Will 2012 be an incredibly cynical election?

[BillJ]

I would love to see him debate marihuana legalisation or foreign policy with Obama. He has the best chance beating him and he could actually get dem voters on his side or make them stay away from Obama by edposing him as a fraud.

Think I'll call it a day on this one before I say something I shouldn't. But for the record, you have little to no grasp of American public opinion.

The thing that makes Romney electable is because he is inoffensive to independent and center-left democrats. Just like Obama was inoffensive to independents and center-right republicans in 2008. Fringe candidates simply aren't capable of being elected president here and Paul is the definition of fringe candidate.

 

[Gov Kodos]

So you aren't posting here with the intent of actually discussing the topics?

Apparently not, and that's called blogging, not discussing and that's NOT what the bbs is for. So, Yevetha, why did you bother to start the thread in the first place?

Context people. Read it, learn it, understand it.

This is where I'm confused. How would Paul make the election less cynical and drive voter turnout in the general election when he can't even get conservatives to go to the polls during the primaries?

There would be a stronger contrast btween the two candidates and lets face it he is much more consistent then Obama.

If Paul somehow won the nomination, the only thing we'd be talking about is a historic blowout. The conservatives hate Obama and like Paul even less.

I would love to see him debate marihuana legalisation or foreign policy with Obama. He has the best chance beating him and he could actually get dem voters on his side or make them stay away from Obama by edposing him as a fraud.

Context? Like being perpetually misinformed, ill informed and outright wrong all too frequently? Paul has no chance of winning anything. He couldn't muster enough voters to be a worry to Newt Gingrich, much less Obama.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If Paul somehow won the nomination, the only thing we'd be talking about is a historic blowout. The conservatives hate Obama and like Paul even less.

I would love to see him debate marihuana legalisation or foreign policy with Obama.

There are better odds of William Shatner being cast in Star Trek XII than us seeing Paul and Obama debate anything together on stage.

 

[nightwind1]

So you aren't posting here with the intent of actually discussing the topics?

Apparently not, and that's called blogging, not discussing and that's NOT what the bbs is for. So, Yevetha, why did you bother to start the thread in the first place?

Context people. Read it, learn it, understand it.

This is where I'm confused. How would Paul make the election less cynical and drive voter turnout in the general election when he can't even get conservatives to go to the polls during the primaries?

There would be a stronger contrast btween the two candidates and lets face it he is much more consistent then Obama.

If Paul somehow won the nomination, the only thing we'd be talking about is a historic blowout. The conservatives hate Obama and like Paul even less.

I would love to see him debate marihuana legalisation or foreign policy with Obama. He has the best chance beating him and he could actually get dem voters on his side or make them stay away from Obama by edposing him as a fraud.

I'd love to see him debate ANYTHING with President Obama. It'd be HILARIOUS to see a crazy old man get his ass handed to him.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I can talk to myself alone, dont need company.

So you aren't posting here with the intent of actually discussing the topics?

Ask me anything about Romanian elections in a PM.

No - here, now. This is a thread about 2012 elections, tell us about your own political environment so that we can better understand your odd questions about the American political environment.

 

[BillJ]

So you aren't posting here with the intent of actually discussing the topics?

Ask me anything about Romanian elections in a PM.

No - here, now. This is a thread about 2012 elections, tell us about your own political environment so that we can better understand your odd questions about the American political environment.

I'm hoping his grasp of Romanian politics is better than his grasp of American politics.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Ask me anything about Romanian elections in a PM.

No - here, now. This is a thread about 2012 elections, tell us about your own political environment so that we can better understand your odd questions about the American political environment.

I'm hoping his grasp of Romanian politics is better than his grasp of American politics.

That's one of the things I'd like to find out. I think that would be a vauable part of a legitimate discussion.

Our international posters who offer commentary on American politics tell us about their own country's politics quite often. I'm curious as to why Yevetha is so secretive.

 

[{ Emilia }]

No - here, now. This is a thread about 2012 elections, tell us about your own political environment so that we can better understand your odd questions about the American political environment.

I really sympathize with your cause but this is getting silly.

He started the thread to discuss US politics, clearly. While I don't think there's much point trying to actually discuss these kinds of topics with him (considering the way he acted and reasoned in the past) your obsession with bringing Romania into this isn't really helping.

If you really want to discuss Romania (which I'm sure you don't, your intent here is something else), why not make a thread about it and see if Yev replies? If you're just bringing up Romania again and again in this thread to be a nuisance to Yev then I wish you'd reconsider.

Whether or not Yev is American, Romanian or Martian makes no difference in my opinion. The guy wants to discuss (in a rather bizarre way) US politics. Just let him?




*checks forum name*

 

[Misfit Toy]

No - here, now. This is a thread about 2012 elections, tell us about your own political environment so that we can better understand your odd questions about the American political environment.

I really sympathize with your cause but this is getting silly.

He started the thread to discuss US politics, clearly. While I don't think there's much point trying to actually discuss these kinds of topics with him (considering the way he acted and reasoned in the past) your obsession with bringing Romania into this isn't really helping.

If you really want to discuss Romania (which I'm sure you don't, your intent here is something else), why not make a thread about it and see if Yev replies? If you're just bringing up Romania again and again in this thread to be a nuisance to Yev then I wish you'd reconsider.

Whether or not Yev is American, Romanian or Martian makes no difference in my opinion. The guy wants to discuss (in a rather bizarre way) US politics. Just let him?




*checks forum name*

If he expects civil discourse he should be prepared to supply the same. If not, he can be called on that discrepancy (in a civil manner). I'm not asking him for anything that he hasn't asked of others.

I'm sorry if it is coming across as silly, but considering that his questions have been seen as silly too only serves to emphasize my point, which is the hypocrisy that his statements (and refusals) represent.

That said, the point is made, so I'll bow out for now.

 

[Yevetha]

Bill J posted:

The thing that makes Romney electable is because he is inoffensive to independent and center-left democrats. Just like Obama was inoffensive to independents and center-right republicans in 2008. Fringe candidates simply aren't capable of being elected president here and Paul is the definition of fringe candidate.

Romney is like Mccain. He cannot energise the base. I think there is more and more chance of fringe candidates being elected because of the internet and declining registration for both parties. Ross Perot did wery well despite being fringy.

nigtwind1 posted:

I'd love to see him debate ANYTHING with President Obama. It'd be HILARIOUS to see a crazy old man get his ass handed to him.

On which issues would Paul get his ass handed to him?

 

[Squiggy]

All...unless they talk about Obstetrics.

 

[nightwind1]

Bill J posted:

The thing that makes Romney electable is because he is inoffensive to independent and center-left democrats. Just like Obama was inoffensive to independents and center-right republicans in 2008. Fringe candidates simply aren't capable of being elected president here and Paul is the definition of fringe candidate.

Romney is like Mccain. He cannot energise the base. I think there is more and more chance of fringe candidates being elected because of the internet and declining registration for both parties. Ross Perot did wery well despite being fringy.

nigtwind1 posted:

I'd love to see him debate ANYTHING with President Obama. It'd be HILARIOUS to see a crazy old man get his ass handed to him.

On which issues would Paul get his ass handed to him?

Pretty much ALL of them.

 

[Yevetha]

Would Obama win a marihuana legalisation debate?

Come on, he would look like a coward. I would love to see him explain the US presence in Afghanistan.

 

[BillJ]

Romney is like Mccain. He cannot energise the base. I think there is more and more chance of fringe candidates being elected because of the internet and declining registration for both parties. Ross Perot did wery well despite being fringy.

Romney may be similar in the fact that independents and center-left democrats find him palatable. You have to realize that McCain faced a groundswell of anger at the republican party when he ran. He was trying to follow an unpopular president who he often voted with, was facing an unprecedented economic downturn and the financial institution meltdown.

Then you factor in his age and the public knowledge that he had battled cancer in the past. He sealed his fate when he picked Palin "to energize the base". A one-term governor of Alaska who would've been one step away from the presidency and the sum of her foreign policy experience was that "she could see Russia from her house".

Ross Perot won exactly 0 electoral votes and finished second in only two states. George H. W. Bush who lost the election collected twice as many votes. If that's doing "very well" then I guess you're right.

Would Obama win a marihuana legalisation debate?

Come on, he would look like a coward.

Who the fuck cares? If you had any clue what you were talking about you'd realize that marijuana legalization is the deciding factor in a presidential election for about 1 in 10,000 voters.

In most states these days, if you're found with small amounts of marijuana it equals a rather small fine.

 

[Gary7]

On which issues would Paul get his ass handed to him?

Going back to the gold standard. Reducing government to an infinitesimal size. Eliminating the Federal Reserve. I could go on...


Actually, Ron Paul does stand up and say some poignant things. Wall Street is corrupt, pure and simple. He's not the only one who has said so. But... what has been done about it? The rapid trading capability and the conjuring up of the ability to buy/sell the same stock in moments has fostered a gambling approach. The ability to short a stock... to "bet" that it's going to go down, and you try to make money off of that, is gambling. That is NON PRODUCTIVE monetary manipulation. Fine, if people want to do that, go to a gambling casino. But in a stock market, it has no place. Ron Paul sees this and would be more bold to take steps to change it, rather than the weak kneed attempt that Obama made (and failed). Ron Paul sees how money manipulates the political system to a high degree more so than ever before, and he'd earnestly try to do something about it. Nobody else seems to be so concerned.

It's just a shame that someone with some great sensible intents is also out of touch with reality on other issues. It's a mixed bag that makes Ron Paul look great in one moment and like an idiot in the next. And it's way too late for him to get an image makeover, as the Internet has too thoroughly captured all of his gaffs, that will chase him down with each subsequent political move. It's over for Mr. Paul.


Romney is a bourgeois bureaucrat. Not only has he made his fair share of mistakes, but Santorum and Gingrich have churned out so much against him that the Obama administration has most of the work done for them in this upcoming election. Romney's campaign is trying to fling any dirt on Obama that they can possibly stir up, but it falls flat. Sure, they can bust on Obama for the recovery taking so long... but people have such short fucking memories, don't they. Obama said in his 2009 inauguration about how the damage done by the previous administration is going to take a long time to clean up. It may well take his entire term to turn things around. Well? Things are turning around, just as he had promised. Yeah, it was painful. But people forget that the Bush Administration served up all of this shit for us!

Anyway...

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Sure, they can bust on Obama for the recovery taking so long... but people have such short fucking memories, don't they. Obama said in his 2009 inauguration about how the damage done by the previous administration is going to take a long time to clean up. It may well take his entire term to turn things around. Well? Things are turning around, just as he had promised. Yeah, it was painful. But people forget that the Bush Administration served up all of this shit for us!

Amen.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Fixing things takes way longer than screwing them up.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2 had how many years to screw things up?

 

[Yevetha]

Bill J posted on page 7:

Romney may be similar in the fact that independents and center-left democrats find him palatable.

Paul is also popular with independents because of his foreign policy views.

Ross Perot won exactly 0 electoral votes and finished second in only two states. George H. W. Bush who lost the election collected twice as many votes. If that's doing "very well" then I guess you're right.

Didnt get the a lot of the popular vote?

Gary 7 posted on page 5:

And it's way too late for him to get an image makeover, as the Internet has too thoroughly captured all of his gaffs, that will chase him down with each subsequent political move.

Which gaffes? The Daily show tryed to track down him being inconsistent but the barely found anything.

Obama said in his 2009 inauguration about how the damage done by the previous administration is going to take a long time to clean up.

Nothing stopped him from vetoing the extension of the Patriot Act.

hings are turning around, just as he had promised.

In which way exactly?

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Paul is also popular with independents because of his foreign policy views.

Popular? That's a very relative term. I haven't been following the polls, but just in my own life... I'm acquainted with lots of people whose political views differ drastically from mine, in addition to the folks whose views are similar to mine. But I don't know anyone who supports Ron Paul.

 

[BillJ]

Ross Perot won exactly 0 electoral votes and finished second in only two states. George H. W. Bush who lost the election collected twice as many votes. If that's doing "very well" then I guess you're right.

Didnt get the a lot of the popular vote?

You said "Ross Perot did very well despite being fringy". Which when measured against the runs of other independents for president, it's true.

But let's take a look at the vote count:

44,909,806 - Clinton
39,104,550 - Bush
19,743,821 - Perot

That totals 103,758,177 votes cast. Perot drew less than 20% of the popular vote or less than 1 in 5 people voted for him.

Nineteen million votes looks to be an impressive number until you realize more than one-hundred million votes were cast.

Paul is also popular with independents because of his foreign policy views.

I see no foreign policy views except withdrawing troops from every hot spot they're currently involved.