US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

No. You're ignoring programmed spending.

Which makes no sense,

So it's your position that there were no laws passed before Obama was President?

OK.

Of course there were. But, any such laws that you're suggesting programmed spending into 2010 were passed by a wholly Democrat controlled Congress in 2007, 2008 and 2009, and in 2009, there was not a single law that existed in the United States, except the Constitution, that Obama, Reid and Pelosi could not repeal, change, modify, amend, or tear up and throw in the garbage. They had carte blanche and filibuster proof Senate.

If Congress passed a law in 2000 that extended into 2002, but Bush and a Republican controlled Congress failed to repeal it in 2001 when when they had the power to do so, it would be their baby, wouldn't it? Or, do you saddle Clinton with the first four years of Bush's deficits?

[Schneibster]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

Doesn't matter what Bush spent, the issue is strictly how much Obama IS SPENDING. It's a fallacy to say that it's okay for Obama to spend as much as, or more than Bush spent merely because Bush spent money. It's not about who can spend more, it's about who can spend LESS.

Frankly, since the "Stimulus" was, according to some, so insufficient and small, if Bush had spent less, then that would have made matters worse....

Bush spent on a war we never shoulda got into,

So what? According to Keynsian economics that you have been championing, it doesn't matter where the government spends the money.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're assuming spending will continue at levels that it will not by law that has already been passed but has not yet taken effect. That's a direct lie. Sorry, you lose.

No I'm not - it's September 2011 - We're already over a trillion dollars deficit for 2011 -- nothing is in the works to curb spending in the next four months.

What's your claim? That Obama will do something to stop spending in its tracks now, and we'll only have $1 trillion in deficit this year?

EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE - it would still be: Obama = $2.4 trillion in 2 years, and Bush $3.2 trillion in 8 years. PLUS, Bush was saddled with the $400 billion Omnibus spending bill in 2009, which he did not sign, which was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Obama, AND Bush was saddled with the $256 billion in Stimulus money spent in 2009, because it's part of the $2009 fiscal year.

You still lose, even if we just go to date, and not to the end of 2011, four months from now. Happy?

[Schneibster]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

And lies: the Republicans had enough seats in the Senate to filibuster.

Wow, two at one shot. I'm in good form today.

[Coito ergo sum]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

Democrat Congress is an ad hominem attack? How so?

And lies: the Republicans had enough seats in the Senate to filibuster.

Not in 2009. Adding Franken, 58, to the Senate would give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome any Republican filibuster on legislation. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-06 ... enate-race

You're 0 for what, now? It's hard to keep track of all the times you're wrong.

Wow, two at one shot. I'm in good form today.

For someone whose had every assertion they've made destroyed out of hand, yes, you are in great form. Your usual form, deflect, bait, attack....

[Schneibster]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

Democrat Congress is an ad hominem attack? How so?

Because I said so and I get to exercise my rights of free association and free speech. Sorry, I will not tolerate chickenshit.

[Seth]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

Democrat Congress is an ad hominem attack? How so?

Because I said so and I get to exercise my rights of free association and free speech. Sorry, I will not tolerate chickenshit.

Democrat Congress you!

[Schneibster]

Olbers' Paradox!

[Schneibster]

[T]he President simply isn’t a top-draw[sic] politician. If he were, we’d be talking about the Obama tax cuts–there have been two big ones–instead of the “failed” Obama stimulus package; the Obama Senior Citizen prescription drug benefit (he closed the donut hole), universal health coverage that you can never lose instead of death panels; the Detroit auto boom as a path to a revival of manufacturing. Most important, we’d be talking about jobs instead of deficits. We would never have played the Republican deficit follies these past nine months. He would be defining the political arena. Instead, the Republicans are.

I hope that Obama intends to correct this. He may simply have been too busy being President, in which case he's avoiding doing something else Shrubya was criticized for, playing politics on duty. I think a lot of people, both liberal and conservative, would prefer to see politicians spend less time campaigning and more time doing their fucking jobs.

Source: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/08/ob ... emester-2/

[Coito ergo sum]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

Democrat Congress is an ad hominem attack? How so?

Because I said so and I get to exercise my rights of free association and free speech. Sorry, I will not tolerate chickenshit.

Yes, but as you have proven time and time again, having the right of free association and the right of free speech has nothing at all to do with whether you are actually right in what you are saying. What you say may be complete and utter bullshit, but I certainly support your right to say it, if only for the entertainment value.

[Schneibster]

Democrat Congress

Oh, another point: I also stop at ad hom attacks. Sorry.

Democrat Congress is an ad hominem attack? How so?

Because I said so and I get to exercise my rights of free association and free speech. Sorry, I will not tolerate chickenshit.

Yes, but as you have proven time and time again, having the right of free association and the right of free speech has nothing at all to do with whether you are actually right in what you are saying. What you say may be complete and utter bullshit, but I certainly support your right to say it, if only for the entertainment value.

While you're correct, you're changing the subject so it's immaterial whether you're right or wrong. You were impolite.

As long as you keep starting posts with distractions, I'll keep pointing out the distraction and ignoring the content. As far as I'm concerned, the distraction is an underhanded debating trick. I handle that by frustrating you. It's tit for tat.

I am not sorry you are frustrated. You know what to do to make it stop. You always did. You just don't wanna.

[Coito ergo sum]

Huntsman: Florida Will Decide The GOP Nominee
By Wes Little and Alison Harding CNN

Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Sunday that winning Florida is "critically important" to his campaign, saying the early primary state will decide the GOP nominee for president.
"Somewhere between Orlando and Tampa, the great I-4 corridor, there's gonna be a lot of important campaigning, a lot of connecting with the people of Florida, and ultimately I believe the decision made that will determine the next nominee of the Republican Party, and I do believe the next president of the United States," Huntsman told reporters after a 9/11 memorial ceremony at the Tampa Firefighters' Museum.
Huntsman chose Orlando for his presidential campaign headquarters, partly -- he has said -- because his wife Mary Kaye is from the area, and partly because winning state's primary is crucial to his campaign strategy.
Huntsman also said he is looking forward to the CNN/Tea Party Express presidential debate Monday in Tampa, and said he intends to focus on the economy and job creation.
"These are always good opportunities to have a conversation with the American people, to talk about the issues that really do matter," Huntsman said.
"There's a great human tragedy out there in our country with 14 million unemployed and millions and millions who are so dispirited they've given up looking."
The former governor and ambassador also reflected on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, recounting that as U.S. trade ambassador to Vietnam, he was separated from his family and "trying to make sense of it 10,000 miles away."
But Huntsman said the somber anniversary is also an opportunity "to be reminded what is great about this country."
"This country is better and stronger because we've pulled together. We have to remember that theme of unity as well because when this nation pulls together as it did 10 years ago in the aftermath of 9/11, no one can stop us," Huntsman said.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/29149754/detail.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Jon Huntsman, Jr. is the former governor of Utah and former CEO of the family business (which is considerably larger than your family's business), Huntsman Corporation. He has served as a staff member for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. He has also been a diplomat, serving as the Ambassador to Singapore for George H.W. Bush and the Ambassador to China for Barack Obama.

Huntsman has a seriously impressive foreign relations background. Obviously, you don't make someone your ambassador to your biggest lender and emerging superpower unless they know what they're doing. Also, he helped bring Singapore and China into the World Trade Organization while working for the George W. Bush administration, so he has some tangible results to list in his campaign.
Jon's tenure as Governor of Utah was also very successful. He managed to lower taxes substantially while maintaining a suplus for the state, earning him accolades from many Republican and Libertarian groups. Even though he left his second tenure as governor early to become the U.S. Ambassador the China, a strong executive and economic record can only be a good thing.
He has the most bipartisan appeal. In addition to working with the Obama administration, Huntsman has also proven to be more moderate on issues such as climate change (although he opposed cap and trade, he agreed that we must do something about greenhouse gases) and gay marriage (although he opposes actual marriage for homosexuals, he has supported civil unions).

Huntsman's moderate background has been more of a hindrance than anything else so far. In a Republican primary heavy on anti-Obama rhetoric, all these picture of Huntsman working with the current President aren't exactly helpful. While it's very good to be a moderate in a general election, it may be his undoing in the primaries.
Jon can't exactly connect to the Tea Party populists. He comes from money, has worked in politics or as a CEO basically his entire life, and tends to come off as very intellectual. Also, even though he is a Mormon he doesn't play as well with social conservative voters because of his more moderate viewpoints. That's probably too many Republican voters alienated to succeed.
His campaign isn't raising a ton of money because he isn't all that exciting. Huntsman lacks the natural charisma of Perry or Bachmann or Paul, and it is showing very heavily in his fundraising numbers. Huntsman can shore some of this defecit up through his own personal wealth, but a lack of personality isn't the kind of problem you can throw money at until it goes away.

http://www.ology.com/politics/2012-cand ... untsman-jr

[Posse Comitatus]

DEAR AMERICA

please make jon huntsman your next president.


Best,


Steven

[Coito ergo sum]

DEAR AMERICA

please make jon huntsman your next president.


Best,


Steven

I really wish this guy got more coverage in the media. I don't get it. The guy has got some chops -- he's been serving since the 80s in some good positions with every administration, Republican and Democrat. He was a wildly successful and popular governor of Utah. I think he won reelection there with 71% of the vote.