Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
American Election - Do you care? 

do you care about the result of the American presidential election?
yes 57%  57%  [ 8 ]
no 14%  14%  [ 2 ]
pie 29%  29%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 14

American Election - Do you care? 
Author Message
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Spreadie wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
There was even talk of Joe Biden standing. From the way he obliterated the brainiest man from the GOP Paul Ryan at the vice presidential debate make him a credible choice.

I never understood how Ryan got the 'Brainy' tag. Nothing I saw led me to believe he was anything special.

In fact, him popping up on TV and calling himself a 'numbers guy' and then failing to lay out any facts or figures to support their economic plan (in the same interview!) made him look pretty stupid.

By the way, didn't Florida bother to declare, or was it just the BBC lost interest and didn't bother to update the election chart? :roll:

Quite a few American pundits have ripped Ryans budget plans to shreds, yet he is supposed to be a numbers guy. Though considering that the Republicans are the anti science party their definition of facts and reality are almost delusional.

Florida has not declared yet AFAIK. There are all sorts of irregularities there and Obama looks like he has won there anyway.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:03 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
Only Pakistan wanted a Romney victory.

What causes you to make that wild and unlikely claim?
Did you fail to notice the clumsy and very public attempt that Benjamin Netanyahu made to influence the American election in Romney's favour?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00149.html

Spreadie wrote:
I never understood how Ryan got the 'Brainy' tag. Nothing I saw led me to believe he was anything special.

In fact, him popping up on TV and calling himself a 'numbers guy' and then failing to lay out any facts or figures to support their economic plan (in the same interview!) made him look pretty stupid.

Ryan is brainy, and is a numbers guy, he was head of the House Budget Committee. He has already written a fiscally hawkish budget that is published under the name of "The Path to Prosperity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

It is an unpleasant plan with lots to not recommend, but it has the virtue of actually dealing openly with the looming issue of rising healthcare costs. In a nation that already spends well over 15% of GDP on that front (compared to around 10% here and in Germany), and where public debate on the matter is of terrible quality, that in itself justifies a little respect I think.

But Romney is a much more moderate and equally brainy chap, and couldn't afford to promise anything as insane/adventurous as Ryan's plan. So they kept it vague.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:20 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: IoW
Reply with quote
The New York Times, on Mitt Romney, wrote:
a man who, on Tuesday, lost the state in which he was born, the state in which he was governor, and the three states in which he owns houses. Thanks to a blog by Eric Ostermeier in Smart Politics, I am able to point out that the only candidate for president who lost his home state by a larger margin than Mitt Romney was John Frémont in 1856. And Frémont was coming out of a campaign in which the opposition accused him of being a cannibal.

:lol:

_________________
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!


Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:55 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Only Pakistan wanted a Romney victory.

What causes you to make that wild and unlikely claim?

Here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Quote:
Only Pakistan's respondents said they would prefer to see Mr Romney win November's election.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:19 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
But Romney is a much more moderate and equally brainy chap, and couldn't afford to promise anything as insane/adventurous as Ryan's plan. So they kept it vague.

They kept it vague because the first plan was shown to be unworkable. They had no plan b.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:33 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Only Pakistan wanted a Romney victory.

What causes you to make that wild and unlikely claim?

Here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Quote:
Only Pakistan's respondents said they would prefer to see Mr Romney win November's election.

Lol, those guys are so stupid, maybe Romney should go over there and be their president. He couldn't be worse that cricketer.
A Romney White House would have done far more to humiliate and impoverish Pakistan that a second Obama term will.
Amnesia10 wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
But Romney is a much more moderate and equally brainy chap, and couldn't afford to promise anything as insane/adventurous as Ryan's plan. So they kept it vague.

They kept it vague because the first plan was shown to be unworkable. They had no plan b.

I don't agree at all. Romney is not the cartoon moron that you guys seem to think. He did an excellent job as governor of Mass. including necessary tax hikes on businesses. And more importantly, he was much better at gaining bi-partisan support for his endeavours than Obama has been.

There's a reason why Obama's campaign concentrated entirely on his record in business and avoided discussion of his record in office. Sadly, he was forced to do the same because he could only win the nomination by sucking tea party dick.

It is a huge mistake to blithely assume that those who look at the same evidence as us but draw different conclusions from it are morally inferior to us and intent on deception. If Ryan's plan was known by Ryan and Romney to be faulty, why would you assume that they would try to do it anyway out of sheer malice? The evidence suggests that Ryan is a true believer, but Romney is definitely a pragmatist, and the latter, perfectly competent and sensible man, would have been the one in charge.


Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:33 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
There are many reasons I'm glad Romney didn't win the Presidency, they include:

He had to be rebuked by the Prime Minister for his incredible gaffe in Downing Street. This is far from his only gaffe in foreign affairs.

He leads a party which hold some shocking opinions on abortion and rape. "Legitimate rape" anyone? Paul Ryan was slammed by Joe Biden for his views on abortion.

He doesn't like the "47%".

He wants to cut public funding to a channel which broadcasts one of the most popular children's TV programmes ever and is one of the USA's most trusted institutions.

He's stuck in the Cold War era. He wants to increase defence spending by $2 trillion (how's that for cutting the deficit?) and named Russia as the US's number one enemy. He complained in a TV debate that the US has fewer ships than in 1916, leading to Obama quipping "we also have fewer horses and bayonets".

The House of Commons also made its jubilation clear over Obama's re-election.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Last edited by Linux_User on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:04 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
A lot has been made of his management of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. When he arrived there was a shortfall of $379 Million but he filled much of the gap by lobbying for Federal funds.

wikipedia wrote:
Before Romney took the position, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue goals.[146] Officials had made plans to scale back the Games to compensate for the fiscal crisis, and there were fears it might be moved away entirely.[147] Additionally, the image of the Games had been damaged by allegations of bribery against top officials including prior committee president and CEO Frank Joklik. The Salt Lake Organizing Committee forced Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson to resign.[148] Utah power brokers, including Governor Mike Leavitt, searched for someone with a scandal-free reputation to take charge of the Olympics, and chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the LDS Church and the state.[145][149] The appointment faced some initial criticism from non-Mormons, and fears from Mormons, that it represented cronyism or made the Games seem too Mormon-dominated.[38] Romney donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO, and also contributed $1 million to the Olympics.[150][150]
Romney restructured the organization's leadership and policies. He reduced budgets and boosted fundraising, alleviating the concerns of corporate sponsors while recruiting new ones.[142][145] Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[144] He oversaw a $1.32 billion total budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers.[146] The federal government provided approximately $400 million[145][151][152] to $600 million[153][154] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[154][155] It was a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.[152][155] An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came to the state in the form of highway and transit projects.[156]
Romney emerged as the local public face of the Olympic effort, appearing in photographs, in news stories, on collectible Olympics pins depicting Romney wrapped by an American flag, and on buttons carrying phrases like "Hey, Mitt, we love you!"[142][145][157] Robert H. Garff, the chair of the organizing committee, later said "It was obvious that he had an agenda larger than just the Olympics,"[142] and that Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career.[145][158] Garff believed the initial budget situation was not as bad as Romney portrayed, given there were still three years to reorganize.[145] Utah Senator Bob Bennett said that much of the needed federal money was already in place.[145] An analysis by The Boston Globe later stated that the committee had nearly $1 billion in committed revenues at that time.[145] Olympics critic Steve Pace, who led Utahns for Responsible Public Spending, thought Romney exaggerated the initial fiscal state to lay the groundwork for a well-publicized rescue.[158] Kenneth Bullock, another board member of the organizing committee and also head of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, often clashed with Romney at the time, and later said that Romney deserved some credit for the turnaround but not as much as he claimed.[142] Bullock said: "He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal."[145]
Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up with a surplus of $100 million.[159] President George W. Bush praised Romney's efforts and 87 percent of Utahns approved of his performance as Olympics head.[23][160] It solidified his reputation as a "turnaround artist",[145][161][162] and Harvard Business School taught a case study based around his actions.[62] U.S. Olympic Committee head William Hybl credited Romney with an extraordinary effort in overcoming a difficult time for the Olympics, culminating in "the greatest Winter Games I have ever seen".[145] Romney wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games, published in 2004. The role gave Romney experience in dealing with federal, state, and local entities, a public persona he had previously lacked, and the chance to relaunch his political aspirations.[142]

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:48 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Indeed, he dealt with a budget deficit for some games by cutting costs and raising new revenues. He did the same thing as governor of Mass. He would have done both of those things as president too because there is no option, Obama will do the same or he will fail.

My point is that the fairytale stupidity of the debate from both sides, which assumes that one candidate is an angel, and the other demonically inspired to destroy the world, is annoying. It's just a way for morons to avoid facing the fact that in reality situations are complicated, viewing them in simplistic terms through an ideological prism gives only illusory comfort.

My further point is that the election was [LIFTED] because both candidates are good and sensible men, but the gladiatorial contest forced them both to lie. The polarising [LIFTED] fest that is American politics imposes ridiculous shibboleths on all candidates, and both men said many things they know aren't true. Now Obama has won an election in which nothing of any sense has been said, and he has to face down a congress that will obstruct him. Had he won an honest election in which viable candidates said exactly what they intended to do, he would have a mandate now that congress would have to respect, and that could have been leveraged into sensible bipartisan work.

But he didn't, it was a fairytale [LIFTED] election. The voters have chosen who is to be the guy in the chair, but no policies were aired, so the emperor has no clothes.


Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:17 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Image


Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.