Hmm, did Ron Paul sign that lunatic anti-gay marriage pledge Bachmann's been crowing about? I don't think so; but it's hard to tell from the news.

Looking at 2008, I don't know that the Republican Party has been bringing in a lot of moderate candidates in the first place.

Honestly though, my number one hope is that the Tea party reins in the neo-conservatives. The behaviors of Bush and Cheney may be well-intentioned, but they did a lot of damage. I fully expect it takes the party a cycle or two (or four!) to lose some of that edge and learn to compromise. It's unfortunate the adjustment period is NOW, though.

re: Ron Paul - he's voted against any attempt to 'define' marriage at the federal level and actually sponsored a bill to COUNTER the Defense of Marriage Act. He "supports letting gay couples marry, as long as they don't 'impose' their relationship on anyone else."

Interesting article.  Just wanted to point out that comments on it should probably go in the economy thread rather than this one. ;)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Tycho.

McCain was a moderate wet dream.  He had more bile and venom towards his own party than he did for any Democrat.  How did that turn out?



Less damage was done under Bush/Cheney than was done under just three years of Obama.



The guy is looking better and better.  I just don't like his isolationist stances.

McCain spent the election campaigning to his own party to gain suppport and heal the alienation his nomination had caused and wound up alienating the mainstream in the process.
When the 'moderate wet dream' is too right wing to win you know the whole party has a problem.

In reply to silveroak (msg #544):

Oh please.  All McCain did, and his advisor's pushed for, was alienate the Conservative core of the Republican party.  He was all about capturing the moderate vote that seems to be SOP of so many RINOs these days.  It doesn't work.

The main problem the GOP had during 2008 was that they let the media choose the candidate.  I know a great many Conservatives who refused to vote for McCain or at all for that matter.  Surprisingly a few of them voted for Obama.

<sarcasm>Right, capture the moderate vote, that was why he picked Palin. Because she is so moderate.</sarcasm>

And he spent his entire campaign hiding her from the public and playing down her aggressive style.  Not to mention his own advisors attacking Palin during the campaign.

I don't believe I ever said McCain had a chance nor do I say his campaign was run well.  It wasn't.  He didn't count on Palin being as outspoken as she was and she was the only reason anyone voted for the old RINO.

Anyway, McCain won me $200 in a bet with a woman who told me the US would never elect Obama because we are so very, very racist.  That was some sweet money.

I know people who voted for McCain who did not like Palin... life long Republicas...

This message was deleted by the player at 13:05, Thu 21 July 2011.

I'm not pleased with the Super congress that has been created with the fear mongering pushed by congress to create it, in order to get the debt fixed.  6 hand pick members from the house, and 6 hand picked members from the senate.  The 12th spot will be filled by the president.

What?
6 from the house, six from the senate and the 12th spot is the president? The math doesn't quite work out there...

13th, missed the 3 is all.

In reply to spoonk (msg #550):

I'm not sure what to make of it yet, to be honest.  On the one hand, it seems entirely superfluous, bound to gridlock, set up to be full of partisan theatre, and unlikely to accomplish much.  On the other, the "trigger" items themselves, while undesirable politically for both parties are probably things that we should be doing anyway, and this may be the only way to get the parties to "agree" to do the hard cutting (by making it look like its the result of them not agreeing to do so).  It think the cuts will come at a bad time for the economy, and the focus on cutting now (rather than jobs) is a bad idea, but if we accept for the moment that congress has made the call to focus on cuts instead of the economy, this may be more likely to end up with successful cuts than any other method (because they can actually succeed in producing cuts by failing to come to an agreement in this case).

I expect republicans will try to "take hostages" again (I tried to avoid that terminology before, but they seem to have adopted it themselves, so no need to avoid that particular politically loaded terminology anymore, I guess), and I'm worried dems will roll over and give them everything they want again, but at least this time if they don't it doesn't ruin the global economy, it just forces both sides to accept tough (but probably necessary in the long run) cuts.
It won't be pleasant to watch, but I'm withholding judgement on just how bad it will be for the time being.  The question isn't really whether it will produce something bad (it probably will), but whether it will produce something better or worse than congress could do without the supercommittee, and on that I'm not yet sure.

Debate the debate: Go!

Haha, yeah the recent conversation seemed to have drifted this way.

I don't vote and I pretty much feel politics is pretty much an insane past time, but then if it entertains people then it serves its purpose I suppose.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 555):

Romney won.   As he is expected to.

Next debate, will be declared a tie.

Final debate Obama will win.  The Oligarchs can't do with a better guy than him.  A democrat has to destroy paid-insurance programs like Social Security.

So he will be the one to do it.

I thought you were being facetious again, but after checking google you were talking about the debates.  Didn't realize they were on, but again, I don't follow such things.

Do the debates make a difference any more?

EDIT:  Just checked and I notice that they still have not changed to rules to allow anyone else to actually enter the debates unless they are ultra-trillionaires and have jumped through the 7800 hoops required.  Classic.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:24, Thu 04 Oct 2012.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 557):

Yes, they're fundraising opportunities for the pickpockets.

If you mean do the make a difference in the world, ie are they real events, NO.

I don't think any of it (politics) has a positive effect on the world, so I meant does the acting of the performers actually effect the outcome of the election statistically speaking?  I assume no.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:27, Thu 04 Oct 2012.

It does happen.  In a statistically significant way.  Because generally speaking elections are decided by people acting peoplish.

Debates certainly had an impact previously. And I think it helps win some of those big-dollar backers, who go on to pay for advertising. It also definitely helps for the primaries, when the debates are between people of the same party. But at this point, there's some people who will vote R no matter what, and some people who will vote D no matter what, and some people who will vote based on the ads the see during Family Guy, and at the end of the day, only a handful of actual voters will be swayed by debates.

I just finished watching the debates, and while I was impressed with both candidates, I think Romney really bagged it. Obama has done a lot in four years, but in this debate, he came off as being very muchso on the defensive, while Romney was full of strong ideas, and specific plans for improvement.

The debate also really surprises me again in regards to what Heath is saying, about Obama being a radical. The two candidates seem to agree on a lot. The particulars they disagree on aren't very surprising, and does seem to follow along the expected path of free market vs. government planning.

I just did some checking out of curiousity on who is expected to win.  I didn't realize that Obama is basically locked up as the next President already barring some sort of massive collapse by him and his legion.  Makes the dog and pony show seem even more frivolous and silly with that in mind.