Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[Hallack]

I'm actually okay with you owning a tank X-codes. 

[bhu]

I think we should all be able to own tanks.

I just think only certain ones of us should have access to live ammo

[X-Codes]

I think we should all be able to own tanks.

I just think only certain ones of us should have access to live ammo

Should the ones not allowed access to live ammo be told?

[bhu]

I think we should all be able to own tanks.

I just think only certain ones of us should have access to live ammo

Should the ones not allowed access to live ammo be told?

That would ruin the fun...

[SolEiji]

There is a certain nice security in the idea of everyone owning a tank but not knowing who has ammo and who doesn't.  It has all the threat of danger without the danger of crazy people with tanks.

Also, I have all the ammo.

[X-Codes]

On a more practical note, that's the kind of mentality that "protected" us during the Cold War.  We knew that pushing the button didn't mean they died, it meant everyone died, and the Soviet Union knew that they had a similar situation.  Later we realized, however, that living during the Cold War kinda sucked.

[Hallack]

What?  Didn 't you enjoy the Nuke drills back in school? 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I watched yesterday's Republican Presidential Debate.  The audience was sick.

One of the interviewers mentioned that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.

Audience: "BOOOOO!!!"

Ron Paul says that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us in the realm of foreign policy.

Audience:  "BOOOOO!!!"

Juan Williams asks Newt Gingrich if he's deliberately appealing to racial resentment when he portrays African-Americans as lazy people on welfare.

Audience: "BOOOOOO!!!" to Juan Williams.

Newt Gingrich suggests that poor  and minority children should be paid to scrub the toilets of rich kids in rich schools.

Audience: *Gives Newt Gingrich Standing Ovation*

Forget the candidates, the audience is the nuttiest of them all!

This.
Part of the Gingrich surge, is because South Carolina
is right next door to his native Georgia. He knows how
to talk and run there. Playing straight to the crowd = easy money.


**


The thing that's weird about trying to put the various candidates into
whatever "position" box, is most of their positions are sheer posturing.
Obama has been up against the use of the Senate Filibuster on every bill.
Mr. 60% for a while was Joe Lieberman. Then Ted Kennedy died,
but the most important campaign issue was how well the Dem. Woman
knew Curt Schilling the baseball pitcher.
The centrist Repub winner was in on every vote. Obama's
performance for his 2nd year of the presidency is based on that.
Yes it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It ain't democracy.

Meanwhile, the Social Conservatives have no way of convincing
middle of the road Democrats to join them, over a filibuster.
There are certain issues that can't make it over that Wall at all.

[/rant]

[X-Codes]

What?  Didn 't you enjoy the Nuke drills back in school? 

I'm happy that I didn't have to actually go through with that.

Although, I did enjoy South Park's mockery of the school nuke drills.

[Hallack]

Dont' forget to watch the debate tonight.  Popcorn, bourbon, and lots of lulz

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Looks like Newt's gonna get SC

[X-Codes]

Looks like Newt's gonna get SC

Awesome!  We can't have this get boring, now can we...?

So now it's down to Mitt, Newt, and Rick, who have all split the first three states.

[Hallack]

So now it's down to Mitt, Newt, and Rick, who have all split the first three states.

X-codes, you've bought the establishment line

I'd say we are down the the Establishment(Mitt/Newt/Romney) vs Ron Paul. 

Yeah, yeah, I DO realize how tough a fight that is and the odds. 

The Zombie Apocalypse is upon us. 

We'd better get our tanks ready.

[X-Codes]

Uhm, no.  Ron Paul is not a serious Presidential candidate, mostly because he's about a hair short of running on the platform that the Government shouldn't exist.  He might run as a 3rd-party, but he's not going to do any better than he did in previous years in the general, either.

[skydragonknight]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would consider voting for over Obama. I'm against Paul on many, many issues...however, 40% over budget each year plus compound interest when we're already at 100% debt to GDP...that's BAD. As a math major, I know you don't mess with compound interest - you attack the shit out of it while it's still small possible. There's two ways to do that: raise the hell out of taxes like we did after WWII when the debt was 120% GDP (the highest tax rate post-war was 90% and it still took a long-ass time to fix the debt) *or* we carve government to pieces, risking a recession but avoiding a worse fate in the future.

Given that of the 33 senate seats up for grabs, 20 are democrats, 3 independents and 10 republicans, I foresee a republican control of the senate, meaning even if Obama wins and tried to do shit to lower the deficit, like let the bush tax cuts expire, the Republicans wouldn't let him... Ron Paul, on the other hand, might get a couple of the hack and slash ideas through Congress, prolonging our fate. The others....any money we actually saved would be reduced in taxes for their buddies.

But I'm pretty sure in all cases we're ultimately screwed.

[Hallack]

Heads up.  On rereading the below it could easily come across with a stronger tone than it was written.  If it does... then you are reading it wrong

Not sure why he isn't a "serious" candidate.  He is seriously trying to win the nomination so that he can try and salvage our nation from its financial folly.   

As Skydragonknight noted, he is the only candidate we have that really sees and talks about the dangers of our current monetary and gov. spending policies. 

Hell, while those like Gingrich, Mitt and others were chuckling living high on the economic bubbles Ron was on the house floor telling congress we were going to be fucked if they kept it up. 

Now we have the fiscal conservatives talking of fiscal conservatism (and even some about constitutional restraint) but all their plans only nibble at slowing the rate of increased spending. 

It could (and probably will) change but last polling showed that really only Ron and Mitt had a good chance against Obama.  That's pretty damn good considering how most have been conditioned to consider him not serious or otherwise marginalized.  But then, we are supposed to only vote for one of the few the establishment picks for us, a nice Hobson's Choice. 

'Would you like a Mitt, a Newt, or a Frothy?'  Screw that.  It is not a real choice.  The only significant difference between those guys is personality and ability to sound bite.

Nah, he won't run 3rd party.  Yes, he could and he would pull a good number of votes but it would not accomplish much. 

But also as Skydragonknight said, "I'm pretty sure in all cases we're ultimately screwed." 

[X-Codes]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would consider voting for over Obama. I'm against Paul on many, many issues...however, 40% over budget each year plus compound interest when we're already at 100% debt to GDP...that's BAD. As a math major, I know you don't mess with compound interest - you attack the shit out of it while it's still small possible. There's two ways to do that: raise the hell out of taxes like we did after WWII when the debt was 120% GDP (the highest tax rate post-war was 90% and it still took a long-ass time to fix the debt) *or* we carve government to pieces, risking a recession but avoiding a worse fate in the future.

You may know math, but you're, frankly, terrible with statistics.  You're giving far too much weight to a singular figure.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

It did spike to 120% during the war, but was back down to 75% sometime around 1950 and still trending downwards through the 60's and stayed stable at an acceptable rate through the 70's, then Ronald Reagan started the process of running it back up again.  Also, the top individual income tax bracket is meaningless at this time, because hardly anyone even got paid enough to reach it.

I would also like to point out that the Debt to GDP ratio is a completely meaningless figure.  First off, it's not even the right debt figure.  The amount of money that the United States Federal Government owes to a genuinely separate entity is closer to 65%.  The remainder is debt that is owed by the General Fund to Social Security and debt owed by states and localities, not the Federal Government.  Furthermore, if we're really in some kind of Debt crisis, then people would be charging a fortune to lend us money, right?  Well, they're not.  10-year Treasury Bond rates are at a historic low of about 2% today.

TL;DR The debt crisis is a complete fabrication of the imagination of the Republican WAAAAAAMBULANCE, and the reality is that the overall economic crisis is not only more threatening, but, comparatively speaking, it's threatening in the same way that small pox is threatening, compared to the debt crisis being more like a mild cold.

Given that of the 33 senate seats up for grabs, 20 are democrats, 3 independents and 10 republicans, I foresee a republican control of the senate, meaning even if Obama wins and tried to do shit to lower the deficit, like let the bush tax cuts expire, the Republicans wouldn't let him... Ron Paul, on the other hand, might get a couple of the hack and slash ideas through Congress, prolonging our fate. The others....any money we actually saved would be reduced in taxes for their buddies.

This is, for the most part, meaningless.  There are going to be 3rd-party candidates in many of these races because of outrage against both the Democrats and Republicans.

[Sinfire Titan]

And until one of the major parties fractures itself past the current schism, those 3rd parties won't have a shot in the dark at getting someone into the presidency. The third parties are a minority, and the only thing they can do right now is split the vote in such a way that one of the two major parties wins by default (what happened with Taft and Teddy all over again).

That said, we're closer to an inter-party split now than we have been in decades.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I have a white-haired Uncle near the Mississippi delta region.
Considers himself to be Mr. Republican and ultra-conservative.

I'm'n'a have to call him and tease him a bit ... 

He campaigned for Rand Paul.
He campaigned for Newt back in the day, and thinks he's a hero.
His #1 issue is a Santorum specialty.
And his real background is the older business moderate wing
... so he had been chatting up Romney for the last 2 years.
But if you catch him in an un-"movement"-guarded moment,
he ends up taking a NY or PA catholic moderate position,
on just about every issue.
He won't be able to make up his mind which guy to vote for.
Or worse if a 3rd party centrist actually runs.

[X-Codes]

And until one of the major parties fractures itself past the current schism, those 3rd parties won't have a shot in the dark at getting someone into the presidency. The third parties are a minority, and the only thing they can do right now is split the vote in such a way that one of the two major parties wins by default (what happened with Taft and Teddy all over again).

That said, we're closer to an inter-party split now than we have been in decades.

I don't entirely agree with this.  While the Republican party is quite visibly fracturing along the lines of corporate, libertarian, and social conservatives, the Democratic party has never really been 100% unified, especially as the Democratic party has been picking up Republicans that can't hack the purity testing in that party, such as the genuine deficit hawks that want to raise taxes without killing Social Security or Medicare in the process.  In a year like this where it's really becoming apparent that both parties are just making a show of legislating on the issues we care about while what they're really doing is trying to ram stuff like SOPA down our throats, I think a 3rd-party candidate can have a decent shot at winning in their own right instead of splitting the vote.  Taft and Teddy was an internal power struggle.  The two were not that far apart, ideologically, and Teddy basically ran just because he didn't like Taft.  On the other hand, if someone were to run a campaign as, essentially, a technocrat, I think they would not pull votes exclusively from one party or the other, and could have a decent shot of winning the election in their own right.