Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Easy E wrote:I guess the Repub strategists have got nothin' then?

Pretty much.

Unemployment has fallen from when Obama first took office. The economy has gotten better since then. As a country, civil liberties are applied more equally since then and we have withdrawn from one war and are starting to withdraw from a second, and, though it is by no means perfect (it was a Republican idea after all, even if they have now disowned it because Obama used it), we have had effective health care reform with more on the way.

And the only thing that Romney has tried to say he'll do is give tax breaks to the rich (who as a group have the greatest level of income in the history of the US) while effectively raising taxes on the middle class through removing tax breaks that apply to the middle class, especially small business owners, and cut a ton of social security netting that will disproportionately effect the poor and middle class. Aside from that, there's been no substance in anything Romney's said.

biccat wrote:Republicans figuring out how to respond to being called racist isn't news. It's smart politics.

You've managed to edit out the bit where their response to being called racist is what they anticipate after going on a campaign of race-baiting. Your ability to ignore the substance of an issue is really quite incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Cough ***current economy *** cough
but agreed, thats more appropriate when he was intiially running - too bad no one vetted him then. its almost as bad as going back 50 years and ginning up a high school prank as just just this side of inventing Zyklon B and cackling while you shove people into ovens.

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign. So the Democrats tried that 'Romney was a school bully and hates gays thing', figuring that if it didn't stick it'd be long forgotten come election day, but if it worked on any level then woohoo. Republicans are trying the same thing with this race baiting thing.

Both efforts are stupid. Difference is one is quite a bit uglier than the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gregor_xenos wrote:You obviously didnt serve in the military under this cretin..... Or the current one.

Please, do follow this up with some urban myths about Democratic presidents being totally disrespectful to service men.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Unemployment has fallen from when Obama first took office. The economy has gotten better since then.

This is making light of the issue, the economy is still an albatross around Obama's neck (through no fault of his own, of course, but people don't like to think the guy isn't able to just fix everything).

It's why, despite Romney being lukewarm in his own party, Obama has only a modest lead in the polls, and in-trade has betting odds for an Obama return at just 60%.

That said, I personally think people are, in general, looking too much at Obama's slight lead in the polls at present and assuming they're as likely as not to improve or decline. That assumption fails to account for the fact that Obama is a particularly good campaigner, not only in person but in terms of the support infrastructure he builds, while Romney is a particularly mediocre one, with nothing like the support infrastructure even after a hard fought primary campaign (too much money spent on attack ads, not enough people knocking on doors). As such, I think the odds are far greater for Obama to be returned, just like despite starting more or less even in polling in 2004, Bush pulled ahead in 2004 because he was an excellent campaigner and John Kerry was most certainly not.

Once again, my vote will be going to Kodos.

LoneLictor wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

I don't get why they'd try to go with this. It wasn't effective in 2008, and now that he's actually been president for 4 years, it's pretty clear he's not some radical Black Panther type. I think they should probably try to focus on the things he's actually said and done rather than things some other dude (who isn't running for president) said. It's not so much that it's underhanded so much as it's proven to not have worked.

So it's underhanded and dumb?

It's like when a conman tells you, "Uhh.... I'm a wallet inspector.... heh, heh.... gimme yer wallet. Yeah. Heh."

As long as they show you their badge first... wait...

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign.

No. US citizens are. You're not. Its our political campaign and election, not yours. If you don't like kindly push off. I'm sure Australia could use your rapierlike political commentary far more than a foreign country several thousand miles away.

Our system is starting to head towards what yours is, campaign style at least. Not there yet but getting there...

Frazzled wrote:

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign.

No. US citizens are. You're not. Its our political campaign and election, not yours. If you don't like kindly push off. I'm sure Australia could use your rapierlike political commentary far more than a foreign country several thousand miles away.

Given how stupidly horrible the US elections seem to be, it might do you good to get some people in from the outside to give comment on what is going on.

You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

SilverMK2 wrote:
You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

I know its horrible, yet strangely we manage to survive whilst our European betters well, how many Spanish banks are going to fail today?

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:He also left office with the highest end of term approval rating, and I guess you don't care that he was acquitted from the charges and finished his term.

Interesting view of history you've got there.

But he had a good approval rating, so that makes it ok.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

Yes. In fact Bangladesh and Pakistan are amongst the largest contributors in terms of manpower.

biccat wrote:
Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

They do. In fact one particular contributing member has kept a supply of red coats especially in a case of a return to the colonies

I like Clinton, but multiple presidents had higher approval ratings at the end. of the two termers after FDR: Nixon, Truman, and Reagan are better, and Eisenhower is like the hammer of God in comparison.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

According to the UN, you aren't even in the TOP 20... ( http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf )

Must be all those countries that you guys keep invading that prevent you from lending troops to the UN...

PhantomViper wrote:

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

According to the UN, you aren't even in the TOP 20... ( http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf )

Must be all those countries that you guys keep invading that prevent you from lending troops to the UN...

Shush, you are just interfering with the conservative "the US is fighting everyone's war" argument.

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

According to the UN, you aren't even in the TOP 20... ( http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf )

Must be all those countries that you guys keep invading that prevent you from lending troops to the UN...

Shush, you are just interfering with the conservative "the US is fighting everyone's war" argument.

The US are fighting everyone... That is why they're not able to be peacekeepers

SilverMK2 wrote:

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

According to the UN, you aren't even in the TOP 20... ( http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/backgroundnote.pdf )

Must be all those countries that you guys keep invading that prevent you from lending troops to the UN...

Shush, you are just interfering with the conservative "the US is fighting everyone's war" argument.

The US are fighting everyone... That is why they're not able to be peacekeepers

The best defense is a strong offense?

Frazzled wrote:

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign.

No. US citizens are. You're not. Its our political campaign and election, not yours. If you don't like kindly push off. I'm sure Australia could use your rapierlike political commentary far more than a foreign country several thousand miles away.

Huh, I think for a foreigner, Sebs has a pretty strong grasp of how American politics works. Better than a lot of people in the US.

Its not like a secret club or Masonic society. Heck, we let anyone take a look at our founding documents, and our media broadcasts the details of day-to-day politics to anyone willing to invest the time into watching it.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign.

No. US citizens are. You're not. Its our political campaign and election, not yours. If you don't like kindly push off. I'm sure Australia could use your rapierlike political commentary far more than a foreign country several thousand miles away.

Huh, I think for a foreigner, Sebs has a pretty strong grasp of how American politics works. Better than a lot of people in the US.

Its not like a secret club or Masonic society. Heck, we let anyone take a look at our founding documents, and our media broadcasts the details of day-to-day politics to anyone willing to invest the time into watching it.

Frazzled is playing the "You don't live here, you don't know how it is, man!" card again.

Heck, I live here and I sometimes can't figure out what is going on.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

We're basically in the 'throw stupid gak at the wall and see what sticks' part of the campaign.

No. US citizens are. You're not. Its our political campaign and election, not yours. If you don't like kindly push off. I'm sure Australia could use your rapierlike political commentary far more than a foreign country several thousand miles away.

Huh, I think for a foreigner, Sebs has a pretty strong grasp of how American politics works. Better than a lot of people in the US.

Its not like a secret club or Masonic society. Heck, we let anyone take a look at our founding documents, and our media broadcasts the details of day-to-day politics to anyone willing to invest the time into watching it.

Frazzled is playing the "You don't live here, you don't know how it is, man!" card again.

No not at all. I'm playing the "don't give me that 'we' nonsense crap from an Australian, its not your election" card again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:
Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

They do. In fact one particular contributing member has kept a supply of red coats especially in a case of a return to the colonies

Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Frazzled wrote:
Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Between continuing to be a part of the current EU and becoming part of the US, I don't really know if the Brits wouldn't choose to become your newest states...

PhantomViper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Between continuing to be a part of the current EU and becoming part of the US, I don't really know if the Brits wouldn't choose to become your newest states...

We aren't French, so they will come down on our side. But Fraz is wrong, they will be states 52-56 (we need Canada as a jumping off point).

The British Isles are about the same size as Nevada. No need for multiple states.

I say we build some casinos in London, legalize prostitution everywhere else, and bill it as a colder, wetter version of Vegas.

Bromsy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Between continuing to be a part of the current EU and becoming part of the US, I don't really know if the Brits wouldn't choose to become your newest states...

We aren't French, so they will come down on our side. But Fraz is wrong, they will be states 52-56 (we need Canada as a jumping off point).

You're right. Sorry. But make that 56-60. Canada is worth at least 5 West sized states. Not counting Quebec though. Its still wrong to be French.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The British Isles are about the same size as Nevada. No need for multiple states.

I say we build some casinos in London, legalize prostitution everywhere else, and bill it as a colder, wetter version of Vegas.

Population is huge though on a relative basis. We don't need a super NY messing things up.
I'm cool about the casinoes though. You could build a Mideaval Times..in a real castle!

Frazzled wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Between continuing to be a part of the current EU and becoming part of the US, I don't really know if the Brits wouldn't choose to become your newest states...

We aren't French, so they will come down on our side. But Fraz is wrong, they will be states 52-56 (we need Canada as a jumping off point).

You're right. Sorry. But make that 56-60. Canada is worth at least 5 West sized states. Not counting Quebec though. Its still wrong to be French.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The British Isles are about the same size as Nevada. No need for multiple states.

I say we build some casinos in London, legalize prostitution everywhere else, and bill it as a colder, wetter version of Vegas.

Population is huge though on a relative basis. We don't need a super NY messing things up.
I'm cool about the casinoes though. You could build a Mideaval Times..in a real castle!

Nah, it's going to be the ultimate kick in the teeth. We take over Canada, make it one state called North Montana or South Alaska, and get the coveted "Real life troll of the century" award.

biccat wrote:The British Isles are about the same size as Nevada. No need for multiple states.

I say we build some casinos in London, legalize prostitution everywhere else, and bill it as a colder, wetter version of Vegas.

so........ Blackpool is already dirty atlantic city so we're good

This is politics. Obama did go to a church that espouses ideals that are how shall we say off-center.

Also whoever said the economy is better you are fooling yoursel they are playing with the statistics. It is actually worse right. than it was when Obama took over.

full disclosure i earn 35000 a year

Also giving tax breaks to ther rich helps everyone heres how:
multimillionaire has extra money decides to start a resturant
pays for premises (owner of premises has money to spend and will probably go out and do so.)
pays engineers architects and contractors to bring premises to the way they want it. (10-20 people paid)
hires chef resturant manager host and waiters (10-15 jobs created)
buys supplies from food suppliers(farmers, truck drivers paid)
People come in and buy food making investor profit. (repeat)

so instead of taking that money from him and more than likely it will only create temporary jobs. (the gov't has a hard time creating permanent jobs...I know i work as a gov't contractor)

EDIT: also Frazzled remember the franch conquered the english in 1066 (i know it was my family.)(ohh and my ancestor was the first person born in quebec so. I take slight offense.)

Bromsy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bring it. I'm, sure when the UK becomes the 51-55 states in the Union they will make excellent states.

Between continuing to be a part of the current EU and becoming part of the US, I don't really know if the Brits wouldn't choose to become your newest states...

We aren't French, so they will come down on our side. But Fraz is wrong, they will be states 52-56 (we need Canada as a jumping off point).

You're right. Sorry. But make that 56-60. Canada is worth at least 5 West sized states. Not counting Quebec though. Its still wrong to be French.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The British Isles are about the same size as Nevada. No need for multiple states.

I say we build some casinos in London, legalize prostitution everywhere else, and bill it as a colder, wetter version of Vegas.

Population is huge though on a relative basis. We don't need a super NY messing things up.
I'm cool about the casinoes though. You could build a Mideaval Times..in a real castle!

Nah, it's going to be the ultimate kick in the teeth. We take over Canada, make it one state called North Montana or South Alaska, and get the coveted "Real life troll of the century" award.

Respect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EDIT: also Frazzled remember the franch conquered the english in 1066 (i know it was my family.)(ohh and my ancestor was the first person born in quebec so. I take slight offense.)

Nasty little secret
*Some of my ancestors were French Acadian. But they were the good ones-they got kicked out of France and then Canada so are right and proper American rats!

[quote=Frazzled

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EDIT: also Frazzled remember the franch conquered the english in 1066 (i know it was my family.)(ohh and my ancestor was the first person born in quebec so. I take slight offense.)

Nasty little secret
*Some of my ancestors were French Acadian. But they were the good ones-they got kicked out of France and then Canada so are right and proper American rats!

And Spanish and African. English heritage is a massively small minority at this point. Now that I think of it, i don't actually know any native born US citizens with actual English heritage (I do know several Brits though who helped introduce me to proper beer and ales).

captain collius wrote:
Also giving tax breaks to ther rich helps everyone...

Sure, but giving tax breaks to the poor, and the middle class, also helps everyone for the same reasons you outlined. The question isn't about whether or not something helps, the question is about what helps the most. And, because this is politics, who is helped.