2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

The whole point I was trying to make from the start was, btw, is that Super PACs, no matter what side they support, are bad. A Super PAC more often than not represents the views of one incredibly wealthy person, who is usually very biased, and that's plain wrong.

I am a Democrat, and I am a Liberal, but just as too much of Conservativism leads to Facism, I know that too much of Liberalism leads to Communism. Too much of anything is bad.

I do not condone their use by anyone, and think that a lot of problems would be solved if both candidates would agree to get rid of them.

[Roy Karrde]

The whole point I was trying to make from the start was, btw, is that Super PACs, no matter what side they support, are bad. A Super PAC more often than not represents the views of one incredibly wealthy person, who is usually very biased, and that's plain wrong.

I am a Democrat, and I am a Liberal, but just as too much of Conservative leads to Facism, I know that too much of Liberalism leads to Communism. Too much of anything is bad.

I do not condone their use by anyone, and think that a lot of problems would be solved if both candidates would agree to get rid of them.

A better way would be to lift any and all payments to candidates, there has become so many loopholes like Super PACs and Campaign Bundles that makes it near impossible to regulate Campaign Finance Rules. I mean hell back in 2008 no one honestly believed Obama's doners were following the rules while his campaign was allowing untraceable cash cards being used.

[Heald]

I am a Democrat, and I am a Liberal, but just as too much of Conservativism leads to Facism, I know that too much of Liberalism leads to Communism. Too much of anything is bad.

Er, no.

Fascism = centralised government has complete control of social order

Conservatism = generally speaking smaller government control, more power to families and local institutions, free markets

Liberalism = advocating individual freedoms, government does not interfere with private matters, government will intervene when one individual infringes another's liberties

Communism = all production and economic factors controlled by centralised government, with wealth distributed by the state based on need and equality

The funny thing is, Liberalism is on the opposite end of the social spectrum to Fascism, where Communism is on the opposite end of the economic spectrum as Conservatism. Conservatism and Liberalism are natural co-operations, as are Fascism and Communism (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia).

[Dark Sage]

My mistake. Sorry.

I just remember a history teacher saying somewhere that both Facism and Communism are actually our two government philosophies taken to extremes. I must have misquoted.

[Heald]

It's annoying because the mainstream media describes fascism as the 'far-right', when it really espouses leftist principles (more government control). The far-right and the far-left are basically one and the same, they just have different coloured flags and slightly different motives/objectives.

[Roy Karrde]

Just curious Dark Sage, why do you believe that it is okay for you and the media to talk about what Romney did when he was a teenager. But not okay for CPACs to essentially do what the media refuses, and talk about what Obama did and heard in Wright's church? Just kind of struck me as a double standard.

[Dark Sage]

Obama has publically denounced the things that Wright has said, and there has never been any proof that he was ever anything more than a member of Wright's congregation. But that doesn't seem to be good enough for anyone.

[Roy Karrde]

Obama has publically denounced the things that Wright has said, and there has never been any proof that he was ever anything more than a member of Wright's congregation. But that doesn't seem to be good enough for anyone.

Obama denounced him only when the public backlash got to the point that he had to distance himself. Before he considered Wright as, and I quote "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with,"

Furthermore you seem to forget how much Wright was involved in Obama's family. Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." For Obama, Rev Wright was a close spiritual member.

[Roy Karrde]

Some interesting things today the WaPo/ABC poll has Obama up, 49/46, within the margin of error. However! This is their sample: D/R/I 32/22/38. For Obama to even reach a 3 point MOE lead, Republican turn out has to be at 22 percent. For a point of comparison, at the height of Obama fever in the 2008 election, turn out was: 39/32/29. And for the massive win in the 2010 elections the turn out was: 35/35/30.

Even with all that support, his job approval is only at: 47/49. A Democrat with that massive of a sample difference unable to break the 50% plateau is in some SERIOUS trouble. Meanwhile on handling the economy, Romney and Obama are tied at 47 percent. And again this is with a 22% Republican sample!

Meanwhile thanks to the Democrats stupidity on the Walker recall, suddenly the Democrat's northern blue shield is beginning to chip away.

A senior official with the Romney campaign said that if Mr. Walker survives, the campaign would take a fresh look at the state. “If opportunity hits, we will capitalize,” the official said.

“People are suddenly starting to talk about Wisconsin as a potential swing state, which was not the case even two weeks ago,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton.

The Democrats have seemingly lost two swing states in Florida and North Carolina, and now it looks like Wisconsin may be up for grabs!

[Dark Sage]

Obama's approval rating is 47%?

Not the best... But...

It's still a great deal better than the 36% that G.W. Bush had in 2008.

By the way Roy, just why are Republicans so left out of these polls anyway?

[Roy Karrde]

Obama's approval rating is 47%?

Not the best... But...

There is a 10 point bump for Obama and he can't get above 47% that is terrible.

It's still a great deal better than the 36% that G.W. Bush had in 2008.

Yeah and give Republicans a ten point bump and those and you will probably have a much higher rating.

By the way Roy, just why are Republicans so left out of these polls anyway?

Shouldn't the answer be clear? It is to game the polls for Obama.

[Dark Sage]

No Roy, the questionairres are sent out at random, and there's a spot on it where you say what your political affiliation is. I should know... I responded to to one of those polls once. In this one, 22% of those polled identified themselves as Rupublican.

You haven't considered the possibility, perhaps, that fewer people in these polls are identifying themselves as members of the GOP?

Good lord, this year is going by too fast, and yet it's dragging at the same time... I didn't think that was possible.

[Roy Karrde]

No Roy, the questionairres are sent out at random, and there's a spot on it where you say what your political affiliation is. I should know... I responded to to one of those polls once. In this one, 22% of those polled identified themselves as Rupublican.

You do realize that polls are reweighted afterwards. That way if they send out 1,000 questioners, and 450 come back Republicans they average it out.

You haven't considered the possibility, perhaps, that fewer people in these polls are identifying themselves as members of the GOP?

So you are telling me Republicans dropped over 12% in less than two years?

[Dark Sage]

You do realize that polls are reweighted afterwards. That way if they send out 1,000 questioners, and 450 come back Republicans they average it out.

You just contradicted yourself. You said the poll consisted of 32% Democrats, 22% Republicans, and 38% Independent.

That doesn't even total 100%, by the way... But whoever "evened it out" was clearly bad at math, if that's what he did.

[Roy Karrde]

You just contradicted yourself. You said the poll consisted of 32% Democrats, 22% Republicans, and 38% Independent.

That doesn't even total 100%, by the way... But whoever "evened it out" was clearly bad at math, if that's what he did.

7 considered themselves "Other", 2 had no opinion.

[Dark Sage]

Mitt Romney has made a bold prediction. He has said that if elected President, he will bring unemployment down to below 6% before his first term.

Real smart, Mitt. It appears you didn't learn anything from Mr. Obama's economic team, which famously said the stimulus would be successful if the nation reached 8% unemployment, only to end up deeply regretting having offered a specific number.

[Roy Karrde]

Mitt Romney has made a bold prediction. He has said that if elected President, he will bring unemployment down to below 6% before his first term.

Real smart, Mitt. It appears you didn't learn anything from Mr. Obama's economic team, which famously said the stimulus would be successful if the nation reached 8% unemployment, only to end up deeply regretting having offered a specific number.

Long term: Not the best idea, as you say we can all name Presidents who have made promises and then broke them and which ended up in leading to a one term Presidency.

Short Term: Anyone really going to call him out on it?

[Dark Sage]

I sure am, Roy.

If he becomes President, and unemployment is not below 6% in 2016, I'm gonna say he made a promise that he didn't keep.

He said it, and I'm gonna hold him to it.

[Roy Karrde]

I sure am, Roy.

If he becomes President, and unemployment is not below 6% in 2016, I'm gonna say he made a promise that he didn't keep.

He said it, and I'm gonna hold him to it.

"If he becomes President" is the keyword here. He is banking on that first.

[Dark Sage]

You gotta admit Roy, under 6%? That's a pretty grandiose goal, and I really have no idea how he plans to do it... We haven't been that well-off in a very long time.

In fact, I'd say he's crazy if I hadn't heard crazier things from politicians running for office.

[Roy Karrde]

You gotta admit Roy, under 6%? That's a pretty grandiose goal, and I really have no idea how he plans to do it... We haven't been that well-off in a very long time.

In fact, I'd say he's crazy if I hadn't heard crazier things from politicians running for office.

We have gone from 10% to just above 8% in about 2 years, it all depends I guess on how high work force participation is under his term, and what Greece does, and if China collapses. It can happen, but he will need to battle back the damage Obama has done as currently unemployment is much closer to 11%.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, what would it take for you to admit that he said something dumb?

IMOHO, it was really dumb. And the only thing dumber would be believing him.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, what would it take for you to admit that he said something dumb?

IMOHO, it was really dumb. And the only thing dumber would be believing him.

Dude I said in the long term that it was dumb and was in agreement with you.

BTW the CBO already estimates that unemployment will reach seven percent by the end of 2015 and five and a half percent by the end of 2017, putting his six percent figure by 2016 pretty close to what the CBO already expects.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you seem to take a dim view on how reporters handle the Presidential campaign... Do you respect Dan Rather's opinion?

He said yesterday that this campaign is "by far, the worst" of the eleven he has covered.

"There have been bad ones before, but this is by far the worst so far," Rather said. "I think the fact that there were so many debates during the Republican primary contributed to it.

"I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think by the time we finish with this campaign, not only will it be a three billion dollar presidential campaign — three billion dollars — but it will be ugly enough to choke a buzzard before we get through with it."

It's saying a lot. And the worst part is, I have to agree with him.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you seem to take a dim view on how reporters handle the Presidential campaign... Do you respect Dan Rather's opinion?

He said yesterday that this campaign is "by far, the worst" of the eleven he has covered.

This is the bastard that ran the forged Bush documents that got him kicked out of CBS correct? And has yet to apologize for it?

By the way all campaigns are "By far the worst". However in my opinion if you wish to go to the worst Presidential Election in modern history, look no further than the one in 1984, when you have a high ranking member of the opposing party committing treason in the hopes that his party wins, you cannot get any worse than that.

Although there is a argument to be made that the one in which Nixon committed his crime could be considered the worst.

[Dark Sage]

I was pretty young in 1984, and was certainly not involved in politics (although I likely would have voted for Reagan). Exactly who committed treason?

Some would say that Reagan himself was a traitor due to the whole Iran-Contra thing, btw.

[Roy Karrde]

I was pretty young in 1984, and was certainly not involved in politics (although I likely would have voted for Reagan). Exactly who committed treason?

Some would say that Reagan himself was a traitor due to the whole Iran-Contra thing, btw.

It would be Ted Kennedy who went to the Soviet Union trying to enlist their help in defeating Reagan while offering them special perks for doing so. Honestly after it was discovered in 1991, he should have spent the rest of his miserable life in jail.

[Dark Sage]

It would be Ted Kennedy who went to the Soviet Union trying to enlist their help in defeating Reagan while offering them special perks for doing so. Honestly after it was discovered in 1991, he should have spent the rest of his miserable life in jail.

Oh, that...

Actually, I would say that I agree with you on that. I never liked that guy.

[Roy Karrde]

Well we are starting to get a consensus going in the media. Obama's campaign has been pretty shitty so far.

Nothing inspires Democrats like the Barack Obama swagger — the supreme self-confidence on stage, the self-certainty in private.

So nothing inspires more angst than when that same Obama stumbles, as he has leaving the gate in 2012.

That’s the unmistakable reality for Democrats since Obama officially launched his re-election campaign three weeks ago. Obama, not Mitt Romney, is the one with the muddled message — and the one who often comes across as baldly political. Obama, not Romney, is the one facing blowback from his own party on the central issue of the campaign so far – Romney’s history with Bain Capital. And most remarkably, Obama, not Romney, is the one falling behind in fundraising.

To top it off, Vice President Joe Biden has looked more like a distraction this month than the potent working-class weapon Obama needs him to be.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76752.html

Lets add that to this news story from last night.

Democrats had taken comfort for months in the Republican Party’s seeming inability to get behind Mitt Romney, Obama’s healthy lead in the polls, and equally healthy job growth. And for a few, fleeting, moments, Democrats thought the election might just be easy. But Republican division appears to have been merely an artifact of primary politics, and Mitt Romney has proved a consistent, if unglamorous campaigner…

“There was this sense maybe a month or two ago that Obama was really riding high — that he had gotten his base behind him and the economy was doing better and it had this Clinton vs. Bob Dole 1996 feeling — that he was going to cruise,” said one 2008 Obama aide who does not work for this year’s campaign. “And now it feels like it’s going to be really tough — a 2004 race.”

Indeed the campaign is shaping up to be a close-combat battle for one percent of swing voters in a few hundred precincts across three or four states…

Moreover, a campaign that two months ago seemed infallible has proven to be very capable of making mistakes. Obama’s aides were taken aback when Vice President Joe Biden publicly backed same sex marriage — and spent a week punishing him for speaking out in the press. Long preparation for attacks on Romney’s time at Bain Capital, aimed at changing the narrative, nevertheless left them flat-footed when Republicans (and even a few Democrats) counter-attacked. Romney, who stumbled into the Republican nomination, scored his first tactical victory of the general election and further shored up the Republican base in the process.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/...ogant-any-more

Suddenly the mistakes are piling up, going after Mitt Romney's history at Bain being one of the biggest as it is drawing ire from members of his own party. And for the first time, it looks like even Obama's own team thinks he can lose!

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to present a comparison, if I may...

Yesterday, when Senator John McCain was speaking to a crowd in California at a Memorial Day event, he was heckled by someone who referenced the 1967 USS Liberty incident.

McCain had the man thrown out, and called him a "jerk" when he resumed his speech.

Now, I'm not defending what the heckler did, and he may well have been a jerk. After all, McCain had nothing to do with that incident. Still, it kind of stands in stark contrast to Mr. Obama, who tends to take hecklers with a grain of salt and let them speak. And stay. And it all assures me that voting for Obama was the right choice in 2008, and will be again this year.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd like to present a comparison, if I may...

Yesterday, when Senator John McCain was speaking to a crowd in California at a Memorial Day event, he was heckled by someone who referenced the 1967 USS Liberty incident.

McCain had the man thrown out, and called him a "jerk" when he resumed his speech.

Now, I'm not defending what the heckler did, and he may well have been a jerk. After all, McCain had nothing to do with that incident. Still, it kind of stands in stark contrast to Mr. Obama, who tends to take hecklers with a grain of salt and let them speak. And stay. And it all assures me that voting for Obama was the right choice in 2008, and will be again this year.

Wait hold on, just earlier this month you were bitching that Romney didn't go after a person for calling Obama a traitor, now you are saying McCain was wrong for throwing the person out, and not let him speak his peace. Which is it?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, do you realize how serious it is to accuse someone of being a traitor?

Think about it. That goes beyond heckling. That goes beyond anything a scandal rag would ever think of publishing. That is accusing someone of a capitol offense punishable by death.

Someone accused the President of this crime, and Romney didn't say a thing. If he had simply told the woman, "That's not true", I would have been satisfied, but he didn't say anything at all.

Clearly, you fail to grasp how serious it was. And that Romney shouldn't have let it stand.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, do you realize how serious it is to accuse someone of being a traitor?

Think about it. That goes beyond heckling. That goes beyond anything a scandal rag would ever think of publishing. That is accusing someone of a capitol offense punishable by death.

Someone accused the President of this crime, and Romney didn't say a thing. If he had simply told the woman, "That's not true", I would have been satisfied, but he didn't say anything at all.

Clearly, you fail to grasp how serious it was. And that Romney shouldn't have let it stand.

As opposed to a event in which is meant to honor veterans in which a heckler brings up a incident meant to attack Israel and inject politics into a event to honor the dead? Any one can stupidly call some one a traitor, when you dive into trying to dishonor the dead on a day meant to mark their memory you truly become a bastard. But by your logic McCain should have let it stand.

By the way at a event earlier this month, some one yelled out "Traitor!" at a Obama Rally, and Obama did not say a thing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/1...g-obama-rally/

Does Obama realize how serious it is to accuse some one of treason? I guess he fails to grasp that.

[Dark Sage]

How do you - or the idiots at your conservative website - know that the guy who shouted at that rally didn't direct it towards Mr. Obama?

[Roy Karrde]

How do you - or the idiots at your conservative website - know that the guy who shouted at that rally didn't direct it towards Mr. Obama?

"As President Barack Obama gave the first official campaign speech of his re-election bid at a sports arena in Ohio last weekend the first mention of his Republican opponent Mitt Romney prompted a male voice in the throng to yell: “Traitor!”"

I guess the "Idiots" figured that when Obama is giving the speech, and the guy waits till Romney's name comes up to yell out "Traitor" that he is speaking of Romney.

[Dark Sage]

I want proof that:

A: This incident actually happened (as in, I want to see a reference to it in a site that reports nonpartisan news).

B: That the guy who shouted the word actually directed it towards Romney, and

C: That the place was small enough for anyone to notice it over anything that anyone else was saying.

[Roy Karrde]

I want proof that:

A: This incident actually happened (as in, I want to see a reference to it in a site that reports nonpartisan news).

Guardian Newspaper is where it came from.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ers?CMP=twt_fd

B: That the guy who shouted the word actually directed it towards Romney, and

Again as the quote comes up, he did not say a word until Romney's name came up.

C: That the place was small enough for anyone to notice it over anything that anyone else was saying.

The cry was loud enough for the reporters to hear, and honestly how many people try to talk over the President?

[Dark Sage]

Okay... But there is a difference...

In the case of Romney's speech, he could see the woman quite clearly. She was directly in front of him. He was well within his power to address her and refute what she had said.

In Obama's case, this was a crowded sports arena, with several hundred people, and no-one saw who said it. He was NOT in a position to reply to whoever said it.

By the way, if indeed someone called Romney a traitor, he shouldn't have done so.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay... But there is a difference...

In the case of Romney's speech, he could see the woman quite clearly. She was directly in front of him. He was well within his power to address her and refute what she had said.

In Obama's case, this was a crowded sports arena, with several hundred people, and no-one saw who said it. He was NOT in a position to reply to whoever said it.

By the way, if indeed someone called Romney a traitor, he shouldn't have done so.

So you are telling me Obama could not address the crowd? That he could not have spoken up about such diversive language? Because if being called a Traitor is so damming as you make it out to be, why should he not use it as a teaching moment?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, if you admit that Romney should have said something to that woman, I'll admit that Obama should have interrupted his speech to address the crowd.

Until then, I think that McCain showed poor maturity and let a big jerk get to him, compared to Obama, who is very good at keeping his cool around big jerks.