[HoosierDaddy]

No, those are all valid and common concerns. You'd probably be interested in their plans for Medicare/Medicaid reform, SS reform, Education, etc. Those issues should all be hotly debated, and if you use political fact-checkers along with listening to their debates then you can definitely make an informed decision on it whichever way you end up going.

[Obdigore]

Briar King, on 12 August 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Yeah I just don't know ATM. I kinda feel bad for Obama. He took the reigns at one of our lowest points so he's had a fight on his hands. We are doing better then we were since the start of his office so should we stick with him or let Romney see what he can do with it? It's a big decision that merits much time to think on.

The biggest problem is that the Republican Camp is still trying to claim that Reaganomics work, and they also believe that Austerity measures are the way to go for the Economy. Austerity measures do not work for a service based economy (which is what the US is), and they are what is driving most of Europe into a second recession.

The fact of the matter is that we need money invested directly into the middle class, and we are currently borrowing at effective negative interest rates. We need to grow the middle class again, money trickles up, not down. We need to close loopholes, at the very least, and end our current wars and the 'Bush Tax Cuts'. If you look at the projections from the CBO, The Tax Cuts and Wars are the only thing currently increasing out Debt.

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 12 August 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Briar King, on 12 August 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Yeah I just don't know ATM. I kinda feel bad for Obama. He took the reigns at one of our lowest points so he's had a fight on his hands. We are doing better then we were since the start of his office so should we stick with him or let Romney see what he can do with it? It's a big decision that merits much time to think on.

The biggest problem is that the Republican Camp is still trying to claim that Reaganomics work, and they also believe that Austerity measures are the way to go for the Economy. Austerity measures do not work for a service based economy (which is what the US is), and they are what is driving most of Europe into a second recession.

The fact of the matter is that we need money invested directly into the middle class, and we are currently borrowing at effective negative interest rates. We need to grow the middle class again, money trickles up, not down. We need to close loopholes, at the very least, and end our current wars and the 'Bush Tax Cuts'. If you look at the projections from the CBO, The Tax Cuts and Wars are the only thing currently increasing out Debt.

Well, there are SOME austerity measures that should happen, but OMGWTF I generally agree with Obdi here.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 12 August 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well, there are SOME austerity measures that should happen, but OMGWTF I generally agree with Obdi here.

Every dollar spend on Curiosity generated 17 for the US Economy. That is the kind of spending we need. I support R&D for our military, I do not support wars outside the US unless we are honoring a treaty. I'm also not a fan of things like giving 2billion+ a year to Pakistan just so that they claim to hunt terrorists for us.

Fix the loopholes in both personal and corporate tax, and we can start talking about reducing spending. I think the Bush Era Tax Cuts have to expire as well, but that will hamper the economic recovery of the nation. Every dollar spent on Welfare generates much more than that for the US Economy, and the Republican Plan is to just cut everything while the Economy is, at best, gradually recovering.

Anyway, the reason Ron Paul is such a bad choice is not his Foreign Relations Policy, it is his want to absolutely cut everything that he, personally, does not think is working the way it should. Not fix, but slash and burn. The US is not, nor is it nearing, a state where slashing and burning (and then rebuilding) is a necessary idea. Not to mention that Ron's plans for rebuilding is 'it is up to the states'.

[Illuyankas]

[worry]

Some pretty good takes (citations included) on Paul "the Human Flesh Eater" Ryan.*

http://www.ginandtac...ink-it-means-2/

http://feministing.c...-everyone-else/



*I just gave him that nickname right now, but I think it will catch on.

[McLovin]

I still don't get the Ryan pick. It's like Romney is trying to cement the primary, instead of win the general election.

There's zero foreign policy experience on the ticket. That may not be on anyone's mind right now, but we are still in a war.

Are they deliberately trying to lose? At least bring back Sarah Palin and make it entertaining.

[Terez]

McLovin, on 14 August 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I still don't get the Ryan pick. It's like Romney is trying to cement the primary, instead of win the general election.

Rachel Maddow did her first stint on the Ryan pick yesterday (not counting Meet the Press on Sunday, which was awkward). Anyway, she said that there are August, November, and January VP picks. The strongest candidates make their picks with January in mind—the actual getting down to work and this person is the right person for that job type pick. The middling candidates make their VP picks with November in mind—someone who will help them win the election. The weakest candidates make their VP picks in August, before the conventions. The August VPs are (according to Rachel) always picked to solidify the base. They are picked with the convention in mind. I wonder if that's entirely true (as Rachel likes to say, that's an empirical statement and is checkable), but whether there is data to back it up or not, the logic makes sense.

[McLovin]

Terez, on 14 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

The August VPs are (according to Rachel) always picked to solidify the base. They are picked with the convention in mind.

Not expecting you to respond Terez, just commenting. WTF sense does that make? The last time the conventions actually mattered was probably about 1960. Romney's got the base, if for no other reason than he's not Obama. The much-criticized Etch-a-Sketch comment regarding strategy is actually correct. So on some level even Romney knows he's committing election suicide. If this is all just a farce, why bother? Give GOP donors their money back and tell them to hold it till '16.

[Terez]

It matters for two reasons:

1. Technically, a brokered convention is a possibility. There has been more talk about it with Romney than there has been in my lifetime.

2. Having the base for anti-Obama votes is one thing. Energizing the base to turn out on election day is another thing altogether. The convention is supposed to kick-start the final campaign, and if you don't have an enthusiastic base at the time of the convention, your campaign might be over before it truly begins.

[Gnaw]

Ceda Cicero, on 11 August 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Aaaand Paul Ryan gets the VP nod.

This race just changed dramatically. Before the bottom line was whether or not Obama failed on the economy, and whether or not Mitt could do better. From here on out it's going to be a race between two distinct ideologies. And I don't mind telling you, Ryan's ideology scares the shit out of me.

Ceda Cicero, on 11 August 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Gwynn ap Nudd, on 11 August 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Ceda Cicero, on 11 August 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Aaaand Paul Ryan gets the VP nod.

This race just changed dramatically. Before the bottom line was whether or not Obama failed on the economy, and whether or not Mitt could do better. From here on out it's going to be a race between two distinct ideologies. And I don't mind telling you, Ryan's ideology scares the shit out of me.

I don't really follow American politics much anymore, so I had to do a bit of reading on Paul Ryan. Am I missing something or does his plan for economic reform consist of:
- Replacing capital gains taxes with a federal sales tax
- Lowering taxes on the top few percent and (once the sales tax is added in) effectively raising taxes for everyone else
- Reducing/eliminating corporate taxes
- Privatising Medicare
- Dismantling and/or offloading responsibility for social programs to the states

Those are more or less the key points of the Ryan Plan, yes.

And you can be absolutely certain that if he could accomplish these things, his very next steps would be to:
-Dismantle public education and privatize it as much as possible.
-Raise the retirement age and gut social security.
-Either close the Environmental Protection Agency or remove all of its teeth.

Paul Ryan is a Tea Partier, make no mistake about it. He's just a smart, eloquent Tea Partier who knows how to play the long game and isn't blowing his load all over the place over social issues to drum up hype with evangelicals.

There is one shiny bright spot in the Ryan choice. Unless the R squared team just gets slaughtered at the polls, Ryan becomes the presumptive nominee in 2016. Should they win, he's a lock for nominee in 2020 (assuming a 2 term Romney presidency). And that hopefully puts paid to another Santorum run.
Given only a choice between Ryan's Objectivist agenda or Santorum's theological one, I'll take the Randite.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Terez, on 14 August 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

It matters for two reasons:

1. Technically, a brokered convention is a possibility. There has been more talk about it with Romney than there has been in my lifetime.

2. Having the base for anti-Obama votes is one thing. Energizing the base to turn out on election day is another thing altogether. The convention is supposed to kick-start the final campaign, and if you don't have an enthusiastic base at the time of the convention, your campaign might be over before it truly begins.

Most of the reports I have seen give one of two possible reasons for the Ryan pick. The first is your second point. The thought is that Ryan will get more of the Republican supporters out and the election may be decided by voter turnout rather than what people think of the presidential candidates. This is of course the reason for the various voter obstruction measures we have seen. While Ryan may tick off moderates, that doesn't mean they will be running out to vote Obama, they may just stay home.

The other possible reason is that it's just another sign that the heavyweights (Christie, Jeb, Rubio) are sitting out this election and looking to run in 2016.

[Obdigore]

Texas Republicans admit they are idiots and want to outlaw critical thinking:

http://austinist.com...eeks_ban_on.php

[Morgoth]

Though I agree that returning to the gold standard is moronic (as do most rational people), I don't think the author of that piece understands how such a system would work.

[Illuyankas]

[amphibian]

Illuyankas, GTFO here with that worthless snark. It's two posts in a row from you and I'm tired of it.

[Kanese S's]

Morgoth, on 15 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Though I agree that returning to the gold standard is moronic (as do most rational people), I don't think the author of that piece understands how such a system would work.

I really can't believe that there are idiots who actually want to return to the gold standard. Every time I see someone who is apparently in favor of it, I'm just baffled at the sheer amount of stupidity.

[Illuyankas]

amphibian, on 17 August 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Illuyankas, GTFO here with that worthless snark. It's two posts in a row from you and I'm tired of it.

Sure thing, will remember to just throw them in the pics thread next time.


On topic, is there anyone who really, genuinely believes that Romney has even a chance of winning?

[MTS]

Illuyankas, on 17 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

amphibian, on 17 August 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Illuyankas, GTFO here with that worthless snark. It's two posts in a row from you and I'm tired of it.

Sure thing, will remember to just throw them in the pics thread next time.


On topic, is there anyone who really, genuinely believes that Romney has even a chance of winning?

Oh, he has a chance. I think there are a lot of people who, no matter their actual feelings for Romney, will simply vote for him because he's not Obama.

[amphibian]

Illuyankas, on 17 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

On topic, is there anyone who really, genuinely believes that Romney has even a chance of winning?

Fivethirtyeight puts Obama at a 68% chance to win, which is down from 70% due to the VP announcement by Romney. Silver also has several articles saying that he believes this to be a temporary and miniscule bump, so it'll probably go back up to 69% or 70% again.

But yes, there are quite a few people who have anointed Romney as the one to beat Obama - by virtue of his being Republican - in the press. However, whether they privately believe this or are faking it to get media play is up for questioning. I was reading a Krauthammer column earlier today (just to see the cognitive dissonance and jackassery) and he parrots the ostensible party line with something approaching fervent belief. Quite a few other media talking heads are just talking to make money on TV or radio. They don't believe Romney has a snowball's chance in hell.