US Election 2012 (Superthread)

Kilkenny14

The tiresome "birthers" controversy has returned http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-elections/us-election-2012-republicans-revive-barack-obama-birth-place-conspiracy-theory-3117014.html

Madd Finn

The reporter might have added that the Arizona governor, a gun-nut Republican incidentally, has vetoed this legislation. Fair play to her.

But it is breathtaking that these lunatics would still try and bring this up in this day and age.

It's not a crime per se to be born outside the United States. But it WOULD have been a crime, or at least clear prima facie evidence that a crime had been committed, had Mr Obama been born on the day he was in nearly half the states of the Union. Including Arizona!

In 1961 no fewer than 24 US states still had Nuremberg-law-like legislation forbidding marriage between black men (such as Mr Obama's father) and white women (like his mum).

Arizona's was one of the most malicious. It had updated its legislation in 1931 (yes 1931. You think it was only the Germans who brought in racial/eugenic legislation in the 1930s?) to add Filipinos and "Hindus" to the list of people prohibited from marrying whites. Apparently, an anomaly in the wording of the Arizonan legislation prohibited people classified as "mixed race" from marrying anybody at all!!! Clearly they wanted "mongrels" to die out and quick.

This fiendish legislation was only repealed in Arizona in 1962, the year after President Obama was born. Good job he wasn't born there.

What an ugly country America was in the 20th century. Why do these "birther" idiots seem so keen to shed light on it?

Amerika

"gun-nut Republican," "lunatics," and "idiots"... how classy. And it boggles the mind how so many people from all over the world still wanted to emigrate to that 20th century ugly America, eh?

Matt Holck

yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

+ 1,630 World Total
+ 711 United States 41%
+ 143 China 8.2%
+ 71.9 Russia 4.1%
+ 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
+ 62.5 France 3.6%
+ 54.5 Japan 3.3&
+ 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
+ 46.8 India 2.5%
+ 46.7 Germany 2.8%
+ 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

_________________________________

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
_________________________________

TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

+ Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
+ BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
+ Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
+ Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
+ General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
+ Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
+ BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
+ EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
+ Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58
+L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
+ United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers

Amerika wrote: »

If your definition of "success" means paying $40,000 and getting a $7,500 rebate back from the government (which really means the taxpayers are paying the $7,500) for a vehicle that costs $40,000 to manufacture (forgetting about such things as marketing and advertising costs, dealer selling percentages, recalls... etc), then perhaps so. But definitely not in my book!

perhaps an engine to retrofit old car models would be worth looking into

Madd Finn

Amerika wrote: »

"gun-nut Republican," "lunatics," and "idiots"... how classy. And it boggles the mind how so many people from all over the world still wanted to emigrate to that 20th century ugly America, eh?

Point 1. I was at pains to praise Governor Brewer for her common sense action in vetoing that asinine bill. If you are unfamiliar with the Irish vernacular, "Fair play to her" translates loosely into American as "You go, girl!"


Point 2. It is a simple fact that she IS a representative of the Republican party and I think that describing as a "gun nut" somebody who plays host to the "NRA Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum" and kicks off her welcome speech with the declaration "Arizona is NRA Country!", or who says in an official letter to the Secretary of State for Arizona "one of my goals over ..[my term in office] ..is to advance the Second Amendment agenda in Arizona" is pretty fair comment. (You can find both those little tidbits on her own website)


Point 3. If I offend you by describing as "Idiots" and "Lunatics" those so keen to make an issue out of Mr Obama's birthplace despite the overwhelming documentary evidence that there is no issue to address, then I invite you to suggest a more appropriate description.

Point 4. If you baulk at the suggestion that the anti Miscegenation Laws which a majority of US states still retained at the end of the second world war, and which were not finally done away with until 1967,were a hideously ugly blemish on the face of a country styling itself "the land of the free" then can we take it that you would like to see them reinstated?

Just to pretty the country up a little. :rolleyes:

Belfast

BOHtox wrote: »

Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then

No chance of Ron Paul running as an independent.

too hard to get on the ballot.

Matt Holck

I'm writing in NO WAR

Jimmy Iovine

Haha Romney released an app the other day. Unfortunately they managed to misspell America. I've no idea how you could manage to do that but it doesn't really look great. It won't/shouldn't affect him too much but it's pretty funny to see.

Also someone has already set up a Tumblr site where everything is spelt incorrectly .

IvySlayer

Yeah saw that app, what a cock-up. Say the Democrats will have some fun with that.

Cork boy 55

I don't follow USA politics much this year anyway...

Who are the Vice Prez's picks going to be?
Why is there no selection process on the Democratic side?
Which one of the two canidates or party is best for Eire's interest?

kenco

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I don't follow USA politics much this year anyway...

Who are the Vice Prez's picks going to be?
Why is there no selection process on the Democratic side?
Which one of the two canidates or party is best for Eire's interest?

Recent article from CNN show the main candidates;

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/politics/interactive.vp.candidates/index.html

Interestingly CNN had the 'unknown' Palin on their possible VP list for McCain in 2008

By the way it wont be Jeb Bush who is keeping his powder dry for a top job run in 2016

Amerika

As talks of Romney's VP pick start, I was considering the future of GOP politics. I see a bunch of younger Republican rising stars... Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor , Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Kristi Noem, Rob Portman, John Thune, Scott Brown and Scott Walker, and others. Rather impressive bunch.

But where are the Democrat’s young rising stars... Debbie Wasserman-Schultz??? The DNC really is in trouble looking to the future.

cristoir

Amerika wrote: »

As talks of Romney's VP pick start, I was considering the future of GOP politics. I see a bunch of younger Republican rising stars... Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor , Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Kristi Noem, Rob Portman, John Thune, Scott Brown and Scott Walker, and others. Rather impressive bunch.

But where are the Democrat’s young rising stars... Debbie Wasserman-Schultz??? The DNC really is in trouble looking to the future.

No it isn't. The Democrats have a variety of people (young and old) who are rising and competent. Many of them will be eyeing up 2016.

Andrew Cuomo: Current Governor of New York and former Clinton Cabinet member. With Approval ratings between 71 and 77 percent he is on one of the most popular governors in the country. He has a national profile and good name recognition.

Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana and the Democratic's own Mitt Romney. Extremely popular in what is Republican leaning state. He is a Centrist who refuses to raise taxes, firmly supports Gun Rights, appointed a republican his deputy and is very pro-military. But he also is a keen supporter of energy reforms based around renewable energy and supported Obama's stimulus. He is my kind of Democrat but might not roll with the base.

Martin O' Malley: Governor of Maryland who has implemented an brash and unashamed progressive agenda. He has battled tough political scenarios and occasionally low approval ratings to buck the national trend and be re-elected in 2010 by 14 points.

Others include: Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, Gary Locke, Rahm Emmanuel, Gavin Newsom, Carte Goodwin, Ben Jealous, Jon Tester, Dave Bing, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and many many more.

matthew8

I have to say this election has really tightened and is a pure tossup. I hope it stays that way, so it will be fun to watch in November.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

As talks of Romney's VP pick start, I was considering the future of GOP politics. I see a bunch of younger Republican rising stars... Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor , Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Kristi Noem, Rob Portman, John Thune, Scott Brown and Scott Walker, and others. Rather impressive bunch.

But where are the Democrat’s young rising stars... Debbie Wasserman-Schultz??? The DNC really is in trouble looking to the future.

Ahhh the red blinkers again. You fail to see any other rising stars in the Dems, surprise surprise.

Amerika

Well, red blinker syndrome must be an epidemic then. I often ask my Democratic friends to name me some up-and-coming Dem stars. Almost every single one of them can’t name a single one... except for the customary "Hillary Clinton" LOL.

cristoir

Amerika wrote: »

Well, red blinker syndrome must be an epidemic then. I often ask my Democratic friends to name me some up-and-coming Dem stars. Almost every single one of them can’t name a single one... except for the customary "Hillary Clinton" LOL.

Then they aren't paying any attention to their own party. I am not even a Democrat but I was able to list a large variety of rising Dems. Don't get me wrong the GOP has a lot of talent as well. But don't be so biased as to believe that the ability to have up and coming stars is strictly confined to your party.

Matt Holck

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

Rep Dennis Kucinich on his election loss & what's next

kenco

cristoir wrote: »

No it isn't. The Democrats have a variety of people (young and old) who are rising and competent. Many of them will be eyeing up 2016.

Andrew Cuomo: Current Governor of New York and former Clinton Cabinet member. With Approval ratings between 71 and 77 percent he is on one of the most popular governors in the country. He has a national profile and good name recognition.

Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana and the Democratic's own Mitt Romney. Extremely popular in what is Republican leaning state. He is a Centrist who refuses to raise taxes, firmly supports Gun Rights, appointed a republican his deputy and is very pro-military. But he also is a keen supporter of energy reforms based around renewable energy and supported Obama's stimulus. He is my kind of Democrat but might not roll with the base.

Martin O' Malley: Governor of Maryland who has implemented an brash and unashamed progressive agenda. He has battled tough political scenarios and occasionally low approval ratings to buck the national trend and be re-elected in 2010 by 14 points.

Others include: Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, Gary Locke, Rahm Emmanuel, Gavin Newsom, Carte Goodwin, Ben Jealous, Jon Tester, Dave Bing, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and many many more.

Dont think Rahm will ever be running on any national ticket!!!

southsiderosie

kenco wrote: »

Dont think Rahm will ever be running on any national ticket!!!

The rumor has long been that Emanuel has higher political ambitions. Few political observers in Chicago think he will emulate the Daleys as mayor-for-life. I wouldn't be surprised if after two terms as mayor he ran for governor or senator in order to get back to Washington, and from there...who knows.

kenco

southsiderosie wrote: »

The rumor has long been that Emanuel has higher political ambitions. Few political observers in Chicago think he will emulate the Daleys as mayor-for-life. I wouldn't be surprised if after two terms as mayor he ran for governor or senator in order to get back to Washington, and from there...who knows.

I can see him as a senator potentially and possibly a cabinet member but unless he has calmed down and addressed him 'temperament' issues I think that would be height of his potential

Also too linked to Obama which post 2016 could be a bad thing

Brian?

So I've been bombarded with Romney campaign chatter about his ability to create jobs while Governer of MA. He created 45,000 jobs and knocked 2% off the unemployment rate. Kudos Mitt, great job indeed.

Now he's using this as a stick to beat Obama with, unemployment is coming down but slowly and looks like stalling.

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? If bringing down the unemployment rate is the Presidents job, how can Mitt take credit for doing this while in office in MA? Surely the credit must go the George W. Bush for bringing it down between 2002-2006 if Mitts anti Obama logic holds out.

matthew8

Logic has no place in any presidential campaign.

aloyisious

I saw that the Democrats had Julian Castro, the Hispanic Mayor of San Antonio, on stage at their convention. The media made a big point in mentioning it,

This is from the Care2 site. “This is the last time anyone will try to do this,” a Republican strategist told journalist Ron Brownstein last week, “this” being a near total reliance on white votes to win a presidential election.

According to Brownstein, Romney probably needs to win at least 61 percent of the white vote in order to just squeak out a majority. But future generations of Republican politicians will have to appeal to nonwhite voters who hold far more liberal views about the role of government than does the party’s current base. It’s now or never for the GOP’s white base.

The demographics of the United States are changing rapidly, and one of the best places to see this dramatic demographic shift in action is to visit public schools in Texas, where the Hispanic population is swelling rapidly.

In 2011, for the first time, Hispanics became the majority of public school students in Texas.

By 2050, the number of Texas public school students is expected to swell to nine million from roughly five million now, and nearly two-thirds will be Hispanic, according to Steve Murdock, a demographer and director of Rice University’s Hobby Center for the Study of Texas. The overall percentage of white students will drop by half to about 15 percent.

The Future Of The United States Is Tied To The “Minority”Population

From The New York Times:

“When you look at children, there is no doubt. The future of Texas — the future of the United States — is tied to the minority population,” said Dr. Murdock, a former state demographer and director of the United States Census Bureau. “It’s just mathematically true.”

The above is part of the below address item, referring to future voting trends and youth in education. Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/the-future-of-the-u-s-belongs-to-nonwhites-are-educators-ready.html#ixzz25iJ4X26g

Overheal

briankeating wrote: »

So I've been bombarded with Romney campaign chatter about his ability to create jobs while Governer of MA. He created 45,000 jobs and knocked 2% off the unemployment rate. Kudos Mitt, great job indeed.

Now he's using this as a stick to beat Obama with, unemployment is coming down but slowly and looks like stalling.

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? If bringing down the unemployment rate is the Presidents job, how can Mitt take credit for doing this while in office in MA? Surely the credit must go the George W. Bush for bringing it down between 2002-2006 if Mitts anti Obama logic holds out.

Clinton rightly points out, that under Dem control there has been far more job creation in the last 50 years than GOP job creation, and the Dems had less of that come from population growth than the GOP (which is funny especially when you think about Immigration stances) and - since I can smell it coming - I should also point out this doesn't include or account for government jobs: these were private sector jobs. Lest there be sneering about the Obama Census temp-workers or some other familiar tripe.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/