U.S. Politics

Page 101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Shame we wont see the April and May primaries.

Wonder what Santorum was offered.

What will Gingrich do. Stay in and hope to win Lousiana. Even though nomination is over it could be an important primary for Romney. If he loses people will say even as nominee many dont want him. If he wins it will be a boost,

Also interesting to see how the polls reflect this over the coming days. Romney might get a small boost but those republicans who don't like him want be choosing him just yet i dont think.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Damn, there went my dream ticket.

I would imagine that his well ran completely dry, and there was nobody mad enough to throw more millions at him. This does make the rest of the primaries very boring, though.:rolleyes:
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,185
0
0
The Hitch said:
Santorum would have to have been a special kind of stupid if he didn't phone Romney up in the last few days and try to bluff him into getting some position.
It does depand on how he want's to procede doesn't it? If he wants to embrace himself as an right-wing extremist maybe he doesn't want to be assaciated to closely to Romney, because it can't be told how he'll fight his campaign from now on. Wouldn't it be likely for him to turn away from the madmen and try go back closer to the centre (if there is such a thing in the US)? Perhaps Santorum will try to be anti Obama but also somehwhat "independet" lunatic.

Amsterhammer said:
This does make the rest of the primaries very boring, though.:rolleyes:
But isn't it sad that one really comes up with that kind of thought? I mean, if this was even looking to functioning like a democracy should function, entertainement wouldn't be a factor we'd consider at all.
 
Rechtschreibfehler said:
It does depand on how he want's to procede doesn't it? If he wants to embrace himself as an right-wing extremist maybe he doesn't want to be assaciated to closely to Romney, because it can't be told how he'll fight his campaign from now on. Wouldn't it be likely for him to turn away from the madmen and try go back closer to the centre (if there is such a thing in the US)? Perhaps Santorum will try to be anti Obama but also somehwhat "independet" lunatic.

.
I don't see where else Santorum goes from here. His home state Pensylvania, he was lucky to win a state election there once and ended up losing it by 18% in the biggest defeat for a sitting senator since Jimmy Carter was president.

Hes just not going to become a senator or governor there and i doubt he wants to be a congressman.

nationally his chances of becoming president next time are slim. The Republicans do often give it to the guy who came 2nd last time but not always and the republicans have far stronger candidadtes next time.

Hes also unelectable so again dont see him getting the nomination.

And what is being an anti obama going to bring him if he cant actualy get any power. A tv show on fox like Palin or Huckabee. Not that glamerous.

Santorums best hope at any bright future political career is through Romney. I doubt he could have got a vp bit out of Romney but very possible a cabinet position
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,185
0
0
The Hitch said:
Santorums best hope at any bright future political career is through Romney. I doubt he could have got a vp bit out of Romney but very possible a cabinet position
I do agree, but I'm not sure if that's what he was or is after actually. I mean you don't take Santorums positions without some faith in it. I could imagine that he'd try things that are doomed to be unsucessfull. And in his mind-set this might as well be the most logic choice to take. Basically I just don't belive that people run for anything just because they want a position. Even though the very existance of Angela Merkel does challange my view.
 
Rechtschreibfehler said:
Basically I just don't belive that people run for anything just because they want a position.
What in the US? You mad? Its all about the position.
Someone like Nader or Ron Paul, they run because they want to further their cause, but the real big guns who run for the nominations of the parties, they dont care about anything but the position.. Especially the finalists for this years 1 on 1. Romney and Obama. these guys are politicos through and through.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
The Hitch said:
I don't see where else Santorum goes from here. His home state Pensylvania, he was lucky to win a state election there once and ended up losing it by 18% in the biggest defeat for a sitting senator since Jimmy Carter was president.

Hes just not going to become a senator or governor there and i doubt he wants to be a congressman.

nationally his chances of becoming president next time are slim. The Republicans do often give it to the guy who came 2nd last time but not always and the republicans have far stronger candidadtes next time.

Hes also unelectable so again dont see him getting the nomination.

And what is being an anti obama going to bring him if he cant actualy get any power. A tv show on fox like Palin or Huckabee. Not that glamerous.

Santorums best hope at any bright future political career is through Romney. I doubt he could have got a vp bit out of Romney but very possible a cabinet position
He has been making an average of a mil a year. This campaign will boost his speaking fees, book advances, and such. He will do well financially, and if Etch-a-Sketch fails then he will be there to say, "I told you so. We should have nominated a real conservative."

If Santorum has even a tenuous connection with reality--which I would not bet on--then he must go to sleep every night thanking his god for his good luck. He, as a lightweight candidate who was not qualified in the least to be the main challenger for the nomination, ended up being the conservative's base' flag carrier and last hope. He hit the lottery, and it will pay well. In any other election year he would have struggled to get as much press as a nut like Ron Paul.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,185
0
0
The Hitch said:
What in the US? You mad? Its all about the position.
Someone like Nader or Ron Paul, they run because they want to further their cause, but the real big guns who run for the nominations of the parties, they dont care about anything but the position.. Especially Romney and Obama. these guys are politicos through and through.
I don't question that they are running for positions. I just still belive that in politics, even in the US where it has become a circus, people still run because of some sort of motivation other than achieving some sort of position. Since just on economic basis, a "normal" carreer would probably be more profitable.
So I guess Santorum does really have some kind of agenda he's personally following, he might just not sell this for money or useless power.
Is this mad as an opinion? I don't think so. People usually don't start political carreers to only be professional polititians without any opinion. Of course excluding most of the FDP an Mrs. Merkel. ;)
 
Rechtschreibfehler said:
I don't question that they are running for positions. I just still belive that in politics, even in the US where it has become a circus, people still run because of some sort of motivation other than achieving some sort of position. Since just on economic basis, a "normal" carreer would probably be more profitable.
So I guess Santorum does really have some kind of agenda he's personally following, he might just not sell this for money or useless power.
Is this mad as an opinion? I don't think so. People usually don't start political carreers to only be professional polititians without any opinion. Of course excluding most of the FDP an Mrs. Merkel. ;)
Even if someone starts out politics with some vague determination to change things (and usually you have to be deluded to believe you can change things), that dies a thousand deaths as you move up the scale and power corrupts all.


Politics in the US is a business. THe campaign team usually has more conviction in the positions than the guy who is running. The person who runs is usually there because they are electable. They have the fame or the power so they get the push.

The best example was Carolinbe Kennedy. She was backed by the entire national democratic party including mr change, new politics - obama, and the clinton family, for the new york senate seat, because she was convenient, - rich famous and came from the Kennedy family. Her father had held that seat.

And just as the entire state of new york was getting ready to vote her in, she had an interview on live tv and it turned out she barely new what politcs was yet alone had any personal beliefs about it. She said she was only running cos everyone had told her she was a good candidate even though they didnt know anything about her beliefs because she didnt even have any. If it wasnt for the interview she would be the current junior senator for new york, a big name for the democratic nomination in 2016, and at worst would have recieved either a cabinet position or a major senate position in the next 20 years.

Another person with a similar story is Palin, who was the ****ing nominee for the position of vice president. She admited to not knowing jack about jack, and even admited that she doesnt read the news.

Which brings me to the point about Santorum. You say he must be real because his beliefs are so extreme. Well Palins beliefs are more extreme. And she sold to the first buyer in every respect.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
The Hitch said:
The person who runs is usually there because they are electable. They have the fame or the power so they get the push.
If that were always true, then Hillary Clinton would've been president instead of the then-relatively unknown Obama.
 
VeloCity said:
If that were always true, then Hillary Clinton would've been president instead of the then-relatively unknown Obama.

I never said the most rich and powerful automatically becomes president i said groups coalesce around an electable candidate.

Obama was the candidate of the more left wing faction of the democrats. He had headlined the dem convention, he was a sitting senator, he had the african american vote at almost 100%, in the context of the democratic primaries he was a very electable candidate for his faction of the party to push.
 
I think that's an interesting aspect on electability. Even in a situation where people are open to new ideas, even desperate, the masses still will mostly choose based on personality. Every election someone runs for office stating they will change things and make big decisions, and every time we end up with the same thing. And yet, it's that same electability that we fall for every time.

As I mentioned many pages ago, if someone like Andrew Bacevich ran for President I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But he's rather stoic and professor like, his reflections on society take patient listening, and thought, and that alone removes him from about 60% of the people's interest.

In other hotbed news, George Zimmerman was (finally?) charged. Not with manslaughter or battery or unlawful discharge of a firearm, but 2nd degree murder. I have to wonder if this will turn so political it ends up in the campaign. I hope not.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
LMAO regarding the Ann Romney stuff.:D

Brilliant politics right there.
Mostly I'm LMAO about how completely the GOP has managed to alienate women of all races and ages in what, less than 3 months? Brilliant.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/bruising-primary-has-put-romney-in-historically-w

And then there's Arizona:

the state considers the starting point of the life of a fetus to begin on the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period, essentially establishing life to begin before scientifically possible. http://rt.com/usa/news/abortion-arizona-law-brewer-003/
Women of America your bodies belong to us now even when you're not pregnant KTHXBYE - GOP.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
VeloCity said:
Mostly I'm LMAO about how completely the GOP has managed to alienate women of all races and ages in what, less than 3 months? Brilliant.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/bruising-primary-has-put-romney-in-historically-w

And then there's Arizona:

Women of America your bodies belong to us now even when you're not pregnant KTHXBYE - GOP.
It's only a matter of time before this soon-to-be fetus will sue his/her mommy for preventing the little peanut to arm himself with 2 guns and a hand grenade in his fleshy bunker.

What am I saying.

Mommy can sue back for trespassing, if she is nice. In many states however she'd be able to find protection under the castle doctrine, or stand your ground laws, and use lethal force to 'attack the intruder'.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LMAO again. Thought I'd share...

“It was the insurance executives in health care. It was the bankers in the collapse. It was the oil companies as oil prices go up. It was Congress if things didn’t go the way he wanted. And recently it’s been the Supreme Court,” he said.

“He’s got an enemies list that would make Richard Nixon proud.”
Welch argued that “great leaders are interested in coalescing” the way they would run a company.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47035575

Good stuff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Seriously.... you just can't make this stuff up.:D:D

President Obama earned $789,674 in 2011, the White House announced on Friday. However, with this income, he does not even qualify for the so-called Buffett Rule that he has promoted relentlessly and the Senate will take up on Monday.

The Buffett Rule calls for those making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate, named after billionaire Warren Buffett. The president did earn over $1 million in previous years--$1.7 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009.

The president paid $162,074 in taxes with an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5 percent, according to the returns.
http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-releases-taxes-does-not-qualify-for-buffett-rule-20120413

A whopping 20.5%.:rolleyes:
 
The very first line there gave me pause:

"President Obama’s 'divide-and-conquer' approach isn’t what great leaders do, Jack Welch said Thursday."

This is most fascinating, because a great deal of people feel that Obama has been a huge compromiser, trying to negotiate almost every issue with even extreme tea party members when they've gone long beyond reason, and repeatedly caving in on numerous key important issues.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
The very first line there gave me pause:

"President Obama’s 'divide-and-conquer' approach isn’t what great leaders do, Jack Welch said Thursday."

This is most fascinating, because a great deal of people feel that Obama has been a huge compromiser, trying to negotiate almost every issue with even extreme tea party members when they've gone long beyond reason, and repeatedly caving in on numerous key important issues.
Sometimes Obama is a ruthless dictator bent on imposing his views on America, sometimes he's a weak and ineffectual leader who can't cut it. How he's portrayed by the right simply depends on the context of what the issue or topic is and how they need him to appear. I wish they'd make up their minds, though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Under Obama's plan, the Obama's and Romney's taxes would go up. Under Romney's plan, the Romney's and Obama's taxes would be cut nearly in half. And still, you're going to vote for Romney.
So, Obama will pay a little over 10% under President Romney?

That's as good a reason as I can think of to earn Obama's vote.:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Sometimes Obama is a ruthless dictator bent on imposing his views on America, sometimes he's a weak and ineffectual leader who can't cut it. How he's portrayed by the right simply depends on the context of what the issue or topic is and how they need him to appear. I wish they'd make up their minds, though.
I'm just shocked you didn't come to the table with the tried-and-true "the opposition is a dumb-ass" approach.

I'm really, really looking forward to see just how low in the gutter this election season gets. If the Ann Romney stuff is an early indicator then it's going to get very interesting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mabye it's the jet-lag... but the politics of the day are very amusing to me at the moment.

So, the Prez rolls out and lobby's for the Buffett rule.

Is that the one where you don't pay your corporate taxes for 10 years?:D

Doesn't Buffett owned companies owe the US Treasury a little over one billion dollars?

Maybe Axlerod and the other brainiacs handling BO should change the name...

Just a thought.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts