or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 66

post #3251 of 10454
One more point about potential VP nominee Paul Ryan, the funny thing about him is the reason he was able to go to college was because of social security (sadly his dad died, which paid him out money to allow him get an education) and now he is trying to kill that same program . You think he'd have most sympathy towards people since it helped him get to where he is today, but guess not.
post #3252 of 10454

From what I've read, the Ryan budget leaves Social Security, Medicare, and Defense spending alone, but cuts absolutely everything else, with no increased taxes.

 

I'm at a loss on who team Romney is going to pick for Veep.  There's no candidate that papers over Romney's problems, and no obvious republican superstar to parachute in.  The other 2008 GOP candidates couldn't get traction then, and have even less pull now.

 

Rubio already has bad baggage being caught lying about when his family was in Cuba.  Chris Christie is too savvy to throw in with Romney, and I'm [libel] just gonna assume he has mob ties. [/libel]

 

Jan Brewer is a possibility.

 

post #3253 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

From what I've read, the Ryan budget leaves Social Security, Medicare, and Defense spending alone, but cuts absolutely everything else, with no increased taxes.


According to ThinkProgress, it does change Medicare, Medicaid and Defense:

 

Quote:

1. SENIORS WOULD PAY MORE FOR HEALTH CARE: Beginning 2023, the guaranteed Medicare benefit would be transformed into a government-financed “premium support” system. Seniors currently under the age of 55 could use their government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But the budget does not take sufficient precautions to prevent insurers from cherry-picking the the healthiest beneficiaries from traditional Medicare and leaving sicker applicants to the government. As a result, traditional Medicare costs could skyrocket, forcing even more seniors out of the government program. The budget also adopts a per capita cost cap of GDP growth plus 0.5 percent, without specifying how it would enforce it. This makes it likely that the cap would limit the government contribution provided to beneficiaries and since the proposed growth rate is much slower than the projected growth in health care costs, CBO estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. Finally, the budget would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67. Some seniors who would no longer be eligible for Medicare would pick up employer coverage—but they would pay more in premiums and cost sharing. And since the budget would scale back or eliminate other coverage options, hundreds of thousands of seniors would become uninsured.

 

2. ELDERLY AND DISABLED WOULD LOSE MEDICAID COVERAGE: The budget would eliminate the exiting matching-grant financing structure of Medicaid and would instead give each state a pre-determined block grant that does not keep up with actual health care spending. This would shift some of the burden of Medicaid’s growing costs to the states, forcing them to — in the words of the CBO — make cutbacks that “involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care.” The block grants would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $810 billion over 10 years, decreasing federal Medicaid spending by more than 35 percent over the decade. As a result, states could reduce enrollment by more than 14 million people, or almost 20 percent—even if they are were able to slow the growth in health care costs substantially.

 

3. THIRTY MILLION AMERICANS WOULD LOSE HEALTH COVERAGE: The budget repeals the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase health insurance coverage, the establishment of health insurance exchanges and the provision of subsidies for lower-income Americans, the expansion of the Medicaid program, tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance coverage. As a result, more than 30 million Americans would lose coverage and the budget would eliminate the new law’s consumer protections, which have already benefited tens of millions of Americans.

 

4. CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH WOULD GET A $3 TRILLION TAX CUT: By repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and the investment taxes in the Affordable Care Act and lowering the top income tax rate to 25 percent, the Ryan budget provides the wealthiest Americans with $2 trillion in tax breaks. By lowering the top corporate tax rate and allowing corporations to return profits made overseas to the United States at no cost, he gives corporations more than $1 trillion in tax breaks. Ryan insists his plan will be revenue neutral — he just won’t say how. The CBO’s scoring of the plan, meanwhile, is based on Ryan’s own assertions that the plan would maintain or increase revenue.

 

5. DEFENSE BUDGET WOULD GET A BOOST, WHILE THE SAFETY NET IS CUT: The Ryan budget protects defense spending from automatic cuts agreed to in last year’s debt deal, then boosts defense spending to $554 billion in 2013 — $8 billion more than agreed upon in the deal. At the same time, it asks six Congressional committees to find $261 billion in cuts. That includes $33.2 billion from the Agriculture Committee, meaning food stamps and other social safety net programs are likely to face cuts, all while the Pentagon remains untouched.

 

 

Source: The 5 Worst Things About House GOP's Budget

post #3254 of 10454
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

 

Jan Brewer is a possibility.

 


not a chance in hell....the GOP/RNC are alternately desirous of a strong woman politician to run for high office and scared of the idea (based on a recent past attempt in addition to their own deep seated misogynistic issues )

 

If I had to choose, I'd say it would be  Bachmann before Brewer.

 

post #3255 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

Rick Santorum's new "Obamaville" ad

 

 

Completely nuts.


Like the "subtle" touch of flashing (almost subliminally) on a baby in a bathtub in a RED sleep suit. You know, just like all those ABORTIONS Obama is going to force on the American people once he's re-elected.
Really that's just some vile, vile shit.

 

post #3256 of 10454

Yeah, the Obamaville video looks like it came from a 70's sci-fi movie, except it's real, and awful.

 

VTRan - I'm just thinking the Romney campaign is going to calculate that they need to win back women voters, and go for a woman veep.

 

Bachmann probably would pull in the evangelical vote that Romney is missing.  I'm thinking Brewer because she got play with the 'Standing up to Obama' picture.

 

Edit: thanks yt.

post #3257 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Bachmann probably would pull in the evangelical vote that Romney is missing. 


I don't know, it's not like the GOP is in danger of losing the evangelical vote in toto no matter how much Romney fails to inspire them.  If Bachmann's only plus is to boost turnout from a demographic Romney was going to win by default anyway, you have to balance that against all the moderate voters she will alienate with her overt craziness. 

 

The calculus has to be that it does Romney no good to win Kansas and South Dakota and Mississippi by larger margins if it loses him an Ohio.

post #3258 of 10454

Well the danger is that Evangelicals simply decide to sit out the election this time around. And support for Romney is soft. And Santorum seems to be getting solid support from the center of the country as well as parts of the South. So yeah Romney needs to get the base locked solid to pull this out.

post #3259 of 10454
post #3260 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Well the danger is that Evangelicals simply decide to sit out the election this time around. And support for Romney is soft. And Santorum seems to be getting solid support from the center of the country as well as parts of the South. So yeah Romney needs to get the base locked solid to pull this out.


I'm not saying that he doesn't need every vote he can get.  Just that if you're moderately savvy at politickin', you value votes that might otherwise go to your opponent over ones that would otherwise stay home.  I think Bachmann's shoring potential matters less because it comes at the expense of high-value swing voters.  It's not really fair that one vote counts more than another, but that's the Electoral College for you.

 

post #3261 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post


I'm not saying that he doesn't need every vote he can get.  Just that if you're moderately savvy at politickin', you value votes that might otherwise go to your opponent over ones that would otherwise stay home.  I think Bachmann's shoring potential matters less because it comes at the expense of high-value swing voters.  It's not really fair that one vote counts more than another, but that's the Electoral College for you.

 



And normally I'd agree. I just think this year the base is soft in it's support: Romney's best bet is to play on their hatred of Obama vs support for himself, because his support is lacking.

post #3262 of 10454

And I'm just spitballing, I have no real insight at all.  This entire nomination race has been bizzaro.  I never would have expected Perry and Bachmann to both implode and exit.  Or for Newt to implode and stay.  Or Santorum to ever actually be a contender.  Or for Herman Cain to do whatever the hell he's still doing.

post #3263 of 10454

Nuestro amigo Santorum en Puerto Rico ...

 

http://justquoting.com/cartoons/how-santorum-lost-puerto-rico/

 

santorum-en-puerto-rico1.jpg

post #3264 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Or for Herman Cain to do whatever the hell he's still doing.


You mean angling for a cushy job at FOX?

post #3265 of 10454

   I just watched the Obamaville ad. It was as weak as I thought it would be. Just before the 08 election, I was flipping though a copy of Newsmax, I don't know why. There was a story about what America would be like under an Obama Presidency. There would be terrorist attacks all the time. There was also a subplot about a reporter who regretted not writing about all the positive events that happened in Iraq. Reality just kinda disproved that story.

 

 

post #3266 of 10454
post #3267 of 10454

.....And Santorum proves he's a "good christian"

 

post #3268 of 10454

That crazy look on his face doesn't say Presidential to me.

post #3269 of 10454

ted bundy.jpg

 

Yep, Santorum's got a major case of "crazy eyes" in that video. Definitely NOT a Presidential temperament. Scary shit.

post #3270 of 10454

Santorum went all Col. Nathan Jessup there. "You can't handle the truth!!!"

post #3271 of 10454

I'm getting more and more of a "Dead Zone" vibe from Santorum. Jesus...

post #3272 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

I'm getting more and more of a "Dead Zone" vibe from Santorum. Jesus...

 

What's sad is that I'd originally intended to post a pic of Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson in my previous post but happened to see the photo of Ted Bundy which, unfortunately, was the more accurate visual parallel.

post #3273 of 10454

I just watched The Dead Zone with my daughter and the only way I could explain Stillson to her was to say "it's a male version of Sarah Palin," which worked.

 

 

post #3274 of 10454
Reuters' embedded reporter on the Santorum campaign, Sam Youngman, reported today that Rick stopped to correct a "young fella bowling with him," who was about to use a pink bowling ball.

"You're not gonna use the pink ball. We're not gonna let you do that. Not on camera."

In what I can only describe as a regrettable oversight, Youngman neglected to estimate the boy's age. Was this some local kid, stuck with doing a Santorum photo op as a school punishment for failing grades? Was it a slightly older, out with his friends but closeted with his family, self-hating groupie? Was it it a hooker? I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm going to assume the answer is "all three."

Seriously, though, there's a reason why no President finishes his term without his hair going white, and it's precisely because the President of the United Fucking States has more important things to concern himself with than shit precisely like whether a young man deliberately touches something pink.

Jesus H. Christ!
post #3275 of 10454

Really?  I thought that was just a Wonkette joke.  Holy buckets.

 

And here's Romney, supporting Wisconsin evil person Scott Walker, and telling a HI-larious story about how his Dad shut down an auto plant in Michigan:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/144683485.html

post #3276 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Reuters' embedded reporter on the Santorum campaign, Sam Youngman, reported today that Rick stopped to correct a "young fella bowling with him," who was about to use a pink bowling ball.
"You're not gonna use the pink ball. We're not gonna let you do that. Not on camera."
In what I can only describe as a regrettable oversight, Youngman neglected to estimate the boy's age. Was this some local kid, stuck with doing a Santorum photo op as a school punishment for failing grades? Was it a slightly older, out with his friends but closeted with his family, self-hating groupie? Was it it a hooker? I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm going to assume the answer is "all three."
Seriously, though, there's a reason why no President finishes his term without his hair going white, and it's precisely because the President of the United Fucking States has more important things to concern himself with than shit precisely like whether a young man deliberately touches something pink.
Jesus H. Christ

 

 

Santorum is into some freaky shit.   Has to be.

post #3277 of 10454

Maybe, just maybe, if Santorum and the Mrs got their freak on just for the fun of it, he wouldn't be such a war monger.

post #3278 of 10454
post #3279 of 10454

Ryan should just cut to the chase and travel the country giving rich people hand jobs and filming bum fights.

 

His bill's not passing the Senate.

post #3280 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

Maybe, just maybe, if Santorum and the Mrs got their freak on just for the fun of it, he wouldn't be such a war monger.



His predisposed inclination towards sea life precludes this option I'm afraid.His predisposed inclination towards sea life precludes this option I'm afraid.

post #3281 of 10454
post #3282 of 10454

just came in here to post that actually. do you post on politicalforum.com?

 

 

anyway, that guy has a real hard time with that old internal/external thought processing filter.

 

post #3283 of 10454

You know what? I don't think he was actually about to say that word. First, he's plainly tired and just rambling verbally anyway. And within a minute or two before THE gaffe, he says "Ovama," conflating "Obama" and "vision."

 

I'd chalk this up to just being tired and tongue tied. Santorum's an asshat, to be sure, and I think he's a wrongheaded theocrat-wannabe. But we've all had our Three's Company moments, haven't we? And it's not like we don't have more than enough reasons to never want him near the White House already.

post #3284 of 10454

I don't know.   There's not too many words that start with "nig" and in that context the full word is the only thing I can think of.   Anyway, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to let that foul word out.     Anyway, nice catch by whoever was watching that.   Still in shock and I think a calculated move on Santorum's part.

post #3285 of 10454

He looks really shaken up about whatever he was going to say, too. Perhaps because he realizes it would be the end of his political career. 

post #3286 of 10454

Dude is no doubt exhausted and I mix up my words all the time...but I'm straining to think of another word Santorum might've tripped up on there.

 

Can't do it. It's pretty clear that he was gonna say "Ni**er".

post #3287 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

You know what? I don't think he was actually about to say that word. First, he's plainly tired and just rambling verbally anyway. And within a minute or two before THE gaffe, he says "Ovama," conflating "Obama" and "vision."

 

I'd chalk this up to just being tired and tongue tied. Santorum's an asshat, to be sure, and I think he's a wrongheaded theocrat-wannabe. But we've all had our Three's Company moments, haven't we? And it's not like we don't have more than enough reasons to never want him near the White House already.


this /\

 

what I find amusing is that he rambles on at length accusing Obama of being divisive when he's is the one that is actively spouting off the divisive rhetoric...and is completely oblivious to it.  

 

post #3288 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I don't know.   There's not too many words that start with "nig" and in that context the full word is the only thing I can think of.   Anyway, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to let that foul word out.     Anyway, nice catch by whoever was watching that.   Still in shock and I think a calculated move on Santorum's part.


I'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying to say "anti-war peaceNIK" and just stumbled over the "peace" part.  

 

post #3289 of 10454
I've been tired before, but I've never been tired enough to drop N-bombs. I credit this to the fact that I don't drop N-bombs when I'm not in front of a rolling camera. Maybe dropping N-bombs is just another of Rick's private pink bowling balls.
post #3290 of 10454

I think he was stumbling over "negotiator".

post #3291 of 10454

klansman-gran-dragon.jpeg

"I'm so sick of all these goddamn negotiators!"

post #3292 of 10454

I'll throw in my 2 cents on Romney's potential running mates.

 

Never in a Million Years

Sarah Palin:  Been there, done that, didn't work.  Hasn't been a Romney fan.   Too polarizing.

Michelle Bachmann:  Brings nothing to the table.  She couldn't get Evangelicals or Tea Partiers to help her win a single primary.

Jan Brewer:  Absolute lightweight.  Makes Palin look like Thatcher.

Rick Santorum:  Too polarizing in a general election.  Can't stop talking about unpopular social issues.  Not enough power to force a "unity ticket". 

Newt Gingrich:  Beyond making the VP debate a must-watch event, has absolutely no appeal to compensate for his immense baggage.

Ron Paul:  There are better ways to keep Paul's libertarian devotees in the party.  Foreign policy differences are huge.

 

Possible but not Likely

Chris Christie Lack of interest.  Not good to have your #2 outshine you.  Wouldn't help with women.  Has more moderate views than Romney.

Jeb Bush:  Another Bush on the ticket would be a distraction.  Lacked interest in winnable top spot, would probably have no interest in being #2.

Condi Rice:  Has the chops.  Lacks the interest.  Would be a force if she could be convinced to run.

Nikki Haley:  Has taken hits in her home state and couldn't deliver the South Carolina primary to Romney.

Rand Paul:  Pulls in Southerners, Tea Partiers and fans of his Dad.  Has some baggage and temperament issues.

Paul Ryan:  Would probably prefer to stay in House.  Would allow Democrats to focus fire on his plans and budgets rather than Romney's plans.

 

Likely to Be on Shortlist

Marco Rubio:  Despite recent statement of disinterest, clearly the top pick.  Tea Party favorite, intelligent, articulate.  Would help deliver Florida and increase Hispanic vote. 

Rob Portman:  Great relationship with Romney.  Experience in House and Senate and at OMB.  Would help in Ohio.  Kind of a boring pick.

Bob McDonnell:  Conservative governor of Virginia who endorsed Romney at a key time.  Big news recently that his approval in Virginia dropped to a mere 53%.

Susana Martinez:  Female, Hispanic, and conservative.  Popularity puts New Mexico in play.  Said she's not interested, but they all say that.

Bobby Jindal:  Southern, conservative, incredibly intelligent and hard-working.  Very popular in Louisiana and amongst conservatives.  Like with Rubio, hard to see a downside to adding him to the ticket.

Brian Sandoval:  Popular, conservative, Hispanic governor of Nevada.  Like Jindal, he endorsed Perry but has declined to endorse anyone since Perry dropped out. 

 

post #3293 of 10454

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

I think he was stumbling over "negotiator".


Yup.  As I wrote, he had another weird verbal gaffe just before this one, and he's clearly tired and just trying to get through the speech.

 

post #3294 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

 


Yup.  As I wrote, he had another weird verbal gaffe just before this one, and he's clearly tired and just trying to get through the last of his fifteen minutes.

 



Fixed. 

post #3295 of 10454

Everyone knows that intentions are meaningless when it comes to political gaffes. The perception is key. You might even go far as to say that intentions are always trumped by perceptions in the general political realm. 

post #3296 of 10454

Double post. Apologies.

post #3297 of 10454

Rubio looks appealing, but he's already been caught in a lie about when his family was living in (fled from?) Cuba.  I can;t see anyone taking that to that to a national stage.

post #3298 of 10454
Thread Starter 

So Olbermann just got canned by Liberal neo-network Current for being too far out, even by their standards.

 

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/keith-olbermann-out-at-current-relationship-no-longer-reflected-values-network-says/

 

So what does it take for Gore's outfit to say..."Wow, Keith, that's just going too far."

post #3299 of 10454

Right, that radical hardcore liberal Al Gore. Imagine being to the left of HIM! Golly!

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to frame this in terms of politics when it just sounds like standard behind-the-scenes bitchery. You sound uncomfortably close to spouting right-wing demagoguery there, Viv. Stop it.

post #3300 of 10454
As much as I like watching Olbermann, he's got a history of locking horns with his bosses which goes at least as far back as his ESPN days. During his recent tenure with Current, he's been publicly critical of that network's admittedly subpar production values (lights going out during live Countdown broadcasts and the like.)

Olbermann's replacement at Current, Eliot Spitzer, is a former state Governor and no slouch on politics from a liberal perspective. He's not known for being a TV host, though, and it'll be interesting to see what impact all this has on the competition between Current and MSNBC for ratings in the near and long term.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread