Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Election 2012 (Superthread)

  • 25-04-2012 11:18pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭


    Maybe we should start a superthread for the elections since Romney is now effectively the Republican nominee.

    I had a look at the polls in all of the major battleground states (On realclearpolitics.com, a bible for US politics junkies) and Romney leads in just three - Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Obama leads in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire...

    Its much too early to give polls too much credit, but this says something. Obama only needs to win a narrow popular vote majority in order to attain an electoral college landslide. Although I am speaking from the heart as well as the head, I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election. I see him as a caretaker manager. Its like if Alex Ferguson had a heart attack tonight, Manchester United would appoint someone like Bryan Robson to take charge temporarily until they got a proper manager in place. Romney is a placeholder. The Republicans are attempting to rebuild their party. The problem is that they've completely alienated everyone who isn't middle aged, white, and male. Which will cause huge problems in the years to come.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7 MountainSniper


    Denerick wrote: »
    Maybe we should start a superthread for the elections since Romney is now effectively the Republican nominee.

    I had a look at the polls in all of the major battleground states (On realclearpolitics.com, a bible for US politics junkies) and Romney leads in just three - Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Obama leads in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire...

    Its much too early to give polls too much credit, but this says something. Obama only needs to win a narrow popular vote majority in order to attain an electoral college landslide. Although I am speaking from the heart as well as the head, I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election. I see him as a caretaker manager. Its like if Alex Ferguson had a heart attack tonight, Manchester United would appoint someone like Bryan Robson to take charge temporarily until they got a proper manager in place. Romney is a placeholder. The Republicans are attempting to rebuild their party. The problem is that they've completely alienated everyone who isn't middle aged, white, and male. Which will cause huge problems in the years to come.


    Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election." Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

    Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

    I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭Paleface


    Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election." Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!!

    Why do staunch Republicans keep bring up Regan's turnaround of the economy as the reason why Romney is the man to do the same now?

    It was over 30 years ago! The world is a different place. Also there have been two republican presidents since then and noone mentions their policies.

    If running a country was as simple as copying success stories of the past then why do anything different ever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Or will Ron Paul back the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and seek a position as perhaps VP or on the cabinet?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election."

    Nothing contradictory about it. The election is a long way away and so polls are an unreliable indicator of who shall be victor come November. BUT I think it is telling that Obama is leading in so many important states, despite the 'fact' that he is a socialist communist terrorist Muslim. When you add in the fact that Romney is such an odious character and that Obama is probably the coolest person to become President since JFK, you've got yourself a one sided election.

    quote
    Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!![/QUOTE]

    That was a long time ago and conservatives like to forget that Reagan was much more pragmatic than the average rank and file Republican of today.

    Obama has accomplished many things in his first term - he has stopped an economic catastrophe and he has almost singlehandedly prevented the doctrine of austerity taking any effective root in American politics. The evidence clearly indicates that mass austerity in a time of profound economic depression is a recipe for further economic stagnation. Just look at the UK, which officially entered a double dip recession this week. Compare that insanity with the American example. Obama is a visionary.

    I may not entirely agree with his foreign policy, which is much more muscular than I would have liked, but he has so far been an outstanding President facing a truly insane and fanatical opposition. History will judge him very fondly indeed.

    If he gets a second term I reckon he will be much more radical. Bad news for you I suppose, but good news for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.

    Stop speaking in slogans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    Stop speaking in slogans.

    But, but, but... "We Can’t Wait" as we look to "Winning the Future" for "An America Built to Last." ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    But, but, but... "We Can’t Wait" as we look to "Winning the Future" for "An America Built to Last." ;)

    Obama uses slogans. I do not. We're having a conversation, not bouncing advertising stickers off each other.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

    Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

    I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then

    I'm sorry, but Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination and to fixate on it constantly seems a little deluded to me. He's a fringe player who uses the primary system to publicise himself.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.

    Do you put the the red coloured blinkers on first thing in the morning or just when you use boards?

    Things he did not do:

    Nationalise GM and Chrysler- He bailed them out, which has turned out to be a massive success.

    Nationalise health care - complete nonsense.

    Shut down the coal industry - again nonsense. The coal industry is working away just fine.

    Shutting down gulf coast oil exploration - I think you'll find it was BP that sparked that one.

    "attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate" - None of this is even slightly true.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    I'm sorry, but Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination and to fixate on it constantly seems a little deluded to me. He's a fringe player who uses the primary system to publicise himself.


    Paul did have a chance. Paul has raised millions in campaigning, he has raised the most from the military, he gets thousands at his rallies. To say he NEVER had a chance is using hindsight very well imo!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Paul did have a chance. Paul has raised millions in campaigning, he has raised the most from the military, he gets thousands at his rallies. To say he NEVER had a chance is using hindsight very well imo!

    Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Denerick wrote: »
    Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.


    I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Denerick wrote: »
    Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.


    I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.

    He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

    Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

    Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

    end foreign wars
    free markets
    small constitutional government
    to name but a few


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

    Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

    Yeah because people are just dying to give money to candidates without actually knowing what they stand for :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is well known for his desire to reduce Government until it is doing no more than the absolute basics.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    BOHtox wrote: »
    end foreign wars
    free markets
    small constitutional government
    to name but a few

    Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Yeah because people are just dying to give money to candidates without actually knowing what they stand for :rolleyes:

    They do it all the time when it comes to Mr. Paul, IMO.
    I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is well known for his desire to reduce Government until it is doing no more than the absolute basics.

    Yes he is indeed well known for that, he's well known as a libertarian. I don't think most of his supporters fully understand libertarianism.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

    Hardly rhetoric. He goes in to detail in his policies.
    Difference:
    Rhetoric: we need to balance the budget deficit.
    Paul:
    We need to get rid of 5 government departments.
    End foreign aid
    Stop the foreign wars
    Take a pay cut himself
    Stop corporate subsidies
    Not raising the debt ceiling


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

    Hardly rhetoric. He goes in to detail in his policies.
    Difference:
    Rhetoric: we need to balance the budget deficit.
    Paul:
    We need to get rid of 5 government departments.
    End foreign aid
    Stop the foreign wars
    Take a pay cut himself
    Stop corporate subsidies
    Not raising the debt ceiling

    Those are not details, they're paragraph headers.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Those are not details, they're paragraph headers.

    Paragraph headers are details.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Paragraph headers are details.

    No they're not.


    Anyway isn't this thread supposed to be about the general election? I'll leave the Ron Paul argument there, as it's pointless.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    For all his faults Paul talks with a lot more substance than Mittens and Santorum do/did. But for good reason, they were fighting for big money donations from defence industry and AIPAC and they are fighting over an ageing base of republicans who won't like talk of SS cuts, so any talk of reducing the deficit by them had to be sketchy on details generally just staying in around the old defunding the left rhetoric.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

    Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

    I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then
    BOHtox wrote: »
    I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.

    The fact that key planks of Paul's platform were ending both corporate welfare and American overseas military intervention meant that he was never, ever, evereeverever going to be the GOP nominee for any Presidential election EVER. I also doubt that he would run as a libertarian, since it seems his strategy from the get-go has been to focus on reforming the Republican party from within, rather than actually winning. He would give up that leverage if he ditched the party.

    Now can we PLEASE talk about the GENERAL ELECTION rather than Ron Paul? There are more than enough threads on him in this forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    The fact that key planks of Paul's platform were ending both corporate welfare and American overseas military intervention meant that he was never, ever, evereeverever going to be the GOP nominee for any Presidential election EVER. I also doubt that he would run as a libertarian, since it seems his strategy from the get-go has been to focus on reforming the Republican party from within, rather than actually winning. He would give up that leverage if he ditched the party.

    Now can we PLEASE talk about the GENERAL ELECTION rather than Ron Paul? There are more than enough threads on him in this forum.

    Ron Paul is still in the race for the GOP and for that reason we have every right to talk about him!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Ron Paul is still in the race for the GOP and for that reason we have every right to talk about him!

    Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.


    I agree it looks unlikely but does that mean we shouldn't talk about him while he's in the race?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    BOHtox wrote: »
    Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.


    I agree it looks unlikely but does that mean we shouldn't talk about him while he's in the race?

    It's exactly what it means IMO.

    The general election is Romney v Obama, with some random fringe candidates.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Do you put the the red coloured blinkers on first thing in the morning or just when you use boards?
    I figure no more so than you putting on thoe rose colored classes and singing Kumbaya to the socialism mantra.
    Nationalise GM and Chrysler- He bailed them out, which has turned out to be a massive success.

    Hmmm… President Barack Obama forced GM into bankruptcy, fired the executives, and put the government "behind the wheel" of the company. Some would consider that nationalizing GM… I figure Obama calls it just another Monday. And a "success"... perhaps for the unions.
    Nationalise health care - complete nonsense.
    With the arrival of government-run exchanges in 2014, the government will use its regulatory, pricing, and taxing authority to favor its own plan. And would make it difficult, if not impossible for private health plans to compete and prompt businesses to switch to cheaper, public alternative. I’m looking at a $15,000 family play for employees versus a $3,000 penalty. Sadly, just a no-brainer. Just a fancy way of nationalizing health care in my opinion.
    Shut down the coal industry - again nonsense. The coal industry is working away just fine.
    Oh yeah… all those new emissions regulations have now forced coal-fired power plant operators to choose between installing pollution control equipment which is far too costly, switch to natural gas which is again far too costly, or shutting down their plants (BINGO!). "Just fine"… my god, six coal-fired plants are now scheduled to shut down in my state so far… nothing to see here… please move along?

    "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." - Barack Obama 2008. At least there’s one campaign promise Obama kept.
    Shutting down gulf coast oil exploration - I think you'll find it was BP that sparked that one.
    Again… who shut down gulf coast oil exploration?
    "attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate" - None of this is even slightly true.
    Where have you been? Don’t you remember Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court recently calling them "and unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," or his constant use of executive powers to sidestep Congress and our laws.


Advertisement