Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was surprised by Romney's choice of Ryan. It is pretty clear that Ryan was the worst choice electorally. With just about any else on the short list, Romney would likely end up with more votes come November. Not only that, but after months of of failing to provide any information on who he is or what he plans to do if elected, by selecting Ryan he has now revealed an agenda.

So I was puzzled. It seemed by picking Ryan, Romney was indifferent to the impact this choice has on his chances of victory. Presidential candidates almost always pick Veeps for their effects on the campaign. After thinking about it I concluded that Romney hasn't changed his strategy at all. Romney's stategy has always been to win by default when an enraged electorate hurls Obama from office for incompetence. To aid this effort Romney tired to show a a smooth and featureless exterior so as to minimize the effectiveness of attacks against him, while mounting an all-out offensive against Obama's record.

Attacks on him have made a small dent in his popularity, while his attacks have been ineffective. Studying the data, Romney may have concluded that his campaign isn't really going to have any effect on the outcome of this election. So it doesn't matter who he chooses for Veep. If he wins it will be up to external forces beyond his campaigns control. If the economy sours Romney wins, if it does not he loses.

So now the objective for a Veep selection is not how it impacts Romney's electoral chances, but how it affects Romney after the election. Romney himself has already given reasons for how Ryan provides benefits were he to win the election. But Ryan is also a superior choice should Romney lose. In the event of his defeat, Romney has given the party its 2016 nominee. Unlike Palin, whose star has since faded, after a Romney defeat Ryan will go back to Congress where he will continue to grow in stature by leading the opposition to Obama in his second term plus have time to burnish his religious/social conservative cred. Ryan will get the nomination easily, like Bush did and enjoy a unified party from the start. He will be able to run against Obama without having the face the formidable Obama machine or the politician himself. Surely Ryan would be a better candidate for 2016 than someone like Bob Portman.

By selecting Ryan, Romney positions himself better for the future, win or lose.

OMG - Paul Ryan in 2016 vs. either Andrew Cuomo or Bob Casey?

That would be an even worse mismatch than any of Jon Jones' UFC light heavyweight title defenses.

Hello...Hello...Hello....

I thought I might break-up the normal LW "echo-chamber" in here.

So, I was going to vote for whomever was nominated by the GOP, but Romney was the one who I always considered to be the best choice(actually, when considering a fixed number of choices, I use the lesser-of-evils model(non-negative) so, if I were to be less-incorrect, I would say he was the least-worst, but he did happen to also be a good choice, IMO). Anyway.....

I had a number of GOP VP choices in mind. Condoleeza Rice, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan were a few of the names I considered to be good choices. Apparently, Condeleeza Rice wasn't pro-life(and wasn't interested in the job, anyway) and Marco Rubio is needed to help win the Senate.

My guess is that Paul Ryan might be an MBTI-ENTJ; Romney's probably an MBTI-INTP. I think it might be interesting if Ryan pulls-out some Gen-X sarcasm in a response; Maybe even a sighting of the very rare Gen-X "snark". Considering how many non-Xers on this MB don't even understand snark, I wonder if it would even be recognized if it did occur(heh heh).

Bottom Line: I pretty much like the Romney/Ryan GOP-team going forward. In fact, I'd say this is the closest ticket to my political leanings at a given moment in my life. I was too young to vote for either of Reagan's terms(and not political at all at the age of 13). I did like Clinton/Gore when I was a young-buck, but not as much as Romney/Ryan now. Would I like a more Libertarian-ticket? Probably, but like I said, given a fixed number of choices, I go with the least-worst model.

I know most of you on this MB detest the GOP and/or Romney/Ryan, but I'm not tied to how you all feel politically. I mean, I care as far as listening to what concerns you all and how you feel about things, but not tied to how you feel about me and/or my choices/opinions. Ultimately, one thinks and feels about others what one wants to think and feel about others, IME.

I basically just posted this on the off-chance that someone who is not set on Obama/Biden might want to talk about something Election-related.

As you were,

Prince

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm still set on voting for Vermin Supreme, but I'm curious to hear what you find appealing about Romney/Ryan?

Are you really? Well, I'm sure not going to discourage you. In fact, I'm not interested in changing yours or anyone else's mind. Giving you my reasons for supporting Romney/Ryan over Obama/Biden kinda seems as if I would be attempting to influence you or someone else. I can tell you with certainty that is not the case.

As far as the other GOP candidates go, I had issues with all of them(even Romney), but I had less issues with him than the others. Maybe Ron Paul, but I'm not sure I'm ready for the full Libertarian-thing(if Ron Paul represents official Libertarianism. To be honest, I don't know and don't know if I'm an official Libertarian, really). Whatever. I'll have to ask Galen. I guess I'm still a little closet-Socialist to some degree, but the whole involuntary nature of it's design and operations is just anathema to me.

Anyway, that said, the reason why is first and foremost to repeal the ACA. To do so would take the GOP winning both the House and Senate, and the Presidency. My reasons are a concern over things I call "design flaws". In the case of the ACA, they are somewhat based on my philosophy, but also on it's structure and how it is operationalized. That's a completely different discussion for another time(probably privately if you were really interested). Quite honestly, if it doesn't get repealed, I'm seriously thinking of giving-up on any kind of protestation against such Policies. As a Nation, we indeed will get what we deserve, no matter who wins.

Secondly, I'm not very fond of many on the current Presidential Cabinet. There are even a couple people that I really want to like, but I'm pretty sure that they are philosophically opposed to my POV. Not that a difference of opinion is a problem, but when their philosophy is diametrically counter to your own, basically, they've got to go. The fact that President Obama is a "Positve Rights" guy is pretty much a non-starter for me.

Could a Romney/Ryan Healthcare Plan be worse than the ACA? I suppose so, but from what the GOP is proposing(from a philosophical and structural/operations sense), I highly doubt it. Could they be lying or might something occur that alters the course of events that makes things worse than the ACA? I suppose so, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Others obviously disagree and that's fine with me.

I fully realize that people take these things very personally, so I don't want to offend you or anyone else with my positions on the matter. People see the world differently; It's natural.

Personally I would rather have a divided Govt., but because of the ACA, I need a GOP sweep. I certainly understand that huge Govt. spending cuts in the near term is problematic going forward, so I'm not so inclined to want a huge GOP win(if that is their serious intention to do so). Besides, I don't feel the U.S. Electorate is ready for that sorta thing at this point. I also am quite different than many in that I feel it is the responsibility of the party in power to be the compromiser(I know, it's my damn Idealistic-side!). The Dems surely didn't show that restraint in 2008; I doubt the GOP would either. That's why they both suck.

In this case, for me, politics matters(and I seriously don't like that).

So, ultimately, are Romney/Ryan simply saying what I want to hear? Maybe.

Even if they win, will plans have to be altered? Probably.

If so, will I be O.K. with that? Maybe, but not likely.

Is it worth the risk for me? Yes.

That's basically it. I'm sure you will vote your conscience.


Prince

Even with a GOP sweep the ACA won't be repealed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Even with a GOP sweep the ACA won't be repealed.

You may be right, Brian. If so, I guess I'm done with it all.

Take care,

Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You may be right, Brian. If so, I guess I'm done with it all.

Take care,

Prince

If Romney wins and the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, the only thing that would stop it being repealed is a Romney veto. Assuming he'd want a second term, he'd be unlikely to do that. Although considering how many times the elite have crossed the Rubicon to impose that law on a people who don't want it, I put nothing out of the realm of possibility. At least by declaring the mandate a tax, Roberts cemented the fact that Obamacare can be repealed through reconciliation with a simple majority in the Senate, which is what will happen if the above scenario plays out. In other words, it will be repealed in the same way it was passed.

As for Paul Ryan, I think the Democrats' idea that they can demonize him as a means of winning shows a real desperation behind their bravado. They ran one of the most despicable ads in recent memory back in 2010 with Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. Didn't work then, won't work now. The most important thing about Ryan (aside from Wisconsin, which has gone all-Republican in state government since 2008 and just re-elected Scott Walker by a larger margin than the first time) may well be his televised debate with Obama a few years ago. Staged to show Obama "reaching out" to Republicans, it ended up being an arrogant brush off in which Obama, after completely losing the argument, ended up saying to the Republicans "Well, we have the power so we're going to do what we want. Screw you". It was terrible PR for Obama, and showed early in his term that "Hope and Change" was an empty slogan.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The media (and this thread) has been yammering about Ryan's appeal to the GOP base and on his budgetary ideas, but nobody has mentioned what Ryan does not bring to the table -- foreign policy expertise. Romney does not have experience in this area either (unless you count organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics). Obama was weak in this area in 2008 relative to McCain, which is partially why he picked Biden.

Any thoughts?

The key point is that Obama was weaker in foriegn policy than McCain and Obama won the election.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If Romney wins and the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, the only thing that would stop it being repealed is a Romney veto. Assuming he'd want a second term, he'd be unlikely to do that. Although considering how many times the elite have crossed the Rubicon to impose that law on a people who don't want it, I put nothing out of the realm of possibility. At least by declaring the mandate a tax, Roberts cemented the fact that Obamacare can be repealed through reconciliation with a simple majority in the Senate, which is what will happen if the above scenario plays out. In other words, it will be repealed in the same way it was passed.

Both Prince and JPT represent the epitome of why the GOP is so desperate to win in 2012. Prince is obviously clueless as to what is in the ACA; JPT likely knows just enough to recognize the incredible potential of the ACA that will be proven by the next election in 2016.

The ACA will be in full effect in 2014 and 2 years underway by 2016. All the fear mongering will have been completely exposed - no death penalties, no mass exodus of businesses providing employee health insurance, no mass exodus of health providers, no Red Brigade coming for your women, and no end of the world. Sorry JPT.

Instead, most people will be insured, hardly anyone will pay the penalty and those that do will be seen as the very last t-baggers who just don't get much of anything, and various states will be experimenting successfully with ways to get health care costs down.

The fear mongers will be ostracized, and the people who so willingly followed them will be feeling pretty stupid.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

...his televised debate with Obama a few years ago. Staged to show Obama "reaching out" to Republicans, it ended up being an arrogant brush off in which Obama, after completely losing the argument, ended up saying to the Republicans "Well, we have the power so we're going to do what we want. Screw you". It was terrible PR for Obama, and showed early in his term that "Hope and Change" was an empty slogan.

This is such utter bullshit, it's not worthy of a response.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Even with a GOP sweep the ACA won't be repealed.

The GOP is not going to win a filibuster-proof Senate.

Paradoxically the most likely way to get PPACA 'repealed and replaced' will require the Republicans winning the Senate, holding the House, and President Obama being re-elected. If the Republicans have any sense (that is a huge assumption) they will offer a repeal with a replacement that President Obama will sign. Maybe that would include a public option.

But I don't expect much reason from the GOP.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The GOP is not going to win a filibuster-proof Senate.

Paradoxically the most likely way to get PPACA 'repealed and replaced' will require the Republicans winning the Senate, holding the House, and President Obama being re-elected. If the Republicans have any sense (that is a huge assumption) they will offer a repeal with a replacement that President Obama will sign. Maybe that would include a public option.

But I don't expect much reason from the GOP.

Since it was passed through Budget reconciliation without needing 60 votes it will be repealed that way, all the GOP needs is 51 votes. Obamacare which is highly unpopular is going down in the event of a GOP sweep and Romney win.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Even with a GOP sweep the ACA won't be repealed.

-- unfortunately I have to agree. This POS was Romney's idea afterall

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I guess I'm still a little closet-Socialist to some degree, but the whole involuntary nature of it's design and operations is just anathema to me.

The Green Party advocates some socialism but they operate on consensus wherever possible, instead of force.

Could a Romney/Ryan Healthcare Plan be worse than the ACA? I suppose so, but from what the GOP is proposing(from a philosophical and structural/operations sense), I highly doubt it. Could they be lying or might something occur that alters the course of events that makes things worse than the ACA? I suppose so, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Others obviously disagree and that's fine with me.

A Republican plan will not get any more people insured than already are. It will not reform health care at all. It will be just to allow the industry to do what it wants, even more. So it will make things worse. I just can't envision the Republicans doing anything else. They protect their corporate clientele.

Personally I would rather have a divided Govt., but because of the ACA, I need a GOP sweep. I certainly understand that huge Govt. spending cuts in the near term is problematic going forward, so I'm not so inclined to want a huge GOP win(if that is there serious intention to do so). Besides, I don't feel the U.S. Electorate is ready for that sorta thing at this point. I also am quite different than many in that I feel it is the responsibility of the party in power to be the compromiser(I know, it's my damn Idealistic-side!). The Dems surely didn't show that restraint in 2008; I doubt the GOP would either. That's why they both suck.

A GOP sweep if big enough would repeal health care reform, AND bring huge spending cuts. You are even more likely to get the cuts than repeal. We already got huge spending cuts from the tea party congress. GOP has been the one to almost never compromise. They would have shut down the economy to get their way, if they got away with doing it, and almost did. They refused to raise any more revenues by any means. The ACA on the other hand was a huge compromise. The Dems are the ones who are the compromisers.

Originally Posted by Weave

Since it was passed through Budget reconciliation without needing 60 votes it will be repealed that way, all the GOP needs is 51 votes. Obamacare which is highly unpopular is going down in the event of a GOP sweep and Romney win.

The budget reconciliation process was only possible because Obamacare had already passed both houses of congress, before Scott Brown was elected and broke the 60-vote majority that passed it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Green Party advocates some socialism but they operate on consensus wherever possible, instead of force.

I suppose you've realized that the concept of the use of force/coercion is something that appears to be of interest to many Gen-Xers on this MB. Personally, I find that quite interesting.

I'm seriously happy you have the Green Party with which to participate. It's probably not for me, though but I certainly admire and don't begrudge your persistence.


Prince

The current political system is one big dysfunctional family. This is the big pink elephant in the middle of the room that many of us don't want to see. We are swept up in the fury of just how bad the other side is, but are blind to the partnership of the two parties that's taking us down the tubes.

Maybe it gives us a sense of righteousness to think that *our* party is the innocent one in this political play. Not sure. But what I am sure of, is that while we are pointing at each other, the corporate bought politicians are handing over our security to the 1%.

We best wake up and speak out, or, instead of a revolution from the masses, there will be a continued escalation of oligarchy.

So, it is not at all surprising that his book ( The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted.) has more detail describing how the ideological Republican crazies created the current political-economic mess that is poisoning our culture and wrecking our economy. But it would be a great mistake to conclude that Mike is arguing that the Republicans are THE culprits. This book is about how the Republicans and Democrats worked together to sell out the middle class.

Excerpt:

"And a pen in Lofgrens deft hands, combined with his deep understanding of political history and acid sense of humor, becomes a sharp, deeply penetrating harpoon aimed at the heart of his subject. In addition to harpooning the bloated degenerate Republican whale, Mike harpoons the Democrats by demonstrating subtly, yet persuasively, how their growing “uselessness” arose out of an enervating sense of entitlement to power."


"That sense of entitlement mutated Democrats into what we in the Pentagon would call THE ENABLERS of Republicans. The Democratic enablers unwittingly played a crucial role in the demolition of the American dream, not unlike that played by infiltration troops in blitzkrieg. Infiltration troops soften up the front by wiggling through defenses to create holes and weak areas for the tanks to roar thru and reap chaos and destruction in the enemy’s rear area. Only in this case, the rear area being ruined is the American middle class and the role of tanks is taken up by the flow money supplied by the oligarchs who feather their nests by buying Democrats as well as Republicans in one seamless auction."

"Put bluntly, to protect their sense hereditary entitlement to the power bequeathed by the coattails of FDR and the New Deal, the Democrats abandoned their progressive heritage and moved to Wall Street, Big Pharma, Defense, etc., insensibly becoming faux Republicans. If you doubt this, look at the enervating, quasi-neoliberal ramblings of the self-inflating Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) or the cynical triangulations and warmongerings of Messrs. "



http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/...my-of-decline/

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If Romney wins and the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, the only thing that would stop it being repealed is a Romney veto.

It would have to be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which ain't gonna happen, even if the Republicans would be willing to commit political suicide, which I doubt.

Originally Posted by Weave

Since it was passed through Budget reconciliation without needing 60 votes it will be repealed that way, all the GOP needs is 51 votes.

Untrue. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress using normal (non-reconciliation) procedures. The House thereafter passed the Senate's version of the bill, and made a sidecar of changes to it. That sidecar of changes was passed in the Senate by reconciliation. The bill itself must be repealed in the standard way.

For those still puzzling over the Ryan selection, here's a hint from Grover Norquist at this year's CPAC -

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. – G. Norquist, 11/5/11

And why Mittens is okay with Grover and his ilk -

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared. – G. Norquist,, 11/5/11

Ryan in the White House will make Dick Cheney's puppeteer skills look rather amateurship.

Imagine what else they can get Mittens to do.

Originally Posted by Deb C

[COLOR=#7B0099][FONT=bookman old style][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Georgia]The current political system is one big dysfunctional family. This is the big pink elephant in the middle of the room that many of us don't want to see. We are swept up in the fury of just how bad the other side is, but are blind to the partnership of the two parties that's taking us down the tubes. ...

The question though is where we go from this. The other side is already able to mobilize and take over their party, and by that means bring our country to a total standstill. If they were to win any more elections, they could engineer a backwards momentum that could make the Reagan years look like FDR's 100 Days. So where do progressives and others who are concerned with the corporate 1% takeover go, and what do they do? In the longer term, we need more political parties, like the Greens. In the short term, the Democrats are the only vehicle for change, other than yelling in the streets and fighting with cops. If the right-wing can take over the Republicans, the left-wing and whatever else you call the people interested in greater justice, equality and sustainability, need to take over the Democrats, and not only elect them, but pressure them constantly to do the right things for the people and the planet we live on, instead of enabling the corporate state and crony capitalism.

Democratic Party politicians bow to the way the winds of power blow. They need to be pressured by the great peoples' social movements of our time. If the people just say all politicians are corrupt, and boycott elections and politics, then all we have done is surrender to the other side: the wealthy and powerful elites who control our country now. Unless you are dreaming of a revolution that has little chance of happening, and will probably fail and lead to catastrophe and oppression, our political system is the only means we have to change anything. Romantic notions that the tea party folks are somehow on our side, are also doomed to drastic failure and disappointment. They are not, unless a few of them have an epiphany and join us.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I suppose you've realized that the concept of the use of force/coercion is something that appears to be of interest to many Gen-Xers on this MB. Personally, I find that quite interesting.

I'm seriously happy you have the Green Party with which to participate. It's probably not for me, though but I certainly admire and don't begrudge your persistence.


Prince

Sure. People just need to remember, in all this talk about freedom and coercion, who is being "coerced" by liberal policies. It is true that in this case there is an individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine, if you are not covered by employers. In most cases though, and in most of health care reform, it is a few wealthy and powerful people who wield enormous private power that are being "coerced" by liberal policies. It is up to us (especially Gen Xers who grew up with the slogans of trickle-down economics constantly in their ears) not to be deceived by these slogans of "freedom" and "the intrusive power of big government." The people "coerced" into better behavior and paying more taxes by liberal policies are mostly corporate CEOs and stock owners on Boards of Directors, not regular folks like you and me. "Freedom" for this powerful and wealthy less-than-1% means enabling them to control society for their own benefit at the expense of ours. If you vote for Romney-Ryan, you are voting for these less-than-1% of folks to expand their power, and that is all you are doing. So do what you want, but keep that indisputable fact in mind.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was surprised by Romney's choice of Ryan. It is pretty clear that Ryan was the worst choice electorally. With just about any else on the short list, Romney would likely end up with more votes come November. Not only that, but after months of of failing to provide any information on who he is or what he plans to do if elected, by selecting Ryan he has now revealed an agenda.

So I was puzzled. It seemed by picking Ryan, Romney was indifferent to the impact this choice has on his chances of victory. Presidential candidates almost always pick Veeps for their effects on the campaign. After thinking about it I concluded that Romney hasn't changed his strategy at all. Romney's stategy has always been to win by default when an enraged electorate hurls Obama from office for incompetence. To aid this effort Romney tired to show a a smooth and featureless exterior so as to minimize the effectiveness of attacks against him, while mounting an all-out offensive against Obama's record.

Attacks on him have made a small dent in his popularity, while his attacks have been ineffective. Studying the data, Romney may have concluded that his campaign isn't really going to have any effect on the outcome of this election. So it doesn't matter who he chooses for Veep. If he wins it will be up to external forces beyond his campaigns control. If the economy sours Romney wins, if it does not he loses.

So now the objective for a Veep selection is not how it impacts Romney's electoral chances, but how it affects Romney after the election. Romney himself has already given reasons for how Ryan provides benefits were he to win the election. But Ryan is also a superior choice should Romney lose. In the event of his defeat, Romney has given the party its 2016 nominee. Unlike Palin, whose star has since faded, after a Romney defeat Ryan will go back to Congress where he will continue to grow in stature by leading the opposition to Obama in his second term plus have time to burnish his religious/social conservative cred. Ryan will get the nomination easily, like Bush did and enjoy a unified party from the start. He will be able to run against Obama without having the face the formidable Obama machine or the politician himself. Surely Ryan would be a better candidate for 2016 than someone like Bob Portman.

By selecting Ryan, Romney positions himself better for the future, win or lose.

I'm not so sure of that. Can he run for his House seat and the VP slot at the same time?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm not so sure of that. Can he run for his House seat and the VP slot at the same time?

I believe he can. What he can't do is hold both offices at the same time, so if Romney wins the election and Ryan wins his House seat, he'll have to resign from the latter.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Democratic Party politicians bow to the way the winds of power blow. They need to be pressured by the great peoples' social movements of our time. If the people just say all politicians are corrupt, and boycott elections and politics, then all we have done is surrender to the other side: the wealthy and powerful elites who control our country now. Unless you are dreaming of a revolution that has little chance of happening, and will probably fail and lead to catastrophe and oppression, our political system is the only means we have to change anything.

Seems that you answered your own question. This is exactly what didn't happen when Obama started caving and compromising way too far too the right. I know I must sound like a broken record but the Left never kept him accountable. Therefore he was able to get by with what Republicans could only dream of.

Had we done our job, he would have more likely done his. He would have worked harder for the benefit of the people instead of the 1%. One can't be silent or a centrist when on a bus headed off of a cliff.

Also, I'm suggesting the opposite of dropping out of politics. I'm saying we need to be seriously involved. I had a lady call me this morning promoting a Democrat who is not only a hawk but also very much in the arms of the corporate lobbyists. When I asked the lady about some of the policies her candidate supported, she had no idea. She only had a script to read and was thrown off base when I asked her about the issues her candidate had voted for in the past.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Seems that you answered your own question. This is exactly what didn't happen when Obama started caving and compromising way too far too the right. I know I must sound like a broken record but the Left never kept him accountable. Therefore he was able to get by with what Republicans could only dream of.

Had we done our job, he would have more likely done his. He would have worked harder for the benefit of the people instead of the 1%. One can't be silent or a centrist when on a bus headed off of a cliff.

Also, I'm suggesting the opposite of dropping out of politics. I'm saying we need to be seriously involved. I had a lady call me this morning promoting a Democrat who is not only a hawk but also very much in the arms of the corporate lobbyists. When I asked the lady about some of the policies her candidate supported, she had no idea. She only had a script to read and was thrown off base when I asked her about the issues her candidate had voted for in the past.

I agree but don't you feel that much of the public is too scared to get involved, unlike in the 1960's. Just heard a commentary which inspired a new thread I posted. It said that reagardless of whether Obama or Romney win in November, the real winners will still be the number crunchers. We are going nowhere as long as we continue to allow them to rule the world, and it seems as if there is no way out of that. Hope to be proven wrong, but would have to show force in numbers(no real pun intended here) in order to make that happen. Seems as if even the Occupy movement has gone into hiding these days. So we are probably in for the same old, same old unless the effort to unseat the one percent can come up with an equivalent of Rosa Parks who wouldn't go to the back of the bus.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sure. People just need to remember, in all this talk about freedom and coercion, who is being "coerced" by liberal policies. It is true that in this case there is an individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine, if you are not covered by employers. In most cases though, and in most of health care reform, it is a few wealthy and powerful people who wield enormous private power that are being "coerced" by liberal policies. It is up to us (especially Gen Xers who grew up with the slogans of trickle-down...

Zzzzzzzzzz.....



O.K. I'm awake again. Let's continue.

Originally Posted by Eric

...economics constantly in their ears) not to be deceived by these slogans of "freedom" and "the intrusive power of big government." The people "coerced" into better behavior and paying more taxes by liberal policies are mostly corporate CEOs and stock owners on Boards of Directors, not regular folks like you and me. "Freedom" for this powerful and wealthy less-than-1%...

Zzzzzzzzzz....



Let's try again.

Originally Posted by Eric

....means enabling them to control society for their own benefit at the expense of ours. If you vote for Romney-Ryan, you are voting for these less-than-1% of folks to expand their power, and that is all you are doing. So do what you want, but keep that indisputable fact in mind.

Well, Eric. At least you're not David Axelrod/Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They just spout rhetorical anti-GOP talking-points for political purposes, IMO. At least you're a true believer, and I can't fault that.


Prince

PS: Notice I let that last "1%" comment pass without falling asleep. Maybe we are learning something. Maybe not.