Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Ron Paul destroys Romney and Perry in straw poll victory. Follow

#1 Sep 19 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Sub-Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Ron Paul has done it again. Paul has won the CA straw poll with a landslide victory in CA. This quote is taken directly from CNN.

"Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17/politics/california.straw.poll_1_straw-poll-ron-paul-votes?_s=PM:POLITICS

It's no surprise that Americans are finally waking up and tired of the lies. One of the largest reasons why people are waking up is the facts support Paul's stance. America became great because of our freedom and the Constitution, not the overabundance of government regulation. It's no surprise that the military supports Ron Paul more than any other candidate. Those of in the military know how war works and how the public is mislead. It's truly sad how many people only have FOX, MSNBC, and CNN to rely on for news coverage. Regardless of your views or politics, we've been on this slippery slope for years. On the verge of financial meltdown for America, a 30 year Congressional veteran of the Constitution stands up for us in the last ditch effort to save this country from destruction. I've included Ron Paul's video taken at the straw poll for your own viewing.





Edited, Sep 19th 2011 1:40pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
#2 Sep 19 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,972 posts
I'd love to see Ron Paul as the GOP candidate.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#3 Sep 19 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This just in: Straw polls still don't matter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Sep 19 2011 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
In other news, Gbaji is no longer the craziest nut in the asylum.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#5 Sep 19 2011 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Same crazy nut, different tree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#6 Sep 19 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Luck Happens. Smiley: nod

Screenshot

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Sep 19 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
USA Today/Gallup Poll wrote:
The survey, taken Thursday through Sunday, charts a GOP field that seems headed toward a showdown between Perry, with 31% backing, and Romney, at 24%.
The only other candidate scoring in double digits is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, at 13%. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who seized GOP interest when she entered the race, has seen her support plummet to 5%. That puts her in a tie with former House speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain.


Personally I like Ron Paul, but his platform hardly appeals to the average Republican.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#8 Sep 19 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This just in: Straw polls still don't matter.


Maybe, I found some interesting numbers though. Ronald Regan and G.W. Bush won the CPAC straw poll and became president so far. Jack Kemp, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul won the rest(more than once) for the most part.

Both presidents Reagan and Bush were 2 term presidents too. So I wouldn't write it off completely. :)
#9 Sep 19 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
I think you're missing the point: straw polls aren't an indicator either way.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 Sep 19 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Besides, G.Dub lost the first election.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Sep 19 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Maybe, I found some interesting numbers though. Ronald Regan and G.W. Bush won the CPAC straw poll and became president so far.

Were they trailing by 10-20 points in the polls at the time?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Sep 19 2011 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Elinda wrote:


Personally I like Ron Paul, but his platform hardly appeals to the average Republican.


What do you like about him, just curious?

As for my reasons, I like how he tells it like it is. Topics he talked about in the 2008 election have come to light now. Paul believes in freedom over government control which is the way this country is supposed to run. It would take me all day to list all the other reasons. I think the other main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's the only politician that isn't a liar or flip flopper. Agree or disagree, he won't flip flop his views to compromise his integrity like Obama and all the rest.
#13 Sep 19 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I think the other main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's the only politician that isn't a liar or flip flopper. Agree or disagree, he won't flip flop his views to compromise his integrity like Obama and all the rest.
Unfortunate that one of his greatest attributes, to you, could be one of his biggest downfalls in ever accomplishing anything politically.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14 Sep 19 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Were they trailing by 10-20 points in the polls at the time?


I don't know, possibly. I do know that Ronald Reagan was a long shot and wasn't expected to win at all. He was laughed at by many of the GOP and he became the model of the GOP ticket now. Not only that, Ron Paul was one of the 4 GOP who supported Reagan prior to him becoming a household GOP brand. In a lot of ways, Ron Paul is an underdog like Reagan.
#15ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 19 2011 at 1:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I agree that most politicians are quick to compromise selling themselves out. It's not simply a matter of compromising on the issue so it doesn't hurt the people. People that don't support Ron Paul because he doesn't like Fema and other agencies do so because of the spin. It's not that Paul is against helping people, it's that he's against federal programs that cost a fortune and do very little because of how they're regulated. It's like if I gave you 1.00 for a charity and only 10cents made it to the charity because of overhead. That's Ron Paul's problem in a nutshell with these federal org.
#16 Sep 19 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Sep 19 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?


I should been more clear. Ron Paul will compromise on issues, but not on principle. For example, he said he would vote for money to be pumped into FEMA(help with Irene) if it were diverted from the defense budget. I think that the DEM would vote for a lot of Paul's bills because it seems the left likes him more than his own party. Again, this is all speculation, but judging by most left winged shows and views I hear, I think they would support Paul at least more than Romney or Perry.

The problem with politics is the lobbyists control things. Obama and many others have said this statement. So the American people will have to rally behind Paul if he's to push though the money donated by these lobbyists who control their politicians like puppets.

Good question though.
#18 Sep 19 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?


So basically Obama?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Sep 19 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Elinda wrote:


Personally I like Ron Paul, but his platform hardly appeals to the average Republican.


What do you like about him, just curious?

As for my reasons, I like how he tells it like it is. Topics he talked about in the 2008 election have come to light now. Paul believes in freedom over government control which is the way this country is supposed to run. It would take me all day to list all the other reasons. I think the other main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's the only politician that isn't a liar or flip flopper. Agree or disagree, he won't flip flop his views to compromise his integrity like Obama and all the rest.

I like him. Like you said, he's honest. I don't really agree so much with his politics. I think there are too many people in this country for the government to simply turn it's back on governing.

Oh and platforms are for hanging onto. When it comes time to actually make legislation calling compromising 'flip-flopping' is bullcrap.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#20 Sep 19 2011 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?
So basically Obama?

So you've been crying about nothing for the last couple years? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Sep 19 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?


I should been more clear. Ron Paul will compromise on issues, but not on principle.

But you just accused Obama of flip-flopping because he was forced to compromise on issues.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 19 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Obama in my opinion has not held true to his campaign promises. By most accounts, he didn't even try to do so. If he had more bills that tried to pass and failed, then the blame could be on those that failed to pass. Obama's poll numbers aren't low for nothing. Obama wasn't really compromising though. He basically gave up giving the GOP everything they want out of the deals. The debt ceiling deal got the GOP 96% of what they wanted and the left got basically zilch. They couldn't even get taxes for the rich on the list.
#23 Sep 19 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
I liked the offshore drilling compromise at the time.

Then of course that rig blew something like 2 weeks later in the worst case of political 'bad timing' I've seen in a while. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 Sep 19 2011 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Elinda wrote:



But you just accused Obama of flip-flopping because he was forced to compromise on issues.




Obama in my opinion has not held true to his campaign promises. By most accounts, he didn't even try to do so. If he had more bills that tried to pass and failed, then the blame could be on those that failed to pass. Obama's poll numbers aren't low for nothing. Obama wasn't really compromising though. He basically gave up giving the GOP everything they want out of the deals. The debt ceiling deal got the GOP 96% of what they wanted and the left got basically zilch. They couldn't even get taxes for the rich on the list.

So the difference of a theoretical President Paul compromising and the actual President Obama compromising in an attempt to pass legislation is simply a matter of degree?

Obama compromised too much?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#25 Sep 19 2011 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?
So basically Obama?

So you've been crying about nothing for the last couple years? Smiley: laugh


Nope. Just found amusing similarities between Obama's speech today in which he basically said "I'll veto any bill that doesn't have what I want in it" and Debalic's portrayal of what Ron Paul would do if/when Congress isn't willing to pass his bills. Same thing, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Sep 19 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Just found amusing similarities between Obama's speech today in which he basically said "I'll veto any bill that doesn't have what I want in it" and Debalic's portrayal of what Ron Paul would do if/when Congress isn't willing to pass his bills. Same thing, right?

Ah, ok. Boy, that Boehner was a big silly-head when he said tax increases were definitely out of the picture, huh? Hahahaha... umm... yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Sep 19 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Elinda wrote:

So the difference of a theoretical President Paul compromising and the actual President Obama compromising in an attempt to pass legislation is simply a matter of degree?

Obama compromised too much?



That's the problem, Obama wasn't compromising much at all. He was giving the GOP everything they asked for with almost nothing in exchange. Right now Obama is pushing for taxes to the rich yet again. Do you honestly think it will happen? In order to compromise effectively, the other side must give something back and that isn't happening much. That's why the debt ceiling deal with such a failure on Obama's record. Obamacare was passed with zero GOP support despite all the compromises made to it by Obama to achieve GOP votes. For example, the 222 waivers for big business giants to not have to carry Obamacare yet the rest of us including small businesses are screwed by it. That's the ideal example of Obama not working for our best interests.
#28 Sep 19 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Just found amusing similarities between Obama's speech today in which he basically said "I'll veto any bill that doesn't have what I want in it" and Debalic's portrayal of what Ron Paul would do if/when Congress isn't willing to pass his bills. Same thing, right?

Ah, ok. Boy, that Boehner was a big silly-head when he said tax increases were definitely out of the picture, huh? Hahahaha... umm... yeah.


So let's get this straight. Obama is calling for a jobs bill, but Congress is unwilling to pass it. And Obama's response is to threaten a veto if Congress doesn't. So exactly what Deb said Paul would do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 19 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That... wasn't straight.

Obama is calling for Congress to pass his deficit reduction bill and saying he would veto a substitute GOP deficit reduction bill that doesn't increase tax revenue. Boehner & Co are saying they'll absolutely never pass a bill with tax increases and will (presumably) continue to pass bills that are doomed to stall in the Senate (and would be vetoed) rather than review their own line in the sand.

It's as though you don't get your news from anywhere.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 4:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Sep 19 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63756.html


The "Buffet Rule" should of passed a long time ago, but Obama never forced it. Now with his re-election up for grabs, he has no choice.
#31 Sep 19 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,441 posts
True, Ron Paul is certainly the most honest of the GoP candidates, and that's something I respect about him.

Unfortunately, he's just as insane as his fellow candidates, so his honesty is all the more clear in that it is not obfuscated by misinformation and lies.

Back when the game NationStates was running, my husband and I maintained our little countries inside of a larger alliance called Ron Paul's Magical Wonderland. We all tried to run our little game-countries to the principles that Ron Paul upholds. Oh boy, that game was fun.

The alliance's motto was just this: "Fair tax! Gold standard! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!"

Needless to say, any actual Ron Paul fans that stumbled onto our little experiment in satire were fairly confused.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#32 Sep 19 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
catwho wrote:


Unfortunately, he's just as insane as his fellow candidates, so his honesty is all the more clear in that it is not obfuscated by misinformation and lies.


I get this response quite a lot from people. Can you elaborate further?

You say Ron Paul is insane as all the rest, but honest. I don't understand how following the Constitution of this country is insane. Is Ron Paul's threat to eliminate the Fed what you're talking about or something else?
#33 Sep 19 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,441 posts
He wants to eliminate federal income tax and levy a national sales tax instead. This would effectively be raising taxes significantly on the poorest of the nation, who spend every penny they have (outside of rent) on things that are charged a sales tax (food, clothing, etc) and who don't have any spare money to tuck away into savings to avoid paying taxes on it.

Right now, someone making under $10,000 doesn't pay anything in income taxes, because at 10K a year you're already surviving on under a thousand bucks a month. Under Ron Paul's plan, with 23% income tax, someone making 10K a year would be paying $1000-2000 in taxes.

Edit: I also think that, in some ways, he's hopelessly optimistic. He genuinely believes that in a free market, a business will perform its best and not ***** over its own employees or other people in the name of profit. Now, I do try to believe the best of individual human beings, but human beings in a collective (e.g. a business) tend to have a negative moralistic feedback loop. So while an individual may not make but one slightly morally wrong decision, a committee is going to make a hundred of those, and a business is going to make ten thousand of them, all compounding and feeding on each other. This is human nature, where a business considers itself a tribe and views the other tribes and those of lower social status in the tribe as inherently worth less, and thus not in need of protection or even respect.

That latter part isn't so much a mark of insanity as it is one of naivety.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 5:53pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#34 Sep 19 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
catwho wrote:

Right now, someone making under $10,000 doesn't pay anything in income taxes, because at 10K a year you're already surviving on under a thousand bucks a month. Under Ron Paul's plan, with 23% income tax, someone making 10K a year would be paying $1000-2000 in taxes.


Not that I'm throwing my support behind the plan, but it's not unusual for sales taxes to exempt things like food and prescription drugs from taxation (see page 4) as to lessen the blow on those with less income.

Edit: I don't know why I quoted the part I did... it's nap time apparently. Smiley: rolleyes


Edited, Sep 19th 2011 3:11pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#35 Sep 19 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,810 posts
I believe in a flat tax, but not sales-tax based.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#36 Sep 19 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Debalic wrote:
So if somehow he did get elected but nobody in Congress wanted to pass his bills, you'd be okay with him getting nothing done as long as he clung desperately to his ideals?


Jophiel wrote:
Obama is calling for Congress to pass his deficit reduction bill and saying he would veto a substitute GOP deficit reduction bill that doesn't increase tax revenue.


So exactly the same thing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 19 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
No, not exactly. Similar in ways though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#38 Sep 19 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
isn't it obvious.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#39 Sep 19 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63756.html


The "Buffet Rule" should of passed a long time ago, but Obama never forced it. Now with his re-election up for grabs, he has no choice.


The Buffet Rule is a moronic idea based almost solely of manipulating people who don't understand the difference between income and capital gains.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 19 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
No, not exactly. Similar in ways though.


Deb's statement didn't specify *why* Congress might not pass a presidents bill, just that it wouldn't, and that a bad president would rather that nothing gets passed if his own bill wont. Which is precisely what Obama is doing right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Sep 19 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
No, not exactly. Similar in ways though.


Deb's statement didn't specify *why* Congress might not pass a presidents bill, just that it wouldn't, and that a bad president would rather that nothing gets passed if his own bill wont. Which is precisely what Obama is doing right now.
There's still a difference you're not catching. Debalic specified the president's bill or nothing. Obama's asking for his bill, while stating what he won't pass is something that excludes 1 specific facet of it.

Be like ordering a ham sandwich on rye and being told their's no rye, just white bread. In Debalic's example, you'd say no. In Obama's you'd say, "Well, it's got the ham, so ok." Not necessarily the best example, but I think it's fairly clear.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Sep 19 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
No, not exactly. Similar in ways though.


Deb's statement didn't specify *why* Congress might not pass a presidents bill, just that it wouldn't, and that a bad president would rather that nothing gets passed if his own bill wont. Which is precisely what Obama is doing right now.
There's still a difference you're not catching. Debalic specified the president's bill or nothing. Obama's asking for his bill, while stating what he won't pass is something that excludes 1 specific facet of it.


Except that 1 specific facet (and it's really a set of things, but whatever) is the one thing that both sides disagree on. You get that what you're saying is somewhat irrelevant. Usually, the reason a bill fails to pass is because there's that "one thing" that one side insists must be in there and the other side insists must not. We can assume that the hypothetical bill which Paul would want would be rejected by congress because it contained one "facet" which congress refused to pass.

It's the same issue. Obama is in a position where public opinion is against what he wants, and a necessary part of congress is against what he wants. But he's making that one thing the key condition which must be met to get any bill passed. It's not just heavy handed, it's really stupid. Ok, to be fair, it's a gamble. But I think it's a gamble based on being so far inside a liberal echo chamber that he just doesn't realize how incredibly unpopular what he's demanding is. He's digging his own political grave here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Sep 19 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
Oh, ok. We'll assume in one thing, but not in the other. Got it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#44 Sep 19 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Quote:
Except that 1 specific facet (and it's really a set of things, but whatever)


I am quite sure he said he would veto anything that cut from medicare/medicade, without a proportionate increase to revenues.

Doesn't get more single track then that.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#45 Sep 19 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Both sides are pretty locked into what their respective bases want right now: no tax raises or more taxes on the wealthy. Makes you wonder if either side will really find it politically in their best interest to compromise.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 4:28pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#46 Sep 19 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Oh, ok. We'll assume in one thing, but not in the other. Got it.


Both cases assume the same base conditions. The president wants a bill with X in it. Congress doesn't want to pass a bill with X in it. President says he'll veto any bill without X in it.

How is this different? Obama is doing exactly what Deb said Paul would do. Only he's doing it right now, and not in some hypothetical future "this is what a crazy ideologue might do" scenario. And more amusingly, the thing he's chosen to draw a line in the sand over is tax increases. Not terribly popular.

And it's not going to be terribly popular with his own party either. His bluff only works as long as congress doesn't actually pass a deficit reduction bill without those tax increases in it. If they do, and he goes through with a veto, now *he's* the one saying "no" to fixing the economy. So he's relying on Senate Democrats to basically fall on their swords for him and take the pressure for not passing any bills the House puts out there that doesn't meet the presidents criteria. He's trying to take the credit for standing firm, but it's his party members in the Senate who will have to take the heat for it.


All the GOP has to do is keep passing bills in the house like they ones they have been passing. Send a mountain of them at the Senate. That effectively puts the "no on fixing the economy" label squarely on the Democrats. IMO, while Obama may get some legs out of this in the short term, he's taking a huge political gamble with this, and in all likelihood it'll turn into a massive political blunder for both him and his party. He's just made himself out to be the obstructionist in this debate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Sep 19 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
gbaji wrote:
How is this different? Obama is doing exactly what Deb said Paul would do.
I have no interest in trying to be even more clear on this, so unless someone else feels the need to attempt the impossible in trying to help you through this, I don't see you getting answered.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#48 Sep 19 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Raising upper tier taxes to help close the deficit has pretty wide support. Or maybe the "far left liberal echo chamber" is bigger than you thought.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Sep 19 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I have no interest in trying to be even more clear on this, so unless someone else feels the need to attempt the impossible in trying to help you through this, I don't see you getting answered.


This is being "clear on this"?:

Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Oh, ok. We'll assume in one thing, but not in the other. Got it.


You haven't been clear on anything Ugly. Repeating the same assertion that the two are different doesn't really make them so. I've been very clear though. Both cases involve the same "my way or the highway" approach, and both essentially threaten legislative deadlock. If that's bad in a hypothetical situation where Ron Paul might do this, how can it not be equally bad when Obama is doing it right now?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 19 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Raising upper tier taxes to help close the deficit has pretty wide support.


Only when linked in an "either/or" relationship with cutting medicare and social security benefits (which is presumably why Obama framed his words the way he did). The problem is that when you poll plans that don't cut those benefits for current recipients and compare them to raising taxes, raising taxes gets much less support.

Quote:
Or maybe the "far left liberal echo chamber" is bigger than you thought.


The liberal echo chamber commissions push polls that frame the issues in exactly the way they want to maximize their apparent support. But those polls don't reflect the actual choices out there. None of the GOP proposals so far have included cuts to current recipients of Medicare or Social Security. So what we're left with really is Obama playing politics with a very real problem which needs a very real solution.


He's selling a "plan" that is just more empty rhetoric. He's going to reduce the deficit by $3T over ten years (never mind that deficits aren't really calculated that way), with $1.5T in tax increases on the rich and assuming $1.1T in saved spending from draw downs of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Um... So even if this plan is more than just vapor, how does he think this is "balanced"? So $2.6T comes in the form of tax increases and defense spending cuts and the other $400B comes from where? It's BS. He knows no one's going to take it seriously and it has no chance of going anywhere legislatively.

He's campaigning to his base. Frankly, I think that's a mistake, but at this point it's really all he has left.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Sep 19 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... ok.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Demea, feelz, Jophiel, klausneck, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (52)