Presidential Election: 2012

  • Thread starter Omnis
  • 3,780 comments
  • 157,148 views
Where the hell is Famine to berate you for weeks on end for saying... the truth? Obama did NOtHING in Libya! Attack GTP zealots, attack! :sly:

That is to any member willing to say positively Obama had any bit to do with Libya, not just Sam! :lol:

A post of mine regarding how not to fall for sarcasm has been quoted by someone who's decided to use even more sarcasm... I hope.
 
Meh, I get the feeling that with Obamney in office we will wind up in a war with Iran. Too much chest beating by both sides at this point.
 
I actually expect Israel to attack independently (e.i. without our affirmation). Of course, if that does happen, I expect Romney to send a boat load of "aid" despite the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has stated multiple times that "Israel can defend itself".
 
I've never met you, but it is not hard to believe there is a hand embedded in your head. :lol:
God's hand, perhaps. Turning knobs and dials, guiding Famine ever closer to omniscience.
 
1147334.jpg
 
I'm more interested in what we do in Syria atm, it may determine our actions with Iran.

What we appear to be doing is inciting civil war, precipitating regime change, or both. But so far with only modest success. Have we put our democracy chips on the majority Sunnis (and by extension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafi and the Wahhabi), for better or worse? At one time we were content to support or abide secular generals and tyrants, but no more.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
I'm more interested in what we do in Syria atm, it may determine our actions with Iran.

Hillary Clinton's Loose Talk on Iran This article explains the events that have me thinking this.

When President Obama spoke before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee some weeks ago, he admonished those who engaged in “loose talk of war” about Iran. Apparently, his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, didn’t get the memo.

The Associated Press reported this week,

-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear Saturday that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program and said talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume in mid-April. With speculation over a possible U.S. or Israel military attack adding urgency to the next round of discussions in Istanbul set for April 13, Clinton said Iran's “window of opportunity” for a peaceful resolution “will not remain open forever.”

-She also expressed doubt about whether Iran has any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the U.S., Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

That’s another memo Clinton seems not to have received. Both American and Israeli intelligence say that Iran has neither started to build a nuclear weapon nor even decided to do so in the future. Both also regard the Iranian government as a “rational actor.” (The American news media occasionally reports this, but then goes back to stating, as though it were uncontroversial, that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal.)

So why the conflicting signals from the U.S. government? This conflict can be seen in Obama’s own statements. While he calls for diplomacy and warns against loose war talk, he has imposed harsh economic sanctions that make the daily lives of average Iranians miserable, has rejected “containment,” and boasted that he doesn’t “bluff.”

If Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, if it has not decided to do so, and if Obama wants to use diplomacy to discuss Iran’s uranium-enrichment program (which its government says is for peaceful purposes), why is he pushing sanctions designed to bring the Iranian economy down? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if there is really something to negotiate about, for Obama to treat the Iranian regime with respect?

The saber rattlers will say that sanctions are needed to get Iran to the negotiating table. But that’s an evasion. The official experts, as well as others, say no bomb is being built. Iran is doing what it is free to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—enriching uranium for medical and energy purposes. It is subjected to inspections and its uranium is under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There is no constructive purpose to the sanctions and war talk. Clinton aggravates an already dangerous situation when she talks ominously about windows closing and clocks running. She sounds bent on war, with Obama just a bit less so.

Why?

Two reasons suggest themselves. It’s an election year. The Republican presidential candidate (unless it’s Ron Paul) can be expected to portray Obama as insufficiently bloodthirsty. Mitt Romney hopes we’ll ignore Obama’s expansion of the criminal drone war in Pakistan and Somalia, his due-process-free assassination of Americans in Yemen, his autocratic intervention in Libya, his continuation of the brutal occupation of Afghanistan, and his signing legislation to codify the president’s power to detain even American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. Romney’s foreign-policy team are some of the same people who gave us the lie-based invasion of Iraq, which was responsible for the deaths of well over a million people and the creation of more than four million refugees. Word is that the presumptive candidate plans to hammer Obama on his handling of foreign affairs. According to The Washington Post, “In his speeches, Romney has proposed a more confrontational approach to China, Russia, Iran and other countries.”

The Obama campaign may have calculated that they can’t afford to look weak on Iran. Yet this is not the only reason. Israel’s top officials appear to have decided that an attack on Iran is imperative. But without U.S. help, Israel’s air force can do no more than set Iran’s (peaceful) nuclear program back for a brief time. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues his threatening talk, supported by the Israel lobby in the United States. Israel-partisans in the U.S. media routinely channel Netanyahu’s war talk to the American public in order to build sympathy for the nonexistent Iranian threat to Israel.

Obama says he wants peace not war. When will he begin to act like it?
 
I'm more interested in what we do in Syria atm, it may determine our actions with Iran.

Indeed. It's though being the police of the world. Sometimes I wish someone would just try to start a movement for true peace and stop wars around the world without having to go to war. Is that really just wishful thinking?

I like how Ron Paul advocates this but I dunno...

____________________________
http://trailwhale.com
 
reflective
Sometimes I wish someone would just try to start a movement for true peace and stop wars around the world without having to go to war. Is that really just wishful thinking?
Every beauty pageant contestant in the last 50 years has wanted this. Oh and the unshowered masses in the 60s.

Simple fact, people can be assholes. Some assholes get to rule countries without people knowing how they really are. Give them a few years and suddenly they start killing people. The they kill people outside their country. And that starts a war.

Sometimes guys are just big-mouth jerks but act like the a-hole who was killing people. The diplomatic version of the all talk, no action bully. And then he unjustly gets his butt kicked because we thought he might be an asshole. That sucks when it happens.
 
It does baffle me as to how Paul isn't winning when you see photos like that, but I suppose it all depends on when and where you are.
 
If the country was an elevator with 20 people in it, because there is one person yelling and the other 19 are quiet doesn't mean the one loud person is any more representative of the whole group than one of the 19 quiet people.

Just because Ron Paul fans behave the way they do does not give them any more credibility. The US already made the mistake of listening to the Tea Party, who was a minute group of people being loud and gave the impression of an actual movement when really it was the equivalent of one loud person in an elevator.

For example, of the whopping 97 people on my Facebook friends list, there is going to be one person who votes for Ron Paul. I know this because he is the only one who post pro-Ron Paul stuff constantly. No one else does, yet looking at just the political stuff that comes across on my FB, you'd think Ron Paul was the number one guy because of all the crap one person will post. And he is from Kentucky. ;)
 
For example, of the whopping 97 people on my Facebook friends list, there is going to be one person who votes for Ron Paul. I know this because he is the only one who post pro-Ron Paul stuff constantly. No one else does, yet looking at just the political stuff that comes across on my FB, you'd think Ron Paul was the number one guy because of all the crap one person will post. And he is from Kentucky. ;)
At least half of my FB friends and all of my close friends voted RP in the Ohio primary. I'm one of 4-5 people on my FB who voice political opinions semi-regularly. One my my RP-voting friends actually blocked me off his news feed because he was tired of the political crap. Despite his knowledge of the subject, he simply doesn't care about politics that much. Over 100 people might have seen a debate or read one of my posts and went, hmm, yeah, that guy really does make good sense compared to the others. They voted for him because he makes sense, but that doesn't mean they give a damn about politics because the vast majority of people don't. One's outspokenness has nothing to do with their political opinions, but apparently you think the only people voting for Ron Paul are the ones prancing around with signs in the middle of winter. For every one of those there are ten others who happen to have more pressing matters than political activism, like the 20 or so baby-boomer old-man machinists and builders at my work who also voted for Ron Paul.

Also, I've already posted substantial circumstantial evidence, including graphs of elapsed time-based vote tallies, supporting the use of vote-flipping firmware resulting in Ron Paul's popular vote being artificially low. You have a terrible habit of dismissing partial evidence entirely as opposed to any reasonable person who would consider it a possibility.
 
Can anyone give me a semi-objective view on what Mitt Romney wants to do to help the poor?
I can't really give you a semi-objective summary of Romney's view on anything, because throughout his political career he has shown a complete lack of consistent and principled decision making. He is pro-making money, but that's about the only rule he sticks to. I see no reason why he wouldn't attempt to gather every dime he could while being President. I don't think he's passionately concerned about America's and Americans' financial situations. I don't believe he genuinely wants to help anybody without also benefiting himself. He has provided no reasons throughout his political career to make me believe he would do anything good at all.

I do know that he is a very wealthy business man. A business man's job is to make money, not necessarily to help the poor, though providing jobs and raises to workers is usually a side effect of a successful business.
 
What rules have republicans in general put in place or purposed to put in place that would help the poor?

First they must want the poor demographic from growing larger. From what I've seen none of them do.
 
Last edited:
Title says 'ends', article says 'suspends'. The former is permanent, the latter is temporary.

Which is correct?

This presidential race for us is over ... and we will suspend our campaign effective today

That's ambiguous. Unless he means suspending it until 2016.
 
Advantage: Romney.

Paul still doesn't get the mainstream coverage or recognition he needs. Now it's up to Gingrich to take this nomination challenge to the RNC, I believe.
 
Damn, this is not good. Wonder how this will affect the delegate dealmaking.
 
I actually got this news 3 hours ago, but my spam filter blocked it.

It said "Santorum is dropping out"...
 

Latest Posts

Back