Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Ogre on August 11, 2012, 07:26:39 AM
-
Paul Ryan as VP.
Discuss.
-
This election season has so far been the nastiest I've ever heard of. It's on par with the University of Alabama naming Harvey Updyke their minister of propaganda.
So while Paul Ryan may be a good vice president candidate, he's not doing much for me in terms of fighting back against the horrific slander of the Obama campaign.
The only positive is that he's Catholic and that may help reinforce the anti-gay marriage, pro-life, anti-contraception policy that Catholics would want and Obama is against.
But I don't think he brings in the female vote. He definitely doesn't bring in the hispanic vote. He's from Wisconsin, so any kind of urban vote or youth vote or media hype is gone.
Maybe he'll surprise me.
-
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm
-
Paul Ryan as VP.
Discuss.
My initial thoughts...
A great choice; it tells me that Wisconsin is in play in this election cycle which is very encouraging. Paul Ryan comes from a younger generation and from the mid-west; he's brilliant on economics, he's a young man of great character, and he strikes me as someone who is not of the Washington "Beltway" insiders.
On another note I was very impressed with Romney's speech especially his use of appealing to the "better angels of our nature"; a clear reference from the first inaugural speech of Lincoln in which he expressed a hope to unite the nation which was on the precipice of civil war.
Both speeches were very positive and attacked The Pharaoh on the economy which what needs to be done constantly.
-
This election season has so far been the nastiest I've ever heard of. It's on par with the University of Alabama naming Harvey Updyke their minister of propaganda.
So while Paul Ryan may be a good vice president candidate, he's not doing much for me in terms of fighting back against the horrific slander of the Obama campaign.
The only positive is that he's Catholic and that may help reinforce the anti-gay marriage, pro-life, anti-contraception policy that Catholics would want and Obama is against.
But I don't think he brings in the female vote. He definitely doesn't bring in the hispanic vote. He's from Wisconsin, so any kind of urban vote or youth vote or media hype is gone.
Maybe he'll surprise me.
Good points but none of it matters if Ryan (and Gov. Scott Walker) can bring Wisconsin into the Republican column this year...if they can do that then The Pharaoh looses as long as North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia go Republican as well.
-
Good points but none of it matters if Ryan (and Gov. Scott Walker) can bring Wisconsin into the Republican column this year...if they can do that then The Pharaoh looses as long as North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia go Republican as well.
Ryan's for some kind of weird coupon in place of Medicare, right? How is Romney going to pick up votes in Florida with this guy?
Rubio was my choice not because of his views or values, but because of his skin. He would have inspired the Hispanic vote and hulled in Florida. Wisconsin was winnable, but I'm really unconfident about Florida.
-
I heard. I yawned.
-
Ryan's for some kind of weird coupon in place of Medicare, right? How is Romney going to pick up votes in Florida with this guy?
Rubio was my choice not because of his views or values, but because of his skin. He would have inspired the Hispanic vote and hulled in Florida. Wisconsin was winnable, but I'm really unconfident about Florida.
Rubio is still going to be campaigning in South Florida for Romney regardless of not being on the ticket and Jeb Bush's {hispanic} son will also be heavily campaigning there too which will make it possible to win in South Florida. The voters I'm concerned about getting out to the polls at least in Florida (outside of S. Fla.), North Carolina, and Virginia are the rural, white, evangelicals who are going to have to get up off of their collective asses on election day and vote for a Mormon. It really doesn't matter who Romney picked to assuage them (unless he picked a Muslim). If they get out and vote Romney will win in those states; if they don't then he won't. Perhaps he could have picked Huckleberry to help with that issue but then he's sure to loose in Ohio; I can't see Ohio voting for Huckleberry.
Outside of that I think that Ryan will be a huge plus for the more esoteric, uncommitted voters in the must-win states of Ohio and Iowa. Now, with Ryan, Wisconsin is another mid-western state that is in the play (I had some doubts about that state and had it going for Obama which meant that Nevada and Colorado mattered; with Wisconsin in play Nevada and Colorado can go blue and Romney can still win enough electoral votes to win the White House).
I really thought that Romney was going to pick a boring, safe {read losing} choice like Tim Pawlenty but he didn't. And Ryan will keep the message on the Economy which is a winning message in my humble opinion. I think he's a great choice.
-
I heard. I yawned.
I betting that you will still vote for Romney.
-
I betting that you will still vote for Romney.
I would vote for Romney if he'd chosen Buddy the Elf as his running mate.
i'd vote for Chopper 12.4 with a running mate of Titan Tiger over Obama.
-
I would vote for Romney if he'd chosen Buddy the Elf as his running mate.
i'd vote for Chopper 12.4 with a running mate of Titan Tiger over Obama.
Well said; and I did chortle.
-
I've read that the Romney/Ryan ticket will bring entitlements into serious play. I don't like it. Conservatives against entitlements and liberals for entitlements are already set. The independent voter that is uneducated and swayed by the wind (most of them) will be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence that Obama will use to support entitlements.
It's already easy for the left to vilify Romney as the rich overlord that wants to hurt people to get more money for himself. Bringing entitlements into the game is going to reinforce that.
-
Ryan's for some kind of weird coupon in place of Medicare, right? How is Romney going to pick up votes in Florida with this guy?
Rubio was my choice not because of his views or values, but because of his skin. He would have inspired the Hispanic vote and hulled in Florida. Wisconsin was winnable, but I'm really unconfident about Florida.
I apologize for not answering the Medicare comment; didn't mean to ignore it. My opinion is that we've got to wake up to reality: it has be reformed or it's going away and in conjunction with that we've GOT to stop the out-of-control spending. Ryan has some ideas and a plan which may not be great but it's a start. We can't keep out collective heads in the sand. At least he's not afraid take on the challenge unlike the Dems and many Republicans who want status quo which isn't going to work.
-
I've read that the Romney/Ryan ticket will bring entitlements into serious play. I don't like it. Conservatives against entitlements and liberals for entitlements are already set. The independent voter that is uneducated and swayed by the wind (most of them) will be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence that Obama will use to support entitlements.
It's already easy for the left to vilify Romney as the rich overlord that wants to hurt people to get more money for himself. Bringing entitlements into the game is going to reinforce that.
In understand; but Entitlements are another side-issue; they've got to stay on-topic with the Economy and not get bogged down. The Dems can't talk about the economy because they OWN the 8% + unemployment at this point.
-
In understand; but Entitlements are another side-issue; they've got to stay on-topic with the Economy and not get bogged down. The Dems can't talk about the economy because they OWN the 8% + unemployment at this point.
No, Bush did that I'm pretty sure. i've been told that more times than I've been told about Bammer's 11, 14, 11ty3 championships.
I also laughed my ASS off when I heard Boobama slam Reagan and say "we've tried that trickle down economy and it didn't work."
It DIDN'T FUCKING WORK? Are people really stupid enough to just buy that line from this stuffed shirt assclown without bothering to check?
Reagan's economic policies turned around a country gripped by Carter's malaise and created an environment where we surged to unprecedented heights and amazing wealth. We went from a country teetering on the brink of economic ruin -- remember gas lines? Remember 8% unemployment? -- and turned that shit around stat. Unemployment was down to nearly 4% when Reagan was done. Those policies paved the way for the US to survive a mild recession and then thrive like a motherfucker when Clinton was in office.
But no... we don't want to go back to those "failed" policies now. We need hope! We need change! We need forward! We need gay rights!
I am constantly amazed at just how stupid people are. No reasonable, thinking human being could be fooled by this hot-air puffing, not even born in this country fraudulent poser. And yet millions are.
:facepalm:
-
I've read that the Romney/Ryan ticket will bring entitlements into serious play. I don't like it. Conservatives against entitlements and liberals for entitlements are already set. The independent voter that is uneducated and swayed by the wind (most of them) will be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence that Obama will use to support entitlements.
It's already easy for the left to vilify Romney as the rich overlord that wants to hurt people to get more money for himself. Bringing entitlements into the game is going to reinforce that.
In hindsight there are some specific entitlements that WILL have to be brought into serious play because they will have to be challenged in a serious debate on limited FedGov and balancing a budget but, as I mentioned, they need to be taken-on.
I know you're skeptical by your posts so I'll offer to you what a religiously libertarian friend of mine posted of FB today for reasons not to vote for Ryan because he:
Voted for TARP 1
Voted for the Home Affordable Refinance Program
Voted for the 2008 and 2009 Stimulus
Voted for Medicare Expansion (Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Program)
Voted for a National ID
Voted for the Patriot Act
Voted for No Child Left Behind
Voted for Keeping Troops in Iraq
There you go; he's not perfect.
So you have some choices; can vote for Romney/Ryan, The Pharaoh and the idiot, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitutional Party, or you can not vote at all.
I've made my choice. And Mitt Romney has raised $1.2 million dollars in the past few hours since picking Ryan.
-
No, Bush did that I'm pretty sure. i've been told that more times than I've been told about Bammer's 11, 14, 11ty3 championships.
I also laughed my ASS off when I heard Boobama slam Reagan and say "we've tried that trickle down economy and it didn't work."
It DIDN'T FUCKING WORK? Are people really stupid enough to just buy that line from this stuffed shirt assclown without bothering to check?
Reagan's economic policies turned around a country gripped by Carter's malaise and created an environment where we surged to unprecedented heights and amazing wealth. We went from a country teetering on the brink of economic ruin -- remember gas lines? Remember 8% unemployment? -- and turned that shit around stat. Unemployment was down to nearly 4% when Reagan was done. Those policies paved the way for the US to survive a mild recession and then thrive like a motherfucker when Clinton was in office.
But no... we don't want to go back to those "failed" policies now. We need hope! We need change! We need forward! We need gay rights!
I am constantly amazed at just how stupid people are. No reasonable, thinking human being could be fooled by this hot-air puffing, not even born in this country fraudulent poser. And yet millions are.
:facepalm:
Well said again Kaos and I'm an old-fart enough to remember those bad times and how the Gipper turned it around. We'll never see another Reagan again I'm afraid which means right-thinking folk like us have to stay engaged in government.
-
I for one am very excited about the fact Ryan is the VP pick. Its been a while that I can actually stomach listening to more that 10 minutes of political rhetoric these days but I can sit
through whatever Ryan has to say. Without going into some deep boring opinion about it, I can
say at least the guy has some pretty damn good smarts especially when it comes to the economics.
We need that more than anything right now. Also, like mentioned, he is somewhat of a change
to the same old DC face clogging up the TV screen.
I would love to see a VP debate b/w Ryan and Biden. They should air this on Comedy Central
as "The Roast of Joe Biden".
-
Well said again Kaos and I'm an old-fart enough to remember those bad times and how the Gipper turned it around. We'll never see another Reagan again I'm afraid which means right-thinking folk like us have to stay engaged in government.
Yeah, I'm guessing people just don't remember that time. How could they and have any faith in Dumboma?
We didn't even know what we had in Reagan when he was elected. I helped with Carter's campaign in 1976. I wanted to be governor of Alabama (like George Wallace) when I was a little kid. That was my ultimate goal. So I was barely old enough to walk and I'm passing out Carter flyers and buttons. Helped any way I could. Worked on Wallace's 1982 campaign, too. But I digress.
I believed in Carter's hope, change and peanuts in 1976. But I saw quickly that he was completely inept. Even as a kid I knew. And when 1980 came along I hesitantly and grudgingly turned to Reagan. I believed some of Carter's rhetoric. I believed Reagan was too out of touch, that he didn't have enough political background, that he was a left coast liberal masquerading as a populist, that he pandered to the rich, etc.
Most people don't remember this, but Carter was absolutely waxing Reagan's ass up until about a month before the election. Almost a double digit lead if memory serves. But Reagan obliterated Carter in the last debate and people finally saw the reality.
Carter went from being ahead to the point that people were calling the election to racking up all but six states.
It was amazing. And the last time I've seen the American public come through. We didn't know what we had and came very close to not electing one of the greatest presidents in our history.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
-
Not sure why you think Ryan won't get the women vote. He's a cutie until he opens his mouth - that Whis-KAHN-sin accent is a bit Yankee for my tastes.
Some of his positions on social issues will bother some women, at least those who vote with their uteruses - his pro life stance matters not to me since he has ZERO effect on abortion policy. The bigger issue for me as a mom is finding a way out of this shitastic economic nightmare before my kids pay the price - whether now or later. SS is DONE. Yeah, I have to pay in, but I am not counting on seeing one damn penny back ever. Anyone who is still naive enough to think they can retire on SS is nuts.
I don't know if Ryan has THE plan, but he HAS a plan, one that cannot - CANNOT - be worse than the damage the current jackass has done.
I like him.
-
http://janmorganmedia.com/2012/08/ryan-faces-obama-and-takes-obamacare-down-in-six-minutes/
-
I've read that the Romney/Ryan ticket will bring entitlements into serious play. I don't like it. Conservatives against entitlements and liberals for entitlements are already set. The independent voter that is uneducated and swayed by the wind (most of them) will be easily persuaded by anecdotal evidence that Obama will use to support entitlements.
It's already easy for the left to vilify Romney as the rich overlord that wants to hurt people to get more money for himself. Bringing entitlements into the game is going to reinforce that.
Well, I heard Debbie 'Blabbermouth' Schultz, DNC Chairman, on Fox News Sunday this morning. She was mostly speaking in talking points regarding the Ryan pick but one thing really stands out to me and that's her specific argument saying that the Ryan Plan would be a return to Seniors having to deal with "the doughnut hole" again (which the Affordable Care Act supposedly corrects). You may not be aware of this issue but I am keenly aware of it having had to help my Senior parents with needed prescription drugs when they went into the Medicare "doughnut hole". There's validity to the Dems arguing about this issue because it is a big issue for current Seniors.
The trap that the Dems will set is getting into the weeds of entitlements. Ryan is going to have to argue effectively against this campaign of mis-information against his Medicare reform plan and, I think, that he (and Romney) can then elevate the argument to entitlement reform in the abstract which is a winning tactic (and by repeating again and again that the Medicare Trustees have been warning again and again {even as late as April 2012} that the plan is out of money in 12 years or so). Status quo (as the Dems seem to want by being derelict on a budget or an economic plan or Medicare reform or Social Security reform) is simply not a responsible option and neither is Obamacare for that matter. America has GOT to wake up to this! Ryan is well-equipped to speak coherently and cogently on all of these problems.
Beyond that I think they are going to have to keep the message simple: to borrow from Clinton/Carville "It's the Economy, stupid." This was one of the most effective campaign strategies that I've seen and Romney/Ryan are going to have to focus on-message regarding this issue. The Pharaoh has NO leg to stand on, his Economic 'plan' has been a disaster, it's lead to a consistent 8%+ unemployment for practically all of his first term (he owns this problem), he's been AWOL on a realistic budget for 1200 plus days, and he's at a virtual state of War with small businesses in this nation which are collectively the largest employer.
At the end of the day, the Republicans have actual reform plans and budgets...where are the Democrats' plans? Where are their budgets?
Anyway, enough of my Sunday afternoon ramblings...I've got work to do.
-
Smart Democrats Should Be Worried
By John Fund
August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M.
Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,†has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice†because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.
No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.
First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.
Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,†he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.â€
Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,†the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.â€
Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support†for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.
Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.
Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:
We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!
We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!
We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!
Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.
Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.
Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.
Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.
-
Fuck those two parties. :puke:
I'm voting Ron Paul or libertarian
-
Fuck those two parties. :puke:
I'm voting Ron Paul or libertarian
^^
Part of the problem -- and the reason Obama has a chance to win.
-
No, Bush did that I'm pretty sure. i've been told that more times than I've been told about Bammer's 11, 14, 11ty3 championships.
I also laughed my ASS off when I heard Boobama slam Reagan and say "we've tried that trickle down economy and it didn't work."
It DIDN'T FUCKING WORK? Are people really stupid enough to just buy that line from this stuffed shirt assclown without bothering to check?
Reagan's economic policies turned around a country gripped by Carter's malaise and created an environment where we surged to unprecedented heights and amazing wealth. We went from a country teetering on the brink of economic ruin -- remember gas lines? Remember 8% unemployment? -- and turned that shit around stat. Unemployment was down to nearly 4% when Reagan was done. Those policies paved the way for the US to survive a mild recession and then thrive like a motherfucker when Clinton was in office.
But no... we don't want to go back to those "failed" policies now. We need hope! We need change! We need forward! We need gay rights!
I am constantly amazed at just how stupid people are. No reasonable, thinking human being could be fooled by this hot-air puffing, not even born in this country fraudulent poser. And yet millions are.
:facepalm:
Strange too that they say that since it never got above 8% under Bush. It's never been below 8% under the Obama.
All Ryan's plan does is give people UNDER 55 a CHOICE.
Does not affect people over 55 at all. The guy has a plan. What the hell does anyone else have?
THS, getting the focus back on the economy and entitlements is a good thing. Most people are not happy with the economy and most people also oppose entitlements in the manner they are structured today. Not saying social issues aren't important, but we really need to get the discussion BACK on economics, and I think Ryan will force that hand. Very calculated (and good) move by Romney. Plus, he'll eat Biden's lunch in a debate.
-
^^
Part of the problem -- and the reason Obama has a chance to win.
Yep
-
I like him.
There may be some positions here and there that I disagree with, but that's every major political player.
By and large, a self-proclaimed Ayn Rand Objectivist is gonna be ok in my book.
It's funny that the left is pulling the same bullshit the right pulled by trying to attribute each and every exaggerated controversial position of Saul Alinsky on Obama because he studied his works. Now the left is saying that Ryan is a Godless sociopath with great admiration for serial killers (William Edward Hickman).
It's like they're campaigning against Rand now because Ryan said that her philosophy was inspirational to him.
-
Yep
Nope.
I know this sounds idealistic and impractical, but if everyone actually abandoned the groupthink and voted for the politician they most agreed with whom they feel would be the best option for President, we wouldn't be in this "lesser of two evils" rut.
In my opinion, the "problem" is voting for someone you don't support most, or staying at home because voting third party "doesn't matter."
-
I like him.
There may be some positions here and there that I disagree with, but that's every major political player.
By and large, a self-proclaimed Ayn Rand Objectivist is gonna be ok in my book.
It's funny that the left is pulling the same bullshit the right pulled by trying to attribute each and every exaggerated controversial position of Saul Alinsky on Obama because he studied his works. Now the left is saying that Ryan is a Godless sociopath with great admiration for serial killers (William Edward Hickman).
It's like they're campaigning against Rand now because Ryan said that her philosophy was inspirational to him.
Seriously, posts like these make me think better of you politically. I like Ryan much more than Romney. I want someone who has economic sense and he does! This will get the debate back on economics. If we don't get this economy right and reign in a good budget along with reforming entitlements, none of the other stuff will even matter (social issues) in ten years. Sad but true.
-
Nope.
I know this sounds idealistic and impractical, but if everyone actually abandoned the groupthink and voted for the politician they most agreed with whom they feel would be the best option for President, we wouldn't be in this "lesser of two evils" rut.
In my opinion, the "problem" is voting for someone you don't support most, or staying at home because voting third party "doesn't matter."
Agree, but that's not gonna happen dude. I wish it would happen, it's just not going to. In the reality we live in with the 4-5 major news outlets controlling the election, it is what it is. In the field of play today, a vote for a write-in or 3rd party candidate is essentially a vote for Obama (since most people who favor Johnson or a Write-in are more moderate or libertarian, even conservative fiscally). Trust me Chad, I don't like it either but that's what it boils down to at this point.
-
Agree, but that's not gonna happen dude. I wish it would happen, it's just not going to. In the reality we live in with the 4-5 major news outlets controlling the election, it is what it is. In the field of play today, a vote for a write-in or 3rd party candidate is essentially a vote for Obama (since most people who favor Johnson or a Write-in are more moderate or libertarian, even conservative fiscally). Trust me Chad, I don't like it either but that's what it boils down to at this point.
Maybe I'm just idealistic.
Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.
Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.
However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.
It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.
-
Maybe I'm just idealistic.
Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.
Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.
However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.
It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.
I think it will happen eventually. Just not this year. That's why I say here and now, in 2012 - a vote for 3rd party 80% of the time is a vote Romney/Ryan won't get. Just like Perot in 1992 which probably turned out for the better since Clinton did a better job than Bush would have done IMHO. The Bush's (and fellow Neocons) would have refused to work with Gingrich (since Newt wasn't part of the establishment) whereas Clinton was advised by Dick Morris to ride Newt's economic coattails (which he did to a successful Presidency). But Obama is no Clinton. That's the scary part.
-
However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant.
You really do live in some sort of bubble don't you. Do you think any significant part of the population uses the internet to research politics? They still get their political direction from the mass media. Not to mention that the majority of older people do not even use the internet much at all. Old people vote too. And there are more of them now than ever before at any time in history. And they sit in front of the TV (like they did 40 yeas ago) and get their daily dose of politics from the left.
They are far from irrelevant!
-
You really do live in some sort of bubble don't you. Do you think any significant part of the population uses the internet to research politics? They still get their political direction from the mass media. Not to mention that the majority of older people do not even use the internet much at all. Old people vote too. And there are more of them now than ever before at any time in history. And they sit in front of the TV (like they did 40 yeas ago) and get their daily dose of politics from the left.
They are far from irrelevant!
I think a very significant % of the population gets info from the internet. I quit getting my info from the Big Networks LONG ago. While not the majority, a very good portion of the population does use the internet for research.
-
I think a very significant % of the population gets info from the internet. I quit getting my info from the Big Networks LONG ago. While not the majority, a very good portion of the population does use the internet for research.
I didn't say info. I said political info. A lot of older people know the internet exists, but just do not see fit in being bothered with it on a regular basis. Very few(%wise) of the 50+ crowd use the internet regularly for political purposes. And those are the people that if they want political info, they turn to the TV.
We are the first generation (35-45) to really change to the internet. Everyone younger pretty much has ignored the TV for a long time. Everyone older has either accepted it as part of their job, or they just live without it. And like I said, we have more people living longer than ever before. And those people VOTE. And a lot of the old timers listen to the TV and vote DIM.
-
Maybe I'm just idealistic.
Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.
Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.
However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.
It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.
Ross Perot my fucking ass.
Perot was a dipstick. Bush was really the first US President almost completely defined by SNL. Perot didn't cost him the election, but he definitely didn't help.
-
I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.
But it's not going to happen. In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike. I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime.
-
I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.
But it's not going to happen. In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike. I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime.
I agree with you completely.
Although your average Democrat or Republican refuses to recognize the crack dividing the two parties as anything but a profound chasm.
And that is exactly why "the lesser of two evils", to me, is voting Libertarian to contribute to a third party being taken more seriously, at the risk of letting 1b make it into office instead of 1a.
-
I agree with you completely.
Although your average Democrat or Republican refuses to recognize the crack dividing the two parties as anything but a profound chasm.
And that is exactly why "the lesser of two evils", to me, is voting Libertarian to contribute to a third party being taken more seriously, at the risk of letting 1b make it into office instead of 1a.
:facepalm:
This is the equivalent of a BCS voter putting Alcorn State number one and then bitching/pretending to be shocked/not caring when Alabama sneaks into the title game over a more deserving Oklahoma State by a few scant percentage points.
"Principle" votes are as useless as wet toilet paper.
-
Ross Perot my fucking ass.
Perot was a dipstick. Bush was really the first US President almost completely defined by SNL. Perot didn't cost him the election, but he definitely didn't help.
Actually most Perot voters polled said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been an option. Around 80% to be exact. It was enough that it would have made the election too close to call.
-
Actually most Perot voters polled said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been an option. Around 80% to be exact. It was enough that it would have made the election too close to call.
Urban legend.
Gallup Poll from October 1992
Clinton - 52%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 9%
Final vote totals:
Clinton - 43%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 19%
Bush stayed steady, Perot stole Clinton votes. Even if that 10% had gone to Bush he still loses.
Bush said "no new taxes" and then reneged. Clinton hammered that home and Bush was toast.
-
Urban legend.
Gallup Poll from October 1992
Clinton - 52%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 9%
Final vote totals:
Clinton - 43%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 19%
Bush stayed steady, Perot stole Clinton votes. Even if that 10% had gone to Bush he still loses.
Bush said "no new taxes" and then reneged. Clinton hammered that home and Bush was toast.
Try that with the electoral college.
Doesn't matter anyway. Truth is 14 of those 19% for Perot would go to Bush if you had made them decide. Not saying he would have won, but he was def a factor. Enough of one to matter. Perot was poked to run by the Dems who played off his ego. Just like Teddy was in 1912 by the Wilson camp. Just Wilson and Taft straight up would have went to Taft. Teddy fucked it all up.
Main point here being for me, I don't normally like 3rd party candidates who have no shot in hell. They just end of playing spoiler. And half of the time it ends up for the worse (1912).
-
I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.
But it's not going to happen. In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike. I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime.
I just don't understand this attitude, THS, and I mean no offense to you; read the party platforms; they are not alike.
I do, however, think that there's an evolution taking place in the Republican and Democrat parties and it may mean a divergence from within the Republican Party that is the Tea Party Movement, the social conservatives, and the fiscally-responsible realists. The Dems are becoming Socialists and have been for years; some will splinter-off and maybe join the realists one of these days.
-
Maybe I'm just idealistic.
Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.
Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.
However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.
It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.
Perhaps someday.
I mean no offense but as a rational challenge to this notion it seems to me that the Libertarians would be able to make some traction either within the Republican Party (Ron Paul) or without (with the Johnson candidacy). Contrary to what the Libertarian Party seems to say over teh ebays it's clear to me that they are not resonating on a electoral level anyway e.g. few wins for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. I know he's got a fair amount of vocal delegates at the Republican Convention but he isn't going to win anything (other than maybe some tweaking to the party platform which we already see that in the movement to audit the Fed) and neither will Johnson for that matter; again, no offense just being realistic.
-
Perhaps someday.
I mean no offense but as a rational challenge to this notion it seems to me that the Libertarians would be able to make some traction either within the Republican Party (Ron Paul) or without (with the Johnson candidacy). Contrary to what the Libertarian Party seems to say over teh ebays it's clear to me that they are not resonating on a electoral level anyway e.g. few wins for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. I know he's got a fair amount of vocal delegates at the Republican Convention but he isn't going to win anything (other than maybe some tweaking to the party platform which we already see that in the movement to audit the Fed) and neither will Johnson for that matter; again, no offense just being realistic.
For the Libertarians to ever be taken seriously a few things will have to happen. To me the Libertarians (which I lean towards a whole lot) are not unified. There are too many factions or should I say there are too many that are hardcore on certain issues they will vilify anyone that disagrees with them on that certain policy. No matter how closely they relate on others. There is no compromise with most I have associated with. You have enough that are anarchist or miniarchist and they are so vocal it will turn people off to the Libertarian Party's platform.
Also they will need to start an honest to god "grass roots" campaign and start getting candidates elected at the local levels of government and work their way up through our highest levels of government. That is something that isn't going to be done in 4 years, a 16 year plan would honestly be more realistic and that would still mean a hell of a lot of hard work everyday or every year before an impact could be seen.
EDIT: As an example. Lets take a look at the Ron Paul Revloution. Tons of his supporters are self proclaimed Libertarians. If you aren't full on retard for Ron Paul and even disagree with one of his stances, they will berate you and tell you how you are part of the problem of America going down the pisser, you big government loving un-American piece of shit or they come off tin-foil hat'ish. It really turns people off.
-
I just don't understand this attitude, THS, and I mean no offense to you; read the party platforms; they are not alike.
I do, however, think that there's an evolution taking place in the Republican and Democrat parties and it may mean a divergence from within the Republican Party that is the Tea Party Movement, the social conservatives, and the fiscally-responsible realists. The Dems are becoming Socialists and have been for years; some will splinter-off and maybe join the realists one of these days.
I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.
Each Party's platform however is very different. I won't blame the Republican Party just because Nixon, Bush, Dole and some others decided to hijack it the last 3-4 decades. A lot of the differences in each party at the core is in their names. Ive never favored democrats in general because overall they accept democracy as the be all, when it is in fact flawed. We are a Republic which is a very different form of govt than a true democracy. Read the founding documents, the pledge of allegiance - we've never been a true democracy. Democracies are flawed by nature.
-
I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.
It's all about money. They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it.
One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together. The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.
-
It's all about money. They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it.
One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together. The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.
The irony of what you and Chizad said is that each party seems to be splitting into 2 - the GOP into the Establishment Neocons (Bush/Cheney camp) and the Tea Party (Rubio/Rand Paul camp) ; The Dems into the Blue Dogs (Manchin/Lieberman) and the Far Left (Obama/Reid/Pelosi).
-
I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.
Each Party's platform however is very different. I won't blame the Republican Party just because Nixon, Bush, Dole and some others decided to hijack it the last 3-4 decades. A lot of the differences in each party at the core is in their names. Ive never favored democrats in general because overall they accept democracy as the be all, when it is in fact flawed. We are a Republic which is a very different form of govt than a true democracy. Read the founding documents, the pledge of allegiance - we've never been a true democracy. Democracies are flawed by nature.
Nixon? You really want to go there?
Nixon may have been paranoid (for good reason) and have had some ego issues but as a president he was outstanding. His excellent record of achievement is blotted out by the whole (and in retrospect, completely unnecessary) Watergate scandal.
And no, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic with democratic ideals. True democracy needs no representation. There would be no Senators, Congressmen or the rest.
-
Nixon? You really want to go there?
Nixon may have been paranoid (for good reason) and have had some ego issues but as a president he was outstanding. His excellent record of achievement is blotted out by the whole (and in retrospect, completely unnecessary) Watergate scandal.
And no, we aren't a democracy. We're a republic with democratic ideals. True democracy needs no representation. There would be no Senators, Congressmen or the rest.
Nixon was a great conservative when he ran in 1960 against the Kennedy Machine (who bought the election). Sometime between 1960 and 1968 he sold out to the Rockefeller/Kristol Establishment wing of the party and got away from the Goldwater side of the aisle. I would guess most likely because of what happened in 1960. That said, I still don't hate Nixon or most of his policies as President. I just hate that was the camp he was in from 68 on. I prefer the Reagan/Goldwater side of the party which is today's tea party in reality.
-
It's all about money. They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it.
One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together. The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.
I appreciate what you mean regarding the money THS but, to put it bluntly, that (see above) ain't gonna happen. The two major parties have diverged so much at this point there are very few common areas if any at all. That's why we need strong leadership in the Executive Branch (and, indeed, in the Supreme Court) to act in the best interest of the nation outside of party identity or ideology (unlike The Pharaoh). I am reminded of a quote from Alexander Hamilton which is, in part, germane to what I'm saying about the purpose of the Exec.:
...
When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
...
-
The irony of what you and Chizad said is that each party seems to be splitting into 2 - the GOP into the Establishment Neocons (Bush/Cheney camp) and the Tea Party (Rubio/Rand Paul camp) ; The Dems into the Blue Dogs (Manchin/Lieberman) and the Far Left (Obama/Reid/Pelosi).
I think there's even more ideological fracturing than that on the Republican side and less-so on the Democrat side but your observation is well-taken. I do not see this fracturing leading anywhere near a merging of the two parties though (the Federalists tried that one party system some time ago and it didn't end well politically).
-
I appreciate what you mean regarding the money THS but, to put it bluntly, that (see above) ain't gonna happen. The two major parties have diverged so much at this point there are very few common areas if any at all. That's why we need strong leadership in the Executive Branch (and, indeed, in the Supreme Court) to act in the best interest of the nation outside of party identity or ideology (unlike The Pharaoh). I am reminded of a quote from Alexander Hamilton which is, in part, germane to what I'm saying about the purpose of the Exec.:
I agree. I really think they hate each other, many of them. They share common things like I said, such as pandering, taking lobbyist money, etc. But idealogically, they are on seperate planets. I could never see a merging happening. They would kill each other. Each seperate party can't even find 100% agreement inside each party itself, which is why I mention the 2 factions of each now.
-
For the Libertarians to ever be taken seriously a few things will have to happen. To me the Libertarians (which I lean towards a whole lot) are not unified. There are too many factions or should I say there are too many that are hardcore on certain issues they will vilify anyone that disagrees with them on that certain policy. No matter how closely they relate on others. There is no compromise with most I have associated with. You have enough that are anarchist or miniarchist and they are so vocal it will turn people off to the Libertarian Party's platform.
Also they will need to start an honest to god "grass roots" campaign and start getting candidates elected at the local levels of government and work their way up through our highest levels of government. That is something that isn't going to be done in 4 years, a 16 year plan would honestly be more realistic and that would still mean a hell of a lot of hard work everyday or every year before an impact could be seen.
EDIT: As an example. Lets take a look at the Ron Paul Revloution. Tons of his supporters are self proclaimed Libertarians. If you aren't full on retard for Ron Paul and even disagree with one of his stances, they will berate you and tell you how you are part of the problem of America going down the pisser, you big government loving un-American piece of shit or they come off tin-foil hat'ish. It really turns people off.
Good observations all; my point in posing what I meant to be a civil question on what I see as the failure of the Libertarians is this: at the end of the day you've got to win elections.
After 40 years of work where are they? No one but Ron Paul (who ran as a Republican) in the House, no one in the Senate, no Governors, no State Senators, and a handful of State House Level Representatives and a few civic representatives...after 40 years. The Tea Party Movement elected more Republicans to the Congress in a fraction of the time that the Libertarians have been around. The Republicans started a grass-roots party in a school-house in Wisconsin in 1854 and got a President elected and had control of the Congress in 6 years (before the Troubles started...but that's another topic). The nation was different then but the American system wasn't.
-
Good observations all; my point in posing what I meant to be a civil question on what I see as the failure of the Libertarians is this: at the end of the day you've got to win elections.
After 40 years of work where are they? No one but Ron Paul (who ran as a Republican) in the House, no one in the Senate, no Governors, no State Senators, and a handful of State House Level Representatives and a few civic representatives...after 40 years. The Tea Party Movement elected more Republicans to the Congress in a fraction of the time that the Libertarians have been around. The Republicans started a grass-roots party in a school-house in Wisconsin in 1854 and got a President elected and had control of the Congress in 6 years (before the Troubles started...but that's another topic). The nation was different then but the American system wasn't.
I am much as small federal government, turn most things back to your state and local levels (social issues, education...etc...etc..etc...) enact a consumption tax, allow a free market to flourish and drive prices of goods and services as anyone out there. The only thing I ask from my federal government is to provide me with interstate commerce (I should be protected from California not accepting my BCBS in case of injury whilst traveling and a central currency), a strong national defense, fraud and property rights protection. Not much else. They don't nor should they need that much power. Things like education, law enforcement, and social issues should be established and funded at lower levels of government. I know that a lot of Libertarians want the same thing as I, but as you said. They have to win elections and they don't. For the reasons I have stated above, I don't believe they will. Too much infighting and not enough grass roots movement.
Which is why I always tend to vote republican. They may not be exactly what I am for, and no politician ever will, but they are close enough to what I represent to want them in office. I understand that I will never get to have it exactly how I want it. I am though, reasonable enough to get my head out of the sand and understand that I would rather have 70% of what I want than 10%. Republicans are not Libertarians, but do have some Libertarian tendencies, so I will take what I can get and hope to change what I want by petitioning my politicians through letters/email to be open minded about my point of views. To me that is how the process work.