30
   

It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

 
 
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 06:38 am
This Paul Ryan statement really says it all for me, "Our rights come from nature and God, not government." THIS is the type of leadership we need in DC someone bold enough to toss out the Bill of Rights!

Well if our "rights" come from nature and from someone's God, then give me my damn rights, because I was made by BOTH of them!
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 08:22 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Obama can't serve 8 more years, he is only allowed 2 terms. That's a total of 8 years.


The 22nd amendment might get repealed, that's what I was implying.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 09:15 am
@sozobe,
FL is now a toss-up (50.3% on intrude) vs strongly leaning red last week.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:12 am
@engineer,
He should have picked Rubio if he wanted to be clever (which I suspected he needed, given his over-cautious persona), or Portman if he was gonna play textbook poker.

While not as vapid as a Palin (which is a tall task for anyone to pull off) this is the same dumb move. They read the tea party leaves wrong and after their party nomination process produces a moderate both times they think the solution in the even more moderate general election is to make a "Fridge-Toaster" candidate that tries to make a Hail Mary pass to the tea party fringe.

It's stupid, they should play the same populist game that Obama plays in the election, and have misread the tea party's significance into believing the country has tacked to that fringe, when it's really just spasmodic reactions to the economy and they can speak that populist language more easily in the center than courting fringe whose frustration with the economy is shared with the public but whose solutions are not.

It's incredible to me that they watch the centrist candidates win the primary and still don't get it, thinking that the general election needs a redefinition rightward. Even if they believe that, how they think it will work with a centrist candidate and a toaster for a veep is baffling.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 06:10 pm
@contrex,
lets assume it does. Are you then willing to allow a repubs president that you don't like to serve as many terms as he or she can get elected to?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:03 am
Quote:
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina — Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will part ways until the Republican convention at a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin just a day after the pair joined up.

Ryan will travel to Des Moines, Iowa, to visit the state fair on Monday, while Romney will continue his swing state bus tour with a stop in Florida.

Romney adviser Kevin Madden denied that the campaign was keeping Ryan out of Florida because of his proposal to privatize Medicare for people under 55; tinkering with the program for the elderly has long been toxic in Florida politics.

"This has more to do with expanding our bandwidth," he told reporters here on Sunday morning. "Gov. Romney is going to be talking about the issues that are important to Floridians."

Madden didn't respond directly to the question of whether Romney will discuss Medicare in Florida tomorrow.

"He’ll be talking about all the issues that are important to Floridians," Madded repeated. "I think Congressman Ryan is going to be able to be down in Florida during this campaign and will be doing the same at some point."


source
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 09:10 am
Here is what some Floridians think of Mitt & Paul.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 09:38 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I agree Romney has the nomination tied up, but what about the election? At about 50%, voter participation in federal elections is low in America. Public opinion is already polarized, so there aren't that many swing voters whose mind he can change this year. So Romney may just be betting that the risk of base voters staying home outweighs the risk of Independents swinging Democratic. I'm not sure that's an unreasonable bet.

That wouldn't be an unreasonable bet if Republicans constituted a majority in the US, but they don't. People who identify as Democrats outnumber self-identified Republicans, so if it came down to a race between energized bases, the Democrats would win every time.

For Republicans, then, the path to victory involves persuading just enough independents to support them while discouraging just enough Democrats from voting. We can already see efforts at the latter in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, and a number of other states. It's questionable, however, whether Romney can persuade independents to support his ticket now that it has the leader of the most-reviled element of the most-despised branch of government on its bottom half.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 11:22 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
People who identify as Democrats outnumber self-identified Republicans,

Are you sure? That's news to me. And for what it's worth, I just checked by Googing "self-identified Republicans Democrats". The first (and most recent) hit I got was this Rasmussen poll from August 1st this year, saying it's 35% Republicans, 34% Democrats.

joefromchicago wrote:
It's questionable, however, whether Romney can persuade independents to support his ticket now that it has the leader of the most-reviled element of the most-despised branch of government on its bottom half.

That's where distractions come in. In the current political environment, everybody who reads a newspaper knows what each party stands for, and whether they like it or not. Your typical "Independents" are no longer the open-minded, critical-thinking citizens that the term evokes. More likely they are ignorant, disoriented morons, easily distracted by Ryan's mild manners, his self-depreciating jokes, his youth, and his good looks (for a politician). Don't expect too much from the independents' talent for discerning candidates based on their platform.

Also don't expect Independents to get too much help from scrutinizing media outlets. Sure, you will hear many reports that "Democrats say" Ryan is a charlatan, a crank, and a wingnut. But you won't hear many outlets reporting, correctly, that the anonymous "Democrats"' assessment on this point would be correct. Instead, everyone will play it safe and stick to he-said, she-said stories. All of the above got G.W. Bush elected and re-elected; it may well work again in this election.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 11:35 am
@Thomas,
Ras utilizes the highest percentage of Republicans to Dems out of all major polling models. I wouldn't hold it up as some sort of gold standard, but instead, as a point on the far end of the spectrum.

Considering that Scott Rasmussen was a pollster for Bush & Co. back in the day, and specifically markets and sells his products to the right-wing media, it's probably best to be slightly skeptical of the veracity of those figures. He pitches a product (polls that are more right-wing in result than all other national polling) and then delivers that product.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 12:05 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Are you sure? That's news to me. And for what it's worth, I just checked by Googing "self-identified Republicans Democrats". The first (and most recent) hit I got was this Rasmussen poll from August 1st this year, saying it's 35% Republicans, 34% Democrats.

Broaden your horizons.

Thomas wrote:
That's where distractions come in. In the current political environment, everybody who reads a newspaper knows what each party stands for, and whether they like it or not. Your typical "Independents" are no longer the open-minded, critical-thinking citizens that the term evokes. More likely they are ignorant, disoriented morons, easily distracted by Ryan's mild manners, his self-depreciating jokes, his youth, and his good looks (for a politician). Don't expect too much from the independents' talent for discerning candidates based on their platform.

I don't. But then even the lowest-information voter will recoil in horror when Ryan is referred to as a "house Republican."

Thomas wrote:
Also don't expect Independents to get too much help from scrutinizing media outlets. Sure, you will hear many reports that "Democrats say" Ryan is a charlatan, a crank, and a wingnut. But you won't hear many outlets reporting, correctly, that the anonymous "Democrats"' assessment on this point would be correct. Instead, everyone will play it safe and stick to he-said, she-said stories. All of the above got G.W. Bush elected and re-elected; it may well work again in this election.

Quite possibly, but the 2011 special election in NY-26 already has shown that voters find Ryan's policies repellant.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 12:11 pm
There are a lot of great zingers to be had in the Ryan budget.

Not the least of which being the fact that, under Ryan's plan, Romney would pay exactly zero dollars in income taxes.

Cycloptichorn
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 12:12 pm
@contrex,
I knew I liked ya, Contrex. (I just figured you meant more dem years in office)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 12:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
That seems so clear to me, joefromc - that TPaw and Portman would have been safe.

Maybe he doesn't actually want to be president. I can imagine anyone developing serious misgivings along the way; in fact, that may be the sanest reaction while running for that office.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 01:07 pm
Re: Paul Ryan as choice for VP.

~I've never been happier in my life~

Joe(I've been grinning since Saturday)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 02:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are a lot of great zingers to be had in the Ryan budget.

Not the least of which being the fact that, under Ryan's plan, Romney would pay exactly zero dollars in income taxes.

Cycloptichorn


Proof?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 02:53 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are a lot of great zingers to be had in the Ryan budget.

Not the least of which being the fact that, under Ryan's plan, Romney would pay exactly zero dollars in income taxes.

Cycloptichorn


Proof?


Coulda googled it yourself just as easily:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-taxes_n_1772631.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Quote:
Under Ryan's 2010 proposal, taxes on income derived from capital gains, interest, dividends and inheritance would be eliminated. This would mean that Romney -- who reported an income of $27 million in 2010, all of it from those sources -- would have paid nothing in taxes, according to the Atlantic.


This was Ryan's serious proposal, not some pie-in-the-sky idea he had. It was in a document that he put forth as the right move for our nation to make, fiscally.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 03:06 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are a lot of great zingers to be had in the Ryan budget.

Not the least of which being the fact that, under Ryan's plan, Romney would pay exactly zero dollars in income taxes.

Cycloptichorn


Proof?

Good lord. How can you not already know this? I may have to be even more dismissive of you than previously.

Romney himself said it during the GOP debates! (When he was critical of another tax plan that eliminated capital gains.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 05:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So, he is not going to take a salary as President? Wouldn't that be taxable?

I assume you are talking about this part of Ryan's budget proposal:
Quote:
Elimination of Double Taxation of Savings. The current system essentially taxes savings twice: individuals pay tax on their earnings and, if they choose to invest those after-tax funds, they pay another tax on the return from their savings (i.e. interest, capital gains, or dividends). This proposal eliminates the second layer of taxation. Not only is this fair to individual taxpayers, it also is good for the economy. Greater savings leads to more investment and higher rates of productivity. Higher productivity ultimately drives increased living standards. The plan also eliminates the estate tax, another form of double taxation that is particularly harmful to small businesses.


I can't imagine why that would upset you. You like paying multiple taxes on the money you make? Do you enjoy having the government manage your money for you? I see no reason anyone should pay double taxes on income and I am fine with no one else having to. Even the dreaded rich people.

But, you said it was a fact that Romney would pay no taxes under the plan and the jokingtonpost does not offer up the facts you promised. Please provide them.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 05:19 pm
As an aside, Ryan becoming VP does not mean that the Ryan budget is guaranteed. Those things have to get through Congress remember? Now, once the GOP takes both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you will see what government can actually do as the Dems roll over and show their bellies as they did for Bush.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:28:11