On May 30 2012 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is Romney's election to lose but the longer he allows Trump to take center statge the more bridges he burns. Also just give me 50.1% wtf was that?!
I wouldnt say he is in that good of a position honestly. I mean yes the polls look close but if you look at Romneys needed map to nomination it looks pretty hard to manage.
There's certainly a chance Romney will win the popular vote but Obama still wins the electoral college, especially if turnout in the really conservative states is very high.
Assuming no shenanigans with the PA electoral votes, Obama needs just one of: 1) Virginia 2) Ohio 3) Colorado and Iowa
(that's assuming Romney wins FL, which I think is likely, and Obama wins NH and NV).
I would even put FL as a risky state because its polling within 5 both ways depending on whos poll you see. Its certainly looking better that Romney wins flordia than any of those 3 outcomes but even FL isnt anything close to a lock.
On May 30 2012 04:03 AdrianHealey wrote: That article truly shows the horror that Obama is capable of. I am glad the mainstream media - and not just the antiwar movement - is starting to pick it up.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the necessity of shooting terrorist leaders?
Sure, it is morally wrong and in an ideal world we'd bring everyone in front of a court, let them have due process but in reality we aren't capable of doing so. The US isn't going to commit to large scale capture missions in countries like yemen, pakistan and somalia. We've all seen black hawk down. I consider the Bin Laden killing illegal, but under the circumstances justified. The same goes for the killing of al-awlaki. In the end, these people are putting civilians worldwide at risk, and some kind of reponse is demanded by citizens everywhere. The state has no value if it cannot protect its civilians from external threats.
Yes, you can obviously make the slippery slope 'argument', but you elect a president make these kinds of decisions, and I think Obama has done so well. He is obviously personally engaged in the process, and is at least struggles with the various options before he comes to a decision. That is a lot more than you can say for his predecessor and I don't think Romney would be better suited to make these decisions. Romney's foreign policy suggestions up to this point have been purely populist and cannot be taken seriously, and he doesn't strike me as a man of strong convictions.
This is a joke, right?
For the record: I don't think that Romney is any better.
On May 30 2012 04:03 AdrianHealey wrote: That article truly shows the horror that Obama is capable of. I am glad the mainstream media - and not just the antiwar movement - is starting to pick it up.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the necessity of shooting people the president says are terrorists without due process or oversight?
On May 30 2012 04:03 AdrianHealey wrote: That article truly shows the horror that Obama is capable of. I am glad the mainstream media - and not just the antiwar movement - is starting to pick it up.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the necessity of shooting people the president says are terrorists without due process or oversight?
Fixed that for you.
On one hand, you're right. There's no trial and the power lies solely in the hands of the executive branch. However, the article is fairly clear that the decision isn't made on a whim and without careful consideration. Also, it's not like these people are in a position to be easily captured.
If this starts happening on U.S. soil (or some other country with competent security), I'll begin to call foul.
It's funny how nervous Romney and the establishment seem for having "locked up" the nomination.
They are nervous because it feels like the Republican party is failing to rally behind its nominee. Romney has won no matter what Ron Paul says and it is very unusual to have ex-nominees like Trump still causing a ruckus this late in the election cycle. Quite frankly, conservatives are such lock step voters that Republicans have never had to pander to them before. I expect Romney will speak on some hugely controversial social issue soon if things dont change.
On May 30 2012 16:05 Trumpstyle wrote: Ahh my favorite person Donald Trump is helping Mitt Romney win, with bringing birth certificate up once more
Hehe, first time I read it I instantly thought: Why does Donald Duck have so much influence on an american election? Somehow it is not so hard to see Donald Duck with a piece of paper with pure defamatory statements. The cartoon election anyone?
Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
That's what they said 10 years ago. Give a politician slack on the line, they'll extend it until it becomes taut again. Only the next time it's taut, it's going to do more than just fray.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
No. We never worry about the debt, ever. If we don't start sometime, we're never going to. No more we'll worry about it later. Later has never showed up. Enough of later please.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
No. We never worry about the debt, ever. If we don't start sometime, we're never going to. No more we'll worry about it later. Later has never showed up. Enough of later please.
Clinton cared about paying down the debt, but it wasn't as politicized an issue then. Nor was it as politicized when Bush started running it back up again. Honestly the degree to which the debt is a political issue almost never has anything to do with the size or trajectory of sustainability or anything to do with the debt itself at all. There's no point in purposely adopting anti-countercyclical policy for ideological reasons when ideology has never driven the debt up or down to begin with.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
No. We never worry about the debt, ever. If we don't start sometime, we're never going to. No more we'll worry about it later. Later has never showed up. Enough of later please.
Then push for debt control later. If that's what they promise, hold their feet to the fire. Now is not the time though, especially with government being able to borrow at record lows.
Clinton cared about paying down the debt, but it wasn't as politicized an issue then.
It was pretty politicized, Gingrich used it to win Congress in 1994 and Clinton used his response to win re-election in 1996.
There's no point in purposely adopting anti-countercyclical policy for ideological reasons when ideology has never driven the debt up or down to begin with.
Ideology has never driven the debt up or down to begin with = wrong. It certainly has, unless you think Social Security and Medicare are not ideological, or tax cuts or increases are not ideological.
Enough of adopting ideological spending to fix the economy when it didn't fix it. We don't have another cool trillion at the Bank of Fed to plunk down on non-starters that fail to either "save or create" jobs.
Then push for debt control later. If that's what they promise, hold their feet to the fire. Now is not the time though, especially with government being able to borrow at record lows.
No. Later never comes. Enough of later please. Enough of now is not the time, there is no good time. It's always later will be good. Later gets close, and then more later will be good. Just never now. Now is never good. Later is always good, and later is always later.
It's like the junkie saying I'll stop shooting smack tomorrow. Not gonna happen.
There's no point in purposely adopting anti-countercyclical policy for ideological reasons when ideology has never driven the debt up or down to begin with.
Ideology has never driven the debt up or down to begin with = wrong. It certainly has, unless you think Social Security and Medicare are not ideological, or tax cuts or increases are not ideological.
Enough of adopting ideological spending to fix the economy when it didn't fix it. We don't have another cool trillion at the Bank of Fed to plunk down on non-starters that fail to either "save or create" jobs.
Then push for debt control later. If that's what they promise, hold their feet to the fire. Now is not the time though, especially with government being able to borrow at record lows.
No. Later never comes. Enough of later please. Enough of now is not the time, there is no good time. It's always later will be good. Later gets close, and then more later will be good. Just never now. Now is never good. Later is always good, and later is always later.
It's like I'll stop shooting smack tomorrow. Not gonna happen.
Spending did help. It prevented state and local governments from having to lay off record numbers of employees. Then the aid from the federal government stopped, and they had to lay them off anyways. Another $300 billion a year and we would be down to 5 or 6% unemployment at worst.
On May 31 2012 04:51 aksfjh wrote: Just a small tidbit on the debt. It costs the U.S. less to service the debt now, with rates down to 1.6%, than it did when the debt was 3/5 as large in 2007, with rates at 4.8%.
That's because the stock market is has been horrifying for the past 4 years and investors have been flocking to T bills. It's not really a positive thing.
It's positive in the sense that we shouldn't really worry about the debt right now, and should instead focus on getting the economy on track despite the debt/deficit.
But if we do manage to get the economy back on track and the stock market goes back up, then treasury bill yeilds will go back up and we'll have the same damn problem as before. Can't keep sweeping messes under the rug, eventually you will have to clean them up. That's what Greece found out the hard way.
EPT
