Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghdi

Lets talk 2012.

390 posts in this topic

So the GOP field is a bunch of guys that have no chance, are completely crazy, or just scary. At any rate, Obama has annoyed more than impressed, and I dont think theres a lot of positive from his first four years at this point. I think he's had to deal with some very hard problems that have been gestating for years in many respects. Some of his decisions have exacerbated rather than fix and his lack of backbone in respect to dealing with partisanship is excruciating. But, there's no way Im not voting for Barack Obama again at this point.

There is not one GOP candidate that I could possibly see myself voting for, and more so, I don't think any of them can win a national election. Perry is too far right and is scaring the left to action (look at donation amounts for Obama/democrats since Perry announced). Romney will get destroyed in a national debate and is very divisive (ala McCain). Bachmann is a loon. I also see Perry taking Palin as a running mate and that just creates a quagmire of problems. Obviously, there's plenty of scenarios that could see Perry or whomever the GOP nominee is slipping in because of the way the electoral college is set up, but its too early to even consider numbers. Turnout is always the most important thing, so it depends who fires who up the most I guess. Im completely apathetic this cycle, but theres no way in hell Im staying home and not voting.

In positive, I think Huntsman has some great ideas, especially regarding the tax code, and I also think he is a good man with lots of great experience (Ambassador to China etc). I also like states having more say in policy that Perry proposes, but I think a Perry presidency will damage this country irreparably by the time it was over. Bachmann stands no chance (maybe VP) and goofy ole Ron Paul is still hanging tough. In the end, I think Perry wins a very long and protracted/nasty primary campaign and Obama wins in November with a 2004 (worst case) or 2008 (likely) margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Ron Paul wins, he is the only sensible choice, everyone else is a corporate puppet. The way the media is 90% acting like he doesn't exist and 10% acting like he is some crazy lunatic is infuriating. Despite this, he finishes second in the Ames straw poll by a slim margin and still all they talk about is Bachmann, Perry, and Romney. I don't know how anyone can still believe these elections are fair.

I know it's just Jon Stewart, but this video pretty much sums it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo

Also, I have no idea how Perry is doing so well with his idea that we shouldn't be allowed to vote for our senators. Do people not know about that or do people not care about democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas and his stance on marijuana is exactly what I want in that respect, but he misses the mark for me on many other issues. I tend to think like a libertarian in some respects, so there are areas where I think Dr. Paul would excel. I also like his stance on neutrality. If he won the nomination, I just don't think I could pull the lever for him in a general election because of some very key differences I have with him on issues. I would be interested to hear him in a debate with Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with him on some things too but he is the only candidate that wants to stop letting corporate interests run the country, and to me that is of utmost importance. Everyone else says that but they still take campaign donations from corporations anyway, so they just tell us what we want to hear but don't practice what they preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Ron Paul if he made it to the general ballot, but I don't think he is loud or extreme enough to win the GOP nomination. The tea party might be the republicans biggest downfall in 2012 because right now I think Obama is even money on re-election but if the Republicans rallied behind a moderate like Romney they could probably take him down on merit alone. If they go with someone too polarizing like Perry or Bachmann they will squander their chance and have to bank on another or recession or some other major problem economic issue.

Also, I have no idea how Perry is doing so well with his idea that we shouldn't be allowed to vote for our senators. Do people not know about that or do people not care about democracy?

It's early. And while Perry does has some crazy ideas on how he wants to modify the constitution, he doesn't have the authority to do so and it would never pass congress so I consider some of those wacky proposals of his moot.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is the only candidate that wants to stop letting corporate interests run the country

Which is why the corporate owned news media will not allow him in the discussion. The same reason Health Care, Corporate Business abuses, environmental issues and workers rights are not allowed to be discussed in a serious fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why the corporate owned news media will not allow him in the discussion. The same reason Health Care, Corporate Business abuses, environmental issues and workers rights are not allowed to be discussed in a serious fashion.

Indeed, it is a disgrace. It is also exactly why we need people like him in our government to put an end to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it is a disgrace. It is also exactly why we need people like him in our government to put an end to this.

I agree, but unfortunately Money still rules, so corporate media will not allow him or what is in the best interest of the American people to be broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother? The world is just going to end anyway.... Eeyore-under-a-raincloud.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that 90% of the GOP field is either crazy or just spouting out garbage that sits inline with the establishment Republicans ideals. Ron Paul is an anomaly of mammoth proportions. I love that he doesn't change his stance if it's not quite mainstream, i.e. his stance of drug prohibition and how people chuckled at him when he said that even drugs like heroin should be legalized, which I agree 100% with since the "War on Drugs" is unwinnable and a giant money pit. It however keeps a lot of people employed, such as the entire DEA, a big percentage of local and federal police units that would become unnecessary should the drug war not need to be fought anymore. However, I'm not too big on Ron Paul when it comes to a lot of other issues since I don't agree that gov't role in society and life should be as minimal as possible.

The GOP believes that we need to cut back on social programs such as SS and Medicare/Medicaid, which is insane, although many people don't think so because they don't seem to realize being on SS or Medicaid is being enrolled in a gov't program.... Why would we want to peel away at some of the best legislation ever passed in this country under one of the greatest presidents of all time in FDR? Why is this country dealing with healthcare costs that far exceed every other developed nation? Why does this first world country have to deal with such a third world problem? It's nuts. "Obamacare" is nothing but a bandaid, it's a step in the right direction, but we need true universal healthcare, which does not mean "socialized medicine" as the right might like you to think. Universal healthcare still allows room for private companies to run independent of the gov't and there's still money to be made. Why do Japanese people see a doctor 3X as much as Americans do and have an older population than we do and live longer than we do, yet spend less on healthcare? Obama's wavering on these issues, such not implementing true universal healthcare, pussying out of every negotiation with Republicans and allowing them to have their way in hopes they'll return the favor later? I hope that Obama, assuming he wins the next election, will finally act like a real Democrat and not the half assed one he's been acting like since he got elected. If all residents of the E.U. have free or nearly free healthcare and get to go to college for extremely little to no money, I want that too and I sure as sh!t do not see a reason why I can't have these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perry is going to win the GOP nomination. If the economy still sucks in november 2012, he will very likely win the presidency.

GOP Nom:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Obama v. Republicans:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the GOP wins back the presidency, I'm fleeing the country. The Republicans are insane and focus on cutting completely insignificant social programs while ignoring that the defense budget is a HUGE reason why we're in debt along with two wars and the Bush tax cuts. Cut loose from the wars in the Middle East, Iraq will be able to deal by itself and it's pretty clear that the Afghans don't really care for our presence in their country and kicking in their doors in the middle of the night all the time. That's how we can save real money, not cutting NPR....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the GOP wins back the presidency, I'm fleeing the country. The Republicans are insane and focus on cutting completely insignificant social programs while ignoring that the defense budget is a HUGE reason why we're in debt along with two wars and the Bush tax cuts. Cut loose from the wars in the Middle East, Iraq will be able to deal by itself and it's pretty clear that the Afghans don't really care for our presence in their country and kicking in their doors in the middle of the night all the time. That's how we can save real money, not cutting NPR....

That's why I hope Ron Paul wins. What have the Democrats done differently than the Republicans with regards to limiting the defense budget and ending the wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perry is going to win the GOP nomination. If the economy still sucks in november 2012, he will very likely win the presidency.

GOP Nom:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Obama v. Republicans:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

It's too early to be using polls are predictive elements, the true campaigning has yet to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why the corporate owned news media will not allow him in the discussion. The same reason Health Care, Corporate Business abuses, environmental issues and workers rights are not allowed to be discussed in a serious fashion.

These aren't discussed? Are you still reading Highlights magazine as your news source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP believes that we need to cut back on social programs such as SS and Medicare/Medicaid, which is insane, although many people don't think so because they don't seem to realize being on SS or Medicaid is being enrolled in a gov't program.... Why would we want to peel away at some of the best legislation ever passed in this country under one of the greatest presidents of all time in FDR? Why is this country dealing with healthcare costs that far exceed every other developed nation? Why does this first world country have to deal with such a third world problem? It's nuts. "Obamacare" is nothing but a bandaid, it's a step in the right direction, but we need true universal healthcare, which does not mean "socialized medicine" as the right might like you to think. Universal healthcare still allows room for private companies to run independent of the gov't and there's still money to be made. Why do Japanese people see a doctor 3X as much as Americans do and have an older population than we do and live longer than we do, yet spend less on healthcare? Obama's wavering on these issues, such not implementing true universal healthcare, pussying out of every negotiation with Republicans and allowing them to have their way in hopes they'll return the favor later? I hope that Obama, assuming he wins the next election, will finally act like a real Democrat and not the half assed one he's been acting like since he got elected. If all residents of the E.U. have free or nearly free healthcare and get to go to college for extremely little to no money, I want that too and I sure as sh!t do not see a reason why I can't have these things.

wow.

I have no idea of what that first sentence is supposed to mean. No idea whatsoever other than you don't think that any changes should be made to SS/Medicare.

Just because SS worked then doesn't mean it works now. The right to bear arms was great at the time (and was developed by some of the most progressive thinkers of their time) but doesn't fit so well now. The math simply doesn't work anymore with SS. I know that I will get nothing out of SS despite the money I will have poured into it over the years. It is time that someone come up with a novel solution instead of burying our heads in the sand and passing the problem along.

Your last sentence sums it up: You want free healthcare and free college. All for nothing. Well not to sound like an aging old fart but nothing is free and anyone with any iota of intelligence can see that the European system is struggling under the burden of the "everything for free" model. So lets not pretend that everything is perfect across the Atlantic. The US constitution does not provide for free college or healthcare in this country.

You want to lower healthcare costs? Ban smoking. Which candidate has the nuts to do that? Not one has mentioned that. Another way to lower healthcare? Stop the accomodation for the obese. Shame should be the message for controllable obesity. But again only a slight message from the First Lady but no real, pardon the pun, weight behind the issue.

Instead of kissing the unions' asses and talking like its a social war lets put the unemployed to work. If you are on extended unemployment in a major city, welcome to devilsadvoc8's urban clean up crew. Since you are getting paid by the government and it doesn't take skill to pick up garbage and remove grafitti, the unemployed can help make our nation less dirty two days out of the week. Chances for leadership positions to supervise a work crew abound.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea of what that first sentence is supposed to mean. No idea whatsoever other than you don't think that any changes should be made to SS/Medicare.

Just because SS worked then doesn't mean it works now. The right to bear arms was great at the time (and was developed by some of the most progressive thinkers of their time) but doesn't fit so well now. The math simply doesn't work anymore with SS. I know that I will get nothing out of SS despite the money I will have poured into it over the years. It is time that someone come up with a novel solution instead of burying our heads in the sand and passing the problem along.

Well, that's not true at all. SS will have be different by the time we (I assume you are around my age to be worried about SS payouts) retire, but you aren't going to get nothing. At current pace we lose the ability to give 100% payouts in 30 years or so, after that benefactors will get about 75% for another 75 years, and that's with no changes. Small modifications like extending the retirement age and means testing can extend the program will into the next century at current pay out levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe if we hadn't been fighting two useless wars, given tax cuts to the wealthy and poured ridiculous amounts of money into the defense budget, we wouldn't be as worried about SS or Medicare/Medicaid. Btw, not all of Europe is doing terrible right now, From what I've seen it's southern Europe that's been hurt the most, but some of Northern Europe, Germany, Sweden, Holland, isn't that bad off atm. I'm not looking for something for nothing with universal healthcare and free education, it's something that can be done and has been many times already. I'm not talking straight up tax paid for, true socialized medicine in the model of the UK, but maybe follow France, Japan or Germany's lead and require insurance companies to cover everyone with a basic plan and have the costs by a combo of employer and employee, but not have your benefits cut if you lose your job as the gov't would pick up the tab. This has been done and is PROVEN to be MORE cost effective than the way we do things. I believe the last stat I saw, the US spent something like 16-17% of our GDP on healthcare, while France spends only 11%, Germany 10% and Japan half of what we do at 8%. It's obvious they found a more efficient system to run healthcare with and I don't understand why we don't adopt one of their plans or a hybrid of their plans in the US. Just this week some guy died from a fvcking tooth infection because he couldn't afford dental care or antibiotics and that's just insanity, this should not happen in a first world country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, like Ron Paul, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I believe he is the most qualified candidate. He is criticized for his isolationist ideals, but for the type of trouble this country is in right now, he is the right man. He is right on entitlements, right on the Fed, right on the wars, right on spending. We need more like him in the House, and if the Tea Party movement continues, maybe we'll get it. I can only hope.

But it's not going to be Ron Paul. I wish it was Christie. It's probably going to be Romney, maybe Perry. Any of them will get my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba'Raq Obummer is the single worst President this country has had to endure with. Obama said in 2009 he "owns the economy." In fact, he said he wants to own it because he has solutions, so "give ...it to me." He said if we spent 700 billion in stimulus we would keep unemployment under 8%. It didn't happen. He said last summer was the "summer of recovery" --it didn't happen. he played no role at all in saving us from the great depression 2 -- zero. Bush and Hank Paulson did that. In fact, Paulson convinced both Bush and the dems to bail out the banks, and had they not done so, we would have created a world wide depression. Obama played no role in that. In fact, Obama only bailed out GM, and that was a money loser. Obama was so bad, that in just two years after his historic election, sitting there with a majority in both houses, he lost the Congress because people realized he was all change and no hope. The change was more along the lines of socialism, which was not change most Americans beleived in. In fact, since passing Obamacare, more people are uninsured and health insurance is higher now than ever before. Since coming into office he has set a record for debt, and a new record for job loss. While his union thug buddies call for violence in the street, they stood by while Obama shut down union jobs in the Gulf and Texas. Gas prices went from 1.79 to 4 bucks a gallon. he started two wars, and he escalated another war and now, after announcing a political withdraw in one scheduled next October before his election -- the tide has shifted in that war. He told us to invest in union jobs -- and the steel mill he appeared at went under. He told us to invest in green energy, but the company he loaned 500 million to just went under in bankrupcy. he wants the free market to save us, he just doesn't want it to be free. He introduced pay czars, while ratcheting up the class warfare in an effort to make wealthy people not something to which we aspire, but rather people to be blamed. He gave a speech on civility in public discourse, and then allowed himself to be introduced by a union thug who on Obama's stage called for war and violence against those with whom he disagreed. Today, his white house announced "Obama won't be the word police for the democrat party." No, he prefers to be that for the GOP -- while letting the race-hustling poverty pimps, union thugs, and socialist revolutionaries use words to divide us and foment violence. In short, Mr. Obama has been an failure by every measure. yes, he ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. i gave him credit for the order, even if finding him was the direct result of water-boarding that he opposed. Even if reaching him was the direct result of US forces being in Afganistan, which he once opposed. He has redefined failure as a president. It was once synonymous with Carter -- but it will now forever be associated with Obama. His reign as a demi-god is over. Fortunately, his first real job -- as President -- is almost over too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I had responded to each piece but I hit the quote limit =[ So I left in your remarks that i felt were most egregious.

Obama said in 2009 he "owns the economy." In fact, he said he wants to own it because he has solutions, so "give ...it to me."

He did indeed say this, and if congress handed him the reigns he would have had it too, but alas that's not how our government works (thankfully).

He said if we spent 700 billion in stimulus we would keep unemployment under 8%. It didn't happen.

He was wrong about this. But there is no question the stimulus, saved jobs and kept the recession from being worse. People have short memories, 33% of the stimulus was taxcuts, another 33% was state aid for medicaid, money the states would have had to pay anyway. And with the last 34% it went to jobs, which saw gdp growth around 3-4% for 2 years. When the spending went away, so did GDP.

He said last summer was the "summer of recovery" --it didn't happen.

Yes it did. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own definitions and since defining recessions revolves around GDP, and since that grew Obama did in fact preside over the country recovering.

he lost the Congress because people realized he was all change and no hope. The change was more along the lines of socialism, which was not change most Americans beleived in. In fact, since passing Obamacare, more people are uninsured and health insurance is higher now than ever before.

I don't know if more people are uninsured or not, but that stands to reason given the mandate, which was the thing that will get everyone insured doesn't even kick in for 2 more years.

Since coming into office he has set a record for debt, and a new record for job loss.

Well duh, it's called inflation. Every president sets a record for debt. He also took over at a time of growing expenses and shrinking revenues which compounded the problem. Bush probably has the record for most job losses, especially if you factor in the first few months of Obama's presidency under Bush because realistically he couldn't have done anything about those jobs.

Gas prices went from 1.79 to 4 bucks a gallon.

That's what happens when you take over during a deep recession (when gas prices plummet) and then lead the economy into a shaky recovery (when gas prices rise). If you look at the price of gasoline over time it's pretty consistent, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyway that gas is around $4 (and it will probably stay there, despite Miss Bachmanns delusions).

he started two wars, and he escalated another war and now, after announcing a political withdraw in one scheduled next October before his election -- the tide has shifted in that war.

He "started" two wars. Please name the two wars that he STARTED. I can name two wars Bush started, I can think of a couple isolated areas where Obama intervened, but started wars? please you are just throwing sh!t at the wall.

He introduced pay czars, while ratcheting up the class warfare in an effort to make wealthy people not something to which we aspire, but rather people to be blamed.

The wealthy make as much (and probably more) as they did under Bush, more then did under Clinton, and substantially more then they did on Reagan. The class warfare you talk about is manufactured, the rich have never had it so good.

He gave a speech on civility in public discourse, and then allowed himself to be introduced by a union thug who on Obama's stage called for war and violence against those with whom he disagreed. Today, his white house announced "Obama won't be the word police for the democrat party." No, he prefers to be that for the GOP -- while letting the race-hustling poverty pimps, union thugs, and socialist revolutionaries use words to divide us and foment violence.

It's pretty absurd to see conservatives fired about about this statement given how fast they came to defense of Sarah Palin for putting cross hairs on districts. Either inflammatory rhetoric should be toned down, or it is moot, either way be consistent for once in your life.

In short, Mr. Obama has been an failure by every measure.

Only when you manipulate the measures to see them threw your lens. When you look at what he promised http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ and analyze where he succeded compromised and failed you can see he followed through on a lot more then he missed. When you look at economic indicators other then unemployment he has done quite well. So by actually tangible measures he's done "ok". No one's perfect, he has room to improve. "failed by every measure" is obviously quite hyperbolic.

yes, he ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. i gave him credit for the order, even if finding him was the direct result of water-boarding that he opposed. Even if reaching him was the direct result of US forces being in Afganistan, which he once opposed.

Once again untrue. The hunt for Osama was the result from a decade of intelligence gathering and research. There has never been any direct evidence that torture lead to any critical piece of information and it's downright shameful that you keep pretending that it did. A lot of people worked really hard to catch this SOB and while Obama deserves little credit for it, their work shouldn't be overlooked because you are trying to justify torture.

My 2 cents, Obama spoke a big game (and what candidate doesn't?) and lo and behold couldn't live up to it. He made decisions that absolutely baffled me and often just fed into the perpetual rhetoric machine that started about month 2 of his presidency and has been ramping up ever since. That said, he followed through on most of his promises and I don't consider compromise a bad thing and was glad to see him take that track often (something he never gets credit for). I think he would have been a good-to-great president if the political atmosphere wasn't as toxic, as it is I think he is about a C+ if I had to give him an arbitrary grade. Unfortunately he has not been a very effective president with a republican house and while I don't fault him for that, I also cant justify voting for him just for being a nice guy with the right ideas at the wrong time. We need someone who can actually bridge the political divide which thus far he seems inept. So we'll see, he hasn't lost my vote yet, there's a year to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wealthy make as much (and probably more) as they did under Bush, more then did under Clinton, and substantially more then they did on Reagan. The class warfare you talk about is manufactured, the rich have never had it so good.

"The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year. But that’s only part of the story.

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

You read that right. In the Great Recession year of 2009 (officially just the first half of the year), the average pay of the very highest-income Americans was more than five times their average wages and bonuses in 2008."

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year. But that’s only part of the story.

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

You read that right. In the Great Recession year of 2009 (officially just the first half of the year), the average pay of the very highest-income Americans was more than five times their average wages and bonuses in 2008."

My link

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2009

If I'm reading this chart correctly it says in 2009 there 72 people making 50+ million and they averaged 84.1 million.

In 2008 there were 131 people making 50+ million and they averaged 91.1 million.

2007 there were 151 making 93.9 million on average

2006 126 - 89.2

2005 102 - 99.3

-----------------

The numbers in that snippet were so astonishing I had to go and look at the raw data. It looks like he was looking somewhere incorrectly to me.

Edit: If we are concerned about what the ultra rich are making, I'm not really, it's only about another month or so until we see the 2010 numbers, but 2009 was not a good year for the 50+ million group, compared to prior years.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why people even engage Leeds on this stuff blows my mind. You want to know what the problem is with our political system and it's the Leeds of the world, on both sides. People who care far too much for no discernable reason, and have been drained of every ounce of common sense and logic.... instead replaced with "media" talking points.

The gas price example was hilarious. Totally ignoring the reason for the drop in gas prices was that that the economy was teetering on the abyss of depression. Even then, look where the price gas was after 9/11 and look at the gas prices when the sh!t hit the fan a few years back.... and notice the difference. Inflation. It existed... even back then.

Anybody that uses $1 gas as a campaign promise is basically promising that you will be a 3rd world country that can't afford said gas anyway. The market is its own beast and it's connected to the dollar. Not how much oil you pump out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the actual election, Obama is obviously going to win because it's nearly impossible for Romney to win the nomination. If he could, he'd probably win pretty easily. Not that I think he's anything special, I think it's just eliminating one centrist (yes, centrist, unless you're a lunatic, hell, I think in other than things that appeal to the lunatics, he's probably more to the right than the guy he followed...) empty suit for another....

He will likely face someone who should be in an insane asylum and will get ripped to shreds in the perception department. Perry's been around for a few weeks and just keeps rolling out whopper after whopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0