Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

robindch

Andy Borowitz surveys the scene with just under two weeks to go:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/gop-split-over-whether-to-emphasize-misogyny-or-racism.html

The Borowitz Report wrote:

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there is a deep divide among Republican leaders over whether to emphasize misogyny or racism as the campaign’s closing theme.

In one camp is the Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who says that his view that God is sometimes O.K. with rape is “gaining real traction with a key demographic: men who don’t like women very much.”

“I can’t tell you how many misogynists have come up to me at my rallies and said, ‘Thank you for saying what you said,’ ” he told reporters today. “I think they’re like, finally, someone’s taking a more nuanced position on rape.” But in the other camp is the former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who worries that the Republican Party’s emphasis on misogyny is threatening to drown out its “winning message of racism.”

“I understand the appeal of Mourdock’s anti-woman theme, but I worry that it’s going to overshadow our core value of racism, which is still our best shot at winning this thing,” he said. “In politics, you’ve got to dance with the one who brung you.”

Hoping to heal a possible rift with so little time left until Election Day, the R.N.C. chairman Reince Priebus said today that there is room for both views in today’s Republican Party: “Our ‘big tent’ message to voters should be this: come for the misogyny, stay for the racism.”

joseph brand

robindch wrote: »

Andy Borowitz surveys the scene with just under two weeks to go:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/gop-split-over-whether-to-emphasize-misogyny-or-racism.html

Sununu believes that Colin Powell is only endorsing Obama because they're both black. Niiiiice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfu89dTHq64

I'm not a violent person, but, I'd like to introduce Sununu's face to my heel.

sponsoredwalk

joseph brand wrote: »

Paul Ryan, the human jellyfish offers unemployed man 'candy'. :eek:

Those good old christian values aren't helping him hide the contempt that he and his wife have for the 'moochers' in America. (47%) "Eew, poor people make me feel icky."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Fgv5-l7fc

Unreal...

robindch

joseph brand wrote: »

Sununu believes that Colin Powell is only endorsing Obama because they're both black. Niiiiice.

Sununu "clarifies" his comments. Apparently, he now thinks that Powell supports Obama only because of Obama's policies -- a position which is at least supported by evidence from Powell himself:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1027/1224325794174.html

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

Sununu "clarifies" his comments. Apparently, he now thinks that Powell supports Obama only because of Obama's policies -- a position which is at least supported by evidence from Powell himself:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1027/1224325794174.html

Maybe Sununu thinks supporting somebody because of their policies is some kind of weird thing that black people do...?

joseph brand

If you want a laugh, here's Little Face Mitt. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEymNcIHpvc

jank

I find this thread amusing, and very hateful. Classic case of the internet echo chamber. Your doing a good job JP.

bnt

jank wrote: »

I find this thread amusing, and very hateful. Classic case of the internet echo chamber. Your doing a good job JP.

Hateful of what, exactly? Idiocracy? If I say I hate an idiot, what I'm really saying is that I hate the idiocy. If the idiocy goes away, there should be a person left behind, and there'd be nothing there to hate.

Bill Maher makes a good point about what a Romney Presidency would represent: the USA wouldn't just be getting Romney and his particular brand of BS, he'd be dragging a whole raft of even more toxic BS in to the Oval Orifice on his coattails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y0aydhFHNE

Mickeroo

i'm conflicted though. Maher says no, but Whedon says yes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo

MagicMarker

Colbert has an offer for Trump...

joseph brand

Romney on Eliminating FEMA: "Absolutely!" (Federal Emergency Management Agency)

As Hurricane Sandy prepares to ravage the East Coast and beyond, let us pause and be thankful that Mitt Romney is not our current president.

For Romney, when asked by CNN's John King about what he would do with FEMA, said essentially this:

Federal funding for disaster relief is "immoral," and is something that should be left up to the states or, "even better," the private sector.

Immoral? Really?

Just because there's no profits being made from saving lives, Mittens ain't happy about it. If Myth Robme had his way, disaster relief and clean up operations could be sponsored by companies and corporations:

"This emergency disaster clean-up operation has been brought to you by Lever Bros, Koch industries and Skittles."

They could sell emergency supplies such as; tents, sleeping bags, medicine, food, clothes etc at highly inflated prices. It's a sellers' market after all. $$$$$

Emergency relief, Myth Romney Style.

The man lacks integrity, morals, social skills, charisma and intelligence.

jank

bnt wrote: »

Hateful of what, exactly? Idiocracy? If I say I hate an idiot, what I'm really saying is that I hate the idiocy. If the idiocy goes away, there should be a person left behind, and there'd be nothing there to hate.

Bill Maher makes a good point about what a Romney Presidency would represent: the USA wouldn't just be getting Romney and his particular brand of BS, he'd be dragging a whole raft of even more toxic BS in to the Oval Orifice on his coattails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y0aydhFHNE

Thanks for making my point. Hateful of anything that doesn't conform to your world view. Totalitarianism of thought is closer than we think!

You and many here think that idiocracy exists only on one side of the aisle, I know that it exists on both sides of the isle. (who is right, me or you?) If you are a high school dropout you are many times more likely to vote for the democratic party than the GOP. What does that say about idiocracy? Why do the most successful vote for the GOP, are they idiots?

As I said "echo chamber". Carry on, its truly amusing finding so many Irish people give out about politicians in another country who's social policies will never ever ever affect them. In fact if you wanted to pull your weight behind Ireland in this election one should be routing for Romney as Obama will have plans to tax/levy american corporations investing overseas.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

The man lacks integrity, morals, social skills, charisma and intelligence.

Do you really have to add you own " Oh how I hate Romney" after every single post, every time, in every forum?

Its no wonder you are no longer welcome in the US politics forum with that posting style.

Mickeroo

jank wrote: »

Thanks for making my point. Hateful of anything that doesn't conform to your world view. Totalitarianism of thought is closer than we think!

You and many here think that idiocracy exists only on one side of the aisle, I know that it exists on both sides of the isle. (who is right, me or you?) If you are a high school dropout you are many times more likely to vote for the democratic party than the GOP. What does that say about idiocracy? Why do the most successful vote for the GOP, are they idiots?

As I said "echo chamber". Carry on, its truly amusing finding so many Irish people give out about politicians in another country who's social policies will never ever ever affect them. In fact if you wanted to pull your weight behind Ireland in this election one should be routing for Romney as Obama will have plans to tax/levy american corporations investing overseas.

I worry about Romney's policies on the military and such more than his internal policies but having said that, saying his social policies don't affect us is a bit naive. Also, religious leanings aside, i'd rather not have someone dumb enough to deny climate change in control of the most powerful country in the world. Climate change has nothing to do with my world view no more than acknowledging the existence of plate tectonics or any other clearly observable phenomena.

joseph brand

joseph brand wrote: »

Myth Robme

Good one.

bnt

jank wrote: »

Thanks for making my point. Hateful of anything that doesn't conform to your world view. Totalitarianism of thought is closer than we think!

You and many here think that idiocracy exists only on one side of the aisle, I know that it exists on both sides of the isle. (who is right, me or you?) If you are a high school dropout you are many times more likely to vote for the democratic party than the GOP. What does that say about idiocracy? Why do the most successful vote for the GOP, are they idiots?

As I said "echo chamber". Carry on, its truly amusing finding so many Irish people give out about politicians in another country who's social policies will never ever ever affect them. In fact if you wanted to pull your weight behind Ireland in this election one should be routing for Romney as Obama will have plans to tax/levy american corporations investing overseas.

1) Your definition of "successful" differs from mine. Some - not all - rich people say they will vote for the GOP because they're promising lower taxes. Most GOP candidates have taken Grover Norquist's "no new taxes" pledge to get GOP to support their candidacy.

Who would you call more "successful": Donald Trump or Bill Gates? The Koch Brothers or Warren Buffet? We know who has more money ...

2) Note where you are: this is the A&A forum. Many GOP candidates openly propose to defy the First Amendment and establish Christianity as the national religion of the USA. No, having a Mormon as their Presidential candidate is not a significant obstacle to that - it's a long-term goal that depends more on the States and Congress than on who's in the White House - as long as he's electable.

We in this forum don't have to be "hateful" to have a problem with that. We don't have to be "totalitarian" or an "echo chamber", to generally agree that the GOP is bad for freedom of thought and conscience for all Americans. This is not Fox News, you can't assume everyone here is parroting "talking points" - from either "side". I happen to like Bill Maher because he talks to both sides and injects some welcome humour in to these debates, though I know not everyone here agrees with me on that.

3) The choice in the upcoming election is not between "left" and "right", it's between "center-right" and "far-right". The USA is in no danger from Socialism in any real sense, as it is understood in the rest of the world. The aisle (note spelling) is hardly visible from here.

4) I'm not Irish, I just live here.

jank

Mickeroo wrote: »

I worry about Romney's policies on the military and such more than his internal policies but having said that, saying his social policies don't affect us is a bit naive. Also, religious leanings aside, i'd rather not have someone dumb enough to deny climate change in control of the most powerful country in the world. Climate change has nothing to do with my world view no more than acknowledging the existence of plate tectonics or any other clearly observable phenomena.

If you were that worried about the military, why are people not calling out Obama and the MASSIVE surge or drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan? If it were Bush the usual 'anti' war crowd would be calling him a war criminal.
Why isn't Gitmo closed as he said would be done 3 months into office? There is not a whole lot of difference between the GOP and the democrats in terms of foreign policy apart from empty rhetoric from the left and saber rattling from the right, both playing to their bases.

Ireland anyway has very little right to lecture others on foreign policy when we abdicate all responsibility of defense to other nations.

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

Carry on, its truly amusing finding so many Irish people give out about politicians in another country who's social policies will never ever ever affect them. In fact if you wanted to pull your weight behind Ireland in this election one should be routing for Romney as Obama will have plans to tax/levy american corporations investing overseas.

That would only work if you assumed that everyone in Ireland was only interested in selfishly making money from American companies investing in Ireland, damn the effect it will have on everyone else.

I think you just tipped your hand ....

jank

bnt wrote: »

1) Your definition of "successful" differs from mine. Some - not all - rich people say they will vote for the GOP because they're promising lower taxes. Most GOP candidates have taken Grover Norquist's "no new taxes" pledge to get GOP to support their candidacy.

Who would you call more "successful": Donald Trump or Bill Gates? The Koch Brothers or Warren Buffet? We know who has more money ...

George Soros is rich as well does that mean all rich people are involved in far left groups? Look at the stats, the vast majority of successful rich people vote for the GOP because of their tax policies. This is nothing new in politics but presumably these people are not idiots so why would they vote for idiots? Its very easy to label something or some group as idiots to avoid any rational discussion.

What is your definition of successful? That most high school drop outs and poor vote for the Democrats?

bnt wrote: »

2) Note where you are: this is the A&A forum. Many GOP candidates openly propose to defy the First Amendment and establish Christianity as the national religion of the USA. No, having a Mormon as their Presidential candidate is not a significant obstacle to that - it's a long-term goal that depends more on the States and Congress than on who's in the White House - as long as he's electable.

That is a fair point, but I think the religious arguement to politics in the US is overblown for the most part. We had 8 years of Bush arguably the most religious president for generations, yet what laws did he pass to try and turn the US into a more religious state. Did he over turn roe vs wade? Religion or lack of is used to drum up support, very rarely do these groups get what they want. They just shout a little louder than others, doesnt mean they are anyway more powerful than say the teachers union or the military.

Don't forget, Romney was a govenor of MA which is by all intents and purposes one of the most liberal states in the US. Romney is in my opinion no where near a social conservative as Bush or say Bachmann or Santorum. Remember when it came to the GOP nomination they had the chance to chose a candidate who was a social conservative or a moderate, the moderate got the nod and if he is elected he will govern as such in my opinion. Romneys faith is not really an issue in this election no matter what this forum or other blogs will tell you.

If the GOP are so obsessed with moral issues why didn't they nominate Santorum?

bnt wrote: »

We in this forum don't have to be "hateful" to have a problem with that. We don't have to be "totalitarian" or an "echo chamber", to generally agree that the GOP is bad for freedom of thought and conscience for all Americans. This is not Fox News, you can't assume everyone here is parroting "talking points" - from either "side". I happen to like Bill Maher because he talks to both sides and injects some welcome humour in to these debates, though I know not everyone here agrees with me on that.

You mention the absense of talking points and then go on to mention Bill Maher. He is the Sean Hannity of the left.

Ron Paul is a member of the GOP, would you say that his position on the constitution of the US is bad for the freedom of thought and conscience of all Americans?

See this is what gets my goat up, GOP is Baaaaad, Democrats are goood. Two legs bad, 4 legs better. Sweeping statements that are great for this forum but have no basis in fact. Then you take issue with the echo chamber comment. I am very amused!

bnt wrote: »

3) The choice in the upcoming election is not between "left" and "right", it's between "center-right" and "far-right". The USA is in no danger from Socialism in any real sense, as it is understood in the rest of the world. The aisle (note spelling) is hardly visible from here.

In one sense you are right, Ireland doesnt do right wing politics. We are too busy trying to sustain a living standard off the backs of the Germans to worry about where the next euro is going to come from to pay for stuff. Its everyones fault but ourselves. But we love to point the fingers at the bad money men in the EU or the US to make ourselves feel superior.

.

jank

Zombrex wrote: »

That would only work if you assumed that everyone in Ireland was only interested in selfishly making money from American companies investing in Ireland, damn the effect it will have on everyone else.

I think you just tipped your hand ....

I am not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that US corporations should NOT invest in Ireland. You state that this is somewhat negative for some apparent reason. If so negative to who exactly?

Like it or not, who ever wins this election, their policy of US companies investing overseas will have by far the biggest effect on Ireland bar none. By all means you can state other wise.

Also, tipping my hand?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

If you were that worried about the military, why are people not calling out Obama and the MASSIVE surge or drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan? If it were Bush the usual 'anti' war crowd would be calling him a war criminal.
..........

Many do. However in the greater scheme of things, his regime is less harmful to the world than the Bush one. Unless you can do better than "Waaah Obama", I'd suggest stopping now.

jank wrote: »

]We had 8 years of Bush arguably the most religious president for generations, yet what laws did he pass to try and turn the US into a more religious state.

If you aren't aware of what conservative programs Bush enacted, it strikes me as rather odd you're defending him.

jank wrote: »

If the GOP are so obsessed with moral issues why didn't they nominate Santorum?
..........

A large segment of the US republican party is. However they and the rest also realise that Santorum would be rejected by swing voters and would be unelectable.

jank wrote: »

We are too (..........) make ourselves feel superior

I'd appreciate if you didn't try to disparage the whole country or use "we".

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

I am not sure what to make of this comment. Are you saying that US corporations should NOT invest in Ireland.

No, I'm saying that since the interests of most people in Ireland are not simply to make money at the expense of all the things Romney would negatively effect, they are not going to be motivated to wish he is elected simply to protect American business interests in Ireland.

jank wrote: »

Also, tipping my hand?

Yes. You seem to be suggesting that Irish people should wish Romney to be elected in order to protect American business interests in Ireland, which suggests that Irish people are motivated purely by self interest at the expense of all the people who would be negatively effected by a Romney presidency.

That might be how you think (hence tipping your hand), but it would be foolish to think that is how most Irish people think.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Many do. However in the greater scheme of things, his regime is less harmful to the world than the Bush one. Unless you can do better than "Waaah Obama", I'd suggest stopping now.

Many? I have yet to see the same out cry or protests anywhere about this. Irish people love the democrats so I suppose its to be expected. Got to love the hypocrisy.

Nodin wrote: »

If you aren't aware of what conservative programs Bush enacted, it strikes me as rather odd you're defending him.

The only one I am aware of is that he restricted federal money to be spent on Stem cell research. Also, I am no fan of bush you are well aware of this and my posting history but he is not a pantomime villain.

Nodin wrote: »

A large segment of the US republican party is. However they and the rest also realise that Santorum would be rejected by swing voters and would be unelectable.

So that by that reasoning the moderate wing of the GOP won. So much for those crazy wing nuts.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd appreciate if you didn't try to disparage the whole country or use "we".

Classic Nodin, always pontificating like a school headmaster.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

If you were that worried about the military, why are people not calling out Obama and the MASSIVE surge or drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan? If it were Bush the usual 'anti' war crowd would be calling him a war criminal.

For one thing, the drone strikes haven't been plastered all over the news, unlike images of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most posters in here would prefer Obama to Romney and would also condemn the US drone strikes.

jank wrote: »

Why isn't Gitmo closed as he said would be done 3 months into office? There is not a whole lot of difference between the GOP and the democrats in terms of foreign policy apart from empty rhetoric from the left and saber rattling from the right, both playing to their bases.

Who started Gitmo? And which party has made it their number one goal, since Obama was elected, to make him a one term POTUS? Mitch McConnell, looking out for his country. Type 'obstructionism' into Google images.

jank wrote: »

Ireland anyway has very little right to lecture others on foreign policy when we abdicate all responsibility of defense to other nations.

What? Are you suggesting Ireland get it's act together and increase defence spending. More horses and bayonets should suffice. "Giddy Up!"

jank

Zombrex wrote: »

No, I'm saying that since the interests of most people in Ireland are not simply to make money at the expense of all the things Romney would negatively effect, they are not going to be motivated to wish he is elected simply to protect American business interests in Ireland.

So what would Romney negatively effect in Ireland that Obama wouldn't?

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes. You seem to be suggesting that Irish people should wish Romney to be elected in order to protect American business interests in Ireland, which suggests that Irish people are motivated purely by self interest at the expense of all the people who would be negatively effected by a Romney presidency.

Again who would be negatively affected in Ireland if Romney was elected president? You are being obtuse. The image you are portraying is that we as a nation would have to sell ourselves out in some fashion. It is nothing of the sort.

Zombrex wrote: »

That might be how you think (hence tipping your hand), but it would be foolish to think that is how most Irish people think.

Oh I would gather that most Irish people would think that. The proof is our corporation tax where even far left parties like SF or the ULA recognise the importance of keeping it low to attract inward investment.

Our exports from multinationals are the only thing keeping the country afloat at the minute. 100,000 Irish people are directly employed by US companies, most of them very highly paid and add great value to the state in income taxes and secondary indirect jobs. That is the reality at the moment, everything else is just talk.

So, would you rather risk that investment and maybe end up like Greece or Portugal for some intangible greater good that you have yet to outline?

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

So what would Romney negatively effect in Ireland that Obama wouldn't?

Who said anything about "in Ireland". Why would you think that Irish people would only care about the people negatively effected by Romney if they were in Ireland?

Do you only care about people if they are in Ireland?

jank wrote: »

So, would you rather risk that investment and maybe end up like Greece or Portugal for some intangible greater good that you have yet to outline?

"Intangible greater good", lol.

The negative effect Romney would have over Obama if elected is anything but intangible.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Many? I have yet to see the same out cry or protests anywhere about this. Irish people love the democrats so I suppose its to be expected. Got to love the hypocrisy.

jank wrote: »

The only one I am aware of is that he restricted federal money to be spent on Stem cell research. Also, I am no fan of bush you are well aware of this and my posting history but he is not a pantomime villain.

You're 100% correct. He's a real life villain. With tiny little eyes.

jank wrote: »

So that by that reasoning the moderate wing of the GOP won. So much for those crazy wing nuts.

Moderate Republicans should vote Obama, and get rid of that Tea Party. There's plenty of RINO's who aren't as ignorant as Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich et al.

Here's Amy Kremer, the chair of the Tea Party Express spewing crazy nonsense about Obama. Notice that the panel has to tone down their language and speak slowly (to her).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngGy97rq_a0

Amy needs to "study it out."

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Many? I have yet to see the same out cry or protests anywhere about this. Irish people love the democrats so I suppose its to be expected. Got to love the hypocrisy.

75% of Europeans Would Vote for Obama: Report

I guess that includes us.

Since Europeans are relatively impartial regarding allegiance to either the Dems or the GOP, would you not say that Europe is in a better position to judge the best candidate? Some fresh eyes if you will.

More than one third of Europeans hold a negative opinion of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, according to an annual survey by Transatlantic Trends released on Wednesday.

Less than one quarter (23 percent) of Europeans reported a favorable view of Romney, while 39 percent viewed him negatively. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they did not know or declined to answer.

In comparison, 82 percent of Europeans viewed U.S. President Barack Obama positively. If allowed to vote in a U.S. Presidential election this year, three quarters of European Union residents said they would vote for Obama, compared to only 8 percent for Romney.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Do you really have to add you own " Oh how I hate Romney" after every single post, every time, in every forum?

Honestly, I haven't found anything to like about the man. Nor Ryan. That's not to say that I think Obama is perfect. But he did inherit an economy in free fall and an obstructionist congress.

Martin Sheen: Romney is stupid, arrogant

Now Obama has to deal with Hurricane Sandy, which according to religious conservative Americans, was caused, not by global warming, but 'the gheys.'

Republicans are obsessed with the 3 G's, god, guns and gays. How Grown up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlLQl2__FU

jank

Zombrex wrote: »

Who said anything about "in Ireland". Why would you think that Irish people would only care about the people negatively effected by Romney if they were in Ireland?

Do you only care about people if they are in Ireland?



"Intangible greater good", lol.

The negative effect Romney would have over Obama if elected is anything but intangible.

I think you will find in my original post in which I quoted that you mentioned Ireland, specifically. You know where most Irish people live... that place of the West coast of Britain.

That would only work if you assumed that everyone in Ireland was only interested

Now I am well aware that there are Irish people all over the world I am one of them. I said originally Irish people have more to fear from Obama than Romney. I see that you don't dispute this so I will take it you agree.

What negative affect would this be? You are very adapt at dismissing arguments without actually putting across why. So please explain away.