Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I'm not heavy into politics because it just infuriates me listening to these guys, but I definitely do not want the Republicans to win this election because I'm not rich, and it's pretty clear those are the only people they give a shiz about. Up until now it seems like they have been fighting an uphill battle against Obama, especially because the elephants do not do well with younger voters, but this VP pick has me a little worried that this might level the playing field. Can someone more versed (weather you agree or not) tell me weather or not this guy was a good pick for Romney, in terms of gaining more voter interest.
I don't think the Ryan pick will help Romney attract new supporters, but it will definitely get conservatives and tea party types excited. This may be a pretty decent strategy since there are so few undecided voters at this point in the election. However, I think this pick could hurt him with elderly voters since he wants to privatize social security and drastically change medicare and medicaid.
While the Ryan pick could influence some voters, I think it will be minimal. People won't be voting based on what they think of the Vice Presidential candidates.
Post by RadioSpirit on Aug 11, 2012 10:42:32 GMT -5
It's a risk/reward pick in the vein of Sarah Palin in 2008.
The guy is beloved by the Republican base, and will definitely energize them. Meanwhile, the Democratic base hates him.
The general public has almost no idea who he is, so the rollout will be important for both sides. He's a House Representative from Wisconsin who has never really been on a national scale before, so it remains to be seen how he holds up in the national spotlight.
Maybe he's great. He's young, energetic, very smart and well-versed in policy, and something of a happy-warrior, always seems to be smiling. But maybe he doesn't hold up well under all this pressure, struggles to defend his controversial budget plan, or starts making gaffes or becomes an embarassment for Romney.
It's a gamble for Team Romney, but the average polls have had him down by a few points all summer, and the swing states haven't been great for him either, so obviously he felt had to take a shot. Personally, I think Rice, Rubio, or Portman would have been better picks.
Post by RadioSpirit on Aug 11, 2012 10:43:59 GMT -5
Also, cool story:
Apparently Paul Ryan found out that he was the pick on Aug. 1st, which also happens to be the day that I bumped into him on a sidewalk outside the Capitol, because neither of us were paying attention. I guess I understand now why he was so distracted.
It's a risk/reward pick in the vein of Sarah Palin in 2008.
The guy is beloved by the Republican base, and will definitely energize them. Meanwhile, the Democratic base hates him.
The general public has almost no idea who he is, so the rollout will be important for both sides. He's a House Representative from Wisconsin who has never really been on a national scale before, so it remains to be seen how he holds up in the national spotlight.
Maybe he's great. He's young, energetic, very smart and well-versed in policy, and something of a happy-warrior, always seems to be smiling. But maybe he doesn't hold up well under all this pressure, struggles to defend his controversial budget plan, or starts making gaffes or becomes an embarassment for Romney.
It's a gamble for Team Romney, but the average polls have had him down by a few points all summer, and the swing states haven't been great for him either, so obviously he felt had to take a shot. Personally, I think Rice, Rubio, or Portman would have been better picks.
Have you seen his budget plan? They're not going to be able to avoid answering questions about a plan that phases out spending and leaves the gov't only putting money into Social Security, Medicaid and Defense (most of the $ being spent on defense). He wants to privatize everything and basically make it a free-for-all for big businesses. Rich get richer...
It's a risk/reward pick in the vein of Sarah Palin in 2008.
The guy is beloved by the Republican base, and will definitely energize them. Meanwhile, the Democratic base hates him.
The general public has almost no idea who he is, so the rollout will be important for both sides. He's a House Representative from Wisconsin who has never really been on a national scale before, so it remains to be seen how he holds up in the national spotlight.
Maybe he's great. He's young, energetic, very smart and well-versed in policy, and something of a happy-warrior, always seems to be smiling. But maybe he doesn't hold up well under all this pressure, struggles to defend his controversial budget plan, or starts making gaffes or becomes an embarassment for Romney.
It's a gamble for Team Romney, but the average polls have had him down by a few points all summer, and the swing states haven't been great for him either, so obviously he felt had to take a shot. Personally, I think Rice, Rubio, or Portman would have been better picks.
Have you seen his budget plan? They're not going to be able to avoid answering questions about a plan that phases out spending and leaves the gov't only putting money into Social Security, Medicaid and Defense (most of the $ being spent on defense). He wants to privatize everything and basically make it a free-for-all for big businesses. Rich get richer...
Too bad people are too stupid to realize what's going on. The Republicans are making it way too obvious what their intentions are.
It's a risk/reward pick in the vein of Sarah Palin in 2008.
The guy is beloved by the Republican base, and will definitely energize them. Meanwhile, the Democratic base hates him.
The general public has almost no idea who he is, so the rollout will be important for both sides. He's a House Representative from Wisconsin who has never really been on a national scale before, so it remains to be seen how he holds up in the national spotlight.
Maybe he's great. He's young, energetic, very smart and well-versed in policy, and something of a happy-warrior, always seems to be smiling. But maybe he doesn't hold up well under all this pressure, struggles to defend his controversial budget plan, or starts making gaffes or becomes an embarassment for Romney.
It's a gamble for Team Romney, but the average polls have had him down by a few points all summer, and the swing states haven't been great for him either, so obviously he felt had to take a shot. Personally, I think Rice, Rubio, or Portman would have been better picks.
Have you seen his budget plan? They're not going to be able to avoid answering questions about a plan that phases out spending and leaves the gov't only putting money into Social Security, Medicaid and Defense (most of the $ being spent on defense). He wants to privatize everything and basically make it a free-for-all for big businesses. Rich get richer...
Exactly. As if Romney wasn't already bad enough himself in this same regard. I will literally lose respect for any middle-class or lower-class citizen who votes for a Romney/Ryan ticket this fall. And I don't consider myself a very political person, but I mean, f*ck, it doesn't take anything more than common sense to see that a Romney/Ryan ticket is good for nobody but the wealthy.
Have you seen his budget plan? They're not going to be able to avoid answering questions about a plan that phases out spending and leaves the gov't only putting money into Social Security, Medicaid and Defense (most of the $ being spent on defense). He wants to privatize everything and basically make it a free-for-all for big businesses. Rich get richer...
Well, like I said, that's a risk of the choice. He will have to be able to defend it, and if he can't, the pick will probably be seen as a failure.
Also, for the record, although the famous Ryan Plan doesn't touch Social Security, he has said he favors privatizing it. He just wants to do so seperately. I also thinks he plans defense budget cuts as a seperate thing too, but I'm not sure about that.
Post by Lawn Gnome on Aug 11, 2012 12:51:49 GMT -5
Ryan is a high-risk, low-reward candidate. Low-reward because nearly all veep picks are, and high-risk because he has attached his face to a highly-specific, highly controversial budget and Medicare reform proposal. He has also never run for even statewide office (only his congressional district). I hope he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that are too ugly, because we're about to hear all about them.
This pick surprises me because Romney has played it safe throughout the campaign thus far. It makes me wonder if they had Rubio on deck as well until the poll numbers came out this week: the poll numbers that were not favorable to Romney. Either way, Ryan should at least steer the debate and clearly highlights that Romney is moving away from the "referendum" campaign model (which thus far isn't working) and more to the "choice" model, which will emphasize the broader, sometimes abstract policy differences between his campaign and the WH.
David Axelrod probably already has an ad queued up that skewers Ryan's positions on Medicare. Get ready to start hearing a lot about how the other campaign wants to "end Medicare as we know it," whether through the Ryan budget or the PPACA.
Oh, and pmo, Republicans don't favor the rich, they favor Ayn Rand's saintly "job creators." Don't you know the difference?
Post by Lawn Gnome on Aug 11, 2012 13:32:36 GMT -5
At first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s**t, I am never reading again.
Man, I can't believe there's this much discussion on the election.
Option #1: Statist who will give us more war, more spending and work to continue to limit our civil liberties
Option #2: Statist who will give us more war, more spending and work to continue to limit our civil liberties
Exciting stuff!
I think you fail to realize two things: 1) our political system is composed of two parties that are both incredibly close to the center of the political spectrum. If you wanted more stark contrasts, you would favor a parliamentary system. 2) Our political trajectory is not driven by the executive branch; it is much more so decided in Congress (I know, the essence of dysfunction), and the state and local political arenas.
I realize both of those things. However, apparently you either fail to realize or willfully ignore the increasing role of the executive branch election after election. Executive orders are now used as a way to bypass Congress if the president so chooses and Congress continues to cede its power (i.e. voting to get rid of their power to vet & approve presidential appointments)
Post by Lawn Gnome on Aug 11, 2012 14:52:27 GMT -5
If you honestly think the executive branch is too powerful, then you haven't noticed that A) a minority party in the Senate has essentially governed by filibuster, or B) that the Supreme Court has released decision after decision that is at odds, not only with executive party, but also the very idea of one voice-one vote democracy (e.g. Citizen's United). I expect cynicism from those who think we are really governed by an oligarchy, but I have a hard time empathizing with your point.
EDIT: After giving it some thought, I do see your point to a degree. The occasional unilateral decision-making from the Obama administration, particularly with respect to military operations, does represent an unacceptable precedent for future executive action. I think your wholesale tone on the topic turned me off, but you do have a point.
Post by kikosanchez on Aug 11, 2012 15:21:40 GMT -5
I actually like the Paul Ryan choice. At least he isn't focused on foreign policy (warmongering) or social policies. Romney will do whatever he is going to do economically, if elected, as he already has strong opinions on the subject. At least Ryan won't be the war making Cheney to Romney.
Economically, I'm not quite sure what the best solution is. I hear a lot of demonizing from both sides. Obama is a socialist and Romney is going to return us to feudalism. I am for a fair amount of regulation, but I also think we need to make cuts across the board and return to Clinton-era taxes. Some privatization wouldn't be bad either, if it gets those debts off the books. What some people seem to ignore is the horrifying amount of interest we will pay in the future. Economy first, national debt second, as far as important issues, imo.
The one slogan I hear from people that is more annoying than anything is "throw them all out". It ignores that it isn't necessarily the people in place, but it is the system we have in place. Campaign finance, terms and term limits, constituentism, party-line voting, it is all systemically screwed up.
Lastly, I believe you should join our Mafia game, now!
Post by RadioSpirit on Aug 11, 2012 16:19:19 GMT -5
Also, Paul Ryan is one of the most liberal Republicans on gay rights issues. Which I think is a good sign for the party that a lot of the young, emerging generation that will take over the direction of the party are not so backwards on this issue.
No intelligent person should believe Obama is a socialist.
He's not. He's far from it. He's to the right of Reagan was on many issues. The overall tax rate is lower now than any point in decades and decades.
Real socialists have nothing to do with Obama and his nonsense.
I agree he's far from it, but tax rates aren't necessarily lower than after Reagan's cuts. It is lower on the lowest bracket, but higher for the top bracket. The in-between brackets seem to have more or less the same rates. But it is sort of a moot point, because it doesn't have to do with Obama or his economic policies, because he preferred a return to Clinton-era income taxes. It was due to congress, not himself, that they are at the current rates.
What "many issues" is he to the right of Reagan on? I'm not trying to argue, but I find this hard to believe. Though it depends by what parameter you're considering the notion of "right", such as by liberties or social conservatism. You could be against the war on drugs and be considered to the right, since you are favoring liberty and personal freedom. This could also be considered to the left, since it is against the social conservatism.
we were talking in chat last night and someone brought it up (i think bacon) that if you type is paul ryan is on google the top results are: idiot, evil, a douche, and cute.
^ Cute? On second thought: no. A THOUSAND TIMES: NO! Deargod, that schnoz will give me more nightmares than his stance on Medicaid or his practically non-existent foreign policy experience.
Always a good idea to get your political ideals from one of the sh*ttiest "novels" ever written.
