Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[metisdead]

Off topic and trolling posts have been removed. As stated previously by Scott:

Off-topic posts have been deleted. The topic is about the Republican VP candidate. Discussion of Obama and Biden is off-topic unless you want to post intelligent remarks comparing policy differences.

If you think this is going to degenerate into a mud-slinging contest, you are wrong. If you think you are untouchable, you are also wrong. You will earn a suspension for trolling.

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

My emphasis.

Stay on topic please.

[meand]

Yay! Now we get to listen to more rich people talk about how they are going to help out all the poor folk. I am honestly so sick of it, I think the entire system is such an obvious joke. It took me years to realize that, but it is finally clear. People's mistake is that they assume the government is there to help them. It's not, like any entity, it is in it for itself.

[MILT]

For those people that don't already know it all, I would suggest you go to YouTube and look at some of his interviews and speeches.

He is considerably more than a pretty face.

He obviously wasn't high on marijuana when he was in school.

How do you know? Maybe he was into booze. I went to school with plenty of people that smoked weed and who went on to successful lives.

The closeted drinkers went on to be nasty alcoholics. If your comments are a cheap swipe at President Obama, they fail. At least the President is honest on his past. Former President Bush was a hypocrite when it came to his past chemical dependancy. In any case, I couldn't care less if Mr. Ryan was a binge drinker at his university fraternity or if he smoked weed or not.

What matters are his policy views and his views are unworkable. That doesn't mean that he doesn't raise some valid points and he is indeed correct on some issues. However, he refuses to admit that the government does not collect sufficient tax revenues to pay for even the most basic of programs and to support a bloated defence budget. He will never be honest and admit that additional taxes are needed. More specifically, that the super wealthy have to pay more taxes.That is why he has no integrity He won't alienate his supporters and backers.

I would bet he did.

[chuckd]

Here is a summary of Ryan's policies. Funnily enough they add up instead of being a tissue of lies, smallprint, ad-hominim attacks and the usual smears in lieu of substance, which sadly is all the left seem capable of.

http://www.newsmax.c...gn=widgetphase1

Newsmax asked vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to provide his prescription for fixing the American economy and a defense of his proposed agenda, in light of the Obama's administration's refusal to address out-of-control entitlements. Here is his exclusive Newsmax Op-Ed.

Please consider the source:

"In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party." "

In a January 2010 profile on the company, the Financial Times reported that the "Rise of Newsmax Defies the Media Trend" and said its website, Newsmax.com, is "one of the strongest conservative voices online"." http://en.wikipedia....wsmax_Media

Both the right and left can generate a great deal of biased misleading material. My post above about the extreme position of Ryan is an example of left wing clap trap that is equally suspect. If you make your judgements based on biased information I would expect that you could be "mislead" by those you hold in such high esteem. The reason I posted my left wing tid-bit was that it was an extreme example that a majority of the news I had been reading from many sources, including unbiased, was indicating that Ryan's position was far to the right. My post quote was clearly identified as from a biased source and the main reason I used it to express my point of Ryan's non-centrist dogma was that I liked the picture.

The "source" of the information was not Newsmax, it was Paul Ryan. Ryan wrote the op ed and Newsmax published it.

If you have problems with the content of the article you could detail your objections here, but don't kill the messenger.

[Suradit69]

He did promise to place the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office. You do know Obama had it removed and returned to the British Embassy in Washington, don't you?

His criticism of the security preparations for the Olympics was ill advised since he was parroting all the British news media that was calling for the head of the CEO of G4S. It was in all the papers.

The Fox Noise misinformation machine rolls on.

In reality:

Mitt Romney has vowed to return a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House if elected president.

The only problem: it's already there.

Responding to Romney's claim that the bust has been removed from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- perpetuated in conservative Charles Krauthammer's Friday column in the Washington Post -- White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer on Friday called the rumor "so patently false" that he had to respond.

Though President Obama did move the bust out of the Oval Office -- and replaced it with a bust of President Abraham Lincoln -- it's still in the White House, just moved to the residence, outside the Treaty Room. "News outlets have debunked this claim time and again," Pfeiffer wrote in an unusual fact-check blog post on the White House website.

In case those reports haven't satisfied critics, Pfeiffer also offers up a 2010 photo of the president and British Prime Minister David Cameron looking at the bust along with his post.

"Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again," Pfeiffer said.

http://www.politico....rom-130320.html

"His criticism of the security preparations for the Olympics was ill advised since he was parroting all the British news media that was calling for the head of the CEO of G4S. It was in all the papers."

"Ill advised" and "parroting" pretty well sum up his stance on everything. Wave a few dollars in his face and he'll advocate whatever policy his advisers tell him to. In Israel he all but sat on Sheldon Adelson's lap and moved his lips while Adelson did the thinking and speaking. The only question was how far up he had to shove his hand to control Mitts lips.

And even Murdoch piled on Mitt the Twit:

"Romneyshambles: PM's snub" was the headline in the Times of London. That was actually the milder of the headlines from Murdoch's British papers.

[Ulysses G.]

The Fox Noise misinformation machine rolls on.

In reality:

Mitt Romney has vowed to return a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House if elected president.

The only problem: it's already there.

Maybe you should tell Dan Pfeiffer that as he issued an apology to Charles Krauthammer.for being wrong and it is posted on his White House blog. In other words, as usual Krauthammer was correct and the report on Fox News that the bust was returned to the British was accurate. .

Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology.

Dan Pfeiffer

http://www.whitehous...les-krauthammer

As reported correctly by chuckd, Romney has vowed to return the bust of Churchill to the White House when he is elected president.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Suradit69]

The Fox Noise misinformation machine rolls on.

In reality:

Mitt Romney has vowed to return a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House if elected president.

The only problem: it's already there.

Maybe you should tell Dan Pfeiffer that as he issued an apology to Charles Krauthammer.for being wrong and it is posted on his White House blog. In other words, as usual Krauthammer was correct and the report on Fox News that the bust was returned to the British was accurate. .

Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology.

Dan Pfeiffer

http://www.whitehous...les-krauthammer

As reported correctly by chuckd, Romney has vowed to return the bust of Churchill to the White House when he is elected president.

The fact remains that Obama didn't choose to return it and there is a bust of Churchill on display.

And more to the point, Krauthammer himself said:

He said that Romney’s comments on the London Olympics were “unbelievable,” “incomprehensible,” and “a lot of other adjectives.” Krauthammer said Romney shouldn’t be saying anything on his international trip, except for kind words about the countries he is visiting.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Suradit69

[yourauntbob]

Sure save America by throwing the poor, minorities, unemployed, and sick off the cliff by giving additional welfare for the rich and corporations! This Ryan poster boy, Ayn Rand cult follower, is one of the most cold hearted politicians in American history. Great day for Obama supporters.

Fools should not speak of what they dont understand. Obviously you believe everything you read (in main stream media) and have no mind of your own. Expanding a plan such as medicare advantage (basically what the Ryan plan does) which consistently ranks as one of the most popular government programs is common sense. Not only does it give medicare a fighting chance for the future, it gives people more control over their lives. Using scare tactics because you cant intelligently defend your opinion is doing a great disservice to not only yourself, but the world. Do some research, find some facts and get back to us.

[chuckd]

Maybe you should tell Dan Pfeiffer that as he issued an apology to Charles Krauthammer.for being wrong and it is posted on his White House blog. In other words, as usual Krauthammer was correct and the report on Fox News that the bust was returned to the British was accurate. .

Charles,

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology.

Dan Pfeiffer

http://www.whitehous...les-krauthammer

As reported correctly by chuckd, Romney has vowed to return the bust of Churchill to the White House when he is elected president.

The fact remains that Obama didn't choose to return it and there is a bust of Churchill on display.

The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do.

I apologize for using the wrong quote regarding the initial accusation, but it was still an unjustified attempt to balance that against Mitt the Twit blundering across the international scene.

"When that [bush] administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador's Residence in Washington DC," the Embassy said. "The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March."

Most assuredly Obama chose to return it. Do you believe for one second the British government would have refused his request to have it remain in the White House?

Do you always apologize for being wrong with conditions?

From your own link at Politico:

UPDATE: Pfeiffer's "fact check" isn't quite right. While there is still a bust of Churchill in the White House, it's not the same one that was in the Oval when Bush was president. The bust by Sir Jacob Epstein (no relation to this reporter) was lent to Bush's administration for the duration of his presidency, the British Embassy in Washington told Mediaite. When Bush left office, the loan ended and the bust was placed in the embassy. The White House collection includes its own Churchill bust by Epstein, which is the one that's now in the residence.

• 
  

[Ulysses G.]

And more to the point, Krauthammer himself said:

He said that Romney’s comments on the London Olympics were “unbelievable,” “incomprehensible,” and “a lot of other adjectives.” Krauthammer said Romney shouldn’t be saying anything on his international trip, except for kind words about the countries he is visiting.

He also said this about the trip:

"Scorecard? Romney’s trip was a major substantive success: one gaffe (Britain), two triumphs (Israel and Poland), and a fine demonstration of foreign-policy fluency and command — wrapped, however, in a media narrative of surpassing triviality." Charles Krauthammer

Edited August 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Here is a summary of Ryan's policies. Funnily enough they add up instead of being a tissue of lies, smallprint, ad-hominim attacks and the usual smears in lieu of substance, which sadly is all the left seem capable of.

http://www.newsmax.c...gn=widgetphase1

Newsmax asked vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to provide his prescription for fixing the American economy and a defense of his proposed agenda, in light of the Obama's administration's refusal to address out-of-control entitlements. Here is his exclusive Newsmax Op-Ed.

Please consider the source:

"In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party." "

In a January 2010 profile on the company, the Financial Times reported that the "Rise of Newsmax Defies the Media Trend" and said its website, Newsmax.com, is "one of the strongest conservative voices online"." http://en.wikipedia....wsmax_Media

Both the right and left can generate a great deal of biased misleading material. My post above about the extreme position of Ryan is an example of left wing clap trap that is equally suspect. If you make your judgements based on biased information I would expect that you could be "mislead" by those you hold in such high esteem. The reason I posted my left wing tid-bit was that it was an extreme example that a majority of the news I had been reading from many sources, including unbiased, was indicating that Ryan's position was far to the right. My post quote was clearly identified as from a biased source and the main reason I used it to express my point of Ryan's non-centrist dogma was that I liked the picture.

The "source" of the information was not Newsmax, it was Paul Ryan. Ryan wrote the op ed and Newsmax published it.

If you have problems with the content of the article you could detail your objections here, but don't kill the messenger.

Presentation is the key to any kind of propaganda and is generally controlled by the media. The question one should always ask is how was the information edited and by whom. Not to mention the consideration of speech writers. To consider anything is direct from the horses mouth is naive. And that certainly holds true for both the right and left. This is a case where actions speak louder than words. "propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view or the the dissemination of such information."

[Rancid]

Is it just me or am I missing something here. What are the actual tangible differences between Democrats and Republicans, I get that the Gays and welfare rent seekers vote Democrat and the religious right and gun owners vote Republican, as far as I can see that is about all that separates them.

Both are largely funded by bankers and large corporations, both prosecute wars of aggression with similar foreign policies, both run up the national debt, both have members who are considerably wealthy, both support the welfare state, both introduce icreasingly fascist legislation redicing citizems rights and ignore the Constitution.

So where are the big differences that actually gets anyone excited? Obama basically has delivered on none of his promises, change surely no one longer believes in, he even kept the same bankers running things as that fool Bush before him. Romney got rich stripping companies and firing staff, and spent the ensuing years dodging tax, another winner stepping up here. So what is it about all this that gets your partisan blood flowing, as I sure can't see any real difference.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Is it just me or am I missing something here. What are the actual tangible differences between Democrats and Republicans, I get that the Gays and welfare rent seekers vote Democrat and the religious right and gun owners vote Republican, as far as I can see that is about all that separates them.

Both are largely funded by bankers and large corporations, both prosecute wars of aggression with similar foreign policies, both run up the national debt, both have members who are considerably wealthy, both support the welfare state, both introduce icreasingly fascist legislation redicing citizems rights and ignore the Constitution.

So where are the big differences that actually gets anyone excited? Obama basically has delivered on none of his promises, change surely no one longer believes in, he even kept the same bankers running things as that fool Bush before him. Romney got rich stripping companies and firing staff, and spent the ensuing years dodging tax, another winner stepping up here. So what is it about all this that gets your partisan blood flowing, as I sure can't see any real difference.

Are you talking about the Reds and the Blues of the US or the Reds and the Yellows of Thailand. With all this political maneuvering I get confused. It boils down to the 1% against the 99%. This is a world wide phenomena and just scarey as hell. You need to closely examine the person and his/her motives to make a judgement. Trouble is most are not in a position to do so. I have no solutions to offer except those that can wade through the propaganda should clearly understand the consequences of their choices.

[Ulysses G.]

Speaking for myself, it is not about democrats or republicans. It is about promises and results. I voted for Obama and he promised to cut the deficit in half or be a one term president. He started out with control of both houses and he wasted it trying to force a health plan down the throats of Americans that they did not want. He wasted billions of dollars on a stimulus that did not work and has not improved the economy. Now, all he does is blame others for his failure and he wants to hold on to power at any cost. He is running the most divisive, crooked campaign in modern history. It is time for a change and that is why I'm going to vote for Romney and Ryan.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Baloo22]

Well, in 2008 a lot of U.S voters fell for the smooth talker who had less management experience than the average 7-11 store manager. He has had three and a half years in office and unemployment is still above 8%. He IS good at the blame game. He throws blame out like grass seed. Blame Bush, blame Republicans, blame everybody else he can and yet seems to accept no responsibility himself. That's not leadership. Not for a squad leader in the Army or President of the United States.

Sorry Obama fans, he has had his chance and it's time for him to be fired. Hire someone new for the job, apparently Romney although he was not my first choice. Romney has been governor of a state for four years, managed a private company, and was President/CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Even though I may not agree with all his views, at least with Romney we will have a measure of management competence instead of a smooth-talking blame-game buffoon. And yes, if in three and a half years he has not performed, ie gotten unenployment down to somewhere around the 5% range, then fire him also.

[geriatrickid]

Mr. Ryan at least understands how congress works and I'm sure he can count on the PACs and lobbyists to give him lots of money to fund his campaign. He's no match for the street smart and wiley Joe Biden.

What a kidder. Lets see how the "street smart and wiley Joe Biden" does in the VP debate against Paul Ryan.

I am willing to bet that Joe Biden, street fighter par excellence, and an experienced hand in foreign affairs will make short work of the one themed Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan is a handsome, articulate and intelligent individual, but he has baggage. Whether it was his vote in support of TARP or his support of the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act which then allowed the banks to engage in the practices that led to the U.S. financial crisis, he has made some serious mistakes. His budget proposals include some items that will terrify the elderly and those that earn less that $50,000 per annum.

Mr. Ryan isn't shallow, nor is he given to the idiotic statements that characterized Sarah Palin. He won't make a fool of himself as she did and he will be a strong running mate, but he just will not be able to connect with the blue collar and working poor demographic like Joe Biden can. VP Biden is seen as a regular joe that did well for himself. His flaws are overlooked because he is likeable and people see him as one of them. Mr. Ryan on the other hand is perceived as a rich guy, as someone cut off from the regular people. It is not necessarily an accurate perception, because I do think that Mr. Ryan cares. However, his pandering to the Tea Party and extreme segment of the GOP will come back to hurt him.

The USA now has a choice, two men with no foreign relations experience or skills, that embrace financial positions that have not worked in the past, or an experienced team that takes into the account of the needs of all Americans and who have steered the USA away from the shoals of financial collapse.

[Jingthing]

Well, in 2008 a lot of U.S voters fell for the smooth talker who had less management experience than the average 7-11 store manager. He has had three and a half years in office and unemployment is still above 8%. He IS good at the blame game. He throws blame out like grass seed. Blame Bush, blame Republicans, blame everybody else he can and yet seems to accept no responsibility himself. That's not leadership. Not for a squad leader in the Army or President of the United States.

Sorry Obama fans, he has had his chance and it's time for him to be fired. Hire someone new for the job, apparently Romney although he was not my first choice. Romney has been governor of a state for four years, managed a private company, and was President/CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Even though I may not agree with all his views, at least with Romney we will have a measure of management competence instead of a smooth-talking blame-game buffoon. And yes, if in three and a half years he has not performed, ie gotten unenployment down to somewhere around the 5% range, then fire him also.

I agree. Romney would be better suited for 7-11 manager than Obama. President? Not so much.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Please examine the employment trends over the last 8 years before becoming the all seeing grand supreme judge of all that is real. Please, show us some facts instead of rhetoric. Such callus partisanship is very sad indeed.

I hope and I think it is very likely that the voting members of the US will see through BS be it the Democrats or the Republicans.

Changing the direction of a moving freight train is not an easy thing to do and extreme maneuvers will only make the train run off the track.

[Ulysses G.]

You've got to be kidding. All four men are rich and Ryan is very likely to attract the middle class and blue-collar white Catholic vote just for starts. He is easy going and very clever and very good at explaining his policies simply.

As far as Obama's foreign relations experience, most Americans do not believe that going around the world apologizing for being a superpower was much of a success. I will admit that the press covered up his gaffes when he was overseas, but he made a number of them that got little coverage for some strange reason.

[chuckd]

Please consider the source:

"In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party." "

In a January 2010 profile on the company, the Financial Times reported that the "Rise of Newsmax Defies the Media Trend" and said its website, Newsmax.com, is "one of the strongest conservative voices online"." http://en.wikipedia....wsmax_Media

Both the right and left can generate a great deal of biased misleading material. My post above about the extreme position of Ryan is an example of left wing clap trap that is equally suspect. If you make your judgements based on biased information I would expect that you could be "mislead" by those you hold in such high esteem. The reason I posted my left wing tid-bit was that it was an extreme example that a majority of the news I had been reading from many sources, including unbiased, was indicating that Ryan's position was far to the right. My post quote was clearly identified as from a biased source and the main reason I used it to express my point of Ryan's non-centrist dogma was that I liked the picture.

The "source" of the information was not Newsmax, it was Paul Ryan. Ryan wrote the op ed and Newsmax published it.

If you have problems with the content of the article you could detail your objections here, but don't kill the messenger.

Presentation is the key to any kind of propaganda and is generally controlled by the media. The question one should always ask is how was the information edited and by whom. Not to mention the consideration of speech writers. To consider anything is direct from the horses mouth is naive. And that certainly holds true for both the right and left. This is a case where actions speak louder than words. "propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view or the the dissemination of such information."

Uh, Ryan was a speech writer for a US Senator for two years before he ran and was elected to Congress. I hardly think he needs help gathering his thoughts.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Please consider the source:

"In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party." "

In a January 2010 profile on the company, the Financial Times reported that the "Rise of Newsmax Defies the Media Trend" and said its website, Newsmax.com, is "one of the strongest conservative voices online"." http://en.wikipedia....wsmax_Media

Both the right and left can generate a great deal of biased misleading material. My post above about the extreme position of Ryan is an example of left wing clap trap that is equally suspect. If you make your judgements based on biased information I would expect that you could be "mislead" by those you hold in such high esteem. The reason I posted my left wing tid-bit was that it was an extreme example that a majority of the news I had been reading from many sources, including unbiased, was indicating that Ryan's position was far to the right. My post quote was clearly identified as from a biased source and the main reason I used it to express my point of Ryan's non-centrist dogma was that I liked the picture.

The "source" of the information was not Newsmax, it was Paul Ryan. Ryan wrote the op ed and Newsmax published it.

If you have problems with the content of the article you could detail your objections here, but don't kill the messenger.

Presentation is the key to any kind of propaganda and is generally controlled by the media. The question one should always ask is how was the information edited and by whom. Not to mention the consideration of speech writers. To consider anything is direct from the horses mouth is naive. And that certainly holds true for both the right and left. This is a case where actions speak louder than words. "propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view or the the dissemination of such information."

Uh, Ryan was a speech writer for a US Senator for two years before he ran and was elected to Congress. I hardly think he needs help gathering his thoughts.

Or his spin!

[BuckarooBanzai]

This is a biased article on Ryan but interesting all the same. I am including it so that pros and cons have equal representation:

"Twelve Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan"

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10837-twelve-things-you-should-know-about-vice-presidential-candidate-paul-ryan

[Steely Dan]

Obama and Biden -- very strong experience on foreign policy in a time of war.

Romney and Ryan -- NO experience. None. Zilch. Nada.

These republicans are just too risky.

You've got to be joking, Obama has been the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter. Now thanks to his endorsement of the so called Arab spring we have Islamist control over much of the middle east, not to mention it's infiltration of the U.S government. We are effectively negotiating terms of our own surrender to the Taliban whilst leaving Iraq torn by sectarian strife and with a pro-Iranian government.

Ryan could do no worse if he actually tried, which worryingly is what Obama seems to have conciously done.

I have no idea whether Ryan would improve or damage the Republicans chances compared to a more centrist candidate, but such is the devastation Obama has left in his wake that middle of the road policies would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. A rapid and radical reversal of the last 4 years is the only hope for saving the U.S from collapse.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Obama and Biden -- very strong experience on foreign policy in a time of war.

Romney and Ryan -- NO experience. None. Zilch. Nada.

These republicans are just too risky.

You've got to be joking, Obama has been the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter. Now thanks to his endorsement of the so called Arab spring we have Islamist control over much of the middle east, not to mention it's infiltration of the U.S government. We are effectively negotiating terms of our own surrender to the Taliban whilst leaving Iraq torn by sectarian strife and with a pro-Iranian government.

Ryan could do no worse if he actually tried, which worryingly is what Obama seems to have conciously done.

I have no idea whether Ryan would improve or damage the Republicans chances compared to a more centrist candidate, but such is the devastation Obama has left in his wake that middle of the road policies would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. A rapid and radical reversal of the last 4 years is the only hope for saving the U.S from collapse.

I understand your concern about Arab foreign policy but would like to point out that the US supports democratic rule. This was not always the case and we Americans are still trying to get by the hatred that support for dictators has saddled us with. Muslims are not terrorists as a rule any more than your typical White guy is a skin head or a Black guy a thief or a Hispanic a gang member etc. etc. This is fear you are talking about and prejudice. Obama is not the do all end all of every one of our problems but he has improved our image rather than diminish it. Will Romney and Ryan do the same. I think not.

[geriatrickid]

Obama and Biden -- very strong experience on foreign policy in a time of war.

Romney and Ryan -- NO experience. None. Zilch. Nada.

These republicans are just too risky.

You've got to be joking, Obama has been the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter. Now thanks to his endorsement of the so called Arab spring we have Islamist control over much of the middle east, not to mention it's infiltration of the U.S government. We are effectively negotiating terms of our own surrender to the Taliban whilst leaving Iraq torn by sectarian strife and with a pro-Iranian government.

Ryan could do no worse if he actually tried, which worryingly is what Obama seems to have conciously done.

I have no idea whether Ryan would improve or damage the Republicans chances compared to a more centrist candidate, but such is the devastation Obama has left in his wake that middle of the road policies would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. A rapid and radical reversal of the last 4 years is the only hope for saving the U.S from collapse.

On the contrary. President Obama repaired a great deal of damage done by the previous Bush administration. He has more influence than Bush ever had and he is genjuinely well regarded by other governments. More importantly, he is perceived as the President that is bringing the troops home. The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were two of the major expenditures that pushed the USA to the brink of bankruptcy. The ongoing obligations in Afghanistan are costing the USA billions of $$ it doesn't have. If it wasn't for President Obama, we'd have another war going on in the middle east with Iran firing missiles into the EU and most likely massive destruction in Israel. In fairness to Ryan, he is for restraint as well, although, Romney has a different public stance.

It was President Obama's prudent approach that kept the USA from a political disaster in North Africa and under the Obama administration the likelihood of another international conflict was reduced. Both Obama and Biden understand the complex dynamics of poverty in the USA, while neither Romney nor Ryan do.

The budget crisis could be fixed if the GOP would allow some of the massive defence expenditures to be cut. All they have to do is accept some of the Pentagon's recommendations. Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with GOP contributors that make their living from ongoing market turmoil and the military industrial complex. It's not the regular American that is speculating in the market and that has access to inside trading information or that has access to the stock brokerage trading software. The average American can't take advantage of the tax loopholes that the GOP has rabidly guarded.

My biggest fear now is interference from outsiders. Another terrorist attack or worse, a stupid decision on the part of Netanyahu. In the meantime, the Chinese and Russians will sit back and laugh as Americans spend more time attacking each other than on working together.

[SunSeek01]

Wow. I normally don't get involved in all this, but you guys who like Obama, what on earth are you thinking, or is just that you are not from America. Ryan is brilliant in many ways and has the balls to tell the truth. Really, if you really want to boil it down, every new tax, every new program, every dime taken from tax payers and give to non taxpayers (50% by the way), the answer is "we cannot afford it because our country is bankrupt and if not for the luxury of having the worlds reserve currency we would be be bankrupt with no more T Bill IOU's to China, ect.

Obama has exceeded in 3 years what Bush piled up in 8 years in debt (Bush about 4.7 T, Obama over 5 T). We currently borrow 40 cents of every Fed dollar spent. It is bound to end badly. Underprivileged ? There are no underprivileged in America you morons, they're in America ! The best place to make money in the world. If your not up to the task, your still in almost the best place. I hear the UK is the best for being on the dole. People are risking their lives every day to get into America and I don't mean only Mexicans.

And those who think Obama could possibly win? I'm from FL and I am here to tell you, it's going to be a double digit win for Romney. Almost no white people will vote for Obama this time and we are still little over 50%. Sorry for the diatribe but the notion that Obama is anything other than a low class train wreck is nuts. A tax and spend and vote for me socialist in my view.

And another thing, he really is not very bright, Obama of course (Romney has made 250 million and in case you never tried to make even 1 million, it's not very easy). I have listened closely to the words that come out of his mouth. At almost every turn he is struggling to come up with a rational argument for anything. Ryan has more brains in his pinking finger that you know who. You can flame me up all you like but I know a lot about what goes and where the money goes.

Edited August 12, 2012 by SunSeek01

[cdnvic]

Lets get back on topic. Romney's VP pick.

[CrazyKid]

This is probably a silly question.

But.

Is there any chance that those 2 get elected?

Sadly they have a chance. Their party is busy working on disenfranchising poor and minority voters who tend to vote for the other party.

And the Unions

[Jingthing]

The reason for the Ryan pick is that Romney is in deep trouble and expects to lose. Running with ultra right winger Ryan, he can pin the blame on the ultra wing faction of the republican party and blame them for the loss, as they have basically forced him into this stance. In the unlikely event that Romney wins, he will have no choice but to govern from the ultra right wing. More reason to defeat Romey/Ryan because that truth can be sold by Obama.

BTW, currently Romney's tax rate is about 13 percent.

If help the rich and shaft everyone else Ryans tragic budget was fully implemented, his tax rate would be ONE percent. You heard it here first, that is going to be a huge talking point to defeat Romney-Romney.

Electorally this was also a very poor strategic pick if they expect to win (which they don't). Romney won't win Ryan's home state of Wisconsin and he has basically conceded Florida now.

http://www.washingto...31849_blog.html

Ryan is the way Romney and his aides escape blame for their now-likely defeat — blame which would have vicious and unrelenting — and pin it in on conservatives instead. With only minor historical revisions, they will be able to tell a story about how Romney was keeping the race close through early August, at which point the party’s conservative darling joined the ticket and sent the poll numbers into steady decline.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[moe666]

Wow. I normally don't get involved in all this, but you guys who like Obama, what on earth are you thinking, or is just that you are not from America. Ryan is brilliant in many ways and has the balls to tell the truth. Really, if you really want to boil it down, every new tax, every new program, every dime taken from tax payers and give to non taxpayers (50% by the way), the answer is "we cannot afford it because our country is bankrupt and if not for the luxury of having the worlds reserve currency we would be be bankrupt with no more T Bill IOU's to China, ect.

Obama has exceeded in 3 years what Bush piled up in 8 years in debt (Bush about 4.7 T, Obama over 5 T). We currently borrow 40 cents of every Fed dollar spent. It is bound to end badly. Underprivileged ? There are no underprivileged in America you morons, they're in America ! The best place to make money in the world. If your not up to the task, your still in almost the best place. I hear the UK is the best for being on the dole. People are risking their lives every day to get into America and I don't mean only Mexicans.

And those who think Obama could possibly win? I'm from FL and I am here to tell you, it's going to be a double digit win for Romney. Almost no white people will vote for Obama this time and we are still little over 50%. Sorry for the diatribe but the notion that Obama is anything other than a low class train wreck is nuts. A tax and spend and vote for me socialist in my view.

And another thing, he really is not very bright, Obama of course (Romney has made 250 million and in case you never tried to make even 1 million, it's not very easy). I have listened closely to the words that come out of his mouth. At almost every turn he is struggling to come up with a rational argument for anything. Ryan has more brains in his pinking finger that you know who. You can flame me up all you like but I know a lot about what goes and where the money goes.

I am from america and voted for Obama and will vote for him again as with all things Obama alot of miss direction no actual evidence. As for Paul Ryan he voted for all of the Bush tax cuts, tawrp, car bail outs and any and two unpaid for wars it appears spending is ok if a republican is doing it but not democrats. In some ways I would applaud a republican win as they would never win another election in 20 years as there destruction of American Middle Class would finally be in the open.