Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[StrangeSox]

I am not certain that is what he intended to have happen. I believe he was advocating for a "take any job and learn to work for a living" philosophy.

 

Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school.

 

He explicitly advocates for eliminating union janitorial jobs and replacing them with non-union child labor.

[EvilMonkey]

He explicitly advocates for eliminating union janitorial jobs and replacing them with non-union child labor.

As an example, then goes on to say take any job that teaches you how to work, show up on time, etc.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Is Herman Cain ACTIVELY trying to tank his campaign?

[Balta1701]

What'd I miss?

[HuskyCaucasian]

What'd I miss?

Herman Cain: Thank God My Arab Doctor Wasn’t Muslim!

 

He did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon’s name was “Dr. Abdallah.”

“I said to his physician assistant, I said, ‘That sounds foreign—not that I had anything against foreign doctors—but it sounded too foreign,” Cain tells the audience. “She said, ‘He’s from Lebanon.’ Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Cain, he’s a Christian from Lebanon.’”

 

“Hallelujah!” Cain says. “Thank God!”

[mr_genius]

Is Herman Cain ACTIVELY trying to tank his campaign?

 

i don't think he expected to ever be in contention for the nomination and when he started polling well was like "oh s***."

[HuskyCaucasian]

Latest Poll:

24%- Gingrich

20% - Mitt Romney

17% - Herman Cain (down from 25% last month)

11% - Rick Perry

9% - Ron Paul

5% - Michele Bachmann

3% - Rick Santorum

3% - Jon Huntsman

 

[mr_genius]

Latest Poll:

24%- Gingrich

20% - Mitt Romney

17% - Herman Cain (down from 25% last month)

11% - Rick Perry

9% - Ron Paul

5% - Michele Bachmann

3% - Rick Santorum

3% - Jon Huntsman

 

about what i expected. Newt a little higher than anticipated.

[Texsox]

Just received a call from Newt. Seems that Obama has turned the country into a failed European secular socialistic something or other. Why am I receiving candidate calls?

[mr_genius]

Just received a call from Newt. Seems that Obama has turned the country into a failed European secular socialistic something or other. Why am I receiving candidate calls?

 

i bet you still use a land line phone.

[Texsox]

We need one for our security system, the cell is the backup. But the phone itself is a cordless

[StrangeSox]

We need one for our security system, the cell is the backup. But the phone itself is a cordless

 

If I cut your phone line, does your system go down?

[mr_genius]

If I cut your phone line, does your system go down?

 

don't answer that, texsox

[Texsox]

If I cut your phone line, does your system go down?

 

It actuates a few things, one, the local monitoring system is notified that the phone is down and the police are contacted. Two, it switches to a cell back up, if one of our cells are available. Three an alarm sounds and four, my favorite, either myself or a couple of the neighbors show up with Texas size weapons and we play, who can shoot the home invader first.

[Balta1701]

Supposedly Mittens goes up on the air with his first ad in New Hampshire today. Between Newt's nuttiness being the focus of the last few days and that, time to watch some NH polling to see if the "Narrow lead for Newt" continues repeating itself there.

[StrangeSox]

"The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

 

I repeat my early question.

[NorthSideSox72]

"The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

 

I repeat my early question.

Is that Newt?

 

By the way, I am surprised there is no talk about the epic fail of the Supercommitteeofbudgetaryawesomeness. I blame all of them, though it sure seems that at least the Dems were willing to negotiate their stands on cutting programs. The GOP'ers were apparently not interested in budging on taxes. So the Dems failed, and the GOP failed worse. No wonder people like Communism and Root Canals more than Congress right now.

 

[Balta1701]

By the way, I am surprised there is no talk about the epic fail of the Supercommitteeofbudgetaryawesomeness. I blame all of them, though it sure seems that at least the Dems were willing to negotiate their stands on cutting programs. The GOP'ers were apparently not interested in budging on taxes. So the Dems failed, and the GOP failed worse. No wonder people like Communism and Root Canals more than Congress right now.

I've been using "also, the sun came up today" as my response to the less-surprising MLB awards. I believe that is applicable here also.

[StrangeSox]

Is that Newt?

 

yup.

 

By the way, I am surprised there is no talk about the epic fail of the Supercommitteeofbudgetaryawesomeness. I blame all of them, though it sure seems that at least the Dems were willing to negotiate their stands on cutting programs. The GOP'ers were apparently not interested in budging on taxes. So the Dems failed, and the GOP failed worse. No wonder people like Communism and Root Canals more than Congress right now.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that:

 

Can we please cut out this brand of horses***? The facts: Democrats initially proposed a plan that, among other things, included $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings and several hundred billion in Social Security savings via a new inflation formula. Republicans responded with a package that was pure spending and benefit cuts. They followed that with a plan that included $300 billion in tax increases paired with an extension of the Bush tax cuts, which was very plainly a net tax decrease that exploded the deficit rather than reducing it. Democrats responded with a revised plan that included new revenues plus substantial cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other domestic programs. In other words, Democrats were willing to propose cuts in domestic programs. It was exactly the same dynamic that played out during the debt ceiling debacle, with Obama persistently offering up big plans that included significant entitlement cuts and Republicans flatly rejecting them because they also included new revenues.

 

Look: Democrats are no angels. They're politicians, and they're driven by the same grubby political motives that animate all politicians. But Republicans are "arguably" more intransigent? "Both parties deserve blame"? Come on. What exactly would Democrats have had to do in order to avoid this lazy formulation? How much compromise were they supposed to offer in the sure knowledge that every single one of

 

I don't know how you can accuse the Democrats of failing when success was impossible unless they simply gave in to every Republican demand. And I'll highlight that the Republicans were adamant on making an 11-figure hole in the budget permanent, belying any notion that they're actually serious about deficit reduction.

[NorthSideSox72]

yup.

 

 

 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that:

 

 

 

I don't know how you can accuse the Democrats of failing when success was impossible unless they simply gave in to every Republican demand. And I'll highlight that the Republicans were adamant on making an 11-figure hole in the budget permanent, belying any notion that they're actually serious about deficit reduction.

Not sure how you are disagreeing with me. Unless you are saying the Republicans are 100% at fault, whereas I was hinting at more like 75%.

 

[StrangeSox]

Not sure how you are disagreeing with me. Unless you are saying the Republicans are 100% at fault, whereas I was hinting at more like 75%.

 

Right, if two sides come to the negotiating table and one side will not accept any offer at all except the one that meets every one of their demands and gives zero in return, it's hard to blame the other party for any of the failure.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right, if two sides come to the negotiating table and one side will not accept any offer at all except the one that meets every one of their demands and gives zero in return, it's hard to blame the other party for any of the failure.

That of course is not what happened. Both parties came in with steep demands that the other party didn't like. That includes your Democrats, who were not very flexible on some things. However, it is also true that the GOP upped the stubborn ante a few extra degrees by standing adamantly against any sort of tax increases. That would be equivalent to the Dems saying they were adamantly against any program cuts at all. So yes, the Republicans were the more stubborn, less useful party in these talks. But that doesn't mean the Dems were without blame.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

yup.

 

 

 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that:

 

 

 

I don't know how you can accuse the Democrats of failing when success was impossible unless they simply gave in to every Republican demand. And I'll highlight that the Republicans were adamant on making an 11-figure hole in the budget permanent, belying any notion that they're actually serious about deficit reduction.

 

I don't have a problem with the Republican's stance against any new revenues. Though to be fair, i'm not sure what the Democrats proposed. If its a "new revenue" in terms of simply rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm fine with that and agree that they need to be rolled back. If it's some more bulls*** "we're not raising taxes just fees and costs for EVERYTHING just so we can continue to spend money," then no.

 

This whole fight is very similar to the NBA lockout. The owners are the Republicans who are trying to change the system. They have the leverage (the American people are behind them) and know it, so they're going to fight for the best deal for them going forward. At the end of the day a 10% cut across the board is probably going to sit well for the vast majority of voters. The players/union are the Democrats who are agreeable to some slight changes to the system, but only on their terms. They want to have their cake (we provide) and eat it too (at no cost!)

Edited November 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't have a problem with the Republican's stance against any new revenues. Though to be fair, i'm not sure what the Democrats proposed. If its a "new revenue" in terms of simply rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm fine with that and agree that they need to be rolled back. If it's some more bulls*** "we're not raising taxes just fees and costs for EVERYTHING just so we can continue to spend money," then no.

 

This whole fight is very similar to the NBA lockout. The owners are the Republicans who are trying to change the system. They have the leverage (the American people are behind them) and know it, so they're going to fight for the best deal for them going forward. At the end of the day a 10% cut across the board is probably going to sit well for the vast majority of voters. The players/union are the Democrats who are agreeable to some slight changes to the system, but only on their terms. They want to have their cake (we provide) and eat it too (at no cost!)

Actually, like the NBA lockout, neither party has the American people behind them. The fans / people are 90% of the mind they are both being stupid.

 

[StrangeSox]

I don't have a problem with the Republican's stance against any new revenues. Though to be fair, i'm not sure what the Democrats proposed. If its a "new revenue" in terms of simply rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm fine with that and agree that they need to be rolled back. If it's some more bulls*** "we're not raising taxes just fees and costs for EVERYTHING just so we can continue to spend money," then no.

 

It was continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone in the lower brackets but letting the top one sunset. Republicans adamantly refused any considerations of new revenues, even though their tax cuts are what blew a lot of the big wholes in the budget.

 

I don't know how you can support a hardline stance against any new revenues while also decrying budget deficits. If they're such an awful problem, use the best tools available to fix them. Don't just target the same welfare state programs you always have hated while proposing even more tax cuts.

 

This whole fight is very similar to the NBA lockout. The owners are the Republicans who are trying to change the system.

 

You mean there wouldn't be a problem if the Republicans weren't forcing everyone to change the rules in their favor?

 

They have the leverage (the American people are behind them)

 

False. Strong majorities of Americans favored a balanced approach. Republican GOP candidates would reject a 10-1 deal.

 

and know it, so they're going to fight for the best deal for them going forward. At the end of the day a 10% cut across the board is probably going to sit well for the vast majority of voters. The players/union are the Democrats who are agreeable to some slight changes to the system, but only on their terms. They want to have their cake (we provide) and eat it too (at no cost!)

 

This is a bizarre interpretation of both the NBA owners' lockout of the players and what's actually happened here. The Republicans want to cut the same programs they've always wanted to cut, protect the ones they like (DOD!) and also cut taxes. Yet they're the ones with serious, good-faith proposals? And the Democrats, who have offered substantial welfare state program cuts in return for smaller revenues, are playing "only on their terms"?

 

What sort of bizzarro world do you live in?