DVD Talk
The 2012 Presidential Election [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The 2012 Presidential Election


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

CRM114
04-30-12, 02:29 PM
The 2012 Presidential Election
November 6, 2012

Democrat Incumbents: President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20090108/425.obama.biden.010809.jpg

vs.

Republican Challenger: Former Governor (MA) Willard Mitt Romney and ??

http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mitt-romney-bailing-on-sc.jpg

Polls, news, attack ads, and anything pertaining to the General Election goes here.

CRM114
04-30-12, 02:30 PM
And BOOM! Obama fires the Osama bin Laden spot across the bow!

BD75KOoNR9k

DeputyDave
04-30-12, 02:45 PM
Could you pick a less flatering pic of Romney?

In fairness I now need to post this:

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XNATNxPaK9eZAFLvcUZgGg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01OTE7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-04-29T055731Z_01_WAS334_RTRIDSP_3_USA.jpg

The Bus
04-30-12, 02:56 PM
No predictions? I predict the President will be re-elected.

(Or "reëlected" for you <i>New Yorker</i> readers).

CRM114
04-30-12, 02:56 PM
C'mon now, I could've posted these:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/files/2011/11/Bain.jpg

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/medium_new_yorker_july_21_cover.jpg

wishbone
04-30-12, 03:03 PM
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9391/bfdc.jpg

"Can I use my middle name too? It's a big fucking deal." :)

clappj
04-30-12, 03:15 PM
Biden again?
I thought Obama was running with Clooney.
Cloobama would truly be unbeatable!

CRM114
04-30-12, 03:29 PM
"Can I use my middle name too? It's a big fucking deal." :)

Updated OP for consistency...

DeputyDave
04-30-12, 03:38 PM
My prediction is that Obama will lose... maybe by more than a little. We may see another 1980.

CRM114
04-30-12, 03:45 PM
Wow. I could see Obama losing but 1980? :lol:

Nausicaa
04-30-12, 04:25 PM
I can see Obama losing too, but I don't think it will happen. Pending another major terrorist attack, a huge dip in the economy, or the worst reelection campaign ever, I think Obama has this in the bag. The right has been making a big stink since he took office - trying to ramp up public dissatisfaction to Bush-era levels right off the bat - but it hasn't really stuck. Obama has been on a bumpy road, but I think he is still well liked. And once the campaign season heats up, I don't think Obama will have any trouble selling his record and painting Romney as just another problem. Seeing Obama and Romney on stage together will really highlight the gulf that divides these two. Romney has lots of time to work on his image, but I don't think he has the chops to face off against Obama.

DeputyDave
04-30-12, 04:31 PM
Well, then I guess I'm the first to officially call it here. Coolness.

Th0r S1mpson
04-30-12, 04:49 PM
You seem to be missing Ron Paul in that first post. :confused:

Way to buy what the media sells you.

classicman2
04-30-12, 05:11 PM
I can see Obama losing too, but I don't think it will happen. Pending another major terrorist attack, a huge dip in the economy, or the worst reelection campaign ever, I think Obama has this in the bag. The right has been making a big stink since he took office - trying to ramp up public dissatisfaction to Bush-era levels right off the bat - but it hasn't really stuck. Obama has been on a bumpy road, but I think he is still well liked. And once the campaign season heats up, I don't think Obama will have any trouble selling his record and painting Romney as just another problem. Seeing Obama and Romney on stage together will really highlight the gulf that divides these two. Romney has lots of time to work on his image, but I don't think he has the chops to face off against Obama.

I don't believe Obama has it in the bag.

IMO, you're wrong about "another major terrorist attack" being a negative for Obama. I think it might very well be a positive. It certainly was for George W. Bush. It would depend on how he handles it.

Obama is well liked among the solid Democratic base. That's not unusual for a sitting Democratic President. It's more important how well he is liked among the so-called independents - especially women.

It is critical for Obama to get out the solid Democratic voter(s) - blacks, continue to receive a substantial percentage of the Hispanic voters, organized labor, etc.

I don't believe debates will have any real impact on the voter groups that count. They generally are far more concerned about the really important issues that are favoring the country.

Jason
04-30-12, 05:17 PM
You seem to be missing Ron Paul in that first post. :confused:

Way to buy what the media sells you.

He also ignored Ralph Wiggum (http://youtu.be/cSvva3ZOlNg), the Nazi Party candidate, and the The-Rent-is-too-Damn-High guy.

I predict a long, painful campaign, followed by another close election that one side will never accept the results of.

MoviePage
04-30-12, 06:37 PM
Seems pretty obvious that Obama will be reelected. The Republicans put their absolute worst candidates up this year, probably to get them out of the way before 2016 rolls around. Mitt Romney, everyone's "surely not him...ok, at least he's a little saner than these other clowns" option in the primaries, is like an even more boring John Kerry, if that's possible, and comes across as a wealthy, out-of-touch elitist in a time when voters won't respond to that in a positive way. And the dog story will hurt him.

RagingBull80
04-30-12, 07:51 PM
I think that Obama will probably win but it's going to be a close race so it could really go either way.

Artman
04-30-12, 08:49 PM
Anything could change, but the scales are definitely against Obama at this point. The simplest reasoning I've heard is that Romney needs needs six-swing states that went for Obama last time (most by a very small percentage). Three of which, the Dems have signaled they're not going to compete in, the others are Florida and Ohio, which will likely go for Romney, leaving just one out of about a half dozen possibilities. Redistricting also hurt the Dems.

CRM114
04-30-12, 10:10 PM
It's like 2004 all over again. :lol: The Repubs seem confident like the Democrats were in 2004. Little did we know...

WCChiCubsFan
04-30-12, 10:58 PM
I have often posted that if the Republicans don't win it will be a major upset. A defeat means they should probably blow up the party and start over.

The economy will be the biggest factor and while it has improved since Obama took office it is still not good enough in the minds of most voters.

X
04-30-12, 11:10 PM
I have often posted that if the Republicans don't win it will be a major upset. A defeat means they should probably blow up the party and start over.

The economy will be the biggest factor and while it has improved since Obama took office it is still not good enough in the minds of most voters.We agree on that. It's getting too late to change the perception of the economy and it's not headed better. The "I killed Osama" stuff is just noise. Ask G.H.W. Bush how that works out.

Th0r S1mpson
04-30-12, 11:28 PM
I'm confident only in Obama. I mean, I probably won't go out and vote for Romney (he was my least favorite of all the candidates, save Bachmann). If I won't vote for him, I can only imagine what that means for a lot of other voters out there. I may vote for Obama at this point.

PopcornTreeCt
04-30-12, 11:56 PM
I think it's going to be close. I've sorta lucked out with every Presidential candidate I've voted for has won. Bush x2 and then Obama. So rest assured, who ever I vote for this year will win the presidency.

Artman
05-01-12, 01:17 AM
The Repubs seem confident like the Democrats were in 2004.

I'm actually not Republican, if you were referencing me at all. I prefer to sit back and look at reality, not from some sideline rooting for a team.

The Bus
05-01-12, 07:07 AM
We agree on that. It's getting too late to change the perception of the economy and it's not headed better. The "I killed Osama" stuff is just noise. Ask G.H.W. Bush how that works out.

Ask the average person how they felt about the economy in May of 2008.

Yeti4623
05-01-12, 07:54 AM
Unless the economy rapidly improves over the year, this will be a pretty close election. I think Obama will have a slight win, if the economy holds up. Romney is too standard/average. He needs the reconomy to dip again.

If Obama runs a smart campaign, and the perception of the economy, is that it's going in the right direction. That should be enough for a slight win. Romney just isn't exciting or likeable enough.

wendersfan
05-01-12, 08:24 AM
At the moment I'm going with a narrow Obama victory, but I agree it's going to be close either way.

CRM114
05-01-12, 08:51 AM
I'm actually not Republican, if you were referencing me at all. I prefer to sit back and look at reality, not from some sideline rooting for a team.

Of course you aren't.

kefrank
05-01-12, 09:11 AM
And once again, I don't care for either candidate.

As for predictions, never underestimate the power of likeability. Obama is significantly more likeable than Romney.

CRM114
05-01-12, 09:38 AM
And once again, I don't care for either candidate.

As for predictions, never underestimate the power of likeability. Obama is significantly more likeable than Romney.

I'm not a big fan of Obama's cow-towing to the conservatives or doing stuff like throwing Hillary Rosen under the bus or reneging on his stance on medical marijuana. But there are enough things he has done on the progressive side of the agenda for me. I'd obviously never vote for Romney.

But politics aside, what's not to like about Obama? He seems genuinely like a nice, intelligent guy.

starman9000
05-01-12, 10:09 AM
He reads from a teleprompter. :mad:

classicman2
05-01-12, 10:12 AM
He's an intelligent guy who apparently has never read The Constitution.

Or maybe he believes holding the office of the presidency makes him KING!

:)

CRM114
05-01-12, 10:21 AM
I'm pretty sure he's read the Constitution many, many times.

Every President thinks he's King, incrementally more and more.

sracer
05-01-12, 10:24 AM
I'm pretty sure he's read the Constitution many, many times.

Every President thinks he's King, incrementally more and more.
True.

Tommy Ceez
05-01-12, 11:29 AM
I'm not a big fan of Obama's cow-towing to the conservatives or doing stuff like throwing Hillary Rosen under the bus or reneging on his stance on medical marijuana. But there are enough things he has done on the progressive side of the agenda for me. I'd obviously never vote for Romney.

But politics aside, what's not to like about Obama? He seems genuinely like a nice, intelligent guy.

How do you throw someone who doesn't work for you under the bus?

CRM114
05-01-12, 12:13 PM
They have to work for you?

Rosen was apparently an acquaintance of Obama who was invited to his home. It's not really the issue of his association with her but of his complete bailout from the issue and the feigned outrage from Axelrod and Messina.

wendersfan
05-01-12, 12:42 PM
Rosen was apparently an acquaintance of Obama who was invited to his home. It's not really the issue of his association with her but of his complete bailout from the issue and the feigned outrage from Axelrod and Messina.If you're going to let stuff like that bother you then you might as well give up on voting for anybody.

chowderhead
05-01-12, 06:39 PM
Anything could change, but the scales are definitely against Obama at this point. The simplest reasoning I've heard is that Romney needs needs six-swing states that went for Obama last time (most by a very small percentage). Three of which, the Dems have signaled they're not going to compete in, the others are Florida and Ohio, which will likely go for Romney, leaving just one out of about a half dozen possibilities. Redistricting also hurt the Dems.

which three states that Obama won in 2008 will he not compete in? I might say Indiana but which other 2? Romney needs to win back most of the Bush states in order to win.
Here is Ohio: Obama is up by an average of 5.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Florida : Obama is up by an average of 3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html
North Carolina: Obama up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html
Virginia: Obama is up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Romney needs to win all these states in order to win ... he would need to run the table and I don't think he can unless there is some outside force that turns the election.

DeputyDave
05-01-12, 06:43 PM
which three states that Obama won in 2008 will he not compete in? I might say Indiana but which other 2? Romney needs to win back most of the Bush states in order to win.
Here is Ohio: Obama is up by an average of 5.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Florida : Obama is up by an average of 3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html
North Carolina: Obama up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html
Virginia: Obama is up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Romney needs to win all these states in order to win ... he would need to run the table and I don't think he can unless there is some outside force that turns the election.

I've seen recent polls where Romney is up in FL and VA. But then I don't really think polls mean anything this far out.

Jason
05-01-12, 06:57 PM
But politics aside, what's not to like about Obama? He seems genuinely like a nice, intelligent guy.

Intelligence is no longer looked upon as a positive in some parts of America.

X
05-01-12, 08:04 PM
which three states that Obama won in 2008 will he not compete in? I might say Indiana but which other 2? Romney needs to win back most of the Bush states in order to win.
Here is Ohio: Obama is up by an average of 5.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Florida : Obama is up by an average of 3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html
North Carolina: Obama up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html
Virginia: Obama is up by 2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Romney needs to win all these states in order to win ... he would need to run the table and I don't think he can unless there is some outside force that turns the election.It would be an interesting exercise to see how far back other challengers to the incumbent were at this time. After a bruising primary, being a few points doesn't sound like Obama has much of an advantage. If fact, it sounds pretty bad for him. The party makeup of the government of those states probably makes a difference as well. They're all primarily Republican, aren't they?

classicman2
05-01-12, 08:25 PM
Not every president believes he is king. Eisenhower didn't believe that. Ford didn't believe that. Carter didn't believe he was king until he was defeated. Then he became a king.

chowderhead
05-01-12, 08:54 PM
It would be an interesting exercise to see how far back other challengers to the incumbent were at this time. After a bruising primary, being a few points doesn't sound like Obama has much of an advantage. If fact, it sounds pretty bad for him. The party makeup of the government of those states probably makes a difference as well. They're all primarily Republican, aren't they?

Again these states are absolute must wins for Romney. He is just coming off campaigning in most of these pivotal states and should be getting a bounce after clinching the nomination and consolidating the Republican voters. Obama is now organizing in Arizona where new polls indicate a tie. It's early but I think many people are beginning to form initial impressions of Romney. His favorable/unfavorables are terrible for a Republican challenger at this stage. He needs something to shake up the race.

X
05-01-12, 08:57 PM
Again these states are absolute must wins for Romney. He is just coming off campaigning in most of these pivotal states and should be getting a bounce after clinching the nomination and consolidating the Republican voters. I wouldn't be counting on this supposed "bounce after clinching the nomination" as a major factor. The consolidation has barely begun.

mosquitobite
05-01-12, 11:16 PM
Romney is winning most of the beauty contests, but his people aren't stepping up to be delegates. I haven't seen ONE Romney sign in my entire area and we vote next Tues.

I do think Romney will beat Obama here in Indiana, but still - he has a huge negative to overcome. He's McCain 2.0.

mosquitobite
05-01-12, 11:20 PM
I'm pretty sure he's read the Constitution many, many times.

Every President thinks he's King, incrementally more and more.

Can you point me where in the Constitution that detaining someone without trial is "Constitutional"?

Can you pinpoint what exactly it is expected of a President when such a bill passes his desk?

Mammal
05-02-12, 02:22 AM
''Can you point me where in the Constitution that detaining someone without trial is "Constitutional"?''

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus I think, and Roosevelt detained the California Japanese. You guys read the Constitution like the fundamentalists read the Bible. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and when their opinion evolves, so does the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that blu ray region codes are allowable?

Artman
05-02-12, 02:35 AM
Intelligence is no longer looked upon as a positive in some parts of America.

Why should being a "nice guy" be a factor either? Now, I don't think I could even give him that. What a shame. He doesn't need my moderate vote, but he sure does in other states....

JumpCutz
05-02-12, 02:51 AM
Intelligence is no longer looked upon as a positive in some parts of America.

Exactly.

In some places he's considered an elitist ... what with all his fancy book learnin'.

CRM114
05-02-12, 08:49 AM
If you're going to let stuff like that bother you then you might as well give up on voting for anybody.

It doesn't bother me nearly as much as the conservative campaign against women's issue, either direct or implied.

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:29 AM
Some (I'll argue not that many) women's issues. Those women who are that concerned with just women's issues will Democratic anyway.

Women are more interested in the same issues that men are.

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:33 AM
''Can you point me where in the Constitution that detaining someone without trial is "Constitutional"?''

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus I think, and Roosevelt detained the California Japanese. You guys read the Constitution like the fundamentalists read the Bible. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and when their opinion evolves, so does the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that blu ray region codes are allowable?

That's the problem we have, IMO. I don't believe SCOTUS should have the final say in what is constitutional & what is not. I've always believed that if the Congress by a 2/3 majority, signed by the President should be able overturn a ruling of SCOTUS.

I understand it would take a Constutional Amendment if that would come about. I think there would be much more merit in that proposed amendment than there was in the ERA amendment that failed to pass.

CRM114
05-02-12, 09:36 AM
Some (I'll argue not that many) women's issues. Those women who are that concerned with just women's issues will Democratic anyway.

Women are more interested in the same issues that men are.

Like equal pay for equal work?

Q: "Does Gov. Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?"

A: "We'll get back to you on that."

CRM114
05-02-12, 09:38 AM
That's the problem we have, IMO. I don't believe SCOTUS should have the final say in what is constitutional & what is not. I've always believed that if the Congress by a 2/3 majority, signed by the President should be able overturn a ruling of SCOTUS.

I understand it would take a Constutional Amendment if that would come about. I think there would be much more merit in that proposed amendment than there was in the ERA amendment that failed to pass.

What a horrible idea.

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:40 AM
Like equal pay for equal work?

Q: "Does Gov. Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?"

A: "We'll get back to you on that."

Yes! I believe the majority of women realize that if the economy tanks the Lilly Ledbetter Act won't matter anyway.

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:43 AM
What a horrible idea.

Why is it a horrible idea? Do you honestly believe that 5 members of SCOTUS who have lifetime appointments should have the final say over what an overwhelming majority of the other 2 branches of government, who don't have lifetime appoints, say?

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:46 AM
As I recall, you didn't believe that 7 members of SCOTUS should overturn a vote count in certain counties in Florida. Remember? ;)

classicman2
05-02-12, 09:52 AM
Morning Joe has become my morning comedy show.

This a.m. his guests were saying how critical it was for Mayor Bloomberg to endorse Romeny. Why?
Whether he endorses him or not doesn't make any difference. NY will vote for Obama in the general election.

Sean O'Hara
05-02-12, 10:12 AM
Why is it a horrible idea? Do you honestly believe that 5 members of SCOTUS who have lifetime appointments should have the final say over what an overwhelming majority of the other 2 branches of government, who don't have lifetime appoints, say?

Five guys who are free to make the best decision without worrying about the carbon blobs voting them out in the next election? Yeah. Yeah, I trust them much more than congresscritters and Presidents who have to give a rub-n-tug to the electorate.

CRM114
05-02-12, 10:30 AM
Yes! I believe the majority of women realize that if the economy tanks the Lilly Ledbetter Act won't matter anyway.

Seems to me we are in recovery and the "tanking" happened in 2008/9.

classicman2
05-02-12, 12:02 PM
Seems to me that you would have a different take on the 'recovery' if a Repub was in the White House. ;)

classicman2
05-02-12, 12:05 PM
Five guys who are free to make the best decision without worrying about the carbon blobs voting them out in the next election? Yeah. Yeah, I trust them much more than congresscritters and Presidents who have to give a rub-n-tug to the electorate.

That's all fine and dandy if members of the Court had the same view of The Constitution. They don't - and haven't had in at least since the turn of the 18th Century.

clappj
05-02-12, 01:38 PM
Obama Likes His Odds

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/16/obama-says-reelection-odds-are-better-now-than-2008/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/16/t1larg.omnsmile.jpg

_______________________________________________________________

I belong to no organized political party - I am a Democrat. -Will Rogers

X
05-02-12, 01:49 PM
Yeah, he was still in a primary battle this time in 2008.

classicman2
05-02-12, 03:39 PM
Yeah, he was still in a primary battle this time in 2008.

I voted for Hillary in the Democratic Party. Don't blame me. ;)

X
05-02-12, 03:48 PM
I voted for Hillary in the Democratic Party. Don't blame me. ;)I would have, had she won. She'd probably be as good a president as she is a SoS. And the standard of what we accept as president would have gone down even further than it is now.

The Bus
05-02-12, 05:12 PM
Romney is winning most of the beauty contests

He <i>is</i> incredibly handsome.

LurkerDan
05-02-12, 05:34 PM
Unless the economy rapidly improves over the year, this will be a pretty close election. I think Obama will have a slight win, if the economy holds up. Romney is too standard/average. He needs the reconomy to dip again.

If Obama runs a smart campaign, and the perception of the economy, is that it's going in the right direction. That should be enough for a slight win. Romney just isn't exciting or likeable enough.

I agree. This is really 2004 all over again. Dems thought that they were sure to defeat GWB, but he ran a good campaign and Kerry was too boring.

BKenn01
05-02-12, 08:22 PM
Like equal pay for equal work?

Q: "Does Gov. Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?"

A: "We'll get back to you on that."

Really, I would think this is only important to feminist who live in a fantasy world. If someone doesnt "get" that women are winning they arent paying attention. Do some research or better yet go meet some young people. You will find a lot of males of all races not working, not going to college, living with their parents all the while their female counterparts are going to college and are focusing on their future.

The old argument that the only reason males make more than females is the child bearing years may really not be correct. Women are going to be beating them out anyway.

And as usual our government will make policy that is not needed and will in fact make it harder once everyone wakes the hell up and realizes young males are in a crisis state.

But its ok for the left to continue to push the victim mentality. Hope you dont have any young boys because their future isnt so bright unless they are really motivated.

CRM114
05-02-12, 11:54 PM
That's all fine and dandy if members of the Court had the same view of The Constitution. They don't - and haven't had in at least since the turn of the 18th Century.

There's a singular interpretation of the Constitution? Perhaps you should persuade those members of the SCOTUS you disagree with that your version is the correct one.

Sean O'Hara
05-03-12, 12:09 AM
That's all fine and dandy if members of the Court had the same view of The Constitution. They don't - and haven't had in at least since the turn of the 18th Century.

So? I don't see how that's an argument for a Congressional supermajority + the President being a better judge of issues.

classicman2
05-03-12, 08:41 AM
I believe in a balance of power between the 3 branches of government - checks & balances. I think that was intended when the Committee to Draft wrote The Constitution.

What is the check on the Supreme Court? They have lifetime appointments.

Which branch has a better judge of the issues is immaterial.

coli
05-03-12, 10:31 AM
I agree. This is really 2004 all over again. Dems thought that they were sure to defeat GWB, but he ran a good campaign and Kerry was too boring.

I agree it will be a close election and whatever shape the economy is after labor day, that will determine if Obama gets another 4 years.

I will say if the economy is no better come the fall, I really believe there is an opening for a third party candidate to run against Washington establishment and the national debt (Like Ross Perot did in 1992). Whether Obama or Romney wins in 2012, we all know neither will do squat about the deficit, and I would love to see a credible 3rd party candidate get in there an shake up this election.

Sean O'Hara
05-03-12, 10:35 AM
I believe in a balance of power between the 3 branches of government - checks & balances. I think that was intended when the Committee to Draft wrote The Constitution.

What is the check on the Supreme Court? They have lifetime appointments.

Which branch has a better judge of the issues is immaterial.

Appointment, impeachment, Constitutional Amendments ...

wendersfan
05-03-12, 10:39 AM
Never mind the fact that the SCOTUS can't just decide to decide on an issue, it has to be brought before them.

Regardless, this is the 2012 Presidential Election thread, not the, "they don't do things the way the Framers intended" thread.

CRM114
05-03-12, 12:30 PM
I think what classicman2 is really saying is that the Framers didn't intend for a black, "liberal", President to ever be elected - so he's in the right thread.

classicman2
05-03-12, 12:38 PM
I think what classicman2 is really saying is that the Framers didn't intend for a black, "liberal", President to ever be elected - so he's in the right thread.

I doubt if they thought a black would ever be president of the U.S.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. The Framers didn't (couldn't) forsee the great political chasm that would occur; and, the politicizing of the judiciary.

CRM114
05-03-12, 12:44 PM
Sure, you just never voiced these criticisms until January 2009. :lol:

classicman2
05-03-12, 12:44 PM
Appointment, impeachment, Constitutional Amendments ...

The political process decides who is appointment - whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the WH & which party controls the Senate.

Impeachment - get real. When is the last time a SC Justice was impeached?

I said the only recourse was a Constitutional Amendment. Do you realize how cumbersome that is?

CRM114
05-03-12, 12:45 PM
Yes, ask the proponents of the ERA how cumbersome it is. It's cumbersome for a reason.

classicman2
05-03-12, 12:45 PM
Sure, you just never voiced these criticisms until January 2009. :lol:

Not true!

Dr Mabuse
05-03-12, 01:50 PM
The Framers didn't (couldn't) forsee the great political chasm that would occur; and, the politicizing of the judiciary.

Nonsense. They most certainly did. I mean come on...

Thomas Jefferson was the most vocal about it early on, as he was overseas building the foundation of our international presence during the CC. The two things he had the greatest problem with in the Constitution were no hard term limits for all politicians(man he was wise), and lifetime appointments in any branch leaving men immune to the elective process.

After the crap that Adams pulled with the whole 'Midnight' thing, Jefferson saw very clearly that his earlier fears were too mild, and the whole of the political world knew exactly how political and influential the Judiciary would be after 1800. Not a single person was not aware of those things. After that the high profile case with James Madison in ~1805(IIRC) came along cementing the matter for what it was. Jefferson wanted a Constitutional amendment to specify limiting the power of the Judiciary after that. It was clear to all exactly how much power the Judiciary was getting and how disproportionately influential it would be. So you could say all the Founders and Framers knew full well the entirety of the matter by 1800, or by 1805 at the latest possible date, if they were still living.

Jefferson wrote many letters later in his life warning about what he saw as a form of tyranny already acting in the Judiciary, and how far reaching that could be with its lifetime appointments. He was right. The Constitution does not grant the SC court the power that was handed to them by the Federalists, or it has simply taken for itself. It's now considered 'normal' and has been socially conditioned for centuries, but it is entirely unconstitutional.

"If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law …" - Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …" — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

wendersfan
05-03-12, 02:07 PM
That's all well and good, but Jefferson wasn't a Framer, being in France at the time.

Dr Mabuse
05-03-12, 02:44 PM
That's all well and good, but Jefferson wasn't a Framer, being in France at the time.

Since the Constitution granted the courts none of the power they would soon enjoy, it wasn't actually an issue until the works of the Federalists happened a few years later, including the things I listed above and others. So the Framers not granting said powers in the Constitution could in itself be a clear sign they did have respect for such power, and chose not to grant it to the Judicial Branch.

It is unfortunate an amendment didn't happen to nip it in the bud.

Sean O'Hara
05-03-12, 03:18 PM
Jefferson also didn't want courts to use the Common Law. Great man, but a crackpot on some issues, including the judiciary.

wendersfan
05-03-12, 03:40 PM
His beloved French didn't use common law, therefore he dismissed it. -screwy-

classicman2
05-03-12, 04:10 PM
Anytime someone mentions Jefferson & The Constitution - a word of advice. Please study a little Constitutional History before you embarass yourself by quoting what he said.

Ghostbuster
05-06-12, 01:31 AM
Have you heard? Political cryptologists have decoded Obama's new slogan "Forward." They allege that it is an oblique reference to socialism.

Perhaps Allen West will soon espouse this ridiculous interpretation, and it can be added to the growing list of "Shit Allen West Says."

Sean O'Hara
05-06-12, 11:21 AM
Have you heard? Political cryptologists have decoded Obama's new slogan "Forward." They allege that it is an oblique reference to socialism.

Perhaps Allen West will soon espouse this ridiculous interpretation, and it can be added to the growing list of "Shit Allen West Says."

Wrong thread, dude. This is where we discuss 18th Century politics.

Jason
05-06-12, 11:45 AM
Have you heard? Political cryptologists have decoded Obama's new slogan "Forward." They allege that it is an oblique reference to socialism.

Obama had chicken for dinner last night. Still no word from the Allen West as to whether he also had watermelon with his fried chicken, or if this was a coded message for Roosevelt's socialist plan to put a chicken in every pot.

classicman2
05-06-12, 12:07 PM
It was reported from a reliable source that he had grits, polk salad, & chitlins for dinner last evening.

Supermallet
05-06-12, 05:02 PM
I predict this will turn out just like 2004 with the parties switched. You have a divisive incumbent who garners strong opinions from supporters and detractors alike. The primaries made most of the competition, including the eventual winner, look like fools, and the guy who won it feels like a softie. The challenging party assumes that the incumbent is so disliked that it doesn't matter who they put up. The incumbent will win, but it won't be a landslide.

CRM114
05-07-12, 11:04 AM
Nice to see people coming around to my assessment of the race.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11087213-post1254.html

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11088219-post1291.html

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/11143145-post1118.html

mosquitobite
05-07-12, 12:51 PM
5 Reasons Conservatives Should Hope for a Romney Defeat (http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/01/five-reasons-why-conservatives-should-ro)
A visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency is the last thing that Republicans need right now. Having to defend Romney’s slips—he’s insulted 7-Eleven cookies, said he enjoys firing people, and announced he is not concerned about the very poor, and that’s just this year—will further contort the party’s soul. Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the out-of-touch party of the rich.
Better that the GOP remain in the political wilderness for another four years (and, hopefully, find itself) than have a Romney presidency prolong its intellectual and moral confusion.

X
05-07-12, 12:59 PM
5 Reasons Conservatives Should Hope for a Romney Defeat (http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/01/five-reasons-why-conservatives-should-ro)Funny, I thought that's what happened in 2008.

Tracer Bullet
05-07-12, 02:57 PM
I doubt if they thought a black would ever be president of the U.S.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. The Framers didn't (couldn't) forsee the great political chasm that would occur; and, the politicizing of the judiciary.

"A black"?

Bandoman
05-07-12, 03:07 PM
"A black"?

It's ok, he's one of the good ones.

Shannon Nutt
05-07-12, 03:15 PM
The incumbent will win, but it won't be a landslide.

Yep, this is the most likely scenario. The GOP should really be kicking themselves though, since had they run someone with an ounce of charisma (Christie, Jeb Bush, heck even McCain for a second time), they could have easily beat Obama. I'm still of the opinion that they know the economy isn't going to get that much better for a few more years, so they just let Romney run this year and are saving their "big guns" for 2016. It's easier for them to play the "blame game" with Obama for four more years.

Jason
05-07-12, 04:05 PM
Yep, this is the most likely scenario. The GOP should really be kicking themselves though, since had they run someone with an ounce of charisma (Christie, Jeb Bush, heck even McCain for a second time), they could have easily beat Obama. I'm still of the opinion that they know the economy isn't going to get that much better for a few more years, so they just let Romney run this year and are saving their "big guns" for 2016. It's easier for them to play the "blame game" with Obama for four more years.

I agree with all this except for the part in parentheses. I don't know why they should have run, but it's not any of those guys.

WCChiCubsFan
05-07-12, 04:15 PM
Christie? He'll never really be taken seriously until he loses some weight. I know many in America have a weight problem but that does not mean they want a morbidly obese individual as President. Only thing that should be in his horizon is The Biggest Loser.

Jeb? Bush II ruined that so call political dynasty, besides Jeb's performance in the Terri Schiavo case should be enough on its own to ruin his career.

JasonF
05-07-12, 04:43 PM
More than the economy, I think the thing that will do Mitt Romney in is his basic incompetence in running a campign. The news out of Maine and Nevada this weekend (I'm surprised mosquitobite hasn't posted about it!) is Exhibit A:

Ron Paul continues delegate offensive, wins big in Nevada, Maine

WASHINGTON -- Intent on taking his presidential campaign all the way to the GOP convention this summer, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has mounted an offensive in key caucus states, swiping would-be delegates from presumed nominee Mitt Romney in an effort to gain relevance in a race that is generally considered over.

While there does not appear to be a path for Paul to win the nomination -- or to halt Romney from gaining the delegates he would need to clinch it -- that isn’t stopping the Texas congressman’s fervent supporters, who see the state delegate selection processes as a do-over opportunity to load state delegations with Paul supporters who could give voice to his message at the convention.

The strategy appears to be working in some states. Paul’s supporters were able to override the popular vote by working the arcane rules at state conventions in in Nevada and Maine last weekend.

In Nevada, Paul supporters claimed 22 of the 25 delegate seats that the state will occupy at the national convention in Tampa. The other three delegates were automatically designated. Since Romney won 50% of the vote at the state’s Feb. 4 caucuses – Paul came in third with 19% -- 20 of the elected delegates will be bound to vote for Romney on the first round of balloting in Tampa. But they will be able to cheer for Paul and join others in disrupting what will otherwise be a highly scripted convention.

Also during the Nevada convention, Paul backers beat out two Romney supporters in a vote to choose two people who will represent the state at the Republican National Committee, which runs the national party. Though the newly elected committee members won’t start serving their terms until after the August convention, their four-year presence on the committee could help promote Paul’s libertarian minded agenda.

Similarly in Maine, Paul won 18 of the state’s 24 delegates during voting on Saturday night and Sunday. Romney had won 39% to Paul’s 35% of the vote at the Maine caucuses in February. The Romney campaign has sent its top lawyer, Benjamin Ginsberg, to Maine to challenge the outcome there, according to the Kennebec Journal.

In Idaho, one Paul supporter has promised a “scorched earth” approach to win delegates for his candidate, according to the Idaho Statesman. Paul tied with Rick Santorum for second place in the state’s March 6 caucus. Romney, who won 62% of the vote, would be awarded all of the state’s 32 delegates, but Paul backers are hoping to use state convention rules to award those delegates to Paul.

The strategy would hinge on winning at least two-thirds of precinct level races in the state’s May 15th primary, which would give them the majority necessary to suspend the rules at the state party convention and overturn Romney’s caucus victories.

Meanwhile, Iowa Republicans met over the weekend to select 13 of the 28 delegates who will represent the state at the national convention.

Of those tentatively selected, just one, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, is an open Romney backer. Ten others have expressed support for Paul by volunteering for him or donating to his campaign, reports the Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs. An additional 12 delegates will be selected in June. Three state party officials will take the remaining slots.

Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses, which kicked off the GOP nominating contest, but Romney was initially believed the victor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-continues-delegate-offensive-wins-big-in-nevada-maine-20120507,0,2060053.story

I have no illusions that this is going to make one bit of difference in Tampa, but it demonstrates a weakness in the procedural organizatoin necessary to win an election. This is Elections 101 -- you need to get your guys filling the seats at the convention. The fact that the Romney campaign isn't doing this shows that his organization doesn't know what they're doing.

Don't even get me started on the incompetence the Romney campaign has displayed in handling the Richard Grenell situation.

Artman
05-08-12, 03:43 AM
I can't wait to revisit this thread in November...

DeputyDave
05-08-12, 08:25 AM
I can't wait to revisit this thread in November...

It will be funny.

CRM114
05-08-12, 11:33 AM
had they run someone with an ounce of charisma (Christie, Jeb Bush, heck even McCain for a second time), they could have easily beat Obama.

:lol:

CRM114
05-08-12, 11:35 AM
I can't wait to revisit this thread in November...

I think I said the exact same thing in 2004. :lol:

wendersfan
05-08-12, 11:53 AM
I can't wait to revisit this thread in November...

It will be funny.

You guys are really that confident of a Romney victory? It seems pretty clear to just about everyone that it's going to be close, either way.

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 12:47 PM
Romney is going to lose badly in both the electoral and popular vote. I'm talking at least 10% in the popular vote.

wendersfan
05-08-12, 01:07 PM
OK, everyone but Thor. :lol:

Jaymole
05-08-12, 01:28 PM
Romney is going to lose badly in both the electoral and popular vote. I'm talking at least 10% in the popular vote.

Romney is already even with Obama in the polls...this after a brutal Republican nominating campaign.

It will be a very close race that I feel can go either way.

dork
05-08-12, 01:35 PM
It will be a very close race that I feel can go either way.

Nonsense, [Candidate I don't like] is going to get his ass handed to him by [Candidate I like].

Dr Mabuse
05-08-12, 01:51 PM
Romney is already even with Obama in the polls...this after a brutal Republican nominating campaign.

It will be a very close race that I feel can go either way.

Obama's billion dollar machine hasn't even started the engine yet...

Jaymole
05-08-12, 02:20 PM
Obama's billion dollar machine hasn't even started the engine yet...

I still feel it will be a very close election, especially since I don't see Obama achieving the same amount of Democratic turnout like he did in 2008. People just aren't as enthused as they were in 2008.

X
05-08-12, 02:23 PM
Obama's billion dollar machine hasn't even started the engine yet...I just don't know that getting out the vote of those who favor Obama but wouldn't bother going to vote for him will overwhelm the vote of the independents who will be voting for the other side this time.

Independents should just tell the Obama canvassers that they're for Obama but they're not going to bother to vote in this election. Then they'll get driven to the polls and all sorts of goodies and they can still vote for Romney.

Tracer Bullet
05-08-12, 02:26 PM
I probably won't vote for president this year, but I live in New York, so it doesn't matter.

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 02:29 PM
Yeah, sorry. The polls in my opinion are not reflecting who will show up at THE polls.

A lot of people are pissed about Obama who aren't going to actually show up on election day to vote for Romney.

More importantly, the Republican base is not going to get "fired up" nearly as much as Democrats this go-round.

X
05-08-12, 02:30 PM
A lot of people are pissed about Obama who aren't going to actually show up on election day to vote for Romney.But they may show up to vote against Obama.

Navinabob
05-08-12, 02:35 PM
I still feel it will be a very close election, especially since I don't see Obama achieving the same amount of Democratic turnout like he did in 2008. People just aren't as enthused as they were in 2008.

May not be that close a race if you look at the electoral votes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/05/08/the-2012-election-is-obamas-to-win-just-look-at-the-rcp-electoral-map/

It all comes down to the Electoral College map.

With President Obama now leading Mitt Romney 253-170 in the Real Clear Politics Electoral Map, it appears that the 2012 presidential race is Obama’s to win — notwithstanding the fact that two candidates are currently neck-and-neck among the electorate overall, and in key battleground swing states.

To be sure, the latest swing state polling show President Obama virtually tied with Mitt Romney – who has significantly improved his standing among swing state voters since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee.

On Monday, USA Today/Gallup released a poll of voters in 12 battleground states ( Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) – the first USA Today/Gallup swing-state poll since the March survey which found Obama leading by nine percentage points among swing-state voters.

The latest USA Today/Gallup swing-state poll shows the President and Romney virtually tied (47%-45%) – with the President’s two point lead over Mr. Romney falling within the margin of error.

Similarly, last week’s Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll found the two candidates in a statistical tie in key toss-up states Ohio and Florida — with Romney leading 44 percent to 43 percent in Florida and Obama leading 44 percent-42 percent in Ohio.

But all one needs to do is look at the Electoral Map to see that the President is a mere 18 electoral votes shy of the 271 needed to win.

Put simply, all President Obama needs to do is win either Ohio (18 Electoral College votes) or Florida(29 Electoral College votes) – or a combination of two or more states including Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4) Iowa (6) Missouri (10) Colorado (9) North Carolina (15) or Arizona (11).

Bottom line: no matter how you do the math, President Obama’s path to electoral victory seems clear.

X
05-08-12, 02:39 PM
Put simply, all President Obama needs to do is win either Ohio (18 Electoral College votes) or Florida(29 Electoral College votes) – or a combination of two or more states including Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4) Iowa (6) Missouri (10) Colorado (9) North Carolina (15) or Arizona (11).

Bottom line: no matter how you do the math, President Obama’s path to electoral victory seems clear.Yes, the path to Mars seems clear as well. It's just really hard to get there.

Obama isn't going to win Ohio or Florida and two of the other states seems very doubtful.

chowderhead
05-08-12, 02:45 PM
Obama won Ohio by about 4% last time.
His realclearpolitics average now is +4.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Unemployment is down in Ohio, to 7.6% below the national average. Obama is even in approval/disapproval. Romeny is completely upside down in net approval in Ohio. It's going to be tough for him to win back Ohio even with Portman.

Navinabob
05-08-12, 02:46 PM
Yes, the path to Mars seems clear as well. It's just really hard to get there.

Obama isn't going to win Ohio or Florida and two of the other states seems very doubtful.

Looks close to me either way. :shrug:

Romney leading 44 percent to 43 percent in Florida and Obama leading 44 percent-42 percent in Ohio.

CRM114
05-08-12, 02:49 PM
But they may show up to vote against Obama.

Another thing I recall saying in 2004 (but with Bush and not Obama obviously). I grossly overestimated the animus toward Bush just like I think the Repubs are grossly overestimating the hatred for Obama.

And it's a pretty bold statement to say Obama won't win Ohio OR Florida at this point.

Navinabob
05-08-12, 03:09 PM
They are saying that Romney was getting a lot of boos at Obama's rally last night. That largely didn't happen in the last election, but Romney is seen as a face to the hated "Wallstreet" boogeyman image people have. That can't be good for Romney.

On the flip-side, Obama didn't sell out his 20,000 seating venue and only had 16-18 thousand people there. That largely didn't happen in the last election as well.

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 03:19 PM
Yeah, Romney and the nature of his wealth are not a very popular idea at the moment. Even though he knows what it feels like to be one of us little people. I look forward to him saying he knows what it feels like to be Hispanic (his Mexico connection) or even black because he once saw a black person and thought "wow, that must be really hard."

Shannon Nutt
05-08-12, 03:27 PM
Yes, the path to Mars seems clear as well. It's just really hard to get there.

Obama isn't going to win Ohio or Florida and two of the other states seems very doubtful.

Obama isn't going to win Florida, but he IS going to win Ohio AND Pennsylvania. Romney is hated by the Unions, those are two very strong Union states. Romney will wind up spending a bunch of time and money in both, and will probably wish he hadn't (cause he'll probably lose another close state as a result).

Shannon Nutt
05-08-12, 03:30 PM
:lol:

I expect an apology in 2016 when President Christie takes the oath of office. :)

classicman2
05-08-12, 03:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romney is going to lose badly in both the electoral and popular vote. I'm talking at least 10% in the popular vote.

Romney is going to lose badly in both the electoral and popular vote. I'm talking at least 10% in the popular vote.


Can we take those two predictions to the bank?

X
05-08-12, 03:43 PM
Obama won Ohio by about 4% last time.
His realclearpolitics average now is +4.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Unemployment is down in Ohio, to 7.6% below the national average. Obama is even in approval/disapproval. Romeny is completely upside down in net approval in Ohio. It's going to be tough for him to win back Ohio even with Portman.I do agree Ohio will be a tough state for Romney. Campaign consultants are going to make a lot of money there.

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 03:54 PM
Can we take those two predictions to the bank?

In these times, putting them under your mattress may be the wiser decision.

Artman
05-08-12, 03:56 PM
You guys are really that confident of a Romney victory?

I wasn't making a statement either way, it'll just be entertaining is all. It's times like these I'm glad I"m a moderate...

classicman2
05-08-12, 03:58 PM
Again - what is moderate? I'm serious.

CRM114
05-08-12, 04:06 PM
Someone who has no convictions either way and ultimately votes Republican because they favor lower taxes. :)

cpgator
05-08-12, 04:30 PM
Someone who doesn't let a political party determine their convictions and ultimately votes Republican because they favor lower taxes.

classicman2
05-08-12, 04:37 PM
Then moderates never vote liberal?

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 04:39 PM
Only when they want to murder babies AND pay higher taxes. It happens.

Nick Danger
05-08-12, 04:57 PM
MODERATE, n. In politics one afflicted with self-respect and addicted to the vice of independence. A term of contempt.

cpgator
05-08-12, 05:12 PM
Then moderates never vote liberal?

Moderates tend to have higher intelligence, so no.

Navinabob
05-08-12, 05:40 PM
Liberal: Motivated to vote for any liberal because they fear the conservative candidate.
Conservative: Motivated to vote for any conservative because they hate the liberal candidate.
Moderate: Not motivated to vote out of hated or fear; typically they stay home.

Mammal
05-08-12, 05:43 PM
I voted for Reagan twice, and Dole, and Bush the elder twice. I did not vote for W. I opposed segregation from way back, but am not convinced by affirmative action. I support the military, but oppose stupid wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I support the police, but think they need civilian oversight. I support a military draft, and mandatory national service as an alternative. I support Roe v. Wade. I am not religious. I will vote for Obama. So what am I?

X
05-08-12, 05:45 PM
I voted for Reagan twice, and Dole, and Bush the elder twice. I did not vote for W. I opposed segregation from way back, but am not convinced by affirmative action. I support the military, but oppose stupid wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I support the police, but think they need civilian oversight. I support a military draft, and mandatory national service as an alternative. I support Roe v. Wade. I am not religious. I will vote for Obama. So what am I?Possibly a statist.

Th0r S1mpson
05-08-12, 05:45 PM
I voted for Reagan twice, and Dole, and Bush the elder twice. I did not vote for W. I opposed segregation from way back, but am not convinced by affirmative action. I support the military, but oppose stupid wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I support the police, but think they need civilian oversight. I support a military draft, and mandatory national service as an alternative. I support Roe v. Wade. I am not religious. I will vote for Obama. So what am I?

A commie.

chowderhead
05-08-12, 05:54 PM
A commie.

worse ... a RINO.

Voting in Atlanta Georgia? Irrelevant I guess.

Mammal
05-08-12, 06:12 PM
Oh good, a statist rino commie. But not a rino - Bush the lesser and the tea party cured me of any republican tendencies.

Groucho
05-08-12, 06:32 PM
You know who else voted for different parties in different elections? HITLER.

Supermallet
05-08-12, 09:03 PM
In these times, putting them under your mattress may be the wiser decision.

Until the government recalls mattresses for the war effort. Then where will you be?!

classicman2
05-08-12, 09:35 PM
Had the U.S. military forces in Iraq & Afghanistan been primarily made up of draftees, we wouldn't have been in either of those theaters for any great length of time.

Far more families would have been involved. There would have been much larger and many more protest marches in the streets.

There are times (rare) that the U.S. military should be involved in foreign conflicts. You might make a case for a short-time U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan - not Iraq, IMO. And, we've been in Afghanistan far too long, proping up a corrupt regime.

Artman
05-08-12, 10:38 PM
Again - what is moderate? I'm serious.

I simply have no loyalty to a party (I have voted for both - and yes I vote ). I couldn't be honest with myself if I looked at everything from the standpoint of "my team's always right and they're always wrong." That works for a lot of people, but I think the middle actually decides elections, and that's where I'd rather be. :)

Josh-da-man
05-08-12, 11:58 PM
May not be that close a race if you look at the electoral votes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/05/08/the-2012-election-is-obamas-to-win-just-look-at-the-rcp-electoral-map/

It would be interesting to see Obama win an electoral victory while losing the popular vote so we could see conservatives attack the electoral college while liberals laud it in a clear reversal of the 2000 election.

PopcornTreeCt
05-09-12, 12:19 AM
I simply have no loyalty to a party (I have voted for both - and yes I vote ). I couldn't be honest with myself if I looked at everything from the standpoint of "my team's always right and they're always wrong." That works for a lot of people, but I think the middle actually decides elections, and that's where I'd rather be. :)

You know what decides elections? Florida. Think about that, America!

Mammal
05-09-12, 07:06 AM
If we had a draft we would - or could - have a better performing army. We could put more boots on the ground and wouldn't have to resort to taking high school dropouts and people with criminal records, and sending people with mental problems for repeated tours in the war zone.

Yes, my position as a Georgia voter doesn't matter...and get this, my district was changed from the one with Hank Johnson to the one with Tom Price.

Sean O'Hara
05-09-12, 09:29 AM
If we had a draft we would - or could - have a better performing army.

Odd, since we ended the draft because Vietnam proved exactly the opposite.

CRM114
05-09-12, 09:31 AM
I simply have no loyalty to a party (I have voted for both - and yes I vote ). I couldn't be honest with myself if I looked at everything from the standpoint of "my team's always right and they're always wrong." That works for a lot of people, but I think the middle actually decides elections, and that's where I'd rather be. :)

That's not true.

Republicans believe abortion should be banned, gay marriage banned, and entitlement programs should be eliminated or severely cut. Those positions are ALWAYS wrong and I'm not sure how anyone with conviction on those issues could vote for a Republican. You couch this has being a cheerleader, I see it as making a crystal clear choice.

Sean O'Hara
05-09-12, 09:38 AM
That's not true.

Republicans believe abortion should be banned, gay marriage banned, and entitlement programs should be eliminated or severely cut.

You're confusing rhetoric and policy. Two of those the Repubs talk about and never touch. Gay marriage are actively opposed to, but then again so is the wise and wonderful Mr. Obama.

JasonF
05-09-12, 09:45 AM
You're confusing rhetoric and policy. Two of those the Repubs talk about and never touch. Gay marriage are actively opposed to, but then again so is the wise and wonderful Mr. Obama.

Can you give some examples of President Obama's active opposition to gay marriage?

CRM114
05-09-12, 09:46 AM
It's still part of their platform. I'd ask some people in some of the states passing laws restricting abortion if they think it's all rhetoric.

And talk about rhetoric, Obama and gay marriage. He did eliminate DADT and will surely change his mind on GM in his second term. It's about getting votes and unfortunately the uninformed, ignorant mob still rules.

Sean O'Hara
05-09-12, 10:07 AM
Can you give some examples of President Obama's active opposition to gay marriage?

He hasn't changed his "civil unions only," stance since the debates four years ago, and his press secretary is certainly going out of his way to claim that Biden's comments don't represent policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-gay-marriage-stance-comes-under-scrutiny-from-gay-rights-advocates/2012/05/08/gIQAPRVeAU_story.html). Hell, the guy's to the right of Dick Cheney and Ted Olson on this issue.

It's still part of their platform. I'd ask some people in some of the states passing laws restricting abortion if they think it's all rhetoric.

And talk about rhetoric, Obama and gay marriage. He did eliminate DADT and will surely change his mind on GM in his second term. It's about getting votes and unfortunately the uninformed, ignorant mob still rules.

So pandering to bigots is okay when Obama does it but not when the Repbulicans do? Sorry, but only assholes hinge support of civil rights on political expediency.

CRM114
05-09-12, 10:17 AM
So pandering to bigots is okay when Obama does it but not when the Repbulicans do? Sorry, but only assholes hinge support of civil rights on political expediency.

Sure, when Obama ends DADT, he's pandering. Same as Repubs.

But only a naive, inexperienced, person would think a politician would not put political expediency first and foremost.

sracer
05-09-12, 10:58 AM
Sure, when Obama ends DADT, he's pandering. Same as Repubs.

But only a naive, inexperienced, person would think a politician would not put political expediency first and foremost.
You get in public office the type people you vote for.

CRM114
05-09-12, 11:03 AM
No, you get who runs. And those who run usually understand politics. If you don't, you are Ralph Nader or Ron Paul.

classicman2
05-09-12, 12:44 PM
Can you give some examples of President Obama's active opposition to gay marriage?

If the president says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - what does that mean to you?

clappj
05-09-12, 01:43 PM
If the president says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - what does that mean to you?

Is said president a Democrat or a Republican?

Groucho
05-09-12, 03:06 PM
It's a moot point now. Obama just stated on ABC that he supports same-sex marriage.

Looks like Romney has this one in the bag.

Sean O'Hara
05-09-12, 03:08 PM
Yay, he says he supports it. Now lets see if he does anything about it.

X
05-09-12, 03:11 PM
It's a moot point now. Obama just stated on ABC that he supports same-sex marriage.

Looks like Romney has this one in the bag.I think it certainly says something about his need to firm up the base.

Tracer Bullet
05-09-12, 03:17 PM
I think it certainly says something about his need to firm up the base.

Obama isn't gay himself.

Tracer Bullet
05-09-12, 03:20 PM
Yay, he says he supports it. Now lets see if he does anything about it.

His administration hasn't been defending DOMA for about a year. What else can he do?

Groucho
05-09-12, 03:20 PM
I think it certainly says something about his need to firm up the base.I think he's going to drive more people away with the statement than he attracts.

X
05-09-12, 03:22 PM
I think he's going to drive more people away with the statement than he attracts.That's why I think it was a tough calculation for them but they decided they needed get the pro-gay marriage people onboard enought to take that chance. They were already onboard in 2008.

CRM114
05-09-12, 03:24 PM
If the president says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - what does that mean to you?

If he says 'Same-Sex Couples Should Be Able To Get Married' what does that mean to you?

Draven
05-09-12, 03:25 PM
That's why I think it was a tough calculation for them but they decided they needed get the pro-gay marriage people onboard enought to take that chance. They were already onboard in 2008.

Or maybe he actually changed his mind and decided to say something about it...especially after the nonsense in North Carolina.

Tracer Bullet
05-09-12, 03:28 PM
Or maybe he actually changed his mind and decided to say something about it...especially after the nonsense in North Carolina.

Obama always supported marriage equality. He shut up about it for a few years, though.

Shannon Nutt
05-09-12, 03:29 PM
Or maybe he actually changed his mind and decided to say something about it...especially after the nonsense in North Carolina.

Good for him. It's about time.

Also, it's smart. ANYTHING that keeps the election focus OFF the economy is good for the President.

wendersfan
05-09-12, 03:30 PM
Good for him. It's about time.
I agree. Too bad I won't vote for him anyway. :shrug:

JasonF
05-09-12, 03:32 PM
That's not true.

Republicans believe abortion should be banned, gay marriage banned, and entitlement programs should be eliminated or severely cut.

You're confusing rhetoric and policy. Two of those the Repubs talk about and never touch. Gay marriage are actively opposed to, but then again so is the wise and wonderful Mr. Obama.

Can you give some examples of President Obama's active opposition to gay marriage?

He hasn't changed his "civil unions only," stance since the debates four years ago, and his press secretary is certainly going out of his way to claim that Biden's comments don't represent policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-gay-marriage-stance-comes-under-scrutiny-from-gay-rights-advocates/2012/05/08/gIQAPRVeAU_story.html). Hell, the guy's to the right of Dick Cheney and Ted Olson on this issue.

As somebody once said, you're confusing rhetoric and policy.

By the way, are you really under the impression that Republicans are merely talking the talk when it comes to restricting access to abortion and welfare, but not actually doing anything about it?

Shannon Nutt
05-09-12, 03:42 PM
I agree. Too bad I won't vote for him anyway. :shrug:

Well as long as THIS isn't the reason you're not, no problem with that.

wendersfan
05-09-12, 03:49 PM
Well as long as THIS isn't the reason you're not, no problem with that.Actually, THIS made me reconsider not voting for him, at least for a few seconds.

CRM114
05-09-12, 04:00 PM
That'll show 'em!

Venusian
05-09-12, 04:12 PM
what does this mean?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

X
05-09-12, 04:18 PM
what does this mean?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.htmlThat President Obama believes in states' rights. For one issue. When it's convenient.

Jeremy517
05-09-12, 04:58 PM
Obama always supported marriage equality.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

Nausicaa
05-09-12, 05:06 PM
That President Obama believes in states' rights. For one issue. When it's convenient.

The fact that Obama defended the states' rights approach undercut the importance of this announcement. While it's all well and good that he personally thinks gay marriage should be legal, he is apparently also okay with the fact that it has been specifically made illegal in 30 states.

I get why he said what he did, but this is just another one of those things that annoys me about Obama. He had a chance to really lead on this, but instead he only went half way, like he always does.

X
05-09-12, 05:08 PM
He voted "present" yet again. Hopefully enough that it will free up the gay donation money that those interest groups have been withholding.

CapRockBrewingCo.
05-09-12, 05:47 PM
I don't think this changes much. Conservatives who are anti-gay marriage were going to vote against Obama regardless. Progressives (who are mostly for gay marriage) were more than likely going to vote for Obama regardless as well.

This might pull some gay moderates or log cabin Republicans into the fold, especially if they dislike Romney. Other than that, those with disdain for President Obama will use this as another reason to hate him. No big change.

classicman2
05-09-12, 06:26 PM
Obama was caught between a rock & a hard place. He was concerned about losing voters (low turnout) in certain states that might be critical to his election; and, he was concerned about a certain segments of his base who were opposed to gay marriage. Blacks turned out in record numbers in 2010. A percentage of those conservative Christian blacks might just stay at home in protest. Obviously they're not going to vote for Romney. Obama got 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2010. I would imagine he was concerned about losing some of that vote.

Tommy Ceez
05-09-12, 07:04 PM
The point of this, as some are saying, is that it forces Romney to go back into fire-breathing social conservative mode to placate his base, and stops him from focusing on his economic issues

Tracer Bullet
05-09-12, 08:20 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

Yeah, I meant personally. He also publically stated during his early political career that he favored marriage equality. But damn, you got me.

Why the fuck did I come back to this place?

Duran
05-09-12, 08:37 PM
About damn time. The fact that he kept hedging on a civil rights issue as a minority offspring of an interracial marriage was embarrassing.

PopcornTreeCt
05-09-12, 09:39 PM
About damn time. The fact that he kept hedging on a civil rights issue as a minority offspring of an interracial marriage was embarrassing.

:up:

TheBigDave
05-09-12, 09:49 PM
Gawker isn't too impressed.

He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out.

FULL ARTICLE - Barack Obama’s Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement (http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement)

Ouch!

DeputyDave
05-09-12, 10:12 PM
That's not true.

Republicans believe abortion should be banned, gay marriage banned, and entitlement programs should be eliminated or severely cut. Those positions are ALWAYS wrong and I'm not sure how anyone with conviction on those issues could vote for a Republican. You couch this has being a cheerleader, I see it as making a crystal clear choice.

Hmmm... I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage. Those issues simply are not important enough to me to overcome my disagreements with most Democrat beliefs.

Groucho
05-09-12, 10:19 PM
Hmmm... I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage. Those issues simply are not important enough to me to overcome my disagreements with most Democrat beliefs.And even if they were, it's not as if the president is going to have any impact on the direction of either of those (despite popular belief).

eXcentris
05-09-12, 11:40 PM
I get why he said what he did, but this is just another one of those things that annoys me about Obama. He had a chance to really lead on this, but instead he only went half way, like he always does.

So he's for bisexual marriage? :hscratch:

Artman
05-09-12, 11:54 PM
And even if they were, it's not as if the president is going to have any impact on the direction of either of those (despite popular belief).

That's the thing... unless some here are just being sarcastic, it's almost like they are incapable of seeing anything as something other than absolute. (good luck even replying to them, I've given up) Politics by it's very nature is about compromise, getting the most that you can. Plenty of people want to vote on an all-or-nothing basis, and that's their right. But I simply can't convince myself to think like that.

Take today's news for example...as thoughtful observers have pointed out, the President is still giving politician's answers. Unless the full interview (which I haven't seen) gives more info, it's the same hat trick. I can understand how that'd be frustrating for his supporters.

Josh-da-man
05-10-12, 12:21 AM
Obama isn't gay himself.

He's always been proven to be a Nazi, a Communist, and a Muslim who wasn't born in America. Might as well add gay to the list.

Mammal
05-10-12, 12:21 AM
Odd, since we ended the draft because Vietnam proved exactly the opposite.

Well, not really.

In Vietnam, we fielded a ground force of 500,000. You can't do that with volunteers. We needed more troops for Iraq from the beginning, and they were not available.

The Vietnam draft was unjustly and stupidly run: until 1968, college students were deferred through grad school, at which time they would be too old for the draft. Anybody who could get into a National Guard unit was exempt too. Consequently, we were drafting high school dropouts, low IQ people, and people with criminal records, which made for a problem Army then and has the same effect now.

In Vietnam, only professional soldiers did more than one tour unless they volunteered to extend their term of service. For the past few years we've been sending people for tour after tour after tour; if they showed the mental effect of repeated tours, they were, and are prescribed tranquilizers and other drugs. That's not good.

classicman2
05-10-12, 09:56 AM
I've never seen a percentage of the combat troops (excluding officers & NCOs) who were drafted. I know it must be greater than 75%.

Sean O'Hara
05-10-12, 10:32 AM
Well, not really.

In Vietnam, we fielded a ground force of 500,000. You can't do that with volunteers.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

classicman2
05-10-12, 11:38 AM
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Are you too young to remember when we had enough troops to fight on 2 fronts? We had a draft then.

We don't have enough troops today to fight on one front.

Perhaps you believe that's not necessary since we could just nuke 'em instead. ;)

Sean O'Hara
05-10-12, 01:22 PM
Are you too young to remember when we had enough troops to fight on 2 fronts? We had a draft then.

We don't have enough troops today to fight on one front.

Perhaps you believe that's not necessary since we could just nuke 'em instead. ;)

I believe that sixty years is at least twenty too long and it's about damn time we demilitarize.

movielib
05-10-12, 01:43 PM
Hmmm... I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage. Those issues simply are not important enough to me to overcome my disagreements with most Democrat beliefs.
:up:

Those issues are important to me but not as important. Too bad we can't get more social liberal/economic conservative people but that's the way it is, at least at present. Until and unless that happens, people like us have to make a choice.

CRM114
05-10-12, 03:10 PM
I'm all for paying less taxes but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'd favor the Republicans.

Tracer Bullet
05-10-12, 03:18 PM
Here is a fun story for us all to discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Romney has since apologized. Andrew Sullivan says, "I conclude two things: Romney was a high school bully of gay or effeminate kids and is also a brazen liar."

Fightin' words, Mr. Sullivan!

classicman2
05-10-12, 03:25 PM
I believe that sixty years is at least twenty too long and it's about damn time we demilitarize.

Are you really serious?

If you are - well, I don't know what world you're living in. It's not the real one.

CRM114
05-10-12, 03:30 PM
You know what sucks? Not being able to go into the "Same Sex Marriage" thread because your content filter blocks sites with the word "sex" in the URL.

CRM114
05-10-12, 03:31 PM
Are you really serious?

If you are - well, I don't know what world you're living in. It's not the real one.

The "libertarian" one.

Tracer Bullet
05-10-12, 03:35 PM
You know what sucks? Not being able to go into the "Same Sex Marriage" thread because your content filter blocks sites with the word "sex" in the URL.

You're not missing anything. It's just creekdipper stirring the pot again.

dork
05-10-12, 03:36 PM
You know what sucks? Not being able to go into the "Same Sex Marriage" thread because your content filter blocks sites with the word "sex" in the URL.
I'm now considering installing a content filter on my machine.

Navinabob
05-10-12, 06:57 PM
Here is a fun story for us all to discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Romney has since apologized. Andrew Sullivan says, "I conclude two things: Romney was a high school bully of gay or effeminate kids and is also a brazen liar."

Fightin' words, Mr. Sullivan!

Right now Ron Paul might be looking like a safer bet to some folks I imagine...

Dr Mabuse
05-10-12, 07:10 PM
Here is a fun story for us all to discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Romney has since apologized. Andrew Sullivan says, "I conclude two things: Romney was a high school bully of gay or effeminate kids and is also a brazen liar."

Fightin' words, Mr. Sullivan!

They were covering that on CNN earlier. Wonderful stuff. Romney led the procession to the room and did the cutting while the weakling was crying and screaming.

I was laughing my ass off at all the 'most electable' talk about Romney this entire campaign season. My suspicion is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Obama machine has been researching that guy like no presidential campaign in history has ever researched an opponent. Considering the reality of a scumbag like Romney, there's going to be a new story like this popping every few weeks would be my guess.

JasonF
05-10-12, 07:18 PM
My problem with Mitt Romney isn't that he was an asshole when he was 15 years old. Most 15 year olds are assholes. My problem with Mitt Romney is that he's still an asshole.

kvrdave
05-10-12, 07:27 PM
At least he'd be a new asshole. I'd risk that. There's only a 99% that he would abuse the office. That is 1% better than we'd have with 4 more years.

Bandoman
05-10-12, 07:45 PM
At least he'd be a new asshole. I'd risk that. There's only a 99% that he would abuse the office. That is 1% better than we'd have with 4 more years.

Meh. There's only an 87% chance Gary Johnson will abuse the office.

classicman2
05-10-12, 07:55 PM
My problem with Mitt Romney isn't that he was an asshole when he was 15 years old. Most 15 year olds are assholes. My problem with Mitt Romney is that he's still an asshole.

Tell us how you really feel. :)

btw: Do you have any problems with Barack Obama?

If so - please enlighten the forum as to what they are.

Navinabob
05-10-12, 08:03 PM
Tell us how you really feel. :)

btw: Do you have any problems with Barack Obama?

If so - please enlighten the forum as to what they are.

Well, he sorta suggested that Obama was likely an asshole when he was 15. Maybe that?

JasonF
05-10-12, 08:39 PM
Tell us how you really feel. :)

btw: Do you have any problems with Barack Obama?

If so - please enlighten the forum as to what they are.

Do you want to fuck me? You seem a little obsessed.

Tracer Bullet
05-10-12, 09:00 PM
My problem with Mitt Romney isn't that he was an asshole when he was 15 years old. Most 15 year olds are assholes.

I don't know that I agree with that.

Tommy Ceez
05-10-12, 09:39 PM
I don't know that I agree with that.

15 year olds yell out PENIS! During assembly. This incident just indicates that this clown has been an entitled dick since forever.

X
05-10-12, 09:50 PM
15 year olds yell out PENIS! During assembly. This incident just indicates that this clown has been an entitled dick since forever.My class published an anti-establishment newspaper and created all sorts of mayhem against the school administration at that age.

Evidently teens have become dumber since then.

Duran
05-10-12, 10:12 PM
Newsflash: Man who has no regard for their pet animal is also an asshole to humans. What a surprise! I'm not Obama's biggest fan, but Romney just seems like a dick.

classicman2
05-10-12, 10:16 PM
Do you want to fuck me? You seem a little obsessed.

Is it better to be obssed or blind to the realities?

dork
05-10-12, 10:19 PM
You dodged the question. -ohbfrank-

cungar
05-10-12, 10:41 PM
At least he'd be a new asshole. I'd risk that. There's only a 99% that he would abuse the office. That is 1% better than we'd have with 4 more years.

You've really set your standards high

Artman
05-10-12, 10:42 PM
If so - please enlighten the forum as to what they are.

You're wasting your time.

kvrdave
05-11-12, 12:04 AM
Newsflash: Man who has no regard for their pet animal is also an asshole to humans. What a surprise! I'm not Obama's biggest fan, but Romney just seems like a dick.
Awww fuck, here we go with the touch feely "he doesn't treat a pet like a human" crowd.

You've really set your standards high
My standards have 2 choices. Known pure evil, and probable evil.

PopcornTreeCt
05-11-12, 12:17 AM
I'm all for paying less taxes but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'd favor the Republicans.

Agreed. Probably the only issue I can get behind. Endless wars, deregulating business, cutting social programs -- yeah can't support that.

Josh-da-man
05-11-12, 12:17 AM
I wonder when it will come out that "Willard" forced the underclassmen at that prep school give him handjobs.

It's no secret the kind of crazy shit that goes on behind closed doors at "prestigious" prep and boarding schools.

JasonF
05-11-12, 12:20 AM
btw: Do you have any problems with Barack Obama?

If so - please enlighten the forum as to what they are.

You're wasting your time.

Jesus fucking Christ -- there's an entire fucking thread dedicated to areas in which I disagree with the President. Can you please go jerk off to that thread rather than derailing this one every time I mention something unfavorable about Romney?

Superboy
05-11-12, 03:02 AM
Are you really serious?

If you are - well, I don't know what world you're living in. It's not the real one.

Could you enlighten us as to what the "real world" is like?

time and time again, you've shown your pitiful, child-like naivete and ignorance.

Superboy
05-11-12, 03:26 AM
Here is a fun story for us all to discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Romney has since apologized. Andrew Sullivan says, "I conclude two things: Romney was a high school bully of gay or effeminate kids and is also a brazen liar."

Fightin' words, Mr. Sullivan!

Here comes the liberal media blame-train again, smearing the good name of a Christian doing his rightful, Godly, All-American and biblical right to stone others because he has not sinned, to pluck the splinter out of his brother's eye because the log in his own is only symbolic of how godly he is, and because even though all have fallen short of the glory of God, some, especially that over-sinning nancy-boy, have fallen just a little bit further.

It's all in the Bible.

DeputyDave
05-11-12, 04:46 AM
The dog story? Him acting like a dick 40 years ago? Are these the type of things people are realy taking seriously? Anyone who lets themselves care about these non-stories is just looking for reasons why they never would have voted for Romney in the first place. The only person I would care to hear from is someone who would have voted for the GOP this year but is not because of Romney. Ditto for a Democrat who will not be voting for Obama. I have a strong feeling there are more of the later.

crazyronin
05-11-12, 05:53 AM
I wonder when it will come out that "Willard" forced the underclassmen at that prep school give him handjobs.

It's no secret the kind of crazy shit that goes on behind closed doors at "prestigious" prep and boarding schools.

You know who else attended a prep school (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punahou_School) for eight years?

not hitler

The Bus
05-11-12, 06:30 AM
Here is a fun story for us all to discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Romney has since apologized. Andrew Sullivan says, "I conclude two things: Romney was a high school bully of gay or effeminate kids and is also a brazen liar."

Fightin' words, Mr. Sullivan!

These are shocking allegations.

Michigan has elite schools?

classicman2
05-11-12, 09:00 AM
Jesus fucking Christ -- there's an entire fucking thread dedicated to areas in which I disagree with the President. Can you please go jerk off to that thread rather than derailing this one every time I mention something unfavorable about Romney?

Newsflash: This thread is about the 2012 presidential election. I assume you know who the two candidates will be.

Your problem is that you want to limit the criticism to only one of the candidates in a thread where my questions are clearly applicable to.

classicman2
05-11-12, 09:07 AM
Could you enlighten us as to what the "real world" is like?

time and time again, you've shown your pitiful, child-like naivete and ignorance.

The real world is what in which the U.S. has far-flung national interests of varying degrees of vitality. When the vital national interests of the U.S. are threatened & all other means of resolving the issues have been exhausted, this country must have the military means and resolve to protect those vital national interests.

Anyone, IMO, who doesn't comprehend that is the one that is being naive & demonstrating lack of understanding.

Tracer Bullet
05-11-12, 09:17 AM
The dog story? Him acting like a dick 40 years ago? Are these the type of things people are realy taking seriously? Anyone who lets themselves care about these non-stories is just looking for reasons why they never would have voted for Romney in the first place. The only person I would care to hear from is someone who would have voted for the GOP this year but is not because of Romney. Ditto for a Democrat who will not be voting for Obama. I have a strong feeling there are more of the later.

If it's not such a big deal then why the fuck did Romney lie about it?

CRM114
05-11-12, 09:18 AM
Is it better to be obssed or blind to the realities?

Blind to what reality?

The topic was Romney being a dick. I see no indication that the President is a dick. There are no stories of his entitled upbringing, his bullying of fellow classmates, his strapping of a dog on a roof, his asinine comments about wealth, his disregard for the common working man. No, Obama seems like a measured and genuinely nice guy. So what exactly is JasonF blind to exactly?

CRM114
05-11-12, 09:20 AM
Could you enlighten us as to what the "real world" is like?

time and time again, you've shown your pitiful, child-like naivete and ignorance.

To classicman2, I'm pretty sure it looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Highway_412_In_The_Oklahoma_Panhandle.JPG/400px-Highway_412_In_The_Oklahoma_Panhandle.JPG

The real world is what in which the U.S. has far-flung national interests of varying degrees of vitality. When the vital national interests of the U.S. are threatened & all other means of resolving the issues have been exhausted, this country must have the military means and resolve to protect those vital national interests.

Anyone, IMO, who doesn't comprehend that is the one that is being naive & demonstrating lack of understanding.

Wait, wait. Please enlighten the forum on how the President is weaker on national security than Romney? Romney has done absolutely nothing on a national level. He has done absolutely nothing but run for President for 6 years.

CRM114
05-11-12, 09:22 AM
You know who else attended a prep school (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punahou_School) for eight years?

not hitler

On scholarship not as an entitled douchebag shouting down hippies.

I don't think anyone said that every student at every prep school was a douchebag, just people like Romney.

Talkin2Phil
05-11-12, 11:03 AM
Him acting like a dick 40 years ago? Are these the type of things people are realy taking seriously?

Yes, I think is is serious. This wasn't some youthful indiscretion, like smoking pot or stealing your rival's mascot, it was a physical act of intolerance. If you really think someone can be a reformed asshole, good for you. I don't.

CRM114
05-11-12, 11:15 AM
Repubs will revel in this secretly. This validates their anti-subversive mentality.

movielib
05-11-12, 11:18 AM
Romney has done absolutely nothing on a national level. He has done absolutely nothing but run for President for 6 years.
Then he has something in common with Obama. ;)

clappj
05-11-12, 11:22 AM
Repubs will revel in this secretly. This validates their anti-subversive mentality.

:lol:

CRM114
05-11-12, 11:43 AM
Then he has something in common with Obama. ;)

Obama was briefly in the Senate and served on the Foreign Relations committee. Romney went to France.

CRM114
05-11-12, 11:45 AM
:lol:

Look. Romney holding an anti-subversive sign! -eek- How Republican of him. Hilarious I know. That damn punk had it coming to him...with his hair and all!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jg0Lutccoyw/Twx6OGttuYI/AAAAAAAAA4U/_f6oD6q1wSw/s640/Romney+draft.jpg

movielib
05-11-12, 12:02 PM
Obama was briefly in the Senate and served on the Foreign Relations committee. Romney went to France.
I think you didn't get the joke.

Superboy
05-11-12, 01:20 PM
The real world is what in which the U.S. has far-flung national interests of varying degrees of vitality. When the vital national interests of the U.S. are threatened & all other means of resolving the issues have been exhausted, this country must have the military means and resolve to protect those vital national interests.

Anyone, IMO, who doesn't comprehend that is the one that is being naive & demonstrating lack of understanding.

Yes, I'm well aware of the geopolitical problems that taint our international relations to the point that Machiavellian solutions are the only viable ones lest we risk our stake in the world.

But I'm talking about our people. Our own people in our own country, that we subject to all measures of absolutely abhorrent injustice. Let me ask you this: time after time, it's been shown that black inner-city dwellers are not more likely to either be drug users or involved in the drug trade than white suburbanites, yet look at who makes up our prison population. It's the biggest in the world per capita, even counting the secret prisons in countries like china where political and social dissidents are jailed. No one else jails at the rate we do, an it's only growing. Now it's been said before on this forum, and quickly dismissed, but to ignore or otherwise be unable to comprehend the impact this has had on communities of people of color, is not only indicative of a skewed and childish mentality, but one that is grossly inhumane and unjust.

movielib
05-11-12, 01:24 PM
Yes, I'm well aware of the geopolitical problems that taint our international relations to the point that Machiavellian solutions are the only viable ones lest we risk our stake in the world.

But I'm talking about our people. Our own people in our own country, that we subject to all measures of absolutely abhorrent injustice. Let me ask you this: time after time, it's been shown that black inner-city dwellers are not more likely to either be drug users or involved in the drug trade than white suburbanites, yet look at who makes up our prison population. It's the biggest in the world per capita, even counting the secret prisons in countries like china where political and social dissidents are jailed. No one else jails at the rate we do, an it's only growing. Now it's been said before on this forum, and quickly dismissed, but to ignore or otherwise be unable to comprehend the impact this has had on communities of people of color, is not only indicative of a skewed and childish mentality, but one that is grossly inhumane and unjust.
I think there are a fair number of us who do not dismiss this nor take it lightly. I agree with you, it is abhorrent.

Dr Mabuse
05-11-12, 01:58 PM
The inception of 'anti drug' laws was an entirely, completely racist affair conceived in lies and propaganda. It shouldn't surprise anyone it is still a thing of lies and propaganda, and a racist tool today, if they actually know the history. Try to convince the ignorant, weak minded, easily conditioned masses of the truth and reality of it though... you might as well try to explain Fermat to a Golden Retriever. "Them drug laws is 'cause drugs is bad and cause crime."

:lol:

We imprison more people than any nation has in history, or at least in known history.

Stalin, at the height of his insomnia bouts and the Gulag Archipelago, where he would sit up night after night writing lists of thousands to be imprisoned or killed, sometimes when it was late, simply writing 'find 3000 more' or 'find 2000 more' and sending them out, was not imprisoning people at the rate, or in the outright numbers, that the US is today.

During the worldwide economic collapse of 2008 and after, the US prison industry was the only US industry that was not affected by it at all, and continued to grow and return profits at a healthy rate as if nothing had happened.

Yet, as a testament to the power of propaganda and how easy it is for the powerful to control the thoughts, opinions, tastes, behaviors, and perceptions of the overwhelming majority of Americans, if you mention we live in a police state, to their carefully conditioned minds you sound like 'a paranoid conspiracy theorist'... it's tragic and hilarious at the same time.

Why... it's election season, where is the mainstream candidate even alluding to, much less mentioning the police and prison state we have become? Dare we hope trying to curtail it? Yes sir, this election, like all others, is about "issues"...

Sean O'Hara
05-11-12, 02:00 PM
The real world is what in which the U.S. has far-flung national interests of varying degrees of vitality. When the vital national interests of the U.S. are threatened & all other means of resolving the issues have been exhausted, this country must have the military means and resolve to protect those vital national interests.

How many times since the end of the Cold War have our national interests been threatened in such a way as to require a huge army to take care of the matter? Do you really believe that the cost of maintaining a standing army while it's not needed are less than the cost of a rapid build-up as the US did in every major conflict prior to Korea?

Navinabob
05-11-12, 02:01 PM
Let me ask you this: time after time, it's been shown that black inner-city dwellers are not more likely to either be drug users or involved in the drug trade than white suburbanites, yet look at who makes up our prison population.

That's only sorta true. You find similar numbers between both groups in self-reporting studies for lifetime use ("have you ever tried an illegal drug?"), but when you look at self-report & confirmation drug test, you find that many of the poor people are not honest about their use. Also, they typically look at lifetime use for these questionnaires. While the lifetime use is the same, typically the inner-city is more recent use. Heavier use, continued use, and larger amount of drug trafficking are also more common in inner-cities.

http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/JoanMcCord/InnerCityDrugUse.pdf

With that said, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that black inner-city users are not treated fairly in our legal system. Everything from longer sentences, to fewer alternative sentencing judgements, clearly states that. But since this is not a "war on drugs" thread I won't bore anyone with more data. I think your assessment and conclusion is dead on, but how you got to there is just a little bit off.

Dr Mabuse
05-11-12, 02:08 PM
How many times since the end of the Cold War have our national interests been threatened in such a way as to require a huge army to take care of the matter? Do you really believe that the cost of maintaining a standing army while it's not needed are less than the cost of a rapid build-up as the US did in every major conflict prior to Korea?

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." - Gen. Douglas MacArthur