Topic: 2012: The Mayans Warned Us Of Stupid Elections (Read 88754 times)

Brentai · « **Reply #540 on:** January 25, 2012, 09:47:53 AM »

Eh. I guess I agree with the thesis but disagree with the implication that somewhere buried under all that greasy polish are a set of good intentions.

Romney wants to become the CEO of America, and then do the same thing he would do as CEO of anything else: ruthlessly throw aside human considerations, pay lip service to the bottom line, and generally do whatever he has to to increase the size of his parachute. At one point in time this country had a very thorough system of checks and balances to prevent people like that from doing too much damage but in our current state we just have to hope for someone who's either genuinely good-intentioned or at least an idiot.

Shinra · « **Reply #541 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:13:51 AM »

Here's the thing with Romney. Those still are good intentions in his eyes, because Romney is under the distinct impression that the way he did things at Bain was the way things should be done. The best way to do things. That's the entire issue with Romney - he wants to run America like a wall street CEO, and he thinks that this is actually what's best for the country. Out of touch is the understatement of the century.

Thad · « **Reply #542 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:18:44 AM »

It's a pretty mainstream viewpoint in his party, really. I think the problem is more that he just seems so phony. He pretends to be a man of the people when he's obviously not, and he'll say anything to get people's vote.

This is true of most politicians, but some manage to SEEM sincere. (Clinton was the master.)

Shinra · « **Reply #543 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:25:56 AM »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/new-poll-suggests-gingrich-surging-in-florida/?hpt=hp_t2

will it happen? will we really get to see Obama vs Gingrich in a presidential debate?

MarsDragon · « **Reply #544 on:** January 25, 2012, 05:19:05 PM »

I don't know if I want to see that happen or if I'm paralyzed with fear that Gingrich has a chance of anything.

Thad · « **Reply #545 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:26:52 PM »

Bob Dole:

Quote

Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand -- that was a symbol of some sort for him -- and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.

Ziiro · « **Reply #546 on:** January 26, 2012, 12:52:18 PM »

I made the mistake of reading the comments on that article. Why do I do that to myself.

Thad · « **Reply #547 on:** January 26, 2012, 02:12:19 PM »

Now I'm curious. But fortunately NoScript has blocked the comments and it's always a pain in the ass to figure out which five sites I need to unblock to access them.

Ziiro · « **Reply #548 on:** January 26, 2012, 02:20:18 PM »

They're facebook linked, if that helps.

Quote from: Matt Gomez · Director of Marketing and Communications at Clean the World

By "landslide" does he mean similar to his own defeat in 1996? Sen. Dole is a distinguished gentleman who served well in the Senate, but he is a dealmaker. That was his undoing as a presidential candidate. He's too quick to make deals, and not hold to his ideological convictions (if he has any). That's what worries many GOP voters about Romney. We're looking for a candidate who will not look to compromise (read: lose) on matters of importance to our nation, but rather, someone who will hold fast to conservative ideals and convictions that served us well under Reagan and can get us out of the mess we are in with Obama.

Dole's support of Romney, like McCain's before him, does little but solidify Romney as the "establishment candidate" in the minds of voters. That's not a compliment. Newt may not be a much better option ( I prefer Santorum), but any of the GOP candidates will serve us better as Americans than Obama has in his first term.

The focus in this silly primary season is to test the candidate's mettle and make them stronger to win the prize against a weak incumbent who, sadly, is still held in high regard by traditional media and the Washington establishment. We'll see how it all works out, but as a Florida resident, I'll have my chance to vote very soon.

Upon review it was actually just this one. The rest aren't as good.

Thad · « **Reply #549 on:** January 26, 2012, 02:25:55 PM »

I have sympathy for the argument; Lord knows I think the Dems spend too much time capitulating.

But the thing is, there's a difference between utter capitulation and a total refusal to compromise. There is a middle-ground.

And anyone who thinks Gingrich would have beaten Clinton in '96 is a fucking idiot.

Büge · « **Reply #550 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Ziiro on January 26, 2012, 02:20:18 PM

Quote from: Matt Gomez · Director of Marketing and Communications at Clean the World
The focus in this silly primary season is to test the candidate's mettle and make them stronger to win the prize against a weak incumbent who, sadly, is still held in high regard by traditional media and the Washington establishment. We'll see how it all works out, but as a Florida resident, I'll have my chance to vote very soon.

What, doesn't this guy think Romney will make good on his promise to assassinate Castro?

Brentai · « **Reply #551 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:44:33 PM »

Did he say he would assassinate Castro, or that Castro would die during his term?

Smiler · « **Reply #552 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:50:39 PM »

Romney has a compromise in progress with Gingrich about maybe moving Castro to the moon.

Doom · « **Reply #553 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:52:57 PM »

I love the wild suspension of disbelief that Obama is a "weak incumbent" when quite frankly he could not show up to his debates or even run any campaigning or ads and probably win by a landslide against whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP is offering.

Also "I prefer Santorum" and "Served us well under Reagan." Classic.

Brentai · « **Reply #554 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:02:18 PM »

Well, he IS a weak incumbent, he just has much weaker challengers.

Mongrel · « **Reply #555 on:** January 29, 2012, 07:31:26 AM »

Seen in the letters to the editor of a local paper:

Quote

A question of protocol: If Newt Gingrich were to win the upcoming U.S. election, would the (current) Mrs. Gingrich become the Third Lady?

Thad · « **Reply #556 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:51:15 AM »

Romney up 20 points in Florida. So I'm sure after tomorrow the news media will finally acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and stop acting like this is a real conteaaaaahhhh, I'm just kidding, you guys; we've got at least another two months of this crap to look forward to.

Brentai · « **Reply #557 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:23:02 AM »

What kills me is that these guys always surge after something comes up that completely ruins their chances of winning the primary. Is the GOP looking for the strongest candidate or the meatiest sacrificial lamb?

Brentai · « **Reply #558 on:** January 30, 2012, 04:25:09 PM »

Okay so yeah on the one hand we're finally looking at closing a legal loophole that I guess lets politicians engage in straight-up insider trading?

And on the other hand we're looking at a nominee for President who is a former head of an investment firm.

I'd say something about letting the fox guard the henhouse but I think that idiom is probably more appropriate for Gingrich on several levels.

Thad · « **Reply #559 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:52:55 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on January 30, 2012, 04:25:09 PM

Okay so yeah on the one hand we're finally looking at closing a legal loophole that I guess lets politicians engage in straight-up insider trading?

How close?

Given that both parties' leadership was apparently doing it.

News:

Author Topic: 2012: The Mayans Warned Us Of Stupid Elections (Read 88754 times)