2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

Nevin73 wrote:

Interestingly, NASA is very much like DARPA. They come up with a thesis, and pay defense contractors to do the real engineering and development.

Most of today's whiz-bang gadgets have their roots in either NASA or Defense projects. We didn't get GPS because a private company thought it would be a great idea to implement. We didn't get the Internet because a company thought that the sharing of information would transform the world. Both of those examples came from defense projects which were funded by government dollars. These candidates are either pandering or tremendously ignorant.

"Or"?

Just for clarification, since the coverage over here is a bit limited: the impression I'm getting is that anyone who can secure the GOP nomination will be too extreme to beat Obama in the general election, and likewise anyone who might be palatable enough to swing voters to beat Obama will be too liberal to get nominated. Romney is ahead due to being the least objectionable and having a bit of a head start. Is there more to the story than that?

Sonicator wrote:

Just for clarification, since the coverage over here is a bit limited: the impression I'm getting is that anyone who can secure the GOP nomination will be too extreme to beat Obama in the general election, and likewise anyone who might be palatable enough to swing voters to beat Obama will be too liberal to get nominated. Romney is ahead due to being the least objectionable and having a bit of a head start. Is there more to the story than that?

I think the GOP should bet on Romney because he has a decent chance to win. Their alternative is to let Obama stay in office and I bet they can find more common grounds with Mitt Romney . I looked up Mitt Romney on the interweb (usually means wikipedia ) and the fact he's history shows he's a little left of the GOP give him an advantage over tea party candidates who might be popular with one part of the public but the other side may find them objectionable.

Romney is a fairly good alternative vote for people who don't like Obama or his actions . The traditional Republican voters don't have another option - It's a two party system and they won't vote for Obama .

Take note that my views are an outsider views even though I lived in the US for 8 years ;).

Niseg wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

Just for clarification, since the coverage over here is a bit limited: the impression I'm getting is that anyone who can secure the GOP nomination will be too extreme to beat Obama in the general election, and likewise anyone who might be palatable enough to swing voters to beat Obama will be too liberal to get nominated. Romney is ahead due to being the least objectionable and having a bit of a head start. Is there more to the story than that?

I think the GOP should bet on Romney because he has a decent chance to win.

It's so cute that you think the GOP is the one doing the betting.

Niseg wrote:

I think the GOP should bet on Romney because he has a decent chance to win. Their alternative is to let Obama stay in office and I bet they can find more common grounds with Mitt Romney . I looked up Mitt Romney on the interweb (usually means wikipedia ) and the fact he's history shows he's a little left of the GOP give him an advantage over tea party candidates who might be popular with one part of the public but the other side may find them objectionable.

Romney is a fairly good alternative vote for people who don't like Obama or his actions . The traditional Republican voters don't have another option - It's a two party system and they won't vote for Obama .

Take note that my views are an outsider views even though I lived in the US for 8 years ;).

Therein lies the problem. There's a number of well financed and very vocal conservative groups that absolutely HATE Romney. While he may be the current front runner in terms of Republican voter opinion, many conservatives insiders and PAC supporters can't stand him. If Romney wins the primary, Obama is a shoe in for a second term.

Bear wrote:

If fill in the blank wins the primary, Obama is a shoe in for a second term.

I think this is a simpler look at the situation.

The economy is in extremely fragile condition right now; it would actually collapse without the massive deficit spending going on. I believe the Republicans are suddenly getting all serious about 'cutting the deficit' because they know it will force the economy into another failure, for which Obama will be blamed.

What I suspect they don't realize is that they are playing with fire.

Malor wrote:

The economy is in extremely fragile condition right now; it would actually collapse without the massive deficit spending going on. I believe the Republicans are suddenly getting all serious about 'cutting the deficit' because they know it will force the economy into another failure, for which Obama will be blamed.

What I suspect they don't realize is that they are playing with fire.

I have a metric buttload of misgivings about the GOP, but I can't really think they'd intentionally do what you're describing here. There's a chasm between the galactically stupid and the heinously evil, and I think the GOP has built their house safely in the former category.

edit: NOM notwithstanding. Those people can burn.

Well, if they cut spending now, the economy should be well and truly tanked around the time of the election. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Malor wrote:

Well, if they cut spending now, the economy should be well and truly tanked around the time of the election. I don't think that's a coincidence.

The more I read about what the Tea Party GOP candidates are spouting, the more cynical and believable this becomes.

Malor wrote:

Well, if they cut spending now, the economy should be well and truly tanked around the time of the election. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Malor, I thought you wanted spending to be cut because the economy is doomed already? Your worry is a little confusing.

Malor wasn't making value judgments on process, just the timing.

Greg wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, if they cut spending now, the economy should be well and truly tanked around the time of the election. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Malor, I thought you wanted spending to be cut because the economy is doomed already? Your worry is a little confusing.

That is because he was describing the real world for a fleeting moment.

I heard a spokesperson for the American Enterprise Institute this morning expressing disappointment in Romney's born again isolationist positions. More interesting was her statement that Obama was a moderate Republican when it came to foreign policy. This from AEI seemed rather troubling.

Well, it needs to happen -- we are furiously digging ourselves into a hole so deep we may not be able to dig back out. But I have no doubt whatsoever that the Tea Party has no interest in the prosperity of America, but only in themselves and their buddies. I'd be deeply afraid of what might happen if we go into serious failure with them at the helm.

Serious failure is coming. It's gonna be the worst thing that's ever happened to this country. We're already in the Second Great Depression by most of the measures that were used the last time around, and the only reason it's not worse is because of absolutely unsustainable spending, trying to keep the economy doing the stupid sh*t that got us in trouble to begin with. Any relief is temporary, and will be offset by that many more years of terrible, terrible economic turmoil.

You see how the Greeks are all up in arms and rioting and sh*t? Well, it's too f*cking late now. They needed to be doing that five or ten years ago. At this point, they're out of options.

Likewise, we should be horrified and throwing the bastards out of office in this country, because they've set up a mess that makes the Greek problems look tiny. Most of us just don't know about it yet.

I suspect that many people in the government DO know, and that's why they've been pushing so hard for the draconian police powers. They're going to need them.

Economic turmoil brings demagogues to power. If the Republicans successfully reduce spending to the degree they're trying for, I think it's entirely possible that Palin could win the Presidency in 2012.

Malor,

I truly respect your opinion, but I do not understand the hang wringing. If things are only going to get worse, I do not think it is going to make much difference who is in power. If the government cuts 41 cents of every dollar that it spends, everyone is going to be severely hurt. I think we are past the point of playing winners and losers. There will be Greek style unrest in the streets.

Edit: What I am trying to say is that I do not see the possibility of a soft landing so I am dubious that it matters who is in power.

I believe both parties have been completely irresponsible.

I suspect that the spending party will continue until right after the election.

Greg wrote:

Malor,

I truly respect your opinion, but I do not understand the hang wringing. If things are only going to get worse, I do not think it is going to make much difference who is in power. If the government cuts 41 cents of every dollar that it spends, everyone is going to be severely hurt. I think we are past the point of playing winners and losers. There will be Greek style unrest in the streets.

Edit: What I am trying to say is that I do not see the possibility of a soft landing so I am dubious that it matters who is in power.

I believe both parties have been completely irresponsible.

I suspect that the spending party will continue until right after the election.

When you say spending party, you do mean the GOP, right. You can't possibly hold the party of higher taxes (you know, pay for what you get) to a higher standard. I understand that the GOP acts like they don't spend. But 20 years of Reagan and the Bushes vs. the 10 years of Clinton and Obama tell a much different story.

I think he meant "spending party" as in "hey it's a party, let's get the funny hats and noisemakers, and spend money!" as opposed to "Democrats are the tax and spend party and GOP is the borrow and spend party."

For your viewing pleasure (particularly the cutline):

IMAGE(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4172/scan058.jpg)

BWA! HAHAHAHAHA!

Obama’s White House Press Secretary says, ”Obama approaches the deficit talks with a “singular concern, which is that the outcome of the deficit reduction talks produce a result that significantly reduces the deficit while doing no damage to the economic recovery and no damage to our progress in creating jobs.”

Can't cut the deficit willingly without doing damage.

You have to cut the deficit by balancing trade and getting everyone working.

The deficit = net private savings + current account balance.

Current account balance = Imports - exports.

But then there will always be a deficit because households and businesses have a propensity to save because of uncertainty.

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

Yup

Tanglebones wrote:
Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

Yup

Is that just par for the course for a sitting president then? My American political history ain't really all that.

Jonman wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

Yup

Is that just par for the course for a sitting president then? My American political history ain't really all that.

Yeah, the last time I remember a sitting president being challenged in a primary was Carter - who had all of Obama's economic and foreign instability, with much less of Obama's charisma and built-in base.

Tanglebones wrote:

Yeah, the last time I remember a sitting president being challenged in a primary was Carter - who had all of Obama's economic and foreign instability, with much less of Obama's charisma and built-in base.

Pat Buchanan, 1992 wrote:

George Bush served bravely in America's great war. He is a man of graciousness, honor, and integrity, who has given half a lifetime to his nation's service. But the differences between us now are too deep.

He is yesterday and we are tomorrow. He is a globalist and we are nationalists. He believes in some Pax Universalis; we believe in the Old Republic. He would put American's wealth and power at the service of some vague New World Order; we will put America first. So, to take my party back and take our country back, I am today declaring my candidacy for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States

Tanglebones wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

Yup

Is that just par for the course for a sitting president then? My American political history ain't really all that.

Yeah, the last time I remember a sitting president being challenged in a primary was Carter - who had all of Obama's economic and foreign instability, with much less of Obama's charisma and built-in base.

Yeah, and Carter had the hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy tried to take the nomination, but failed, even though Carter was dead in the water.

Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

I could see an actual liberal run against him. But, it would either be just for show or an eccentric with a lot of money.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

I could see an actual liberal run against him. But, it would either be just for show or an eccentric with a lot of money.

So, Dennis Kucinich, then.

Good point, Dimmer- but I don't think Buchanan ever cracked 10% in the primary polls, whereas Kennedy was running neck and neck with Carter for a while.