Presidential Election: 2012

  • Thread starter Omnis
  • 3,780 comments
  • 157,023 views
Not particularly on topic (has to do with the "war on terror" among other things in the US Government, so it is semi-related), but I really don't know where to stand on this.

[YOUTUBEHD]p5XbOvaceRA[/YOUTUBEHD]

I haven't done much looking into about this just yet (chances are there won't be much to find besides more like this), and I really hope that it is just a nutty conspiracy theory, but after things like this (among other things):


I just don't really know anymore. :indiff:

I apologize if this derails the thread.
 
Not particularly on topic (has to do with the "war on terror" among other things in the US Government, so it is semi-related), but I really don't know where to stand on this.

[YOUTUBEHD]p5XbOvaceRA[/YOUTUBEHD]

I haven't done much looking into about this just yet (chances are there won't be much to find besides more like this), and I really hope that it is just a nutty conspiracy theory, but after things like this (among other things):



I just don't really know anymore. :indiff:

I apologize if this derails the thread.



Well first of all they predicted the Smart Cards by 2008 in that video... Second of all, I think we've all heard about the implant chips, and if that day ever comes there will be some serious rebellion and revolution. I can't really speak for the Amero thing, don't know about it, but I've seen videos like this before.
 
Video:

So they're basing an NAU on the EU?

Man, we all know how well the EU is doing. Thumbs up from me (!)
 
Senator Marco Rubio has endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. This comes a few days after Jim DeMint also spoke favourably of Romney. I'm a bit surprised by this, although Rubio is a strong candidate for a possible VP ticket.

It's also a signal that the Republicans are becoming increasingly worried about the prospect of a brokered convention.
George H W Bush endorsed Romney today as well.


Moving on to the sitting president.

Anyone remember when the White House wanted to work together and agreed with voters that the politics are too partisan?




What happened?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/paul-ryan-budget_n_1370555.html
WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday blasted the House Republican budget proposal unveiled this week and said that anyone who supports it must be "deliberately ignorant" and have "severely diminished capacity."

During a gaggle with reporters aboard Air Force One, Carney said the budget plan offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has "many serious problems," including its dramatic cuts to Pell Grants and clean energy investments. Democrats have slammed the GOP budget for, among other things, proposing to change Medicare into a voucher-based system, repeal President Barack Obama's health care law and scale back many social welfare programs.

Carney then took his criticisms a step further: He questioned the intellectual competency of the GOP lawmakers backing the bill.

"You have to be aggressively and deliberately ignorant of the world economy not to know and understand that clean energy technologies are going to play a huge role in the 21st century," he said. "You have to have severely diminished capacity to understand what drives economic growth in industrialized countries in this century if you do not understand that education is the key that unlocks the door to prosperity."

"The budget proposed by Chairman Ryan and supported overwhelmingly already by Republicans suggests that those problems exist in the minds of the supporters of that plan," Carney continued.

A moment later, the White House spokesman appeared to try to dial back his remarks.

"That was a bad sentence, but you get my point," Carney told reporters. "I lost track because I was watching RG3 over there, future quarterback of my Washington Redskins."

A request for clarification from Carney was not immediately returned. A request for comment from Ryan's office also was not immediately returned.

Wow, he's calling people retarded in PC terms.

But that was just a worked up press secretary (who's words represent the White House). What's the official statement after the budget passed the House today? Surely something about compromise, right?

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...sTopStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)#.T3TqnzEgeSo

The White House put out a statement blasting House Republicans for passing the budget proposed by Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The Ryan budget will not pass the Democratic-run Senate, but will likely become a major issue in the fall campaign.

The statement from White House press secretary Jay Carney:

House Republicans today banded together to shower millionaires and billionaires with a massive tax cut paid for by ending Medicare as we know it and making extremely deep cuts to critical programs needed to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

The Ryan Republican budget would give every millionaire an average tax cut of at least $150,000, while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers.

Today's vote stands as another example of the Republican establishment grasping onto the same failed economic policies that stacked the deck against the middle class and created the worst financial crisis in decades.

If the Ryan Republican budget is made a reality and the radical discretionary cuts fall across the board, by 2014, more than nine million students would see their Pell Grants fall by as much as $1100, and about 900,000 would lose their grants altogether. Clean energy programs would be cut nearly 20 percent, Head Start would offer 200,000 fewer slots per year, and critical medical research and science programs would see drastic cuts.

The President has put forward a balanced plan that would reduce our deficit by over $4 trillion by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share, enacting responsible spending cuts and achieving significant health savings while still investing in the programs we need to grow our economy and bring economic security back to the middle class and seniors.

Any serious attempt at tackling our deficits must be balanced, fair and demand shared responsibility. The Ryan Republican budget clearly fails that test.​

I guess when it isn't what the president wants civil discourse loses to partisanism and insults.
 
It's also a signal that the Republicans are becoming increasingly worried about the prospect of a brokered convention.

I wondered about that. Specifically, what actually happens if we do end up with a brokered convention?
 
I wondered about that. Specifically, what actually happens if we do end up with a brokered convention?

All I can fathom is that it becomes a bit of a free-for-all and anyone can enter the race at that point - and that includes candidates who are currently not in the race. Presently, no one of the four main contenders is likely to win the nomination at the first ballot - Romney is the only one who has a credible chance of doing so, but by staying in the race until the convention, the other three candidates are making that very unlikely/impossible, and thus increasing their own chances by forcing further rounds of voting, which could potentially diminish Romney further (although that strategy could backfire).

Senior Republicans are not happy at the prospect because it sends out a signal of a party in total disarray, which would not be that inaccurate, but would be disasterous so close to a general election. Hence we can probably expect to see senior figures in the party starting to close ranks behind Romney and increase the pressure on the other candidates to drop out.
 
I wondered about that. Specifically, what actually happens if we do end up with a brokered convention?
The delegates will only have to vote for their particular candidate in the first round. After that it's a free for all and they can vote for whomever they like. The Paul campaign is banking on a brokered convention because even if they lag behind Romney in delegate numbers (don't believe the estimates reported by the news, as there is a vast number of unbound delegates at the moment) then they will be able to sway the vote in their direction.
 
There is no chance anyone but Romney will get the GOP nomination. It has been that way for a while.
 
You'll have to show us some evidence to support such a statement. Few people besides Sean Hannity agree with that.
 
Everyone knows Romney will get the nod.
The other candidate's policies are far too whack to get national attention. A single digit percentage of supporters is as good as none.
 
There is no chance anyone but Romney will get the GOP nomination. It has been that way for a while.

You'll have to show us some evidence to support such a statement. Few people besides Sean Hannity agree with that.

Everyone knows Romney will get the nod.
The other candidate's policies are far too whack to get national attention. A single digit percentage of supporters is as good as none.

Wow. "Everyone knows" this. That's really, really compelling evidence. If I wasn't convinced beforehand I certainly am now.

:rolleyes:
 
I feel no need to compel. :indiff:

Keef said Hannity was one of few who thinks that Romney will get the nod... but Hannity's bizarro world equivalent, Rachel Maddow, has the same opinion. :dunce:
 
Paul Ryan endorses Mitt Romney

It's pretty clear that the GOP are starting to close ranks around Romney, and the writing is now well and truly on the wall for Gingrich (and to a lesser extent, Paul). Marco Rubio was clear about the reasons why he endorses Romney - and one of the main reasons is that he (and many others besides) feel the time is nigh approaching when the GOP need to unite behind one candidate in order to avoid a shambolic and potentially disasterous brokered convention.
 
Last edited:
For readers interested in the best that Hollywood has to offer, please pick up the DVD of the 1964 film, The Best Man, starring Henry Fonda, Cliff Robertson, et al. It is the drama of a presidential primary and brokered convention with screenplay by the highly skilled author, Gore Vidal.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Keef said Hannity was one of few who thinks that Romney will get the nod... but Hannity's bizarro world equivalent, Rachel Maddow, has the same opinion. :dunce:
5,200 Wisconsin residents don't know that Romney will get the nomination. That's why they showed up to Ron Paul's rally. That's also why you didn't know about that rally until I just told you because the media is blacking out all of Paul's activity because he apparently has no support and no chance.




Speaking of President George W. Bush at the time, then Senator Joe Biden said that he would lead an effort to impeach the President if he were to unilaterally engage American forces in war with Iran.



I've not heard the same complaints from him against Obama.
 
Last edited:
5,200 Wisconsiners are supporting a movement, not a run at the presidency. Besides, 5,200 in Wisconsin is a poor turn out. Look at the support the rallies that advocate policies which oppose Paul's ideology-
 
Romney has the party's support. It's pretty much inevitable that he will get the nomination. Even if Ron Paul wins, he loses.
 
5,200 Wisconsiners are supporting a movement, not a run at the presidency. Besides, 5,200 in Wisconsin is a poor turn out. Look at the support the rallies that advocate policies which oppose Paul's ideology-


You're comparing 5,200 people who spent time and money to be there for a presidential candidate to 100,000 bureaucrats afraid of a governor cutting their unproductive jobs.
 
You're comparing 5,200 people who spent time and money to be there for a presidential candidate to 100,000 bureaucrats afraid of a governor cutting their unproductive jobs.
Two demographics on opposing sides of the political spectrum is what I compared.
The glaring difference is one side has a lot of support and the other side does not.
 
Two demographics on opposing sides of the political spectrum is what I compared.
Opposing? If by opposing you mean the hard-working people who took time off their jobs and lost pay in order to attend a rally for something their passionate about, to a bunch of government workers taking one of their 8 weeks paid vacation days off to bitch about losing their wasteful and inefficient jobs because the government can't afford to pay them anymore, then yes, they're on opposing sides.

5,200 intelligent, hopeful, freedom-loving people compared to 100,000 morons looking for a handout.
 
5,200 intelligent, hopeful, freedom-loving people...
Voting against one's own interest means one is intelligent... Just like a politician with the support of 5,200 people in Wisconsin has a chance at the presidency while the other, opposing party has over 100,000 supporters. :dunce:

Give it up already. The old dude never stood a chance. :)


...compared to 100,000 morons* looking for a handout.
Call them what you want, but that doesn't take away from the fact Ron Paul has a snow ball's chance in hell at being the president because of them. Duh.

*You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

I'll bite my lip(or smash my typing fings) as to not rant rudely but just....
Doing all 3 would be best in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Back