U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Steroid wrote:No, that's what I'm saying. Whether or not we should go to war has always been debated. Whether or not we should win has not. A German sympathizer in the World Wars would likely be beaten up if he expressed his opinions, and we know what happened with the Japanese internment camps. (which I by no means support, but it's evidence that no one was arguing sympathy for the Japanese at the time). And as you said, the sympathy Germany did have came largely from German immigrants. Today you have many-generation Americans who blame Bush, not the Taliban and Saddam, for the ills of the wars, and Obama, not Assad and Qaddafi, for the ills of the more recent conflicts.

Except.. not really. Bush gets blame for Iraq and Afghanistan going poorly because he handled them poorly. He planned for them poorly, he orchestrated them poorly, and he managed military leadership poorly. He budgeted them poorly. No one was waking up and saying "man, I hope we lose in Iraq!". People who expressed sentiments along those lines still get castigated horribly for being "against the troops". Also, you misread my post -- the desire to not kill all the Germans was not derived largely from the German immigrants, they were just an example of how there was quite a bit of opposition to the war.

People aren't opposed to winning: what was/is being questioned was if the price -- in lives, dollars, and other costs -- is worth that victory, or if the continued costs are worth that victory. Questioning those is NOT the same as not supporting the military. You seem to want blind obedience for war the moment it's declared? That's not "not supporting" the military. Again, terminology is important!
Also, consider the fact that we're not at war against Afghanistan or Iraq now. We "won" pretty quickly in both cases and set up friendly regimes, and really most of what we've been doing since then is trying to help the regimes put down insurrection. So World War 2 isn't a good comparison. It's more like the Marshall Plan but with a worse climate and more violence.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:26 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I snagged it from here, with the description of "Chart showing growth in U.S. DoD spending 2000–2011". So anything outside of the DoD would not be included. Some quick searching suggests to me that that would not include the VA (that has its own department), and I think it also excludes the CIA. I do believe that nuke maintenance would fall under the DoD though.


My recollection is that the nuclear program is at least partly handled by Department of Energy.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:I snagged it from here, with the description of "Chart showing growth in U.S. DoD spending 2000–2011". So anything outside of the DoD would not be included. Some quick searching suggests to me that that would not include the VA (that has its own department), and I think it also excludes the CIA. I do believe that nuke maintenance would fall under the DoD though.


My recollection is that the nuclear program is at least partly handled by Department of Energy.

According to Department of Energy, "In the United States, all nuclear weapons deployed by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) are actually on loan to DoD from the DOE/NNSA, which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons."
I looked out across the river today …

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

IcedT wrote:Also, consider the fact that we're not at war against Afghanistan or Iraq now. We "won" pretty quickly in both cases and set up friendly regimes, and really most of what we've been doing since then is trying to help the regimes put down insurrection. So World War 2 isn't a good comparison. It's more like the Marshall Plan but with a worse climate and more violence.

This too. Iraq didn't have anybody we could make a peace treaty with after we replaced their government. Afghanistan does in the Taliban, but we're not fighting a war-war there; we're fighting an occupation. I don't know of any examples in history that are good counter-points for the US specifically -- the post WW2 occupations were rather unique in their own right. All of our other wars that I can think of had rather conclusive endings to them.

LaserGuy wrote:My recollection is that the nuclear program is at least partly handled by Department of Energy.

Huh, actually, I think you're right. Yep, just looked it up: $10.5 billion in its 2011 budget is for "nuclear security". Was slightly more than 1/3 of its total budget. Sigh.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:41 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:This too. Iraq didn't have anybody we could make a peace treaty with after we replaced their government. Afghanistan does in the Taliban, but we're not fighting a war-war there; we're fighting an occupation. I don't know of any examples in history that are good counter-points for the US specifically -- the post WW2 occupations were rather unique in their own right. All of our other wars that I can think of had rather conclusive endings to them.


Every single one of our previous wars had governments that could capitulate and cease hostilities. These two are unique.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
IcedT wrote:Also, consider the fact that we're not at war against Afghanistan or Iraq now. We "won" pretty quickly in both cases and set up friendly regimes, and really most of what we've been doing since then is trying to help the regimes put down insurrection. So World War 2 isn't a good comparison. It's more like the Marshall Plan but with a worse climate and more violence.

This too. Iraq didn't have anybody we could make a peace treaty with after we replaced their government. Afghanistan does in the Taliban, but we're not fighting a war-war there; we're fighting an occupation. I don't know of any examples in history that are good counter-points for the US specifically -- the post WW2 occupations were rather unique in their own right. All of our other wars that I can think of had rather conclusive endings to them.

From what I can tell it's actually a lot like colonial occupation, except instead of making money we're hemorrhaging it. Fun stuff.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:48 am UTC

IcedT wrote:From what I can tell it's actually a lot like colonial occupation, except instead of making money we're hemorrhaging it. Fun stuff.


Which for countries other than Britain, was often the case.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:This too. Iraq didn't have anybody we could make a peace treaty with after we replaced their government. Afghanistan does in the Taliban, but we're not fighting a war-war there; we're fighting an occupation. I don't know of any examples in history that are good counter-points for the US specifically -- the post WW2 occupations were rather unique in their own right. All of our other wars that I can think of had rather conclusive endings to them.


Every single one of our previous wars had governments that could capitulate and cease hostilities. These two are unique.

The capitulation of the Confederacy didn't result in a cessation of hostilities any more than the execution of Saddam did. Reconstruction offers a similar period of regular violence from local individuals and groups against an occupying army.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:32 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:The capitulation of the Confederacy didn't result in a cessation of hostilities any more than the execution of Saddam did. Reconstruction offers a similar period of regular violence from local individuals and groups against an occupying army.
A little bit sure... but not anywhere on the same scale. Once the Southern Armies surrendered, most of the fighting died down.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

I guess in the sense of regular fighting, that's true. Atlanta was never as hostile as, say, Fallujah. But as far as armed insurgents attacking collaborators, blacks, and any troops they could get their hands on, that happened with frightening regularity.

Bharrata
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:20 am UTC

Mitt Romney will be announcing Paul Ryan as his VP tomorrow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-mitt-romney_n_1684794.html

Spoiler:
NORFOLK, Va. -– Mitt Romney will announce Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate on Saturday, according to two sources with knowledge of the decision.

Ryan is a bold pick who will energize the Republican Party, but putting him on the ticket is fraught with risk and instantly puts Ryan's budget plan front and center in the 2012 campaign.

Romney will announce his choice in Norfolk on Saturday morning at the beginning of a four-day bus tour through key battleground states, the campaign said Friday night. The Weekly Standard reported earlier Friday that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been asked to be ready to make the case for Ryan beginning Saturday.

Romney's alliance with the 42-year old Ryan has become the most dramatic development of the 2012 presidential campaign. Romney had been presumed for much of the last few months to be set on a safe pick, such as Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), or former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

But now, Romney, who is 23 years older than Ryan, will signal that he is willing to roll the dice. President Barack Obama's reelection campaign and Democratic political groups have been eager for Romney to pick Ryan, the architect of plans to slash government spending and overhaul entitlement programs that Democrats believe are political losers.

Both liberals and conservatives will be thrilled with Romney's choice.

Conservatives believe Ryan is one of the brightest, best young faces and minds who can cheerfully articulate a case for limited government while simultaneously arguing that a less expansive bureaucracy and a revamped entitlement system is the best way to preserve government aid and benefits for the poor, indigent and elderly.

Ryan's budget and his proposed changes to programs like Medicare will now be central issues that drive the presidential campaign for the remaining three months. It is one way for Romney to turn a campaign that has turned ugly and personal, often to his detriment, into a heated debate over policy.

The battle to define Ryan and his reform plan will set off a messaging war between Democrats and Republicans, the likes of which has rarely been seen.

If Romney were to win with Ryan on the ticket, he would have a mandate to make sweeping changes not only to the size of government, but to programs like Medicare and Medicaid that are products of former President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program.

For conservatives, putting Ryan front and center will satisfy their desire to have a full-throated debate about the entire spectrum of issues that they feel are most pressing: the size of the federal government, the government's role in people's lives, the impact of the national debt on the middle class, and how to maintain a social safety net without creating a "culture of dependency" in which too many citizens receive government benefits.

For liberals, Ryan represents a chance to not just defeat Romney, but an opportunity to discredit, on the biggest stage in politics, the most wide-ranging expression of conservatives' governing principles put forward in recent political memory. Liberals will say that Romney and Ryan want to cut government spending in a way that will hurt the economic recovery and cut assistance to those who need it. Obama himself has already attacked Romney for wanting to "turn Medicare into a voucher program," a reference to Ryan's original proposal for Medicare.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:25 am UTC

His Wikipedia page has had numerous edits in the last nine hours, so you know it's true.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:55 am UTC

What a horrendous choice. There was a survey a while back that found that 40% or so didn't even believe the items in the Ryan budget were real proposals. I assume this is Romney trying to gain credibility for his tax proposals now they've been shown to be impossible.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Aikanaro » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:40 pm UTC

For some reason, the back of my mind has a vague, generalized hate for this name. Can someone refresh my memory of if/why he is abhorrent to me? I'd be very chagrined to have an unjustified hate for someone, that sort of viewpoint is normally reserved for, well, the republican party.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.


User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

I've seen some people saying that it's a bold, or inspired choice. I agree more that it's a pick to shore up the base which seems like a desperation move by the Romney camp. My personal take on it is that it's a stupid pick. Ryan gives even more fuel to Obama to attack Romney on the economy and healthcare.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sam_i_am » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:For some reason, the back of my mind has a vague, generalized hate for this name. Can someone refresh my memory of if/why he is abhorrent to me? I'd be very chagrined to have an unjustified hate for someone, that sort of viewpoint is normally reserved for, well, the republican party.


What is this "Him" you're talking about. As far as I can tell, It sounds like it's either Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, but I can't be sure which one.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Kulantan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:00 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:For some reason, the back of my mind has a vague, generalized hate for this name. Can someone refresh my memory of if/why he is abhorrent to me? I'd be very chagrined to have an unjustified hate for someone, that sort of viewpoint is normally reserved for, well, the republican party.

The Ryan budget proposal.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

I am disheartened to see that "voodoo economics" was used incorrectly. It's certainly true that the Reagan administration, etc, vastly mis-estimated our point on the Laffer Curve, and that his tax cuts did not produce sufficient economic activity to provide additional federal income equal in size to the cuts(IIRC, it was something like 6% of that, but it's been a minute since I've taken macroecon classes). However, the logical flaw is not "tax cuts stimulate the economy", but rather in the size of assumed stimulation resulting. So, the criticism doesn't apply at all to this plan, since it's not really the same setup at all. There's a criticism of the Heritage Foundation taking things too far...but note that this is cherry picked, since it doesn't actually appear in the plan, and supply side economics are not exactly central to it.

Furthermore, you can basically assume that any entirely partisan budget proposal is going to have heavy modifications before being passed. Neither side has enough people to simply bowl the others over. So, much of any proposed budget is going to get modified. You know this, I know this, certainly the republicans and democrats know this. So gleefully proposing things they don't expect to get through, but can sacrifice to get the stuff they really want...all part of the game. Then they can gleefully go back to their constituencies and point to all the things they tried to "fix", and blame democrats for everything. It's an old, old story. That doesn't necessarily mean they actually want those things.

So, long story short, while this budget isn't anything like a perfect model of fiscal responsibility(good job just ignoring the coming SS problem there guys), it's pretty obviously more of a political tool than an actual recipe for anything, or a predictor for what the Romney administration will be like(not that I expect him to win).

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:49 pm UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Aikanaro wrote:For some reason, the back of my mind has a vague, generalized hate for this name. Can someone refresh my memory of if/why he is abhorrent to me? I'd be very chagrined to have an unjustified hate for someone, that sort of viewpoint is normally reserved for, well, the republican party.

The Ryan budget proposal.

I love how that juxtaposes with your avatar.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby iamspen » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

The problem comes when you have one side that isn't willing to give up any of they don't really need. I had this discussion in a facebook thread; after I pointed out that Obama has had an entirely unresponsive legislature to deal with, my opponent countered with, "Well, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all had epic battles with opposing Congresses." I pointed out that, even though the legislature and the President didn't get along swimmingly in those examples, there was at least an endgame. Shit got done because compromises were made, even if begrudgingly, and that simply isn't happening with this batch of politicians, specifically those on the right. Given that, and given that the Republican base is already about as fired up as they can get simply because, "Nobama," it seems silly to pick one of the primary culprits of Congressional douchebaggery and push your ticket even further right, thereby ensuring that you'll lose substantial votes in general election.

The Republican party, it seems, has lost its damn mind.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

I don't mind the choice. Or at least I can't think of a choice that Romney could have made that wouldn't have generated the same weary "Well, that was _____" with either "pandering" or another adjective like "boring" or "insane". That's nothing against Romney, I can't recall an inspired VP choice in my lifetime aside from Al Gore.

The thing is that Romney needs to change his game plan over all dimensions. We've spent a few months with the vision that this is a referendum on Barack Obama, and the Electoral College map show that Obama is handily winning that fight and may even be pulling ahead. Romney's message up to this point has been "We need someone different - I'm someone different - Therefore, we need me." Despite the number of times it's been tried, it has never defeated an incumbent American president. Reagan and Clinton won because they were likable and open and they talked about their plans. Romney should switch tracks and do the same. That's the bold gamble that might change the course of the election, and if he decided to do that then Paul Ryan would be an ideal business partner for making that happen.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:The problem comes when you have one side that isn't willing to give up any of they don't really need. I had this discussion in a facebook thread; after I pointed out that Obama has had an entirely unresponsive legislature to deal with, my opponent countered with, "Well, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all had epic battles with opposing Congresses." I pointed out that, even though the legislature and the President didn't get along swimmingly in those examples, there was at least an endgame. Shit got done because compromises were made, even if begrudgingly, and that simply isn't happening with this batch of politicians, specifically those on the right. Given that, and given that the Republican base is already about as fired up as they can get simply because, "Nobama," it seems silly to pick one of the primary culprits of Congressional douchebaggery and push your ticket even further right, thereby ensuring that you'll lose substantial votes in general election.

The Republican party, it seems, has lost its damn mind.


*shrug* I think compromises have been made, and things have been gotten done. Hell, Osama's dead. Bush would have probably have given his left nut to accomplish that. Obama got through some medical reform. Sure, there was notable compromise in the process, but the republicans definitely didn't get things all their own way there.

It's business as usual, really.

Personally, I'm unimpressed with both sides, and if this continues, will likely vote libertarian. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. All depends on what the options are. Here, both sides seem fairly interesting in pandering to their base over issues that I'm not really worked up over, with fairly little differentiation on the things I do care about. That said, I'm quite certain Obama's got the win here. Incumbent advantage is pretty major, especially when the challenger hasn't done a great deal to make himself appear different/needed/fresh.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jareds » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Obama got through some medical reform. Sure, there was notable compromise in the process, but the republicans definitely didn't get things all their own way there.

The Democrats controlled Congress at that time.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

jareds wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Obama got through some medical reform. Sure, there was notable compromise in the process, but the republicans definitely didn't get things all their own way there.

The Democrats controlled Congress at that time.


For a certain definition of "controlled" that was much more akin to an even split. Whenever you've got this sort of a distribution in parties, a lot of bickering and deadlock is pretty normal.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jareds » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
jareds wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Obama got through some medical reform. Sure, there was notable compromise in the process, but the republicans definitely didn't get things all their own way there.

The Democrats controlled Congress at that time.


For a certain definition of "controlled" that was much more akin to an even split. Whenever you've got this sort of a distribution in parties, a lot of bickering and deadlock is pretty normal.

257 vs 178 in the House and 57+2 vs 41 in the Senate is "much more akin to an even split" than it is to "controlled"?? What exactly would it take to reach the level of "more akin to controlled than an even split"?

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:07 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Personally, I'm unimpressed with both sides, and if this continues, will likely vote libertarian. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. All depends on what the options are. Here, both sides seem fairly interesting in pandering to their base over issues that I'm not really worked up over, with fairly little differentiation on the things I do care about.


I'm inclined to agree. He didn't go with Pawlenty, which would have been the true moderate choice, but he didn't go with Christie either, which might have gotten me to pay attention to him.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:08 pm UTC

Garm wrote:I've seen some people saying that it's a bold, or inspired choice. I agree more that it's a pick to shore up the base which seems like a desperation move by the Romney camp. My personal take on it is that it's a stupid pick. Ryan gives even more fuel to Obama to attack Romney on the economy and healthcare.
I am fearful to ask what you think would be a good pick?(Other than someone who isn't a Republican)
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

jareds wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
jareds wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Obama got through some medical reform. Sure, there was notable compromise in the process, but the republicans definitely didn't get things all their own way there.

The Democrats controlled Congress at that time.


For a certain definition of "controlled" that was much more akin to an even split. Whenever you've got this sort of a distribution in parties, a lot of bickering and deadlock is pretty normal.

257 vs 178 in the House and 57+2 vs 41 in the Senate is "much more akin to an even split" than it is to "controlled"?? What exactly would it take to reach the level of "more akin to controlled than an even split"?


My apologies, was thinking of the 3/5ths majority issue, and gotten that munged up with an even split. Poor terminology use there on my part.

However, if you have less than a 3/5ths majority, yes, you do get bickering and deadlock to a certain degree. Can't stop filibusters, mostly. So, you've got to compromise at least enough to sway a coupla folks a bit, while still keeping your own more or less happy. So yeah...it's still a not terribly one sided affair. Still, this sort of thing did happen. It's pretty normal, too. Both sides are attempting to paint this administration as having unusual circumstances...but it really doesn't. This sort of partisan bickering is completely standard, and having to compromise and people sucking at it...also pretty normal for us.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Garm wrote:I've seen some people saying that it's a bold, or inspired choice. I agree more that it's a pick to shore up the base which seems like a desperation move by the Romney camp. My personal take on it is that it's a stupid pick. Ryan gives even more fuel to Obama to attack Romney on the economy and healthcare.
I am fearful to ask what you think would be a good pick?(Other than someone who isn't a Republican)


This is a tune that I think I've sung a lot in this thread, but I think Romney could win with Colin Powell on the ticket. Respected across the ideological spectrum as a hard and thoughtful worker who dedicated his life to solving the problems of the nation. Having a moderate on the team would drive independents to think that it's worth a vote, and I have a difficult time imagining that the right wing would be so unpatriotic as to not fall in line. Of course, Powell doesn't want the job, but if Romney had found the way to sell him on it then it would have been an epic coup.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:06 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
Garm wrote:I've seen some people saying that it's a bold, or inspired choice. I agree more that it's a pick to shore up the base which seems like a desperation move by the Romney camp. My personal take on it is that it's a stupid pick. Ryan gives even more fuel to Obama to attack Romney on the economy and healthcare.
I am fearful to ask what you think would be a good pick?(Other than someone who isn't a Republican)


This is a tune that I think I've sung a lot in this thread, but I think Romney could win with Colin Powell on the ticket. Respected across the ideological spectrum as a hard and thoughtful worker who dedicated his life to solving the problems of the nation. Having a moderate on the team would drive independents to think that it's worth a vote, and I have a difficult time imagining that the right wing would be so unpatriotic as to not fall in line. Of course, Powell doesn't want the job, but if Romney had found the way to sell him on it then it would have been an epic coup.
Well, I'll give you that you'd be hard pressed to find a better pick than Powell. But he won't do it. I honestly don't see Romney having very man better options than Ryan, and a lot(Bachmann, Boehner, Jeb, Rubio, Jindal) that are much worse.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:33 pm UTC

Chuck Hagel. He's the most recent high profile R I can think of that I've had much respect for. But if you're talking current GOP, then, no. I can't name anyone that has survived the recent cleansings.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:This is a tune that I think I've sung a lot in this thread, but I think Romney could win with Colin Powell on the ticket. Respected across the ideological spectrum as a hard and thoughtful worker who dedicated his life to solving the problems of the nation.

I am a bit surprised that Powell still has that respect, even after the Iraq debacle. At least outside of the US, he's now mostly remembered as the guy who lied to the UN to get support for the war. I would have thought that would have cost him much bipartisan credits in the US as well.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I am a bit surprised that Powell still has that respect, even after the Iraq debacle. At least outside of the US, he's now mostly remembered as the guy who lied to the UN to get support for the war. I would have thought that would have cost him much bipartisan credits in the US as well.

As an American, I thought he lost a lot of credibility for that here as well, but I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of public opinion.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:46 pm UTC

He's generally not blamed for that, as many are under the impression that he was unaware that the information was false. Powell has outright made that claim, and his then chief of staff has corroborated it, but you never know. Perception is reality in politics and, at the very least, Powell would have been less divisive than Ryan.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:14 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Tirian wrote:This is a tune that I think I've sung a lot in this thread, but I think Romney could win with Colin Powell on the ticket. Respected across the ideological spectrum as a hard and thoughtful worker who dedicated his life to solving the problems of the nation.

I am a bit surprised that Powell still has that respect, even after the Iraq debacle. At least outside of the US, he's now mostly remembered as the guy who lied to the UN to get support for the war. I would have thought that would have cost him much bipartisan credits in the US as well.


I can only speak for myself. I felt totally betrayed by Powell, as I would have protested the war had I not trusted his analysis of classified intelligence. But Iulus points to his ... I'm not sure if it's an apology or not, but in some ways it's stronger to me. Reading that, I feel really confident that he feels even worse about it than I do and that he wouldn't let that happen to him again. I tend to wish politics had more such introspective remorse. It reminds me of the Tom Watson quote: “Recently, I was asked if I was going to fire an employee who made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. No, I replied, I just spent $600,000 training him. Why would I want somebody to hire his experience?”

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:51 am UTC

I think Ryan is a poor pick because he doesn't add anything to the ticket (except he might be better looking than Mitt). Romney has a budget plan that was modeled (or seems that way) off of Ryan's budget so there's no gain there. Romney is running largely off his business experience and says that he can parley that into "turning the economy around." Ryan is largely known as a "policy wonk" who works on budgets and the economy. Not only that, Romney has explicitly stated that he's not running on the Ryan budget. So we have a couple of white guys whose perceived strengths overlap. There's really nothing to generate excitement from Ryan. The Press LOOOOOOOOOVVESS him. Thinks he's dreamy. He's really just another boring white guy. One of the reasons why Obama picked Biden is that he was a boring white guy (whereas, obviously, Obama was not, but Romney is) but he also has a good personal backstory. Biden also was seen as shoring up Obama's weak foreign policy cred. Ryan does.... nothing.

As for alternatives.... Nikki Haley is probably tainted by the Palin effect so she's out (even though she would have brought minority female cred to the ticket). I think C. Powell jumped the shark at the U.N., whether or not it was his fault doesn't matter. He lost a lot of credibility after that. Bobby Jindal is seen by the press as bad after that enormously weak rebuttal to one of Obama's State of the Union addresses. Chris Christie is losing popularity and that lie about the tunnel system would destroy his credibility on the national stage. Tim Pawlenty is fucking boring and comes off as a corporate stooge with no personality. So to answer the question for alternatives... I don't really know. Seems like there are a number of other governors who would love to use this as a spring pad for their own presidential ambitions.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:02 am UTC

If anything, he's a sharp speaker. Romney will struggle to match Obama in debates but Ryan should run circles around Biden. Romney's main problems (policy aside) are vagueness, inability to relate to normal people and general clumsiness, and his VP pick counters each of those problems compellingly.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:40 am UTC

Garm wrote:I think Ryan is a poor pick because he doesn't add anything to the ticket (except he might be better looking than Mitt). Romney has a budget plan that was modeled (or seems that way) off of Ryan's budget so there's no gain there. Romney is running largely off his business experience and says that he can parley that into "turning the economy around." Ryan is largely known as a "policy wonk" who works on budgets and the economy. Not only that, Romney has explicitly stated that he's not running on the Ryan budget. So we have a couple of white guys whose perceived strengths overlap. There's really nothing to generate excitement from Ryan. The Press LOOOOOOOOOVVESS him. Thinks he's dreamy. He's really just another boring white guy. One of the reasons why Obama picked Biden is that he was a boring white guy (whereas, obviously, Obama was not, but Romney is) but he also has a good personal backstory. Biden also was seen as shoring up Obama's weak foreign policy cred. Ryan does.... nothing.

As for alternatives.... Nikki Haley is probably tainted by the Palin effect so she's out (even though she would have brought minority female cred to the ticket). I think C. Powell jumped the shark at the U.N., whether or not it was his fault doesn't matter. He lost a lot of credibility after that. Bobby Jindal is seen by the press as bad after that enormously weak rebuttal to one of Obama's State of the Union addresses. Chris Christie is losing popularity and that lie about the tunnel system would destroy his credibility on the national stage. Tim Pawlenty is fucking boring and comes off as a corporate stooge with no personality. So to answer the question for alternatives... I don't really know. Seems like there are a number of other governors who would love to use this as a spring pad for their own presidential ambitions.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... e-outcome/
Check this one out, you'd be surprised who he thinks Romney ought to pick. Assumes:
1. vice president moves polls 2% in state that he hails from.
2. The 2% is a maximum, so unpopular/unknown candidates won't motivate voters as much
Which means pick a swing state that is slightly democratic, worth a substantial electoral votes, and is a very popular well known candidate.
He does some further simulations, and advises Portman of Ohio, or Sandoval of Nevada.

It's a narrow view of what the vice president can bring to the party, but it's worth discussing.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:50 am UTC

Powell is also in the military, and the military is a sacred cow in the U.S. and people try to not come off as criticizing them for fear of being deemed unpatriotic. Of there's a quick way to image suicide in the U.S., it's dissing a soldier.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests