|
On February 05 2012 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone really needs to tell Romney just to stick to a basic stump speech as so far he has five different stump speeches for five different states. Also Romney asking a all white crowd to remember why their ancestors came to America...
Maybe you don't realize but white people didn't originate in America.
|
On February 05 2012 12:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Mitt Romney's two solid debate performances in Florida are credited with turning around his campaign, which in turn earned him a double-digit win in that state's primary. Brett O'Donnell is credited with helping Romney sharpen his debate skills.
So, in recognition for a job well done, O'Donnell will not have a permanent position with the Romney campaign, according to Politico. It seems O'Donnell's contributions have become too well known to the media. That did not sit well with Romney staffers, who were envious of O'Donnell. Also it seems the required narrative is Romney pulled himself out of the tailspin, with no one else's help.
According to the O'Donnell and Associates Strategic Communications page, O'Donnell prepped John McCain for debates in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. He would seem the perfect person for doing the same for Romney in this year's election cycle.
An ABC News analysis at the time of the Jacksonville, Fla., debate suggested Romney wanting to win -- and it showed. Romney got in some good punches and Gingrich, who had shined in South Carolina, had fallen flat.
It says a lot about how the Romney campaign operates that a debate coach has seen his services no longer required for being too successful. It is as if a big league football team, having won an important game after a string of losses, decided to get rid of the coach because he was seen to be overshadowing the quarterback. Source
Once a Bain Capital guy, always a Bain Capital guy. When in doubt, drop the LBO banhammer.
Oh my shit, what the fuck was Santorum talking about in that video....
"2.5 million people in prison, with the majority of those having grown up without fathers in their home"
Thus, logically gay marriage has sent people to prison.
|
On February 05 2012 13:15 SuperFanBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone really needs to tell Romney just to stick to a basic stump speech as so far he has five different stump speeches for five different states. Also Romney asking a all white crowd to remember why their ancestors came to America... Maybe you don't realize but white people didn't originate in America.
Maybe you don't realize that there are other people who are not White watching the speech. Such as Latinos, African Americans etc. and speaking on restoring America to her rightful roots. I mean come on.
|
On February 05 2012 13:15 1Eris1 wrote:You know, if you keep badgering me I'm probably just going to vote for Santorum.
Why would this bother you if your going to vote for Santorum?
|
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics...
|
On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics...
I agree. There's only a few small number of politicians that aren't influenced by money in politics.
|
From an european point of view, I just hope, really really hope, that Obama can stay in the WH for 4 more years.
|
On February 06 2012 00:20 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics... I agree. There's only a few small number of politicians that aren't influenced by money in politics.
Yeah. Those few being the fringe politicians from small parties that would never get any kind of spotlight, let alone a presidential candidate.
Other than that, no there aren't. Fact is you need money to really get into politics these days, and the only way a politician can acquire this money is for it to be given to him or him to be rich to begin with - both of which mean he's intertwined with private interest and has obligations towards various other private entities.
|
Saturday’s victory in the Nevada caucuses gives Mitt Romney double-digit wins in three of the four major regions of the country: the Northeast (New Hampshire), the West (Nevada) and the South (Florida).
Yes, Mr. Romney lost one Southern state, South Carolina, which is arguably more representative of the region than Florida. But relatively few states in the South are competitive in the general election. Florida, where Mr. Romney already won, and Virginia, where he and Ron Paul are the only candidates on the ballot and where the wealthy demographics favor him, are the two most important exceptions.
Instead, if Mr. Romney loses the nomination, it is likely to be because of the one region that has yet to give him a victory: the Midwest.
A contiguous block of eight swing states containing 95 electoral votes — Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — determine the winners and losers in most presidential elections. When at least six or seven of these states are added to the state bases of the Democratic or Republican candidate, he or she is all but guaranteed a victory. (Barack Obama won seven of them in 2008). Only when they are about evenly divided, as in 2000 or 2004, do swing states in other parts of the country — like Nevada or New Hampshire or Florida — tend to make much difference.
Mr. Romney lost Iowa to Rick Santorum, albeit by about the narrowest possible margin. He will have two more opportunities to win a Midwestern state on Tuesday, when Minnesota has its caucuses and Missouri holds a primary. (The Missouri primary does not matter for delegate selection: the state will hold a separate caucus for that purpose in March.)
Mr. Romney could be vulnerable in both states. A survey released on Sunday by Public Policy Polling, which has had fairly accurate results so far in the primary season, had Minnesota as a toss-up between Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum, with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul not far behind.
And in Missouri, where Mr. Gingrich is not on the ballot for the “beauty contest” primary, it had Mr. Santorum ahead of Mr. Romney, 45 percent to 34 percent.
Source
|
On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics...
If you think there's no difference between Republican and Democrat, check out what sources people by party affiliation get their money from, by percentage.
If you think there's no difference between bad and worse, you're terribly mistaken.
|
On February 06 2012 05:37 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics... If you think there's no difference between Republican and Democrat, check out what sources people by party affiliation get their money from, by percentage. If you think there's no difference between bad and worse, you're terribly mistaken.
more like worse and worse.
They all get their money from special interests. And all special interests want the same thing, an advantage in the market without having to report to the consumers.
|
On February 06 2012 05:45 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 05:37 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics... If you think there's no difference between Republican and Democrat, check out what sources people by party affiliation get their money from, by percentage. If you think there's no difference between bad and worse, you're terribly mistaken. more like worse and worse. They all get their money from special interests. And all special interests want the same thing, an advantage in the market without having to report to the consumers.
Citation is needed.
|
|
|
Citation is needed.
Then i would like citation for your opinions as well....
|
The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists.
Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
|
On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote:
The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists.
Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals?
Since the law has deemed the spending of money as free speech, there really isn't a way around it within the current context of the law.
Also, do you really believe politicians don't vote according to their beliefs? In most cases, they do favors that they feel comfortable with, which fit inside their core ideals. Somebody has convinced them that Legislation A is the correct way to address Problem B. The political system isn't, "He gave me money, so no I have to give him EVERYTHING he wants!" It's all about time and who gets to spend that time with the politician.
You could argue that the fact that they are willing to take the support of these questionable interests in order to get into office, but EVERY politician is guilty of that, even Paul with the racist radicals at his back. He doesn't denounce them, much like other candidates won't turn down funds from questionable groups.
|
On February 06 2012 13:09 Khelben wrote:Then i would like citation for your opinions as well....
Sure. Which opinion of mine haven't I given citations too? All my information has citations sir.
|
On February 06 2012 16:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote:
The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists.
Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals? Since the law has deemed the spending of money as free speech, there really isn't a way around it within the current context of the law. Also, do you really believe politicians don't vote according to their beliefs? In most cases, they do favors that they feel comfortable with, which fit inside their core ideals. Somebody has convinced them that Legislation A is the correct way to address Problem B. The political system isn't, "He gave me money, so no I have to give him EVERYTHING he wants!" It's all about time and who gets to spend that time with the politician. You could argue that the fact that they are willing to take the support of these questionable interests in order to get into office, but EVERY politician is guilty of that, even Paul with the racist radicals at his back. He doesn't denounce them, much like other candidates won't turn down funds from questionable groups.
I believe politicians often vote against their own beliefs. It's politics you vote to get favors so you get others to vote for other issues that you feel more strongly about later. It's give and take. Unless there's a system where you gain no favors by voting a certain way.
|
On February 06 2012 20:20 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 16:55 aksfjh wrote:On February 06 2012 13:35 Ldawg wrote:
The one thing that is encouraging about the current state of American politics (this may sound strange) is that so many people are realizing there are no substantial differences between the two political parties. They may talk differently, and have different ideas, but the truth is big business owns both horses in this political race. Too many Americans are blindly loyal to a policitcal party, and soley blame the other party while the politicians continue their corruption, stupidity and greed.
One of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul. He votes according to his beliefs, and doesn't talk to lobbyists.
Our political system is so broken and corrupt that I vote for those who I know aren't bought and paid for, although sadly there aren't many to choose from.
On a separate note, I never understood why people are allowed to give unlimited amount of money to candidate's PACs in the name of free speech. Sure, everyone has one vote, but doesn't this give hugely disproportionate weight to a certain few individuals? Since the law has deemed the spending of money as free speech, there really isn't a way around it within the current context of the law. Also, do you really believe politicians don't vote according to their beliefs? In most cases, they do favors that they feel comfortable with, which fit inside their core ideals. Somebody has convinced them that Legislation A is the correct way to address Problem B. The political system isn't, "He gave me money, so no I have to give him EVERYTHING he wants!" It's all about time and who gets to spend that time with the politician. You could argue that the fact that they are willing to take the support of these questionable interests in order to get into office, but EVERY politician is guilty of that, even Paul with the racist radicals at his back. He doesn't denounce them, much like other candidates won't turn down funds from questionable groups. I believe politicians often vote against their own beliefs. It's politics you vote to get favors so you get others to vote for other issues that you feel more strongly about later. It's give and take. Unless there's a system where you gain no favors by voting a certain way.
Only Possible way to do that would be to prevent legislators from knowing what other legislators voted for. Which means
1. give legislators a secret ballot...Bad, what did my legislator vote for?
2. lock legislators (and their families.. so that they don't suffer too much) in solitary confinement for the duration of their terms.
Probably wouldn't work either.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2012 05:45 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 05:37 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics... If you think there's no difference between Republican and Democrat, check out what sources people by party affiliation get their money from, by percentage. If you think there's no difference between bad and worse, you're terribly mistaken. more like worse and worse. They all get their money from special interests. And all special interests want the same thing, an advantage in the market without having to report to the consumers.
"Special interests" represent a lot of different things. And not all corporations or special interest groups agree on what they want, nor is what they want necessarily bad. It's because of special interests that we have a chance to enact a reasonable immigration policy. It's because of them that local science and hands-on museums get money from the government.
It's become a nebulous "enemy" that politicians use to score political points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
