JCC OFFICIAL - US Elections pre-primary thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by GrandAdmiralJello, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    Cutting government doesn't mean the economy will fail, being that it's partly the government that is responsible for the economic woes in the first place. The government needs to rein in borrowing and spending, reducing the size of it and removing various departments will reduce spending & costs. The coalition government here has closed various departments or merged those that they felt they didn't really need anymore and were costing money with little in return.

    It's more likely the Republicans have just lost the plot and genuinely want to turn away from enlightenment because those are the only voters they can get. Any "intellectual" voter they think will vote Democrat so they target the other side of the voting public by playing the ignorant religous nutcase card in the hope it will get them votes.
    After all, being a moron worked for GWB.
  2. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 6
    I would agree with this. I'd also say that there is an argument to be made against allowing a company to become "too big to fail" in the first place. If AIG's failure would unravel the economic system of the entire planet, AIG was too big to exist.
  3. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    It's worth pointing out that the UK has sunk deeper and deeper into depression since Cameron started his program of government cuts.

    While in general, what you say is true, Alpha was talking about the particular situation in the present day. Right now, extensive government cuts probably would cause the economy to fail. If nothing else, it provides thousands of people with jobs, and if you fire them faster than the public sector can create jobs to hire them again, the result is going to be economic slowdown.
  4. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    You mean private sector?
  5. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
  6. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I really don't see Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Thune, or Mitch Daniels as more viable.



    Everybody thought Tim Pawlenty would be a great establishment, moderate choice to beat Romney and be better in a general election. Anyone remember him?

    Everybody thought Rick Perry would be a great choice, able to unify the Tea Party and the establishment. I think everyone remembers how that turned out.

    Or going back to 2008, remember when everyone thought that Sarah Palin would be this great moderate, unifying Republican governor who would bring a lot of expertise to the table as well as appeal to Independents and bitter "Hillary-first Democrats"? Yeah.



    Mitch Daniels, John Thune, would be just more boring and pessimistic duds that never go anywhere. Chris Christie would be revealed as a moderate and shunned by the base, and make rookie mistakes since he's only been in office for 2 years. Jeb Bush is also too moderate, and he's a Bush.

    If the GOP does go to a brokered convention, and picks someone who didn't even run for President in this cycle (like Jeb Bush), the GOP base would freak out and split from the party. It's amazing that these establishment types can't see that. Most of the primary voters are voting in a way to spite their establishment anyways. But if the GOP establishment actually took away Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul, and said all the primaries they voted in don't matter, that they're just going to skip the democratic process and just pick one of their guys, and especially if they nominate another Bush, then the Republican Party would explode. You'd probably see a 3rd party, and even 4th party, get more popular votes than the official Republican nominee.

    As an Obama supporter, and as someone who would be terrified of someone like Santorum or Gingrich becoming President, I'd like a brokered convention with the GOP elite choosing Jeb Bush to be their nominee. But if the GOP elite actually do this, and the fact that some of them are already openly and publically hoping for this, just proves that they are idiots.
  7. Yodaminch Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    I just don't understand why they don't choose a qualified Republican the likes of Colin Powell (maybe not him, but someone on his level much like McCain). If McCain of 2000 had run instead of the grumpy, base appealing, Palin picking one we had, Obama would have been in serious trouble. McCain had the qualities that appealed to a lot of people but he ended up sinking himself with a lot of bad choices much like all the current candidates are now doing. He also didn't benefit from the type of fight Hillary and Obama had. Of course, Democrats actually had two decent choices. I think McCain won because much like right now, the alternatives weren't too appealing.

    For example, were she not so tainted by the Bush administration and if she had perhaps left the country in a better shape, Condoleezza Rice would have been a great choice at some point in terms of appealing to a variety of voters. She's certainly more intelligent than Sarah Palin and her accomplishments are certainly impressive on paper. But I suppose the same can be said about several other GOP candidates.

    That said, I imagine Republicans would probably flock to her over Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul right now. Then again, I imagine anyone with less baggage is looking good at this point. Mike Huckabee might want to rethink his decision should they actually have a brokered convention.
  8. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The McCain of 2000 could never have won anything in 2008. The Republican Party is very extreme even in its center right now. It is unwelcoming to people Powell, McCain of days past and others like them.
  9. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I don't quite understand the narrative that McCain would've been any better in 2000 than he was in 2008. Was it because he was unfairly maligned in racist South Carolina with Karl Rove's black baby thing? He was still part of the Keating Five, the dude who supported his state's decision to reject MLK Jr. day until it became economically unfeasible, and generally the same slimy **** he had been since his naval service.
  10. Yodaminch Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    It's a number of factors. Age being one. By 2008, he appeared a much more grumpy old man. In 2000 he seemed a bit more passionate. Absolutely as a person, he has plenty of skeletons. My point was that overall, voters did gravitate towards him simply for the "war hero" thing. It's one of those qualities that Republicans can trumpet very loud that it drowns out all the other attacks. The Democrats tried it of course with Kerry. But I will say this. McCain certainly seemed to have more life than Kerry. Plus the flip flopper attack wasn't as strong(although to be fair to Kerry, I'm pretty sure Romney now trumps everyone when it comes to flipflopping).

    Anyway, I understand that the inmates are running the asylum and the sane choices like Powell will never have a shot. So I do hope it goes brokered and the party explodes.
  11. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Romney made another unscripted appearance, this time at the race track. Guess what happened? :p




    :oops: :oops: :oops:
  12. Yodaminch Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Hey guys!

    I think Mitt Romney might be really wealthy. What do you think? :p
  13. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Rick Santorum and the evils of college. You know, those liberal places where students pick up left-wing ideas like separation of church and state and tolerance of people who have different beliefs than you?
  14. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Frothy: High gas prices caused recession.:oops:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/santorum-high-gas-prices-caused-the-recession/
  15. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Lol, the entire college world is a liberal conspiracy. Well, if Santorum is an example of the world that is not said liberal conspiracy then I embrace that liberal world.

    Santorum and the separation of church and state

    "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

    The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.



    wow.
  16. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Frothy is exactly the kind of man voters feared Jack Kennedy would have been due to his religion.
  17. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I agree with Santorum that high gas prices were an important tipping point into the recession. Higher and higher home prices were driving people farther and farther away from their place of work to purchase a home. People purchasing homes past the point of affordability with nothing down then see a near-doubling of pump prices. Suddenly they are paying $50-$60 or more every 2-3 days for their half-tank round trip SUV commute. You bet it made a difference. It had other broad effects on consumer prices too that made day to day living less affordable and tipped marginal home owners into insolvency.
  18. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Rick Santorum is the one with an evil upside-down worldview, despite using these exact words to describe Obama. His worldview is a conspiracy theory with a massive following, and it's the result of Fox News brainwashing millions of people across the country. If this guy somehow wins the presidency, I would gladly advocate secession from the Union.
  19. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    To my knowledge Brazil has been energy indpedent since 2006 or 2007 thanks to ethanol investments. I donot know to what pertentage said investment frees them from oil. I do know they only export, they do not import energy.
  20. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    They are energy-independent because of their massive oil and gas reserves. Ethanol is mainly used in their cars; they also have a lot of cars that run on natural gas. Ethanol is only around 20% of their car fuel consumption IIRC.

    Brazil is a pretty unique situation too since they have huge amounts of land to grow sugarcane on without comprimising food production. They actually export ethanol.
  21. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    A quick blurb on a radio show today stated that the United States could be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. I wish someone somewhere would make up their minds. I read up a while back that for 80 billion dollars the United States could run 24/7 on solar power. That's a large sum of money. That figure is nothing compared to the trillions being eaten by mortgage debt, bailouts to banks, etc.
  22. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 6
    Yep, graduate school is where I learned that Rick Santorum is an idiot.

    Oh, wait, I didn't need my masters degree to figure that one out. I have a functional cerebral cortex; that's all I needed.

    As far as natural gas and solar power in the US, my thinking is that the oil company lobbyists are the reasons we aren't there yet. I'd say we need to convince the oil companies to invest in green energy instead--if I'm not mistaken, some of them may have begun to do so.
  23. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    Solar power is not baseload-useful in its current state. Imagine the energy storage needed to power the entirety of the USA at night.
  24. Aytee-Aytee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    I would argue that aside from necessary energy consumption (hospitals, etc.), the USA would be better off mostly blacked out as soon as the sun goes down. Artificial light pollution is detrimental both to human health and the environment.
  25. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6