Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

joseph brand

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

Americas answer to everything is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, it's been like that since the Reagan years. Hasn't worked yet.

AFAIK Americans abhor paying any taxes at all. They don't seem to understand that paying a little extra will enable them to have better services, i.e Healthcare.

So naturally the Presidential nominee will promise tax cuts in order to garner more votes. The voters aren't worried about the country needing a band-aid.

A vote for Romney seems to be a vote for the top 1%. But many Rep. voters are blinded by the fact that Romney is white and Obama isn't. I can't help but notice the very white crowds turning up to listen to Romney's pandering waffle.

mikhail

joseph brand wrote: »

AFAIK Americans abhor paying any taxes at all. They don't seem to understand that paying a little extra will enable them to have better services, i.e Healthcare.

Let's not be too quick to judge. Fianna Fail did something rather similar here until the chickens came home to roost.

joseph brand

A video on the Republican Voters. RepubliBliss.

joseph brand

mikhail wrote: »

Let's not be too quick to judge. Fianna Fail did something rather similar here until the chickens came home to roost.

In theory I'm correct. But, put a few gangsters in charge, they'll find ways to siphon the extra cash to their friends. They treat us like mushrooms. . . .

Truth is, a massive percentage of our population have zero interest in politics. Could we substitute religious education, or whatever it's called and Gaeilge classes, with a class on how politics works?

Rachel Maddow talks about how the GOP is upset over new health benefits for women. Why would women vote for Romney? Unless they are racists, I see no other reason. (What a terrible reason)

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

AFAIK Americans abhor paying any taxes at all. They don't seem to understand that paying a little extra will enable them to have better services, i.e Healthcare.

Ireland has more than doubled its Health care budget the past few years, has it provided better services? Americans want good services like all of us, they just don't want the government to use tax payers money to bank roll pork barrel projects that will get politicians re-elected. In europe we believe that government is always the best problem solver, not so in the US.

There is a lot wrong with the american system granted but lets not pretend that Ireland is any better now shall we?

joseph brand wrote: »

So naturally the Presidential nominee will promise tax cuts in order to garner more votes. The voters aren't worried about the country needing a band-aid

I can assure you that voters are very worried about the economy hence why there is worry of the $14 trillion deficit.

joseph brand wrote: »

A vote for Romney seems to be a vote for the top 1%. But many Rep. voters are blinded by the fact that Romney is white and Obama isn't. I can't help but notice the very white crowds turning up to listen to Romney's pandering waffle.

You know that is just lazy lazy populist crap. Yeap, the GOP hate black people! Good on ya!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Rachel Maddow talks about how the GOP is upset over new health benefits for women. Why would women vote for Romney? Unless they are racists, I see no other reason. (What a terrible reason)

I actually think you are taking the piss now.

mikhail

jank wrote: »

You know that is just lazy lazy populist crap. Yeap, the GOP hate black people! Good on ya!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You really think racism isn't an issue in the United States?

I don't see any point debating the matter with you. You have every right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

jank

mikhail wrote: »

You really think racism isn't an issue in the United States?

I don't see any point debating the matter with you. You have every right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Now that is a very different question and not one put forward before. Yes, it is an issue in the US as in all countrys. However, I don't think it is confined only to the GOP where the ONLY reason to vote against Obama is due to the colour of his skin.

Do you honestly think that the every person who will vote for Romney will do so as suggested by Joesph Brand as he is white and not black? That puts the level of discussion right about at "Obama is a Muslim" and was "not born in the US". The far left in the US are just as bad as the far right with their deluded reality. Meanwhile back on planet earth we know they are both idiots.

If you don't want to debate the reality of the campaign and want discuss plain un-truths then off with you, but you are only fooling yourself. I was just calling Joesph out on it.

Turtwig

In the state of Alabama interracial marriages only became in the year 2000. Even then over 40% of the voters voted against interracial marriages.
That's just off the top of my head. Depressing fact to remember, really.

So, at a guess, I'd say Obama isn't that popular in Alabama?

magicbastarder

'mitt romney and paul ryan' is an anagram of 'my ultimate ayn rand porn'

seriously.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Now that is a very different question and not one put forward before. Yes, it is an issue in the US as in all countrys. However, I don't think it is confined only to the GOP where the ONLY reason to vote against Obama is due to the colour of his skin.

Do you honestly think that the every person who will vote for Romney will do so as suggested by Joesph Brand as he is white and not black? That puts the level of discussion right about at "Obama is a Muslim" and was "not born in the US". The far left in the US are just as bad as the far right with their deluded reality. Meanwhile back on planet earth we know they are both idiots.

If you don't want to debate the reality of the campaign and want discuss plain un-truths then off with you, but you are only fooling yourself. I was just calling Joesph out on it.

But, the 'birthers' came about because they couldn't complain about the black man in the white house. There's plenty of GOP voters in the red states/ bible belt who think he's a muslim. You honestly think these voters are gonna vote for a supposed muslim? If my points sound crazy, that's because they reflect the mindset of a GOP voter.

BTW, what's your view on the Rep candidates, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum (lol), and Cain. Personally I thought they were abysmal. They all said that god told them to run for the office of the POTUS, and 'he' told each one that they would win.
Either:
God was joking, he's a kidder,
OR, They were telling bare faced lies. All of them.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

But, the 'birthers' came about because they couldn't complain about the black man in the white house. There's plenty of GOP voters in the red states/ bible belt who think he's a muslim. You honestly think these voters are gonna vote for a supposed muslim? If my points sound crazy, that's because they reflect the mindset of a GOP voter.

First of all who gives a **** about birthers? The only one pedaling this **** is MSNBC lefty idiots and few right wing idiots/blogs. Do you see the similarities, they are both idiots no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Secondly, the only person bringing race into this is you. Do you think the extreme of one party is reflective of all or the majority as you have claimed recently? Do you think Rev. Wright is representative of the majority of democratic voters?


BTW, what's your view on the Rep candidates, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum (lol), and Cain. Personally I thought they were abysmal. They all said that god told them to run for the office of the POTUS, and 'he' told each one that they would win.
Either:
God was joking, he's a kidder,
OR, They were telling bare faced lies. All of them.

I didnt care for any of them. I was a fan of Ron Paul (whom you convieniantly left out) due to his common sense stance and liberalism. He will be remembered as the Goldwater of the 21st century.

Here is a post of mine from a year ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76059127&postcount=10

jank wrote: »

Ron Paul is actually the only one there who is true to conservative beliefs. Newt is a conservative if you pay him enough. Romney just wants to be seen as conservative so get can the nomination. Bachman is an idiot who calls herself a tea party member yet wants to instill her own social conservatism on others. The rest are just fools or nobodies.

I am actually shocked at the low level of candidates on offer from the GOP. Obama was there for the kill. There is no way he should get another term but he will because the GOP are just intellectually retarded. Why is anti-intellectualism such a corner stone of the GOP.

All they want to talk about now is Iran and what they should do to stop them never mind how they are going to pay for it if they go to war again. Why do the GOP like war so much? Did they not learn their lesson in Iraq.

Christ, what the GOP should do is forget war and social conservatism for about 10 years. Fix the ****ing economy and stop the stupid ****ing games. Then they might have some bright young candidates in Washington.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was a republican. She would be so much of a favorite for the presidency that Obama would probably not seek a 2nd term. Compare her to say Palin. I rest my case.

I too despair at the level of discourse sometimes by the GOP but I also despair at the 99%, occupy wall street crap that goes on. Doesn't mean i will stoop to the lowest common denominator no matter how easy that is for some people.

Neither am I a big fan of Obama who has been a massive disappointment. He seems totally disinterested in the job of POTUS. He offers no vision or true leadership of the executive branch of the US government, he gives congress far too much power.

Anyway its common knowledge (I think!) that the big players of the GOP are holding back till 2016 as they see Obama as too tough to beat. Hence why the field was so weak this time around.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I didnt care for any of them. I was a fan of Ron Paul (whom you convieniantly left out) due to his common sense stance and liberalism. He will be remembered as the Goldwater of the 21st century.

Here is a post of mine from a year ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76059127&postcount=10



I too despair at the level of discourse sometimes by the GOP but I also despair at the 99%, occupy wall street crap that goes on. Doesn't mean i will stoop to the lowest common denominator no matter how easy that is for some people.

Neither am I a big fan of Obama who has been a massive disappointment. He seems totally disinterested in the job of POTUS. He offers no vision or true leadership of the executive branch of the US government, he gives congress far too much power.

Anyway its common knowledge (I think!) that the big players of the GOP are holding back till 2016 as they see Obama as too tough to beat. Hence why the field was so weak this time around.

I purposely omitted Ron Paul because he never mentioned being told by any 'higher power' to run for the office of POTUS. Whenever the talk at the table of the Republican Thanksgiving Dinner turned to some sort of religious tripe, Ron Paul looked exasperated and was the only to try to steer the conversation back to real issues, e.g. the closing of US military bases worldwide thus saving a substantial amount of money, perhaps even improve their reputation.

Obama hasn't been perfect, but he's no Bush! Plus, I'm not sure that Romney wouldn't be even worse than Bush. Obama has to thread carefully in his first term, what with him being the first black president and all. He may get to do more of what he really wants in his second term.

I do wonder though, about how much power the POTUS has. Is he being told what to do by the big banks, big pharma and large corps? You might remember Reagan being told to 'speed it up', by Don Regan.

LittleBook

joseph brand wrote: »

Why would women vote for Romney? Unless they are racists, I see no other reason. (What a terrible reason)

I often wonder this myself.

But when I see women like Ann Coulter and some of the ladies mentioned in this thread on TV ... or I learned that a woman sponsored a bill which would force women seeking abortions to go through an invasive transvaginal ultrasound ... and that another woman sponsored a bill which would make it legal for employers to fire an employee who uses the contraceptives available to them under their medcial plans for birth control (rather than a medical condition like pcos) ... or if I consider the many women out there who are opposed to same-sex marriage/contraception/abortion/proper sex education ... and I realise (to my horror) that there is a woman (or two?) out there who is actually prepared to sleep with Rush Limbaugh :eek: ... I just have to admit to myself that many, many women share Romney's views unfortunately.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I purposely omitted Ron Paul because he never mentioned being told by any 'higher power' to run for the office of POTUS. Whenever the talk at the table of the Republican Thanksgiving Dinner turned to some sort of religious tripe, Ron Paul looked exasperated and was the only to try to steer the conversation back to real issues, e.g. the closing of US military bases worldwide thus saving a substantial amount of money, perhaps even improve their reputation.

Ah so the GOP are not all bad. I am sure if I trawl through google, I will find plenty of Democracts that had god tell them to run for office as well.

joseph brand wrote: »

Obama hasn't been perfect, but he's no Bush! Plus, I'm not sure that Romney wouldn't be even worse than Bush.

Worse in what way?

joseph brand wrote: »

Obama has to thread carefully in his first term, what with him being the first black president and all. He may get to do more of what he really wants in his second term.

:eek: What has that got to do with anything in all seriousness! We should treat him differently because of his skin colour.

joseph brand wrote: »

I do wonder though, about how much power the POTUS has. Is he being told what to do by the big banks, big pharma and large corps? You might remember Reagan being told to 'speed it up', by Don Regan.

Michael Moore aside maybe you should look into what libertarianism actually is.

Sonics2k

jank wrote: »

:eek: What has that got to do with anything in all seriousness! We should treat him differently because of his skin colour.

People have been treating him differently though. Or do you think every President is accused of being a secret Muslim or born in Kenya?

Take a guess what the motivation is for that.

jank

Sonics2k wrote: »

People have been treating him differently though. Or do you think every President is accused of being a secret Muslim or born in Kenya?

Take a guess what the motivation is for that.

Yes, there is that racist element with some on the right but there is also the element on the left where ANY criticism of his policy regardless how well founded it is gets brushed off because he is black. Joesph Brand just done it here.

However, I do not understand why he must "thread carefully because he is black" What does this mean? He cant do this job because he is black? He is in danger? What?

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Ah so the GOP are not all bad. I am sure if I trawl through google, I will find plenty of Democracts that had god tell them to run for office as well.

I never said that every Democrat was perfect. It's just that the Republicans are the ones causing an almighty stink atm. I'm sure you've got reasons why it's the fault of the Dems or that liberal media bias. (All media bar Faux news)

jank wrote: »

Worse in what way?

I dread to think what he would be like on foreign policy, (amongst other issues). At least his recent trip went by without a hitch.

jank wrote: »

:eek: What has that got to do with anything in all seriousness! We should treat him differently because of his skin colour.

He HAS been treated differently because of his skin colour. You honestly believe that those bible thumping states aren't calling him a Kenyan muslim and using the 'n' word when around like-minded individuals.

jank wrote: »

Yes, there is that racist element with some on the right but there is also the element on the left where ANY criticism of his policy regardless how well founded it is gets brushed off because he is black. Joesph Brand just done it here.

However, I do not understand why he must "thread carefully because he is black" What does this mean? He cant do this job because he is black? He is in danger? What?

Well at least you admitted to the 'elephant in the room', even though you launched straight into an attack in the same sentence. You're doing fine. Baby Steps.

Being the first black POTUS means he has a difficult term, for obvious reasons. Every President wants a second term and so taking over the broken country, which Bush left behind, was always going to be an uphill struggle. Surely we can agree that Bush is an awful human being? (along with Rumsfeld and Cheney)

There's plenty of gun toting rednecks in America, so I suppose his life is in danger. (wasn't my original point though)

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I never said that every Democrat was perfect. It's just that the Republicans are the ones causing an almighty stink atm. I'm sure you've got reasons why it's the fault of the Dems or that liberal media bias. (All media bar Faux news)

What stink is this you are referring to? Their electioneering? You must try to elaborate what you mean when you come out with statements.

joseph brand wrote: »

I dread to think what he would be like on foreign policy, (amongst other issues). At least his recent trip went by without a hitch.

Do you really think it would be different from the status qoe? Do you think Obama has been that successful on foreign policy? Assassination by drones, asleep at the wheel during the Arab Spring, alienation of the UK...

joseph brand wrote: »

He HAS been treated differently because of his skin colour. You honestly believe that those bible thumping states aren't calling him a Kenyan muslim and using the 'n' word when around like-minded individuals.

The states themselves, no of course not, everyone in those states, of course not, equally silly. Some small minority of people, possibly but unless you can come out with some figures on this I cant take it seriously.

Playing the race card over and over to deflect criticism, do you think it never happened?

joseph brand wrote: »

Well at least you admitted to the 'elephant in the room', even though you launched straight into an attack in the same sentence. You're doing fine. Baby Steps.

Being the first black POTUS means he has a difficult term, for obvious reasons. Every President wants a second term and so taking over the broken country, which Bush left behind, was always going to be an uphill struggle. Surely we can agree that Bush is an awful human being? (along with Rumsfeld and Cheney)

Again I fail to see why his presidency would be more difficult for him because he is black. Getting there was the main achievement but the job is difficult no matter what skin colour or gender you have.

Bush was not a good president, in fact he was terrible but I don't know him as a human being so cant comment on that. Do you think Obama is a great human being because you agree with his polices? Is there a link between being a good human and pursuing the right political policies?

joseph brand wrote: »

There's plenty of gun toting rednecks in America, so I suppose his life is in danger. (wasn't my original point though)

As there is everywhere but you don't offer any substantive argument.


JB, the only one here treating Obama differently is you. No need for me to tell you what that is.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Again I fail to see why his presidency would be more difficult for him because he is black. Getting there was the main achievement but the job is difficult no matter what skin colour or gender you have.

Bush was not a good president, in fact he was terrible but I don't know him as a human being so cant comment on that. Do you think Obama is a great human being because you agree with his polices? Is there a link between being a good human and pursuing the right political policies?

The issue isn't him or the job he has to do. It's the fact that Bush can be a bad president and people will think he's a bad president. Obama can be a bad president and right-wing groups will associate any following black candidate with Obama's bad presidency based on race. Right-wingers already say that the country only voted for him because he was black.

If Obama does a poor job, right-wingers will compare any following black presidential nominee to Barack Obama in order to tarnish their campaign, even if the only association between the two are that they're both black.

Again, being black has no effect on the job Obama has to do or the difficulty of it. The difficulty comes in later, with the need to leave a good legacy that other black nominees won't be dragged down with by association.

Is it fair that this could happen? Not even a little bit. But do you honestly think that the Southern States or the Mid-West would consider voting for another black president, even a Republican one, if the first black president they had had done a bad job?

jank

Penn wrote: »

The issue isn't him or the job he has to do. It's the fact that Bush can be a bad president and people will think he's a bad president. Obama can be a bad president and right-wing groups will associate any following black candidate with Obama's bad presidency based on race. Right-wingers already say that the country only voted for him because he was black.

Which right-wingers are these? A handful of people or the entire GOP base :rolleyes:

Penn wrote: »

If Obama does a poor job, right-wingers will compare any following black presidential nominee to Barack Obama in order to tarnish their campaign, even if the only association between the two are that they're both black.

Herman Cain ran for the GOP ticket, was he compared unfavorable with the "OH NO, Another black guy!" association...In fact it was never heard.

Penn wrote: »

Again, being black has no effect on the job Obama has to do or the difficulty of it. The difficulty comes in later, with the need to leave a good legacy that other black nominees won't be dragged down with by association.

Again that is utterly false, Obama will be solely judged on the outcomes of his presidency largely by his achievements and failures. To say otherwise is nonsense.

So again, why would the job be harder?

Penn wrote: »

Is it fair that this could happen? Not even a little bit. But do you honestly think that the Southern States or the Mid-West would consider voting for another black president, even a Republican one, if the first black president they had had done a bad job?

Colour has nothing to do with it and it appears you are totally ignorant of the fact. By all means raise the topic over in the US politics forum and you will see that the majority of posters will conclude that.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Which right-wingers are these? A handful of people or the entire GOP base :rolleyes:

You're right, I should have said the extreme right-wingers.

jank wrote: »

Herman Cain ran for the GOP ticket, was he compared unfavorable with the "OH NO, Another black guy!" association...In fact it was never heard.

No, because Obama hasn't done a bad job as president. Maybe not a fantastic job, but not a bad job. Again, my argument is based on "If Obama had done a poor job, it is likely that XXXX would have happened". All just my opinion though. I don't think it's a huge stretch though.

jank wrote: »

Again that is utterly false, Obama will be solely judged on the outcomes of his presidency largely by his achievements and failures. To say otherwise is nonsense.

So again, why would the job be harder?

Yes, Obama will be judged on his own merit. But for future black presidential nominees, Obama's record, if it had been poor, could have been brought up and negative associations made. Let's face it, there are still people calling for his birth cert and college records. Why? Because he's a Democrat, which means extreme right-wingers have to find a way to discredit him, and because he's also black, that's the route they chose. Same with any following black democratic nominee. If Obama had been a poor president, associations most likely would have been made. It's the political game. Hell, when David Cameron was campaigning to become PM people were associating him with Thatcher because he said he admired her.

It's the political game; discredit your opponent by any association you can, and if a new black presidential nominee stepped forward, he'd be associated with Obama in any negative way possible. Herman Cain escaped the brunt of it because it wasn't a presidential race, it was to become the party's presidential nominee. And being from the same party as the rest of his opponents meant they couldn't discredit each other to nearly the same extent as they could from another party.

jank wrote: »

Colour has nothing to do with it and it appears you are totally ignorant of the fact. By all means raise the topic over in the US politics forum and you will see that the majority of posters will conclude that.

Obama was elected because he is black
4 years later, race is still an issue for some voters
Mitt Romney is carrying 0% of the black vote

Again, I'm not saying that race SHOULD be an issue, I'm saying for some, it IS an issue.

robindch

Elderly man to say catholic prayers at the installation of a mormon as election candidate. Man claims that it's not an endorsement of the Romney's policies which, by strange coincidence, he fully supports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19353304

BBC wrote:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan to give Republican benediction

The most senior US Catholic cardinal is to give a benediction at the Republican National Convention next week in Florida when Mitt Romney accepts the party's presidential nomination.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan will give prayers at the televised event, Mr Romney said in an interview. The cardinal is suing President Barack Obama over his health care plans.

But the cardinal's office says the appearance will not be an endorsement for Mr Romney. Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the cardinal, said the agreement had been made within the last two weeks, according to US media.

The move was not partisan and the cardinal was open to invitations from both political parties, he was quoted as saying. Mr Romney announced the news in an interview with The World Over Live show on the Catholic EWTN channel, due to air later on Thursday.

Cardinal Dolan leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York and is also head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The BBC's Zoe Conway in Washington says the cardinal's office is keen to play down his appearance, describing it as just a priest going to pray.

But some, she says, will see this as America's most powerful Catholic giving Mitt Romney his blessing. The Catholic Church is embroiled in a dispute with Mr Obama over his health law that requires employers to provide free access to birth control through their health insurance.

Although the law exempts houses of worship, it includes other church-linked employers such as schools and hospitals. Mr Romney has also come out against the policy, calling it an attack on freedom of religion. The four-day National Convention begins on Monday in Tampa, Florida.

robindch

Our very own Michael D has a go at a Tea-Party supporting shockjock.

The punchline is seriously worth waiting for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Dades

Wasn't expecting that!

Michael D - my new hero.

Sarky

I didn't vote for him, but now I wish I had.

Quatermain

That was absolutely astounding. Beware the nice ones indeed.

ShooterSF

Where was this emotion when he was running for president? Fair play to him, I only voted for him because my only deciding factor on voting for a president is usually which one is going to likely get a presidential pension for as short as possible (excluding any nutters) because the job is rather pointless.

joseph brand

Michael D just made ALL THE HAIRS stand up on my neck. And he called Graham a wan*er, to great effect.

Jimoslimos

Michael D tends to get a bit of flak but IMO he's one of the better politicians we've had. Probably wasted where he is now but if the position of president is to be used merely as a ceremonial head of state with no power then it should be a reward for those who've dedicated their lives to public service.

Another fiery speech on civil unions (pity the place was empty)