Re: US Presidential Election 2012

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:06 pm

Unless he eats babies in private or something he can't come over worse than Palin did surely?
At least Ryan seems to know some things- although from what I read his foreign affairs knowledge is not far off the Palin levels.

by Eldorion Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:32 pm

I'm not saying he's going to be on Palin's level -- I don't really see any way that happens -- but it's nonetheless possible that he could alienate people between now and November. I think part of it depends on how much his budget plan is discussed or if the Romney campaign tries to downplay that.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:39 pm

I had a look at his budget plan. One of the things which struck me was his idea to remove social providence from central government and give it by means of a block grant to the individual states, and they in turn can allocate as they see fit.
This is a good solid idea for transferring more control to the people. Good conservative stuff.

However part of the job of the US government is to keep the states together, to keep the whole show going.
If you give medicare and other social payments to states it becomes inevitable that some states will be more conservative with it (ie more poor) and some states more liberal (ie they will run out of money). Neither is useful and it could also lead to states with relatively little poor as they have migrated to other states with better benefits or medicair.
It seems to me it would create possible division and resentment between states.

by Eldorion Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:42 pm

I am 99% sure that Ryan did not propose devolving power over the welfare state to the individual states to give power to the people, but rather because he knew it would be easier to dismantle the welfare state in many parts of the country at the state level of government.

by David H Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:13 pm

That's certainly the argument the Democrats will be making, but I don't think Ryan sees it as "either/or". I'm afraid that he truly believes that dismantling social assistance programs IS returning power to the people.

Others may give this lip service, but I think Ryan is a true believer which is what makes him 100 times more dangerous than Palin.

Yep, it looks like it could be some interesting debates!

Edit: and I think you're absolutely right about testing him for a presidential run in 2016. He would be the Tea Party Republican's dream candidate if the nation were to swing that way.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:30 pm

He would be the Tea Party Republican's dream candidate if the nation were to swing that way. - David
THAT sir is a terrfiying thought! Is the tea-party not basically a fringe movement of the Republican party? I've always been a bit confused over the Tea-Party, almost as confused as its members seem to be, and why on earth do they have such a stupid name? Is it a reference to the Boston tea-party or something? If so how?

by Eldorion Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:43 pm

Taxed Enough Already. Wink

But mainly its a reference to the Boston Tea Party.

by Eldorion Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:46 pm

I think you're right about Ryan, David. He predates the modern Tea Party even though he shares a number of positions with them and despite his voting record I think he's as firm in his beliefs as anyone in Washington is. While that's going to score him some short-term points with fiscal conservatives I think that sticking to his guns is going to alienate some voters. Older voters tend to lean more Republican than younger voters (talking in generalities here) but social security and medicaid are extremely popular programs. If Romney/Ryan go after those in the campaign I could see them losing popularity in the older demographic. The AARP, at least, would be up in arms. Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:02 am

'A gunman has shot and killed a police officer and a civilian near a university in the US state of Texas.
Several others have been admitted to hospital after being wounded in the shooting in College Station city. '- BBC News

How often does this have to happen in America before gun laws are looked at again?
And with 3 such terrible incidents in such a short space of time will it finally put guns on the election radar? (The very first one if it was the UK in an election would immediately have propelled gun law to the top of the electoral debate).

by halfwise Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:17 am

Ryan actually does seem to think about and analyze his positions, which is a refreshing change.

As far as gun laws go, don't hold your breath. A large chunk of the population over here honestly does equate gun ownership with freedom.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:28 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:How often does this have to happen in America before gun laws are looked at again?

People say this after every single well-publicized shooting. Don't get too excited.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:52 am

So becasue I dont have a gun Im not free? How does that work? Free to what? Shoot people?

by halfwise Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:09 am

the logic goes like this: if a government is stronger than its people, the people are not free. Guns allow people to stand up to government intrusions. any steps a government takes to control gun ownership is a step to curtail freedom.

The idea that democracy controls the government holds no water with these people: they point to the Nazis being elected and then instituting gun control.

If their ideas seem wild and far fetched to you, try talking to them yourself. They truly see themselves as the bastion of American freedom.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:16 am

So I need to be armed against David Cameron? .....Well its a thought. Very Happy

I kind of prefer voting. If that fails and someone says they are staying regardless of the result, I would move to peaceful protest, trying to sway police and military and media towards removal of the imposed regime.
If the military back the government and the media fall under government control- then you arm yourself from wherever you can as then there is a genuine need.
But to presume you need to have overwhelming lethal firepower about you to be free when you have a vote that changes governments and a police force to ensure safety and laws are upheld and a seperate judiciary to try the law it seems a bit, hasty to me. And lacking in a lot of trust.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:17 am

Tree of Liberty something something blood of tyrants something something militia movement.

by halfwise Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:19 am

BTW, these are the same people who believe in strong law enforcement, then go apoplectic if 'cop-killer' bullets are outlawed.

I once asked about what happens if a group of bad people get a collection of guns too big for the cops to outgun. The answer seems to be that if they are truly bad, the good people will take their own guns and form a big enough posse to take them down.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:20 am

I agree with you, Halfwise. For the benefit of people from other countries: there is a not insignificant group of people on the right who basically want to repeal the 20th century. Wild West romanticism doesn't help either. They're not mainstream, but they do benefit from their more moderate brethren turning a blind eye to their violent rhetoric.

by halfwise Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:25 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So I need to be armed against David Cameron? .....Well its a thought.
I kind of prefer voting. If that fails and someone says they are staying regardless of the result, I would move to peaceful protest, trying to sway police and military and media towards removal of the imposed regime.

Liberal milksop.

If the military back the government and the media fall under government control- then you arm yourself from wherever you can as then there is a genuine need.

Too late you limp-wristed pinko commie.

But to presume you need to have overwhelming lethal firepower about you to be free when you have a vote that changes governments and a police force to ensure safety and laws are upheld and a seperate judiciary to try the law it seems a bit, hasty to me. And lacking in a lot of trust.

So charmingly naive. When the day comes (and Barack Hussein Obama is just rubbing his hands in glee waiting for it) Bubba will grow rich and sassy selling you a real man's answer to naughty governments.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:30 am

Tree of Liberty something something blood of tyrants something something militia movement.- Eldo

Nothing good begins or ends with the worlds 'militia movement'.

Dont you just get a criminal/cops arms race? That wouldnt seem like a good idea for anyone really.

Halfwise- so living by the agreed rule of law they see as giving in to the government. And peaceful protest presumably a waste of time- even though I marched against the poll tax for example in almost peaceful protests, well it is Scotland, and got the law changed? And the suffragetes did pretty well in their cause I seem to recall.

And its never too late to take up arms in defense of freedom, but its often way to early.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:33 am

I'm trying not to go off on a rant about the militia movement and the attitudes that make stuff like that possible because you're probably not that interested, but yeah, it's a problem.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:34 am

Never keep a good rant in Eldo, let the crabbit flow always- good for the soul,the one I dont believe in.
Hey this quick box might be handy after all, but I still dont like it! Change! Mad

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:36 am

Maybe later when I have a bit more time. Laughing

On another note ... there's certainly a criminal/cop arms race in the U.S., but it's not solely because of the police. You have stuff like the North Hollywood shootout (warning: some possibly NSFW pictures at that page) and it's not hard to see why the police want to be more heavily armed. But generally speaking I agree that the militarization of police has had some very negative consequences. I'm not sure how one would go about undoing it, but at the very least, I think we as a country should stop it from going further.

by halfwise Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:37 am

Okay, I see you still don't understand the mentality you are dealing with, Petty. Let Uncle Ted explain it to you:

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:44 am

That Ted bloke makes a good point- I have no woolens left! Mad

Bloody Queen! Mad

She's so weighed down with my wooly jumpers and scarves these days she can barely move.

by Eldorion Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:46 am

This thread is now about Ted Nugent.

Ted Nugent Threatens to Kill Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton During Vicious Onstage Rant

Rolling Stone wrote:Renegade right-winger Ted Nugent recently went on a vicious onstage rant in which he threatened the lives of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," he continued. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming "freedom!"

This isn't the first time Nugent has been caught spewing hatred. Last January, the guitarist caused a scandal for Republican Texas governor Rick Perry when he wore a Confederate flag shirt and insulted immigrants at Perry's inauguration event. In July, Nugent was quoted in a Wall Street Journal story blaming "stoned, dirty, stinky hippies" for "rising rates of divorce, high school drop-outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes."