U.S. Politics

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
BroDeal said:
It's too bad that for every rational position of Ron Paul he has an insane one. He is the only one who will speak the truth about the war on terror, the war on drugs, the patriot act, etc. But at the same time he will push stuff straight out of koo koo land like the gold standard. If he was a little less crazy, he could be great.

I think we need to bring back Perot. Now that guy was funny, and a lot of what he said turned out to be true.
Yep. That really is the problem with Paul. I think he's nuttier than a Snickers bar, but at least he makes sense on occasion. His stance on the gold standard is just silly. He needs to pick up a book about the Populist movement. Maybe he can start with the Wizard of Oz.

The rest of these clowns are racing each other to the intellectual gutter.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
True, but the guy is in his 80's. :eek:
He doesn't need to win. He just needs to be there with a flip chart and his high pitched voice saying, "Here's the deal..." It would make the rest of the candidates, Dems and Repugs, look even more superficial. If nothing else, there would be great comic value in watching candidates like Romney dodge the questions that would arise.
 
BroDeal said:
He doesn't need to win. He just needs to be there with a flip chart and his high pitched voice saying, "Here's the deal..." It would make the rest of the candidates, Dems and Repugs, look even more superficial. If nothing else, there would be great comic value in watching candidates like Romney dodge the questions that would arise.
I like the idea. A good way to separate the wheat from the chaff... What if it's all chaff???
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Yep. That really is the problem with Paul. I think he's nuttier than a Snickers bar, but at least he makes sense on occasion. His stance on the gold standard is just silly. He needs to pick up a book about the Populist movement. Maybe he can start with the Wizard of Oz.
The really funny thing about Paul is the reasoning behind some of his positions. A lot on the right wing want the southern border closed off by walls and the military. Paul does not support that, but the reason he does not support it is that he is fearful that the government will use it to keep americans from leaving the country, like the Berlin wall. I suspect that his position on the Patriot Act stems more from similar conspiracy theories than from a firm belief in civil rights. He is a total new world order nutter. He was one before the boogeyman was known as the new world order.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""FBI Considered a Sting on Newt in 1997
Way back in 1997, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House and married to his second wife, the FBI considered launching a sting operation over an alleged bribe.

The case was originally brought to the FBI and federal prosecutors by a convicted arms dealer, perfectly named Sarkis Soghanalian, who claimed that Marianne Gingrich (Newt's then-wife) said in 1995 during a meeting in Paris that she could provide legislative favors through her husband.

Soghanalian, who was convicted — and served two years — for conspiring to sell U.S. helicopters to Iraq, took Marianne up on her offer. He told her that he wanted Newt's help to get the Iraqi arms embargo lifted, so he could collect an outstanding $80 million debt from Saddam Hussein..""

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/fbi-considered-a-sting-on-newt-in-1997.html
 
If the Ross Perot of 1992 were running today he'd probably win, fairly easily. Too bad there's no one like him today.

Agree with Moose. Obama is probably the second weakest President in my lifetime (behind W), but watching the GOP candidates and debates, it's just astounding that this is the only alternative they've got. It's alarming to think one of these people could be the leader of the nation.

Looking on the horizon it doesn't get any better. Can you name any quality rising stars in either party for 2016 or 2020? No, not Hillary, or Christie. And not Cuomo or Rubio. I said "quality", not corrupted, connected and compromised. It's as if most anyone with a brain born after about 1965 has decided to stay completely away from politics. And who can blame them?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I
Agree with Moose. Obama is probably the second weakest President in my lifetime (behind W), but watching the GOP candidates and debates, it's just astounding that this is the only alternative they've got. It's alarming to think one of these people could be the leader of the nation.
Obama sold out. I knew he would be useless when he hired Rahm Emmanuel followed by all the other Clintonites. Right from there you knew it was going to be politics played as a game.

It is only a matter of time before one of these true idiots is elected. I give it two or three election cycles.

Alpe d'Huez said:
Looking on the horizon it doesn't get any better. Can you name any quality rising stars in either party for 2016 or 2020? No, not Hillary, or Christie. And not Cuomo or Rubio. I said "quality", not corrupted, connected and compromised. It's as if most anyone with a brain born after about 1965 has decided to stay completely away from politics. And who can blame them?
I think Huntsman only ran to get his feet wet. He will make a serious bid for 2016. He seems like the best of the current lot of Repugs. The Dems don't have the crazies that the Repubs do, but the old guard are all past it (if they ever had it) and it is slim pickings with the younger guys. There is no one with a national rep and record, so we end up with an Obama who should have had another ten years before running for prez.
 
Jul 27, 2010
255
0
0
BroDeal said:
It's too bad that for every rational position of Ron Paul he has an insane one. He is the only one who will speak the truth about the war on terror, the war on drugs, the patriot act, etc. But at the same time he will push stuff straight out of koo koo land like the gold standard. If he was a little less crazy, he could be great.

I think we need to bring back Perot. Now that guy was funny, and a lot of what he said turned out to be true.
Yeah, I used to associate with libertarians like Paul, but they just go so much further than is necessary. I think that the party would be quite popular if they took what their positions are and toned them down a little. I know plenty of people who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative but find libertarians to be crazy.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
Yeah, I used to associate with libertarians like Paul, but they just go so much further than is necessary. I think that the party would be quite popular if they took what their positions are and toned them down a little. I know plenty of people who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative but find libertarians to be crazy.
True. The Libertarian Party and libertarianism as a political philosophy was long ago co-opted by Objectivists whose idea of a free market is one free of regulation, not free for competition, and a lot of those Randheads are serious kooks. It has given rise to a bizarre species of irrationals who at the same time they worship the writings of Ayn Rand are also fundamentalist Christians.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
The words of brain tumors or to republicans,,,intelligence.

""Continuing his crusade against the courts, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich railed against judges “imposing secularism” on the country on this morning’s Face The Nation. Arguing that “activist judges” who make disagreeable decisions should be held accountable before Congress, he told Bob Schieffer that he would send a U.S. Marshal or Capitol Police officer to arrest judges if that’s what it took to reign them in, and then encourage impeachment:


SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing… how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal""
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
The really funny thing about Paul is the reasoning behind some of his positions. A lot on the right wing want the southern border closed off by walls and the military. Paul does not support that, but the reason he does not support it is that he is fearful that the government will use it to keep americans from leaving the country, like the Berlin wall. I suspect that his position on the Patriot Act stems more from similar conspiracy theories than from a firm belief in civil rights. He is a total new world order nutter. He was one before the boogeyman was known as the new world order.
Paul is out-and-out nuts. His followers are nuts. His policy positions are nuts. Not surprisingly, his son is nuts. Most of all, that he would even be considered as a candidate for the presidency is nuts.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
BroDeal said:
I think Huntsman only ran to get his feet wet. He will make a serious bid for 2016. He seems like the best of the current lot of Repugs.

Huntsman might be running for either VP (which is not working b/c his poll numbers are too small) or Sec. of state. I believe he'd make an excellent Sec. of State, actually.


As for Newt, it seems his short rise is pretty much over. Another reminder why he isn't speaker any more. He simply has antagonized too many important Repubs throughout the years. They're all ganging up on him. With the barrage of negative comments and ads, there's just no way to hide for him. It's still going to be Romney in the end.


As for the republican candidate pool, I've said it from the start, the smart(er) ones (except for Romney whose 'turn' it is) are sitting this one out. Obama's likability is still high despite the unemployment figures. Regardless what you hear, it is still far, far more likely that Obama gets elected than any republican (sane or not). So you get the dumb ones in the race plus Romney (plus Huntsman who might just get his feet wet or whatever).
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney insisted on Wednesday that President George W. Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had known that were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the country.

“If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” the candidate told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“You don’t think we would have gone in at all?” Todd asked.

“Well, of course not,” Romney declared. “The president went in based upon intelligence they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course, but we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression as a nation — as our president was under the impression — that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons. And so, he took action based upon what he knew.”""
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Romney slinging the crap.

Typically when you manufacture intelligence reports for your predecided course of invasion those intelligence reports, surprisingly enough, provide the rationale for the decision.

Someone should ask him about the effect trillions of (borrowed) dollars spent on Iraq had on the U.S. economy. That was quite the expensive "mistake". The sad thing is that Obama hasn't been smart enough to capitalize on it.
 
Agree with Cobblestones. Huntsman would make an excellent Sec of State, and if elected, I think a potentially good President. He just doesn't fit in with the crazies, so he isn't getting any traction. But he is getting his name out there, and a few ideas, for the future.

I think Newt's flame is about to burn out. Just like Bachman, Perry and Cain before him, his time to capture the votes of the Republicans who refuse to support Romney has passed. It also looks like Ron Paul is starting to pick up a little steam, probably from Newt's waning support. But the nomination is Romney's.

Obama's approval rating back up to 49%, after dropping to 43% a month ago. He's not doing much, but Congress is so bad, so dysfunctional, so completely arrogant and
 
redtreviso said:
""Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney insisted on Wednesday that President George W. Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had known that were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the country.

“If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” the candidate told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“You don’t think we would have gone in at all?” Todd asked.

“Well, of course not,” Romney declared. “The president went in based upon intelligence they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course, but we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression as a nation — as our president was under the impression — that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons. And so, he took action based upon what he knew.”""
Mitt being a little rediculous there. All the President has to do is ask something like "what are the chances Iraq has WMD". Even a sliver of a chance, even a 1% chance, they still may have invaded Iraq because a) Iraq had already invaded Kuwait and b) what would stop Sadaam from using WMD if he had them. Wouldn't matter if Iraq likely did not have them. If there was some chance Iraq had WMD the Allies would not have stood around waiting for Sadaam to use them, and then have to say later, "Oops, we should have invaded".

Maybe there was a predetermined course of action against Iraq and the administration at the time used intelligence reports to justify their preferred action, as BroDeal suggests. The administration may have just been looking for an excuse/reason to invade Iraq. I don't disagree with that completely. But it could also be some of what I described above... avoiding the "Oops" outcome.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Mitt being a little rediculous there. All the President has to do is ask something like "what are the chances Iraq has WMD". Even a sliver of a chance, even a 1% chance, they still may have invaded Iraq because a) Iraq had already invaded Kuwait and b) what would stop Sadaam from using WMD if he had them. Wouldn't matter if Iraq likely did not have them. If there was some chance Iraq had WMD the Allies would not have stood around waiting for Sadaam to use them, and then have to say later, "Oops, we should have invaded".

Maybe there was a predetermined course of action against Iraq and the administration at the time used intelligence reports to justify their preferred action, as BroDeal suggests. The administration may have just been looking for an excuse/reason to invade Iraq. I don't disagree with that completely. But it could also be some of what I described above... avoiding the "Oops" outcome.
The BCF had it planned all along.. They just needed---oh something like 911..
Clinton didn't fall for the PNAC Ahmad Chalabi bull
 
redtreviso said:
The BCF had it planned all along.. They just needed---oh something like 911..
Clinton didn't fall for the PNAC Ahmad Chalabi bull
Interesting reads out there on the PNAC ideology bull stools. I get that part.
But BCF? What the heck's BCF? Bush something something I presume.
Or
British Cycling Federation, Barbados Chess Federation? :D
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
interesting reads out there on the pnac ideology bull stools. I get that part.
But bcf? What the heck's bcf? Bush something something i presume.
Or
british cycling federation, barbados chess federation? :d
bush crime family
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
NEW YORK — Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has changed his voter registration in New York state from Republican to unaffiliated.

A spokesman for Trump says the businessman and television host changed his affiliation to preserve his option to seek the presidency in 2012.

Special Counsel Michael Cohen said Friday that Trump could enter the race if Republicans fail to nominate a candidate who can defeat President Barack Obama.

He said Trump probably would use his substantial wealth to even the playing field with Obama’s re-election campaign.

Cohen said Trump’s commitment to hosting TV’s “The Apprentice” will keep him from doing anything until May, when the show’s season wraps up.

He said Trump filed his voter registration paperwork Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-drops-republican-party-registers-as-unaffiliated-in-ny-to-keep-2012-options-open/2011/12/23/gIQARQLhEP_story.html?hpid=z2

I may have to revise my dream ticket.:D
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
You can't even gather enough signatures where you live??:eek:


Washington (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich failed to collect enough signatures to appear on the Virginia primary ballot, the Republican Party of Virginia announced Saturday morning, leaving the longtime Virginia resident without a place on the state's ballot and raising questions about his campaign's organization.

Gingrich, as well as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, did not meet the state's requirement of 10,000 signatures and, therefore, did not qualify for the ballot, the Virginia GOP said via Twitter.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/24/politics/gop-virginia-primary/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts