2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

Kurai, maybe we shouldn't even bother. Roy will never admit that he's wrong, or that Obama ever did anything right. He's typical of the GOP.

The whole Birth Control bill was designed to advance women's health concerns, something that the GOP apparently doesn't care about because some Catholics don't like it.

Well, when the Catholic church owns up to all the allegations of minors being molested - or raped - by clergymen, maybe I'll take their complaints at face-value. I may be Catholic, but I don't like the state that the church is in right now.

If those in power of the Democratic party are going to have those exact same views you expound, then they deserve to lose both the Catholic vote and the Latino vote.

[kurai]

They sided with the church in ensuring that the special religious role of ministry would be protected from government interference.

We agree that there is such a ministerial exception. The
members of a religious group put their faith in the hands
of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain
an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to
do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment deci-
sion. Such action interferes with the internal governance
of the church, depriving the church of control over the
selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By impos-
ing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free
Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to
shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.

At the same time, SCOTUS concluded that they "are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister", but if they are deciding on a case-by-case basis, do you find it reasonable that all associated members would be found to be exceptional (and exempt)? It may be possible for a specific religion. It is certainly not the case for the Catholic church, who have spent centuries defending the legitimacy of their ministry as uniquely empowered.

edit: Regardless, they did not overturn the existing precedent in which "formally neutral laws of general applicability may regulate religious conduct (along with other conduct) regardless of the adverse or prohibitory effects on religious exercise" in this decision. Employment as a minister is not the same thing as participation in a general and neutral policy program.

[Dark Sage]

If those in power of the Democratic party are going to have those exact same views you expound, then they deserve to lose both the Catholic vote and the Latino vote.

Roy, I challenge you to try something.

Go out, away from your computer, and all the editorials you keep posting. Find a Latino. Find the first one you see. Make sure it's someone you don't know.

Ask this simple question: "Who do you intend to vote for this November?"

Don't tell me the answer he or she gives... I doubt you'll even do this, or tell me the truth if you do.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I challenge you to try something.

Go out, away from your computer, and all the editorials you keep posting. Find a Latino. Find the first one you see. Make sure it's someone you don't know.

Ask this simple question: "Who do you intend to vote for this November?"

Don't tell me the answer he or she gives... I doubt you'll even do this, or tell me the truth if you do.

How about I ask Rev. Samuel Rodriguez

The proposed regulation “has caused an incredible amount of consternation and angst in the Hispanic community. … It is un-American to tell my pastor, my minister, my priest that they have to violate what they believe in,”

....


Rodriguez said the proposed regulation is changing Hispanic evangelicals’ friendly attitudes towards the Obama administration. “All of the sudden it was turned around,” he said. It is “a key moment for how the religious community will support the administration going forward,” he said.

“The federal government is coming after us. … It is an unprecedented level of intrusion into the free exercise of religion. … Across the board, our conversation is that is a line too far,” said Rodriquez, who has repeatedly clashed with Republicans on such issues as immigration rules.

Already, he said, “we are hearing Hispanic voters who supported Obama in 2008 saying ‘We cannot support Obama in 2012.’”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/09/ob...#ixzz1m0VCcpb7

[Dark Sage]

Fine Roy. Live with your delusions. As if Obama would ever win any of the southern states that the article refers to anyway.

As for Santorum, I think that a bastard who is evil enough to tell a rape victim that she has to carry her attackers child will never be President. And I think that anyone who supports him is fooling himself.

[Heald]

Apparently Santorum has taken a 15 point lead. Or something.

As for my prediction, Santorum will not be being sworn in next January. I really cannot see that happening, no matter how much I wish Obama wasn't getting a second term.

[Blademaster]

birth

Espcially

woman's rights

birth

Sigh.

[Roy Karrde]

Apparently Santorum has taken a 15 point lead. Or something.

As for my prediction, Santorum will not be being sworn in next January. I really cannot see that happening, no matter how much I wish Obama wasn't getting a second term.

I really think Santorum is a flash in the pan right now. He is the "Not Romney" now that Gingrich has faded, and he is getting a boost on what really is being perceived as Obama's war against religion. He really does not have the ground game in place in states like Paul and Romney has. And in this contest its all about who can outlast who.

[Heald]

Well to be honest I never even saw him beating Romney to the nomination, but stranger things have happened in US politics, so I wasn't completely ruling it out.

[Dark Sage]

Romney just won big in the CPAC straw poll. 34 percent of the vote, I believe.

You'll be glad to know, Roy, that Paul finished dead last.

Edit: Romney has just been declared the winner of the Maine caucus, edging a close victory over Paul. Santorum and Gingrich didn't do too well, but neither campaigned there.

[Roy Karrde]

So Obama's budget came out today, and while it is expected to be DOA even in the Democratic heavy Senate, it does show some very interesting priorities in one area.

The Obama administration is once again standing with education special interest groups and against low-income children in Washington, D.C. His 2013 budget request zeros out funding for the highly successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which was revived last year thanks to the hard work of Speaker John Boehner and the thousands of D.C. families who received scholarships to attend a private school of choice.

...

The D.C. OSP has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/13/...rship-program/

So where did Obama decide the money could be better spent?

The White House intends to boost government subsidies for wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt and other new-technology vehicles — to $10,000 per buyer.

That mammoth subsidy would cost taxpayers $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year.

But the administration wants to get 1 million new-tech autos on the road by 2015. The subsidy cost of that goal could reach $10 billion.

The planned giveaway will likely prompt populist protests from GOP legislators, but it will likely also will be welcomed by auto-industry workers in the critical swing state of Michigan.

That welcome is critical for President Barack Obama, who is touting his support for blue-collar manufacturing programs to help offset his low public approval ratings.

The new subsidy level represents a 33 percent jump from the current $7,500 government payout for each Volt buyer, even though the Volt’s buyers are already among the wealthiest Americans. It will be offered to buyers of any new-technology autos, including battery-powered autos and cars powered by natural gas, said a White House official.

The extra money for wealthy buyers will be borrowed funds, eventually paid off by future taxpayers in all income brackets.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/ob...#ixzz1mJZKfRSC

What do you know: Wealthy Environmentalists > Poor Kids

[DarkestLight]

o.O I really wonder what happens with these plans.

[homeofmew]

The Separation of Church and State was to prevent a specific religion or denomination having complete political control. Meaning the religious values/morals whatever of that religion would rule. For Example if the State was run by Muslims all women would have to wear burqas. "Freedom of religion" doesn't mean "freedom from Religion".

I mean this was written in a time where people argued about christian doctrine not totally different religions. AS in they all Believed in a Same "GOD" and argued about stuff like Divorce.

[Dark Sage]

Rick Santorum recently said some pretty strong things, which he refuses to retract.

He said that Obama's politics are based on "some phony theology."

"It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs," Santorum said. "It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Strong words, Mr. Santorum.

I'd like to quote someone else if I may:

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Who am I quoting?

George Washington, that's who.

[Heald]

Slightly OT, but today it was revealed that Sarah Palin, back in 2008, believed the the British Queen was the de facto leader of the British Armed Forces.

In other news, boxes of rocks are asking people to stop comparing their intelligence levels to that of Sarah Palin, citing that Sarah Palin's levels of ignorance and stupidity are so incredible it is becoming completely impossible to quantify them in any meaningful way.

[Blademaster]

So does the Queen wear some royal-colored fatigues covered with emblems and badges, then? Maybe because of her status, she wears pauldrons, a helmet with the British equivalent of five stars on it, or some gold-plated combat boots? Does she carry one of those whipping things that horse jockeys use?

[Dark Sage]

Slightly OT, but today it was revealed that Sarah Palin, back in 2008, believed the the British Queen was the de facto leader of the British Armed Forces.

In other news, boxes of rocks are asking people to stop comparing their intelligence levels to that of Sarah Palin, citing that Sarah Palin's levels of ignorance and stupidity are so incredible it is becoming completely impossible to quantify them in any meaningful way.

Don't worry, she's quickly losing her appeal.

In a most recent poll of who registered Republicans wanted to support for Vice President, she came in fourth. The top three were Rick Santorum, Mark Rubio, and Chris Christie.

Personally, if I were President (a job I don't even want) I wouldn't trust her as a secretary.

[Heald]

I wouldn't trust her to make the tea.

[Roy Karrde]

Meanwhile in things that matter, gas prices are spiking and look to be close to $5 dollars a gallon by this summer. With Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline, this could actually be the issue that does him in.

[Dark Sage]

Meanwhile in things that matter, gas prices are spiking and look to be close to $5 dollars a gallon by this summer. With Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline, this could actually be the issue that does him in.

You can blame Israel for that, Roy. And by the way, I just heard the opinion of an economic expert on WCBS who said that the possibility of a $5 a gallon price is unlikely

[Roy Karrde]

You can blame Israel for that, Roy. And by the way, I just heard the opinion of an economic expert on WCBS who said that the possibility of a $5 a gallon price is unlikely

Gas has a one and three chance of reaching $5 dollars a gallon, as said by Dan Dicker, oil trader and author of “Oil’s Endless Bid.”.

It was surely reach over $4 dollars a gallon for the entire country this summer.

As for blame, well there is alot to go around just like in 2008, but that didn't stop Democrats and the Media from trying to shift blame onto Bush. So what goes around comes around, and unlike Bush, Obama has a big ole pipeline hanging around him.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, the GOP forced him to make a decision too early. IMOHO, it was a dirty trick. They knew he'd have to say no because he wasn't given enough time to discuss it, and now they can blame him for it.

Besides, the purpose of the pipeline would have been to export oil, not for the United States to use it.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, the GOP forced him to make a decision too early. IMOHO, it was a dirty trick. They knew he'd have to say no because he wasn't given enough time to discuss it, and now they can blame him for it.

Okay this has to be the most pathetic excuse I have ever seen. The entire reason Obama wanted to postpone the decision was not for more discussion but for political purposes. He did not want to risk having to hurt either the unions or the environmentalists, so he postponed the decision until AFTER the election. If you honestly think it was anything else, then you really are drinking the coolaid. Honestly think about it, why post pone to 2013 on a decision that no matter what will hurt either one side of your base or the other?

Besides, the purpose of the pipeline would have been to export oil, not for the United States to use it.

It would also have helped our supply and lowered the cost of crude on the market. Especially now that Iran is cutting exports.

[Dark Sage]

Okay, enough is enough.

I've had enough anti-Obama rhetoric. You're hardly the first diehard GOP I've heard it from, Roy.

Therefore, I will not argue with you any longer.

From this point on, I will come to this thread to post facts, and nothing else. I will no longer even respond to any attempt to blame Obama for the facts I present.

And Roy, if Santorum wins the nomination, you can vote for him if you want. It's your right. But I certainly won't.

[DarkestLight]

then you really are drinking the coolaid.

Um ..Kool-Aid. There's no debate about this. Get it right next time, or we're gonna hafta take this outside.


Side note: 5 dollars a gallon across the country is highly likely, seeing as right now its nearing 4 on the coasts, and wasn't it but a few summers ago when it hit over 5 in some places?

Uhh other side note: Fossil fuels are a renewable resource.
Humans just won't be around to see it.

[Dark Sage]

Here's something to think about.

Romney burned through over $18 million last month financing his campaign, which is more than four times the amount that Santorum even has. Yet, Romney had a terrible month, only winning primaries in New Hampshire and Florida. Santorum, on the other hand, is doing rather well.

Compared to Romney, Santorum's finances can be compared to those of Oliver Twist. So I ask you, what does this show?

If you ask me, it shows that money isn't working any more. Candidates can spend all they want on negative advertising, but people just are listening to it anymore. We're getting to the point where, it seems, elections cannot be bought.

And that may be good news for Obama. With this recent trend, no matter how many billions the Super Pacs spend on trying to demonize him, people are going to make logical decisions.

Which means we may have actually have an election where the one more fit for the job wins.

[Roy Karrde]

Here's something to think about.

Romney burned through over $18 million last month financing his campaign, which is more than four times the amount that Santorum even has. Yet, Romney had a terrible month, only winning primaries in New Hampshire and Florida. Santorum, on the other hand, is doing rather well.

Compared to Romney, Santorum's finances can be compared to those of Oliver Twist. So I ask you, what does this show?

If you ask me, it shows that money isn't working any more. Candidates can spend all they want on negative advertising, but people just are listening to it anymore. We're getting to the point where, it seems, elections cannot be bought.

And that may be good news for Obama. With this recent trend, no matter how many billions the Super Pacs spend on trying to demonize him, people are going to make logical decisions.

Which means we may have actually have an election where the one more fit for the job wins.

Is that good news for Obama? That means that demonizing Romney won't work, which is something he will desperately try to do, which in turn means the election will be a referendum on Obama's pathetic history. Something that he really cannot run on.

[Dark Sage]

Romney has a lot of skeletons in his closet too, which is why he is floundering. And at this point, I'm not certain that Romney will be the nominee.

If he loses Michigan (his home state, I might add), it's not gonna look very good.

And if Romney doesn't win the nomination... Well, I agree with Herald, I thing Santorum has no chance.

[Roy Karrde]

Romney has a lot of skeletons in his closet too, and at this point, I'm not certain that Romney will be the nominee.

If he loses Michigan (his home state, I might add), it's not gonna look very good.

And if Romney doesn't win the nomination... Well, I agree with Herald, I thing Santorum has no chance.

But here is the thing, as you said if money and attacks are not working it does not matter how many skeletons a person has in their closet be it Romney or Santorum. It becomes a referendum on Obama's record, which more than likely is what this election will be anyway. But even more so if people do not care about personal attacks.

[Roy Karrde]

Alright Dark Sage continues to say that I am deeply pro GOP, which I do not dispute, but seeing how I have continued to say how Obama has a large chance to lose, I decided to look at some of the things I could see that could lead to a Obama victory.

A: Unemployment stays at low 8% or lower, I would say anything above 8% begins to hurt his chances, with anything above 8.5% begins to hurt his chances exponentially.

A.1: If Europe implodes, this could send us spiraling back into a recession and raise unemployment.

B: Gas prices do not cross the $4 mark for most of the nation. This one in many ways is linked to the first, as the higher gas prices go up, the higher the price of goods to up, and in turn the economy begins to hurt badly.

C: The Supreme Court punts on Obamacare. While as the newest Rasmussen poll shows a majority wanting it repealed, by setting aside the issue until 2015 by saying that people need to pay the penalty first before being able to object to it. This could set aside the issue with neither side able to claim victory or gain momentum from it.

D: The GOP goes to a brokered convention, while political junkies like myself love the thought of seeing this, the public as a whole would not. It would make Obama look like the adult in the room while the other candidates fight each other.

D.1: If the GOP has a brokered convention and elects a new nominee at the convention such as Jeb Bush, this would be disastrous as the new nominee would not have any ground game or money ready for the national contest.

E: The GOP elects a vice president nominee that is unready. While I do like Sarah Palin, it was evident that she wasn't ready for the national stage. Who ever becomes the nominee needs to be tested on the national level and be ready for a hostile press. Some of the interviews that Palin did should be forewarning of what they will face.

F: Santorum wins, and is unable to harness a correct economic message. Obama's attacks on the Catholic Church is great fodder for Santorum, but he needs to be able to spread out from that and be able to relate to every day Americans. So far he has not been able to do that.

G: Ron Paul, enough said.

I think I hit on almost every possibility that could lead to a Obama reelection. I don't think one single thing from this list could get him reelected, but a combination of them could increase his chances dramatically.

[kurai]

February 22, 2012
8pm ET on CNN

Location: Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona
Sponsor: CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona
Participants: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich

This will be the only debate before Super Tuesday.

[Roy Karrde]

Predictions:

Romney will coast through it with very few people attacking him
Santorum will get hammered on
Paul will end up looking like the nutty uncle and atleast wave his arms around once
Gingrich won't attack the other candidates but will attack the press.

I think I saved everyone two hours of their lives.

[Dark Sage]

All I know is, I won't be watching it. Heck, if the Democrats were having one, I wouldn't watch it either.

The only thing in politics more boring than Super Tuesday is the Conventions.


Edit: Looks like I made a wise decision. From what I'm hearing, this debate was about as organized as a Keystone Cops flick.

[Roy Karrde]

Well watching the debate tweets it looks like Santorum essentially killed his campaign tonight in a utterly embarrassing fashion. So much so that Intertrade has cut his stock by 56% just on tonight's performance alone.

[kurai]

it was a really personal debate at times with back-and-forth and talking on top of each other. pretty entertaining. they dodged the interesting questions (ex. do you believe in birth control, and if not, why not).

santorum got some points in through prepared attacks but the audience hated him from the start (and he was heckled throughout) - he had a good finish with his argument on "doing more with less" in his efforts for the nomination. it would do well as an actual campaign slogan/approach with the fiscal/social conservatism tie-in. he managed to present himself in an honest fashion, but his actual views are so divisive/horrible that this might not help him.

romney destroyed himself in michigan by failing to elaborate on his stances. nothing outstanding except a new favored slogan: "keeping america's promise". he really struggled to stick to his debate prep, and it was so obvious - replying to something unexpected with "I didn't follow" and then a semi-related talking point.

gingrich was fairly sidelined and stuck to making esoteric proposals (and rick perry shoutouts) while trying not to make enemies.

paul was not even arguing about the same things as the rest of them but actually got some airtime. so that's something. paul and romney seem to be avoiding direct conflict.

we can summarize the debate using one of its questions: can you define yourself using one word?

PAUL: CONSISTENT
SANTORUM: COURAGE
ROMNEY: RESOLUTE
GINGRICH: CHEERFUL

[Roy Karrde]

Interesting Kurai as your analysis pretty much goes against everything the right blogs/intrade are saying. Santorum got ripped tonight, especially with his "Take one for the team" argument right before saying that he summarized himself as "Courage". And Gingrich was seen as getting a third wind with his second half debate performance.

I mean hell even Hot Air is devoting their overnight section just for the three worst moments of this debate on Santorum.

Hot Air: Tough night for Santorum

[Dark Sage]

Describing Gingrich as "cheerful" is like describing Judge Judy as "polite".

Not to generalize, but I would say that this debate was a royal mess.

[kurai]

that isn't really going against what i said, he was largely reviled by the audience and had to actually be on the defense in answering tough questions (which appears as a failing upon cursory analysis). but in this field, political baggage is hardly an immediate disqualifier - none of the candidates would pass, but today, santorum was the focus (aside from romney on auto bailouts).

however! he got to present and describe his stances regarding market interference, military interventionism, morality, birth control, education - if people respond to this 'honesty' more than to squabbling over his political past (which was the focus of his weakness), then this debate doesn't seem critically harmful to him. it is not as though anyone would dare to attack his actual social/economic stances, and so if they are the attractive factor in his campaign, he just got to advertise them for free.

the return of gingrich relies only on the fact that he wasn't being attacked this time. he contributed very little other than agreeing with the others, ensuring that tough questions were redirected to less divisive topics, and bringing up his pet policy proposals. he also sat back during the arguments and so avoids the negative aspect of being caught up with in-fighting. i would not call this better than a neutral performance.

i'm fairly sure that ron paul did the best of the lot in this debate with regard to presenting his stances and policies in a fairly unopposed manner, but it remains to be seen what kind of response this will have (since he is not arguing on the same terms as everyone else).

[Roy Karrde]

that isn't really going against what i said, he was largely reviled by the audience and had to actually be on the defense in answering tough questions (which appears as a failing upon cursory analysis). but in this field, political baggage is hardly an immediate disqualifier - none of the candidates would pass, but today, santorum was the focus (aside from romney on auto bailouts).

however! he got to present and describe his stances regarding market interference, military interventionism, morality, birth control, education - if people respond to this 'honesty' more than to squabbling over his political past (which was the focus of his weakness), then this debate doesn't seem critically harmful to him. it is not as though anyone would dare to attack his actual social/economic stances, and so if they are the attractive factor in his campaign, he just got to advertise them for free.

Well that may play into the problem that National Review has described tonight. "He has spent way too long explaining himself on Arlen Specter and earmarks. No matter how good his answer is–and I’m inclined to agree with him about earmarks–time spent on these topics hurts him."

He may have gotten to speak about his views and gotten to describe his stances, but he did not nail down the quick answer which can also hurt him.

Edit: And looking through Ace of Spades, Hot Air, and Washington Examiner. Santorum's "Taking one for the team" is quickly becoming Rick Perry's Oops moment.

[Dark Sage]

With the GOP's views on contraception and abortion (and in Santorum's case, marriage) right now, it's strange how they actually believe that they aren't turning off women voters.

Clearly, they're placing all their chips on the hope that women are going to vote as their husbands tell them to.

Or maybe, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, they have plans to make a bid to repeal the 19th Amendment as we speak.