These guys have been wrong since 2008. They obviously haven't been letting their big heads do the thinking.

2kool4skool;1248533 wrote:Obama will win.

Weren't you the one that was convinced Perry would be the runaway Republican nominee and future President? I'm not sure political prognostication is in your wheelhouse

Yup...my only miss. Ever. I'm like 15-1 or something.

Taking a break from making up hooker stories or whatever it is you do to pimp your gimmick?

Footwedge;1248522 wrote:Absolutely. Even though the off shore bookies still slightly favor Obama, I think Romney wins. Unless a insider tax whistleblower comes forth with dirt on ole Mitt.

Not out of the question. Regardless who wins, it's gonna be a late night.

O-Trap;1248523 wrote:It shouldn't be. That's part of the problem.

And I agree. They just need to stop the silly tradition of nominating the guy who lost the last primary, and they'll be fine. They don't need to change direction or engage in any kind of "soul-searching." The Pubs will hold the house without breaking a sweat, and are a little better than 50/50 to take the Senate. Even assuming Bam backs into a second term, there will be light at the end of the tunnel for the Pubs.

stlouiedipalma;1248536 wrote:These guys have been wrong since 2008. They obviously haven't been letting their big heads do the thinking.

Yeah...2010 really sucked. :rolleyes:

Romney takes lead in Wisc.

Fat lady is picking up the pitch pipe.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/after-ryan-pick-romney-leading-in-wisconsin/article/2505104#.UC05_mzCz8B

fish82;1248544 wrote:And I agree. They just need to stop the silly tradition of nominating the guy who lost the last primary, and they'll be fine. They don't need to change direction or engage in any kind of "soul-searching." The Pubs will hold the house without breaking a sweat, and are a little better than 50/50 to take the Senate. Even assuming Bam backs into a second term, there will be light at the end of the tunnel for the Pubs.

The problem is, one of the previous primary losers is always considered to be the one whose "turn" it is, which perpetuates the eventuality of the same kind of Republican. Sweet Moses on a Harley, Rick-flipping-Santorum was perceived as a front-runner at one point. It's like Pat Robertson's bid reincarnated after a couple decades. Now, they've settled with the same big-gub style candidate as McCain was (albeit younger, which helps the appeal). I know the Republicans think they're "compromising" with these candidates, but not all compromises are created equal.

I don't even care if it's Paul, but someone who take the "less government spending" message decisively into military spending and speaks against the mess we've gotten all over our hands in the Middle East would be a strong candidate, because not only does that kind of candidate get the R-voters (the ones who vote for the 'R', no matter what, because it's better than the 'D' ... the "swallow the bitter pill" group), he also gets a larger portion of the young voters, the Constitutional Republicans, and the Libertarians. He loses next to no voters ... maybe some random "won't vote for anti-interventionism" voters ... but he nets several times that. With an incumbent whose legacy so far is as wounded as this one, a candidate who is going to take the most commanding chunk of those who aren't going to default with their party would be key to a dominating victory.

isadore;1248461 wrote:the rates they paid before reagan, bush jr.

70% top marginal rate was the "fair share" for the rich before Reagan. At least you weren't afraid to attach your reputation to a concrete number.

2kool4skool;1248473 wrote:Still deflecting from the issue at hand. Where do the Republicans go from here when Obama is reelected in November? No President will have been reelected with such poor economic metrics is history. He'll be the first candidate ever to win while being out raised by his opponent.

Historically, this should be a blowout, but the Republicans are going to throw it away. And the demographics are only going to continue trending against them in the coming years. What needs to change for them to be competitive in a national general election again? Discontinuing the pandering to the extreme Christians? A move to the left on economic issues? Social? Targeting different candidates within their party?

Trying to figure this part out. Is Mitt Romney strategizing to install a theocracy? Which extreme Christians is he pandering to, and how?

stlouiedipalma;1248536 wrote:These guys have been wrong since 2008. They obviously haven't been letting their big heads do the thinking.

2009- McDonnell wins Gov of Virginia
- Christie wins Gov of New Jersey
(both states went for Obama in 2008)

Jan 2010- Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts

Nov 2010- Republicans pick up 60+ seats and a majority in the House

2011- Bob Turner wins Anthony Weiner's old seat in New York

2012- Scott Walker holds off recall effort in Wisconsin

Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I forgot some. I don't count Obama out yet, but are there any objective signs that multiple demographics are leaning Democrat everywhere?

O-Trap;1248609 wrote:The problem is, one of the previous primary losers is always considered to be the one whose "turn" it is, which perpetuates the eventuality of the same kind of Republican. Sweet Moses on a Harley, Rick-flipping-Santorum was perceived as a front-runner at one point. It's like Pat Robertson's bid reincarnated after a couple decades. Now, they've settled with the same big-gub style candidate as McCain was (albeit younger, which helps the appeal). I know the Republicans think they're "compromising" with these candidates, but not all compromises are created equal.

I don't even care if it's Paul, but someone who take the "less government spending" message decisively into military spending and speaks against the mess we've gotten all over our hands in the Middle East would be a strong candidate, because not only does that kind of candidate get the R-voters (the ones who vote for the 'R', no matter what, because it's better than the 'D' ... the "swallow the bitter pill" group), he also gets a larger portion of the young voters, the Constitutional Republicans, and the Libertarians. He loses next to no voters ... maybe some random "won't vote for anti-interventionism" voters ... but he nets several times that. With an incumbent whose legacy so far is as wounded as this one, a candidate who is going to take the most commanding chunk of those who aren't going to default with their party would be key to a dominating victory.

No disagreement with any of the above. Well said.

fish82;1248630 wrote:No disagreement with any of the above. Well said.

Thank you.

Give me a candidate who:

- Opposes the bailouts (and actually voted against them)
- Believes in pulling out our non-defense-related military and bringing them (and their salaries) back into OUR economy (as well as not spending money on non-defense causes) ... this would include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya (Obama can't blame that one on Bush), and the other countries where we no longer need to be (ie, Taiwan, Germany, etc.)
- Opposes the Iraq War (voted against it is a big plus)
- Supports the cutting of overhead spending by federal government agencies
- Supports the elimination of AT LEAST redundant agencies, let alone the unconstitutional ones

In a nutshell, a CONSISTENTLY fiscally responsible candidate who opposes use of the military for any reason other than defense ... would be a favorite.

Generally speaking such 'perfect' candidates do not exist, and if they do no one heard of them and thus they are not electable, and that is why you get what you get, unless you want to declare your candidacy.

QuakerOats;1248643 wrote:Generally speaking such 'perfect' candidates do not exist, and if they do no one heard of them and thus they are not electable, and that is why you get what you get, unless you want to declare your candidacy.

Anyone actually on the ticket with either the 'R' or the 'D' next to their name is electable. With those two annoying little letters, you get a HUGE chunk of votes. Simply having the letter next to your name makes you a viable candidate.

The problem isn't at all the electability of such a candidate at the General Election level. The problem is at the primary level.

As far as getting what you get, if forced to pick between two ... and only two ... options, you essentially bastardize the right to vote.

O-Trap;1248640 wrote:Thank you.

Give me a candidate who:

- Opposes the bailouts (and actually voted against them)
- Believes in pulling out our non-defense-related military and bringing them (and their salaries) back into OUR economy (as well as not spending money on non-defense causes) ... this would include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya (Obama can't blame that one on Bush), and the other countries where we no longer need to be (ie, Taiwan, Germany, etc.)
- Opposes the Iraq War (voted against it is a big plus)
- Supports the cutting of overhead spending by federal government agencies
- Supports the elimination of AT LEAST redundant agencies, let alone the unconstitutional ones

In a nutshell, a CONSISTENTLY fiscally responsible candidate who opposes use of the military for any reason other than defense ... would be a favorite.

Sounds great, but if such a candidate doesn't exist then I refuse to voluntarily disenfranchise myself.

Rand Paul made a great point awhile back when he endorsed Romney. He said his doing so was not a compromise of his principles, but a compromise of strategy. In other words, he wasn't abandoning what he firmly believes (much of which you listed above), but in order to get there we have to tread through the mess of politics for awhile.

The bottom line for me is we may never recover and reach the limited government/constitutional republic that we want if Obama gets reelected. I don't pretend that nirvana is around the corner with Romney, but I feel we at least have a fighting chance. We can then attempt to reform the Republican Party from within instead of chasing unconstitutional rabbits and lawlessness from the likes of Obama's Justice Dept. and the rest of his cronies.

Con_Alma;1248487 wrote:Here's a "fair share" number for you.

Each U.S. citizen's share of the national debt is approximately $50,829.81. How about everyone pay their fair share and we'll start over with an accurate balanced budget debate?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

gosh a ruddies what a great idea to punish the poor and middle class and reward the rich.

O-Trap;1248468 wrote:And by what criteria have we determined this to be the "fair share?"

seem like a nice percentage for those that have to pay, oh and when we had them the national debt was under control.

O-Trap;1248609 wrote:The problem is, one of the previous primary losers is always considered to be the one whose "turn" it is, which perpetuates the eventuality of the same kind of Republican. Sweet Moses on a Harley, Rick-flipping-Santorum was perceived as a front-runner at one point. It's like Pat Robertson's bid reincarnated after a couple decades. Now, they've settled with the same big-gub style candidate as McCain was (albeit younger, which helps the appeal). I know the Republicans think they're "compromising" with these candidates, but not all compromises are created equal.

I don't even care if it's Paul, but someone who take the "less government spending" message decisively into military spending and speaks against the mess we've gotten all over our hands in the Middle East would be a strong candidate, because not only does that kind of candidate get the R-voters (the ones who vote for the 'R', no matter what, because it's better than the 'D' ... the "swallow the bitter pill" group), he also gets a larger portion of the young voters, the Constitutional Republicans, and the Libertarians. He loses next to no voters ... maybe some random "won't vote for anti-interventionism" voters ... but he nets several times that. With an incumbent whose legacy so far is as wounded as this one, a candidate who is going to take the most commanding chunk of those who aren't going to default with their party would be key to a dominating victory.

I agree with this. Obviously Paul is my guy but I also wish Gary Johnson would have gotten more airtime for debates and in the news cycle. Here is a guy who built his own business from one employee(himself) into a 1000 employee company worth millions , was a two term governor who was popular , had low unemployment, left the state with billion dollar surpluses. Vetoed more spending bills/line items than the other 49 governors combined during his time. A few more good things

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record

So Mitt Romney gets the nomination because why? He had the most money and it was his turn. What honestly makes Mitt more of a qualified candidate than Johnson? Here you have a guy who is really a fiscal conservative, a guy who would win liberal votes for his civil liberty beliefs (Gay Marriage, Legalizing Marijuana), A guy who would get independent votes for the anti interventionism and also the youth vote like O-Trap mentioned.

isadore;1248832 wrote:gosh a ruddies what a great idea to punish the poor

You see it as punishment, I see it as incentive not to be poor

of course you would

O-Trap;1248640 wrote:Thank you.

Give me a candidate who:

- Opposes the bailouts (and actually voted against them)
- Believes in pulling out our non-defense-related military and bringing them (and their salaries) back into OUR economy (as well as not spending money on non-defense causes) ... this would include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya (Obama can't blame that one on Bush), and the other countries where we no longer need to be (ie, Taiwan, Germany, etc.)
- Opposes the Iraq War (voted against it is a big plus)
- Supports the cutting of overhead spending by federal government agencies
- Supports the elimination of AT LEAST redundant agencies, let alone the unconstitutional ones

In a nutshell, a CONSISTENTLY fiscally responsible candidate who opposes use of the military for any reason other than defense ... would be a favorite.

A lot of big companies (and big campaign donors) make their living financing the wars and producing the machinery of war. Those same companies own Fox and CNN and NBC and the NY Times and all of the major media. They will continue to whip the sheep into a frenzy so they don't accept a candidate that will cut them off.

Fuck, we still have troops on the ground fighting Clinton's war in Kosovo nearly 15 years later. If someone threatened to bring those troops home you would have Anderson Cooper showing video of children hiding from gun fire and telling you it is our responsibility to occupy their land and stop this. You would have Bill O' Reilly talking about how critical it is to our security that we police the people over there. The brainwashed masses eat that shit up.

A candidate like you mentioned would be a good start, but it isn't enough. What we need are more Ron Pauls. Guys that sound radical but if you hear it enough and stop and listen, maybe people will wake up. Even if they don't get elected, if they can get their message out we are better off. Maybe people will realize that the government has taken away our rights, and now the best we can hope for are privileges they decide to give us. Maybe they will realize that borrowing money indefinitely without hope of every paying it back is not an economy. Maybe they will realize that when the Fed prints the money to fund the government that money comes right out of their pockets whether it is taxed or not. Until the people are educated and aware of the real problems they will forever be molded by the media and taught to elect the same scumbag politicians.

O-Trap;1248640 wrote:Thank you.

Give me a candidate who:

- Opposes the bailouts (and actually voted against them)
- Believes in pulling out our non-defense-related military and bringing them (and their salaries) back into OUR economy (as well as not spending money on non-defense causes) ... this would include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya (Obama can't blame that one on Bush), and the other countries where we no longer need to be (ie, Taiwan, Germany, etc.)
- Opposes the Iraq War (voted against it is a big plus)
- Supports the cutting of overhead spending by federal government agencies
- Supports the elimination of AT LEAST redundant agencies, let alone the unconstitutional ones

In a nutshell, a CONSISTENTLY fiscally responsible candidate who opposes use of the military for any reason other than defense ... would be a favorite.

When you say bring back non-defense related military, what specifically do you mean?

Also, which unconstitutional agencies are you speaking of?

jhay78;1248826 wrote: The bottom line for me is we may never recover and reach the limited government/constitutional republic that we want if Obama gets reelected. I don't pretend that nirvana is around the corner with Romney, but I feel we at least have a fighting chance. We can then attempt to reform the Republican Party from within instead of chasing unconstitutional rabbits and lawlessness from the likes of Obama's Justice Dept. and the rest of his cronies.

There is a big problem with that assumption. If Romney is elected, many Republicans that claim to oppose huge deficits and government tyranny will go to sleep for 4 years. When President Romney introduces his $500 billion jobs bill that is no different from Obama's stimulus (and just as ineffective), they will explain it away saying it is different. Saying Obama ran up huge deficits, so no one has a right to complain when Romney does it. Saying Romney inherited a mess from Obama. When Romney signs a law giving the government control over the internet, we won't hear a peep about it. When Romney invades Iran and gas is $10 a gallon, all we will hear is how deficits don't matter if Iran might someday have a nuclear reactor. At least if Obama is president those groups can keep complaining about the right things instead of making excuses for Romney.

stlouiedipalma;1248923 wrote:When you say bring back non-defense related military, what specifically do you mean?

Well, no one is attacking the United States, so every troop outside of the United States would be non-defense.

stlouiedipalma;1248923 wrote:Also, which unconstitutional agencies are you speaking of?

It would be much harder to name a federal agency that is authorized by the Constitution.

Cleveland Buck;1248930 wrote:There is a big problem with that assumption. If Romney is elected, many Republicans that claim to oppose huge deficits and government tyranny will go to sleep for 4 years. When President Romney introduces his $500 billion jobs bill that is no different from Obama's stimulus (and just as ineffective), they will explain it away saying it is different. Saying Obama ran up huge deficits, so no one has a right to complain when Romney does it. Saying Romney inherited a mess from Obama. When Romney signs a law giving the government control over the internet, we won't hear a peep about it. When Romney invades Iran and gas is $10 a gallon, all we will hear is how deficits don't matter if Iran might someday have a nuclear reactor. At least if Obama is president those groups can keep complaining about the right things instead of making excuses for Romney.

I agree with a good portion of this.

Before Obama was elected, health care reform was so far on the back burner with the R's it wasn't even discussed. The deficits racked up by Bush and the R's wasn't an issue at all. This reminds me, where was the tea party when the surplus was quickly turned into a deficit?

If Romney wins and the R's control both houses of Congress I can fairly guarantee that health care will be once again relegated to a minor whisper.

Cleveland Buck;1248930 wrote:There is a big problem with that assumption. If Romney is elected, many Republicans that claim to oppose huge deficits and government tyranny will go to sleep for 4 years. When President Romney introduces his $500 billion jobs bill that is no different from Obama's stimulus (and just as ineffective), they will explain it away saying it is different. Saying Obama ran up huge deficits, so no one has a right to complain when Romney does it. Saying Romney inherited a mess from Obama. When Romney signs a law giving the government control over the internet, we won't hear a peep about it. When Romney invades Iran and gas is $10 a gallon, all we will hear is how deficits don't matter if Iran might someday have a nuclear reactor. At least if Obama is president those groups can keep complaining about the right things instead of making excuses for Romney.

This is like one big run-on strawman.

gut;1248971 wrote:This is like one big run-on strawman.

Yeah, it never happened before. I'm sure you were a vocal spending hawk when Bush was blowing up the debt.

Cleveland Buck;1248972 wrote:Yeah, it never happened before. I'm sure you were a vocal spending hawk when Bush was blowing up the debt.

I wasn't cool with it, certainly not. I know many others were more alarmed. But it's a hell of a distraction to try to pass that off when Obama is running deficits 2-3X what Bush was, and getting inferior results.

I would say the correct term is "looking the other way".