legov Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Nov 6 is now less than 4 months away. Anything related, please post here. Latest polls P.S. Jeez, Yanks! Why am I the one creating this thread and not you all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 All the polls suggest it's Obama's to lose. Florida, as always, will be pretty decisive. It seems the Obama campaign has taken the gloves off though. The attacks on Romney about his Bain history are pretty strong, compared to the 2008 campaign. However, it's easier to get away with attacking a multi-millionaire than a hero ex-POW veteran. I still reckon there's going to be a twist. The GOP and the Tea Party will do whatever they can to avoid a 2nd term Democrat president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I can't believe the Obama campaign is focusing on Romney's (admittedly dodgy) Bain record. Can it really be that tricky for them to ridicule his Mormonism? Mormonism FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 At least religion won't - probably - play a huge role in this year's campaigns (considering Romney's Mormonism) Anyway, in response to CrackpotForeigner's (admittedly facetious ) comment: His case for becoming president relies, instead, on his claim that, having been a successful businessman, he knows how to create jobs. This, in turn, means that however much the Romney campaign may wish otherwise, the nature of that business career is fair game. How did Mr. Romney make all that money? Was it in ways suggesting that what was good for Bain Capital, the private equity firm that made him rich, would also be good for America? And the answer is no. Full article, NY Times article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 The big news the last couple of days is Romney's possible selection of Condaleeza Rice as his VP running mate. Many of the real right wingers hate her because she's pro choice, and probably cuz she's black, too. I actually think it'd be a smart move by Romney, because those right wingers hate Obama more than anyone else, so he'll still get their vote, but in picking a black woman, he will steal some of the black and female vote from Obama, two demographics in which he trails Obama badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 When an election comes down to one or two states, it can be stolen (Bush v Gore 2000)....(Kennedy v Nixon 1960)...there are reports of shady voter registration tricks in Florida already by GOP operatives...it's a sleazy business, boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I very much doubt I will bother voting in this...however, if Romney picks Rice, I might reconsider...I quite like her and mostly all of the things I have heard said about her time in Washington are very complimentary (No, I am not Gaddafi). On a side note, anytime that someone talks about Romney and Baine, all I can think about is Batman, and it conjures up an evil picture of Romney in my head. Well done Democrats on creating this negative association! :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 edit: double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Don't really follow American Politics but Obama will romp home wont he ? He killed bin Laden (all be it not directly) , what more does he need on his election posters ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Chuck Norris FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Chuck Norris FTW Chuck Norris has nothing on Olof Mellberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 15, 2012 Don't we already have a couple of threads? Gary Johnson FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 Don't we already have a couple of threads? Gary Johnson FTW. Probably, somewhere in the VT abyss where we will never find them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I very much doubt I will bother voting in this...however, if Romney picks Rice, I might reconsider...I quite like her and mostly all of the things I have heard said about her time in Washington are very complimentary (No, I am not Gaddafi). Never understood the reasoning behind voting for someone based on their VP pick - correct me if I'm wrong (Levi!) but isn't it true that under the Constitution all the VP does is 1. be next-in-line should the President himself/herself be unable to carry out his/her duties (read: death) and 2. Act as figurehead leader of the Senate. If true, it would be a very astute pick though, as someone mentioned earlier. This Mormon isn't very Mormon, is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 15, 2012 That would depend on whether he's wearing his magic underwear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I very much doubt I will bother voting in this...however, if Romney picks Rice, I might reconsider...I quite like her and mostly all of the things I have heard said about her time in Washington are very complimentary (No, I am not Gaddafi). Never understood the reasoning behind voting for someone based on their VP pick - correct me if I'm wrong (Levi!) but isn't it true that under the Constitution all the VP does is 1. be next-in-line should the President himself/herself be unable to carry out his/her duties (read: death) and 2. Act as figurehead leader of the Senate. If true, it would be a very astute pick though, as someone mentioned earlier. This Mormon isn't very Mormon, is he? No, the VP, does actually have duties, hence why the choice of running mate is somewhat important... i.e. McCain picking Palin as VP was one of the final blows to his campaign. I was going to vote for him until he made the idiotic woman part of his campaign. If you want to see a powerful VP, look no further than Cheney under Bush. Cheney was one of the main men pulling the strings in the background throughout Bush's two terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I very much doubt I will bother voting in this...however, if Romney picks Rice, I might reconsider...I quite like her and mostly all of the things I have heard said about her time in Washington are very complimentary (No, I am not Gaddafi). Never understood the reasoning behind voting for someone based on their VP pick - correct me if I'm wrong (Levi!) but isn't it true that under the Constitution all the VP does is 1. be next-in-line should the President himself/herself be unable to carry out his/her duties (read: death) and 2. Act as figurehead leader of the Senate. If true, it would be a very astute pick though, as someone mentioned earlier. This Mormon isn't very Mormon, is he? No, the VP, does actually have duties, hence why the choice of running mate is somewhat important... i.e. McCain picking Palin as VP was one of the final blows to his campaign. I was going to vote for him until he made the idiotic woman part of his campaign. If you want to see a powerful VP, look no further than Cheney under Bush. Cheney was one of the main men pulling the strings in the background throughout Bush's two terms. Constitutionally, the VP is just a figurehead. Of course, there are ways to circumvent the Constitution, it is after all a document written by humans, there are bound to be loopholes in it. By right, the President is the one that makes the executive decisions though, not the VP. That's my impression anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 No you are correct, most of the overall executive duties do fall under the President. The VP, constitutionally speaking, would be seen as more of a figurehead as you said, but obviously these days the constitution is only a rough guide really. I would argue that the VP has plenty of potential to influence the President, except possibly in some cases where the VP might not be seen as being as experienced, like with Joe Biden, or at least imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 No you are correct, most of the overall executive duties do fall under the President. The VP, constitutionally speaking, would be seen as more of a figurehead as you said, but obviously these days the constitution is only a rough guide really. I would argue that the VP has plenty of potential to influence the President, except possibly in some cases where the VP might not be seen as being as experienced, like with Joe Biden, or at least imo. Joe Biden United States Senator from Delaware In office January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009 If we're talking executive experience - i.e. experience with running administrative jobs rather than legislative ones - then yes he was probably inexperienced before becoming VP. But he having done 26 years in the Senate, I don't think he can be considered an inexperienced politician, or an inexperienced government official in general, at all. Also, back on-topic, you don't need to be VP or even a Secretary to have massive influence on the President - look at Karl Rove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 In terms of experience though, you typically want either a president/vice president, one which who has some extensive foreign policy experience. Joe Biden did not really have that, and Obama din't either, which if I am not mistaken was one argument against him. Regarding who can influence the president and that, you certainly do not have to have one of the more heralded positions to do so, but it does not hurt. Karl Rove, as you pointed, out is a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts