U.S Presidential race 2012

[Trumo]

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

[YOUTUBE]wLoqti0lzAw[/YOUTUBE]

[Trumo]

[snez1]

AAAAANNNNDDDD IT'S GONE

 

[silverlining]

I read some astounding stats about Obama's voting breakdown. Something like 93% of blacks voted for him.

 

I think it's fair to say the Democrats could have nominated the exhumed, rotted corpse of James Brown and that % would be about the same.

[Trumo]

 

 

Puerto Rico wants to officially become the 51st US state. The current Republican thinking would suggest the House might reject it on account of there being a whole load more Hispanics willing to vote Democrat in the future. It would be better for the Republicans to be proactive in suggesting a willingness to accept the application and help ratify it. They need to start appealing to more non-white non-Christian types in general, because the size of their base demographic has changed (got smaller basically) and they haven't changed their mindset to deal with that. Instead, you've had various Republican gobshites shouting the odds about the failure of the electoral system and the intelligence of the electorate. You start blatantly accusing the people of being stupid or that they have no place in the country, you can't be surprised if they don't like you.

[Kevin D]

This is the most authoritative source for status of the race. At the moment things are good for Obama but there is time for a shift. If you want to keep track Nate Silver is the best.

 

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

Correctly called all 49 states. Very, very impressive.

[Saintslfc13]

 

That's pretty funny.

 

The Bible however is pretty indifferent on Cannabis and some believe it's used in the "Holy Anointing Oil" in Exodus, though Israelites are not supposed to use it on common folk. Basically though given the rules about Herbs and all that it's probably perfectly okay from a Bible believing standpoint (irregardless of whether Christian or Jewish) to at least eat marijuana.

 

It IS however, completely and definitively incompatible with homosexuality in both the Old and New testaments.

[Saintslfc13]

 

 

Puerto Rico wants to officially become the 51st US state. The current Republican thinking would suggest the House might reject it on account of there being a whole load more Hispanics willing to vote Democrat in the future. It would be better for the Republicans to be proactive in suggesting a willingness to accept the application and help ratify it. They need to start appealing to more non-white non-Christian types in general, because the size of their base demographic has changed (got smaller basically) and they haven't changed their mindset to deal with that. Instead, you've had various Republican gobshites shouting the odds about the failure of the electoral system and the intelligence of the electorate. You start blatantly accusing the people of being stupid or that they have no place in the country, you can't be surprised if they don't like you.

 

I agree with you that the Republicans should embrace Puerto Rico rather than try to block them if they want statehood. What's odd about the whole thing is that even though their people voted for Statehood they elected a Pro-Commonwealth Governor. Also, I'd like to point out that Ron Paul won Puerto Rico. This is complementary to my next point, which is that in a way the GOP is dying. The neo-cons and their ideas are becoming less popular, and they try to mask them with religious fundamentalism which isn't working anymore. The more Conservative aspects of supposed "Republican doctrine" is actually what appeals to people outside the party. More independents (and even some Dems oddly enough) favor enforcing the 10th Amendment (States Rights as it concerns issues not expressly given to the Federal Government), as well as the Constitution as a whole. Less taxes, less spending, Congress being used to declare wars or any type of military action. Basically what is occurring is that a lot of people are making a "Classical Liberal" or some would say "Libertarian" shift which generally entails being socially liberal and fiscally/politically conservative. The overall message is, let the people do what they want so long as they don't hurt others or infringe on their rights, whilst letting the Federal and State Governments control only what is necessary and legally allowable for them to control.

 

I haven't commented on this thread is a while (barring my post above of course) but the GOP failed itself when their establishment pushed Romney over the top and their media cronies marginalized Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. The independents liked their ideas, the Libertarian/Classical Liberal crowd loved them, and the GOP needed those peoples support to win. When they essentially said "to hell with you", many of us either didn't vote, voted third party, and some even voted for Obama.

 

As far as the Electoral College goes, it needs reformation in my opinion. I think the larger states by population at least should split electoral votes. These states are Florida, California, New York and Texas. In all honestly I wouldn't mind if all states did this. Of course there would be a number where if the majority is so great the candidate that won still gets all the votes but when it's a close race they split based on county or something such as that. If you look at California for example you'd find that a good portion of it is in fact Red but the large populations of the bigger cities such as LA and SF always give it to the democrats. I don't think the GOP would favor this though because their stronghold of Texas would have a decent chances of going Blue at times.

 

At the end of the day though, I'd really like to see both the dems and reps get shit-canned so we have more parties than just two, or at least have the larger third-parties (Libertarian and Green) given access to the Presidential debates.

[setreal]

ZMey-vPJqf0

 

America is funny.

[Stu Monty]

Bah, the corporate media and the politicians colluding together behind closed doors; that's just a conspiracy theory.

 

Yes, the idea that they conspire. That's what it is. Exactly.

[Kevin D]

Chairman of the joint chiefs is one fucking outstanding job title.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Chairman of the joint chiefs is one fucking outstanding job title.

 

Agreed. Second only to 'high-lord of the underworld' for most important sounding rank.

[Kevin D]

Keep in mind here, we're not talking about wild men on the fringes of debate, but the foreign policy elite and the core of the Republican establishment. Remarkable stuff.

 

Hagel defends record at confirmation hearing - The Washington Post

 

Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee as defense secretary, confronted withering criticism during a marathon confirmation hearing Thursday, but administration officials said they felt confident that the Republican-led attacks did not derail his bid to lead the Pentagon.

 

Lawmakers from both parties spent roughly eight hours grilling Hagel about remarks he has made at various points of his career and the votes he had cast in the Senate. The nominee at times struggled as he sought to explain his past positions, in some cases distancing himself from them. He nonetheless offered a full-throated endorsement of the United States’ alliance with Israel, insisted that he has never advocated for unilateral nuclear disarmament and called Iran an existential threat.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) asked Sen. Chuck Hagel to name “one dumb thing” the Senate has done in regards to U.S. relations with Israel.

 

An administration official said the combative nature of the hearing did not come as a surprise for a nominee who has faced more sustained and personal opposition than any of Obama’s Cabinet picks.

 

“There’s no indication that this is peeling off any support that was there before today,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s internal assessment of the hearing.

 

The ranking Republican senator on the Armed Services Committee set the tone for the confirmation hearing for Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska with a reputation for bluntness but also nuanced foreign policy views.

 

“Why do you think that the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supports your nomination to be the secretary of defense?” Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked Hagel, in an apparent reference to an Iranian news agency report conveying hope from the Islamic republic that Hagel’s confirmation would bring “practical changes” in U.S. policy.

 

Hagel appeared defensive, frustrated and lethargic during much of the hearing. But none of the zingers or missteps appeared serious enough to sway a significant number of senators to vote across party lines. Democrats outnumber Republicans on the committee 14 to 12, and administration officials and analysts said the vote would probably fall along party lines.

 

“None of the votes that probably would have been for him have shifted,” said Steve Clemons, a fellow at the New America Foundation who supports Hagel’s nomination. But he expressed surprise by the lack of charisma the seasoned politician displayed on the witness chair. “Hagel, who can be hilarious, didn’t show much of that today,” Clemons lamented.

 

Hagel’s nomination has triggered sustained criticism since his name was first suggested for the job in December. Previous remarks and votes on issues ranging from sanctions against Iran to the propriety of having an openly gay ambassador became fodder for a barrage of ads and an intense lobbying campaign that has sought to doom his nomination.

 

During his opening statement, Hagel defended his record, saying he always acted with integrity but acknowledging that it was not devoid of “mistakes.” If he is confirmed, Hagel said, he would run the Pentagon guided by a long-held philosophy: “Is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices that we ask them to make?”

 

One of the first bruising lines of questioning came early, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Hagel whether he regretted his opposition to the 2007 troop surge in Iraq.

 

“Were you right?” McCain asked sternly, eliciting a response that he seemed to find inadequate.

 

“I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out,” Hagel said, refusing repeatedly to provide a yes-or-no answer.

 

Hagel later said that the Iraq war, including the surge, was the “most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.”

 

Hagel faced relatively few nuanced questions about the Afghan war or terrorist threats. Afghanistan was mentioned just 27 times, and al-Qaeda only twice, while Israel got 178 mentions and Iran 169.

On Afghanistan, where 66,000 U.S. troops remain deployed, Hagel said he did not have enough knowledge about the war to have an informed opinion about the ideal size for the force the United States might leave behind after its combat mandate expires at the end of 2014. He agreed with a senator’s characterization that Obama intends to draw down troops “sooner rather than later.”

 

“I think he’s made that very clear,” Hagel said. “If I am confirmed, I will need to better understand all the dimensions of this.”

 

Senators spent a great deal of time pressing Hagel on his views on Iran, demanding to know why he has in the past rejected unilateral sanctions and why he refused to endorse an effort to designate the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

 

The question elicited one of Hagel’s most damaging missteps, as he argued that it would have been unprecedented to add a military unit of an “elected, legitimate government” as a terrorist organization. Senators took exception to that characterization, which Hagel later softened. On the broader question of the best approach to reducing the threat Iran poses, the nominee defended some of his past positions.

 

“I think it’s always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war,” he said. He later added: “I never thought engagement is weakness.”

 

Hagel was also challenged about a comment he made in a newspaper interview in August 2011, in which he was quoted as saying that the Pentagon’s budget was bloated. On Thursday, he said he had made the comment before Congress passed a bill that imposed substantial defense cuts. The interview was, in fact, conducted after the bill’s passage.

 

The nominee said he would run the Pentagon in a fiscally responsible manner and rejected the claim that he favors the congressionally mandated across-the-board cuts that could kick in March 1 if the White House and Congress fail to reach a deal on debt reduction.

 

Hagel struggled when Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-N.C.) asked him to expand on his past assertion that the Israeli lobby “intimidates a lot of people” and challenged him to point to a single senator who feels intimidated.

 

“Name one,” Graham said, eliciting a meek response from Hagel, who said: “I do not know.”

 

Later in the hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) showed footage of interviews Hagel gave to the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television network that appeared to depict him as being sympathetic with viewers who said that Israel had committed war crimes and that the United States was the “world’s bully.” Hagel on Thursday sought to distance himself from both notions.

 

“I think my comment was it’s a relevant and good observation,” Hagel replied. “I don’t think I said I agree with it.”

[setreal]

CwRkfddtSPs

[Kevin D]

Mr Speaker, the President of the United States!

 

Boss.

[Kevin D]

Good speech. The President sounded an awful lot like a proper Democrat and the leader people hoped he would be when he first took office. The criticisms would be that he didn't mention campaign finance reform, which is a big disappointment, and he continued to refer to drone attacks in purposely vague euphemisms.

 

Newt Gingrich is in the CNN studio and said that at his first state of the union, President Clinton handed him an envelope which had a piece of paper with " I resign. William Jefferson Clinton" written on it. Quality.