Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate

[bran]

Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

I think there's a good bit of truth in that. I was about to reply to AxlIsOld (I had nothing bad to say in it, just that he is treating certain variables in his equation of life as constants), but I decided, you know what, I don't want to get involved in this, I want to just sit back and watch how this thread plays out (I do realize I'm kind of fucking that up right now by posting). And now that you say it, I kind of see conservatives in the same way I see Yankee fans (I'm unabashedly a liberal Met fan), simultaneously the scum of the Earth and for the most part (except for a few of them-- and I count in that both conservatives and Yankee fans ) probably mostly decent, but misguided people. The scum of the Earth part is really just my identifying a rival to cheer against, and I want them to benefit as much from my ideals as I would like my own "team" to benefit from them. I wouldn't want them to suffer too much when unpredictable circumstances make things fall apart (as they do way too often to too many people). Likewise I wouldn't want a bomb to go off in Yankee Stadium. All I want is to someday see 25,000 asshole fans in pinstripes crying as they leave the stadium after the Mets have beat them in a Subway World Series. But then I want them to get home safely.

the problem is republicans and democrats neither one are right i think they are both fucked in the head and are killing this country. i like some of what liberals have to offer and some what conservatives have to offer problem is the radicals on both sides are starting to run the country how they see fit with no talking whatsoever. i would like to see this country become more self reliant take responsibility for your actions, but at the same time i have no problem with the government giving out a hand for their fellow man

but it goes on and on i have been called a conservative,liberal,democrat,republican,wingnut,moonbat, and everything in between too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives shit is crazy

[DirtyDeeds]

but it goes on and on i have been called a conservative,liberal,democrat,republican,wingnut,moonbat, and everything in between too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives shit is crazy

Yeah but you're still a Yankee fan, so fuck you!

[downzy]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

i really dont see that as the republican agenda though

It's certainly part of the hard right agenda. There's a strong libertarian strand in the Republican party that ascribes to a rugged individualism. Where in today's announcement of Ryan do you hear any sense of community? Unless it's sporting event, a national emergency, or killing Osama bin Laden, I haven't seen a strong sense of community in America. Read Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone." The bonding glue of social capital has been in decline for decades. Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

at the same time their is a hard left agenda where they want the government to wipe their asses for them and let the government take care of them from cradle to grave were does the idiocy stop?

Perhaps, but I could easily find you quotations from many elected Republicans that would easily illustrate the hard-right and Tea Party agenda in play in Congress. Other than Senator Bernie Sanders, who isn't actually a Democrat, I'm not sure you'd be able to find too many quotes that support your supposition that any elected Democrat wants to institute a socialist-style government. I feel like most Americans don't even know what socialism is or what socialist countries actually look like. Obamacare isn't even close to what socialism is about. Raising your upper tax rate from 35 to 39.5 percent isn't socialism when you compare what citizens in Canada and Scandinavian countries pay (which, btw, are in far better economic shape than the US - despite being far more socialist in nature, especially the Scandinavian countries).

It's not about idiocy, it's about find a balance between individual liberty and shared community sacrifice. When the United States entered into WW2, the government asked the top income brackets to pay a 91% tax rate. Americans all over the country contributed what they could to help defeat the Germans and Japanese. But when Bush launched two wars a decade ago, not only did he fail to ask some sort of sacrifice from those who sat at home and could afford it, he gave everyone (and particular the extremely wealth) a tax cut.

I'm not saying that the United States should become like Canada or Sweden, but it needs to do a better job of understanding what being an American is all about. If, as an American, your only concern and obligation is to yourself, well, then you're fucked. There has to be some concern for your fellow citizens. The U.S. needs to become the country it was back in the 1940s through the 1960s, when economic growth was at its highest and everyone shared in the benefit (mind you, not suggesting it should return to segregation policies of that era).

Edited August 12, 2012 by downzy

[bran]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

i really dont see that as the republican agenda though

It's certainly part of the hard right agenda. There's a strong libertarian strand in the Republican party that ascribes to a rugged individualism. Where in today's announcement of Ryan do you hear any sense of community? Unless it's sporting event, a national emergency, or killing Osama bin Laden, I haven't seen a strong sense of community in America. Read Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone." The bonding glue of social capital has been in decline for decades. Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

at the same time their is a hard left agenda where they want the government to wipe their asses for them and let the government take care of them from cradle to grave were does the idiocy stop?

Perhaps, but I could easily find you quotations from many elected Republicans that would easily illustrate the hard-right and Tea Party agenda in play in Congress. Other than Senator Bernie Sanders, who isn't actually a Democrat, I'm not sure you'd be able to find too many quotes that support your supposition that any elected Democrat wants to institute a socialist-style government. I feel like most Americans don't even know what socialism is or what socialist countries actually look like. Obamacare isn't even close to what socialism is about. Raising your upper tax rate from 35 to 39.5 percent isn't socialism when you compare what citizens in Canada and Scandinavian countries pay (which, btw, are in far better economic shape than the US - despite being far more socialist in nature, especially the Scandinavian countries).

It's not about idiocy, it's about find a balance between individual liberty and shared community sacrifice. When the United States entered into WW2, the government asked the top income brackets to pay a 91% tax rate. Americans all over the country contributed what they could to help defeat the Germans and Japanese. But when Bush launched two wars a decade ago, not only did he fail to ask some sort of sacrifice from those who sat at home, he gave everyone a tax cut.

I'm not saying that the United States should become like Canada or Sweden, but it needs to do a better job of understanding what being an American is all about. If, as an American, your only concern and obligation is to yourself, well, then you're fucked. There has to be some concern for your fellow citizens. The U.S. needs to become the country it was back in the 1940s through the 1960s, when economic growth was at its highest and everyone shared in the benefit (mind you, not suggesting it should return to segregation policies of that era).

thats what im trying to say we need to find a good equal ground. problem is their is no working together anymore when one side is in power it swings one way and when the other side is in power it swings the other way

but it goes on and on i have been called a conservative,liberal,democrat,republican,wingnut,moonbat, and everything in between too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives shit is crazy

Yeah but you're still a Yankee fan, so fuck you!

not my fault i have good taste

[arnold layne]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

[bran]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

nah i am just fine being a yankee fan better than being a fan anything LSU

[downzy]

thats what im trying to say we need to find a good equal ground. problem is their is no working together anymore when one side is in power it swings one way and when the other side is in power it swings the other way

I would agree with that statement if I saw any kind of form of compromise by the Republicans. When Bush was in power, well, perhaps until 2006, Democrats were willing to work with the President on many issues (tax policy, immigration reform, force authorization, the Patriot Act, the Medicare D program). You don't see that same level of compromise and bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans. Just look at the beginning of the primary season. When the then ten Republican primary candidates were asked if they'd agree to a 10 to 1 spending to tax increase deal, not one of them raised their hand. You do not see Democrats pulling hard to revoke the sequestered spending cuts to Medicare, but the Republicans are fighting like hell to prevent the $500 billion in defense cuts. Other than a couple senate votes for the stimulus bill in 2009, the Republicans have not granted Obama nor the Democrats a single sincere gesture of bi-partisan. Mitch McConnell, the number one Republican in the Senate, announced upon Obama's inauguration that it was to be the Republican's mission to ensure he was a one-term president by any means necessary. This has meant a record use of holds and filibuster threats by Republicans that has never been seen before in the Senate. Finally, Republicans offered little support of healthcare reform not necessarily because they opposed most of what was in Obamacare (since it was modeled after a Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposal back in 1993-94 and is essentially the same plan that Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts), but because they didn't want to give Obama and the Democrats any political points.

Republicans have fought Obama on job creation (striking down his proposal because it had some spending and wasn't all tax deductions), on the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that would rid the world of thousands of nuclear weapons (particularly unsafe ones in Russia), and hell, they fought Obama and the Democrats on even providing healthcare benefits to first responders of 9/11 (for reasons that are beyond me). The vote to raise the debt ceiling, which was a routine and simple task under Bush, has now become a full on political war (despite the fact that such arguments actually cost America billions of dollars in extra interest charges). The chambers of Congress has never seen obstructionism dominate the legislative process like it has in the past 4 years. Obama certainly has his faults (focusing on healthcare when the economy really needed his undivided attention), but to suggest that he hasn't sought compromise from his Republican counterparts is a foolish assertion.

Edited August 12, 2012 by downzy

[GivenToFly]

thats what im trying to say we need to find a good equal ground. problem is their is no working together anymore when one side is in power it swings one way and when the other side is in power it swings the other way

I would agree with that statement if I saw any kind of form of compromise by the Republicans. When Bush was in power, well, perhaps until 2006, Democrats were willing to work with the President on many issues (tax policy, immigration reform, force authorization, the Patriot Act, the Medicare D program). You don't see that same level of compromise and bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans. Just look at the beginning of the primary season. When the then ten Republican primary candidates were asked if they'd agree to a 10 to 1 spending to tax increase deal, not one of them raised their hand. You do not see Democrats pulling hard to revoke the sequestered spending cuts to Medicare, but the Republicans are fighting like hell to prevent the $500 billion in defense cuts. Other than a couple senate votes for the stimulus bill in 2009, the Republicans have not granted Obama nor the Democrats a single sincere gesture of bi-partisan. Mitch McConnell, the number one Republican in the Senate, announced upon Obama's inauguration that it was to be the Republican's mission to ensure he was a one-term president by any means necessary. This has meant a record use of holds and filibuster threats by Republicans that has never been seen before in the Senate. Finally, Republicans offered little support of healthcare reform not necessarily because they opposed most of what was in Obamacare (since it was modeled after a Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposal back in 1993-94 and is essentially the same plan that Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts), but because they didn't want to give Obama and the Democrats any political points.

Republicans have fought Obama on job creation (striking down his proposal because it had some spending and wasn't all tax deductions), on the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that would rid the world of thousands of nuclear weapons (particularly unsafe ones in Russia), and hell, they fought Obama and the Democrats on even providing healthcare benefits to first responders of 9/11 (for reasons that are beyond me). The vote to raise the debt ceiling, which was a routine and simple task under Bush, has now become a full on political war (despite the fact that such arguments actually cost America billions of dollars in extra interest charges). The chambers of Congress has never seen obstructionism dominate the legislative process like it has in the past 4 years. Obama certainly has his faults (focusing on healthcare when the economy really needed his undivided attention), but to suggest that he hasn't sought compromise from his Republican counterparts is a foolish assertion.

Shit man Obama should make you head of campaign.

[GnRDuff1]

thats what im trying to say we need to find a good equal ground. problem is their is no working together anymore when one side is in power it swings one way and when the other side is in power it swings the other way

I would agree with that statement if I saw any kind of form of compromise by the Republicans. When Bush was in power, well, perhaps until 2006, Democrats were willing to work with the President on many issues (tax policy, immigration reform, force authorization, the Patriot Act, the Medicare D program). You don't see that same level of compromise and bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans. Just look at the beginning of the primary season. When the then ten Republican primary candidates were asked if they'd agree to a 10 to 1 spending to tax increase deal, not one of them raised their hand. You do not see Democrats pulling hard to revoke the sequestered spending cuts to Medicare, but the Republicans are fighting like hell to prevent the $500 billion in defense cuts. Other than a couple senate votes for the stimulus bill in 2009, the Republicans have not granted Obama nor the Democrats a single sincere gesture of bi-partisan. Mitch McConnell, the number one Republican in the Senate, announced upon Obama's inauguration that it was to be the Republican's mission to ensure he was a one-term president by any means necessary. This has meant a record use of holds and filibuster threats by Republicans that has never been seen before in the Senate. Finally, Republicans offered little support of healthcare reform not necessarily because they opposed most of what was in Obamacare (since it was modeled after a Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposal back in 1993-94 and is essentially the same plan that Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts), but because they didn't want to give Obama and the Democrats any political points.

Republicans have fought Obama on job creation (striking down his proposal because it had some spending and wasn't all tax deductions), on the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that would rid the world of thousands of nuclear weapons (particularly unsafe ones in Russia), and hell, they fought Obama and the Democrats on even providing healthcare benefits to first responders of 9/11 (for reasons that are beyond me). The vote to raise the debt ceiling, which was a routine and simple task under Bush, has now become a full on political war (despite the fact that such arguments actually cost America billions of dollars in extra interest charges). The chambers of Congress has never seen obstructionism dominate the legislative process like it has in the past 4 years. Obama certainly has his faults (focusing on healthcare when the economy really needed his undivided attention), but to suggest that he hasn't sought compromise from his Republican counterparts is a foolish assertion.

Shit man Obama should make you head of campaign.

And the crazy thing is that he's not wrong

Edited August 12, 2012 by GnRDuff1

[downzy]

thats what im trying to say we need to find a good equal ground. problem is their is no working together anymore when one side is in power it swings one way and when the other side is in power it swings the other way

I would agree with that statement if I saw any kind of form of compromise by the Republicans. When Bush was in power, well, perhaps until 2006, Democrats were willing to work with the President on many issues (tax policy, immigration reform, force authorization, the Patriot Act, the Medicare D program). You don't see that same level of compromise and bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans. Just look at the beginning of the primary season. When the then ten Republican primary candidates were asked if they'd agree to a 10 to 1 spending to tax increase deal, not one of them raised their hand. You do not see Democrats pulling hard to revoke the sequestered spending cuts to Medicare, but the Republicans are fighting like hell to prevent the $500 billion in defense cuts. Other than a couple senate votes for the stimulus bill in 2009, the Republicans have not granted Obama nor the Democrats a single sincere gesture of bi-partisan. Mitch McConnell, the number one Republican in the Senate, announced upon Obama's inauguration that it was to be the Republican's mission to ensure he was a one-term president by any means necessary. This has meant a record use of holds and filibuster threats by Republicans that has never been seen before in the Senate. Finally, Republicans offered little support of healthcare reform not necessarily because they opposed most of what was in Obamacare (since it was modeled after a Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposal back in 1993-94 and is essentially the same plan that Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts), but because they didn't want to give Obama and the Democrats any political points.

Republicans have fought Obama on job creation (striking down his proposal because it had some spending and wasn't all tax deductions), on the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that would rid the world of thousands of nuclear weapons (particularly unsafe ones in Russia), and hell, they fought Obama and the Democrats on even providing healthcare benefits to first responders of 9/11 (for reasons that are beyond me). The vote to raise the debt ceiling, which was a routine and simple task under Bush, has now become a full on political war (despite the fact that such arguments actually cost America billions of dollars in extra interest charges). The chambers of Congress has never seen obstructionism dominate the legislative process like it has in the past 4 years. Obama certainly has his faults (focusing on healthcare when the economy really needed his undivided attention), but to suggest that he hasn't sought compromise from his Republican counterparts is a foolish assertion.

Shit man Obama should make you head of campaign.

And the crazy thing is that he's not wrong

Thanks, but you can't fit what I said in 30 second campaign add. Americans, and people in general, don't have the time, patience or the attention span to listen to well reasoned arguments. Instead, you get what we see in contemporary elections: mudslinging, negative attack adds, distortions, outright lies, and hyperbole. It's sensationalism, but that's what people, and particularly Americans, are attracted to. Ever been to Vegas?

My bet is that Obama does not like the way his campaign is being run and what the messages he's putting out are all about. But considering the political and electoral climate, he doesn't have much choice. Romney and Ryan are going to argue that Obama has done little to improve the economy. While the right response might be to point out what I did above (as well as the fact that you can't replace the $3 trillion that was sucked out of the national economy in the crash of 2008 in four years, let alone over night), there's no real vehicle other than Obama's convention speech and the debates. Plus it just doesn't look good on a President if he's constantly blaming someone else (which in this case, it would be true, but still, who wants to vote for the guy who says, "It wasn't me, it was crazy Congress that opposed everything I wanted to do and it was Bush who made the mess"). Obama's campaign is making this election about where do voters want this country to go rather than what he accomplished in his first term (which I would argue was pretty good: healthcare reform, banking and finance reform, post-secondary funding reform, repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, saved the auto industry in the U.S. as we know it, was a master in the realm of foreign policy, authorizing the SEAL Team to get Osama, supporting Musmmar Qaddafi's removal).

I think it's a valid criticism to suggest that Obama did not use his majorities in the House and Senate to do more for the economy, but I think his mistake was thinking he'd have them until the mid-term elections and would have more time to institute the changes he wanted. I don't think anyone at the time thought that Scott Brown had a reasonable chance of winning Ted Kennedy's Senate seat when Kennedy passed away seven months into Obama's Presidency. And don't forget, it wasn't as though the filibuster proof Democratic majority was a cohesive unit. Senators like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman regularly went against their party's interests (it was Lieberman, after all, who's opposition to the public option in healthcare that sealed its fate). U.S. federal politics is such a feral beast that to incorporate its true nature in a campaign is practically impossible. Once Scott Brown replaced Kennedy in the Senate giving the Republicans the 41 votes they needed to filibuster debate, they set a Senate record for filibuster and holds.

Anyway, it should be interesting how Ryan will change the dynamic and conversation of this election. So far it's been all about Romney's sins. Romney will now be running on the ideas of his VP candidate, rather than his own.

Anyone interested in this topic should read Peter Beinart's latest over at the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/12/ryan-more-powerful-than-romney.html

Obama is doing to Romney what Bush did to Kerry in 2004 - tar and feather. The funny thing is, Romney is just as if not bigger target than Kerry was. The fact that Romney won't release his tax returns prior to 2011 means that the Democrats can say and make up whatever they want about them (see Harry Reid's ridiculous assertion that "Romney hasn't paid any taxes"). But Romney allows this to happen by being closed off.

Edited August 12, 2012 by downzy

[The Real McCoy]

Paul Ryan voted for the NDAA and SOPA.

No thanks.

[arnold layne]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

nah i am just fine being a yankee fan better than being a fan anything LSU

[bran]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

nah i am just fine being a yankee fan better than being a fan anything LSU

im a gator fan had to do it lol

[Tom1447]

I dont think its that crazy to think romney may have paid no taxes though, if it was even as low as 10% he could get over that, the devastating thing to his campaign would be if he paid no taxes. Didnt mcain pick palin over romney after he showed them his details (including his tax returns). How bad must they be if he chose palin over romney, i mean come on

[arnold layne]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

nah i am just fine being a yankee fan better than being a fan anything LSU

im a gator fan had to do it lol

You crossed the line now bran.

[bran]

Dude, being a Yankee fan does not mean you have good taste. It's probably the opposite. Please try again, thank you.

nah i am just fine being a yankee fan better than being a fan anything LSU

im a gator fan had to do it lol

You crossed the line now bran.

we meet at dawn with pistols

Edited August 13, 2012 by bran

[The Real McCoy]

Again, Paul Ryan:

Yes on NDAA.

Yes on SOPA.

No. Thanks. This dude isn't exactly a people person.

[arnold layne]

Obama supported the NDAA too.

[The Real McCoy]

Obama supported the NDAA too.

I'm voting for Ron Paul if he magically gets the GOP nomination or for Gary Johnson on the libertarian ticket.

I'll be able to live with myself. That's what's important to me.

[arnold layne]

Didn't Romney get the GOP nomination.

[The Real McCoy]

Didn't Romney get the GOP nomination.

Regardless of what the mainstream media says, no. It's not a done deal yet. It would take a miracle, but Ron Paul can still win the nomination at the convention.

[downzy]

I dont think its that crazy to think romney may have paid no taxes though, if it was even as low as 10% he could get over that, the devastating thing to his campaign would be if he paid no taxes. Didnt mcain pick palin over romney after he showed them his details (including his tax returns). How bad must they be if he chose palin over romney, i mean come on

Well, if you read the book Game Change (or see the movie), the "insiders" seem to believe that McCain's first choice was Joe Lieberman, but picked Palin to energize the party's base and have a shot of winning back the female vote (which Obama was, and still ended up, trouncing at the time).

I think the whole tax issue by Romney can likely be better explained by his Mormon faith and his position in the Church. He's a private guy (for the most part), and his stature and rank in the church meant very few people actually ever challenged or question him. If you watch him debates, he often gets flustered when he's challenged. He can't handled it. Opening himself up on his tax record would likely prompt questions of his patriotism in that he likely moved his money around to avoid paying taxes. I can't fault the guy for doing that, since pretty much everyone does it. The issue won't be that he moved money around to avoid paying taxes, it will be how much money he moved around to avoid paying taxes.

Also, there's an issue of when he actually left Bain Capital, his venture capital company. He's claiming he retired "retroactively," and hence wasn't in charge of the company when it outsourced a lot of jobs and slashed jobs at many of its investment companies. He's able to claim now that because he wasn't in charge, he's not responsible for what happened with Bain during those tumultuous years. If his tax returns show, however, that he was still receiving his CEO wages during this time, he'd be then held responsible for the job cuts and outsourcing. His claim that he's a "job creator" would greatly be shaken if his tax records associate him with the company.

Didn't Romney get the GOP nomination.

Regardless of what the mainstream media says, no. It's not a done deal yet. It would take a miracle, but Ron Paul can still win the nomination at the convention.

Right, because Romney's insurmountable delegate lead means nothing. How would this miracle work? The only way I could see Paul as the Republican nominee is if someone assassinated Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum between now and the convention (which is in two weeks if I'm not mistaken). All three of those guys received more votes, won more states, and have more delegates than Paul. Conventions don't operate like they did back in the 1900s to 1960s. Since greater reliance on the primary system, the party members (ie. voters) choose the nominee. The voters have chosen Romney. What world do you live in that you think that somehow the delegates are going to go against their constitutional duty and vote for Paul, ignoring the will of the people.

Keep dreaming.

[bran]

no way in hell paul wins the nomination. what is this love affair people have for paul? im curious

[The Real McCoy]

no way in hell paul wins the nomination. what is this love affair people have for paul? im curious

The fact that he's the only honest politician left?

[bran]

no way in hell paul wins the nomination. what is this love affair people have for paul? im curious

The fact that he's the only honest politician left?

i agree with a lot of pauls points but i dont think their is a such thing as an honest politician lol