It is currently Tue May 21, 2013 2:28 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 661 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 45  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:56 pm
Posts: 3714
Location: Gunchester
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opini ... drome.html

Quote:
Mitt Romney has a gift for words — self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a “severely conservative governor.”

As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney “described conservatism as if it were a disease.” Indeed. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provided a list of words that most commonly follow the adverb “severely”; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news

Quote:
Rick Santorum is now neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney in two national polls, reflecting the former Pennsylvania senator's surge in the past week as well as a slide for Romney among the most conservative voters.

Santorum leads Romney, 30% to 28%, of Republican and GOP-leaning voters in a Pew Research Center poll taken Wednesday through Sunday. A month ago, Romney had a 17-point lead over Santorum in the Pew survey.

BLOG: Santorum leads in Michigan

In Gallup's daily tracking poll, Romney leads Santorum by two percentage points: 32% to 30% among registered GOP voters. Romney previously had a 19-point lead on Santorum during Gallup interviews taken Jan. 30-Feb. 3.


Image

_________________
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:35 am
Posts: 16
Location: Londoom, EUSSR
So seeing as Gingrich has basically collapsed under the weight of his own ego, if he drops out and endorses Santa will Newt's delegates just flip over to Rick?

Because I really want the GOP to run a complete numbskull against Obama. (Not that Romney isn't an idiot, of course) Perhaps a deal could be struck - Santorum/Gingrich 2012 anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:56 pm
Posts: 3714
Location: Gunchester
JohnTheJohn wrote:
So seeing as Gingrich has basically collapsed under the weight of his own ego, if he drops out and endorses Santa will Newt's delegates just flip over to Rick?


It's Gingrich's presence in the race - splitting the ultra-conservative/anti-Romney vote - that's keeping Romney afloat at the minute. There have also been some polls suggesting Santorum would fare better among independents than Romney. Why Gingrich doesn't just disappear I don't know, because he's completely out of steam and his presence is actually helping to prop up Romney.

Quote:
Because I really want the GOP to run a complete numbskull against Obama. (Not that Romney isn't an idiot, of course) Perhaps a deal could be struck - Santorum/Gingrich 2012 anyone?


Please, Christ, no. The prospect of a Santorum/Gingrich ticket, and the fact that (at the very least) not far short of half the US electorate will vote for it, is just immensely depressing. All it takes is a black swan event (most likely in Europe) and those two fuckers take the White House.

_________________
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:34 am
Posts: 5381
Location: A town near the Sea
Dunno would Gringrich be McCain enough to get the moderate republicans, hopefully he heads the Palin direction and chooses Bachmann or someone as his running mate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:51 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Rochdale
mattomac wrote:
Dunno would Gringrich be McCain enough to get the moderate republicans, hopefully he heads the Palin direction and chooses Bachmann or someone as his running mate.


A Santorum-Gingrich ticket would be hilarious but terrifying at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:33 pm
Posts: 11867
Location: East London
Romney fights back, with an article about crony capitalism that runs in... The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... itt-romney

Loads of great comments. Credit to moretorybullshit

Quote:
Instead of doing the right thing and standing up to union bosses, Obama rewarded them.
A labor union that had contributed millions to Democrats and his election campaign was granted an ownership share of Chrysler and a major stake in GM, two flagships of the industry. The US Department of Treasury – American taxpayers – was asked to become a majority stockholder of GM. And a politically connected and ethically challenged Obama-campaign contributor, the financier Steven Rattner, was asked to preside over all this as auto czar.

This was crony capitalism on a grand scale.

Crony capitalism? On a grand scale?

Nothing on the scale of this, though, is it, eh?

A new report from the non-profit organization Public Campaign shows that 30 of the country's largest corporations—including GE, Wells Fargo, Verizon, and Fed Ex—paid more to lobby Congress from 2008 through 2010 than they did in federal income taxes.
Of the 30 companies, only one actually paid any federal income taxes: FedEx. And even FedEx only paid 1%, 34% less than the statutory rate. Meanwhile, the rest received nearly $11 billion in rebates. As for lobbying, the 30 corporations spent a combined $476 million—or $400,000 a day every single day of the year, to ensure their interests were represented in Congress. GE led with way with $84 million in the three-year period, Verizon spent $54 million, and Boeing spent $52 million.
Of the seven companies that would make their employment records public, the report shows that over 50,000 Americans were laid off by these corporations, despite them turning a profit.

You really do think people will believe any shit they are told, don't you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:56 pm
Posts: 3714
Location: Gunchester
Santorum: Build more statues of rich people in Detroit

Quote:
During a speech at the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday Rick Santorum said income inequality is part of the American system, and it should stay that way.

"There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be," said the former Pennsylvania Senator. "Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace and that's as it should be."

Santorum explained himself this way, "We shouldn't have a society that has a President who envies or creates class warfare or envy between one group of people and another," said Santorum.

"We should celebrate like we do in the small towns all across American _ as you do here in Detroit. You celebrate success. You build statues and monuments. Buildings, you name after them. Why? Because in their greatness and innovation, yes, they created wealth, but they created wealth for everybody else. And that's a good thing, not something to be condemned in America."


And this is just incredible.

Quote:
Rick Santorum had a Boise crowd in his hands Tuesday, affirming his faith, ripping his GOP opponents and President Obama, and setting high stakes.

“We have a duty to leave this country better than we found it,” Santorum said. “I believe that if we are unsuccessful in this election that we will have failed in that duty and it will have horrendous consequences. ... It will be the end of the great experiment in the order of liberty and freedom.”


Quote:
Santorum said Obama is following the “FDR playbook,” determined to succor public dependency on government.

“We are reaching a tipping point, folks, when those who pay are the minority and those who receive are the majority. Freedom in an election process is not something people will care about. They’ll care about whether they get their piece.”


This New Deal revisionism is perhaps the strangest thing about the modern-day Republican party. How and why is anyone still advocating Hoover-style 'solutions' in 2012?

Quote:
He noted his longtime call of alarm about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, saying the Cold War arms race that checked the Soviet Union won’t work with the mullahs.

“Mutually assured destruction worked. Why? Because they didn’t want to die. Because when atheists die, that’s it. Or, maybe better stated, they think that’s it.”

But in Iran, “They believe these end of times (are) a good thing for them, that’s the time they will conquer the world and rule it for Allah. ... Bringing about Armageddon for them is not a deterrent. It is an inducement.”


I love this quote. What Santorum completely overlooks in his frothing about Iran is that America is also packed to the rafters with end-times nutters - and they just so happen to make up a sizeable fraction of his support base. He also seems to be insinuating that it was in fact the rational, atheist Soviets who steered clear of nuclear confrontation in the Cold War.

_________________
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 12689
Location: Up my own arse.
HOW can any GOP candidate stand a ghost of a chance after THIS:

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Watch-President-Obama-Sing-Sweet-Home-Chicago-With-Mick-Jagger-39772.html

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 22968
Location: In la France profonde, without personal transport...
Never mind Jagger, he was singing with BB King.

BB King. Some presidents are just lucky.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:07 pm
Posts: 3244
Santorum on the Cold War is great!

MAD worked because the Soviets didn't want to die!

What about the USA?! I'm fairly sure a few Christian and atheist US citizens didn't want either.

Also, see your history teacher.

_________________
http://redsparrows.tumblr.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:56 pm
Posts: 3714
Location: Gunchester
Image

_________________
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:43 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Dorset


_________________
My blog: https://stevenplrose.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:09 am
Posts: 2417
Location: Redhill, Surrey
Eh, it was doing ok til it turned into a ron paul fanwank...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:41 pm
Posts: 3383
Location: Elbonia
My money is on Obama staying on. I think the nutcases are just starting to make themselves look little more than comic relief.

However(!), if they do get in then I wonder how other countries will react to them?

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: POTUS 2012
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:26 pm
Posts: 387
Location: London
Primaries aren't really all that democratic. They are like an even more convoluted version of the Electoral College.




Especially the bits from 3:27 onwards. Before the early 20th century, the parties chose the candidates themselves. Since political parties are private entities, they sort of still have a lot of power in choosing the presidential candidates. There is an illusion of democracy, but we end up with a lot of power held by farmers in Iowa and the conservative (for the northeast) voters from New Hampshire. And then there's the power the parties and groups trying to influence the vote have. If there were still more than one person vying for the candidacy and the Christian Coalition, a group which has made an effort to be overrepresented in these electors, wanted to vote against the will of the people, they could provided those delegates came from states where that was allowed. And then the super-delegates could cast their votes.

But all of the people running in the Republican primaries are nuts. That's what you get when you pander to the craziest people in America. Sometimes you end up with someone who is too crazy to get elected when put in front of rational people. But the way the system and the whole process leading up to the actual vote is, there is a chance if Santorum manages to secure the nomination, he still could get in. Most of America wouldn't want him, but they'd be powerless to change it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 661 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 45  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group