US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

Ummm...

I don't see how that would be a tit-for-tat, unless Wayne Whatshisname is going along with the Birthers' assumptions. Besides, school admission records vs years of tax returns aren't even in the same league as far as potentially damaging scandals go. False Balance indeed.

EDIT: Y'know what? Nevermind the cute little quip about the Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark. It's a clever piece I grabbed from Electoral-Vote.com today, and I just felt like posting something. But the whole issue is a swing in the dirt, as I suppose is this whole election. It's already the most negative since 1988, maybe worse. Romney's campaign is about nothing other than that he wants to be President, and his strategy is to blame and bash Obama for everything under the sun, whether it be real, exagerrated, out of context or just plain incorrect. And Obama's campaign has managed to make itself not a referendum on his administration to date but rather a referendum on Romney, and his strategy thus far has been to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, a secretive empty suit who doesn't understand that running a country is not the same as running a business.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/r ... ?hpt=hp_c1

A while back I threatened that I might actually stay awake through this election. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a while. Wake me if any substantive issues take center stage.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ummm...

I don't see how that would be a tit-for-tat, unless Wayne Whatshisname is going along with the Birthers' assumptions.

No. He was responding to the Harry Reid notion that he can just "say" that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. If Reid can say that, then a Columbia student from the same year can say that he never saw Obama there, never heard of him while there, and knows nobody who did, and that something smells fishy about why the President wouldn't release his educational records. What has he got to hide?

Besides, school admission records vs years of tax returns aren't even in the same league as far as potentially damaging scandals go. False Balance indeed.

Really? What if Obama got into Columbia as a foreign student?

EDIT: Y'know what? Nevermind the cute little quip about the Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark. It's a clever piece I grabbed from Electoral-Vote.com today, and I just felt like posting something. But the whole issue is a swing in the dirt, as I suppose is this whole election. It's already the most negative since 1988, maybe worse.

Yes it is. And, the negativity comes from Obama's camp. They just accused Romney of killing a woman because a steel company owned by Bain Capital went out of business two years after Romney left Bain Capital.

Romney's campaign is about nothing other than that he wants to be President,

Of course he wants to be President. But, what the fuck do you think Obama wants?

and his strategy is to blame and bash Obama for everything under the sun, whether it be real, exagerrated, out of context or just plain incorrect.

LOL -- Harry Reid -- Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years, although I don't haven any real knowledge of anything.

Advert: Romney killed my wife.

Romney made false filings with the SEC -- although he didn't (small detail, I know). FactCheck found the charge misleading, and the Washington Post exonerated Romney.

Obama "shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico" -- debunked by the Washington Post.

And Obama's campaign has managed to make itself not a referendum on his administration to date but rather a referendum on Romney, and his strategy thus far has been to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, a secretive empty suit who doesn't understand that running a country is not the same as running a business.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/r ... ?hpt=hp_c1

A while back I threatened that I might actually stay awake through this election. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a while. Wake me if any substantive issues take center stage.

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ummm...

I don't see how that would be a tit-for-tat, unless Wayne Whatshisname is going along with the Birthers' assumptions.

No. He was responding to the Harry Reid notion that he can just "say" that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. If Reid can say that, then a Columbia student from the same year can say that he never saw Obama there, never heard of him while there, and knows nobody who did, and that something smells fishy about why the President wouldn't release his educational records. What has he got to hide?

Besides, school admission records vs years of tax returns aren't even in the same league as far as potentially damaging scandals go. False Balance indeed.

Really? What if Obama got into Columbia as a foreign student?

EDIT: Y'know what? Nevermind the cute little quip about the Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark. It's a clever piece I grabbed from Electoral-Vote.com today, and I just felt like posting something. But the whole issue is a swing in the dirt, as I suppose is this whole election. It's already the most negative since 1988, maybe worse.

Yes it is. And, the negativity comes from Obama's camp. They just accused Romney of killing a woman because a steel company owned by Bain Capital went out of business two years after Romney left Bain Capital.

Romney's campaign is about nothing other than that he wants to be President,

Of course he wants to be President. But, what the fuck do you think Obama wants?

and his strategy is to blame and bash Obama for everything under the sun, whether it be real, exagerrated, out of context or just plain incorrect.

LOL -- Harry Reid -- Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years, although I don't haven any real knowledge of anything.

Advert: Romney killed my wife.

Romney made false filings with the SEC -- although he didn't (small detail, I know). FactCheck found the charge misleading, and the Washington Post exonerated Romney.

Obama "shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico" -- debunked by the Washington Post.

And Obama's campaign has managed to make itself not a referendum on his administration to date but rather a referendum on Romney, and his strategy thus far has been to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, a secretive empty suit who doesn't understand that running a country is not the same as running a business.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/r ... ?hpt=hp_c1

A while back I threatened that I might actually stay awake through this election. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a while. Wake me if any substantive issues take center stage.

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ummm...

I don't see how that would be a tit-for-tat, unless Wayne Whatshisname is going along with the Birthers' assumptions.

No. He was responding to the Harry Reid notion that he can just "say" that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. If Reid can say that, then a Columbia student from the same year can say that he never saw Obama there, never heard of him while there, and knows nobody who did, and that something smells fishy about why the President wouldn't release his educational records. What has he got to hide?

Besides, school admission records vs years of tax returns aren't even in the same league as far as potentially damaging scandals go. False Balance indeed.

Really? What if Obama got into Columbia as a foreign student?

EDIT: Y'know what? Nevermind the cute little quip about the Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark. It's a clever piece I grabbed from Electoral-Vote.com today, and I just felt like posting something. But the whole issue is a swing in the dirt, as I suppose is this whole election. It's already the most negative since 1988, maybe worse.

Yes it is. And, the negativity comes from Obama's camp. They just accused Romney of killing a woman because a steel company owned by Bain Capital went out of business two years after Romney left Bain Capital.

Romney's campaign is about nothing other than that he wants to be President,

Of course he wants to be President. But, what the fuck do you think Obama wants?

and his strategy is to blame and bash Obama for everything under the sun, whether it be real, exagerrated, out of context or just plain incorrect.

LOL -- Harry Reid -- Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years, although I don't haven any real knowledge of anything.

Advert: Romney killed my wife.

Romney made false filings with the SEC -- although he didn't (small detail, I know). FactCheck found the charge misleading, and the Washington Post exonerated Romney.

Obama "shipped jobs overseas to China and Mexico" -- debunked by the Washington Post.

And Obama's campaign has managed to make itself not a referendum on his administration to date but rather a referendum on Romney, and his strategy thus far has been to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, a secretive empty suit who doesn't understand that running a country is not the same as running a business.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/r ... ?hpt=hp_c1

A while back I threatened that I might actually stay awake through this election. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a while. Wake me if any substantive issues take center stage.

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

[Warren Dew]

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

I think all of your examples fit into that summary of Obama's campaign.

What's missing in Ian's analysis is that Romney is also campaigning on better alternatives to Obama's economic policies. Unfortunately, the press refuses to cover that part of Romney's campaign.

[Coito ergo sum]

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

I think all of your examples fit into that summary of Obama's campaign.

What's missing in Ian's analysis is that Romney is also campaigning on better alternatives to Obama's economic policies. Unfortunately, the press refuses to cover that part of Romney's campaign.

They're too busy trying to drum up manufactured "gaffes" like "...there have been reports of security and personnel issues at the Olympics..." Errmagerddd! Romney is so badz a diplomatizist! Herdeeherherher!!

[Ian]

Ah, the blaming of the liberal media. Now this thread is back on track.

[Ian]

You obviously missed a lot in your naps, if you think that all Obama's campaign is to tar Romney as untrustworthy and unpresidential, etc.

True. Obama's ads have been slightly more positive than's Romney's ads:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/17/ne ... -campaign/

Which is to say that while 94% of Romney's ads are spots which bash Obama, the President's ads have only gone up to 89% negative.

It's a reasonable strategy from the Obama campaign though: the publics doesn't know nearly as much about Romney, so it's best to define tell the truth about him before he can do it himself. The Romney camp's excuse is simply that negative ads work. Or maybe they just can't define Mitt and highlight his ideas too much, considering he's taken several sides on every issue there is, thus that strategy will only backfire.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you think Obama has been at all positive in this campaign so far, you haven't been watching: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/ ... lishments/

Your link addresses "critiques" -- which include Romney ads that say Obama hasn't done a good job. That isn't an attack ad. Now, calling Romney a felon or suggesting he murdered people -- that's a nifty attack ad. LOL

[pErvinalia]

I love all this arguing over which bastard to pick. It just highlights the farce of American democracy.

[Coito ergo sum]

I love all this arguing over which bastard to pick. It just highlights the farce of American democracy.

LOL - yes, less arguing would make our democracy less of a farce. And, we all know that electing bastards is an American peculiarity. Thrilling contribution, as always, Rev.

[pErvinalia]

The point - which you always miss in my posts (because I don't bother spelling it directly out for you) - is that democracy in America is a farce. The secondary point is that it is funny watching people get so serious over which bastard is slightly less bastardly than the other. That's independent of the democracy thing. It's just genuinely funny to watch people get so worked up over one insincere lying bastard compared to another insincere lying bastard.

edit to clarify: the farce isn't the "arguing" part. It's the "two bastards" part.

[Coito ergo sum]

Clarity is a good quality in writing, Rev. If you want to get your point across, writing out your point is generally better than being obtuse.

Once again, electing bastards is a peculiarly American thing? That is what you're saying? Or, are you suggesting that other countries, like Australia, also have farcical democracies due to the bastardy of their politicians, but you've decided to only mention America?

Incidentally, it is nice to hear you admit that Obama is an insincere lying bastard. If you wouldn't mind terribly, would you point out what you think he's lied about?

[pErvinalia]

I pretty much think all mainstream parties' politicians are lying bastards. And most of the others probably are too. The more corporate money you get in the system, the more two-faced a politician has to be towards his/her electorate. Regarding Obama, I can't remember them all. The most obvious one that springs to mind is the Guantanamo thing - although, i guess there were realities regarding that that hit home after he actually got in office. With Obama the whole "change" thing was a giant lie. He's just another corporatist. He's not interested in really changing anything. Although I have a secret hope he is going to go postal once elected in for his last term and really ram some changes in.

Regarding the US vs Australia, well this thread is about the US. You seem to be one of these people who really can't handle criticism of their country/system. Pulling the old - "Hey! What's that over there?" trick isn't much of a comeback. But for the record, I do criticise Australian politics as well. But as far as I can tell the reality is that the US is the worst in the world when it comes to corporate (and otherwise giant sums of private money) interference in the democratic governance process. Hence why it's my belief that the US has the worst democracy of the developed nations, more or less.

[Posse Comitatus]

ILOVE MICHAELBLOOMBERG