Threads to be Reposted: 2012 Delegate Snapshot

[Leon]

cruelpupet 03-07-2012 10:00 AM
2012 Delegate Snapshot

With 33% (743 of 2286) of the delegates assigned, here are the numbers

Romney: 56% - 415
Sanatorum: 24% - 176
Newt: 14% - 105
Paul: 6% - 47

So at this point I think we can call it for Romney, and despite the medias insistence, I dont think he will need any back room deals to secure other nominee's delegates.

With the current numbers Romney can drop to only securing 48% of future delegates, and just make it over the required 1144.

cruelpupet 03-07-2012 10:03 AM
What I find more interesting, though I may be wrong since I dont watch cable/broadcast tv, is that it seems people are tired of the GOP Primary.

"Super Tuesday" passed and it wasn't until around 11PM that I finally heard something about it when I checked twitter. Not one person at work has mentioned it, I saw nothing on FB either.

mcs328 03-07-2012 11:22 AM
In Va, there were only 2 candidates. I was surprised Ron Paul got 40% and so many people were at work.

I would like Romney to be the GOP nominee but my bet is still on Obama in November.

cruelpupet 03-07-2012 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs328
I would like Romney to be the GOP nominee but my bet is still on Obama in November.

That's a pretty smart bet. I really dont see how any republican can win, especially now.

If the base isnt excited with anyone, how can you expect moderates or independents to be?

Thesifer 03-08-2012 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruelpupet
That's a pretty smart bet. I really dont see how any republican can win, especially now.

If the base isnt excited with anyone, how can you expect moderates or independents to be?

Honestly, while it would be delusional to think Republicans will vote for Obama if they don't like their candidate, I think the more likely scenario is that we just have a really low voter turnout, at least on the Republican side of things. Barring any currently unforseen major shifts in the way things are going.

mcs328 03-08-2012 10:25 AM
If Romney wins in November, then I think the bullseye will me healthcare modeled after his own in Mass. Next will be his religion lumped into other ones that aren't traditionally Republican.

If Obama wins, it'll be more of the same.

Thesifer 03-08-2012 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs328
If Romney wins in November, then I think the bullseye will me healthcare modeled after his own in Mass. Next will be his religion lumped into other ones that aren't traditionally Republican.

If Obama wins, it'll be more of the same.

Hopefully. Overall I'm happy with most of Obama's first term. There are some things he has done that I disagree with. But those were all supported by Republicans, so it wouldn't change or would get worse with a Republican President.

Also hoping to pick up seats in the House and maybe even the Senate if things keep going the way they are going with Republicans. The "Kick out anyone that has slightly different views" mentality will continue to hurt Republicans.

Republicans have moved right on a larger scale than anytime in history. Democrats have moved .. well.. Right as well, just not nearly as much or as quickly. Some of them did move a little more left, but on a really small scale.

Obama is ranked as the most moderate Democrat in the last 60 years, would like to see him get more liberal.



mcs328 03-09-2012 07:46 AM
The only thing that irks me is the mandatory health care Obama has. I *mean* I should read it but like most people I get my info filtered down by newspapers and the Daily Show.

My issue is the same as before in 2008. We got problems and no talk/actions of solutions. This is case especially for Republicans who like to point out the fires but no one is grabbing a bucket or a hose. my perception anyways.

cruelpupet 03-09-2012 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs328
hose

Really? Did you not learn anything from Limbaugh? That's not a nice word to use to describe our gov't officials. The PC term is "Legislative volunteer who happens to accept donations."

Thesifer 03-09-2012 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs328
The only thing that irks me is the mandatory health care Obama has. I *mean* I should read it but like most people I get my info filtered down by newspapers and the Daily Show.

My issue is the same as before in 2008. We got problems and no talk/actions of solutions. This is case especially for Republicans who like to point out the fires but no one is grabbing a bucket or a hose. my perception anyways.

I would have much rather had a single-payer or Public option system honestly. And the system we have (Republican Idea) will eventually lead to that, if they get their way. Irony.

The "Mandatory" purchase of healthcare was a Republican plan that would make it 'acceptable' to Insurance Companies to remove Lifetime Caps, and Pre-existing Conditions.

If the Republicans (who are suddenly against it, because the Democrats seem to be for it) actually get their way, and get it overturned, it will be the end of insurance companies as we know them.

And then the government will be forced to step in.

They won't be able to get the entire Health Care legislation overturned in court, and they won't be able to repeal it - no matter how much they scream they're going to. So when they remove the mandatory purchase (which could theoretically be possible through the Supreme court) they will just bring about what they fear the most. Government Healthcare.

Prngr44 03-12-2012 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs328
If Obama wins, it'll be more of the same.

I don't think it really matters WHO wins, it's going to be more of the same. As long as one party doesn't control both the Senate & House, their only common denominator will be gridlock with little progress.

Where Obama failed was during the years he had that control. He decided to try and be the great Compromiser and eventually had it stuck right up his...

[Leon]

Napoleon54 03-14-2012 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prngr44
I don't think it really matters WHO wins, it's going to be more of the same.

Quote:
As long as one party doesn't control both the Senate & House, their only common denominator will be gridlock with little progress.

I love gridlock. The less they get done, the less damage they do, the better off we all are IMHO. Unless they actually started deciding to repeal stuff, in which case then I'd be in favor of action. But there's fat chance of that happening, so bring on the gridlock!

Napoleon54 03-15-2012 08:17 AM
Quote:
With 33% (743 of 2286) of the delegates assigned, here are the numbers

Not quite true.

Rachel Maddow explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axpoWVLXqm4

Thesifer 03-15-2012 10:27 PM
Ron Paul disturbs me, but he doesn't worry me. He won't win even if he somehow squeezes into the general election.

Edit after rewatching that clip (watched it when she first aired it.): I think the whole Ron Paul movement is funny. Most of them seem to think they are "The will of the people" and "Ron Paul is what the people want!" .. except: they have to slyly get the delegate slots so they can covertly try to "Win" states because the 'people' (Republicans) didn't support them.

Oh, I'm sure they just say that's there way of fighting the "obviously biased media! people just dont know about Paul!"

I know about Paul, wouldn't support him even if I was a Republican.

Napoleon54 03-16-2012 08:34 AM
Take Iowa for example. Here's an article at HuffPo discussing how fluid the delegate situation is. By no means are these delegates committed or assigned to a particular candidate, despite that being the view the MSM is attempting to assert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1347743.html

Quote:
Rep. Paul (R-Texas) is currently estimated by The Associated Press to have zero delegates in Iowa. The AP numbers give former Sen. Santorum (R-Pa.) 13 delegates and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney 12. But Iowa Republican operatives scoffed at the AP figure.

"Can I just be bold and tell you that they don't know what they're talking about," Steve Scheffler, one of the state's three Republican National Committee members, told The Huffington Post. "Our delegates are not tied to the percentages of who got what in the straw poll."

In short, Romney, despite being Mr. Inevitable Establishment Guy, is only going to end up with a small fraction of the delegates he's assumed to have.

The only nefarious (or "sly" or "covert") thing going on here is the media's agenda of pushing the naive notion that Romney essentially has this thing locked up when in reality that's not the case at all. That's not how it works. Just one more example of how the media continuously tries to manufacture public opinion.

Napoleon54 03-16-2012 10:44 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1347743.html

Quote:
Rep. Paul (R-Texas) is currently estimated by The Associated Press to have zero delegates in Iowa. The AP numbers give former Sen. Santorum (R-Pa.) 13 delegates and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney 12.

...and just how the heck does AP get off saying that Ron Paul has ZERO Iowa delegates in the first place? The Iowa primary results are Santorum 24.6%, Romney 24.5%, Paul 21.4%. If delegates are locked in proportional to the popular vote, that would assign them something like Santorum 8, Romney 8, Paul 7. So how did Ron Paul end up with ZERO??

The AP is simply full of crap, they're not even consistent with their own biased and mistaken position. They're just making it up as they go along and it's high time we the people start calling them on it.

Thesifer 03-18-2012 11:01 PM
Frankly when it comes to republicans, Ron Paul, etc. I could care less how long they drag it out. Either way, even if you take out the "fuzzy math" it will still go to the convention. And it's still a disaster. And theoretically (won't happen) Sarah Palin could be representing the Republican party come November.
But again, I wouldn't care if she did.

Randall Terry (I think his name is..) Anti-Abortion "Democrat" (Not really) ran in Oklahoma against Obama. Won something like 19% of the vote. Will get Zero delegates since he didn't file the proper paperwork, he is also not recognized as a legitimate candidate by the National Democratic Party, since he obviously isn't a Democrat.

Napoleon54 03-19-2012 10:16 AM
Well it depends how the Oklahoma Democratic Party runs their primary or caucus. Primaries/ caucuses (the candidate nominating processes) are essentially internal party business. The individual state parties abide by different rules. GOP vs Dem, caucus vs primary, proportional vs winner take all... lots of variability, and it's often manipulated and coordinated by national party leadership to favor a certain "prefered" candidate (ex. Mitt Romney).

Was Randall Terry on the ballot? If so how'd he get there without being a legitimate candidate? Not sure I understand what's going on there. Got a reference for more info?

gwilks98 03-19-2012 10:34 PM
I'm pretty much voting against any candidate that backs extending the patriot act, it's secret interpretation, the fear-mongering police state that believes it can assisinate or indefinitely detain anyone without disclosing their justification or running it by that small section of government called the judicial branch.

Here are some other points that REALLY bother me about the current political leaders from both sides of the podium:

ACTA/Sopa/Pipa farse legislation that they don't need anyway to bully startups and competitors as they would pirates.
(By the way, ACTA is possibly unconstitutional and illegal).
The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude towards internet control that this administration LOVES.

I'm pretty ignorant in the health care debate, but the one thing that bothers me is that NO ONE is asking why health care prices are so high. Has no one noticed there is no price competition? Wouldn't it seem odd to you if you went to the store and didn't know how much you owed until you got home with your purchase? The insurance debate goes away if you treat the real problem: the skyrocketing prices that go completely unchecked in what's supposed to be a capitalist economy.

I'm in the camp of "if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention."

Unfortunately, the only candidate crazy enough to march to a different beat is Ron Paul. And even he scares the hell out of me.

My dad used to strong arm my special needs brother when he was resisting authority. If my brother didn't want to do something, my dad would give him 2 choices, both of which resulted in my dad getting want he wanted. I think of that every time I look at our two party system: The companies with massive pockets of money buys out...excuse me, 'lobbies' both parties, then they can get what they want no problem. I feel like we only have the illusion of choice.

I trust Romney to be a shill for the big money he represents. "Corporations are people too."
I believe Santorum is ducking retarded and would be another Bush Jr, making up facts as he goes and doing what he wants.
I believe Gingrich is probably the most competent and smart, but his status as a human being is beyond question deplorable and there's no way in hell he should be our highest representative.
And then there's Ron Paul, the man who makes such drastic statements about what needs to be done he's either a genius or a lunatic. He would either be the best or worst president, IMO.

So yeah, I'm tired of the republican primaries. It's pointless to me anyway.

Thesifer 03-20-2012 01:50 AM
Personally I liked this article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ention-in-NDAA

Not sure on the entire implications of his directive, but from the write-up it sounds promising.

On the other side of that coin I'm not excited about the massive increase in "Drone" strikes, and the legislation that will open up "Drone" use in the United States by Police, and in the future, Commercial "Enterprise." I think that's a very dangerous path to head down.

I'm obviously not a Republican, but I still can't see how people think Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I even see some "so-called" Democrats that support him. Although they were most likely never "liberal" in the first place, and just a party of the moment type of person. As there's no way a liberal would support Paul.

As for the Delegate situation in Oklahoma:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...0_Antiab760486

Most telling of the photo on the article is of course not the "Candidate" for the "Democratic" Nomination - But.. the person standing in the back of the photo.

Napoleon54 03-20-2012 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwilks98
I'm pretty much voting against any candidate that backs extending the patriot act, it's secret interpretation, the fear-mongering police state that believes it can assisinate or indefinitely detain anyone without disclosing their justification or running it by that small section of government called the judicial branch.

Here are some other points that REALLY bother me about the current political leaders from both sides of the podium:

ACTA/Sopa/Pipa farse legislation that they don't need anyway to bully startups and competitors as they would pirates.
(By the way, ACTA is possibly unconstitutional and illegal).
The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude towards internet control that this administration LOVES.

I'm pretty ignorant in the health care debate, but the one thing that bothers me is that NO ONE is asking why health care prices are so high. Has no one noticed there is no price competition? Wouldn't it seem odd to you if you went to the store and didn't know how much you owed until you got home with your purchase? The insurance debate goes away if you treat the real problem: the skyrocketing prices that go completely unchecked in what's supposed to be a capitalist economy.

I'm in the camp of "if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention."

Unfortunately, the only candidate crazy enough to march to a different beat is Ron Paul. And even he scares the hell out of me.

My dad used to strong arm my special needs brother when he was resisting authority. If my brother didn't want to do something, my dad would give him 2 choices, both of which resulted in my dad getting want he wanted. I think of that every time I look at our two party system: The companies with massive pockets of money buys out...excuse me, 'lobbies' both parties, then they can get what they want no problem. I feel like we only have the illusion of choice.

I trust Romney to be a shill for the big money he represents. "Corporations are people too."
I believe Santorum is ducking retarded and would be another Bush Jr, making up facts as he goes and doing what he wants.
I believe Gingrich is probably the most competent and smart, but his status as a human being is beyond question deplorable and there's no way in hell he should be our highest representative.
And then there's Ron Paul, the man who makes such drastic statements about what needs to be done he's either a genius or a lunatic. He would either be the best or worst president, IMO.

So yeah, I'm tired of the republican primaries. It's pointless to me anyway.

I'm with you 100%, except (obviously) on the part about writing off Ron Paul. Seems like the man fits all your stated criteria, so what's the hang-up?

I heard a somewhat similar litany from a friend last week who said he was going to vote for Romney but couldn't give me any good reason why. He doesn't like Romney, admitted he's a panderer and a flip-flopper, but said he's the best option we have... lesser of evils approach. Said Ron Paul's a nut. Then we went off to a different political topic for a while. Eventually he came back around and went on to complain about how the whole political system sucks nowadays, the party line sucks, there are no real choices, maybe it's time for us to challenge the system, have a real and honest debate where we question all these longstanding assumptions, etc. Then I said (to my friend), you're not going to like this, but how's that NOT what Ron Paul's trying to do?? That seemed to catch him off guard, I think it might've been a moment of epiphany.

Napoleon54 03-20-2012 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesifer
Personally I liked this article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ention-in-NDAA

Not sure on the entire implications of his directive, but from the write-up it sounds promising.

That's pure BS. If Obama gave a crap about the language in NDAA he wouldn't have asked Congress to write it that way in the first place. The Obama administration specifically asked Congress to take out specific waivers for US citizens and add in the provision that nothing in NDAA can be interpreted as overriding the authority HE ALREADY CLAIMS TO HAVE under the AUMF from 2001. In short, the Obama administration claims that he already has the authority to detain or even execute anybody he wants, including US citizens (ex. Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16yr old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki). The backpedaling Obama's doing with this NDAA policy statement is non-binding. He can change his mind and decide to exercise those powers at any time of his choosing. Obviously it is also non-binding to any future president.

NDAA, which Obama signed, is like putting a gun to the heads of the American people. This policy statement is Obama saying oh don't worry, I won't pull the trigger. BUT THE GUN IS STILL THERE. He can change his mind and decide to pull that trigger at any time. Or a year from now President Santorum might decide to pull that trigger. COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. The only solution we can settle for is a complete repeal of this language in NDAA. Obama's non-binding assurances aren't worth a goddamn thing.

As was said above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwilks98
if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention.

Napoleon54 03-20-2012 10:52 PM
Here's some great coverage at Business Insider, regarding Missouri:

Ron Paul Is Winning ANOTHER Caucus, And The Media Isn't Telling You About It

(Yes that's the headline of the article)

Thesifer 03-21-2012 12:56 AM
You know what happens if Ron Paul were to win right? The whole thing I mean, not just the nomination.

Oh, that's right... Nothing.

He can't (*won't) change a damn thing.

Napoleon54 03-21-2012 06:58 AM
Troll much?

Anyway, then I guess you won't mind if he does. Thanks for your support.

Napoleon54 03-21-2012 08:29 AM
Providing some facts to back up my previous rhetoric.

Quote:
Personally I liked this article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ention-in-NDAA

The spin put on this by Daily Kos is unbelievable. I invite everyone to take a read because that's a textbook example of delusional adherence to a false ideal. (The ideal being that Obama is some sort of demigod, placed on this earth to save us from the evils of the Bush administration). Daily Kos tries to convince us that Obama intervened in the writing of the bill and later issued a policy statement all to prevent us (the American people) from being sent to Guantanamo. Such a noble and kind gesture, looking out for his people, an end to Bush-era civil liberties infringements, no?

The Daily Kos's greatest lie in this piece is the complete omission of any discussion of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (.pdf) (AUMF) and the Obama Administration's own stated motives for it's actions on the NDAA issue.

Here's the Administration's Statement of Administrative Policy (.pdf) from November 2011. This contains, in their own words, what their objections to NDAA were. I encourage everyone to read that as well, because that's where the truth is, in its entirety, absent of any delusional media spin or clever editing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama Administration
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.

Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
(emphasis added)

The REAL message from the Administration here is (my adlib) "AUMF already allows us to detain whomever we want, however we want. Don't put this language in NDAA because it will interfere with what we're doing NOW!" The administration is very happy with the endless powers they claim from the extremely fuzzy language of AUMF and they don't want to be hindered by having more specific language codified in NDAA.

The Statement goes on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama Administration
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have s***ested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
(underline added, this is what Daily Kos quoted, discussed below)

For someone wearing the Daily Kos's rose-colored glasses, part of this might sound promising, at least at the first part, with phrases such as "The Administration strongly objects to... mandate[d] military custody...". But again, look at the overall message here. Look at that first sentence TOGETHER with the second one. The jist of the paragraph is (my adlib): "We strongly object to the military custody prevision because it limits the President's authority to decide how people will be detained. We're already doing what we want thanks to AUMF, examples: habeas litigation and military operations. Don't confuse the issue by putting new language in place through NDAA."

The Daily Kos piece actually quotes the bit italicized above, indicating they've ACTUALLY READ this statement, but chose to cherry-pick this one fragment, completely out of context, because its consistent with their delusion!

The Obama Administration is 100% NOT saying they're trying to protect American citizens from being sent to Guantanamo. What they're really saying is that AUMF lets them do that already, if they wanted to, so leave it alone! The dominating message of the statement is that the Obama Administration doesn't want to be restricted, micromanaged, hindered, overruled, or limited in any way. The last sentance in the Detention section is even underlined for emphasis (this is how it actually appears, the emphasis is not mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama Administration
Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior advisers to recommend a veto.

That sounds an awful like Bush/Cheney to me. And the whole Daily Kos bit about how he couldn't threaten to actually veto NDAA it because it's tied to a whole years' worth of military funding? The veto threat is right there in that last sentence; and it isn't prompted by civil liberties concerns, it's based on the idea of limiting Obama's power!

Firstly, it's simply unbelievable how similar Obama is to Bush. Secondly, it's even more unbelievable that people don't realize this and aren't outraged by it. I guess the $700 million "hope and change" ad campaign had quite a bit of staying power. Indoctrinate people with a view up front, cement it into their head with advertising, and get a free pass. I don't know what more people need in order to wake up. The evidence is right there in their own words.

Thesifer 03-22-2012 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon54
Snippet trying to prove a "point"

You can claim whatever you want to claim about supporters of Obama. I don't agree with everything he does, never agreed with the NDAA, don't agree with more drilling and off-shore drilling. If he approves the Keystone XL, I won't agree with that.

Don't agree with his scaling back of the health plan before passage. Don't agree with the drastic increase in drone murders, nor the fact that drones will soon be allowed over US Soil.

Don't agree with his lax view of gun laws, don't agree with his refusal to push hard on raising taxes in areas that need to be raised (Long Term Capital Gains being one of them)

My comment on Ron Paul isn't trolling. I just think it's funny that people spout all of this "Golden" crap about Mister Paul; the "Savior".. Who in the end, won't do anything differently than anyone else has. If people think he will, they're delusional.

I will support Obama, especially in this election, as there won't be a better candidate. It's not for "lack of a better" candidate, there will never be a candidate that people find perfect for themselves, unless they are that candidate. And then you'll still end up making sacrifices you don't want to make. Such is the nature of politics.

I've seen what the "republican" (conservatives) do when they have the power to do it, and frankly I like it a lot less than anything Obama has done that I disagree with.

Examples: Personhood bill in Oklahoma, Transvaginal Ultrasounds, Relaxed Gun Laws (including allowing them on campus) etc.

I will never agree with a single republican candidate. The right keeps going further right, sadly the "left" (Democrats at least) keep following off that cliff with them, albeit at a slower pace, but moving right nonetheless.

Napoleon54 03-22-2012 07:32 AM
I think I DID prove a point(!), a couple of them in fact: 1) the Obama stance on NDAA is very Bush/Cheney-esque and it is not motivated by concerns over civil liberties, and 2) the Daily Kos article is incredibly and unbelievably biased. That's not journalism or commentary or even editorial. The degree of mistruth and falsification in their account would have to classify it as pure fiction of the most dangerous type. Covering up the truth and putting forth a more pleasant fiction in that manner doesn't do any of us any good. It's fine to support Obama, BUT DO IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AND BE HONEST ABOUT IT. Don't go inventing stuff (like Daily Kos did) in order to believe something other than the truth. If you read the Daily Kos regularly, I would s***est you have a moral obligation to pressure them to clean up their act because clearly they've got their story completely wrong.

There seem to be two different Obamas existing simultaneously: 1) the real Obama, and 2) a fictional version put forth by the media that people like to believe. We can't have an honest debate about anything if we keep believing 2 and refuse to acknowledge 1. Now you could probably pick any of a dozen other very important issues and someone could provide sources and information to show how the widely accepted view of Obama is in fact a fictional one. The man simply isn't who most people think he is, isn't doing what most people think he is doing, doesn't stand for what most people think he stands for. We largely have the media to thank for that. The Daily Kos is a pretty extreme example, but the same bias is constantly put forth by the MSM on a MUCH larger scale and in a more subtle way. Tune in to any of the broadcast networks, CNN, NPR, etc, and none of them are going to be saying a word about AUMF in their discussion of NDAA. None of them are discussing how Obama's stated objection to NDAA is that it would limit the authority he already claims to have by way of AUMF. I practically guarantee it. The view they put forth is a toned-down version of what Daily Kos put out.. that is, the thoroughly disprovable notion that Obama is trying to save us all from being sent to Guantanamo.

Take this article at CNN for example. (I went looking for 5 seconds and picked the first random thing that popped up.) Thankfully it doesn't posit the wholly naive view that Obama gives a damn about civil liberties, so on that front it's lightyears ahead of Daily Kos. But there is no mention of the fact that the AUMF disclaimer in NDAA means that NDAA doesn't limit Obama in any way. No mention that Obama and Bush have been detaining suspects in whatever way they want for over a decade and therefore the whole NDAA issue is pretty much a red herring. So in that respect CNN is still lightyears behind in terms of honest and complete reporting.

We have a civil obligation to ourselves and each other to engage in honest and intelligent debate about what we should and shouldn't be doing as a country. In order to do that we absolutely need to have the right info. We need to be talking about the REAL Obama, not a fictional one.

gwilks98 03-22-2012 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesifer
My comment on Ron Paul isn't trolling. I just think it's funny that people spout all of this "Golden" crap about Mister Paul; the "Savior".. Who in the end, won't do anything differently than anyone else has. If people think he will, they're delusional.

I will never agree with a single republican candidate. The right keeps going further right, sadly the "left" (Democrats at least) keep following off that cliff with them, albeit at a slower pace, but moving right nonetheless.

to your first quoted paragraph, I agree with you. He's not liked enough by either side (or the lobbyists) to push sweeping change. The only way he could change anything is to have a very large social media following that pressed for big media (and big companies) to start buying into him.

to your second, that's the same thing Bill Maher said. I can't stand that guy. He's very intelligent, but he's so convinced his side is correct he doesn't understand how far to the left he leans. And since he's his own biggest supporter, there's no way in hell he's going to think he ever had a bad idea. He doesn't compromise and he doesn't ever say "that's a good point that I don't agree with." He's a pain in the ass.
Bill Maher said (paraphrased) conservatives think that an extreme liberal is just as bad as an extreme conservative, when it's not.
I've known hardcore liberals and conservatives and it's always been my experience that both are equally damaging to what's best for we, the people. Ask the people of the soviet union/china/north korea how extreme socialism turned out for them and you'll find their lives just as miserable as those under conservative Nazi rule.

The point I'm making is an extremist from either side will welcome power landing in its lap and will do horrible things with it. Bush, Obama: no difference. I just wish we could get something out of the republican party that wasn't a bible thumping close minded clown catering to only the deep south. I heard "y'all" I started to wonder who's really buying this crap?

Napoleon54 03-22-2012 10:33 PM
Politics isn't just a left-right paradigm where the two sides are split horizontally between government regulation of the economy versus government regulation of social issues (because, after all, that's essentially what the left versus the right argue about 90% of the time, no?). As the Nolan chart shows, there's a second dimension representing the overall degree of government intervention that one is comfortable with, on a scale of Libertarian to Statism. Libertarians, at the top, favor less intervention in both social and economic issues, whereas Statists or Authoritarians favor more intervention on both social and economic issues. There are a few different ways to represent this graphically, but here's one of them. (Personally I would prefer the vertical axis to start from Libertarian at the bottom to Authoritarian at the top so that it represents increasing levels of statism/ control. But in this particular example (see below), one can think of the vertical axis as representing freedom and it'll have the same meaning.) In short, imagine an X-Y axis imposed and centered on this chart with the junction of the two smack dab in the middle. The X-axis is personal versus economic focus from left to right, and the Y-axis is overall freedom from bottom to top.



But that's all just prelude. My point is that here is a great article at HuffPo describing what you'd see if you were to look at the current presidential candidates in terms of the vertical dimension alone (instead of the common left-right view).

If you happen to be a die-hard Left vs Right, Dem vs GOP cheerleader, this might be a bit of a mindbender, but please do give it a read and some honest consideration. TIA.