saint of m:
And yet who is still alive, healthy, and probably going to live for a few more years?

So what?
The question was whether the VP pick might've cost McCain votes or not.

arbane:

Gorfias:

Reagan won twice... 3 times if you count tax traitor George Bush as a 3rd term as thanking the gipper.

Reagan ALSO raised taxes, yaknow.

Fool me once, etc.

Gorfias:

And always remember... no one ever, EVER, votes for the VP.

I know you don't believe history is a Thing That Exists, but look up "Tom Eagleton" some time.

PS: And "Geraldine Ferraro".[/quote]

Hee hee, I don't think either of those people changed a thing. LOL!

Skeleon:

saint of m:
And yet who is still alive, healthy, and probably going to live for a few more years?

So what?
The question was whether the VP pick might've cost McCain votes or not.

Yeah it doesnt matter that he is still alive and kicking 4 years later simply because 4 years ago we didnt know he would be. hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

I also agree his age had a factor in people being more scared of her, combine he could die at any moment from old age and her crazy and thats a bet many Americans were not willing to take.

I am really curious as to who Mittens will choose as his running mate, will he pull a Mcain and pick a crazy extreme right wing nutjob or a conservitive who is moderate and more electable? thats a question many have right now and many will say hell no if he picks crazy nutjob. If he picks a more down to earth and moderate conservative then he will gain votes just by not losing them with crazy running mate.

If Obama wins we can expect the party of NO to continue obstructing government and screwing the people, maybe they can attempt to repeal romneycare... sorrry Obamacare 33 more times for a nice number of 66 instead of actualy doing something to help the economy. Ofcourse it will be a moot point to try and make Obama look bad since he wont be running for president again, but they are just that stupid I think they will try.

arbane:

JET1971:

If Obama wins we can expect the party of NO to continue obstructing government and screwing the people, maybe they can attempt to repeal romneycare... sorrry Obamacare 33 more times for a nice number of 66 instead of actualy doing something to help the economy. Ofcourse it will be a moot point to try and make Obama look bad since he wont be running for president again, but they are just that stupid I think they will try.

Here's a crazy idea; why not attempt to get some more Democrats elected to Congress?

Yeah but there is the filibuster they oh so enjoy. The dems enjoy it as well but somewhat less.

But even bringing up the healthcare issue with nothing to replace it with is an attempt at distracting congress. and how about every bill they put out and one of them tacks on an amendment that they know the other party will refuse to vote yes on? create a good bill that will help the people and the dems would vote yes on and tack on something about defining when life begins for abortion laws ring a bell? They would do that with Obamacare and blame the dems of voting no on a bill that would do good for the country.

right now the republican party in congress and the house is the party of no and obstructionism. until the far right crazies are out of office this will continue regardless of having a majority or not.

I wonder if we should go back to the runner up being vice president That would solve a few issues.

Rustlin' Jimmies:

Gorfias:
At this time, it is Romney's to lose.

That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense.

Besides killing Osama Bin Laden, what exactly excites you about Obama? Our economy sucks. I watch the "day one if I'm elected" Romeny commercials and it really makes me think he can turn this thing around.

JET1971:
Palin was the reason Obama got elected

I much prefer this (advise to read, even if you hate her, you might like this):

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-11-05.html

arbane:

saint of m:
I wonder if we should go back to the runner up being vice president That would solve a few issues.

What a horrible idea. Can you imagine the Obama/McCain administration? The last thing we need is to give schizophrenics MORE reasons to take a pot-shot at the president.

But think about it! We could call it the Obama-Rom-a administration! :D

arbane:

saint of m:
I wonder if we should go back to the runner up being vice president That would solve a few issues.

What a horrible idea. Can you imagine the Obama/McCain administration? The last thing we need is to give schizophrenics MORE reasons to take a pot-shot at the president.

How would that be a terrible idea pray tell?

saint of m:

arbane:

saint of m:
I wonder if we should go back to the runner up being vice president That would solve a few issues.

What a horrible idea. Can you imagine the Obama/McCain administration? The last thing we need is to give schizophrenics MORE reasons to take a pot-shot at the president.

How would that be a terrible idea pray tell?

It is not a terrible idea. itt is a horrible idea.

think about it, it wouldnt matter who you are voting on then because both would win anyway, they would just game the system and we would have 1 party rule. It would solve issue by making a vote useless.

Just going to vote Gary Johnson at this point. I know it is basically throwing my vote away, but this election sucks. Obama seems to do something every week now that pisses me off and Romney is just a cunning corporate weasel. I couldn't live with myself giving either of them my vote.

*captcha=attila the hun, now that is someone I could vote for

Skeleon:

saint of m:
And yet who is still alive, healthy, and probably going to live for a few more years?

So what?
The question was whether the VP pick might've cost McCain votes or not.

McCain and Obama both missed the mark big on their VP choice. Obama's pick probably lost him even more votes, because McCain was never going to get the votes of people who were against Palin anyway, but Obama could have gained many more votes with a more moderate and humble running-mate to balance out his extravagance, pomp, and hardcore liberalism.

subtlefuge:

Skeleon:

saint of m:
And yet who is still alive, healthy, and probably going to live for a few more years?

So what?
The question was whether the VP pick might've cost McCain votes or not.

McCain and Obama both missed the mark big on their VP choice. Obama's pick probably lost him even more votes, because McCain was never going to get the votes of people who were against Palin anyway, but Obama could have gained many more votes with a more moderate and humble running-mate to balance out his extravagance, pomp, and hardcore liberalism.

Like who?

No, seriously, Biden was the most moderate of those who would be willing to accept. Moderate Democratic potential VP candidates tend to also be very wary of stepping out into national politics as a matter of political preservation. Most are from more-moderate and sometimes conservative states that do not like their senators or governors to use them as stepping stones to higher office. If they lost in 2008, they might not have a warm welcome at home. The best he could do was either Biden or Bill Richardson. One would pull the white working class liberal populists, the other would pull western, tech savvy youth and Hispanics. Biden had the larger political benefit, as most of the swing states had smaller Hispanic communities and larger white working class communities (think Rustbelt). Most states that would benefit from Richardson's pick were already safe bets, Biden is significantly more.

And look at him now: He's one of the most effective surrogates rallying the base, second only to former-president Clinton. Romney's trying to make the same pump-up-the-base approach, but the shrinking GOP base and extreme nature of GOP politics is alienating the independents, leaving them up for grabs.

arbane:

So, what exactly ARE his plans, aside from the "Do everything Bush did, only HARDER"?

1. Cut Taxes.
2. Pray.
3. Privatize.
4. Drill for oil.
1. Cut Taxes.
5. Deregulate.
6. Invade Iraq Iran.
1. Cut Taxes even more.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Eh. I don't actually expect Romney will privatize any important public agency or entity while president. Maybe he'll lie about it on the campaign trail.
4. Obama has increased our domestic Oil Production more than any other president. We have declined in Domestic Oil production every year since the 70s until 2008 when the trend reversed and we started producing more of it ourselves. Romney can claim that he will drill more, but Obama has presided over us drilling about as hard as we can without erecting ugly ass oil rigs right off shore everywhere and tearing up ANWR.
1. Yes.
5. Yes. Weeeeeeeee. Deregulation did such wonders with debt speculation in the 2000s.
6. No. Romney will talk about "getting tough" with Iran, but whenever he's pressed for specifics his plan is exactly like Obama's. Set up clear red lines, threaten military action if they're crossed, otherwise pursue diplomatic options in the interest of maintaining stability in the region. An Iran war is going to be costly, and only illiterates from the Bible belt actually want to go to war with Iran.
1. Yes.

Uszi:

arbane:

So, what exactly ARE his plans, aside from the "Do everything Bush did, only HARDER"?

1. Cut Taxes.
2. Pray.
3. Privatize.
4. Drill for oil.
1. Cut Taxes.
5. Deregulate.
6. Invade Iraq Iran.
1. Cut Taxes even more.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Eh. I don't actually expect Romney will privatize any important public agency or entity while president. Maybe he'll lie about it on the campaign trail.
4. Obama has increased our domestic Oil Production more than any other president. We have declined in Domestic Oil production every year since the 70s until 2008 when the trend reversed and we started producing more of it ourselves. Romney can claim that he will drill more, but Obama has presided over us drilling about as hard as we can without erecting ugly ass oil rigs right off shore everywhere and tearing up ANWR.
1. Yes.
5. Yes. Weeeeeeeee. Deregulation did such wonders with debt speculation in the 2000s.
6. No. Romney will talk about "getting tough" with Iran, but whenever he's pressed for specifics his plan is exactly like Obama's. Set up clear red lines, threaten military action if they're crossed, otherwise pursue diplomatic options in the interest of maintaining stability in the region. An Iran war is going to be costly, and only illiterates from the Bible belt actually want to go to war with Iran.
1. Yes.

I doubt we would do a war thing either. The war has not gone well with Obama reelection wise so far (not getting troops out fast enough, they are still there, their houses are getting forclosed upon despite that supose to not happen if you get paid to take a RPG every once in a while, that kind of stuff). We did a crap job of Iraq, Afghanistan needs to a more deft touch and we keep getting usi g a chainsaw to use surgery kind of a thing; do you really think this prez or the next would want to do that? Let the UN deal with it. Besides, it's not like they have oil or anything, right? Right?

[Edit]
As for runner up takeing the job of "Will be Prez if the one the people wanted dies of natural causes which includes anything from gun shot, stab wounds, pneumonia, and jilted lover?" Seriously, we'd still have the two parties that have been in and out of the oval office for the last century.

Rustlin' Jimmies:
All Romney is going to do is implement more of the right-wing policies that created this shitshow in the first place. Not much excites me about Obama; NOTHING excites me about Mitt Romney.

I saw one ad in which he states he is going to make oil pipelines open, (opposed by Obama)which will create jobs.
1) Do you think he will?
2) Do you think it will help?
3) Are you with Obama, don't do it?

arbane:

Gorfias:

Besides killing Osama Bin Laden, what exactly excites you about Obama? Our economy sucks. I watch the "day one if I'm elected" Romeny commercials and it really makes me think he can turn this thing around.

So, what exactly ARE his plans, aside from the "Do everything Bush did, only HARDER"?

1. Cut Taxes.
2. Pray.
3. Privatize.
4. Drill for oil.
1. Cut Taxes.
5. Deregulate.
6. Invade Iraq Iran.
1. Cut Taxes even more.

He will cut the size of government and the deficit and grow the private economy, increasing freedom. Disagree?

Gorfias:

size of government

What does this even mean? Like, I get it's a conservative buzzphrase, but as far as I can tell it means "less money for their special interests, more money for our special interests" vs. anything actually relating to the "size" of government.

Kahunaburger:

Gorfias:

size of government

What does this even mean? Like, I get it's a conservative buzzphrase, but as far as I can tell it means "less money for their special interests, more money for our special interests" vs. anything actually relating to the "size" of government.

More than anything, I think it means, how much does the government own you. When they invade Libya or Kosovo with no material US interest involved, are you free to do something about it? I think at this time, the answer is, you are pretty much owned.

Gorfias:

Kahunaburger:

Gorfias:

size of government

What does this even mean? Like, I get it's a conservative buzzphrase, but as far as I can tell it means "less money for their special interests, more money for our special interests" vs. anything actually relating to the "size" of government.

More than anything, I think it means, how much does the government own you. When they invade Libya or Kosovo with no material US interest involved, are you free to do something about it? I think at this time, the answer is, you are pretty much owned.

That doesn't really answer my question, because the "small government" advocates seem to de facto support useless wars and giving more money to the military-industrial complex. I'm interested in what "small government" means in the context of what conservative politicians actually support, not what they pretend to support during election years.

reonhato:

i assume you are referring to keystone, the one that republicans gave obama no choice but to reject by ignoring the warnings that he could not possible go ahead with it if they pushed the deadline forward

I'll have to look into it. I have no idea why a deadline would have mattered.

Gorfias:

in modern history republicans have been the big increases of government size in terms of spending and workforce, there is nothing to suggest this will change.

They give good lip service to it in a way that Democrats do not. Romney is giving lip service to this goal as well. I agree with you, those running for power usually want it. I do think it is MUCH harder to be a Republican than a Democrat for this reason.

Kahunaburger:

"small government" advocates seem to de facto support useless wars and giving more money to the military-industrial complex. I'm interested in what "small government" means in the context of what conservative politicians actually support, not what they pretend to support during election years.

Government should do less and spend less and regulate less, borrow less, protect our borders from illegal aliens, keep us out of foreign entanglements, appoint non-judicial lunatics who don't hallucinate their political preferences from the bench and largely stay out of our lives. That is a very hard order to fill and to quote Thomas Sowell, "the only reason to vote Republican are Democrats". They do tend to stink.

Here is something from the Obama campaign.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Do you think Julia in this scenario is more or less likely to say no to Government if she becomes dependent upon these things?

Gorfias:

Kahunaburger:

"small government" advocates seem to de facto support useless wars and giving more money to the military-industrial complex. I'm interested in what "small government" means in the context of what conservative politicians actually support, not what they pretend to support during election years.

Government should do less and spend less and regulate less, borrow less, protect our borders from illegal aliens, keep us out of foreign entanglements, appoint non-judicial lunatics who don't hallucinate their political preferences from the bench and largely stay out of our lives.

And you think conservative politicians do any of these things?

Kahunaburger:

Gorfias:

Government should do less and spend less and regulate less, borrow less, protect our borders from illegal aliens, keep us out of foreign entanglements, appoint non-judicial lunatics who don't hallucinate their political preferences from the bench and largely stay out of our lives.

And you think conservative politicians do any of these things?

Hey, I didn't write that it is easy to be a libertarian/Conservative :-)

Did you read the thing about Julia? Seriously, I think it would be very hard to protest a government that was providing you with all that Julia "gets".

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Yeah, especially the "largely stay out of our lives"-part is something that conservative politicians fail utterly to do on almost any level. Honestly, American Conservatives in particular are some of the most extreme big government, most intrusive, most authoritarian politicians I'm aware of. It's horrendous how diametrically opposed their policies are to the "small government"-lie.

EDIT: Also, since when are Conservative and Libertarian interchangeable? They're (at least supposedly) vastly different.

pyrate:

How would it be hard to protest against the government. France for example has one of the most extensive welfare systems in the world, yet they have riots just about every year over something the government is doing.

The right wing idea has that governments providing a security net and balancing out the single largest flaw in capitalism, wealth going to the top and staying there, somehow results in the people becoming mindless drones living off the government, voting them in over and over again to get their next welfare check is just plain wrong.

The US has the worst public systems in the developed world and it also has the highest win rate for incumbent politicians. There are European countries that average a change of government every 12-18 months.

The idea that people would be happy living on welfare is absurd. Being on welfare means you are among the poorest in your country. No one likes being poor.

Long story short, I know people that work for the government, and they are largely told, they no longer have the right to an opinion.

I do think smaller governments/countries may be different than the USA or former USSR. Those countries are so large, I don't think they can handle big government in a way that, say, Norway can.

Skeleon:
are Conservative and Libertarian interchangeable? They're (at least supposedly) vastly different.

Libertarianism is a wing of both parties, Democrat and Republican. The Libs in the Republican party are largely there because of the belief that a small government would have a difficult time micro-managing your life, even if other parts of the party would love to micro manage your life.

Gorfias:

reonhato:

i assume you are referring to keystone, the one that republicans gave obama no choice but to reject by ignoring the warnings that he could not possible go ahead with it if they pushed the deadline forward

I'll have to look into it. I have no idea why a deadline would have mattered.

Gorfias:

in modern history republicans have been the big increases of government size in terms of spending and workforce, there is nothing to suggest this will change.

They give good lip service to it in a way that Democrats do not. Romney is giving lip service to this goal as well. I agree with you, those running for power usually want it. I do think it is MUCH harder to be a Republican than a Democrat for this reason.

Kahunaburger:

"small government" advocates seem to de facto support useless wars and giving more money to the military-industrial complex. I'm interested in what "small government" means in the context of what conservative politicians actually support, not what they pretend to support during election years.

Government should do less and spend less and regulate less, borrow less, protect our borders from illegal aliens, keep us out of foreign entanglements, appoint non-judicial lunatics who don't hallucinate their political preferences from the bench and largely stay out of our lives. That is a very hard order to fill and to quote Thomas Sowell, "the only reason to vote Republican are Democrats". They do tend to stink.

Here is something from the Obama campaign.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Do you think Julia in this scenario is more or less likely to say no to Government if she becomes dependent upon these things?

Dependant?? Those programs in the campaign ad were not welfare.

Do you really support lowering education? making it harder for a child to recieve any? Honestly do you support people not having healthcare?

Uszi:
6. No. Romney will talk about "getting tough" with Iran, but whenever he's pressed for specifics his plan is exactly like Obama's. Set up clear red lines, threaten military action if they're crossed, otherwise pursue diplomatic options in the interest of maintaining stability in the region. An Iran war is going to be costly, and only illiterates from the Bible belt actually want to go to war with Iran.

I think you're right that he won't be doing any more invading right out the gate, but I doubt he's going to be decreasing defense, either. I've heard him talk about it a few times and he doesn't seem to be concerned at all with how insanely bloated the military is. But if he gets the job he'll find some reason or another to tide him through four budgets, probably saying stuff like, "I'm going to keep our military personell and their families paid!" Yes, because $70 billion is really necessary for a standing army ¬_¬