US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The interesting thing about Ron Paul, is that even though I disagree with his goals, I agree with his methods.

As an example, I consider the mainstream GOP anti-tax stance ridiculous. Especially since they claim they want to balance the budget.

Ron Paul is also anti-tax. The difference, is that unlike the rest of the GOP, Paul realised the only way this can work is by massive, bleeding cuts to every sector of the government. Including the military. In short, he actually follow his ideology through with the attempt to make it real.

So even though I believe his goal might cause widespread pain and suffering for the poor, at the very least I can see that it works. He would be able to balance the books.
And that's a whole lot more realistic than his current GOP competitors who have no intention of doing anything they promised.

Pretty much. If you're going to run on the fact that only cuts are enough to balance the budget, then there can't be any sacred cows free from the cutting.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Basically through misinformation, disinformation, and omission - the game is rigged. Watch how Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are being "reinvisioned" by the media as they ignore what comes out of their mouths (fact-checking) in favor of "how well they presented themselves, etc".

And this is why I don't arse myself to waste an entire day voting for president. Because it's pointless. It does nothing at all. The only "vote" the corporatists will understand is a bullet hole in their forehead.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

And this is why I don't arse myself to waste an entire day voting for president. Because it's pointless. It does nothing at all. The only "vote" the corporatists will understand is a bullet hole in their forehead.

Yeah! Man, who's got 16 hours to mark a choice on a ballot? Screw that noise!

After all, if McCain had gotten elected, things would probably be exactly the same as they are now. Everyone knows his agenda was identical to Obama's. What's the point?

Behind you ALL the way.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The same thing has been done to almost any candidate that makes the corporations (and therefore the corporate media) nervous in both Democrat and Republican primaries over the last 20 years or so. Kucinich is an example of the same treatment on the Dem side, "Oh isn't he cute supporting the little guy but totally unelectable" right out of the starting gate.

They at least talked about Kucinich, even if it was only to joke about how he's short and has a ridiculously hot wife.

Originally Posted by monir

Btw, as Ron Stewart has pointed out

Jon, not Ron.

Originally Posted by james0246

Personally, I've always felt that Kucinich got a bad wrap in the party because everyone is secretly jealous of his hot wife ...

Daily Show and Colbert Report, at least, were very obvious that his wife was hot and they were jealous.

Originally Posted by monir

or in the form of comedy where a guy like Ron Stewart is pointing out how there is little coverage on him..

Again, Jon.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

And this is why I don't arse myself to waste an entire day voting for president. Because it's pointless. It does nothing at all. The only "vote" the corporatists will understand is a bullet hole in their forehead.

Why would you need to waste an entire day? Most people either leave for work earlier and stop on the way, go to work later and stop on the way, leave work early and stop on the way home, or something along those lines. Even if they take the whole day off from work, I don't see why the whole day is wasted. Are you then not able to do anything else for the rest of the day?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Yeah! Man, who's got 16 hours to mark a choice on a ballot? Screw that noise!

16 hours? More like 10 minutes...

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

16 hours? More like 10 minutes...

No, no, you heard synaesthetic. It takes an ENTIRE DAY to vote. I'm even being generous here and only counting waking hours!

[monir]

I blame Ron Paul for this blunder. Why do Jon Stewart has to have a first name with three letter similar to Ron Paul? With the matching two letters to spells Jon and Ron, I was bound to make a blunder. Thanks GDB!

[james0246]

Originally Posted by monir

Lack of charisma hasn't been a problem. The best example is the two time winner who goes by the name of G-DoubleYa. How many of us truly thought he was going to win the second term? GOP didn't have a charismatic character since Ronald Reagan, but they have been doing just fine. No, what Ron Paul lacks is backing from powerful interest group. And yet I still think this election offers Ron Paul the best opportunity to go that extra mile unlike any other time he ran thanks to the age of social media.

Actually, amongst Republicans, Bush Jr. was considered to be very charismatic (everyone else thought he was a Cletus, but his slackjawed nature appealed to enough people to be considered charismatic). He was considered to be the candidate that you could sit at a bar with and just talk to. That is why Karl Rove went out of his way in both elections to paint the Democratic candidate as being an elitist and a snob (sadly enough, in the process, the Republican Party completely threw away their elitist roots in favour of the anti-elitism culture they started and then promoted.)

That being said, if the Tea Party can get off their asses and realize they have been hoodwinked by special interests, then they could become the force needed to propel Ron Paul to power. Sadly, they'd probably waste their vote on shills like Bachmann or Perry (or Parry ).

[monir]

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, amongst Republicans, Bush Jr. was considered to be very charismatic (everyone else thought he was a Cletus, but his slackjawed nature appealed to enough people to be considered charismatic). He was considered to be the candidate that you could sit at a bar with and just talk to. That is why Karl Rove went out of his way in both elections to paint the Democratic candidate as being an elitist and a snob (sadly enough, in the process, the Republican Party completely threw away their elitist roots in favour of the anti-elitism culture they started and then promoted.)

Charisma would be defined by the likes of Bill Cinton, Obama, Reagan, and even Bush Sr to some respect. I could still sway to the idea that some semblance of charisma may have contributed to winning his first election in 2000. The guy he was running against, Al Gore, also helped tremendously. Winning his next term wasn't due to his charismatic effect cause he had lost most of it by then. No, I'm afraid that was the first indication to how strong the special interest groups like corporation have taken root in our politics who can even affect the winning chance of any candidacy. Simply look at Wisconsin for more. The Democrats thought they were going to just walk all over the GOP in that recall election. I guess that's a topic that doesn't belong here, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for serving your corporate masters . You have now been effectively "neutralized", and now your corporate overlords need never fear you again...

Hah! So true. Ideology alone doesn't affect anyone's life including ones own.

[DonQuigleone]

Ah, then what of Obama's win? As far as I can see, he didn't win primarily because he had corporations backing him. He did raise record amounts of cash for his campaign, but I believe the stats are that half was raised from donations of less then $200, over the internet. I don't think his presidency can be descibed as successful, at best he can be described as weak. But then he's had a lot to deal with. I think Obama manage to harness the spirit of all the americans who wanted real change (his motto was hope and change after all). However the whole venture didn't proceed correctly.

The problem is that even if Obama was top material (which i don't think he is), he couldn't have achieved anything anyway, because he didn't manage to build up any kind of loyal base in Congress and Senate. Not only were Republicans opposed to him, but substantial parts of the democratic party as well. The only way to achieve real change isn't to elect someone different to the presidency, that would be a futile effort, as the president has little legislative power. No, the only way to achieve change is to lead from the bottom. The very makeup needs to be altered.

What is needed is for people in every congressional district to try and drum up the support for representatives who will dare to be different, and aren't part of the harvard/yale corporatist clique we're used to.

So, I think we should take a measure of inspiration from the Obama campaign, it showed people could get behind someone who at least claimed to be different. And we can learn from it's mistakes, that they didn't at all attempt to change congress at the same time. Congress can only be changed by changing who's actually there. Doesn't matter how loud we are, until heads roll it'll just be more of the same.

It's congress that has the real power, and it's congress that has to be changed. Once reformers hold both houses of Congress, then real change can be achieved. And it has to be achieved one congressional district at a time.

That would be change we can believe in.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

No, no, you heard synaesthetic. It takes an ENTIRE DAY to vote. I'm even being generous here and only counting waking hours!

Sarcasm, can you detect it?

Why should I bother if all the process is completely pointless? What difference does it make? Honestly, tell me. No matter who I vote for, CA's electoral votes will go to Obama, guaranteed.

I vote when my vote counts, but honestly right now, I have more important things to worry about than voting for Corporate Shill A, B or C. Like not ending up homeless (again) and not letting my violent douchebag of a roommate hurt my fiancee.

[Vexx]

In my state (Oregon), we have mail-in ballots... it works reasonably well and really makes it hard to the GOP to play vote suppression games like in Ohio and Florida.

not letting my violent douchebag of a roommate hurt my fiancee.

Aren't you in San Francisco, my there are a lot of places one can stumble and fall from..... just, you know, sayin'.

[synaesthetic]

Berkeley, and yes, but I'd rather not get in trouble. I wish I had some legal way to get him back, after he tried to rip us off for $1100. Sadly I don't.

[Ithekro]

Won't you be there anyway voting for the various local politicians and state propositions? (also mail-in is viable in California as well). It isn't like they hold those vote on a different day in November. (also that is over a year from now)

[Flinch]

I wonder if any of these idiots will campaign for educational reforms. I get depressed when I talk to most people in the high school I went to; they're all idiots.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Sarcasm, can you detect it?

Why should I bother if all the process is completely pointless? What difference does it make? Honestly, tell me. No matter who I vote for, CA's electoral votes will go to Obama, guaranteed.

I vote when my vote counts, but honestly right now, I have more important things to worry about than voting for Corporate Shill A, B or C. Like not ending up homeless (again) and not letting my violent douchebag of a roommate hurt my fiancee.

Even if there's little point in the presidential election, all the other elections are just as important. You may as well vote, even for a 3rd party candidate you like. If 3rd party candidates reach a certain threshold THIS election then NEXT election they might have a shot of winning.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Flinch

I wonder if any of these idiots will campaign for educational reforms. I get depressed when I talk to most people in the high school I went to; they're all idiots.

No. I'll be surprised if any of 'em do. Especially among Republicans, teachers are villified as being "overpaid".

[Vexx]

Warren Buffett writes an entire article in complete sentences about how we should stop coddling the super-rich in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...me&ref=general

Soundbite responses from the rightwing in three... two...

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Warren Buffett writes an entire article in complete sentences about how we should stop coddling the super-rich in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...me&ref=general

Soundbite responses from the rightwing in three... two...

Here's a reply article to that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-c..._b_928908.html

If you had to choose between the advice of successful investor Warren Buffett or political hack Grover Norquist on how to fix our nation's fiscal ills, who would you trust? For most Americans, that's an easy question, because taxing the rich rather than bankrupting America sounds like a good idea to most of us.

This is precisely the dilemma facing 12 members of the newly appointed SuperCongress: taking a balanced approach that raises revenues (while also cutting valuable public programs) or taking a ceaselessly stubborn no taxation approach, such as supported by the Tea Party.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Here's a reply article to that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-c..._b_928908.html

Not to raise taxes in the times of war? You mean selling war bonds is enough to fund those Tomahawk missiles and pay for the dead soldiers?