CS.Com Election 2012

[Ivytalk]

What depresses me is that you believe your own bullshit. Worse yet, cliched bullshit.

We waste billions on wars we can't win, we protect the profits of a completely unneccessary for-profit insurance industry that raises, not lowers costs, we give big pharma the gift of publicly insured, non-negotiable drug prices, you've pretty much agreed with me about protecting the entrenched power on Wall Street, and on and on and on. Unfortunately these ARE cliches.

You're depressed because you know I'm right.

Hardly. You've obviously bought into the single-payer health insurance boondoggle, and You can't blame Wall Street for the two-terms-in, two-terms out merry-go-round that is Presidential politics. The people get what they deserve more than what they want.

[kalm]

We waste billions on wars we can't win, we protect the profits of a completely unneccessary for-profit insurance industry that raises, not lowers costs, we give big pharma the gift of publicly insured, non-negotiable drug prices, you've pretty much agreed with me about protecting the entrenched power on Wall Street, and on and on and on. Unfortunately these ARE cliches.

You're depressed because you know I'm right.

Hardly. You've obviously bought into the single-payer health insurance boondoggle, and You can't blame Wall Street for the two-terms-in, two-terms out merry-go-round that is Presidential politics. The people get what they deserve more than what they want.

1) Single payer saves money with similar if not better outcomes for the rest of the developed world.

2) Huh?

3) Agreed

[Ivytalk]

Hardly. You've obviously bought into the single-payer health insurance boondoggle, and You can't blame Wall Street for the two-terms-in, two-terms out merry-go-round that is Presidential politics. The people get what they deserve more than what they want.

1) Single payer saves money with similar if not better outcomes for the rest of the developed world.

2) Huh?

3) Agreed

Your "huh" suggests that you think Wall Street manipulates election cycles. Have you been spandosizing lately?

[DSUrocks07]

OK, so you think a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 will make any kind of statement?

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

Same. Obama will win Delaware handily, I'm "expected" to vote for him. Voting for Romney will have no impact. Voting for Obama will give him 1 extra vote to win the state by. Voting for Johnson will have a larger impact nationally than anything else in this election cycle.

The only places this election matters is the seven or eight "swing states" that WILL decide the election. I don't live in one of them so I am free to vote as I choose. Its the political system we have.

[kalm]

1) Single payer saves money with similar if not better outcomes for the rest of the developed world.

2) Huh?

3) Agreed

Your "huh" suggests that you think Wall Street manipulates election cycles. Have you been spandosizing lately?

Nahhhhh, they just give money to campaigns out of the kindness of their hearts.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/01/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

OK, so you think a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 will make any kind of statement?

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

It won't.

[GannonFan]

OK, so you think a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 will make any kind of statement?

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

There is no chance that the votes for Gary Johnson will do anything close to signaling the end of the political status quo. If anything, his microscopic vote tally will only further entrench the idea that the status quo is as strong as ever. We're 4 elections out from Perot's major campaign in '92 and we're further away from a real 3rd party now than we were then. The trend is going in the wrong direction for those hopeful of changing the status quo.

[Chizzang]

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

There is no chance that the votes for Gary Johnson will do anything close to signaling the end of the political status quo. If anything, his microscopic vote tally will only further entrench the idea that the status quo is as strong as ever. We're 4 elections out from Perot's major campaign in '92 and we're further away from a real 3rd party now than we were then. The trend is going in the wrong direction for those hopeful of changing the status quo.

Agreed,
The small group of Americans who are disenfranchised by our present two party system are being marginalized as though they were insane and are regarded as people who clearly "just don't get it"

When precisely the opposite seems to be true
How anybody could vote (at this point) for either candidate seems odd to me

1) Anybody who thinks we need 4 more years of what we just had - is delusional
2) Anybody who thinks the guy who already passed a healthcare package identical to the one he's now running against has a mental disconnect so large it's almost laughable

[Ibanez]

Maybe, maybe not, but I only have 1 vote. I'm in Georgia where Romney will win every single electoral vote. A vote for Romney, especially when you don't like or agree with him, would be a wasted vote since my vote would get lost in the tally. I won't vote for Obama. My vote for Gary Johnson will add to his tally, he won't win, but he may get enough of a percentage to send a signal to the politicos that comb through the numbers that the status quo of politics as usual may be coming to an end.

There is no chance that the votes for Gary Johnson will do anything close to signaling the end of the political status quo. If anything, his microscopic vote tally will only further entrench the idea that the status quo is as strong as ever. We're 4 elections out from Perot's major campaign in '92 and we're further away from a real 3rd party now than we were then. The trend is going in the wrong direction for those hopeful of changing the status quo.

If people would stop putting down a third party and allow a viable third option to be seriously considered, then you affect the status quo. People have to change their minds about the awesome nature of our 2 Party system

[Ibanez]

There is no chance that the votes for Gary Johnson will do anything close to signaling the end of the political status quo. If anything, his microscopic vote tally will only further entrench the idea that the status quo is as strong as ever. We're 4 elections out from Perot's major campaign in '92 and we're further away from a real 3rd party now than we were then. The trend is going in the wrong direction for those hopeful of changing the status quo.

Agreed,
The small group of Americans who are disenfranchised by our present two party system are being marginalized as though they were insane and are regarded as people who clearly "just don't get it"

When precisely the opposite seems to be true
How anybody could vote (at this point) for either candidate seems odd to me

1) Anybody who thinks we need 4 more years of what we just had - is delusional
2) Anybody who thinks the guy who already passed a healthcare package identical to the one he's now running against has a mental disconnect so large it's almost laughable

Agreed

[GannonFan]

There is no chance that the votes for Gary Johnson will do anything close to signaling the end of the political status quo. If anything, his microscopic vote tally will only further entrench the idea that the status quo is as strong as ever. We're 4 elections out from Perot's major campaign in '92 and we're further away from a real 3rd party now than we were then. The trend is going in the wrong direction for those hopeful of changing the status quo.

If people would stop putting down a third party and allow a viable third option to be seriously considered, then you affect the status quo. People have to change their minds about the awesome nature of our 2 Party system

I voted for Perot in '92 so I'm certainly of a mind that is positive for 3rd parties. However, I'm also of the belief that if a viable 3rd party was really out there and if people really wanted/needed one there would be one. The closest thing we had to a 3rd party in this country was the Republican party, but even that came on the heels of the Whig party fading away. And that was 150 years ago. And frankly, our system doesn't really allow a 3rd party a chance to really operate and flourish - until the system changes, we're not getting a 3rd party.

[Ivytalk]

Your "huh" suggests that you think Wall Street manipulates election cycles. Have you been spandosizing lately?

Nahhhhh, they just give money to campaigns out of the kindness of their hearts.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/01/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Swing and a miss. They give money to both sides, but they don't affect outcomes. Unless you believe that the 2010 Congressional GOP landslide was plotted by Lloyd Blankfein and Company.

[Ivytalk]

If people would stop putting down a third party and allow a viable third option to be seriously considered, then you affect the status quo. People have to change their minds about the awesome nature of our 2 Party system

I voted for Perot in '92 so I'm certifiably delusional. However, I'm also of the belief that if a viable 3rd party was really out there and if people really wanted/needed one there would be one. The closest thing we had to a 3rd party in this country was the Republican party, but even that came on the heels of the Whig party fading away. And that was 150 years ago. And frankly, our system doesn't really allow a 3rd party a chance to really operate and flourish - until the system changes, we're not getting a 3rd party.

FIFY. And thanks, Perfesser!

[kalm]

Nahhhhh, they just give money to campaigns out of the kindness of their hearts.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/01/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Swing and a miss. They give money to both sides, but they don't affect outcomes. Unless you believe that the 2010 Congressional GOP landslide was plotted by Lloyd Blankfein and Company.

They give money to both sides to hedge their bets...literally!

It doesn't matter who's in power all that much as long as their giving solidifies their power. Oh...and the candidate with the most contributions wins something like 95% of the time. So I stand by my original statement. Nice attempt at spin though.

[Ivytalk]

Swing and a miss. They give money to both sides, but they don't affect outcomes. Unless you believe that the 2010 Congressional GOP landslide was plotted by Lloyd Blankfein and Company.

They give money to both sides to hedge their bets...literally!

It doesn't matter who's in power all that much as long as their giving solidifies their power. Oh...and the candidate with the most contributions wins something like 95% of the time. So I stand by my original statement. Nice attempt at spin though.

Yeah, and Wall Street pirouetted from the Dems to the GOP and back again. Nice try, Wilmer.

[Grizalltheway]

They give money to both sides to hedge their bets...literally!

It doesn't matter who's in power all that much as long as their giving solidifies their power. Oh...and the candidate with the most contributions wins something like 95% of the time. So I stand by my original statement. Nice attempt at spin though.

Yeah, and Wall Street pirouetted from the Dems to the GOP and back again. Nice try, Wilmer.

So kalm is correct that Wall Street has both parties eating out of the palm of their hands. Got it.

[Chizzang]

So kalm is correct that Wall Street has both parties eating out of the palm of their hands. Got it.

This is true...
But the Democrats pretend it's only the Evil Republicans who are influenced by Wall Street
When BOTH Parties are on their knees blowing the same master

[Bronco]

WALL STREET PROSECUTIONS UNDER OBAMA: ZILCH
The Washington Times ^ | 08/20/12 | Jean-Claude Groulx

For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder. Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:
Bush: 1,300 convictions; Clinton: 1,000 convictions; Obama: Zero attempts.

(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...

[Bronco]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHOimxPU ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[Bronco]

Did Obama give Jamie Dimon presidential cufflinks? JPMorgan Chase boss shows off inscribed set at senate banking committee
By Daily Mail Reporter

The boss of one of America's biggest banks has been snapped wearing a set of presidential cufflinks, prompting speculation that they were a gift from President Barack Obama.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was sporting the cufflinks, emblazoned with the seal of the President of the United States, at a senate banking committee hearing on Wednesday.
One of Wall Street's wealthiest fat cats, Mr Dimon is believed to have a good relationship with Mr Obama, having visited the White House 16 times and the President on at least three of those occasions.
He was being grilled by lawmakers at Capitol Hill about JPMorgan Chase's $2 billion trading loss among other things.
Mr Dimon, who recently referred to himself as 'barely Democrat', has other links to the President having spent several years in Mr Obama's hometown of Chicago, running Bank One.
According to Politico, the banker knows Mr Obama's former chief of staffs, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley, having hired the latter as a top executive in the past.
Mr Dimon has also given hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to the Democrats.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z28GYxixUY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

If people would stop putting down a third party and allow a viable third option to be seriously considered, then you affect the status quo. People have to change their minds about the awesome nature of our 2 Party system

I voted for Perot in '92 so I'm certainly of a mind that is positive for 3rd parties. However, I'm also of the belief that if a viable 3rd party was really out there and if people really wanted/needed one there would be one. The closest thing we had to a 3rd party in this country was the Republican party, but even that came on the heels of the Whig party fading away. And that was 150 years ago. And frankly, our system doesn't really allow a 3rd party a chance to really operate and flourish - until the system changes, we're not getting a 3rd party.

I think Gary Johnson is the best 3rd party candidate in a long time. However, people are lazy, think anything other than their beloved GOP or Democratic Party is fringe and full of lunatics. Futhermore, all their ignorant friends spout ignorance and hate on any party that is contrary to their own, so people get bad information. It all comes down to people don't care.

[GannonFan]

I voted for Perot in '92 so I'm certainly of a mind that is positive for 3rd parties. However, I'm also of the belief that if a viable 3rd party was really out there and if people really wanted/needed one there would be one. The closest thing we had to a 3rd party in this country was the Republican party, but even that came on the heels of the Whig party fading away. And that was 150 years ago. And frankly, our system doesn't really allow a 3rd party a chance to really operate and flourish - until the system changes, we're not getting a 3rd party.

I think Gary Johnson is the best 3rd party candidate in a long time. However, people are lazy, think anything other than their beloved GOP or Democratic Party is fringe and full of lunatics. Futhermore, all their ignorant friends spout ignorance and hate on any party that is contrary to their own, so people get bad information. It all comes down to people don't care.

I agree with that bolded part, and I'll add the other part - we have too many stupid people as well. Let's be honest, we're not a very smart nation taken as a whole.

[89Hen]

Did Obama give Jamie Dimon presidential cufflinks?

C'mon Bronco, let's not give the Dems a softball.

http://www.justcufflinks.com/baobprsedicu.html

[kalm]

So kalm is correct that Wall Street has both parties eating out of the palm of their hands. Got it.

This is true...
But the Democrats pretend it's only the Evil Republicans who are influenced by Wall Street
When BOTH Parties are on their knees blowing the same master

The conks can't complain too much about campaign finance as big monied interest has been a core value for much longer than the Dems. And yes, both parties do it, and you can certainly make a case that the dems are more hypocritical...oh and yes, Ivy, you are correct about the piroutte.

[kalm]

WALL STREET PROSECUTIONS UNDER OBAMA: ZILCH
The Washington Times ^ | 08/20/12 | Jean-Claude Groulx

For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder. Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:
Bush: 1,300 convictions; Clinton: 1,000 convictions; Obama: Zero attempts.

(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...

One of the main reasons I will not be voting Democrat and proof positive of some of Wall Street's ROI.