Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on August 10, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
-
There is a buzz out there that he seriously considering Paul Ryan.
It would certainly shore up Romney with the fiscally conservative right.
On the other hand it might consign Ryan and his budgetary plans to oblivion, both if Romney wins or loses.
Romney would be free to ignore the fiscal conservatives if he wins, the R's will just fall in line like they always do, going along to get along.
If Romney/Ryan loses he will forever be the failed VP pick of Romney as far as the media is concerned. Nobody will listen to him because the media will remind us continually how the voters rejected him and his vision.
-
I have the same misgivings.
I'd really like to see Ryan in the Oval Office in the future.
If Romney's Presidency fails, that pretty mcu eliminated Ryan for the future.
Historically, VPs rarely become presidents.
VP's haven't had much if any influence on their Presidents in the recent history.
-
Romney is screwed with the media no matter who he picks. Picks a female or a person of color; token, pandering for women and minority votes. White guy; he's a racist. Throw in conservative of any gender or color; See, he really wants to kill old people, dogs, children and nuke California.
Romney needs to pick whoever he thinks could step into the Presidency. Then he needs to spend a couple of days defanging Obama and the media mud, sleeze and lies by publicly, in a very strong way, with paid ads of his own, not super pac money, to tell Americans that he isn't going to respond to any of Obama and media lies, sleeze and mud. That the race is too important to respond to this juvenile, childish dreck. Then he needs to strongly make a point by point case with respect to what he plans his presidency's platform is all about and why and hammer that every day till election day.
-
IMO, Romney shouldn't worry about the media and should just pick the guy that might be able to make sure he own base and conservative independents come out and vote for him. If he tries to pander to anyone in the center, it won't help him.
-
If he picks Ryan, I might be able to bring myself to vote for the Romney ticket. It COULD signal he's willing to take on the actual problems facing this country.
My bet is it will be some other milquetoast politician. Don't rock the boat.
-
IMHO the person that will be the Veep candidate is Rubio. We'll hear cries of pandering from the left. Many hispanics are closet conservatives, and just vote demoncrat for some odd reason. I see a lot I'm not fond of in Rubio, but I also see him as a straight talker who tries to do what he says.
The real problem is the Veep is nothing but a token position. Whoever he picks is nothing but an extra campaign voice.
Of course should something happen to the POTUS, the Veep steps in, but that is like lightening striking a lottery winner....
-
You pick the VP that brings you the most votes in the party. Right now, Romney still hasn't won over the TEA Party, Paulians, and other conservatives....esp. the ones that are going as delegates to the convention. If Romney is going to make it through the convention with his political skin intact (& expect conservative voters to show at the polls), picking Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, or some conservative darling is vital. It's the smart move....
....which is why he likely will not do it. Heck, he may even pick Jeri Ryan as his VP..... :facepalm:
-
If he picks Ryan, I might be able to bring myself to vote for the Romney ticket. It COULD signal he's willing to take on the actual problems facing this country.
My bet is it will be some other milquetoast politician. Don't rock the boat.
So if he doesn't pick Ryan you would throw your vote away towards Obama?
-
Dick Cheney didn't have a token position, although they did keep him out of sight in the later years.
I don't think Ryan would accept unless his plan was to be a real part of the Romney agenda. He's been almost fanatically devoted to solving these financial problems for several years. This is his mission.
He'd be good on the campaign trail, as he can easily explain in real-people talk what it is that Obama has done and will do to our economy.
-
So if he doesn't pick Ryan you would throw your vote away towards Obama?
If he doesn't pick someone that signals a willingness to address the actual issues facing our country, I see no reason to reward the Republican Party with my vote. I cannot in good conscience vote anymore for someone who does not represent a solution. (Ryan isn't the only pick that could signal this, though.)
If he runs as the "kick the can down the road again!" candidate, I will likely be writing someone in. I don't believe the country can survive should we ignore the problems for another four (or eight) years. Obama just gets us there faster, but the destination is the same. (And rewarding the Republicans for running a "ignore the problem" candidate won't ever get the problems addressed.)
-
He should pick someone better than himself, preferably someone who could be President of the new America that is going to need to be rebuilt, painfully, on truth and toughness.
Romney, who of all people should know better, appears to believe America's problems are economic. Or so he says. Our economic problems are rooted in cultural and moral issues that, eventually, will out, no doubt dramatically.
I expect him to make the wrong choice: the "safe" one. A man who says he's "disappointed" when he's been publicly accused of being a murderer is as alienated from his real self as Obama is.
-
Ryan probably is the best choice.
Romney has already publicly endorsed his entitlement reform plans, so he has nothing to lose by actually picking him as VP. He's telegenic, well spoken, articulate, but a plain talker at the same time, and is better off the cuff than most are with a teleprompter.
He's a good mix between 'rock star' to energize the base, and is still 'safe enough' in that he's always going to handle himself with a polite respectable demeanor.
He would also help bolster the vote in Wisconsin, grabbing at least a few thousand votes of the mushy-headed sort who'd just vote for Romney/Ryan just to see WI represented in the White House. Obama only won WI by a few thousand in 2008, and there is no Electoral College math that lets Obama win without Wisconsin.
-
I like Ryan, but I think he's wasted in the VP slot (or job). He and Romney can count beans together on the stump when things get slow.
-
Romney will be saddled defending the Ryan plan, so it makes sense having Ryan around to explain it.
I like Ryan better than Rubio.
IMHO the person that will be the Veep candidate is Rubio. We'll hear cries of pandering from the left. Many hispanics are closet conservatives, and just vote demoncrat for some odd reason. I see a lot I'm not fond of in Rubio, but I also see him as a straight talker who tries to do what he says.
The real problem is the Veep is nothing but a token position. Whoever he picks is nothing but an extra campaign voice.
Of course should something happen to the POTUS, the Veep steps in, but that is like lightening striking a lottery winner....
For me, Rubio looks and sounds like "Bush III." I don;t consider that a good thing.
Hispanics will not vote conservative in any great numbers. They may be conservative on some social issues, but they sure do like that free money from the gov't and have voted accordingly. Also, they are assimilating into the wrong sub-culture, which will drive them further away from anything resembling conservatism or libertarianism.
Romney, who of all people should know better, appears to believe America's problems are economic. Or so he says. Our economic problems are rooted in cultural and moral issues that, eventually, will out, no doubt dramatically.
That.
-
Just a thought: would Romney have hired a young Obama at Bain?
-
Just a thought: would Romney have hired a young Obama at Bain?
Romney is a flip-flopping squish, but he seemed pretty darned focused on results as a businessman. BHO has never shown the ability to produce anything other than hot air and surely no results. I could see Romney hiring BHO only as an interface to "the community" if he felt he needed a token liaison...or as a result of blackmail from minority rabble-rousers.
-
Well, that's what I meant. But there's the young, well-spoken Obama with a shiny Harvard Law degree who can "interface" with big clients. I don't trust either of them. There it is.
-
Ryan is an an articulate, dedicated staff weenie who bettered himself into an elected position. While he has done an admirable job explaining the theoreticals behind a rational budgetary philosophy he has no experience doing the executive thingy, which is making it happen. Jindal has the best track record on that point. Will he pull in votes, etc? Who knows. I sense as a country we are move to a point where our institutions are in danger of seizing up. No theoretician will be of value when it happens.
-
For me, Rubio looks and sounds like "Bush III." I don;t consider that a good thing.
Hispanics will not vote conservative in any great numbers. They may be conservative on some social issues, but they sure do like that free money from the gov't and have voted accordingly. Also, they are assimilating into the wrong sub-culture, which will drive them further away from anything resembling conservatism or libertarianism.
Rubio is as mainstream Hispanic as Rice is mainstream African-American....he's a liability and sure to be called "coconut" by the MSM & others.
-
how about Susana Martinez from New Mexico?
-
Just a thought: would Romney have hired a young Obama at Bain?
If Obama was the sort that would go looking for a job in the capitalist market-place, he wouldn't be the same left-wing radical that wants our country torn down and rebuilt into another mediocre liberal democracy.
-
OK, Ok..I'll do it. Have Romney send me a PM. :P
-
how about Susana Martinez from New Mexico?
Who?......
-
Who?......
Is she hot?
-
Is she hot?
Not bad at all for a fat chick.
-
Not bad at all for a fat chick.
So is Delta Burke, but I wouldn't want her for VP....
-
So my thought is, who would be the dumbest person for Mitt to pick? John McCain?
-
So my thought is, who would be the dumbest person for Mitt to pick? John McCain?
Yeah I'm not so sure I can top that.
How about the most entertaining?
-
So my thought is, who would be the dumbest person for Mitt to pick? John McCain?
Hans Rodriguez* Huntsman is probably the dumbest pick he could make.
*(that's a joke on the fact that Jon Huntsman's own campaign misspelled his name during the primaries)
-
Foxnews just popped up a breaking news alert.
Romney is now scheduled to make the announcement tomorrow at 9am from Norfolk.
-
So my thought is, who would be the dumbest person for Mitt to pick? John McCain?
Ed Grimley? Or how about Donald Trump?
-
Dan Quayle?
Joe the Plumber?
Or if we really wanna drive the moonbats crazy-er, Katherine Harris. :rofl:
-
Foxnews just popped up a breaking news alert.
Romney is now scheduled to make the announcement tomorrow at 9am from Norfolk.
I saw another "report" (read that as wild speculative rumor) that a plane chartered in Boston landed in Paul Ryan's hometown tonight.
There, I added to the useless speculation.
-
As of 21:19 PST, Huffington Post is saying it is Ryan.
-
Well, it looks like the liberal media is going nuts already, complaining that Ryan is a white guy. Maybe he could get a deep tan. He's probably "more black" than Obama anyway.
-
Wall Street Journal says Paul Ryan will be announced as running mate today.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577582112521141598.html
-
Foxnews has been reporting this morning that it's Ryan as well. Running a few minutes over, saying they should be starting shortly.
-
Is anyone else REALLY excited for the VP debate between Ryan and Biden? Should be fun to watch :)
-
Like I said in another thread, Romney will be demonized no matter who he picks, so he should pick a solid conservative like Ryan. Ryan is well spoken and smart, too.
Rush always says that if we have a conservative running against a liberal, conservatives always win. We shall see.
I firmly believe that the majority of America is not as stupid and lazy as some think.
-
Like I said in another thread, Romney will be demonized no matter who he picks, so he should pick a solid conservative like Ryan. Ryan is well spoken and smart, too.
Rush always says that if we have a conservative running against a liberal, conservatives always win. We shall see.
I firmly believe that the majority of America is not as stupid and lazy as some think.
Wish I had your optimism
-
Rush always says that if we have a conservative running against a liberal, conservatives always win. We shall see.
You're confused. Ryan isn't running against Romney. They're running as a team.
-
You're confused. Ryan isn't running against Romney. They're running as a team.
I'm smellin' what you're steppin' in. ;)
-
And it is, in fact, Paul Ryan.
Watched it live.
Heh.
A devout Mormon and a devout Catholic, willing to say the kinds of things Reagan used to say, and meaning it.
I am encouraged.
Optimism.
Optimism for a change.
-
Great speech. I'm quietly optimistic.
-
I said he should pick someone better than himself. He did. I am, for now, encouraged.
-
Great speech. I'm quietly optimistic.
First hurdle crossed.
Now they need to win. (And the GOP, the Senate...)
Then, Ryan needs as much authority over budgets and entitlement reform as Cheney had over AWOT.
I'm seeing some mixed static from folks nominally on "our side" of the asile, in the general direction of conservative/libertarian-ly speaking, on Facebook, some feeling this choice was "safe", and others "too risky". Ryan is not as "rock star" as Palin was as she burst on the scene, but he has infinitely more depth.
I also think Romney picked exactly who Obama and the DNC didn't want him to pick. =)
-
I have to say that I am pleased with the Ryan selection for VP candidate. I think Ryan wins regardless of whether the Romney-Ryan team win in November.
I was never comfortable with the Rubio pick. I frankly liked Jeb Bush better, but Rubio had youth on his side. Jeb Bush had experience and legacy.
Of the other likely candidates, I felt that all would be viewed as token VP candidates although choosing the Ohio governor might have tilted that state to Romney. I think FL will vote based on FL issues and social security and health care are significant issues there. That does not mean that retiree's won't vote for modifying the current system as that current system is failing. To my knowledge, none of the proposals change the current system significantly, but change it in about a 10 year window. If you think about retirement, you really start thinking about it begining at about age 50 if you have the financial means. Otherwise, you have to take what you get and have no ability to really prepare other than downsizing signficantly.
The Paul Ryan pick puts Romney square in the middle of reforming the current government programs and I like that. That is as it should be because I think this election may well be the most significant election in the last 50 years since Obama's programs have simply not worked regardless of what he says.
-
Romney said what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTzssn6JQVQ
:facepalm:
-
Isn't Ryan the guy who pushed an old lady over a cliff? :laugh:
He seems OK to me, however, at this point rotting fish could do a better job the our current POTUS .
I do not want the apocalypse just yet, we need 4 yrs of economic policy designed to let poor people get a job, not a check from big brother...then when I've got my bug out kit and ammo/gun situation sorted out we can go back to destroying the country with some euroweenie wannabe again.
-
If we don't win this election with this ticket then America is no longer America. And that is a distinct possibility.
-
If we don't win this election with this ticket then America is no longer America. And that is a distinct possibility.
Looking at the aggregate polling, Obama wins by 3-6%. The numbers have shown this for the last several months, back to before the GOP primary had shaken itself out. There has been no significant change over that span.
There were some occasions early on in the primary when the generic GOP candidate bested Obama slightly in the polling, but when it was narrowed down to specific candidates, Obama usually prevailed.
I think we're pretty much hosed come November.
-
I'm pretty well resigned to 4 more years of Obama, I don't think the GOP can muster enough votes to outstrip the morons, socialists and the entitlement class that will vote for Obama, not to mention being able to outvote the margin of fraud.
-
We'll see how things begin to shake out after both conventions. I don't believe the polling at this point. I think it will certainly be an interesting campaign. After the conventions, the Republican money will start kicking in. At this point, Romney is still using pre-convention campaign money which I would assume is rather tight. You see, he is not the official candidate yet.
-
Don't trust the polls anymore than you trust the mainstream media. That's not to say that Romney wins, but I don't think Obama is anything near a sure thing.
And I doubt that any president, if Obama does win, will have entered the White House with such intensely negative sentiment against him. There is not going to be a mandate. Liberals are well advised to remember that.
-
If we don't win this election with this ticket then America is no longer America. And that is a distinct possibility.
Even if they win, its not a sign of victory, nor a reason to breathe easy.
-
Romney finally made a smart move....Ryan brings him nothing but good things....TEA Party support.....fiscal conservatives' votes.....Wisconsin as a swing state.....even (and I in no way endorse this view) support from people who think this whole "first black POTUS" thing didn't work out.... ;/
The only counter Obama would have for this is to dump Biden and pick Hillary as VP....
-
Seems to be a good pick...and will hopefully close the gap a bit. I think I's prefer a role reversal on the ticket though. Romney would make a great VP.
-
Looking at the aggregate polling, Obama wins by 3-6%. The numbers have shown this for the last several months, back to before the GOP primary had shaken itself out. There has been no significant change over that span.
There were some occasions early on in the primary when the generic GOP candidate bested Obama slightly in the polling, but when it was narrowed down to specific candidates, Obama usually prevailed.
I think we're pretty much hosed come November.
Keep in mind that many of these polls are weighted toward demos/liberals. They don't really reflect the true electorate.
I don't know who will win this November. We live in interesting scary times.
-
After the conventions, the Republican money will start kicking in. At this point, Romney is still using pre-convention campaign money which I would assume is rather tight.
Three things I read earlier this week:
1) Romney has outraised Obama over each of the last three months. Romney was ~$25m ahead of Obama in July alone.
2) Team Obama is burning through cash a lot faster than Romney, to the point of running a deficit (where have we heard the term 'deficit' in relation to Obama before?).
3) Much of the Wall Street cash that went to Obama in 2008 is going to Romney this year. Romney is getting roughly 60% of it this time around.
All of that is a net positive for Romney.
Keep in mind that many of these polls are weighted toward demos/liberals.
Yes, the polls can be weighted to the left. That's why I tend to place more stock in the aggregate polling, as it helps to wash out the outliers and slanted polling. Even Fox, a group that one might think of as more balanced, is showing Romney well behind Obama. Rasmussen is the only major polling organization showing Romney in the lead. It's not looking good for Romney, IMO.
I'm looking forward to seeing how things look in a couple of weeks after the Ryan pick has time to sink in with the electorate. Ryan is decent pick, IMO.
-
I'm pretty well resigned to 4 more years of Obama, I don't think the GOP can muster enough votes to outstrip the morons, socialists and the entitlement class that will vote for Obama, not to mention being able to outvote the margin of fraud.
The 2010 mid-terms were a fluke, in my opinion. Due mostly to Tea Party activity it suddenly became fashionable to be 'conservative' among the mushy 20-30% of voters that have no real core values. Unfortunately, that is all it was, fashion. Many, if not most, of those folks really had no idea what it means to be conservative.
This go around it is no longer fashionable to be on the right side of things. The Occupy movement, despite being generally populated by misfits and miscreants, has again popularized class envy and warfare. With the MSM heavily on the side of the Occupy losers, mostly portraying the movement in a favorable light, it is fashionable this year to be part of the 99%, whatever that is.
-
The big question is, will the Romney/Ryan ticket campaign effectively?
Last time around, McCain & Company were in a constant tither . . . "OMG, Palin has gone off message again!!!" They really did nothing to answer Obama.
Now . . . so far, Romney hasn't been hitting back very effectively. Maybe he'll sharpen his focus once he's the "official" candidate, but I remember WAY too many lackluster GOP campaigns (Bush 41, Dole, McCain) to have high hopes. They need to hit Obama and hit him hard on everything from gas prices to the deficit to bowing low to the King of Saudi Arabia, and they need to do it in a hard-hitting, coordinated way, not just flailing away wildly.
AND at the same time - tell the folks what they'd do differently, and why.
If Romney/Ryan DON'T campaign hard and sharp, come November, all they'll be doing is patting one another on the back for campaigning like gentlemen as they clean out their desks after a 10 point loss.
-
...Yes, the polls can be weighted to the left. That's why I tend to place more stock in the aggregate polling, as it helps to wash out the outliers and slanted polling. Even Fox, a group that one might think of as more balanced, is showing Romney well behind Obama. Rasmussen is the only major polling organization showing Romney in the lead. It's not looking good for Romney, IMO.
I'm looking forward to seeing how things look in a couple of weeks after the Ryan pick has time to sink in with the electorate. Ryan is decent pick, IMO.
The problem with your method is that adding up incorrectly weighted polls and dividing them by the # of incorrectly weighted polls only results in an incorrectly weighted result.
I'm not trying to be Polly-annish, I realize that it's a tough job unseating a incumbent president. Obama might be re-elected. Could happen.
It would be a grotesque mockery if it happened, considering that Obama's job ratings are pretty bad and most people seem to think America is heading in the wrong direction, but hey, cr@p happens.
Look at the Great Depression of the '30s. It went on year after year and FDR got elected over and over. So there is precedent. I'm just hoping we're smarter and commnications are better .... but that might not be enough.
Right now I'm just trying to keep a generally positive attitude and not wind up hyperventilating every time some pollster comes out with another poll telling us why terrible things are in store for us down the road ..... [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
I'd like to be as positive or optimistic as you, TG, but it just isn't happening. The aggregate polling would be a problem if all polls were weighted to the left or poorly done. Some are, but not all. There are a few that are very iffy on their methodology, but most are done reasonably well, I believe.
I suppose one could take some cheer from the fact that Romney is behind, but just inside or close to the margin of error.
-
The next four years are not going to be just about majority rule but about minority rights.
-
I'd like to be as positive or optimistic as you, TG, but it just isn't happening. The aggregate polling would be a problem if all polls were weighted to the left or poorly done. Some are, but not all. There are a few that are very iffy on their methodology, but most are done reasonably well, I believe.
I suppose one could take some cheer from the fact that Romney is behind, but just inside or close to the margin of error.
Most polls are weighted IMO. The campaigns (on both sides) do conduct good polls without weighting (they have to know the truth) but make use of much of the other polls for political purposes. A lot of the media use polls to drive news stories, not to "report" any real news.
Sorry you're so pessimistic. I wasn't trying to twist your arm into being an optimist....I'm not necessarily optimistic, just....well, neutral.
The next four years are not going to be just about majority rule but about minority rights.
Oh goody; does that mean when Obama takes office again my second amendment rights will be well respected by the fedgov.? ? ? ? [popcorn]
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m8lzdkeAyM1rv57kko1_1280.jpg&hash=b6dbd71fd2f2d3a50ec976529725cbd321e18b37)
http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/ (http://heygirlitspaulryan.tumblr.com/)
-
I checked my arm, TG. It's still in pretty good shape. ;)
-
I checked my arm, TG. It's still in pretty good shape. ;)
Good. :lol:
-
The only polls that really matter are the ones of likely voters. All the others are crap. Those are basically used by the MSM to run "OMG!!!! President/Challenger now Ahead/Behind by X%!!!! Film at 11!!!!
The most recent ones I've seen for the battleground states (WI, OH, FL, VA, NC, FL, IA, NV, CO, MI) show Romney taking enough to win. And that was before he picked Ryan as VP.
-
Oh, I fervently pray it is so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313725/ten-initial-thoughts-romney-s-ryan-choice-john-osullivan
10. Whether or not Romney-Ryan wins in November, this choice signals the end of the Bush Family dominance of the GOP. Of course, some future Bush of real political talent may win through in the primaries, but he won’t start out as the GOP’s establishment choice. He won’t enjoy the Mandate of Heaven. Bushies suddenly seem yesterday’s men — more honorably and respectably than the Kennedys (of course) but no less decisively. The caravan has moved on.
-
Oh, I fervently pray it is so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313725/ten-initial-thoughts-romney-s-ryan-choice-john-osullivan
.....the end of the Bush Family dominance of the GOP........
AMEN! ;)
-
I'm done voting for lesser men on tickets.
I won't vote Romney. I won't vote Obama. I won't vote either.
I will go in and vote for people that EARN my vote by defending individual liberty, on an office-by-office basis. But I won't vote AGAINST anyone, nor be suckered into any more lesser of two evils types of games.
I wash my hands of it. Ryan doesn't change it, because he's not on the top of the ticket. He's as relevant as Biden is currently.
I'm not going as nutso as a "sovereign citizen" type of uber-Patriot... but I am just going to disassociate myself from it all. I make damned near 6 figures right now, and I'm laying plans to get by on half that very, very soon. I'm disgusted by all of it, and don't want to contribute to it anymore.
I'm not that great at my job... I have a fricking useless Asian Studies degree and I'm taking positions as senior systems engineers, database administrators, database developers. And when I leave, people can't replace me even 5 years later, or hire multiple people to try and do it, and can't.
Someone who actually went to school for information systems architecture or computer science should be able to outperform me 10 times over.
But at least in my shallow little pool here in PHX, I'm supposedly irreplaceable, every where I go. ;/
That really makes me despair for my industry around here.
And it's an indicator of poor training/drive/ambition/intelligence/fortitude/whatever of my peers in this industry.
And I don't think it's my industry alone. Capability is hard to find.
I'll leave, they will hire two people each at 75% of my pay who won't do the job right, then a 3rd person at my pay who also won't do it right.
It's not that hard, it's just that SO MANY PEOPLE WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO FIX THEIR PROBLEMS FOR THEM, RATHER THAN THEMSELVES.
And a Romney ticket isn't going to fix that ailment in business any more than Obama.
If a manager can't fire a whiny nonperformer for fear of reprisal from lawyers and HR witches, then it doesn't matter where you work or what industry... eventually, we're all screwed as the leeches migrate from one mid-management position in one industry to another industry.
I might be convinced to vote for a Ryan ticket.
I'd certainly vote for a Paul ticket.
But not Romney.
-
Someone who actually went to school for information systems architecture or computer science should be able to outperform me 10 times over.
But at least in my shallow little pool here in PHX, I'm supposedly irreplaceable, every where I go. rolleyes
That really makes me despair for my industry around here.
And it's an indicator of poor training/drive/ambition/intelligence/fortitude/whatever of my peers in this industry.
And I don't think it's my industry alone. Capability is hard to find.
I ponder this often. It's not just your industry.
-
Which idiot came up with the "Paul Ryan's career ambition was not to go to Washington" line?
-
I think most of the news media use "polls" to actually sell their point of view and that is generally a liberal tilt to things. How do we know that a poll was actually taken?
It is refreshing to know that Paul Ryan is a bow hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman. He is a real guy! There has to be something beneficial to a guy that sleeps in his office in Washington and commutes home on most weekends to be with his family. It's a job. He has a pretty significant impact for a guy that sleeps in his office. Unfortunately, the days of sleeping in his office may be coming to an end with Secret Service protection and so forth.
Mitt Romney's problem is he is just not a very exciting guy personality wise. He doesn't have the flash that Obama has. Obama's smile is golden to the masses, but since I am not generally a supporter I see it as plastic.
The Ryan choice makes the campaign about the future and not about the past. Obama is great with selling class envy, and programs that have no chance in hell of ever passing through Congress unless he has a majority in both Houses. What is he going to do in the next 4 years without a majority in both houses? Absolutely NOTHING. He probably won't even have a budget. It will be Romney's job to sell a brighter future based on the results of the last 3.5 years and arguably sometimes illegal use of Presidential powers. Obama thinks of himself as a Ruler, not a president. He doesn't lead. He expects others to lead for him. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come to mind. The Democratic party is a master at negative advertising and campaigning. I just hope that the Repubican Party gets smarter.
-
This election is going to be about governability, and that is something far deeper than four men. The future will not be business as usual. There is no way Obama, should he win again, can govern short of abrogating the U.S. Constitution and the structure of our political system. His ideas can't be implemented otherwise.
I think Romney-Ryan is about the best We the People can do right now. If we can't win with this ticket, America is no longer America. This Election will make clear whether that's the case. And things will take their own course thereafter.
-
Longeyes,
Don't discount the possibility that many voters just won't find Romney, his political record, or his Republican coterie sufficiently American to deserve their vote. This may alter how an Obama victory should be interpreted.
-
Longeyes,
Don't discount the possibility that many voters just won't find Romney, his political record, or his Republican coterie sufficiently American to deserve their vote. This may alter how an Obama victory should be interpreted.
This
-
Longeyes,
Don't discount the possibility that many voters just won't find Romney, his political record, or his Republican coterie sufficiently American to deserve their vote. This may alter how an Obama victory should be interpreted.
Are they secretly ...French, or something? ? ?
Romney is WAY more "American" than Obama, raised in Indonesia, born in Hawaiikenya (where ever ...).
-
Are they secretly ...French, or something? ? ?
Romney is WAY more "American" than Obama, raised in Indonesia, born in Hawaiikenya (where ever ...).
Obama was the first birther, what with the bio he gave his book agent.
-
This election is going to be about governability, and that is something far deeper than four men. The future will not be business as usual. There is no way Obama, should he win again, can govern short of abrogating the U.S. Constitution and the structure of our political system. His ideas can't be implemented otherwise.
I think Romney-Ryan is about the best We the People can do right now. If we can't win with this ticket, America is no longer America. This Election will make clear whether that's the case. And things will take their own course thereafter.
America ceased to be decades ago. Now we debate over cremation, or an open casket.
-
I'm not putting up Romney as the perfect solution but he falls within the "old normal," such as it is. Obama is a whole different thing.
My own view is that is that Romney-Ryan would buy us time but will not solve the underlying cultural forces that are ripping America apart. But they represent at least a nod to recognizable values, not a total rejection of traditional America.
-
Are they secretly ...French, or something? ? ?.
Pretty much.
But I think you put the problem succinctly. After all the Tea Parties, and the town hall activism, and the Congressional revolution of 2010, we've only managed to get a nominee that's more American than a dyed-in-the-wool, America-hating European socialist. After the national uproar against Obamacare, they nominated the author of Romneycare, and that should be soundly rejected. It would mean another four years of Obama, but that is the GOP's fault, of course.
-
Pretty much.
But I think you put the problem succinctly. After all the Tea Parties, and the town hall activism, and the Congressional revolution of 2010, we've only managed to get a nominee that's more American than a dyed-in-the-wool, America-hating European socialist. After the national uproar against Obamacare, they nominated the author of Romneycare, and that should be soundly rejected. It would mean another four years of Obama, but that is the GOP's fault, of course.
Only one exceedingly small quibble with your analysis.
-
Anyone who thinks Obamacare is going ANYWHERE under a Romney administration is delusional.
-
What's coming is coming, regardless of whether Romney wins or Obama wins. Only the speed and acceleration will vary. The lineaments of the future conflict were set decades ago, and they are about to play out. Romney-Ryan will be the last showing of the traditional flag, but that flag is not the same flag, in terms of values, as half a century ago, much less two centuries ago. I continue to say that culture and demographics set the future and have already pre-determined the shape of the struggle ahead, regardless of the people in political power. I don't believe, personally, that we can fix what's wrong, we can only prepare for divorce and try to mitigate the pain that will come with that.
***
I note that the moderators of the "debates" have been set. Schiefer and Lehrer, whom most of us thought died years ago, are back, along with two newer representatives of the progressive media establishment. Here, in microcosm, is the real problem: this is a democratic Republic, but one in which the people in power are scared to death of real questions, uncensored, being asked by We the People. So it goes.
-
After the national uproar against Obamacare, they nominated the author of Romneycare, and that should be soundly rejected. It would mean another four years of Obama, but that is the GOP's fault, of course.
If the American public wants Obamacare or Romneycare, they will get it regardless of whether or not Obama or Romney is president. I think the solution is something in between with baby steps toward some sort of plan which takes care of those that truly can't care for themselves. The problem is that the work ethic has declined in America along with family values. Cultural issues are central to the US decline. You talk to an intelligent woman raising children on her own and she will say things need to be changed, BUT she has her hand out for whatever she can get from the govenment. Why? Because she needs it. So, I suspect I know for whom she will vote.
Somehow, Romney and Ryan have to convince the American people (including the ones receiving significant government benefits) that things really are heading toward financial armageddon. Voters have to rise above their personal wants and choose a president that they feel will affect things for the long term rather than the short term.
This is going to be an interesting campaign and election. The result is not a sure thing for either major party. But a strong third party showing of even 5-10% will ensure that Obama is re-elected.
-
Only one exceedingly small quibble with your analysis.
Sorry. Corrected.
-
I just wanted to stop visualizing the poor sheep. ;)
-
In assessing how Ryan will affect the Romney campaign, just remember that he's been up for re-election every two years for the last fourteen years. He's had to explain all of his positions--including those outlined in his plan--to the voters in his district. I lived in his district, and it's not a safe Republican seat by any means. He's able to communicate with those voters, and I'm sure he'll do fine with voters nationwide.
Vice presidential candidates don't usually make or break a campaign (Sara Palin may have been one exception to that rule), but Ryan's plan itself can make or break the Romney plan. By selecting Ryan, Romney has signed on to the plan, and has to explain it well enough to counter the distorted ads the Obama campaign will throw at it.
This all makes the selection of Ryan a really bold move on Romney's part. It should make for an interesting 84 days.
-
I note that the moderators of the "debates" have been set. Schiefer and Lehrer, whom most of us thought died years ago, are back, along with two newer representatives of the progressive media establishment. Here, in microcosm, is the real problem: this is a democratic Republic, but one in which the people in power are scared to death of real questions, uncensored, being asked by We the People. So it goes.
Yeah, no doubt. How about a non-ossified moderator? Like, maybe a sharp lefty blogger and righty blogger?
Were I the nominee, I would not agree to be "moderated" by any MSM figure. Might as well let them kick me in the jimmy repeatedly. I'd rather have a nakedly partisan guy from either side.
-
Or just two naked guys.
-
Yeah, no doubt. How about a non-ossified moderator? Like, maybe a sharp lefty blogger and righty blogger?
Were I the nominee, I would not agree to be "moderated" by any MSM figure. Might as well let them kick me in the jimmy repeatedly. I'd rather have a nakedly partisan guy from either side.
Wasn't there a GOP primary debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos, a genuine Clintonista? :facepalm:
Seriously, if there's going to be any debates, the GOP really needs to see that at least one of the three will be moderated by someone as unbiased as anyone from the major networks or CNN. (Who would that be? Ann Coulter? Neal Boortz? Michael Savage? Dick Morris? Andrew Napolitano?)
-
It is strange--and unconscionable--that the GOP would, at this juncture, agree to let the debates, with their power to greatly affect the electoral outcome, be orchestrated by the Usual Suspects. I can't explain it, I can only guess at how it's come about. The loss of representation, not just in these debates, but in our relationship with our elected officials in general, is one of the key issues in today's political environment. We ought to have a people's forum to house Presidential debates, with uncensored and unedited questions, about the full spectrum of relevant topics. Until that happens, until we make it happen, we will never have an honest chance to deal with our real problems. I still have faith that the American people, left to themselves, might be able to resolve even the gnarliest of issues, given the chance.
-
It is strange--and unconscionable--that the GOP would, at this juncture, agree to let the debates, with their power to greatly affect the electoral outcome, be orchestrated by the Usual Suspects. I can't explain it, I can only guess at how it's come about. The loss of representation, not just in these debates, but in our relationship with our elected officials in general, is one of the key issues in today's political environment. We ought to have a people's forum to house Presidential debates, with uncensored and unedited questions, about the full spectrum of relevant topics. Until that happens, until we make it happen, we will never have an honest chance to deal with our real problems. I still have faith that the American people, left to themselves, might be able to resolve even the gnarliest of issues, given the chance.
GOP is the Rodney King party. "Can't we all just get along?"
Someone mentioned getting kicked in the jimmy.....I think that's the GOP motto.
-
You're right, but a lot of Americans share that view, don't they, preferring the illusion of "unity" rather than the dreary and uncomfortable reality of arguably terminal "disunity?" What percentage of people just want to believe "it will all work out?" I talk to many who feel that way.
I think we can assume that the October non-surprise, aka "the debates," while heavy on the "jobs" meme, will fail to discuss either the impact of illegal immigration or the ascendancy of outsourcing, and, more to the point, who, in both parties, benefits from them. China did not get to be our chief creditor and "benefactor" without a lot of help from people high up in our own administrations, nor did illegal immigration go from a trickle in the '80s to a potential election-changer in 2012 and beyond without much help from people in Congress, the White House, and the State Dept.
All of this, right now remains a black hole for most Americans. Until we can grill our representatives about these and many other issues and demand truthful and honest answers, we are just bystanders at our own national funeral.
-
I'm not putting up Romney as the perfect solution but he falls within the "old normal," such as it is. Obama is a whole different thing.
My own view is that is that Romney-Ryan would buy us time but will not solve the underlying cultural forces that are ripping America apart. But they represent at least a nod to recognizable values, not a total rejection of traditional America.
I don't think any President would solve the underlying problems. That requires significant change in Congress which is probably harder. Even Ron Paul, if elected, couldn't have solved those problems. What we can hope is that someone like Ryan can discuss the problems in real terms and in detail.
-
China did not get to be our chief creditor ...
Actually, the single largest holder of US treasuries is the federal reserve at nearly $2T. The Chinese have been divesting their US holdings slowly and hold only about $1.2T.
-
All smoke and mirrors. If you haven't realized by now that both the red and blue candidates have the same strategic agenda, then it's time to un-hat your ass and take a real hard look at reality. Try playing 'spot the seven differences' with the two parties, and see what that yields. There may be a slight nuance of which secondary policies are applied, but either candidate will "lead" us down the same road map, guaranteed.
What the US needs is for it's citizenry to grow a spine, and perhaps a brain atop of that spine. and say NO to the old guard, because swallowing the same hogwash over, and over is what got us here in the first place. Choosing the lesser of two evils can lead you no where good.
A Romney-Ryan ticket is nothing but bait to vote for more of the same. Remember that a Revolution does not necessarily have to come from the muzzle of an AR-15.
-
Actually, the single largest holder of US treasuries is the federal reserve at nearly $2T. The Chinese have been divesting their US holdings slowly and hold only about $1.2T.
The Fed is a foreign country too, now that I think about it...
-
Seems like trouble in Paradise.....
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120813_13_A5_CUTLIN193301&rss_lnk=1
-
I think Romney is stuck with the Ryan budget proposal unless he digs in and makes a very serious proposal between now and election time that is different from the Ryan plan.
There may be a slight nuance of which secondary policies are applied, but either candidate will "lead" us down the same road map, guaranteed.
I don't think so as long as there is support from Congress. If Obama wins regardless of proportions, it will be 4 more years of disfunctional government because I don't see the Republicans loosing the House. It took a while to get to this point and it is going to take a while to change things. For sure, there will be no change if Obama is re-elected. If it looks like Obama is likely to wind around October, look for a major gun and ammunition buying spree nationally.
-
Seems like trouble in Paradise.....
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120813_13_A5_CUTLIN193301&rss_lnk=1
Sweet merciful Allah, it's McCain/Palin all over again.
-
Sweet merciful Allah, it's McCain/Palin all over again.
What a nitwit. Dude kicks himself in the jimmy.
Romney is going to have to defend it anyway. The MSM is going to ask him sixty ways to Sunday about the Ryan Plan and "I am running on my own milquetoast and forgettable plan, Bob," is not going to cut it or make the Ryan Plan questions stop.
I don't even recall Romney's plan, it was such a non-entity, and I am a certified CSPAN & political junkie.
The Ryan Plan wasn't perfect & didn't go far enough, but it has been the only non-Paul plan to move in the right direction.
So much for getting the Tea party folks excited. Romney has managed to take on the baggage of the Ryan Plan, while pissing away the upside of getting his base excited. Way to go. This dude will go far. We're humped.
-
Sweet merciful Allah, it's McCain/Palin all over again.
Yup. Nominate a safe, "electable" RINO candidate, then hedge your bets by putting one of the good guys in the VP slot. Then get all nervous when the media doesn't like him. ;/
-
He... tried to distance himself... from his own VP?
-
He... tried to distance himself... from his own VP?
....and that's why we call it "The Stupid Party"...... :facepalm:
-
Remember kids, when these two dipsticks lose, it will be my fault for voting my principles, right? I mean, it can't possibly be that Romney is a *expletive deleted* bag, can it?
-
He... tried to distance himself... from his own VP?
I honestly would not be amazed if he tried to distance himself from himself.
-
I honestly would am not be amazed if since he already has tried to distance himself from himself.
Fixed that for you.
Romney's position has always been: "All that stuff from my Massachusetts campaigns before I was running for President?... uh, yeah... never mind."
-
Remember kids, when these two dipsticks lose, it will be my fault for voting my principles, right? I mean, it can't possibly be that Romney is a *expletive deleted* bag, can it?
:facepalm: If you think Romney is so bad please vote for Obama.
-
:facepalm: If you think Romney is so bad please vote for Obama.
I'm half tempted to.
I'd rather it all go to shinola on my watch, than my kids' watch.
-
:facepalm: If you think Romney is so bad please vote for Obama.
I'm very tempted to. I mean we're already going down the shießhole at 90mph, might as well stomp the rest of the way down on the accelerator and go head on into the wall. Maybe after the smoke clears we'll be back to where we started at ~220 years ago.
-
Voting for Obama would be an act of nihilism, not pragmatism. Your watch WILL be your kids' watch. You will not be able to shield your kids or your grandkids from a real civil war.
I still think it will come down to divorce, and if we can do that peaceably we damn well should.
-
:facepalm: If you think Romney is so bad please vote for Obama.
Who said anything about voting for Obama?
-
Even lefties think Ryan has the right ideas. Romney is a *expletive deleted*.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/erskine-bowles-paul-ryan_n_1775313.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Ron nailed it in the original post:
There is a buzz out there that he seriously considering Paul Ryan.
It would certainly shore up Romney with the fiscally conservative right.
On the other hand it might consign Ryan and his budgetary plans to oblivion, both if Romney wins or loses.
Romney would be free to ignore the fiscal conservatives if he wins, the R's will just fall in line like they always do, going along to get along.
If Romney/Ryan loses he will forever be the failed VP pick of Romney as far as the media is concerned. Nobody will listen to him because the media will remind us continually how the voters rejected him and his vision.
-
All of you who would like to make sure the shtf with another 4yrs of Obama never lived in the early to mid 20th century and earlier. Get Dixie Lee Ray's book Trashing the Planet and let a mid 80 year old, brilliant person, who wrote that book 20 years ago, tell you how wonderful it was to live in the olden days.
-
Who said anything about voting for Obama?
I think I did..... :lol:
-
Both mainstream political parties are, when the finery comes off and the raw bones exposed, "progressive." It has been a while, a looong while, since government and big business were not sharing the same bunk. There will be a lot of palaver about "jobs" in the October "debates" but precious little fact, reason, or history. Are Americans not entitled to know why they not only ended up buying Samsung but working for Samsung? Would it not be useful to unpack our Present in terms of our Past, delving into what happened in the aftermath of WW II and the anti-colonialist movements, discussing how the WTO, IMG, GATT shaped the global economy--way outside the ken and will of the average American--and how the GSP diddled the "free market" in the interests of globalism and the new, progressive "enlightened economics." Americans' economic future was cast in stone decades ago, and it will take a tough stonebreaker to change any of it. I don't see any of these stonebreakers in the current race.
-
A quick glance at the article says to me that it wasn't so much "distancing himself" as just saying, I am the lead on this ticket, not Ryan, which makes sense. I like Ryan as the VP because he can influence what happens in a Romney administration. I don't assume Romney will adopt all of Ryan's ideas.
-
Both mainstream political parties are, when the finery comes off and the raw bones exposed, "progressive." It has been a while, a looong while, since government and big business were not sharing the same bunk. There will be a lot of palaver about "jobs" in the October "debates" but precious little fact, reason, or history. Are Americans not entitled to know why they not only ended up buying Samsung but working for Samsung? Would it not be useful to unpack our Present in terms of our Past, delving into what happened in the aftermath of WW II and the anti-colonialist movements, discussing how the WTO, IMG, GATT shaped the global economy--way outside the ken and will of the average American--and how the GSP diddled the "free market" in the interests of globalism and the new, progressive "enlightened economics." Americans' economic future was cast in stone decades ago, and it will take a tough stonebreaker to change any of it. I don't see any of these stonebreakers in the current race.
There is a huge amount of sense in this post.
As a related aside, do you know that the annual cost of just Medicaid in the US is more than twice the cost of the entire NHS in the UK, despite them serving roughly the same amount of people?
-
There is a huge amount of sense in this post.
As a related aside, do you know that the annual cost of just Medicaid in the US is more than twice the cost of the entire NHS in the UK, despite them serving roughly the same amount of people?
So you only get half the socialism?
-
So you only get half the socialism?
.... and we get to be told how socialist it is by your congress-drones! Its win-win.
-
There is a huge amount of sense in this post.
As a related aside, do you know that the annual cost of just Medicaid in the US is more than twice the cost of the entire NHS in the UK, despite them serving roughly the same amount of people?
Not surprising. Socialism sucks. However, Americans (bureaucrats) are ESPECIALLY bad at administering socialism, so it sucks even more in the US.
-
Looking at the aggregate polling, Obama wins by 3-6%. The numbers have shown this for the last several months, back to before the GOP primary had shaken itself out. There has been no significant change over that span.
There were some occasions early on in the primary when the generic GOP candidate bested Obama slightly in the polling, but when it was narrowed down to specific candidates, Obama usually prevailed.
I think we're pretty much hosed come November.
All polling is bulls***. Not saying that means RR is gonna take it, just pointing out that "scientific polling" is as much an oxymoron as calling sociology a science.
-
In assessing how Ryan will affect the Romney campaign, just remember that he's been up for re-election every two years for the last fourteen years. He's had to explain all of his positions--including those outlined in his plan--to the voters in his district. I lived in his district, and it's not a safe Republican seat by any means. He's able to communicate with those voters, and I'm sure he'll do fine with voters nationwide.
Vice presidential candidates don't usually make or break a campaign (Sara Palin may have been one exception to that rule), but Ryan's plan itself can make or break the Romney plan. By selecting Ryan, Romney has signed on to the plan, and has to explain it well enough to counter the distorted ads the Obama campaign will throw at it.
This all makes the selection of Ryan a really bold move on Romney's part. It should make for an interesting 84 days.
Romney has disavowed the details of Ryan's plan, from what I've heard. Oops, I see it was covered later.
Romney is useless and I loathe him on any number of levels. But as best I can tell he is an utterly amoral mercenary who'll whore himself out to whoever pays him. He was a "devout Mormon" who supported the gay agenda and abortion when it was politically expedient for example. However, I'm not entirely sure an amoral mercenary whore is a bad role for a poli-critter to play. All we have to do is convince him that it's Tea Party / libertarian types who pay his bills and he'll do whatever it takes to make that agenda happen. Not saying I believe that, just saying it seems like a distinct possibility to me at this point.
-
But as best I can tell he is an utterly amoral mercenary who'll whore himself out to whoever pays him. He was a "devout Mormon" who supported the gay agenda and abortion when it was politically expedient for example. However, I'm not entirely sure an amoral mercenary whore is a bad role for a poli-critter to play
He's nothing more than the (R) version of Bill Clinton. Algore was to the left what Ryan is to the right. Ryan's budgetary plans are being triangulated right out of existance as we speak.
-
All we have to do is convince him that it's Tea Party / libertarian types who pay his bills and he'll do whatever it takes to make that agenda happen.
I'm sorry but the Tea Party/libertarian types are a little late to the party. Wall Street has already picked up Mitt's tab.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012
-
<scribbles note to self>needs me some moar beans, bullets, and band-aids <shuffles off to admire pictures of grand kids>
-
I'm sorry but the Tea Party/libertarian types are a little late to the party. Wall Street has already picked up Mitt's tab.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012
funny, i didn't see my name under ron paul. were they listing those alphabetically?
-
Ryan is the new Palin - they basically handed away what was otherwise a solid chance at the election.
Mark my words, his policy and rhetoric will hand Obama a sure victory in November.
-
Ryan is the new Palin - they basically handed away what was otherwise a solid chance at the election.
Mark my words, his policy and rhetoric will hand Obama a sure victory in November.
Choosing Ryan has made me pause and consider voting for Romney.
I'm still not convinced that a Romney victory, even with Ryan as VP will be any better for liberty than a GWB presidency, maybe marginally better than an Obama presidency at best.
The sell your soul lesser of two evils formulation just doesn't move me any longer.
-
Choosing Ryan has made me pause and consider voting for Romney.
I'm still not convinced that a Romney victory, even with Ryan as VP will be any better for liberty than a GWB presidency, maybe marginally better than an Obama presidency at best.
The sell your soul lesser of two evils formulation just doesn't move me any longer.
Lots of people loved Palin too - just not as many as didn't.
-
Lots of people loved Palin too - just not as many as didn't.
McCain/Palin would have done worse without Palin on the ticket. McCain fatally wounded his campaign with his "suspend campaign and go to Washington for financial bailout" baloney and never recovered.
-
McCain/Palin would have done worse without Palin on the ticket. McCain fatally wounded his campaign with his "suspend campaign and go to Washington for financial bailout" baloney and never recovered.
The videos of exorcisms, interviews that served as SNL comedy transcripts (without editing), and crying foul when asked ambush questions like "what do you read?" did not help the campaign.
-
The videos of exorcisms, interviews that served as SNL comedy transcripts (without editing), and crying foul when asked ambush questions like "what do you read?" did not help the campaign.
Joe Biden
If the media wanted to take down 08 Obama all they had to do was continually tell the truth about ol' Joe.
All they would have had to do was tell the truth about Obama and he wouldn't have won.
Presidential elections have become a gypsy game, heads they win tails we lose.
Once the belief in truth and natural rights were abandoned the state began to fill the void. Welcome to the machine.
-
DS, please be honest with yourself. If Palin had been as articulate and erudite as Condi Rice, you would have found some other fault with her. Can't you just disagree with the message without ridiculing the messenger?
Ryan is bright, and well spoken, and does not flinch from unpleasant realities. I'm sure you take issue with his policy, but can you accept that The path we are on fiscally is unsustainable? If we adopt absolutely confiscatory tax rates to try actually, you know, PAY for this .gov, it will crater the economy. If we continue to borrow to pay for .gov, it will destroy the value of the currency and the legitimacy of .gov to the point of anarchy and societal collapse. If we make hard choices, and shrink, not slow the growth, actually SHRINK, the scope, reach, and largesse of .gov, we may be able to save the Republic in a form that's worth defending.
-
DS, please be honest with yourself. If Palin had been as articulate and erudite as Condi Rice, you would have found some other fault with her. Can't you just disagree with the message without ridiculing the messenger?
This is silly - have a look at my posts and see what I've said about Obama here. Check out what I've said about Palin's beliefs in comparison. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with Palin's message.
Campaign skills are not the same as policy skills - one gets you elected, the other does not. I'm commenting here on how these people will appear during the campaign.
-
Ryan is the new Palin - they basically handed away what was otherwise a solid chance at the election.
Mark my words, his policy and rhetoric will hand Obama a sure victory in November.
:rofl: No. :rofl:
So much fail in one post. (We need an exhausted from laughing smiley.)
-
This is silly - have a look at my posts and see what I've said about Obama here.
Probably something along the lines of Obama has a ways to go to become a good socialist.
Paul Ryan has been considered to be one of the rising stars in the Republican party, a serious congressman with a real budget plan. If the American people don't want to really listen and understand what he has to say, then we're pretty much screwed.
But why do you feel the need to get involved in American political discussions here? Aren't you living under a monarchy, or ruled by kangaroos or something?
-
Why I'll vote for Romney.
I believe our country is headed for an absolutely inevitable economic and very likely societal collapse that will make the "Great Depression" look like Sunday picnic. It doesn't matter which party has the wheel, we're gonna drive off the cliff. The only thing to be determined is when and how deep a hole we will end up in.
I believe with another term for Obama we will see the crash in less than 2 years. Romney might give us 3-4 years, maybe.
I'm not quite ready, I'll vote for the chance of delaying the collapse just to give me the extra time.
-
Lots of people loved Palin too - just not as many as didn't.
McCain received a bounce (I believe two weeks long) after Palin was nominated.
There's no real proof that it's Palin that caused the later decline - I believe it was McCain rushing in across the country to vote for the bailouts, but certainly there's no proof of either.
-
Once again The Onion scoops Politico and ABCNBCCBSCNN:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/admit-it-i-scare-the-everloving-*expletive deleted*it-out-of-you-do,29160/
I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving *expletive deleted*it out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.
Read it all.
-
Ryan is intelligent, calm, reasonable, articulate, young, handsome, a quality speaker, skilled at retail politics (how many times has he got elected as a conservative in WI?), has a mother on Medicare in FLA which will no doubt help him sway the infamous panickey old folks who'd rather destroy the country than see their bennies cut, energizes the (many many many conservatives who doubt Romney won't be a Bush repeat), appeals to the "independents" everyone is so enamored of, and makes WI a swing state.
He is of course open to the silly "pushing grandma off a cliff" rhetoric from the Obama camp. But really, Obama and his lapdogs in the the propaganda wing of the DNC media will level such chargbes against anyone who's to the right of John McCain, so that's kind of a moot point.
It's hard to see how he's a bad choice.
-
I am curious how Ryan will respond to critics regarding his Bush era spending spree support.
I fear that this will hurt him.
-
He's probably counting on the very short memory of the Average American Voter.
-
Probably something along the lines of Obama has a ways to go to become a good socialist.
Paul Ryan has been considered to be one of the rising stars in the Republican party, a serious congressman with a real budget plan. If the American people don't want to really listen and understand what he has to say, then we're pretty much screwed.
But why do you feel the need to get involved in American political discussions here? Aren't you living under a monarchy, or ruled by kangaroos or something?
Palin was a star too, enormously popular in Alaska. National campaigns are a different story.
But yeah, I'm an American - where I live the shooters party has seats in the most populous state and is slowly opening up land to public hunting.
I do think that simply copying the government services from this kangaroo kingdom would be a vast improvement on what the US has now - but I guess low unemployment, good working conditions, cost effective and quality medical care, secure retirements, and unemployment insurance for everyone aren't really what my countrymen in the US want.
No, we want freedom! ;/ As if being able to get a job and not worry about starving if you lose it are the opposite.
-
McCain received a bounce (I believe two weeks long) after Palin was nominated.
There's no real proof that it's Palin that caused the later decline - I believe it was McCain rushing in across the country to vote for the bailouts, but certainly there's no proof of either.
Watch the interviews from Palin again - try to find a QA that you think didn't hurt the McCain camp. Then there were the "Beverly hillbillies spending spree" comments by staffers...too many to list.
-
But yeah, I'm an American - where I live the shooters party has seats in the most populous state and is slowly opening up land to public hunting.
...what possible relevance does this have ?
-
...what possible relevance does this have ?
I was pointing out that for all the "monarchy" talk, people actually do get to exercise freedoms here.
-
I do think that simply copying the government services from this kangaroo kingdom would be a vast improvement on what the US has now - but I guess low unemployment, good working conditions, cost effective and quality medical care, secure retirements, and unemployment insurance for everyone aren't really what my countrymen in the US want.
No, we want freedom! ;/ As if being able to get a job and not worry about starving if you lose it are the opposite.
The Aussie politicians may be smart enough to do this without running up a nation-killing debt.
American politicians aren't. Even without all the wonderful stuff you mention we're nearly 16 trillion dollars in debt.
I suggest you stay there as you no doubt will be happier in the long run and more secure.
P.S. : don't get too close to kangaroos, I hear they kick as a means of defense and they are really really nasty in that regard. Claws, you know.
-
The Aussie politicians may be smart enough to do this without running up a nation-killing debt.
American politicians aren't. Even without all the wonderful stuff you mention we're nearly 16 trillion dollars in debt.
I suggest you stay there as you no doubt will be happier in the long run and more secure.
P.S. : don't get too close to kangaroos, I hear they kick as a means of defense and they are really really nasty in that regard. Claws, you know.
Killjoy! I was going to suggest that he run up and try to hug them! =D
-
Killjoy! I was going to suggest that he run up and try to hug them! =D
I eat them on a regular basis instead - much healthier to eat kangaroos than to hug them.
FYI, they have tame ones at the zoo for petting.
-
I was pointing out that for all the "monarchy" talk, people actually do get to exercise freedoms here.
Having more access to public land for hunting is totally what freedom is about.
-
Having more access to public land for hunting is totally what freedom is about.
Yeah, it's also something that is impossible in stereotypical monarchies and socialist paradises - public health care does not mean losing gun rights and applying for the queen's indulgence to set foot on her land.
-
Yeah, it's also something that is impossible in stereotypical monarchies and socialist paradises - public health care does not mean losing gun rights and applying for the queen's indulgence to set foot on her land.
Gun rights are so totally about hunting.
-
Gun rights are so totally about hunting.
Who said that here???
-
Palin was a star too, enormously popular in Alaska. National campaigns are a different story.
But yeah, I'm an American - where I live the shooters party has seats in the most populous state and is slowly opening up land to public hunting.
I do think that simply copying the government services from this kangaroo kingdom would be a vast improvement on what the US has now - but I guess low unemployment, good working conditions, cost effective and quality medical care, secure retirements, and unemployment insurance for everyone aren't really what my countrymen in the US want.
No, we want freedom! ;/ As if being able to get a job and not worry about starving if you lose it are the opposite.
First of all, socialism sucks. Europe is pretty much proving that.
It sucks less in a country with a culture that is completely homogenous and already has a good work ethic. It takes time to break down that cultural work ethic. (e.g. Sweden and other northern European countries.)
Socialism will work the absolute worst in a country that is not homogenous (USA), has demographics with low levels of work ethic already (USA), has not had a major war to disrupt entrenched interest groups (USA), and has poor quality public servants (USA).
So, we CAN'T follow other countries' models for socialism because (a) socialism sucks and (b) it sucks even worse in the United States.
Why can I say that? We already have socialism. Pick any of the government provided services in this country and compare them, not to our private sector (which obviously does it better) but to any other mostly non-corrupt first world country. Public education. Agricultural subsidies. "Green Energy" subsidies. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security disability.
Now, we don't yet have the widespread tax avoidance that much of socialist Europe already has. Try to implement that crap here and you'll find American ingenuity turned towards protecting what they have from the government rather than building the economy.
-
Who said that here???
You said that Australia has gun rights... and have expanding hunting lands as an example of that.
To explain how ridiculous this is : the Soviet Union allowed people to own hunting longarms, and had vast hunting lands available for that purpose. Hunting was in fact promoted in certain periods of Soviet history, and the USSR never had an anti-hunting movement like Europe. On your logic, Brezhnev (who even sponsored the developement of a line of hunting carbines) was a gun rights supporter.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
-
Palin was a star too, enormously popular in Alaska. National campaigns are a different story.
But yeah, I'm an American - where I live the shooters party has seats in the most populous state and is slowly opening up land to public hunting.
I do think that simply copying the government services from this kangaroo kingdom would be a vast improvement on what the US has now - but I guess low unemployment, good working conditions, cost effective and quality medical care, secure retirements, and unemployment insurance for everyone aren't really what my countrymen in the US want.
No, we want freedom! ;/ As if being able to get a job and not worry about starving if you lose it are the opposite.
It is the opposite. When you accept service from said government, you are the subject of its whims. And when you're prospering, you are the subject of its punative taxation.
I'd rather die starving and free, thank you very much.
-
You said that Australia has gun rights... and have expanding hunting lands as an example of that.
To explain how ridiculous this is : the Soviet Union allowed people to own hunting longarms, and had vast hunting lands available for that purpose. Hunting was in fact promoted in certain periods of Soviet history, and the USSR never had an anti-hunting movement like Europe. On your logic, Brezhnev (who even sponsored the developement of a line of hunting carbines) was a gun rights supporter.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
The Soviet Union was massively pro-gun, after all they allowed you to shoot who they wanted you to shoot. Not even Texas lets you do that!
-
Who said that here???
Hunting whom?
-
It is the opposite. When you accept service from said government, you are the subject of its whims. And when you're prospering, you are the subject of its punative taxation.
I'd rather die starving and free, thank you very much.
And if it came to that, you are able and willing to make that choice for your wife and children? So rather than stand in a government soup line in the Great Depression, you would consign your family to death?
-
Ryan is the new Palin - they basically handed away what was otherwise a solid chance at the election.
Mark my words, his policy and rhetoric will hand Obama a sure victory in November.
DeSelby is a one-man petri dish sample that can be observed to see the exact same way the larger American Left/MSM establishment is once again engaging in self-delusion about an upcoming election.
Reagan in 1980.
1994 mid-terms.
2002 and 2004 mid-terms under Bush where the GOP still gained. (although I agree it was squandered)
Romney is deeply flawed. And it indeed shows how far we've sunk that a "reformer" like Ryan, who votes for TARP, Patriot Act etc. among other things can be considered "extreme" at all.
And living in Wisconsin, blue state that's gone resoundingly RED, I live in the epicenter of this, and am watching it happen. This is Romney/Ryan's race to lose. And anyone else is free to call me whatever names they want, but I'll be more than happy to pull the lever for the folks who "suck less". For everyone convinced it'll all "fall apart" anyway, I say you're fools for at least not trying to buy some more time to prepare.
-
Yes, buying time is what it's all about. What else is there?
We need to get realistic about how deep Our Problem really is. Romney and Ryan are about kicking the can down the road, not changing the road or the can. That may make them better than Obama, who prefers subsidized railway to roads anyway, but it doesn't make them real problem-solvers.
Ryan talks budget but doesn't really dig into the causes of the spending or how to make productive discriminations in what we spend on. Romney talks jobs but doesn't talk about why the jobs have been leaving the country (and who's behind that) and how immigration, illegal and legal, have warped this problem beyond repair.
-
And if it came to that, you are able and willing to make that choice for your wife and children? So rather than stand in a government soup line in the Great Depression, you would consign your family to death?
A free man has options....slaves don't....
-
Would you murder a man in order to steal his money if that was the difference between your children living or dying? You would? Well then, murder must be ok. :rolleyes: What a silly, specious argument. Especially in a 1st World country.
-
DeSelby is a one-man petri dish sample that can be observed to see the exact same way the larger American Left/MSM establishment is once again engaging in self-delusion about an upcoming election.
Reagan in 1980.
1994 mid-terms.
2002 and 2004 mid-terms under Bush where the GOP still gained. (although I agree it was squandered)
Romney is deeply flawed. And it indeed shows how far we've sunk that a "reformer" like Ryan, who votes for TARP, Patriot Act etc. among other things can be considered "extreme" at all.
And living in Wisconsin, blue state that's gone resoundingly RED, I live in the epicenter of this, and am watching it happen. This is Romney/Ryan's race to lose. And anyone else is free to call me whatever names they want, but I'll be more than happy to pull the lever for the folks who "suck less". For everyone convinced it'll all "fall apart" anyway, I say you're fools for at least not trying to buy some more time to prepare.
I am convinced it will fall apart and I will vote for (maybe) a little more time before the collapse. If nothing else, my kids will be older and more likely to survive the vicissitudes.
-
People talk about the Ryan budget like it slashed everything. I read that it cut about 4 billion which is the same as was recommended. But it did not project a balanced budget for 20 years. We're doomed.
-
I am convinced it will fall apart and I will vote for (maybe) a little more time before the collapse. If nothing else, my kids will be older and more likely to survive the vicissitudes.
Exactly what I think on my pessimistic days.
On my optimistic ones, I remember Reagan evolved to the right over time as well.
-
Eliminate automatic baseline spending (increases). Then freeze the budget. After that, cut it ten per cent a year across the board until you see daylight. It CAN be done. A lot of us are doing it already or have had to in the past. Somehow we got by on much less gov't outlay ten years ago. We can do it again.
-
People talk about the Ryan budget like it slashed everything. I read that it cut about 4 billion which is the same as was recommended. But it did not project a balanced budget for 20 years. We're doomed.
True, but maybe ryans moderation on budget cutting is like obamas moderation on gay nonmarriage....a fig leaf to cover a raging...desire...that might scare the straights.
Look at me, all optimistic for a minute.