Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:10 pm**

Exodor wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Surely the Republic flirtation with Gingrich will die. Huntsman seems finally to be garnering a second look on the right, though not (yet) much of one.

I still think it'll be Romney. Not necessarily my preference; just my prognostication.
I agree and I think we'll have a repeat of 2004 - a vulnerable incumbent president victorious against an uninspiring northeastern flip-flipper.

Had not even thought of that. Who will be the new swift boat veterans?

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:40 pm**

Exodor wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Surely the Republic flirtation with Gingrich will die. Huntsman seems finally to be garnering a second look on the right, though not (yet) much of one.

I still think it'll be Romney. Not necessarily my preference; just my prognostication.
I agree and I think we'll have a repeat of 2004 - a vulnerable incumbent president victorious against an uninspiring northeastern flip-flipper.

Except that Kerry's flips were procedural moves blown out of context by his opponents; the man has held very consistent core values throughout his career. Whereas Romney has no core. Otherwise I agree with you.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:03 pm**

I agree that it's looking like 2004 all over again. I don't see folks getting all fired up to go to the polls and vote for Romney. The R-establishment wasn't that fired up about McCain in 2008 either, but at least he had some personality.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:06 pm**

McCain had a good shot until the Palin fiasco, and then his integrity disintegrated under the tea party assault. I wonder if Romney's choice of running mates will make much difference. He will probably choose a right-wing firebrand, satisfying some conservatives while repulsing some independents.

It seems like veeps don't make much difference unless they're as disastrous as Palin was.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:10 pm**

Carpet_pissr wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I think Obama is an intellectual.
What do you mean by "intellectual"?!

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:20 pm**

I predict that Romney's VP pick will be a non-Mormon. Alternately, Gingrich's will be non-obese.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:06 pm**

From Salon - Romney is Bush all over again. Bush Senior, that is.

In many ways, Romney’s 2012 bid is a mirror image of Bush’s 1988 effort — but his path to the nomination is severely complicated by a shift within the Republican Party that Bush’s presidency helped produce.

Just like Romney today, Bush faced deep distrust from his party’s conservative base in ’88, thanks to a political past that raised all sorts of doubts about whether he was the true believer conservative he claimed to be — and whether he really believed anything at all. The son of a famously left-of-center Republican senator, Bush had traversed the political spectrum in search of power. He ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in Texas as a Goldwater conservative in 1964, won a House seat two years later and promptly broke with the right on civil rights and birth control, then after losing another Senate bid in 1970 (to Lloyd Bentsen), at which point he settled into a life as the consummate GOP establishment man, serving in a host of appointed roles (RNC chairman, ambassador to China and the U.N., and CIA director) in the ’70s.

When he sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, Bush did so as the unofficial standard-bearer of the party’s Rockefeller wing, supporting abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment and belittling as “voodoo economics” the supply-side theories that his main opponent, Ronald Reagan, was touting. But the Rockefeller wing was in decline, and Reagan’s decisive victory confirmed that the center of the GOP had moved sharply to the right. Thus, after after finagling his way onto Reagan’s ticket, Bush spent the next eight years swearing off his past crimes against conservatism and reinventing himself as a staunch Reaganite.

The contours of Romney’s political journey are similar.

Interesting. That would go a ways towards explaining why the heck Romney seems to be spinning his wheels so much.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:33 pm**

Holman wrote:I predict that Romney's VP pick will be a non-Mormon. Alternately, Gingrich's will be non-obese.

I've been thinking about this the last few days trying to figure out which one they would choose.

For Romney - since he's got the business angle side and some crossover appeal to the middle. I'd say his biggest weakness is the Right of the party. For him I would probably choose a strong, religious right oriented person. Person that pops to mind is Huckabee. Strong evangelical credentials...former governor, has a good following. The other person who came to mind when i was thinking this was Santorum....but I quickly dismissed him since I think only his strong religion angle would be the only thing he brings to a ticket.

For Newt - I'd probably say someone who can help him win states and also appeal to the religious angle, but for him I'd say probably a Marc Rubio type figure.

I think others on the potential shortlist would include: Mitch Daniels (fiscal conservative angle, sitting governor; kind of a technocrat in my eyes) Haley Barbour (strong insider connections w/ republican party; but i am sure he'd make a helluva attack dog VP); I wonder about Pawlenty though if he would get a second glance from them.

I think Chris Christie is out and is commited to governing NJ.

I dont think they'd court Palin, Bachman nor Perry.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:45 pm**

I find it difficult to imagine how rational American voters could ever bring themselves to vote for any candidate willing to kiss the ring of Donald Trump. The notion of Trump moderating a Republican presidential debate has to represent some sort of historical nadir for the Republican party.

Anyway, kudos to Huntsman and Ron Paul for eschewing the dick-headed insanity of Donald Trump, and the utterly gormless voters he appeals to. To any of the politicians that do attend the Trump travesty, this quote from Billy Madison would seem to perfectly sum up any rhetoric originating from what is likely to be the political equivalent of armpit-flatulence:

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:56 pm**

I really do wish Ron Paul was a more viable candidate. He is the one guy up there that has presented mostly sensible answers and been consistent on his stances. Despite people claiming him being an isolationist he has made it clear his policy ideas are rather that of non-interference instead. Even if Ron wouldn't win the nomination if he could get into the upper tier of candidates I think it would at least slow down the rhetoric side of the debates and push actual ideas.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:01 pm**

Out of curiosity....why is Ron Paul getting the nomination totally infeasible?

I mean, I can see how he would have trouble winning the election, but if Newt Gingrich can pull the nomination, why can't Ron?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:07 pm**

Little Raven wrote:Out of curiosity....why is Ron Paul getting the nomination totally infeasible?

I mean, I can see how he would have trouble winning the election, but if Newt Gingrich can pull the nomination, why can't Ron?

He never gets any serious coverage or time in the debates. Simply the media doesn't get enough ratings with him and he isn't given much credit by the party. I think in one of the debates he was asked only 2-3 questions while the tier 1 guys got 10+. Newt gets a lot of coverage because he gets lots of ratings and pisses people off. He jumps to whatever the party wants, unlike Paul, so he gets the base going thus more support early on.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:15 pm**

Arcanis wrote:
Little Raven wrote:Out of curiosity....why is Ron Paul getting the nomination totally infeasible?

I mean, I can see how he would have trouble winning the election, but if Newt Gingrich can pull the nomination, why can't Ron?
He never gets any serious coverage or time in the debates. Simply the media doesn't get enough ratings with him and he isn't given much credit by the party. I think in one of the debates he was asked only 2-3 questions while the tier 1 guys got 10+. Newt gets a lot of coverage because he gets lots of ratings and pisses people off. He jumps to whatever the party wants, unlike Paul, so he gets the base going thus more support early on.

his brand of libertarianism really has no shot in a general. He's an ideas candidate...but he will never gain major traction. I'd say that a good chunk of america doesnt want abolish the energy department, education department. Most of America believes in some form of government, and not nuking it from orbit as Paul suggests. I am sure he is a nice guy, and intelligent. But his ideas and his political views will never hit the main stream. He's just like Kucinich but for the right. Why shine a spotlight on a car that you know wont get past first?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:26 pm**

What amazes me about that Bush excerpt is that he was able to run as a pro-choice Republican. You couldn't even get out of the starting gate that way now (and to be honest, you couldn't be a anti-abortion Democrat). I hate the way our political system has become so polarized.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:33 pm**

Well, say what you want about political viability, he certainly knows how to make an ad for the younger generation.

Or at least, I assume that's who it's aimed at.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:41 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote:rational American voters

I think found the flaw in your reasoning.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:00 pm**

Little Raven wrote:Well, say what you want about political viability, he certainly knows how to make an ad for the younger generation.

Or at least, I assume that's who it's aimed at.

I think Ron Paul is trying to sell me a Ferd F-Teenthousand?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:12 pm**

Little Raven wrote:Out of curiosity....why is Ron Paul getting the nomination totally infeasible?

I mean, I can see how he would have trouble winning the election, but if Newt Gingrich can pull the nomination, why can't Ron?

Newt has shown he can lead. Newt has shown he can get results. Newt has shown he can win.

I havent looked at it, but I wonder how much of Ron Paul's bills have been passed in any congress. I would bet that not many. Newt on the other was speaker of the house, brokered several major deals w/ Clinton during those time periods (welfare reform for one, budget agreements). IN the late 80's-early 90's he really built a foundation and helped propel the republicans into power durnig the 94 wave. that wave wouldnt have been as large without that foundation. Newt's gotten things done. Newt has that experience to back up on. What's Paul done legislatively? What's Paul done to grow the Republican party? What's Paul done to help cement it into the mainstream?

There is a difference between idealistic politcs and being able to get things done in reality politcs. Newt if of the latter, Paul is of the former.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:25 pm**

Exodor wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:rational American voters
I think found the flaw in your reasoning.

Heh, sadly, you are likely correct. I've been trying to think of who would possibly be the left-wing equivalent of a Donald Trump, but nothing seems remotely comparable to his particular brand of stupefying fuckwittery (e.g. birther rabble-rousing and Meatloaf vs. Gary Busey bumfights).

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:43 pm**

No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want. Does anyone here think it'd work anyway? If we stayed with the much more decentralized Articles of Confederation, would we have had been a better place?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:32 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote:
Exodor wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:rational American voters
I think found the flaw in your reasoning.
Heh, sadly, you are likely correct. I've been trying to think of who would possibly be the left-wing equivalent of a Donald Trump, but nothing seems remotely comparable to his particular brand of stupefying fuckwittery (e.g. birther rabble-rousing and Meatloaf vs. Gary Busey bumfights).

Maybe Micheal Moore in recent years. While he can still say intelligent things, he does sometimes border on Left Wing Cookery

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:37 pm**

I agree with Newcastle as to why Newt is up right now. The only part about him that I actually like is he gets results and at least portrays himself well as solutions oriented. Paul I doubt would get anywhere near what he advocates but I think him moving the country in that direction could be good to offset the exponential growth of government we have been seeing, which is good enough for me.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:40 pm**

Crabbs wrote:Maybe Micheal Moore in recent years. While he can still say intelligent things, he does sometimes border on Left Wing Cookery

I had the same thought but he's not really a Democratic kingmaker the way Trump would like to be.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:45 pm**

Exodor wrote:
Crabbs wrote:Maybe Micheal Moore in recent years. While he can still say intelligent things, he does sometimes border on Left Wing Cookery
I had the same thought but he's not really a Democratic kingmaker the way Trump would like to be.

I think this is the important part of that statement. I'd find Palin or W to be a kingmaker way before Trump.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:47 pm**

Trump: Debate?
Newt: Sure!
Paul: LOL No
Newt: U Suck, Paul
Paul: ::Bitchslap::

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:55 pm**

Mr. Fed wrote:Trump: Debate?
Newt: Sure!
Paul: LOL No
Newt: U Suck, Paul
Paul: ::Bitchslap::

That is why I like him. He may say some crazy things, but at least I find it a better kind of crazy than what I hear out of the rest of the DC group.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:15 pm**

Arcanis wrote:
Exodor wrote:
Crabbs wrote:Maybe Micheal Moore in recent years. While he can still say intelligent things, he does sometimes border on Left Wing Cookery
I had the same thought but he's not really a Democratic kingmaker the way Trump would like to be.
I think this is the important part of that statement. I'd find Palin or W to be a kingmaker way before Trump.

Alas, wasn't Palin one of the cretinous (former) politicians that actually met with Trump, back when she was still pretending she was going to run? I mean seriously, can anyone imagine Reagan or Bush Sr. deigning to meet with the likes of Donald chuffing Trump, and seriously believing it might help their chances at becoming President?

Cain had it right; stupid people are ruining America.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:17 pm**

Arcanis wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:Trump: Debate?
Newt: Sure!
Paul: LOL No
Newt: U Suck, Paul
Paul: ::Bitchslap::
That is why I like him. He may say some crazy things, but at least I find it a better kind of crazy than what I hear out of the rest of the DC group.

At least it's partially responsible as a reason why I still listen to him and hear him out even if I can't vote for him.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:40 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote:
Arcanis wrote:
Exodor wrote:
Crabbs wrote:Maybe Micheal Moore in recent years. While he can still say intelligent things, he does sometimes border on Left Wing Cookery
I had the same thought but he's not really a Democratic kingmaker the way Trump would like to be.
I think this is the important part of that statement. I'd find Palin or W to be a kingmaker way before Trump.
Alas, wasn't Palin one of the cretinous (former) politicians that actually met with Trump, back when she was still pretending she was going to run? I mean seriously, can anyone imagine Reagan or Bush Sr. deigning to meet with the likes of Donald chuffing Trump, and seriously believing it might help their chances at becoming President?

Cain had it right; stupid people are ruining America.

Don't know if she met with him or not. His ability as kingmaker is limited to his ability to hand over bags of cash. I think he wants to have his word mean something to the establishment. Where as Palin gets the base fired up and Bush as a former president has a lot of weight behind his voice, though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:45 pm**

Arcanis wrote:though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.

He's playing the by the unspoken rules as he did in 2008. Whoda thunk? I think the only person not to play by those rules in my memory was Clinton during the Kerry run and that was very brief. I think he realized his fucks pass and stepped right back out pretty quick (It was so minor, I don't even remember what he did at this point) and then didn't even really make his presence known when Hillary was running.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:59 pm**

Arcanis wrote:Don't know if she met with him or not. His ability as kingmaker is limited to his ability to hand over bags of cash. I think he wants to have his word mean something to the establishment. Where as Palin gets the base fired up and Bush as a former president has a lot of weight behind his voice, though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.

She met him in NYC and he took her out for pizza where they committed the sin of eating pizza with a fork

Donald Trump, why don't you just take that fork and stick it right in New York's eye?" Jon Stewart railed on "The Daily Show" on Wednesday night.

"Based on how you eat pizza, Donald, I want to see your long-form birth certificate. I don't think you were really born in New York," Stewart said.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:19 pm**

Trump calls Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman "Joke Candidates."

"I think most candidates are going to join, and I think these two candidates have zero chance of getting elected, so it makes no difference," Trump said Monday on NBC's "Today." "I think that they are joke candidates and they are doing very poorly."

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:55 pm**

LordMortis wrote:
Arcanis wrote:though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.
He's playing the by the unspoken rules as he did in 2008. Whoda thunk? I think the only person not to play by those rules in my memory was Clinton during the Kerry run and that was very brief. I think he realized his fucks pass and stepped right back out pretty quick (It was so minor, I don't even remember what he did at this point) and then didn't even really make his presence known when Hillary was running.

Clinton's what???

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:44 pm**

Pyperkub wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Arcanis wrote:though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.
He's playing the by the unspoken rules as he did in 2008. Whoda thunk? I think the only person not to play by those rules in my memory was Clinton during the Kerry run and that was very brief. I think he realized his fucks pass and stepped right back out pretty quick (It was so minor, I don't even remember what he did at this point) and then didn't even really make his presence known when Hillary was running.
Clinton's what???

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Fucks pass.

My LM translator's best guess is "fucked up past", but even it is at a loss this time.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:12 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Arcanis wrote:though he tastefully has chosen not to use it thus far.
He's playing the by the unspoken rules as he did in 2008. Whoda thunk? I think the only person not to play by those rules in my memory was Clinton during the Kerry run and that was very brief. I think he realized his fucks pass and stepped right back out pretty quick (It was so minor, I don't even remember what he did at this point) and then didn't even really make his presence known when Hillary was running.
Clinton's what???

Epic 4g/Tapatalk
Fucks pass.

My LM translator's best guess is "fucked up past", but even it is at a loss this time.

My thought was autocorrect for faux pas, which had me wondering about LM's dictionary.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:22 pm**

Pyperkub wrote:My thought was autocorrect for faux pas, which had me wondering about LM's dictionary.

Yep, I think you're correct. Nice one.

LM is better than sudoku.

You know, I bet LM is dictating to voice recognition software. Faux pas is pronounced "foe paw" in french, but I can see LM pronouncing it "folks pass" (anglophone-ised) which is pretty damn close to "fucks pass", sound-wise.

Come on LM, solve the mystery for us.

Edit: In retrospect, I think you're most likely correct. I can't see voice recognition software getting anywhere near the rest of his paragraph.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:16 pm**

I am continually impressed by Trumps ability to become an even bigger douche.

“It would seem logical to me that if I was substantially behind in the polls, especially in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, I would be participating in the debate. But, I can also understand why Governor Romney decided not to do it.”

He's like a little child.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:15 pm**

Huntsman flips on climate change.

Looks like the jump from 1% to 2% popularity went to his head.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:53 pm**

Bachman's latest run-in with the gotcha liberal media an eight year old.

At a South Carolina book signing, an 8-year-old boy named Elijah whispered to Bachmann, “My mom is gay and she doesn’t need fixing.” Bachmann responded with a blank expression, then waved to him as he ran away

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:43 am**

Arcanis wrote:I really do wish Ron Paul was a more viable candidate. He is the one guy up there that has presented mostly sensible answers

No, not really.

and been consistent on his stances.

Yes. This is the only thing he has going for him.

Octopus Overlords

2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections

Re: 2012 Elections