residual is needed to meet deficit targets, in which case it could reach zero but then the unspecified caps make no sense.
I not contradicting myself so much as trying to put into words as best as I can that which inherently makes no sense.
The Ryan proposal as submitted to CBO for analysis in 2010 called for federal spending/GDP to fall to 20.25% in 2012, 18.75% in 2040, and 14.75% in 2050. Under his own proposal the budget doesn't hit balance until 2040 so that the later figures are not merely aspirational and optional but essential to the concept.
The last time outlays were under 15 percent GDP was before WW2. To even suggest such a thing automatically puts one in Ron Paul nutbag territory.
The last time outlays were under 19 percent was almost 50 years ago (1966). At that time mandatory entitlement spending was under 5 percent, now we are at 14-15 percent. 14-15% mandatory spending means that even if such spending is capped as % of GDP, there would be only 4% of GDP to spend on everything else combined by 2040, and less than nothing by 2050.
Ok. But what if Paul Ryan waves his magic wand and magically reduces the mandatory spending by a third without throwing codgers and dying poor people out on the street and gets the total to around 10 percent GDP. Then the 2040 figure looks almost reachable, even if the 2050 one is still a pipe dream.
But right now we are just hitting the front end of the wave of retiring boomers and we can also expect life expectancy to keep rising, which historically has been a driver of entitlement costs. So the fantasy of achieving really deep cuts in health and pension spending in the future is just that. The reality is that we will really have to struggle to keep total fed spending under 25% of GDP unless we are willing to radically reconsider the structure of our economy, our government, and the social contract.
My take from all this is that I don't see how anyone who is not zombie-Norquist ranting ideologue looks at the plan and can take it seriously.
One more thing:
If you really start to squeeze down on the federal budget, one thing that has to take a big hit is aid to the states.
But the states are getting killed right now - if anything more federal aid is needed now more than ever to maintain essential services or forestall some nasty tax hikes.
Squeezing the states just to get the federal accounting aggregates into balance is kind of pointless because it just shifts the problem to another sovereign in the same federal system, and one that happens to be more vulnerable and volatile.
What confuses me about your first post is, what's the point of submitting the plan to CBO analysis if you already have the debt/GDP ratios? That's the whole point of CBO analysis, to determine what effect proposed changes to tax laws and spending rules and amounts will have on the deficit, and on GDP growth.
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries. It also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign. If the people of a given state want to set the bar for Medicaid low, or pay their employees generously, or provide cheap higher education to large numbers of residents, let the residents of that state pay for it with their taxes.
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 05:45:00 PMNot sure what you're getting at. Fully socialized medical care in old age is a right given by God?
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
:bleeding:
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2012, 11:24:09 PM
I have a plan for tackling deficit. Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses. I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later. What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.
You can't be president.
Ok, I may be completely wrong but my take on this is: Romney/Ryan seem like a not-so-offensive ticket, much easier to swallow for moderates or even Democrats who concentrate on cultural issues. So it will not mobilize that many Democrats to go and vote. On the other hand, Obama has a very strong negative electorate among the God and guns crowd, so they will rush to vote to put the "Negro in chief" out of power even if Romney/Ryan are not their ideal pair. So this seems like an overall good choice for Romney.
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2012, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2012, 11:24:09 PM
I have a plan for tackling deficit. Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses. I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later. What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.
You can't be president.
:mad: :( My brilliant plan has gone to waste. :cry:
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
They are going 100% on economy which just might work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 09:21:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2012, 06:10:17 PM
Can't spout bullshit about natural law on the stump, and then use Ayn Rand for your budget.
The only people who are going to buy that line are the people that already believe in the right to free money.
What do you mean by "free money"?
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 02:29:54 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
They are going 100% on economy which just might work.
Democrats tried that for years. Didn't work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 06:35:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 02:29:54 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 11, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience. :hmm:
They are going 100% on economy which just might work.
Democrats tried that for years. Didn't work.
Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.
But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry or not.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:41:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 06:35:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 02:29:54 AM
They are going 100% on economy which just might work.
Democrats tried that for years. Didn't work.
Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.
But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry Mondale or not.
I don't think he'll go down as bad as Mondale, but perhaps like Kerry. In fact, I suspect he actually is Kerry in a clever disguise.
Ugh. Longface.
I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry. Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 07:11:28 AM
I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry. Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.
I'm speaking purely from an outsider's perspective - I have not heard of Kerry before he decided to run and he was this totally boring, uncharismatic white guy running against a deeply polarizing incumbent president.
More father-son spin from the media: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-dont-mind-their-contrasts.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F12%2Fus%2FREPUBS%2FREPUBS-articleLarge-v2.jpg&hash=5cb05c72c15675053b669706620f1b3aefe86453)
Romney didn't chose a Vice Presidential candidate, he chose a Senior Executive Vice President.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 07:11:28 AM
I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry. Kerry's accomplished a hell of a lot more for the public good in his life than Mittens and his dancing horse ever will.
Romney accomplished a lot. He just doesn't want to admit to it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:41:20 AM
Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.
But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry or not.
I think he is another Kerry, maybe even worse than Kerry, but then the incumbent is probably a bit weaker than in 2004.
Marty, a main reason that Ryan is so polarizing is he proposed a reform to senior medical care to fix the budget. Right now, once you turn 65 the government will basically cover your medical expenses. Since our health care costs are exploding, this is blowing a big hole through federal spending. Ryan came up with a plan that rather than the government paying for senior medical care, it will give seniors the funding instead, which will grow at roughly the rate of inflation. Which is great for the budget, but if you are elderly means you can no longer be certain of having medical coverage (the funding may not cover your needs). This is unpopular with everyone, but especially the elderly, and Florida is a state filled with the elderly.
There are other states with lots of elderly where this could be a problem too, Iowa and Pennsylvania for example.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 12, 2012, 08:54:03 AM
More father-son spin from the media: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-dont-mind-their-contrasts.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F12%2Fus%2FREPUBS%2FREPUBS-articleLarge-v2.jpg&hash=5cb05c72c15675053b669706620f1b3aefe86453)
This picture could use a caption contest.
"Howard, are there two Republicans at our table or have I forgotten my pills again?"
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2012, 10:20:41 AM
There are other states with lots of elderly where this could be a problem too, Iowa and Pennsylvania for example.
Well, the GOPtards on the talking head shows are stressing that it won't affect anybody currently over 55. So that leaves the 54-and-under crowd to convince how it'll be good to pay for their own healthcare. Pretty sure that's a bigger demographic.
There are suckers in the under-55 crowd. People actually bought the idea of health savings accounts, after all. And then there's the 'USA! USA!' crowd, who don't give any thought as to why private insurers would want to provide affordable coverage for low-income seniors.
Incidentally, this thread highlights the risk with Ryan. He's more charming, more popular (with the base at least), more charismatic and has a clearer set of beliefs than Romney. All told that sort of threatens to destabilise the campaign.
I still think it's the first interesting thing Romney's done and one of the better picks he could've made.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
QuoteIt also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.
I don't agree but it's besides the point. Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
But see, that's OK, because they're union, and are sitting on a king's ransom of benefits that private sector employees can only dream about.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
QuoteIt also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.
I don't agree but it's besides the point. Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.
What were their salaries?
Quote from: Phillip V on August 12, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
QuoteIt also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.
I don't agree but it's besides the point. Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.
What were their salaries?
If working for the state Monday-Saturday they were allowed to work Sundays and keep what they earned that day.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Whose salaries do you propose reducing?
Teachers, cops, and firefighters.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Do the states employee those people?
It seems to be some kind of hybrid between the localities employing them and the state employing them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Whose salaries do you propose reducing?
Teachers, cops, and firefighters.
Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:21:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Teachers, cops, and firefighters.
Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?
No, because the public isn't unionized.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:21:58 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?
Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:21:58 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?
Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?
No. The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free. If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:29:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:24:38 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?
No. The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free. If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.
Privatized police and firefighting forces would be awesome for the Social Darwinist Teabagger crowd: take care of whitey and the affluent areas, and ignore the poor and the blacks that can't afford their services.
You know, like The Old Days.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:29:52 PM
No. The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free. If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.
That's a reasonable response, but then the next question is why is the federal government's responsibility to pick up the slack if a state's electorate is disfunctional? There are states which don't have a massive disconnect between expenses and revenues.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Do the states employee those people?
It seems to be some kind of hybrid between the localities employing them and the state employing them.
So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 04:00:04 PM
So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.
And states.
Or states, counties, school districts, and municipalities decide the burden is not worth bearing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:34:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 03:29:52 PM
No. The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free. If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.
That's a reasonable response, but then the next question is why is the federal government's responsibility to pick up the slack if a state's electorate is disfunctional? There are states which don't have a massive disconnect between expenses and revenues.
Because the federal government has a duty to all their citizens.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 04:00:04 PM
So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.
And states.
Or states, counties, school districts, and municipalities decide the burden is not worth bearing.
Ah, so the poorest of these communities who can't pay for services as well just stop paying for them while wealthier communities are able to pick up the burden.
"Don't go to mayberry. They don't have a police force anymore. Couldn't afford it. Now the whole area is ruled by the Meth dealers.
I know plenty of one stoplight townships in Iowa which don't have a police force and for the life of me can't think of one that's ruled by meth lords.
I am meth lord ruling over a large dominion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 05:10:27 PM
I know plenty of one stoplight townships in Iowa which don't have a police force and for the life of me can't think of one that's ruled by meth lords.
So they shift the burden for law enforcement to the county, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:33:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 05:10:27 PM
I know plenty of one stoplight townships in Iowa which don't have a police force and for the life of me can't think of one that's ruled by meth lords.
So they shift the burden for law enforcement to the county, right?
That is the way it works.
There is a town here of 6K(New Carlisle) that disbanded its police department and lets the Clark County sheriff do its policing. The nearby Park Layne CDP of 4K has no police.
The Clark county sheriff does rock however.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 12, 2012, 06:40:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:33:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 05:10:27 PM
I know plenty of one stoplight townships in Iowa which don't have a police force and for the life of me can't think of one that's ruled by meth lords.
So they shift the burden for law enforcement to the county, right?
That is the way it works.
There is a town here of 6K(New Carlisle) that disbanded its police department and lets the Clark County sheriff do its policing. The nearby Park Layne CDP of 4K has no police.
The Clark county sheriff does rock however.
I don't know how it works in other states, but in WV a city or town can disband its police and have the county do the job, but they do have to pay a fee to the county for the service. I'm only aware of 1 town that's done it, though.
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2012, 06:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 12, 2012, 06:40:50 PM
That is the way it works.
There is a town here of 6K(New Carlisle) that disbanded its police department and lets the Clark County sheriff do its policing. The nearby Park Layne CDP of 4K has no police.
The Clark county sheriff does rock however.
I don't know how it works in other states, but in WV a city or town can disband its police and have the county do the job, but they do have to pay a fee to the county for the service. I'm only aware of 1 town that's done it, though.
Yeah, it's the same way in Alberta. About the only cities with police departments are Edmonton and Calgary. Everywhere else just pays the RCMP.
I've seen a town that went backrupt and the services just stopped. It was called East St. Louis.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 08:35:43 PM
I've seen a town that went backrupt and the services just stopped. It was called East St. Louis.
Should have walled it off.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 07:11:28 AM
I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry.
:huh:
They both did time in Massachusetts and are both rather bland/boring.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2012, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 07:11:28 AM
I am rather perturbed that you guys seem to compare Mittens to Kerry.
:huh:
They both did time in Massachusetts and are both rather bland/boring.
And quite rich. :showoff: Though Kerry with his wife have triple the wealth of Romney or more (up to $3.2 billion).
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 12, 2012, 08:54:03 AM
More father-son spin from the media: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-dont-mind-their-contrasts.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F12%2Fus%2FREPUBS%2FREPUBS-articleLarge-v2.jpg&hash=5cb05c72c15675053b669706620f1b3aefe86453)
This picture could use a caption contest.
"Howard, are there two Republicans at our table or have I forgotten my pills again?"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F08%2F120812_ryan_60_minutes.jpg&hash=350c5c18d8754da8b92dc360f0e1d22fb9f3b632)
I'm so glad the media is quick to look for differences between two white men. -_-
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2012, 06:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 12, 2012, 06:40:50 PM
That is the way it works.
There is a town here of 6K(New Carlisle) that disbanded its police department and lets the Clark County sheriff do its policing. The nearby Park Layne CDP of 4K has no police.
The Clark county sheriff does rock however.
I don't know how it works in other states, but in WV a city or town can disband its police and have the county do the job, but they do have to pay a fee to the county for the service. I'm only aware of 1 town that's done it, though.
Yeah, it's the same way in Alberta. About the only cities with police departments are Edmonton and Calgary. Everywhere else just pays the RCMP.
That's not how it is at all in Alberta.
You have to contract with the RCMP in order to have them act as your police. They don't do it for free. The province negotiates that contract on behalf of its munipalities. The provinces does mandate a certain level of service that must be provided.
Several communities besides Edmonton and Calgary have their own municipal PDs. Camrose, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Medicine Hat and Taber have their own.
I'll admit - I googled that - I only knew 3/5.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Albeit a silly one. Rights from nature? Yeah, nature's just
chock full of that shit. Human rights are so natural that they cannot be meaningfully argued over and were discovered by a species that has existed for over a million years well over four centuries ago. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
Hm.
Joan, you realize your profession does not, by and large, make a tremendous amount of money, in or out of government, right? And the government ones are actually doing better than many if not most (I'd say most) in private practice?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
Hm.
Joan, you realize your profession does not, by and large, make a tremendous amount of money, in or out of government, right? And the government ones are actually doing better than many if not most (I'd say most) in private practice?
Yeah, from the news articles and studies I remember, government workers including state and local do much better than their similarly educated/experienced peers, especially as government workers are more likely to have healthcare benefits and defined benefits pensions. Add to that, you can retire at x years from one government locality and then start at another government locality, finishing with two or three separate pensions.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 13, 2012, 12:17:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.
Whose salaries do you propose reducing? When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a lot more like Sparta than Versailles. The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel. When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions. The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector.
If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity. So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.
Hm.
Joan, you realize your profession does not, by and large, make a tremendous amount of money, in or out of government, right? And the government ones are actually doing better than many if not most (I'd say most) in private practice?
Yeah, from the news articles and studies I remember, government workers including state and local do much better than their similarly educated/experienced peers, especially as government workers are more likely to have healthcare benefits and defined benefits pensions. Add to that, you can retire at x years from one government locality and then start at another government locality, finishing with two or three separate pensions.
Ideo is talking specifically about government lawyers though.
And it's a difficult comparison between government and private practice lawyers. Because for every Minsky, there are 3 American Scipios, and 5 Ideologues (note: numbers pulled out of my buttocks). But in any event - white shoe new york lawyers are a poor comparison to anybody.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Albeit a silly one. Rights from nature? Yeah, nature's just chock full of that shit. Human rights are so natural that they cannot be meaningfully argued over and were discovered by a species that has existed for over a million years well over four centuries ago. :)
That is not really true. The concept of natural rights of man dates as back as ancient Greece (or perhaps to still older times, but no records are obviously present). It has been argued for by Romans, who recognized ius gentium, and by fathers of the Church and later by Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Grotius and Spinoza, to name but a few. Also, the paradox of it seemingly changing has been answered at least in two different ways - either that our understanding of it is improving (Kant) or that it does actually change due to human nature also changing (Stammler, Radbruch).
Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2012, 11:03:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2012, 06:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 12, 2012, 06:40:50 PM
That is the way it works.
There is a town here of 6K(New Carlisle) that disbanded its police department and lets the Clark County sheriff do its policing. The nearby Park Layne CDP of 4K has no police.
The Clark county sheriff does rock however.
I don't know how it works in other states, but in WV a city or town can disband its police and have the county do the job, but they do have to pay a fee to the county for the service. I'm only aware of 1 town that's done it, though.
Yeah, it's the same way in Alberta. About the only cities with police departments are Edmonton and Calgary. Everywhere else just pays the RCMP.
That's not how it is at all in Alberta.
You have to contract with the RCMP in order to have them act as your police. They don't do it for free. The province negotiates that contract on behalf of its munipalities. The provinces does mandate a certain level of service that must be provided.
Several communities besides Edmonton and Calgary have their own municipal PDs. Camrose, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Medicine Hat and Taber have their own.
I'll admit - I googled that - I only knew 3/5.
Uh, both Neil and I said that cities that don't have their own police have to pay to have another law enforcement agency do the job (the Mounties in Canada and the county sheriff in WV). Where'd you get that anybody was suggesting that it was done for free?
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 01:15:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Albeit a silly one. Rights from nature? Yeah, nature's just chock full of that shit. Human rights are so natural that they cannot be meaningfully argued over and were discovered by a species that has existed for over a million years well over four centuries ago. :)
That is not really true. The concept of natural rights of man dates as back as ancient Greece (or perhaps to still older times, but no records are obviously present). It has been argued for by Romans, who recognized ius gentium, and by fathers of the Church and later by Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Grotius and Spinoza, to name but a few. Also, the paradox of it seemingly changing has been answered at least in two different ways - either that our understanding of it is improving (Kant) or that it does actually change due to human nature also changing (Stammler, Radbruch).
Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?
I never took jurisprudence,
Well, excluding religious origins of natural rights--iirc, those last four dudes posited God as the ultimate source of law. Rightfully speaking, this would make them supernatural rights, and would invalidate the idea of "rights" as things that, while lacking material basis, can be said to objectively exist on their own, like mathematics or logic. Conceptually, God is no different than a (very powerful) sovereign as far as a source of rights is concerned.
I don't know Kant all that well.
You may have the Greeks. However, I'm unsure how they understood the concept of rights; if they did have their own concepts of natural rights, they would have had to be as alien as could be from how we tend to understand natural rights. I think that goes more to prove my point than being a bit more accurate about dates or identifying the first folks to introduce the concept.
My point being that rights only come from the agreement of humans to create them and a mechanism to enforce them (e.g., the proposition that there is no right without a remedy). The same can be said of closely allied fields such as law or morality.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 02:03:57 AM
Well, excluding religious origins of natural rights--iirc, those last four dudes posited God as the ultimate source of law. Rightfully speaking, this would make them supernatural rights, and would invalidate the idea of "rights" as things that, while lacking material basis, can be said to objectively exist on their own, like mathematics or logic. Conceptually, God is no different than a (very powerful) sovereign as far as a source of rights is concerned.
This is quite wrong. To medieval scholars, everything, including natural science, was operated by the will of God, so actually conceptually God as a source of natural law is no different than reason in Kant's philosophy or human nature for Romans and Grotius. Btw, neither Grotius, nor Spinoza, nor Cicero, nor the Stoics, nor Aristotle, nor Marsilius of Padua really pointed to God as the source of these laws (well, maybe Spinoza to a degree, but his concept of God was pantheistic, so again there is little difference between his "God" and Grotius's human nature or Kant's "reason"), so you are building a strawman there. And the theory of just law (and just war) built by Aquinas does not treat the God in a way you claim it does here either (he claimed that natural law is immutable and can be discerned with reason, with revelation playing only a secondary role; for example he recognized things similar to due process, right to live or personal property as the elements of this law and even postulated a right of rebellion if the written law did not uphold these basic laws).
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 02:03:57 AM
My point being that rights only come from the agreement of humans to create them and a mechanism to enforce them (e.g., the proposition that there is no right without a remedy). The same can be said of closely allied fields such as law or morality.
That's actually the big source of debate between naturalists and positivists. The entire school of natural law claims the opposite to what you are saying - so if you are making an absolute statement that in this millennia-spanning debate the positivist school is right and the naturalist school is wrong, you would perhaps come across as less ignorant and arrogant if you were at least aware of what the most celebrated representatives of these schools said in the past.
Mittens lost his temper yesterday with a heckler. It was impressive.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 13, 2012, 12:17:14 AM
Yeah, from the news articles and studies I remember, government workers including state and local do much better than their similarly educated/experienced peers, especially as government workers are more likely to have healthcare benefits and defined benefits pensions. Add to that, you can retire at x years from one government locality and then start at another government locality, finishing with two or three separate pensions.
Come to Missouri then, we have the worst paid state workers in the country.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 02:56:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 02:03:57 AM
My point being that rights only come from the agreement of humans to create them and a mechanism to enforce them (e.g., the proposition that there is no right without a remedy). The same can be said of closely allied fields such as law or morality.
That's actually the big source of debate between naturalists and positivists. The entire school of natural law claims the opposite to what you are saying - so if you are making an absolute statement that in this millennia-spanning debate the positivist school is right and the naturalist school is wrong, you would perhaps come across as less ignorant and arrogant if you were at least aware of what the most celebrated representatives of these schools said in the past.
Now that was a fun little colloquy. I can finally believe that Marty has a law job and Ide doesn't.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 01:15:19 AM
Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?
In law school, no. I think jurisprudence is normally an optional course if you do a law degree at undergrad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2012, 07:36:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 01:15:19 AM
Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?
In law school, no. I think jurisprudence is normally an optional course if you do a law degree at undergrad.
I can now see that our (continental European) legal education is superior, then. We have a 5 year legal degree, where two years are devoted almost entirely to history of law, history of ideologies, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, sociology of law, comparative law and similar topics. That way we hope to create people with an understanding of law that goes beyond simple knowledge of case law and statutes.
You are all still corrupt as hell.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
I can now see that our (continental European) legal education is superior, then. We have a 5 year legal degree, where two years are devoted almost entirely to history of law, history of ideologies, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, sociology of law, comparative law and similar topics. That way we hope to create people with an understanding of law that goes beyond simple knowledge of case law and statutes.
I suppose the traditional response would be that it's more important to create people who understand the practice of law than the theory (which I think operates at a deeper more hidden level in a common law system). I don't think it's a question of superiority but different systems with different historical origins, philosophies and approaches.
I should say that I and many other students do read about the history and philosophy outside the course (I think every law student's read Lord Binham's Rule of Law), but I can't think of a time I've used any of that reading in an essay or exam. The possible exception is constitutional law.
Thinking about it I remember speaking to a friend who did study jurisprudence when he was at Cambridge and he said that English theory was basically very under-developed until great (often Jewish) European jurists started arriving as refugees in the thirties and forties. Apparently they totally revolutionised that side of things here.
Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2012, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
I can now see that our (continental European) legal education is superior, then. We have a 5 year legal degree, where two years are devoted almost entirely to history of law, history of ideologies, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, sociology of law, comparative law and similar topics. That way we hope to create people with an understanding of law that goes beyond simple knowledge of case law and statutes.
I suppose the traditional response would be that it's more important to create people who understand the practice of law than the theory (which I think operates at a deeper more hidden level in a common law system). I don't think it's a question of superiority but different systems with different historical origins, philosophies and approaches.
I should say that I and many other students do read about the history and philosophy outside the course (I think every law student's read Lord Binham's Rule of Law), but I can't think of a time I've used any of that reading in an essay or exam. The possible exception is constitutional law.
I did take the mandatory 1 credit hour legal history course (note: most classes are 3 to 6 credit hours), and did take the optional 3 credit hour jurisprudence course. It was interesting stuff, part of me wishes I could have taken more...
...but without a doubt they are the classes that impact me the least as a practising lawyer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.
And no move to the center for neither Romney nor Obama?
Quote from: Phillip V on August 13, 2012, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.
And no move to the center for neither Romney nor Obama?
In a way, that strategy is a form of moving to the center.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.
Are you kidding? Ryan is an anti-choice radical.
Quote
• During his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ryan cast 59 votes on abortion and other reproductive rights issues. He voted anti-choice each and every time.
• Ryan repeatedly voted for and cosponsored the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, endangers women's health, and carries a two-year prison sentence for doctors.
Ryan is outspoken about his anti-choice beliefs: "I'm as pro-life as a person gets. You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life."
And he's anti-pillowbiter happiness, too.
QuoteRyan's said he's anti-same-sex marriage, and he's voted against adoption rights for same-sex couples.
He did vote for the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but his future boss is against it, so his opinion on the matter is nixed.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2012, 12:13:44 AM
Joan, you realize your profession does not, by and large, make a tremendous amount of money, in or out of government, right? And the government ones are actually doing better than many if not most (I'd say most) in private practice?
I only know what the NALP statistics say.
They report that despite a massive plunge in entry level private sector salaries since 2008, that median/mean salary for first year lawyers is $60,000/$78,000. Whereas for median public sector salary for first year lawyers is in the 45-50 range. So there is a discrepancy off the bat, which only grows over time.
If you compare like to like, the elite of the public state bar should be able to perform at a level competitive to the private bar they have to face off against, but there the gap is cavernous.
He's got that boxed checked off, but everybody knows what his focus is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
Whose salaries do you propose reducing?
Teachers, cops, and firefighters.
And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 01:10:22 PM
And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?
Is that even possible to provide?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 01:08:18 AM
What confuses me about your first post is, what's the point of submitting the plan to CBO analysis if you already have the debt/GDP ratios? That's the whole point of CBO analysis, to determine what effect proposed changes to tax laws and spending rules and amounts will have on the deficit, and on GDP growth.
Now that I can access it for quoting, I will respond by quoting CBO's own statement on the plan:
QuoteThe analysis in this letter does not represent a cost estimate for your proposal. Producing
such an estimate would require a more detailed analysis of the Roadmap's many
provisions, rather than the fairly mechanical extrapolations that underlie most of the
findings presented here. Moreover, CBO's cost estimates generally apply only to the
10-year budget projection period, because the uncertainties about the budgetary
effects of legislation (especially regarding health care) are simply too great beyond that
span. In contrast, this analysis uses a 75-year horizon to offer a rough assessment of
long-term trends under different policies.]Even this rough comparison can be constructed
for your proposal only because its provisions and additional specifications
provided by your staff set predetermined growth rates for the key amounts of taxes
and transfers; CBO does not have the capability to model more subtle changes in
federal health programs, even in an approximate way, over that very long time span.
. . . .
Under the proposal, federal outlays excluding interest (so-called primary
spending) would decline, from 26 percent of GDP in 2009 to 19 percent in 2020,
16 percent in 2060, and 14 percent in 2080. Revenues under the Roadmap would initially correspond to revenues under the alternative fiscal scenario and then remain
at 19 percent of GDP after 2030, on the basis of specifications provided by your staff.
Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 01:10:22 PM
And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?
I think there is quite a bit, but my original point made no reference to their value. Whatever the hell that means.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.
So as I thought it's CBO generating the forecasts and not Ryan. And it seems to be CBO supplying the demographics and not Ryan.
Not sure if that 14% looks all that crazy 70 years out. Baby Boomers will be dead and forgotten by then.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2012, 11:03:03 PM
That's not how it is at all in Alberta.
You have to contract with the RCMP in order to have them act as your police. They don't do it for free. The province negotiates that contract on behalf of its munipalities. The provinces does mandate a certain level of service that must be provided.
That's what I said.
QuoteSeveral communities besides Edmonton and Calgary have their own municipal PDs. Camrose, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Medicine Hat and Taber have their own.
I'll admit - I googled that - I only knew 3/5.
So it seems like it's a Southern Alberta phenomenon, having a police department. Fuck those guys.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2012, 01:15:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 11, 2012, 10:38:47 PM
Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.
Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.
Albeit a silly one. Rights from nature? Yeah, nature's just chock full of that shit. Human rights are so natural that they cannot be meaningfully argued over and were discovered by a species that has existed for over a million years well over four centuries ago. :)
That is not really true. The concept of natural rights of man dates as back as ancient Greece (or perhaps to still older times, but no records are obviously present). It has been argued for by Romans, who recognized ius gentium, and by fathers of the Church and later by Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Grotius and Spinoza, to name but a few. Also, the paradox of it seemingly changing has been answered at least in two different ways - either that our understanding of it is improving (Kant) or that it does actually change due to human nature also changing (Stammler, Radbruch).
Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?
The difference between 400 and 2000 years is still pretty small next to the history of homo sapiens sapiens.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.
So as I thought it's CBO generating the forecasts and not Ryan.
That's not how I read it.
What it appears to say is that the following comes entirely from Ryan's staff:
1) the levels of tax revenue/GDP, and
2) "Predetermined growth rates for . . . transfers" which the next sentence indicates applies to federal health programs.
With respect to medicaid specifically, CBO noted that they modelled it as "prescribed rate" of spending growth supplied by Ryan's staff, with the only CBO supplied variable being population.
QuoteAnd it seems to be CBO supplying the demographics and not Ryan.
Not sure if that 14% looks all that crazy 70 years out. Baby Boomers will be dead and forgotten by then.
But the US population is still growing safely above replacement rates, and life expectancy keeps increasing. So even after the Boomers wreak utter havoc on Ryan's plan (and its 10 year backloaded health reforms) for the first 0-50 years, the general problem of an increasing age profile is still going to be there.
Keep in mind that 14% is for ALL fed spending. Absent mass euthanasia of everyone over 65 and making the poor vanish, it isn't going to happen without returning the Coolidge Era.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 01:53:29 PM
That's not how I read it.
What it appears to say is that the following comes entirely from Ryan's staff:
1) the levels of tax revenue/GDP, and
2) "Predetermined growth rates for . . . transfers" which the next sentence indicates applies to federal health programs.
With respect to medicaid specifically, CBO noted that they modelled it as "prescribed rate" of spending growth supplied by Ryan's staff, with the only CBO supplied variable being population.
Sure, with respect to Medicare and Medicaid Ryan's plan specifically limits the growth in spending to the inflation rate. So with Medicare all you need to do is plug in CBO's population forecasts and you get Medicare/GDP and Medicaid/GDP with no muss and no fuss.
What you do *not* get is zeroed out residual discretionary spending to fit Ryan's spending/GDP target, as you suggested earlier.
QuoteBut the US population is still growing safely above replacement rates, and life expectancy keeps increasing. So even after the Boomers wreak utter havoc on Ryan's plan (and its 10 year backloaded health reforms) for the first 0-50 years, the general problem of an increasing age profile is still going to be there.
Keep in mind that 14% is for ALL fed spending. Absent mass euthanasia of everyone over 65 and making the poor vanish, it isn't going to happen without returning the Coolidge Era.
:huh: Population above replacement rate does not create an increasing age profile. It creates the opposite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
Sure, with respect to Medicare and Medicaid Ryan's plan specifically limits the growth in spending to the inflation rate. So with Medicare all you need to do is plug in CBO's population forecasts and you get Medicare/GDP and Medicaid/GDP with no muss and no fuss.
What you do *not* get is zeroed out residual discretionary spending to fit Ryan's spending/GDP target, as you suggested earlier.
You get about 3.5 percent, but only on the assumption (under the CBO's growth model) that GDP under the Ryan plan will end up 70 higher than under the baseline plan.
I'm not sure when the last time discretionary fed spending (including military) was below 3.5 percent because it falls way off the charts I have going back to WW2. It is lunacy. But even that 3.5 percent is only feasible with the "growth bonus" based on a Solow Growth Model that essentially gives big growth credits for cutting fiscal deficits. That is, the CBO's growth model is already giving Ryan a free lunch equal to 70% of future GDP. Thus, to hit the 3.5 percent, GDP growth would have to increase from a projected average of 2.2 percent a year to 3.4 percent a year. If it doesn't, you get zeroed out.
Quote:huh: Population above replacement rate does not create an increasing age profile. It creates the opposite.
Depends on what happens in the future and what happens to life expectancy. Point is, even after the Boomers are dead and gone (which is 40 years out or more) there still are plenty of people born subsequently that will be moving into retirement and barring breakdowns in medical science, will be living quite a bit longer than people live now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 02:40:09 PM
I'm not sure when the last time discretionary fed spending (including military) was below 3.5 percent because it falls way off the charts I have going back to WW2.
You've convinced me. Let's come up with a plan that does the job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
:huh: Population above replacement rate does not create an increasing age profile. It creates the opposite.
I don't see the connection between the two. I'm no expert on this, so I may be wrong, but I think you're looking at the wrong derivative here.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
I don't see the connection between the two. I'm no expert on this, so I may be wrong, but I think you're looking at the wrong derivative here.
Ceteras paribus, a growth rate above replacement will lower the average age. Each succeeding age cohort gets larger and larger. The ones that are already born stay the same size until they start to die.
Unless they don't die, or live rather a long time before dying.
Our only hope is that obesity can defeat medical science.
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2012, 03:20:06 PM
Our only hope is that obesity can defeat medical science.
Until we can grow new organs without killing people to do it, there's a hard cap on human lifespans.
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2012, 03:20:06 PM
Unless they don't die, or live rather a long time before dying.
Ceteras paribus means everything else being the same.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 03:48:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2012, 03:20:06 PM
Unless they don't die, or live rather a long time before dying.
Ceteras paribus means everything else being the same.
Yeah, but it's a meaningless statement, because the future is always changing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
I don't see the connection between the two. I'm no expert on this, so I may be wrong, but I think you're looking at the wrong derivative here.
Ceteras paribus, a growth rate above replacement will lower the average age. Each succeeding age cohort gets larger and larger. The ones that are already born stay the same size until they start to die.
I'm not sure about that. What if your society has been right at replacement age for the last century, except for a period of ten years where there was a huge baby boom? Wouldn't the average age keep increasing for some time, even after the growth returns to replacement level?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2012, 03:05:19 PM
You've convinced me. Let's come up with a plan that does the job.
My plan would be taxation at a level sufficient to support long term federal expenditures at about 25% of GDP. A tax take around 22-23 percent avergage long-term should do the job. A reasonable conservative counter would be to get spending down to 22.5 and taxes to 20.
What about fraud, waste, and abuse? Are you going to keep it?
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
What about fraud, waste, and abuse? Are you going to keep it?
I would privatize it but that might already have happened.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
What about fraud, waste, and abuse? Are you going to keep it?
I would privatize it but that might already have happened.
:lmfao:
The Onion's take on it:
QuoteAdmit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Shit Out Of You, Don't I?
By Paul Ryan
When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I'm a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney's chances of becoming president because I'm a liability. But if we're being honest with each other—if we're able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we're all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.
I'm young, I'm handsome, I'm smart, and I'm articulate. And that scares the ever-loving shit out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.
It's okay to admit it. You're frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I'm not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I'm a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.
Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it's 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women's rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?
Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?
I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I'm right? Because I'm good at it. No, I'm really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I'm saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.
The American people love that shit. They love it.
Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I've got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I'll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we're being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven't noticed, I'm white. Hoo, brother, am I white.
Yup, you should be scared shitless of me, because guess who isn't? The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it's almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won't be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.
Boy, I'm going to sell the shit out of that talking point. And I'm going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I'm Paul Ryan. That's what I do.
And if we're having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don't think for a second that I don't know you're terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.
Well, that's 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.
I'm your worst fucking nightmare.
Oh, and by the way, don't even try to pretend you haven't imagined me being elected president one day.
I kinda agree. I don't think Romney could have chosen better.
I dunno. Ryan to me has a very Jack Kemp feel about him as Veep.
He's a long-time politician, connected to right-wing economic policies. And I liked Jack Kep - a fair bit. He's selected by a more centrist presidential candidate to prove his right-wing credentials.
But Jack Kemp didn't win Bob Dole the Whitehouse. And I have mu doubts it'll work for Romney.
Question to Yanks: is there a group of US voters (and if so, how big) who would go to vote for Romney (but would have otherwise stayed home/vote differently) solely to put Obama out of power because he is black or "secretly Muslim" (read: he is black) or "not really born on the US soil" (read: he is black)?
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Question to Yanks: is there a group of US voters...
No.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Question to Yanks: is there a group of US voters (and if so, how big) who would go to vote for Romney (but would have otherwise stayed home/vote differently) solely to put Obama out of power because he is black or "secretly Muslim" (read: he is black) or "not really born on the US soil" (read: he is black)?
Of course there are. But it's not like it's because he's black or anything, because that would be racist, and that would never be the case because Berkut says so.
Fun fact: the Public Religion Research Institute released a poll in the spring showing that more Americans believe Obama's a Muslim now than they did 4 years ago. Imagine that.
Apparently the news is that Pawltenty and Portman were informed by Mittens' son, Tag, that they didn't make the veep selection. That's pretty fucked up, Mittens. They've been shilling for you on the campaign trail for months now, and you have your son do it? Can't even make the phone call yourself?
Too funny. Yeah, that's a CEO for you.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Question to Yanks: is there a group of US voters (and if so, how big) who would go to vote for Romney (but would have otherwise stayed home/vote differently) solely to put Obama out of power because he is black or "secretly Muslim" (read: he is black) or "not really born on the US soil" (read: he is black)?
Of course there is, there's gonna be over a hundred million votes cast. It's not really big enough to be worth mentioning though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 06:48:45 AM
Apparently the news is that Pawltenty and Portman were informed by Mittens' son, Tag, that they didn't make the veep selection. That's pretty fucked up, Mittens. They've been shilling for you on the campaign trail for months now, and you have your son do it? Can't even make the phone call yourself?
Too funny. Yeah, that's a CEO for you.
You'll whine about anything, won't you?
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Question to Yanks: is there a group of US voters (and if so, how big) who would go to vote for Romney (but would have otherwise stayed home/vote differently) solely to put Obama out of power because he is black or "secretly Muslim" (read: he is black) or "not really born on the US soil" (read: he is black)?
Thanks, Marti, we really needed you to trigger Seedy. :rolleyes:
Oh, please. If Marti wouldn't have done it, a gust of wind would've.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 12:39:23 AM
I dunno. Ryan to me has a very Jack Kemp feel about him as Veep.
He's a long-time politician, connected to right-wing economic policies. And I liked Jack Kep - a fair bit. He's selected by a more centrist presidential candidate to prove his right-wing credentials.
But Jack Kemp didn't win Bob Dole the Whitehouse.
Dole didn't do his diligence. Problem with Kemp was always low completion perecentage.
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2012, 08:37:28 AM
Oh, please. If Marti wouldn't have done it, a gust of wind would've.
Yes, but Marti targeting in on Seedy's sorest spot.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 08:18:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 06:48:45 AM
Apparently the news is that Pawltenty and Portman were informed by Mittens' son, Tag, that they didn't make the veep selection. That's pretty fucked up, Mittens. They've been shilling for you on the campaign trail for months now, and you have your son do it? Can't even make the phone call yourself?
Too funny. Yeah, that's a CEO for you.
You'll whine about anything, won't you?
What, you didn't think that was poor form? One of the Mittens from Brazil makes the phone call on something as important as saying you're not on the ticket? That didn't strike you as weird?
Just further proof of the fact that the more people get to know or work with Mittens, the more they find him an immensely unlikeable Richie Rich douche.
I hope Pawlenty told the kid to fuck off.
I don't think it is a big deal. And proof would be that they complained not that you complained for them.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 09:07:07 AM
I don't think it is a big deal. And proof would be that they complained not that you complained for them.
I don't think they'd complain about it in public. We'll hear it through the grapevine.
Just announced: Chris Christie will be the keynote prime time speaker at the GOP convention.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 09:20:42 AM
Just announced: Chris Christie will be the keynote prime time speaker at the GOP convention.
Not just announced as I saw that in the elevator at 9 this morning.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 09:20:42 AM
Just announced: Chris Christie will be the keynote prime time speaker at the GOP convention.
Not just announced as I saw that in the elevator at 9 this morning.
Just announced TODAY. You evil bitch.
Doesn't seem like Chris Christie is going to stick around in New Jersey for long. Giving a speech in front of national convention, which I'm sure must include all the usual infuriating Republican half-truths and full-lies, will really aggravate the centrists in New Jersey.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 09:20:42 AM
Just announced: Chris Christie will be the keynote prime time speaker at the GOP convention.
Not just announced as I saw that in the elevator at 9 this morning.
Just announced TODAY. You evil bitch.
Sorry, I just remember as I almost vomited on my shoes. -_-
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Doesn't seem like Chris Christie is going to stick around in New Jersey for long. Giving a speech in front of national convention, which I'm sure must include all the usual infuriating Republican half-truths and full-lies, will really aggravate the centrists in New Jersey.
Yeah they said he'd be presenting about how important/correct the Republican agenda is.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdlnqnt.com%2Fstorage%2Fgoogle%2520paul%2520ryan.jpeg&hash=d524e3f627268e3aa5b02cd915876c794678e65d)
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Doesn't seem like Chris Christie is going to stick around in New Jersey for long. Giving a speech in front of national convention, which I'm sure must include all the usual infuriating Republican half-truths and full-lies, will really aggravate the centrists in New Jersey.
That is the thing with blue state republicans. You can never be sure when they will go full conservitard on you. Mitt Romney is exhibit a.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Yeah they said he'd be presenting about how important/correct the Republican agenda is.
I'm curious as to how long it'll take before he calls someone "numbnuts". I predict by the 6th minute.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 10:50:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Yeah they said he'd be presenting about how important/correct the Republican agenda is.
I'm curious as to how long it'll take before he calls someone "numbnuts". I predict by the 6th minute.
I wonder if he will find a way to do the speech in a question and answer format with the most hapless New Jersey reporters.
Sarah Palin: Not speaking.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Sarah Palin: Not speaking.
Smart move.
I was really hoping that Mittens, unable to control even his own campaign, would've carried the theme over to the GOP convention and let it turn into a Tea Party monkey shit fight at the zoo, but alas, it seems like they're going to stick to a specific script. I suppose that can be attributed more to the RNC than any of the retards in the Mittens campaign, though.
I wonder if the southern wing of the party is going to be upset. A candidate from Massachusetts, a VP from Wisconsin, a keynote speaker from New Jersey. No cultural warriors among them.
Romney will probably get away with it because the southern delegation really hates Obama.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2012, 11:44:42 AM
I wonder if the southern wing of the party is going to be upset. A candidate from Massachusetts, a VP from Wisconsin, a keynote speaker from New Jersey. No cultural warriors among them.
Romney will probably get away with it because the southern delegation really hates Obama.
Plus all the megachurch hairdos have already gone on record stating it's more important to oust Obama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Sarah Palin: Not speaking.
Smart move.
I was really hoping that Mittens, unable to control even his own campaign, would've carried the theme over to the GOP convention and let it turn into a Tea Party monkey shit fight at the zoo, but alas, it seems like they're going to stick to a specific script. I suppose that can be attributed more to the RNC than any of the retards in the Mittens campaign, though.
I don't think they are even letting Ron Paul speak.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2012, 11:44:42 AM
I wonder if the southern wing of the party is going to be upset. A candidate from Massachusetts, a VP from Wisconsin, a keynote speaker from New Jersey. No cultural warriors among them.
Romney will probably get away with it because the southern delegation really hates Obama.
The Religious Right believes God wants low taxes for the rich. People who are social conservatives but economic liberals already vote Democrat. So little effect.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2012, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Sarah Palin: Not speaking.
Smart move.
I was really hoping that Mittens, unable to control even his own campaign, would've carried the theme over to the GOP convention and let it turn into a Tea Party monkey shit fight at the zoo, but alas, it seems like they're going to stick to a specific script. I suppose that can be attributed more to the RNC than any of the retards in the Mittens campaign, though.
I don't think they are even letting Ron Paul speak.
I thought he never conceded precisely so he had to be allowed on the floor?
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 04:57:43 PM
I thought he never conceded precisely so he had to be allowed on the floor?
Never heard of this rule before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2012, 05:00:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 04:57:43 PM
I thought he never conceded precisely so he had to be allowed on the floor?
Never heard of this rule before.
Me neither; I kinda figured that participants at party conventions were determined by, you know, the party.
Paul does have a lot of supporters there, even among the Romney delegates. I heard my entire state delegation are Paulites.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 05:08:17 PM
Paul does have a lot of supporters there, even among the Romney delegates. I heard my entire state delegation are Paulites.
They should probably be kept away from any sharp objects.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 05:08:17 PM
Paul does have a lot of supporters there, even among the Romney delegates. I heard my entire state delegation are Paulites.
They should probably be kept away from any sharp objects.
:huh: Why in the world would you want to keep them
away from the sharp objects?
So they don't stab people. People like that should be kept in rubber rooms where they can ponder the true meaning of freedom in solace.
:shutup:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2012, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2012, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 14, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Sarah Palin: Not speaking.
Smart move.
I was really hoping that Mittens, unable to control even his own campaign, would've carried the theme over to the GOP convention and let it turn into a Tea Party monkey shit fight at the zoo, but alas, it seems like they're going to stick to a specific script. I suppose that can be attributed more to the RNC than any of the retards in the Mittens campaign, though.
I don't think they are even letting Ron Paul speak.
Rand Paul will speak.
I wonder if he'll be a perennial candidate like his father is.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2012, 07:29:02 AM
I wonder if he'll be a perennial candidate like his father is.
Was.
And of course since this is Languish, Biden's latest gaffe yesterday was not mentioned here.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/biden-to-crowd-romney-will-put-you-all-back-in-chains/1#.UCvXlamPVnE
And apparently he thought he was in North Carolina when he was actually in Virginia :lol:
Yeah, I saw it and didn't say anything as I figured - what's the point?
Isn't a gaffe when a politician accidentally tells the truth? :ph34r:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 15, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Isn't a gaffe when a politician accidentally tells the truth? :ph34r:
No. We've been over that before.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 12:15:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 15, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Isn't a gaffe when a politician accidentally tells the truth? :ph34r:
No. We've been over that before.
I did a search for gaffe to see if I could find that quote: the first autocomplete for "gaffe" was "joe biden gaffes".
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 12:11:24 PM
And of course since this is Languish, Biden's latest gaffe yesterday was not mentioned here.
Jesus, Spicey, get on a plane to Vancouver for the Languish Butthurt Convention.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 12:11:24 PM
And of course since this is Languish, Biden's latest gaffe yesterday was not mentioned here.
I don't know what Languish has to do with it, not caring about Biden's latest gaffe is a nearly universal trait.
Quote from: PDH on August 15, 2012, 12:19:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 12:11:24 PM
And of course since this is Languish, Biden's latest gaffe yesterday was not mentioned here.
Jesus, Spicey, get on a plane to Vancouver for the Languish Butthurt Convention.
:huh:
The handgun is to shoot CC's knees out so we can see how tall he is in a wheelchair?
Apparently I missed some shit while I was on mini-vacation in the middle of nowhere with no internet access.
Quote from: PDH on August 15, 2012, 12:26:12 PM
And bring a handgun and a Abby Wambach Jersey
hott.
Not sure how I feel about this. He acts like a dumb-ass and it is good she calls him out on it but I can't help but feeling that she seems to be berating him quite a bit as well.
http://www.upworthy.com/cnn-actually-fact-checks-a-politician-hilarity-ensues
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2012, 12:29:42 PM
The handgun is to shoot CC's knees out so we can see how tall he is in a wheelchair?
No, its so PDH wouldnt feel inadequate.
Ha! I would feel inadequate even with a .50 cal.
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you're out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
Quote from: PDH on August 15, 2012, 03:39:30 PM
Ha! I would feel inadequate even with a .50 cal.
:D
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you're out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
This would be a violation of our Charter. What say you American law talkers. Can they actually do this?
Well Obama's campaign is supposedly suing over the fact that military are still allowed to vote early in-person but regular citizens are not. As to the rest, if counties are allowed to opt against extended voting hours, what's the illegal part?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
This would be a violation of our Charter. What say you American law talkers. Can they actually do this?
Our laws are national, so Parliament could do it. But if the councils were in charge and did this I think they'd get destroyed at court.
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2012, 04:03:37 PM
Well Obama's campaign is supposedly suing over the fact that military are still allowed to vote early in-person but regular citizens are not.
The key word is "supposedly"
Infact they aren't suing to stop the military from early voting, they are suing to rescind the amendment that took away the same privileges from everyone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
This would be a violation of our Charter. What say you American law talkers. Can they actually do this?
Are you asking whether there is a US legal precedent for the proposition that there could be a consitutional problem if the right to vote for presidential electors in a state is effectively subject to radically different conditions and rules depending on the specific locality of the prospective voter within the state?
I could think of one case that might have some bearing on the issue . . . ;)
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you're out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
Stupid article is mixing county/city distinctions. But anyway, I live in Hamilton County where I'm supposedly "out of luck". Somehow I think I'll manage. I can still vote early, or just vote on election day. I'll probably vote early since it's looking like I'll be in Argentina early November.
Confident of Barry win so house hunting?
I'm proud of you for sticking to convictions spicy!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2012, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2012, 04:03:37 PM
Well Obama's campaign is supposedly suing over the fact that military are still allowed to vote early in-person but regular citizens are not.
The key word is "supposedly"
Infact they aren't suing to stop the military from early voting, they are suing to rescind the amendment that took away the same privileges from everyone else.
Sorry I just stated that poorly as I meant to say what you put in your clarification.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you're out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
Funny...glad I'm not the only one seeing things. Good you saw it, Jacob--when I mention voter suppression efforts, I'm just talking out of my ass.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 04:53:44 PMStupid article is mixing county/city distinctions. But anyway, I live in Hamilton County where I'm supposedly "out of luck". Somehow I think I'll manage. I can still vote early, or just vote on election day. I'll probably vote early since it's looking like I'll be in Argentina early November.
Of course you'll manage. You're not the targeted demographic, so you're supposed to.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you’re out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
This would be a violation of our Charter. What say you American law talkers. Can they actually do this?
Probably, but it depends on Ohio election laws. In North Carolina, apparantly it's at the option of the county election board as to when early voting takes place, but in West Virginia IIRC, the times are set by the state.
I really wouldn't mind the animals in Over-the-Rhine suppressed anyways. By force.
That should be wild enough and racist enough for Languish.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 04:53:44 PMStupid article is mixing county/city distinctions. But anyway, I live in Hamilton County where I'm supposedly "out of luck". Somehow I think I'll manage. I can still vote early, or just vote on election day. I'll probably vote early since it's looking like I'll be in Argentina early November.
Of course you'll manage. You're not the targeted demographic, so you're supposed to.
Last I checked, I had no special voting superpowers that others here lacked.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 06:11:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
Of course you'll manage. You're not the targeted demographic, so you're supposed to.
Last I checked, I had no special voting superpowers that others here lacked.
See Jacob, it's useless.
Husted changed the rules. Y'all won.
Edit: Well Seedy won. Jacob doesn't count. Sorry jake. :console:
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 06:11:12 PM
Last I checked, I had no special voting superpowers that others here lacked.
I think the argument is that whites can get away from their day jobs easier than minorities.
You guys have absentee voting? That would take a lot of the bite out of the voter suppression argument I figure.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:15:03 PM
Husted changed the rules. Y'all won.
Edit: Well Seedy won. Jacob doesn't count. Sorry jake. :console:
I totally count. Check it out: one... two... three... four... five...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Maybe this should be in Ed's Ohio thread, but whatever: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
Short version: Republicans are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Pretty disgusting if you believe in democracy.
QuoteIf you live in Butler or Warren counties in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Cincinnati, you can vote for president beginning in October by going to a polling place in the evening or on weekends. Republican officials in those counties want to make it convenient for their residents to vote early and avoid long lines on Election Day.
Related in Opinion
But, if you live in Cincinnati, you’re out of luck. Republicans on the county election board are planning to end early voting in the city promptly at 5 p.m., and ban it completely on weekends,
Funny...glad I'm not the only one seeing things. Good you saw it, Jacob--when I mention voter suppression efforts, I'm just talking out of my ass.
You make it seem like such a big deal. if you just voted republican you wouldn't have these issues.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 06:17:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 06:11:12 PM
Last I checked, I had no special voting superpowers that others here lacked.
I think the argument is that whites can get away from their day jobs easier than minorities.
You guys have absentee voting? That would take a lot of the bite out of the voter suppression argument I figure.
How does it take the bite out of the fact that the Republicans are running a campaign to deliberately make it harder for people to vote in specifically targeted districts?
Whatever way you think people may be able to get around it, the fact remains that that the Republicans are trying outright voter suppression. Whether it's successful or not, it's anti-democratic. Republicans of integrity ought to shut this shit down immediately.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
How does it take the bite out of the fact that the Republicans are running a campaign to deliberately make it harder for people to vote in specifically targeted districts?
Maybe Cincinnati voters shouldn't be electing a board that wants to disenfranchise them then.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
How does it take the bite out of the fact that the Republicans are running a campaign to deliberately make it harder for people to vote in specifically targeted districts?
Whatever way you think people may be able to get around it, the fact remains that that the Republicans are trying outright voter suppression. Whether it's successful or not, it's anti-democratic. Republicans of integrity ought to shut this shit down immediately.
The fact that Cincinnati has a Republican election commission suggests to me it's located in a majority Republican county.
Cincy always votes GOP. It's strange for a big city to do that, but they do.
Cincy just sucks. I wish there was a way to teleport across the river without going through the city.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
How does it take the bite out of the fact that the Republicans are running a campaign to deliberately make it harder for people to vote in specifically targeted districts?
Whatever way you think people may be able to get around it, the fact remains that that the Republicans are trying outright voter suppression. Whether it's successful or not, it's anti-democratic. Republicans of integrity ought to shut this shit down immediately.
The fact that Cincinnati has a Republican election commission suggests to me it's located in a majority Republican county.
So... because the majority in a locality tries to implement voter suppression against a minority, that makes it okay?
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:15:03 PM
Husted changed the rules. Y'all won.
Edit: Well Seedy won. Jacob doesn't count. Sorry jake. :console:
I totally count. Check it out: one... two... three... four... five...
:yes: As a resident math expert here, I can confirm that Jake can indeed count.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
So... because the majority in a locality tries to implement voter suppression against a minority, that makes it okay?
Not in the slighest.
Next we move on to the discussion of whether this is an example of voter suppression.
Yi starts out by posing the question of whether this move does in fact disproportionately impact minorities or not.
Jacob counters by retorting that of course it's voter suppression.
Seedy commends Jacob on making an excellent point.
With the great Ohio crisis over, attention now shifts to the lazy residents of the Keystone state. Full of Yinzers and other assorted scum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
Next we move on to the discussion of whether this is an example of voter suppression.
Yi starts out by posing the question of whether this move does in fact disproportionately impact minorities or not.
Jacob counters by retorting that of course it's voter suppression.
Seedy commends Jacob on making an excellent point.
Isn't the voter suppression by making it more difficult to vote in an area with more minorities than an area with less? I was reading some old notes and I think from a Euro-perspective, even if the effect is equal it's a form of indirect discrimination.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2012, 06:59:11 PM
Isn't the voter suppression by making it more difficult to vote in an area with more minorities than an area with less? I was reading some old notes and I think from a Euro-perspective, even if the effect is equal it's a form of indirect discrimination.
That's retarded. Why would the Republican Illuminiti want to sacrifice 10,000 white GOP votes for the sake of suppressing 5,000 black Democratic votes?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
That's retarded. Why would the Republican Illuminiti want to sacrifice 10,000 white GOP votes for the sake of suppressing 5,000 black Democratic votes?
In the wider context of increasing access in areas with fewer minorities?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2012, 07:03:16 PM
In the wider context of increasing access in areas with fewer minorities?
I'm not following you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:46:41 PM
Cincy just sucks. I wish there was a way to teleport across the river without going through the city.
Stop taking I-75 thru the city, FFS.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 06:40:15 PMThe fact that Cincinnati has a Republican election commission suggests to me it's located in a majority Republican county.
Did you read the part of the article where it said:
QuoteThe sleazy politics behind the disparity is obvious. Hamilton County, which contains Cincinnati, is largely Democratic and voted solidly for Barack Obama in 2008. So did the other urban areas of Cleveland, Columbus and Akron, where Republicans, with the assistance of the Ohio secretary of state, Jon Husted, have already eliminated the extended hours for early voting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 07:09:02 PM
I'm not following you.
From what I understand in areas with fewer minority voters early voting is being expanded or kept open longer while in areas with more it's being restricted.
Regardless of the effect on party votes if that's an accurate representation then I'd say it's a form of discrimination.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:46:41 PM
Cincy just sucks. I wish there was a way to teleport across the river without going through the city.
Stop taking I-75 thru the city, FFS.
I-275 sucks.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 07:13:04 PM
Did you read the part of the article where it said:
QuoteThe sleazy politics behind the disparity is obvious. Hamilton County, which contains Cincinnati, is largely Democratic and voted solidly for Barack Obama in 2008. So did the other urban areas of Cleveland, Columbus and Akron, where Republicans, with the assistance of the Ohio secretary of state, Jon Husted, have already eliminated the extended hours for early voting.
I did not. Looks like suppression to me! :cheers:
I wonder how they did that in counties where they didn't control the election commission.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:46:41 PM
Cincy just sucks. I wish there was a way to teleport across the river without going through the city.
Stop taking I-75 thru the city, FFS.
I-275 sucks.
Then take 71.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 07:18:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2012, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:46:41 PM
Cincy just sucks. I wish there was a way to teleport across the river without going through the city.
Stop taking I-75 thru the city, FFS.
I-275 sucks.
Then take 71.
LET ME BITCH ABOUT CINCINNATI, OK?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2012, 07:13:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 07:09:02 PM
I'm not following you.
From what I understand in areas with fewer minority voters early voting is being expanded or kept open longer while in areas with more it's being restricted.
Regardless of the effect on party votes if that's an accurate representation then I'd say it's a form of discrimination.
In Ohio, counties have traditionally set their own voting hours, and AFAIK voting hours are uniform within each county. You guys seem to think there's some nefarious plot to limit voting hours in black neighborhoods and then have 24/7 voting in the adjacent white neighborhood. The differences are (were?) on a county-by-county basis, with each county's board of elections setting its own voting hours.
I wasn't even aware Husted had the power to force uniformity among the counties, but apparently he can.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 07:20:49 PM
LET ME BITCH ABOUT CINCINNATI, OK?
You need to specify that you're talking about the West Side when you bitch, because that's all you see when you're on 75.
Here's an illustration of the East/West side divide:
West Side:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinawesome.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fpeterose.jpg&hash=41c1180700e7ba56e7c92a6008fa77ee6d320d31)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.nytimes.com%2Fbooks%2F01%2F05%2F06%2Fspecials%2Fzimmer.1.jpg&hash=005986adb40a265307076724146fef3018efa671)
East Side:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuserserve-ak.last.fm%2Fserve%2F_%2F846464%2FDoris%2BDay.jpg&hash=f92049a059ed955295c5beda5057a76d26106a7d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qpratools.com%2Fgallery%2Fbig%2Fpeter_frampton-live_in_detroit-front.jpg&hash=7960e394a294c0278d1a5048cb3941ad146e514a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onlinesports.com%2Fimages%2Fphf-aagi132.jpg&hash=e97a07ec657ebeb82c5d450ad9c0e60569615172)
FRAMPTON COMES ALIVE!
I still hate your city.
When best thing about your city is fictional radio station that was on tv show. :)
Quote from: katmai on August 15, 2012, 07:48:50 PM
When best thing about your city is fictional radio station that was on tv show. :)
Grog not know. When?
I always thought Frampton was English. :blush:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: katmai on August 15, 2012, 07:48:50 PM
When best thing about your city is fictional radio station that was on tv show. :)
Grog not know. When?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_wAxDMfEGhoY%2FTQrlbN4gYXI%2FAAAAAAAAAXg%2FkmwztAAni44%2Fs400%2FNot%252BSure%252Bif%252Bserious.jpg&hash=64d91e37a42edb6f49a10c06ca85c6fff2bde251)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2012, 07:51:15 PM
I always thought Frampton was English. :blush:
He is. He ended up settling in Cincinnati, though.
Yip if you don't know I can't answer it for ya.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2012, 06:56:37 PM
With the great Ohio crisis over, attention now shifts to the lazy residents of the Keystone state. Full of Yinzers and other assorted scum.
Dude, those people are totally fucked. Ohio and Florida don't have shit on what they've pulled in Pennsyltucky.
Yokels from Scummy southern states like Maryland shouldn't talk.
Quote from: katmai on August 15, 2012, 08:10:07 PM
Yokels from Scummy southern states like Maryland shouldn't talk.
Eat me, Grizzly Mom.
You know you secretly crave to own Garbon. Don't lie.
Quote from: katmai on August 15, 2012, 08:13:01 PM
You know you secretly crave to own Garbon. Don't lie.
If he lets me castrate him first, I'm game.
But Meri says he already is!
Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2012, 08:13:16 PM
He's right though.
Maryland has not*, nor will it ever, attempt to suppress the right to vote, nor reduce it to a "privilege" that only state-issued ID holders with expiration dates may exercise.
*Not since 1964, at least. :P
Quote from: katmai on August 15, 2012, 08:14:54 PM
But Meri says he already is!
Castration is different from being submissive.
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Indeed, if it keeps Romney from being elected.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Indeed, if it keeps Romney from being elected.
This is the magazine that endorsed Dubya's reelection, so meh. Nobody listened to them when they endorsed McCain in the 2000 primaries, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Indeed, if it keeps Romney from being elected.
This is the magazine that endorsed Dubya's reelection, so meh. Nobody listened to them when they endorsed McCain in the 2000 primaries, either.
:huh: The Economist endorsed Kerry.
Speaking of magazines...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.washtimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fcommunity%2Fviewpoint%2Fentry%2F2012%2F08%2F20%2Fnewsweek-640_s640x415.jpg%3Ff36e0f9cc85cad0edd3739c1d7f3d763895e87a6&hash=c1ce23d6367c784256c3029c548b213b4ded1202)
As a dues-paying member of the Men With Faggotty and Stupid Given Names Club, Niall Ferguson is bound by oath to support Romney.
Now, preemptively, I'm gonna say fuck you, Money. I don't pay dues.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
Republicans of integrity ought to shut this shit down immediately.
Actual integrity is a mighty rare attribute though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
I thought you were off your Ryan kick after you accepted JR's argument that the Ryan plan was nonsense.
Derspiess, that's probably the most ridiculed article in Newsweek in multiple years. Not something to be proud of.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 10:43:32 PM
I thought you were off your Ryan kick after you accepted JR's argument that the Ryan plan was nonsense.
"My Ryan kick" has only ever been your strawman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Indeed, if it keeps Romney from being elected.
This is the magazine that endorsed Dubya's reelection, so meh. Nobody listened to them when they endorsed McCain in the 2000 primaries, either.
They endorsed McCain/Palin ticket too. I love how some right wingers call them a leftwing rag. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 06:44:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
The Economist stole my line. They call the Ryan choice "risky for Romney, good for America." :)
Indeed, if it keeps Romney from being elected.
This is the magazine that endorsed Dubya's reelection, so meh. Nobody listened to them when they endorsed McCain in the 2000 primaries, either.
They endorsed McCain/Palin ticket too. I love how some right wingers call them a leftwing rag. :lol:
:huh: The Economist endorsed Obama.
Doesn't Ryan's plan effectively rely on magic to reduce the deficit?
Quote from: Phillip V on August 21, 2012, 06:50:02 AM
:huh: The Economist endorsed Obama.
I'm pretty sure the Economist followed my "endorsement" track of
Clinton vs Obama
McCain vs Obama
Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin
Quote from: Faeelin on August 21, 2012, 06:52:13 AM
Doesn't Ryan's plan effectively rely on magic to reduce the deficit?
Yes, and Republicans want to poison the water/air, steal old people's medicine, etc.
From the Financial Times:
QuoteThe president has his own problems with credibility. Much of the story of his first term has been that of a leader with all the intellectual skills required for the presidency but one lacking the bold temperament needed to translate intelligent analysis into effective action. His prospectus for a second term is at best hazy. Beyond the usual bromides, allies struggle even in private to articulate the president's ambitions for the next four years.
Mr Obama does have a deficit reduction plan – combining spending cuts and tax increases. But it falls short of the framework put forward by his own bipartisan commission. The Bowles-Simpson plan demanded deeper spending cuts and broader tax increases than Mr Obama has thought politically prudent to accept. Yet by shunning the plan. and by focusing during the campaign on raising taxes on the rich, Mr Obama has given the impression that he too is shirking the brutal fiscal reality.
I have heard Democrats say that it would be difficult for Mr Obama to change his mind and embrace Bowles-Simpson. Republicans would mock the about-turn. Maybe. But the president needs a project for his second term. Reviving the economy and then restoring health to the public finances is not a bad start. For all its flaws, Bowles-Simpson offers Mr Obama precious credibility.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 09:18:54 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 21, 2012, 06:52:13 AM
Doesn't Ryan's plan effectively rely on magic to reduce the deficit?
Yes, and Republicans want to poison the water/air, steal old people's medicine, etc.
Yes. What do you have to say for yourself?
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 09:24:52 AM
From the Financial Times:
QuoteMr Obama does have a deficit reduction plan – combining spending cuts and tax increases. But it falls short of the framework put forward by his own bipartisan commission. The Bowles-Simpson plan demanded deeper spending cuts and broader tax increases than Mr Obama has thought politically prudent to accept. Yet by shunning the plan. and by focusing during the campaign on raising taxes on the rich, Mr Obama has given the impression that he too is shirking the brutal fiscal reality.
Not really a viable criticism of Obama that the Romney-Ryan campaign can use, since Mr. Chairman of the Budget Committee poo-poohed it as well. Criticizing the President for rejecting the same plan you voted against doesn't float.
Not that they should but that in all of this, I realized that I didn't know what Obama's concrete plan was.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2012, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 09:18:54 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 21, 2012, 06:52:13 AM
Doesn't Ryan's plan effectively rely on magic to reduce the deficit?
Yes, and Republicans want to poison the water/air, steal old people's medicine, etc.
Yes. What do you have to say for yourself?
Nothing further, your honor.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 09:18:54 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 21, 2012, 06:52:13 AM
Doesn't Ryan's plan effectively rely on magic to reduce the deficit?
Yes, and Republicans want to poison the water/air, steal old people's medicine, etc.
Acording to Mitt Romney, his VP candidate is doing exactly that.
Romney claims that Obama is stealing 700B from medicare.
Yet his VP candidate banks those exact same savings for his deficit reduction plan. While really REALLY wouldn't work otherwise, a non-starter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2012, 03:59:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 10:43:32 PM
I thought you were off your Ryan kick after you accepted JR's argument that the Ryan plan was nonsense.
"My Ryan kick" has only ever been your strawman.
Explain.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 06:53:59 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 21, 2012, 06:50:02 AM
:huh: The Economist endorsed Obama.
I'm pretty sure the Economist followed my "endorsement" track of
Clinton vs Obama
McCain vs Obama
Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin
Do they typically make endorsements for the general election before VP candidates have been named? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 21, 2012, 05:42:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 06:53:59 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 21, 2012, 06:50:02 AM
:huh: The Economist endorsed Obama.
I'm pretty sure the Economist followed my "endorsement" track of
Clinton vs Obama
McCain vs Obama
Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin
Do they typically make endorsements for the general election before VP candidates have been named? :huh:
"endorsement" not Endorsement. The paper supported candidates relatively openly and formally Endorsed a candidate after the conventions.
France
It's Nizza, bastards. :mad:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/581126_378262885573554_1939982516_n.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_satan#Beliefs
QuoteThe Church of Satan does not worship or support a belief in the Devil or other supernatural entities. "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason," said Peter Gilmore.[5] Gilmore defines the word Satan: "Satan is a model or a mode of behavior. Satan in Hebrew means 'adversary' or 'opposer'; one who questions."[5]
Satanists within the Church of Satan adhere to these as guidelines on how to live. However, it is important to remember that Satanists generally do not view the Satanic sins, statements, and rules of the earth as things that one must go out of their way to do. The Satanist ideally sees these things as truisms and how they naturally live their lives, as opposed to a Christian or Jew, who would strive to follow the words of Christ or the mitzvot, respectively.
Don't try to ruin things with facts!
I think they missed the point. The point was to shock people and to wear a Halloween costume all year round.
You can trust Ryan because he has hair on his crown instead of his chin.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2012, 10:58:24 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/581126_378262885573554_1939982516_n.jpg)
I gotta say, I like Paul Ryan more and more. If only he progressed to a lapsed Catholic.
Paul Ryan has specifically gone out of his way to deny her atheism and concentrates on Rand's Economic theory. Basically he denies her atheism and accepts her tax cutting. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. It is possible to hold two contradicting ideas at the same time.
The problem I have is that Ayn Rand wasn't an economist and really didn't know much about the topic at all, apart from the realization that Lenin's NEP was better than nationalization of all property. Rands central good Idea, the one that I very strongly support, is that reason is the best framework for understanding the world. I'm always amazed that Randites and Librarytarians focus on what an author has to say about tax cuts rather than what she has to say about thinking itself. Rand doesn't condemn religionists and progressives for what their conclusions are she condemns them for not using reason. Presuming in the process that if they had used reason they sure as hell wouldn't have reached their conclusions.
That is my problem with Ryan. He picks the Randian conclusions he likes but completely abandons the process. It's like he's claiming to be a christian but ignores the central bit in the message about loving one's neighbor and helping the poor - oh, wait, that is what he's doing.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 04:48:49 AM
That is my problem with Ryan. He picks the Randian conclusions he likes but completely abandons the process. It's like he's claiming to be a christian but ignores the central bit in the message about loving one's neighbor and helping the poor - oh, wait, that is what he's doing.
:lol: When you've got a bunch of nuns pissed off enough to rent a charter bus to let you know all about it, you've got a PR problem with your budget plan.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 21, 2012, 07:20:18 PM
It's Nizza, bastards. :mad:
Nizza, please. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 04:48:49 AM
Paul Ryan has specifically gone out of his way to deny her atheism and concentrates on Rand's Economic theory. Basically he denies her atheism and accepts her tax cutting. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. It is possible to hold two contradicting ideas at the same time.
The problem I have is that Ayn Rand wasn't an economist and really didn't know much about the topic at all, apart from the realization that Lenin's NEP was better than nationalization of all property.
Yeah, what's concerning is Ryan's claim in the Atlas group speech that the basis for his views on monetary policy comes from a speech in Atlas Shrugged. Maybe he was just playing to audience, but if there is any truth to that, it would be more than a little disturbing.
So I wonder if anything will come of this: http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
So I wonder if anything will come of this: http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
Ann Romney has already told you people that you people have got all you people are going to get. And that's final.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 01:51:40 PMAnn Romney has already told you people that you people have got all you people are going to get. And that's final.
But it looks like some people did get more...
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2012, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 01:51:40 PMAnn Romney has already told you people that you people have got all you people are going to get. And that's final.
But it looks like some people did get more...
You people have got all you people are going to get. And that's final.
Mitt now flipping and saying he won't renominate Bernanke.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2012, 02:38:29 PM
Mitt now flipping and saying he won't renominate Bernanke.
Who's it going to be instead? Ron Paul?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2012, 02:38:29 PM
Mitt now flipping and saying he won't renominate Bernanke.
:pinch:
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2012, 02:39:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 23, 2012, 02:38:29 PM
Mitt now flipping and saying he won't renominate Bernanke.
Who's it going to be instead? Ron Paul?
It'll be Paul Krugman and after everyone's head has stopped spinning he'll say it was all a big joke to prove how really funny and personable he is.
:lol:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-todd-akin-paul-ryan-abortion-local-interviews-2012-8
Quote
Mitt Romney Won't Let Local Reporters Ask About Todd Akin Or Abortion
Mitt Romney stipulated that a local Denver television station not ask him any questions about Missouri Rep. and Senate candidate Todd Akin or abortion, a request that has prompted a firestorm of backlash.
The Obama campaign caught wind of the clip and blasted it out to reporters Thursday afternoon. And so, the biggest piece of news coming from the interview is what Romney said off-air.
Here's the video of the newscast, in which reporter Shaun Boyd revealed that she was not allowed to ask about the topics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Kec4C6zjU
You know, I had about five minutes with him, and we got through a fair amount of material, actually, in that five minutes," Boyd says in the clip.
"The one stipulation to the interview was that I not ask him about abortion or Todd Akin – he's the Missouri Republican who created a firestorm after saying women's shut down in a legitimate rape to prevent pregnancy. I did ask him about health care, the female vote, and energy."
It comes as Romney and running mate Paul Ryan have faced question after question about Akin's controversial comments on rape, pregnancy and abortion last Sunday.
Democrats have already started trying to tie Akin to Romney and especially Ryan, who co-sponsored a controversial bill with Akin last year that critics say tried to "redefine rape." An early version of the bill would have narrowed exceptions for federal funding in abortions to cases of "forcible rape."
The Obama team has faced its own criticism in the past weeks for aides reportedly attempting to edit Vice President Joe Biden's pool reports.
Can this board embed video?
The CEO will only be asked questions by your people that the CEO wants to answer from you people.
I mean, all's fair in love, war and politics, so if Obama can get some mileage out of this then good for them, but I think it's fairly standard when you're an in-demand interview like a Presidential nominee to put limits on what you're being asked.
How many times was Obama (directly, not staffers) asked about being a muslim or his birth certificate?
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 04:55:48 PM
I mean, all's fair in love, war and politics, so if Obama can get some mileage out of this then good for them, but I think it's fairly standard when you're an in-demand interview like a Presidential nominee to put limits on what you're being asked.
Uh, yeah...
QuoteHow many times was Obama (directly, not staffers) asked about being a muslim or his birth certificate?
Not very often. You want to know why? Because they're stupid fucking moonbat questions.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 04:55:48 PM
I mean, all's fair in love, war and politics, so if Obama can get some mileage out of this then good for them, but I think it's fairly standard when you're an in-demand interview like a Presidential nominee to put limits on what you're being asked.
How many times was Obama (directly, not staffers) asked about being a muslim or his birth certificate?
I was under the impression that abortion was a major mainstream issue in American politics. Not so much about crypto-muslims.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 04:55:48 PM
How many times was Obama (directly, not staffers) asked about being a muslim or his birth certificate?
QuoteRomney: 'No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate'
(CNN) - Mitt Romney began his stump speech in Michigan on Friday with a joke which raised a sensitive issue: birth certificates.
"I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born," he said. "Ann was born at Henry Ford hospital, I was born at Harper hospital. No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."
Some Republicans, known as "birthers," have questioned the birthplace of President Barack Obama.
Obama's long-form birth certificate was released by the White House in 2011. It showed he was born in a Hawaii hospital on August 4, 1961. Only "natural born" citizens of the United States are eligible to be president.
Among the highest profile of those questioning Obama's birthplace is Donald Trump, who earlier this year endorsed Romney and has said he will have a high-profile role at the Republican National Convention next week. His calls for Obama to release the long-form certificate increased the drumbeat on the issue in the spring of 2011 before the White House gave it out. Despite the document being in the public sphere, Trump has continued to question Obama's birthplace in media appearances and in social media posts.
In a statement responding to Romney's comments, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt mentioned Trump and others who have raised the birth certificate issue previously.
"Throughout this campaign, Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them," LaBolt said. "It's one thing to give the stage in Tampa to Donald Trump, Sheriff Arpaio, and Kris Kobach. But Governor Romney's decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America."
Romney senior adviser Kevin Madden said after the candidate's remarks, "The governor has always said, and has repeatedly said, he believes the president was born here in the United States. He was only referencing that Michigan, where he is campaigning today, is the state where he himself was born and raised."
In his Friday remarks, Romney's reference was to his own birth certificate, not that of Obama.
Keep talking about everything else but the economy, Mittens.
Just a poor attempt at a joke, I think. Besides, you can't talk about the economy in Detroit. :P
That doesn't make Willard a birther.
Anyway, Seedy, why isn't your guy talking about the economy? :D
Of course, the anti-niggers dismiss it.
But I for one applaud Mittens' ability to lose control of the news cycle with his own stupidity. Can't wait to see what fuck ups transpire in Tampa.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
But I for one applaud Mittens' ability to lose control of the news cycle with his own stupidity.
No shit. As much as he's screwed up, I bet Obama is up by like 20 points in the polls by now.
Btw, I don't think LaBolt is correct as I'd throw Arpaio in just as bad as the birther movement.
Who's Kris Kobach?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2012, 02:14:28 PM
Who's Kris Kobach?
Apparently Secretary of State of Kansas, anti-immigration and friend of Arpaio.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 01:24:40 PM
Btw, I don't think LaBolt is correct as I'd throw Arpaio in just as bad as the birther movement.
LaBolt is also incorrect in that Arpaio will not be speaking at the convention (thank God).
LaBolt sounds like a good press secretary though I'd wager his statement was more rhetorical than attempting to be factual.
I can't wait until the convention in Tampa. It's going to be the most riveting summer television since Iran-Contra, if only to see what Mittens can step into next.
QuoteMitt Romney Says Big Business 'Doing Fine' After Criticizing Obama for Similar Remarks
HOPKINS, Minn. - Mitt Romney said Thursday night that big businesses are "doing fine," using similar language that the presumptive nominee has hammered President Obama for using to describe the private sector earlier this year.
"I'm going to champion small business. We've got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places - they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation," said Romney, speaking to a group of supporters at a private fundraiser in Minnesota.
Romney then added that the reason that big businesses are "doing fine in many places" is because they are able to invest their money in "tax havens."
"They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses," said Romney. "But small business is getting crushed."
While Romney often talks about the negative impact regulations have on small businesses during his campaign speeches, his remarks tonight sounded similar to those made by Obama in June in which he said the private sector was "doing fine."
Romney has since used the president's words as a frequent example on the campaign trail of Obama being out of touch with struggling Americans.
At a campaign rally in Michigan just days following Obama's remarks Romney said that the president, "trying to explain that everything's going swimmingly," remarked that "the private sector is doing fine."
Eliciting boos from the crowd, Romney added, "Yeah, I don't hear that where I go across the country, with the 23 million people out of work or underemployed."
Additionally, while Romney said tax havens were helping businesses succeed during his remarks tonight, the candidate's own personal finances have come under scrutiny after it was revealed that some of his investments were placed in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands.
I bet it'll be dull.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 02:51:00 PM
LaBolt sounds like a good press secretary though I'd wager his statement was more rhetorical than attempting to be factual.
Yeah, being factual seems to be a bit of a challenge for their side.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/23/anderson_cooper_hammers_wasserman_schultz_over_romney__abortion.html
Romney abortion? :o Haven't heard anything about that.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 02:51:00 PM
LaBolt sounds like a good press secretary though I'd wager his statement was more rhetorical than attempting to be factual.
Yeah, being factual seems to be a bit of a challenge for their side.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/23/anderson_cooper_hammers_wasserman_schultz_over_romney__abortion.html
Debbie! :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
I can't wait until the convention in Tampa. It's going to be the most riveting summer television since Iran-Contra, if only to see what Mittens can step into next.
QuoteMitt Romney Says Big Business 'Doing Fine' After Criticizing Obama for Similar Remarks
HOPKINS, Minn. - Mitt Romney said Thursday night that big businesses are "doing fine," using similar language that the presumptive nominee has hammered President Obama for using to describe the private sector earlier this year.
"I'm going to champion small business. We've got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places - they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation," said Romney, speaking to a group of supporters at a private fundraiser in Minnesota.
Romney then added that the reason that big businesses are "doing fine in many places" is because they are able to invest their money in "tax havens."
"They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses," said Romney. "But small business is getting crushed."
While Romney often talks about the negative impact regulations have on small businesses during his campaign speeches, his remarks tonight sounded similar to those made by Obama in June in which he said the private sector was "doing fine."
Romney has since used the president's words as a frequent example on the campaign trail of Obama being out of touch with struggling Americans.
At a campaign rally in Michigan just days following Obama's remarks Romney said that the president, "trying to explain that everything's going swimmingly," remarked that "the private sector is doing fine."
Eliciting boos from the crowd, Romney added, "Yeah, I don't hear that where I go across the country, with the 23 million people out of work or underemployed."
Additionally, while Romney said tax havens were helping businesses succeed during his remarks tonight, the candidate's own personal finances have come under scrutiny after it was revealed that some of his investments were placed in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands.
Another non-"gotcha". Romney said larger businesses were doing fine, which they are, while Obama said the entire private sector was doing fine, which it's not.
Keep trying.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2012, 03:41:50 PM
Debbie! :wub:
At least she did something a little different with her hair. It doesn't look great, but it's a little less poodly.
Oh hey, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is speaking at the Republican convention: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/joe-arpaio-speaking-gop-convention_n_1821813.html
Does that make him a mainstream Republican?
I don't understand the interest in that guy.
Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2012, 05:55:12 PM
Oh hey, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is speaking at the Republican convention: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/joe-arpaio-speaking-gop-convention_n_1821813.html
Does that make him a mainstream Republican?
He already was one.
Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2012, 05:55:12 PM
Oh hey, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is speaking at the Republican convention: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/joe-arpaio-speaking-gop-convention_n_1821813.html
Does that make him a mainstream Republican?
He's not speaking at the Convention, he is "scheduled to address a large audience of Republican National Convention delegates from western states at a special reception on August 30th. The event is invitation-only."
Quote from: sbr on August 24, 2012, 09:58:03 PMHe's not speaking at the Convention, he is "scheduled to address a large audience of Republican National Convention delegates from western states at a special reception on August 30th. The event is invitation-only."
Ah yeah, so he's not speaking at the convention, he's just giving a speech while at the convention.But yeah, I get the difference.
Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2012, 01:52:31 PM
Ah yeah, so he's not speaking at the convention, he's just giving a speech while at the convention.But yeah, I get the difference.
It doesn't seem that you do. Any private citizen can fly to Tampa, rent a hotel ballroom and invite anyone he wants to come come and listen to him speak. Joe Biden for example plans to be in Tampa addressing the media. I don't think you would describe that as Joe Biden speaking at the GOP convention.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2012, 04:38:01 PMIt doesn't seem that you do. Any private citizen can fly to Tampa, rent a hotel ballroom and invite anyone he wants to come come and listen to him speak. Joe Biden for example plans to be in Tampa addressing the media. I don't think you would describe that as Joe Biden speaking at the GOP convention.
Exactly. That's what I said. He's giving a speech while at the convention. He's not speaking at the convention. Or if you would prefer, he's not Speaking at the Convention.
Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2012, 04:54:18 PM
Exactly. That's what I said. He's giving a speech while at the convention. He's not speaking at the convention. Or if you would prefer, he's not Speaking at the Convention.
I thought you were being sarcastic. :ultra:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2012, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2012, 04:54:18 PM
Exactly. That's what I said. He's giving a speech while at the convention. He's not speaking at the convention. Or if you would prefer, he's not Speaking at the Convention.
I thought you were being sarcastic. :ultra:
I spent a whole two minutes trying to figure out how to say that without running the risk of sounding sarcastic, and I realized it was pretty much impossible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2012, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 25, 2012, 04:54:18 PM
Exactly. That's what I said. He's giving a speech while at the convention. He's not speaking at the convention. Or if you would prefer, he's not Speaking at the Convention.
I thought you were being sarcastic. :ultra:
Yes, Languish is full of sarcastic statements. :rolleyes: