US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Yes, the employees there are pointing out the actual behavior of Bain - jobs being moved to China with some prospect of minor gains (at least for the executives making the decisions) with the resulting impact to the community.

The real thing about this instance: they are so bold as to continue this measure, even in the midst of the election. Numerous times had the Obama campaign pointed out the link of Romney to Bain Capital -- and its business model.

Yet, it was disappointing for Sensata to not have been mentioned at the debates.

[Dr. Casey]

Kyuu, would you be in favor of this election channeling the spirit of Saki and have the new president be determined by whoever emerges victorious in a mahjong match?

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by monir

Can you copy and paste the content? I'm having the same problem as Vexx as shown in the following:

Sure thing monir!:Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.
"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."
The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Watch "Special Report Investigates: Benghazi -- New Revelations" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.
Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.
Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.
A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.
The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2ATACbRmm

[GundamFan0083]

Sorry for these late replies, I've been busy fighting with Amazon's KDP staff all week over their policy on reviews...but I digress (big surprise there! When don't I digress. )

Originally Posted by Solace

A reason would have to be invented first, both candidates are now on the hook for these statements, and I seriously doubt the media is keen to repeat the rabid warmongering they displayed during the ramp up to Iraq.

Remember this?:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/EipTvSN1hec

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Yes, that was an awkward moment for the Democrats and it was not something I think they wish to replay anytime soon.
That's my problem with both Obama and Romney, they ARE really close on not only foreign policy but also domestic issues.
Let's not forget that Romney pushed for an assault weapons ban way before Obama even staked a claim to it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt...un_Control.htm

I will NEVER support a candidate that invokes the "ban on assault weapons" since real military weapons (assault rifles) have been illegal to own without a class 3 FFL since 1934 (National Firearms Act).
The militia rifles (semi-auto military look-a-likes) are protected by the 2nd amendment due to Title 10, Section 311 of the USC (militia composition and classes).
Thus any politician who supports this phoney, and unconstittional, position is a hoplophobe who doesn't understand guns nor the issue.

Originally Posted by GDB

You're cynical.

Yep.
I left the Democrats in 1994 after Clinton's AWB, and became a Libertarian.
I doubt I'll ever be a Republican because they're no different than the Dems IMHO.
Bush the Elder passed the 1st AWB, and that was all I needed to get me to never be a Republican.
I don't blame Liberals for gun-control, I blame the statists in both parties.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/is...e_liberals.htm

Originally Posted by Vexx

Imperial Rome, right before the lead pipes gave out, in other words.

I agree Vexx, we are on the precipice of collapse and everyone (on both sides) are acting like nothing is wrong or that their "solutions" will solve the problem.
There is a solution, but its painful and most will not be willing to do it since it involves eliminating the Federal Reserve, some government agencies (like the BATFE, DEA, DHS, TSA, and other non-essentials), cutting military spending (do we really need another super-carrier?), welfare programs (replace them with Clintonian "workfare"), and other "entitlements."
No politician wants to put his/her name to these changes because of the backlash from both sides who erroneously think these things are required.
We are in real financial trouble and I wonder how many people understand the full extent of it in the US.

Originally Posted by james0246

Then the only thing that should matter to you then is the eventual Supreme Court nominations that either candidate will choose. Which candidate do you trust more to potentially put in place a Justice that could even the playing field? Romney or Obama? For me it has to be Obama. He may still be in cahoots with the corporation, but of the two he is the more likely to put forth a candidate for Justice that wouldn't sell the American workers into indentured servitude.

I don't trust either of them James.
Romney and Obama will both nominate corporatist judges.
It doesn't matter whether they lean to the R or the D, they will both push us closer to the Technocratic-Fascist system we are heading for right now.
We're fucked either way.
The only question is do we want a rapid collapse under Obama, or would we prefer a slow painful death under Romney.
Our choice is arsenic or strychnine.

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

You know what, that is most of the people in US is thinking that right now. That is the saddest thing, because if Romney does get to office, I got a list of stuff that is going to change or be gone. From Health Care to College from Gay Marriages to even stuff that actually help out the common folks, not hurt them.

That's all hype.
He didn't change any of that as governor of Mass, and he won't change anything if he should become president.
They're non-starter issues so you have nothing to worry about.
Romney is a progressive-Republican, he's not a conservative.

My true feelings, is that everybody wants changes but they wanted it faster than what Obama is doing. Remember, that old saying that sometimes "Slow and Steady" wins the race. If the whole world would love to have a president like Obama on their side, why do we (US citizen) want him out of the office?

Because, as has been said here already, Obama is a schill for Wall Street.
Hell, look how many of them backed him in 2008.
The only reason they're backing Romney now is because they view Romney as more of a corporate-stooge than Obama is.
For you to understand the "how, and why" of American politics, you have to understand that it all revolves around the money system and the banks.
I strongly suggest you read this book by Charles Lindhberg Sr.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33133194/B...A-Lindbergh-Sr

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

What you are saying is true in the sense that both are in the pocket of the corporations, but as you also know, the GOP have stronger ties to corporations than democrats do.

Shame on you Sugetsu.
Peter Joseph has made it very clear that neither party is any good.

http://www.blatantworld.com/speech/p..._we_going.html

You are wrong in the sense that this election won't change anything. It sure will, and the consequences are far reaching.

I disagree for obvious reasons.

The X factor here is the Tea party. Those extremist have been dictating the GOP agenda for 2 years. They have gone to extremes in order to beat Obama. They are also highly religious and want to do away with the separation of church and state. They are also very intolerant people.
However, if the GOP were to lose the election this would most certainly spell the end of the tea party and heads would roll in the republican party as it struggles to redefine itself. If the Romney wins then get ready for some huge changes, as winning the white house would embolden and validate the tea party tactics.

They're irrelevant now.
Just like the OWS, both movements have fizzled out and no longer garner the support they once did.

Do you think Bush was bad? Wait until a guy called Mit Romney who is amoral and willing to do anything in order to fulfill his own goals starts leading the country according the Tea party's vision.

Obama is no different.
He has lied about everything he promised.
Even Lewis Farrahkan understands this, and while he does support Obama, he has publicly stated he does so with reservations over what Obama did in Libya (killing of Quaddafi).
Both men are puppets for the money power in this country, you should know this, it is in the Zeitgeist movie (first one) and Peter Joseph is correct on that.
Pity Peter's "solutions" are just as bad (if not worse) than the problems.

[Destined_Fate]

I don't like Fox though so I refuse to go to that link.

Thanks for posting a lot of that info though.

[Vexx]

Ah, apparently the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS is even more onerous than I thought. And I already think its a deathblow.

Seems that CU has been interpreted as basically permitting corporations and company owners to intimidate their employees with threats of losing their jobs if the "wrong candidate" wins. All they have to do is use "weasel words" to step around the random thorn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us...w-to-vote.html

“The concern here is there is an unavoidable power disparity between management and employees,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice. “Put yourself in the shoes of an employee at any of those companies. Are you going to be comfortable putting an Obama bumper sticker on your car and driving into the company parking lot? If you’re in a small community with a big employer, will you feel uncomfortable about putting up a yard sign for a candidate your boss doesn’t favor?”

In separate news, a lot of businesses are actually starting to 'get it' (even if the billionaire toads don't):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us...ore-taxes.html

On Thursday morning, more than 80 executives of leading American corporations signed a statement calling for a deficit reduction compromise that would “include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.”

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Obama is no different.
He has lied about everything he promised.

At least I knew what Obama promised.

Can you tell me what Romney promised?

[ganbaru]

Obama plans immigration reform while issue remains divisive
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromth...ains-divisive/

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Can you tell me what Romney promised?

Pretty much everything and it's opposite, at the exeption of thing than the NRA would dissagree.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Seems that CU has been interpreted as basically permitting corporations and company owners to intimidate their employees with threats of losing their jobs if the "wrong candidate" wins. All they have to do is use "weasel words" to step around the random thorn.

This is literally straight out of the History Books.

"If Bryan wins on Tuesday, don't come in on Wednesday"

It's the same exact lines during during the Gilded Age era politics where Big Business supported William McKinley due to their fears of William Jennings Bryan inflating the dollar through Silver coinage.

And not surprisingly so many Gold bugs hawking the same ideology nowadays except doing Fed bashing. When in the end it was the Moderate Inflation through the Klondike gold rush that helped ease credit problems early 20th century. u-u

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Obama is no different.
He has lied about everything he promised.

Hate to break it to you, but the 111th Congress was one of the most productive legislatively in US history. Akin to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Things just came to a grinding halt when the Repulbicans took over the House in the 112th Congress. :/

[RRW]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/o6G3nwhPuR4

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

(CNN) – Conservatives seemed to collectively gasp Thursday night when a web video from President Barack Obama's campaign slyly compared a person's first time voting to losing one's virginity.

The star of the video, Lena Dunham, created and stars in the HBO show "Girls." In the video, she appears in a close-up shot explaining the first time she voted.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...?iref=obinsite

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by RRW

YouTube

https://youtu.be/o6G3nwhPuR4

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...?iref=obinsite

No, it's not like that at all.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GundamFan

I don't trust either of them James.
Romney and Obama will both nominate corporatist judges.

That is patently untrue considering Sotomayor's dissent on Citizens United v. FEC and a variety of other cases that directly supported individual's rights over corporations and special interests. (And that's just Obama's first nomination.)

[GDB]

Question: What sort of situation would allow for the Supreme Court to pass a new ruling on Citizens United? I assume it isn't a simple process, since otherwise a lot of things would get new rulings every time a new majority was made.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GDB

Question: What sort of situation would allow for the Supreme Court to pass a new ruling on Citizens United? I assume it isn't a simple process, since otherwise a lot of things would get new rulings every time a new majority was made.

Well, a new lawsuit would have to be brought forward that would involve the CU ruling, presumably with enough new theory/evidence/etc. to convince the SCOTUS that there's ground to revisit the issue. the SCOTUS hears very few cases as it is, it's certainly not going to keep going back to old cases unless it sees a reason to do so.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

At least I knew what Obama promised.

Can you tell me what Romney promised?

The same thing as Obama.
Jobs, better economy, end to wars, all the usual promises that he'll never keep, just like the Liar-in-chief we have in there now, and all the idiots that have been in the White House since that dip-shit LBJ took office.

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

Hate to break it to you, but the 111th Congress was one of the most productive legislatively in US history. Akin to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Things just came to a grinding halt when the Repulbicans took over the House in the 112th Congress. :/

Productive?

If you mean productive for the Big Pharma, Agri-monopolies, the Banking Cartels, the military industrial complex, big government, and the major insurance companies; then yes, the 111th congress was a god-send for them, but for the common man they were completely stagnant just like the 112th congress is now.

This is a proper analysis of the "accomplishments" of the 111th congress.

Great Society?
What's so fucking great about it?
It's part of the reason we're in debt up to our eyeballs with no way to pay it back.
No, what LBJ did was help push us down the road to socialism/statism and ultimately it has contributed to the ruin of this country.
Given the power I'd do away with ALL of the Crap Society and Raw Deal progressive nonsense laws.
There are ways to create safety nets and asistance designed to help people advance in life via education and better job-training programs, but neither LBJ's nor Roosevelt's policies have done this.
FDR I can give a pass to, because he had no idea his policies would fail.
LBJ on the other hand, should have known better.
It took Bill Clinton to finally realize that workfare is better than welfare if you truly want to incentivise people to work rather than just suck off the tits of the government.

Originally Posted by james0246

That is patently untrue considering Sotomayor's dissent on Citizens United v. FEC and a variety of other cases that directly supported individual's rights over corporations and special interests. (And that's just Obama's first nomination.)

No, it is true that I don't trust Obama any more than Romney.
And the CE v. FEC case has been one of the most misrepresented cases (by the MSM) in recent memory.
Your post shows that you don't understand the facts of the case.
This is what that decision means, and nothing more or less.
Sotomayor's opposition to it is smoke-and-mirrors, and nothing else.
It doesn't do a damn thing to address lobbying groups, nor the people that supported her nomination.
In a case that really effects people (Didden v. Village of Port Chester), Sotomayor voted in favor of corporate theft of private land through eminent domain.
Kagan is the same way, which is why she had to dance around the Kelo decision when the senate questioned her on it.
They're both corporate schills James, don't get fooled by the Main Stream Media's disinformation.
That's not to say that Roberts, Alito, and the others aren't corporate stooges as well, because they are and their decisions reflect that. While some of their rulings benefit the citizenry on occation, the vast majority benefit Wall Street and the banks, make no mistake about this.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GDB

Question: What sort of situation would allow for the Supreme Court to pass a new ruling on Citizens United? I assume it isn't a simple process, since otherwise a lot of things would get new rulings every time a new majority was made.

It is more likely that a tired Congress (even a lot of the GOP is starting to see the negative effects of the ruling) might craft a new set of laws.

Frankly, if we can't get rid of the money - get rid of the shadows, shine a huge light on who donates to these PACs.

[Destined_Fate]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ah, apparently the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS is even more onerous than I thought. And I already think its a deathblow.

Seems that CU has been interpreted as basically permitting corporations and company owners to intimidate their employees with threats of losing their jobs if the "wrong candidate" wins. All they have to do is use "weasel words" to step around the random thorn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us...w-to-vote.html

In separate news, a lot of businesses are actually starting to 'get it' (even if the billionaire toads don't):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us...ore-taxes.html

Don't you hate it when a bunch of people as for such massive reforms and than not offer any real ideas how to do it? Such broad terms that don't amount to anything but good PR for them.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The same thing as Obama.
Jobs, better economy, end to wars, all the usual promises that he'll never keep, just like the Liar-in-chief we have in there now, and all the idiots that have been in the White House since that dip-shit LBJ took office.

See, the difference is, at least Obama's promises are consistent; while Romney's promises are impossible because nothing he said actually adds up.

I know you are no fanclub of Romney, so I am not saying anything productive. I am just saying there is a difference between not keeping promises, and saying complete gibberish.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ah, apparently the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS is even more onerous than I thought. And I already think its a deathblow.

Seems that CU has been interpreted as basically permitting corporations and company owners to intimidate their employees with threats of losing their jobs if the "wrong candidate" wins. All they have to do is use "weasel words" to step around the random thorn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us...w-to-vote.html

Yep. It's gonna take a hell of a lawsuit to fight that back. And even then, the mechanisms for the class action lawsuit was changed in another Supreme Court ruling about a year or two ago.

And here you go:

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to class-action lawsuits that involve small claims affecting thousands or even millions of people by ruling that corporations may use arbitration clauses to block dissatisfied consumers or disgruntled employees from joining together.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr...ction-20110428

So, it is going to be even more difficult to fight against those with money. The nastiest effect from Citizen's United: it completely obliterates the "separate but equal" idea.

[Vexx]

Aye, I can fatally skewer either party, but these two things are most important to me:

1) Women's social issues. This is a true difference. There is an arm of the GOP that threatens the basic status of women in society. I won't tolerate that.

2) Choosing Supreme Court justices - the Dems simply have a better track record imo on not choosing justices who have only the interests of the 0.01% in mind or who support the retrogressive social agenda. We have 2 or 3 justices likely to be replaced over the next four years.