Election 2012
 

Get your game faces on! Less than 6 months to go.

I watched this last year and was recently reminded of it on another forum.
I'll post it here as well. Seems fitting enough.

Well, Boris Johnson has won as Mayor of Londn. Again. Sigh.
And the campaign for Scottish independence doesn't go to vote until 2014 - although the SNP have started their Yes campaign already.

So I can only assume you are referencing the Eurovision Song Contest.
Go Humperdinck, go!

OK you wimps ...

http://www.isidewith.com/

Who the hell is Fred Karger????
Obama and Romney were in a statistical tie. :/

I side 84% with Barack Obama on issues of Social, Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, Science, Immigration, and the Environment. More info

I side 73% with Kent Mesplay on issues of Social, Healthcare, Immigration, Science, and the Environment. More info

I side 67% with Jill Stein on issues of Social, Immigration, Science, and the Environment. More info

I side 24% with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy. More info

I side 15% with Mitt Romney on issues of the Environment. More info



***

I expanded all the question sections.

Look at me bein' all moderate and shit.

86%
Ron Paul
I side with Ron Paul on issues of the Economy, Domestic policy, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy, and the Environment.

86%

Gary Johnson
I side with Gary Johnson on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, Foreign Policy, the Environment, Social, and Science.

77%

Mitt Romney
I side with Mitt Romney on issues of the Economy, Domestic policy, Immigration, and the Environment.

71%

Jimmy McMillan
I side with Jimmy McMillan on issues of the Economy, Domestic policy, Immigration, and Social.

37%

Fred Karger
I side with Fred Karger on issues of Healthcare and Science.

30%

Jill Stein
I side with Jill Stein on issues of Healthcare, Social, and Science.

27%

Kent Mesplay
I side with Kent Mesplay on issues of Foreign Policy, Social, and Science.

24%

Barack Obama
I side with Barack Obama on issues of Social and Science.

86%
Libertarian
77%
Republican
28%
Green
24%
Democratic

Danger, Danger, Will Robinson
 

This could be a real threat this election.
more

I side with anyone who is against the Liberal Savior....

Where's the intelligence in that?

I mean, reasonable and intelligent individuals would presumably form a position about who they side with based on actual facts rather than emotional REactions.

It is not about emotion. The problem is that people vote on emotion, not fact. If you vote on facts you will not vote for Obama. Liberals vote on nothing but emotion. Everyone else votes on the facts.

Tit.

Jus' sayin'

No we don't. You're either ignorant (doubt it) or trolling (practically certain). But I'll make your trolling worthwhile by calling you on it.

Candidates you side with...

92% Barack Obama
I side with Barack Obama on issues of Social, the Economy, Science, Immigration, Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, and Healthcare.

87% Jill Stein
I side with Jill Stein on issues of the Economy, Immigration, Science, Social, Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, and the Environment.

84% Kent Mesplay
I side with Kent Mesplay on issues of the Economy, Immigration, Social, Domestic policy, Science, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, and the Environment.

72% Fred Karger
I side with Fred Karger on issues of Immigration, Social, Foreign Policy, Science, and the Environment.

59% Gary Johnson
I side with Gary Johnson on issues of Immigration and Science.

37% Ron Paul
I do not side with Ron Paul on any major issues.

33% Jimmy McMillan
I side with Jimmy McMillan on issues of Healthcare.

13% Mitt Romney
I do not side with Mitt Romney on any major issues.

91%
Green
85%
Democratic
61%
Libertarian
9%
Republican

Odd... that quiz pegged me as Libertarian/Democrat. I always hated political labels but never considered myself a Libertarian before.

Does happen, though.

Nice........


Joy Behar, Al Gore's new employee at Current TV, said Tuesday in response to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's comments on the need for more police, teachers, and firefighters, "I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz1xdW2JAf9

She is as irrelevant as current tv and its 8 viewers.
yawn.

wish that were true, but it is not...

huh?
Link

I don't get Current TV but I listen to Bill Press and Stephanie Miller most mornings on the radio and agree with them on most things.

In regard to the election. My vote is going to President Obama. He hasn't done everything I wanted but I believe he HAS tried on most of them. And he's gotten a lot done with a congress that is on the record as stating their number one goal is to keep Obama from being elected.

Romney is an out-of-touch moron who doesn't give a damn about anything but getting elected. His views change daily and he can't put two words together without inserting his foot in his mouth.
I lived in MA when he was gov. He never visited most of the state and the only good thing he did was his health care reform that he now avoids talking about because Obama's reform was modeled after it.

Sorry to tell you, but this is the goal of every party which loses the previous election.
This is nothing new. To the victor go the spoils and all that.

True, but very rarely is it stated out right by a leader of the other party on the first day the President in question is sworn in.
McConnell did that, if I'm not mistaken.

Right.

What has been conspicuously and tragically absent from the statements made by the most public and vocal Republicans is a sense of working for the good of the country. It was all rah rah rah my team, right or wrong and no coming together after the election. That was shitty, and is shitty. It's childish. I have seen young children display more "good sportsmanship" than these bitter, craven, myopic harridans. We will all reap the bitter harvest they've sown.

So you at least admire their openness and honesty?

quelle drole

That's bullshit, in the not that distant past the #1 goal was good government, what's best for the country. They didn't always agree what that entailed, but they worked and compromised toward that end... plus lining their own pockets.

A couple of months ago unemployment was slowly, steadily, going down and Obama's rating was climbing. Suddenly unemployment started to rise. coincidence? I think not. I think it's evidence that the power brokers will sacrifice you and yours, to get a stronger stranglehold on the country. They have plenty of money to wait it out while the economy flounders, do you?

So true, sadly.

Not true. Back in the days of Nam, Congressman and Senators from both parties would fight like cats and dogs. By day. That night, usual was to see Democrats and Republicans drinking together or socializing at each others homes. But they were moderates.

We now have wacko extremists. Therefore the most Republican Republicans including Alan Simpson, Bob Doles, George Sr, etc are all saying the Republican Party has become extremist. Hate is the new normal. Citing the Tea Party in particular.

It's no different in business. The purpose of every productive business is its product. In a good business deal, all counterparties prosper. There is no winner and loser in a good business or political deal. Only winners. But that means thinking like a moderate. Extremist need failures to gain power.

In politics, the product is America. Either advance America. Or advance the party. In corrupt nations, the party is more important than the nation. More failure empowers only extremists. Moderates work for the nation; not for extremist rhetoric and ideals.

Rush Limbaugh, et al openly said in 2008, "We want America to fail." Harm to America means hate and economic destruction. Harm to America means more power for wacko extremists. Extremists work only for themselves; at the expense of America. All over the world, extremists prosper when failure exists.

Extremists need a nation to fail. Extremists need the hate openly advocated by Limbaugh et al. Neither existed when moderates ruled the Hill.

At least you got the sarcasm that time. :p:

In much the same way I would "admire" the honesty of someone pointing a gun to my head and telling me he's going to kill me.

lol

That's about right.

He said he wanted Obama to fail, meaning he did not want him to be able to implement his agenda Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus, etc.

Yea, I could support that. Obamacare will fail and cost a shit more than they originally told us...., the Bailouts were generally a failure, the "Stimulus" was a huge fucking failure.... So what did we get? Transparency? Fail. Jobs? Fail. Economic prosperity? Fail. Same-old-shit? Yep.

pretty fine hair to be splitting there.

I don't find much of what Rush Limbaugh says of substance to be very defensible, and this statement, even with your clarification, is classic Limbaugh. Provocative, negative, generally unhelpful. You and I are adults, so is he; each of us can think of a dozen ways to say the same thing but in a constructive way. But that's not his style. I don't like his substance and I detest his style.

... meaning he wanted America to fail. He said that bluntly in early 2008. And then backed off his rhetoric when even party peers started criticizing him for being so obvious and offensive. Apparently you forgot all that. Short term memory occurs when listening to extremist political talk radio.

Yeah, but that doesn't appeal to the multitards. :cool:

^ Gets it.
Yes, he wanted America to fail, fail to become a third rate socialist state like Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Ah but with capitalism when you run out of money you just have
the stupid tax payers eat the cost! Now I see the difference!

Limbaugh said he wanted America to fail so that Obama would not be relected. Your reasons (Health care, etc ) did not even exist yet. Limbaugh later change his rhetoric to "we want Obama to fail". Those most easily brainwashed by Limbaugh automatically forgot what Limbaugh first said. And automatically believed the new political rhetoric.


Where is this non-socialist state that is so prospering? According to Limbaugh logic, all western nations are socialist nations. Please list nations that do not have socialism and are therefore prospering.

More.

They only way they can get away with this is if lazy voters believe the sound bites, and complacent voters stay home. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

That's not a very big "if".

Lazy voters -- check

believable sound bites -- check

complacent voters not voting -- check.

jfc.. I think I found the problem! I think the effectiveness of this kind of effort is considerable. There are two kinds of things that motivate people, push and pull. Things that are designed to move to action, and things that are designed to prevent action. There will be plenty of both from Koch and crew. And money and lots of it is a great tool to get this done.

I'm not complacent, and I'm not optimistic about what this bodes for our small d democracy.

A majority routinely believe sound bytes. A majority therefore knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Danon increased sales by 25% by preaching a mysterious ingredient called something like digitalis rectalitis. It is why Saddam had WMDs. It is why so many foolishly make computer damage easier by buying a power strip protector.

People most easily brainwashed by soundbytes tend to be the most adamant in denial. They actually insist they think for themselves.

Making those soundbytes nasty has an additional factor. It drives extremists to vote heavily. And it turns off moderates. The purpose of a nasty soundbyte and unlimited funds for campaigning is to empower extremism at the expense of intelligent and moderate voters. History repeatedly shows it works.

Big Gulp.

In a true capitalist system there would have been no taxpayer funded bailouts, poorly run businesses would be allowed to fail.
Singapore would be the best example, what I do not like about that country is that it is a police state where chewing gum is illegal.

Say what you like about Singapore, but it is the world's happiest dictatorship..

How come it's ok to bail out businesses? Why don't they - bastions of capitalism- refuse our money?? Why ok for corporations to take
huge bailouts when they vehemently don't believe in them? ??

Because if we didn't bail them out, they would have taken us all down and it would have been worse than the Great Depression. Things were that close 4-5 years ago to really going into the toilet. We would all be trying to sell pencils from a plastic dixie cup on the street corner. Too poor to afford a tin cup.

The question is, why do we acknowledge that the businesses are now too big to fail, and we have set the precedent that we will bail them out when they get into trouble, and yet we aren't doing ANYTHING to slice them up into smaller businesses that can fail without hurting us?

We broke up Ma Bell. Why can't we break up these horrible banks? When it comes to businesses, big is bad. It's self defense. Break them up already.

Yeah. Its just that these dickheads - these "capitalists" - eschew
any type of private hand-out but they certainly do feed st the trough of corporate welfare.

Agreed. It is long past time and those with the power to do so have failed us - all of them.

I can't help but wonder how much more good some of these companies could do by taking the millions they give these super PACs and putting it directly into the company. $400 million will cover quite a few "working class" salaries with decent benefits, can upgrade fleets, improve machinery and IT assets, buy land/shop space, etc...

It's like they can scrape up all this money from somewhere to purchase politics, but can't seem to find money in the budget to lower health insurance premiums, make better products or hire people who want to work.

Seriously, what's the ROI on $400 million paid to a super PAC?

If it means your corporate tax rate drops instead of rises, if it means your subsidies keep coming, if it means you own that many more politicians? Probably REALLY big.

neat site. I hadn't seen anything from them before. At first I thought they were a partisan group trying to use a name close to the CBO. One interesting article had this piece.

According to wikipedia, they're often called a left-of-center group, so take it or leave it as you will, but..

From the articles I scanned that was my impression too.
I had to go through a bunch on Romney before I found one on something else.

cropped from, apparently, a photo taken of a TV screen on Tumblr, so low-quality, but i couldn't find a better version of the chart. Rachel Maddow featured it on her show a few days ago, and had been saving it for a long time to use, cause it's so informative.
I think it says a lot.

What we would 'like' wealth distribution to be is rather silly. I like the contrast between what it 'is' and what we 'think' but what we 'want'?

Hell, I'd like to be a unicorn but it ain't going to happen.