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.

Ouze wrote:I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.

The issue with Rubio is that nominating him opens a Senate seat that won't otherwise be open for contention until 2016. Moreover, the GOP already needs to make up ground in the Senate, whereas they hold the majority in the House. I think this fact alone overcomes any possible advantages that Rubio brings to the table. After all, the Republicans don't really need to win this Presidential election. In fact they're almost better served by shoring up their position in Congress, while spending another 4 years attempting to tar the Democrat brand; meaning they'll have an easier time getting a candidate they actually want into the 2016 election.

Its also possible that Rubio was offered the nomination, but chose to turn it down as there is an argument to be made that Senators have an easier time running for the Oval Office than VPs because they're free from any potential taint of the outgoing Administration. Again, possibly aiming for a bid in 2016 or 2020.

As to Ryan: anyone who can read Ayn Rand without denting a wall several times is unworthy of my respect. However, he is good in front of a camera, certainly better than Biden who basically got a free pass against Palin. That said, statistically VP choice has little impact on candidate approval, usually no more than 1-2 points. But then, this cycle, that may be enough.

I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?

•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015

.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/what-is-ryan-plan-budget-proposal-back-in-spotlight-with-vp-announcement/#ixzz23GGA2ouH

Melissia wrote:

whembly wrote:eh... at least he has a plan.

Just because he has a plan doesn't mean his plan is actually worthy of consideration. A stupid plan is worse than no plan at all.

whembly wrote:And we do need to talk about it in our lifetime... the status quo can't stay. So, cuts/raise taxes must happen soon.

The guy plans on cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations, raising taxes for most anyone on the lower end of the middle class or in the working class, and cutting the budget by 75% even though he isn't going to touch defense spending, which will continue to grow in his budget.

This isn't "talking about it", this is political posturing to score points.

Even though the Seniors liked "push grannie off the cliff"' plan?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147287/Americans-Divided-Ryan-Obama-Deficit-Plans.aspx?version=print
Go figure...

Caveat... that poll is old and no one was paying attention to politics back then...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?

•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015

.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/what-is-ryan-plan-budget-proposal-back-in-spotlight-with-vp-announcement/#ixzz23GGA2ouH

Whoa... me likey!

Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?

The major problem with it is that its a pipe-dream. For example, he's basically pledging to cut the federal budget in half within 2 years (any budget he proposes wouldn't take effect until 2013), that's never going to happen. Especially if he wants to avoid defense cuts.

Ryan Paul, the guy who believes that rich people have too little money and middle class people have too much. Good choice for Romney.

Its going to happen as we go back to a peace time army. No denying it. It'll be a "good attempt" on his part to avoid the cuts in defense but unless we're going to go to war with China or Iran in the future....

edit
Besides the Defense cuts will limit our options in South China Sea Limit our response incase Iran tries to close the Straight of Homuz. Basically let other nations handle their affairs instead of us playing world police

Jenna Jameson promotes Romney:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/jenna-jameson-clarifies-her-endorsement-of-romney.html

Clint Eastwood also supports Romney

•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."

His voucher system deoesn't scale with cost, and, with no plan on how to reduce cost, that means that the yearly cost to plan owners will increase by thousands over the next few decades.

•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.

And a resulting increase in tax paid for anyone making under 40k.

•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.

Yes, and that's why it doesn't work. Defense spending is going to keep rising while the budget shrinks, causing there to bel e ss and less money for everything else.

Oh, an fox news doesn't count as news.

Jihadin wrote:Clint Eastwood also supports Romney

You didn't read the article, did you?

Melissia wrote:Oh, an fox news doesn't count as news.

Thank you Rachel Maddow.

You posted Jenna Jamison supported Romney. A porn star. Yes I read the article. So either you posted to get a shock or saying porn stars supports Romney in a negative way. I could care less As for Clint supporting Romney. I could care less

I think Ryan will be good. We can poke holes in his budget cut plan but perhaps it is better than adding 10% to the total deficit annually.

The part that disgusts me is the pay for everything under the sun on tomorrow's dollars.

I would be happy if the country would cut all the spending including the defense budget. We can stop being the policeman of the world and let other nations form a consensus. Then they can't bitch and moan about unilateral actions by the US.

The basic arguement is going to be bread and games - the Obama plan and austerity - the Romney plan.
Personnally while I agree with cutting up the credit cards, I have trust that Americans will make the easy choice and continue the bread and games plan.

Greece here we come!!!

Jihadin wrote:Clint Eastwood also supports Romney

A moderate Republican supports a moderate Republican*? My god, what are the odds?


*Not as moderate as he was as Governor, but running for national office has a way of making some candidates contort their political stances. I think a lot of people would have liked the Governor of Mass Romney better then Presidential Candidate Romney, but to get to that point he had to jump through so many Republican hoops that former was killed by the latter.

Or , Jihadin, I posted it because it was funny.

then add "LOL" then I would see where you were going with it.

Aye it was the New Yorker like mate, I don't think it was serious.

Although, I don't find the New Yorker funny generally..

I don't read the New Yorker lol Only time I actually read the paper is when I'm deployed and have to deal with US Army Times. I can't even watch CNN anymore

Melissia wrote:

•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.

And a resulting increase in tax paid for anyone making under 40k

Well, I'd imagine that most companies don't pay anything like that much tax now, regardless of how much they are supposed to pay...

dogma wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think this was a poor choice. In my armchair analysis, I think his unfavorables are too high (especially among the elderly, who are very likely to vote!), and delivering Wisconsin - a swing state he may have won anyway, with merely 10 electoral votes - isn't worth it. If he wanted a Tea Party candidate, I think Rubio would have done better in all arenas. My last analysis was that Obama would win but it would be a very tough race. I'm even more inclined to believe that.

The issue with Rubio is that nominating him opens a Senate seat that won't otherwise be open for contention until 2016. Moreover, the GOP already needs to make up ground in the Senate, whereas they hold the majority in the House. I think this fact alone overcomes any possible advantages that Rubio brings to the table. After all, the Republicans don't really need to win this Presidential election. In fact they're almost better served by shoring up their position in Congress, while spending another 4 years attempting to tar the Democrat brand; meaning they'll have an easier time getting a candidate they actually want into the 2016 election.

Its also possible that Rubio was offered the nomination, but chose to turn it down as there is an argument to be made that Senators have an easier time running for the Oval Office than VPs because they're free from any potential taint of the outgoing Administration. Again, possibly aiming for a bid in 2016 or 2020.

As to Ryan: anyone who can read Ayn Rand without denting a wall several times is unworthy of my respect. However, he is good in front of a camera, certainly better than Biden who basically got a free pass against Palin. That said, statistically VP choice has little impact on candidate approval, usually no more than 1-2 points. But then, this cycle, that may be enough.

Who would you have picked?

*rabble rabble rabble*

This selection may have made up my mind for my vote.

Will have to see the debates and such go, see exactly how it shakes out.

Yes!

I was sincerely hoping Romney would pick someone that's flying rodent gak crazy, and he did not let me down.


Tea Partier + Randist = another casualty of YouTube.




EDIT: The filter picked up "bat"? Weird...

Nah, more like bat-bleep becomes flying rodent gak.

whembly wrote:

Saw a little blurb on CNN that there's speculation that Hillary is "saying goodbye" to staffers at the States Dept.

No news there, she announced months ago she was retiring after the election.

Oh daaaamn...

I'm watching his speech now in VA...

His charisma reminds me of Bill Clinton (and oozes charisma).

This is going to be a fun election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

whembly wrote:

Saw a little blurb on CNN that there's speculation that Hillary is "saying goodbye" to staffers at the States Dept.

No news there, she announced months ago she was retiring after the election.

Dang... I thought it's coincidential...

If she does run as VP, it's over... just saying...

Whenever I hear Paul Ryan I think of Andrew Ryan.

This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.

ShumaGorath wrote:This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.

The thing is... there's no VP pick that the Dems won't demonize...

So... what should've he done?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Whenever I hear Paul Ryan I think of Andrew Ryan.

me too!

Jihadin wrote:I take it the facts of Ryan plan here below is disgusting?

•The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
•The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
•The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
•The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
•The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
•The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015

.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/what-is-ryan-plan-budget-proposal-back-in-spotlight-with-vp-announcement/#ixzz23GGA2ouH

Everything sounds nice when it's written by a supporter and placed onto a propaganda website, gives no actual information, and is condensed into little bullet points without context.

The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/what-is-ryan-plan-budget-proposal-back-in-spotlight-with-vp-announcement/#ixzz23H7hr2Bk

Like this for instance. Without context that sounds nice, but in context they're actually receiving less and worse care under this plan then they are now. They will receive more than others without greater health risks, but the bullet points never actually state that everyone gets less.

I agree Shuma

Like the Defense Budget cut. Its going to happen regardless of what they do. No justification to maintain full strength combat units (plus brigades mainly)

whembly wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:This will energize both parties, it's certainly conservative credit for Romney since Ryan is a much less tainted star and scores well with hardcores. The dudes reviled by everyone with common sense though so this isn't going to get more moderates in Romneys corners.

The thing is... there's no VP pick that the Dems won't demonize...

So... what should've he done?

I don't think this was a wrong move. Romneys adoption of a middle road candidate might have grabbed him a portion of the undecideds, but what he needs right now is to not be the "last resort" candidate for the republican party. When the majority of republican voters will vote for him because they "have to" rather than because he inspires the cause it can cause a low turnout. He's probably hedged the bet that increasing loyalist turnout via a hardcore VP pick would net him more votes than playing to moderacy and trying to capture more of the vanishing center.

Unfortunately Paul Ryan is really easy to attack since his plan is horse gak and no one not on a conservative payroll that knows anything about simple mathematics thinks it's anything other than the teaparties wishlist of ideological cuts.