Republican Candidates

[Humodour]

Psychedelics tonight

 

Wait for it...

 

You're missing the point, but also kind of making my point for me

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

 

Alright you smug fellow, pretend that makes some kind of point for you while you conveniently ignore mine.

[Oblarg]

Any candidate that talks about "small government" or "big government" is not worthy of my vote.

 

What I want is a presidential candidate who realizes that the proper way to balance the budget is objectively look at all the current services offered by the government, figure out how much they cost, decide which of them we want, and adjust taxes accordingly. This must be done on a program-by-program basis, and you must be willing to raise taxes if we aren't bringing in enough money to pay for the services that we want. I'm sick of morons who claim that the government is "too big" yet are unable to list which specific services they'd like to cut back, or people who claim that the government needs to do more while being unwilling to raise taxes to compensate. There is no such thing as an objectively "big" or "small" government. Those are overly-idealized, nearly meaningless terms that have unfortunately risen to prominence in the place of legitimate discussion about what government should (and should not) do.

 

In addition, the republican myth that lowering government spending and removing regulations will help to restart the economy is a joke, and I can't believe that anyone falls for it. The measure of the health of an economy is not the income of its richest members. The government is the single entity in our society that can afford to incur large debts in order to jumpstart the economy - cutting government spending will not aid in the recovery, it will cause further unemployment and drag us deeper into recession.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll want to vote for either candidate this election - Obama is horribly ineffectual and lacks any real vision for how to bring the country forward, and all the Republican candidates are conservative nutjobs whose stance on social policy alone (with the exception of Ron Paul, who is surprisingly reasonable in that regard) is enough to deter me from voting for them.

[Nepenthe]

The job outlook is still very murky as well, and the economic recovery seems pretty natural, not necessarily driven by an administration.

Considering that there isn't exactly a consensus among economists that governments can do that much economic recovery these days, you might be asking him for a bit too much.

 

Also what Rosbjerg said.

[Bos_hybrid]

Obama is still better then the Australians pick of Gillard or Abbot.

 

Gillard are right wing Labour candidate that lies and backstabs twice as much as a normal politician.

 

Abbot a nut of a Liberal, that believes women should save their virginity for marriage, and stay at home and iron.

[Humodour]

Obama is still better then the Australians pick of Gillard or Abbot.

 

Gillard are right wing Labour candidate that lies and backstabs twice as much as a normal politician.

 

Abbot a nut of a Liberal, that believes women should save their virginity for marriage, and stay at home and iron.

 

Interestingly, in Australian politics both parties are now beholden to independents in order to pass bills.

 

Because of Senate half-elections, the Australian Greens will hold the balance of power by themselves in Australia in the Senate on July 1st (i.e. the ability to block bills at least one other party disagrees with) for at least the next 4 or 5 years regardless of how the 2012 election goes. This of course depends on when elections are called, and if there are early elections, and if there is a double dissolution, etc. Realistically, one could surmise that the Greens will always control the balance of power in the Australian Senate from now on, excepting when any one party (i.e. Coalition) becomes so popular it has a Senate majority, or if the Greens somehow implode (in which case they would be replaced by the Australian Sex Party... no, that's not a joke - it's a legitimate progressive secular party in Australia). Australians absolutely hate it when one party has a Senate majority, so I can't see any future Australian government that isn't run by consensus between the three main parties... and a lot of name calling.

 

The Australian Greens have a lower house member, too, and that will probably increase to 2+ House of Reps members by the next election, but this is largely irrelevant since all the negotiation for passage of bills is done with the Greens senators anyway. Just that extra bit of stopping power "oh look, we can now block your bill in both houses!"

 

My point was: even with **** candidates to vote for, our system still provided us a good result. The government of the day from now on needs either the support of the Greens OR the opposition party to pass any single bill. If you ask me, that just makes things more flexible for the government.

[GreasyDogMeat]

^ your enemies? please - no nation, even if your president was a wuss, would dare to attack. They would have the entire west against them - and for all Europe's soft diplomatic ideals, if it's total war, we have the industry and know-how to beat your enemies to a pulp with you.

Who is speaking about outright attacks?

 

So, Obama's inaction is your "own" worst enemy? Iran is rattling it's sabres because the population is getting restless - a booming population of young unemployed men, women getting educated and an inflexible economic system paired with a totalitarian regime is probably the worst ****tail imaginable for a ruling elite. Luckily for Ahmadinejad, America can always be used as the grand 'scapegoat of evil - and the reason why America (and Denmark etc) is so easy to use isn't because of guys like Obama.

 

We've been there too - and that wasn't because we appeared weak.. quite the contrary.

 

Why are you bringing up Iran. Are you responding to me or somebody else? Because that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Are you somehow arguing the situation in Iran is better because of Obama? If so...

[Rosbjerg]

Did you read your own link?

 

In addition to not recognizing the new and constitutional government, the administration initially stated that it would not recognize the results of the election that was held to elect the new president of Honduras.

 

While this was going on, the Obama administration was eager to immediately recognize the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran, despite the evidence of fraud and brutal suppression by the Iranian Revolutionary guard against freedom-craving Iranians who went out on the street to protest.

 

I was arguing that going the diplomatic route does not equal being weak. And that your comment "Who is speaking about outright attacks?" seemed to indicate that Obama was somehow more of a problem because of this stance - or what were you trying to say exactly?

[GreasyDogMeat]

Did you read your own link?

 

In addition to not recognizing the new and constitutional government, the administration initially stated that it would not recognize the results of the election that was held to elect the new president of Honduras.

 

While this was going on, the Obama administration was eager to immediately recognize the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran, despite the evidence of fraud and brutal suppression by the Iranian Revolutionary guard against freedom-craving Iranians who went out on the street to protest.

 

I was arguing that going the diplomatic route does not equal being weak. Which seemed to be your argument?

There are multiple ways of going about diplomacy. Being strong is not mutually exclusive to being diplomatic. Something Obama doesn't understand which felt that link showed.

[Humodour]

Obama has acted quite strongly diplomatically. More strongly than I expected. I cannot see how he is in any way weak on foreign policy. In fact, he is a neo-con's wet dream I'd say: he is achieving what neo-cons stand for but don't know how to themselves achieve.

 

Examine how he has handled:

China (not much more needs to be said, but it's probably an accomplishment to be president of America and not have a major long-lasting dispute with China besides the usual strait issues)

Taiwan (renewed arms sales)

North Korea (working multilaterally with Japan and South Korea)

South China Sea dispute (again, working multilaterally to empower ASEAN in standing up to China, specifically Vietnam)

Iran

Libya (this operation has been a qualified success so far)

America's position within NATO (specifically he has made the EU get off its arse and shoulder more of the burden)

 

Oh, and he and other Western leaders have managed to stop the Russians from being pissed off with the West and largely get them to start supporting us. Always handy.

 

In what ways do you think Obama could improve on foreign policy, GreasyDogMeat? Remember America is not acting alone, and does not need to. America's closest military ally (the EU) now has a larger economy than it, and Canada, Japan, Australia and South Korea are doing pretty well, too (and all 4 of these countries also have rather large defence budgets... I know Australia's is 14th largest in the world). Some of these countries are even doing better than both the EU and America economically.

 

So I am confused by who America's 'enemies' are, and why you think Obama is weak against them. Perhaps you think more should be done about the threat from cyber warfare (which as the past year has shown is actually quite a real threat)?

Edited June 14, 2011 by Krezack

[Jackalmonkey]

The best thing Obama has done for your country, and I don't say this lightly, because it's a huge deal, is to reset America's relationship with the ENTIRE rest of the world.

Krezack, quit posting after you've been at that bong.

 

The American electorate, save for the small Volvo-driving elite clustered on each coast, do not much care about what the French or the British think about them. When there home is in negative equity and they've been laid of at work... that's the stuff of elections.

 

Obama is a skilled Orator who had the cunning super-ability of not being in the same party as George Bush.

 

Politics is cyclical. The GoP will eventually absorb the politically realistic rump of the Tea Party and rebuild. But not yet. Let Obama ride out this economic nightmare, why win now? 2012 is Obama's. The GoP field for presidential candidates reflects this.

Monte, the ad hominem is amusing but I don't think Krezack was arguing for Obama's electoral chances so much as assessing his political fitness/contributions. World diplomacy counts for a lot, especially in a global market. Perhaps the current administration has had its greatest direct impact in sustaining the Bush legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I believe it's fair to say that Obama's stance on Palestine, work on the NPT, and boosting of G20 will pay dividends. Only a few years ago, countries like Germany and Russia were openly antagonistic to U.S. aims abroad. Relations have eased significantly since then - especially key when considering that these same nations are gaining enormous clout amidst the Euro crisis.

 

I disagree with the aims and means of almost all of Obama's policies, but I do believe that positive foreign relations will enable the U.S. to remain a dominant economic power in a smaller world. Perhaps many fiscal conservatives are of the protectionist strain, but I reckon that most of us (or those that matter, anyway) are all for globalism. My own work puts me in touch with people overseas every day, and I can't begin to express how much easier my professional life is with Obama in office. But I do live on the east coast and drive a Volvo, so perhaps this makes my argument moot?

 

As for the candidates: I think Monte's right that none of them stand a chance, but this is far from a useless race. The last go round, I recall Rep. Paul saying often that people weren't interested in him (he often pointed out his complete lack of charisma), but rather the values he represented. The current batch of candidates (and the variety of ideologies thereby represented) may not produce real contenders, but they will be nonetheless useful in assessing the new ideological spectrum of ye American Right.

[Calax]

I think one of the issues of Obama being seen as ineffectual is also due in part to the fact that right now the Democratic Party is acting as if they're still the minority party and are trying to cater to the other side. I mean even looking at this Wiener scandal you've got both sides asking for the guy to step down from his position due to the photos, and yet within the past few years there have been four members of the opposing parties that were caught in a worse positions (propositioning prostitutes, having "Wide stances", going on craigslist to get laid).

 

And even on legislative issues back when they had an honest to god majority within congress, they still kept backing down on their own bills, like the health care issue.

[Hurlshort]

Who is speaking about outright attacks?

 

Right Wing fearmongering is as tired as Left Wing environmental protection cries.

 

Look, Bush was fairly terrible about foreign policy. Obama has been a huge improvement. Oddly enough I think McCain would have been just as good of an improvement, but that doesn't take away from what Obama has done abroad. He has repaired quite a few relationships.

[Guard Dog]

Look, Bush was fairly terrible about foreign policy. Obama has been a huge improvement. Oddly enough I think McCain would have been just as good of an improvement, but that doesn't take away from what Obama has done abroad. He has repaired quite a few relationships.

Odd you should say so. Except for some flowery and conciliatory speeches Obama has followed the exact same foreign policy as Bush did. In 2008 after the election if I told you by 2011 we would be involed in three shooting wars and begining a fourth would you have believed me?

[Humodour]

It looks like Iraq is going to ask American soldiers to stay in their country even after Iraq set a date they all had to be gone by (2012 or something the remaining 48,000 peacekeeping troops are meant to be gone). Haha.

 

EDIT: I probably shouldn't laugh at that. Iraq's history is too sad.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Krezack

[Monte Carlo]

It looks like Iraq is going to ask American soldiers to stay in their country even after Iraq set a date they all had to be gone by (2012 or something the remaining 48,000 peacekeeping troops are meant to be gone). Haha.

 

EDIT: I probably shouldn't laugh at that. Iraq's history is too sad.

 

You could have edited the whole post, right?

[Guard Dog]

Ok, there has been no secret of my hostility to Obama. He is a walking disaster of a President. Top it off with the fact that he is arrogant, condescending and disdainful of his country and countrymen. But really lets just look at the results of his presidency:

 

When he took office in 2009 unemplyoment was ay a 20 year high of 7.6%. It is now close to 10%

When he took office, the number of "long-term unemployed" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is up to 6.2 million.

When he became president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.83. Today it is $3.89. This causes the price of food, clothes, everything to increase.

Food and consumables have increased in price by 29% since 2008.

In January 2009, there were nearly 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are more than 44 million on food stamps.

According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years.

When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. Today it is 14.3 trillion dollars. It took the US 230 years to accumulate $10.6T, Obama almost doubled it in just three years

The federal government has borrowed 29,660 more dollars per household since Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus law two years ago.

To sum up the last two lines, Barack Obama and the 111th Congress added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses and first 43 Presidents combined.

The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. The US Govt now has a financial stake in 63% of ALL home loans.

Under Obama, the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow. The trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009, and the 2011 trade deficit is expected to be even bigger.

Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year. That was the lowest level that has ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.

In 2010, more than a million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure for the first time ever, and that number is expected to go even higher in 2011. This is because of Dodd-Frank and the CRA.

The U.S. real estate crisis just continues to get worse. During the first three months of this year, less new homes were sold in the U.S. than in any three month period ever recorded.

The U.S. dollar has fallen by 17 percent compared to other major national currencies since 2009. The Fed has intentionally allowed this to happen. The Weimar Republic DID THE SAME THING.

Because of this the Chinese are rapidly dumping U.S. government debt. That is not a good sign.

When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold cost $1523.00. All of the money driving up the Gold price used to be invested in business.

For the first time in history the US government is forcing to the people to buy a commodity it has control of. If any other entity did this it would be a crime.

 

My sources for the above are posted below. I don't care who wins the Republican nomination in 2012, I'm voting for them. Obama is an unmitigated disaster.

 

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archive...very-single-day

http://www.goldprice.org/

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archive...-getting-better

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gov-t-...5-household-oba

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-...-debt-first-100

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27872.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cr...-116298504.html

China divesting US treasuries

[Walsingham]

No way am I getting involved in this argument.

[Guard Dog]

No way am I getting involved in this argument.

But it's fun. Sort of.

[Tigranes]

Top it off with the fact that he is arrogant, condescending and disdainful of his country and countrymen.

 

Of course I'm not American so it may be difficult for me to see it in the same way, GD, but I recall you've consistently mentioned this for years as your major personal problem with Obama. To me, Obama is actually the one that speaks normally and matter-of-factly about his country and countrymen. It's been the various other presidents and/or candidates that won't shut up with the stupid flag-waving crap about how America is super-duper-amazing.

 

Now, it's 100% right that presidents should believe America rocks, and in many ways, America does rock. Still. I'm fully behind that. But to me the flag-waving is always excessive (i.e. excessive so constantly that the excess is now normal), and sometimes gets in the way of seeing the issues properly. A good president should always start from the basic position that his country rocks and is worth fighting for, but equally ready to speak about where the country is not doing well or needs to take a frank assessment of itself and change. I think this especially comes up in comparison to other countries' presidents - Obama actually still comes out as a stronger defender of America than many other world leaders are of their own countries. Unless we're assuming that Obama, being the US president, should be more arrogant and bullish...

 

Add to this that Obama was coming on the back of the Bush administration, and then hit the GFC, which was always going to be a time for more sober re-assessing, and I really think he's been quite sensible. I don't have the knowledge to judge his specific policies across the board, but I've never felt that he was bending over for anyone, just not thrusting hsi crotch out like some of the others. I mean, look at the whole thing about him bowing to greet certain world leaders. What is he, Alexander the Great? Are we in the middle ages where emperors get in bitchfights with each other about honorifics? If there was an instance where Obama has clearly let his respect for other nations undermine his defense of American interests/values, I'd be interested to know.

[Walsingham]

No way am I getting involved in this argument.

But it's fun. Sort of.

 

It's alarming, is what it is. especially in light of the Germans trying to sell Europe to Russia so they can skip through meadows singing bloody songs about mountains.

[Krookie]

i thought Gringrich (sp?) sounded pretty strong at the debate.

 

I hate Bachmann already. She hasn't even formally declared her presidency and is making these grand sweeping generalizations and promises. little early for that when I can't even remember your first name.

[Calax]

Two things:

 

One, GD, in your statistics did they show how the prices had changed over time? Or just use a pair of points (one during bush and one during obama) to say "Obama is worse"? I'm pretty sure that the job market issue started after the collapse under Bush due to the initial de-regulation and even now the country is still in a bit of a tailspin because of the famously minimal amount of influence the government has over the economy at the moment.

 

Two, Krook, most people are considering Gingrich dead in the water after he said that the GOP was using "social engineering" in some of their bills (which he was against) on "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, followed by his incredibly melodramatic "I'm not dead yet!" press release as read by John Lithgow on Colbert report.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...h-press-release

[Krookie]

Two things:

 

One, GD, in your statistics did they show how the prices had changed over time? Or just use a pair of points (one during bush and one during obama) to say "Obama is worse"? I'm pretty sure that the job market issue started after the collapse under Bush due to the initial de-regulation and even now the country is still in a bit of a tailspin because of the famously minimal amount of influence the government has over the economy at the moment.

 

Two, Krook, most people are considering Gingrich dead in the water after he said that the GOP was using "social engineering" in some of their bills (which he was against) on "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, followed by his incredibly melodramatic "I'm not dead yet!" press release as read by John Lithgow on Colbert report.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...h-press-release

 

haha, yeah i know. not to mention half his staff has left him.

 

but based on the debate alone I thought he was in my top 3.

[Calax]

He may be jockeying for a VP nod now. I only saw a little bit of the debate (I'm a dem so they have no real significance to me yet) but michelle bachman got on my nerves with "I'm giving cnn an exclusive! I'm officially in the running for president even though I had to basically confirm I'm running to be on this stage!"

 

Honestly, right now if I was going to have anyone from the republican party as president, based solely upon the tiny bits I've seen, it'd probably be Mitt.

[Krookie]

He may be jockeying for a VP nod now. I only saw a little bit of the debate (I'm a dem so they have no real significance to me yet) but michelle bachman got on my nerves with "I'm giving cnn an exclusive! I'm officially in the running for president even though I had to basically confirm I'm running to be on this stage!"

 

Honestly, right now if I was going to have anyone from the republican party as president, based solely upon the tiny bits I've seen, it'd probably be Mitt.

 

i hated bachmann. everything she says seems so rehearsed. they did a segment called "this or that" for fun with questions like blackberry/iphone and she had a question about johnny cash or someone else and wouldn't even give a direct answer for that. she's a try hard. she definitely sent some bad signals to me.

 

romney seems so confident it's almost unsettling, but then again - if he can start to back it up with some real plans then maybe he's our guy.

 

surprisingly, herman cain was also pretty solid.