Which candidate do the Koch Brothers support?

[Edena_of_Neith]

My curiosity is up. Which Republican candidate do the Koch Brothers support?

I mean ... aren't these the guys that started the Tea Party, helped the Republicans with their giant victory last year, and are pouring countless dollars into next year's election? Along with the entire alliance they've set up, to help them?

I look at those Republican debates, and I just wonder: Which one of these jokers are these guys supporting?

[Edena_of_Neith]

Anyone have a guess?

I'm guessing it's not Mitt Romney.
I'm guessing it's either Rick Perry, Herman Cain, or Newt Gringrich. One of them.

[Hatter]

Why choose just one when they can have all the candidates in their pocket?


(that said, so far it's been Bachmann)

[AZRogue]

My curiosity is up. Which Republican candidate do the Koch Brothers support?

I mean ... aren't these the guys that started the Tea Party, helped the Republicans with their giant victory last year, and are pouring countless dollars into next year's election? Along with the entire alliance they've set up, to help them?

I look at those Republican debates, and I just wonder: Which one of these jokers are these guys supporting?

I really have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if they were funding several of them. Oh, by the way, the Koch brothers didn't "start" the Tea Party. They, along with others, simply began providing funding to some of the larger groups and then helped them grow and expand in the direction they wanted. They co-opted.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(blinks)

From what I'm reading, in various web searches, it seems like they are supporting Herman Cain ...

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Personally, I'd love to see Herman Cain win the nomination over the rest of this pack.

[Edena_of_Neith]

With Palin and Christie announcing they're out, that leaves just those four: Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gringrich (and almost nobody thinks Newt Gringrich has any chance, so it is really just those other three.)

The way Herman Cain has been surging in the polls ... I've been wondering for the last week, if he were the pick of the Koch Brothers.

[Hatter]

The way the GOP is eating candidates we'll check back in a month or so.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Who are the Koch brothers and why are they relevant?

[The Winslow]

They are the evil masterminds behind the Tea Parties, the Cato Institute, and Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wisconsin_Budget_Repair_Bill).

They are relevant because they are the ones who decide what the public want.

[Edena_of_Neith]

From what I've read, the Koch Brothers are petrochemical billionaires, who have created an alliance of business leaders and big energy leaders, along with perhaps others, in a coalition to bring the Republican Party back to power.
Apparently Forbes has joined with them (I cannot confirm that.)
I suspect that Trump is sympathetic to them (I cannot confirm that.)

Apparently, they played a large role in the Republican victories in the Midwest, and especially the recent Republican victories in Wisconsin.
They seem to be a large, if not the predominant, monetary force behind the Tea Party.

They seem to desire an America dominated by big energy, big corporations, and in rapid economic expansion via utter corporate domination, corporate ruthlessness and exploitation, almost 19th century style.

Most importantly, they may win. Look at the 2010 elections, which is heavily credited to them. Look at those outlier election victories for the Republicans, heavily credited to them.

If the Koch Brothers win this, we will have a Koch Brothers President, as it were.
So, this begs the question: Who are the Koch Brothers supporting, for President?

It appears to be Herman Cain, but I don't know that, obviously.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Such a conspiracy is too big to exist. The government loves us. Take your pills and toe the line. We all live lives of quiet desperation and all that.

[Glass]

Who are the Koch brothers and why are they relevant?
Robber barons. Hide yo kids.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Such a conspiracy is too big to exist. The government loves us. Take your pills and toe the line. We all live lives of quiet desperation and all that.

(chuckles)

Good humor.

You know human beings. It's the story of our history.
Throughout history there have always been organizations, groups, coalitions of groups, titanic organizations covering nations or regions or entire continents, trying to control this, or that, or those things, or other things, or whatever.
The Koch Brothers would be no different.

Why, if you want a really good historical example of such a power group, look at the Holy Roman Empire in Europe, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

There will always be, always are, conglomerates of powerful people trying to have their way. I could point at a dozen right off the bat:

- Those backing our current President.
- Those opposing our current President (like the Koch Brothers)
- Russia (mess with Vladimir Putin? Not unless you, too, want a close encounter of the radiation injection kind ...)
- Kazakhstan (world's 4th largest oil producer now, I believe, allying - along with Belarus - with Russia in the new Eurasian Confederation.)
- China ('nuff said!)
- India
- Iran (allying with Russia, trying to take over the Middle East, current head of OPEC)
- Saudia Arabia (trying to stop Iran, wants to remain King of the Gulf)
- The European Union (currently engaged in the Oktoberfest Brawl between Germany and Greece, every other country invited to the party, an invitation nobody is allowed to refuse)
- Brazil (one of the largest developing countries, big strike of oil, mowing down the Amazon)
- Argentina (wants Brazil's place)
- Japan (ignoring Fukushima disaster, wants to continue to be on the technological cutting edge, and sell said products)
- South Korea (wants to be Japan)
- Indonesia (clearing it's islands, wants to be the new Big Kid on the block in that part of the world)

That's just a few of the more obvious power blocs, in this case represented by countries.
It's just the way mankind is. :D

[Space Cadet B^3]

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. They are myths fueled by ignorance.

[The Winslow]

Except nothing of what I listed was a conspiracy.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. They are myths fueled by ignorance.

Yup. If you wanted ot spend 30 minutes searching around for it, you could easily craft a comparable conspiracy scenario on the Left.

[Hatter]

I have to agree with Winslow here, the Kochs are well known for their political involvement with libertarian think-tanks such as the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation. It's not a conspiracy to say they are involved in politics, they demonstrably are.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Ok. So voting matters even less then. I get it.

[cnath.rm]

Ok. So voting matters even less then. I get it.It might help if more people actually bothered to show up and vote, :( our stats in recent years are a bloody shame. It almost makes me wish for an Oz like system where (iirr) you are required to vote, even if you choose to cast an "I'm not voting" vote.

[Black Angel]

It might help if more people actually bothered to show up and vote, :( our stats in recent years are a bloody shame. It almost makes me wish for an Oz like system where (iirr) you are required to vote, even if you choose to cast an "I'm not voting" vote.

Yes it is required if you are registered, and registration is a legal requirement once you turn 18. Voting like that is known as a donkey vote & last election we had a record number, I think around 10%. However that still means around 90% of the voting population casting proper votes, so a pretty big improvement on the US system.

[TiQuinn]

Yes it is required if you are registered, and registration is a legal requirement once you turn 18. Voting like that is known as a donkey vote & last election we had a record number, I think around 10%. However that still means around 90% of the voting population casting proper votes, so a pretty big improvement on the US system.

I'm curious, how does that get enforced down there? Is it really an issue?

I'd imagine here the idea of mandatory voting would be compared to death panels and fascist regimes. :rolleyes:

[Black Angel]

I'm curious, how does that get enforced down there? Is it really an issue?

I'd imagine here the idea of mandatory voting would be compared to death panels and fascist regimes. :rolleyes:

According to the electoral commision website (http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#202):
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.
So the penalties for not voting aren't really too severe, but I think the majority of people can't be bothered writing a letter or going to court (let alone the fine) so they just rock up and vote anyway, even if it is a donkey vote. Since we are a relatively young nation and compulsory voting has been part of our system since pretty much the start, I think we are just used to it. While I think it is a great idea, and the US could certainly benefit from it, trying to institute such a policy all of a sudden will probably have repercussions (sp?) similar to those you have mentioned above. :grey:

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I don't want people to vote if they don't want to vote. That will just mean even more uninformed people at the polls.

[Dr_Avalanche]

I don't want people to vote if they don't want to vote. That will just mean even more uninformed people at the polls.

I agree.

I don't think participation should be mandatory, but I do think participation should be easy. Get rid of the registration requirement (or allow registration at the voting stations), and put the elections on a weekend instead of a work day (or make that work day a holiday).

I happen to think that a lot of casually informed people that only cares a little about politics might be better equipped to elect good leaders than the fanatics, who you know are going to vote no matter what hurdles you make them jump through.

[Black Angel]

I must agree with voting on weekends - our elections are always on a Saturday, which seems a lot smarter to me. Easier for people to get to a station for sure. Lately they have even implemented pre-poll voting (voting at the booth you would normally vote at, but for up to a week or so prior to the official election day).

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I agree.

I don't think participation should be mandatory, but I do think participation should be easy. Get rid of the registration requirement (or allow registration at the voting stations), and put the elections on a weekend instead of a work day (or make that work day a holiday).

I happen to think that a lot of casually informed people that only cares a little about politics might be better equipped to elect good leaders than the fanatics, who you know are going to vote no matter what hurdles you make them jump through.

For the US, I am in favor of voting on the weekend, but I am am not in favor of getting rid of registration. In fact, I think you should have to have a form of ID to vote so they can make sure (or as sure as possible) that you are a legal US citizen. We have a big problem with illegal immigrants here, moreso than in many other countries.

[cyphersmith]

For the US, I am in favor of voting on the weekend, but I am am not in favor of getting rid of registration. In fact, I think you should have to have a form of ID to vote so they can make sure (or as sure as possible) that you are a legal US citizen. We have a big problem with illegal immigrants here, moreso than in many other countries.

Requiring an ID is the equivalent of a Poll Tax if it is not implemented properly, and if it is implemented properly it will increase the bureaucracy and cost a lot.

[cnath.rm]

Requiring an ID is the equivalent of a Poll Tax if it is not implemented properly, and if it is implemented properly it will increase the bureaucracy and cost a lot.I keep hearing this, but with all the other gov programs I have a hard time imagining that the costs of getting state id for more people would really be that horrible.

Hell, I'd drop an extra $10 when I renew my license to go towards paying for someone else who can't afford one, even though I still believe that the problem is being blown out of proportion. Can you tell me that you don't think every party/group under the sun wouldn't be putting up cash in the hopes of people remembering them come election day?

[Hatter]

ID requirements tend to screw over people who have trouble getting one, because they are poor and IDs are not trivial to get, especially if you don't have a car. In many areas the nearest DMV is an hour away. Students also tend to get screwed over if they are from out of state and cannot meet the residency requirement in time for a November election.

More to the point, given that these two groups tend to support a particular party it's easy to come to the conclusion that ID requirement laws are an organized effort intended to disenfranchise them.

[cyphersmith]

I keep hearing this, but with all the other gov programs I have a hard time imagining that the costs of getting state id for more people would really be that horrible.

Hell, I'd drop an extra $10 when I renew my license to go towards paying for someone else who can't afford one, even though I still believe that the problem is being blown out of proportion. Can you tell me that you don't think every party/group under the sun wouldn't be putting up cash in the hopes of people remembering them come election day?

It's not the direct costs, necessarily, but the indirect ones. If you don't live in the area you were born, getting your birth certificate if you don't have it can be expensive. Sometimes, that's not enough. There's a guy in Oregon who needs a particular document from some Federal agency that charges $600 to get that document. I don't remember all of the specifics, but he was born in a hospital in Germany to American parents who were in the military. HE was a Marine, and his discharge papers stating that he's a citizen weren't good enough. I heard the other day about a woman in Tennessee who is 95 and has never had a drivers license. They're requiring ID to vote now in Tennessee. She brought in a ton of paperwork, including her birth certificate, and it wasn't enough because she didn't bring her marriage license (I believe her husband is dead, which is probably why she didn't think she needed it), as she has a different last name than is on her birth certificate. This woman has voted in every election she was eligible to vote in except the one in 1960, because she had just moved and couldn't get the change in in time.

[AZRogue]

Unlike an emergency room, our clinics won't even service a patient without photo identification, and I don't know of any that will other than free clinics. Government assistance, like Food Stamps and Medicare also require State issued photo ID. Hell, I know of few things that don't require ID. The days of getting a library card with just a say-so and an envelope with your name and address on it have been over for a long while. Who doesn't have an ID, in this day an age, honestly?

I wouldn't want to disenfranchise anyone by any means but I can't help but be a bit skeptical of the argument that an ID requirement is somehow onerous when it is required in nearly every other interaction we have with the government or, indeed, society at large. I would be interested in seeing how likely such a requirement would be to cause harm. Not the potential to cause harm, but the likelihood of it.

Not that I'm a big proponent of ID requirements for voting, because I can take it or leave it, honestly. It doesn't seem like a real issue to me and is more of a phantom make-believe issue that, to be frank (I'd also be interested in how likely voter fraud is to occur without the mandate). That said, if it was enacted, it wouldn't strike me as strange given the fact that I need (just for an example) two forms of ID, one of which must be a State issued photo ID, plus a utility bill in my name as well as a lease agreement just to enroll my niece in school, which she is required to go to. I had to go to the office three times before I satisfied the ID and residency requirements.

Asking for a picture ID when I vote wouldn't bother me.

[TiQuinn]

I'd support mandatory voting even if it means more idiots voting. At least it'll be all the idiots, rather than just the highly motivated idiots with a chip on their shoulder.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Requiring an ID is the equivalent of a Poll Tax if it is not implemented properly, and if it is implemented properly it will increase the bureaucracy and cost a lot.

It would cost a bit to do it, but in the end it could save money by making sure that only people who have registered ID's are eligible for services like welfare, medicaid, and so on. It would help ensure "one man, one vote" and that people voting in this country actually, you know, are citizens.

[The Winslow]

In my country, people are issued voter's electoral cards, which they have to show in addition to the national ID card. The electoral card gets stamped once you vote. They're good for up to eight votes (be it presidential, municipal, cantonal, etc.) after which you need a new one since you'll have run out of stampable squares. They're regularly mailed to you so in practice you'll never get to fill out one of them, even if you never abstain from voting.

Most shops will also require to see your national ID card if you pay by check or debit card. (At least they're supposed to, to prevent fraud.) If cops pull you over while you're driving, you're expected to be able to show your ID. And so on. I realize for the average American, that prospect must be tantamount to living in a repressive police state.

I'd support mandatory voting even if it means more idiots voting. At least it'll be all the idiots, rather than just the highly motivated idiots with a chip on their shoulder.

Wisdom.

The problem when people don't vote is the people that do vote. The extremist movements always score the highest when voter disaffection is also at the highest.

[cyphersmith]

In my country, people are issued voter's electoral cards, which they have to show in addition to the national ID card. The electoral card gets stamped once you vote. They're good for up to eight votes (be it presidential, municipal, cantonal, etc.) after which you need a new one since you'll have run out of stampable squares. They're regularly mailed to you so in practice you'll never get to fill out one of them, even if you never abstain from voting.

Most shops will also require to see your national ID card if you pay by check or debit card. (At least they're supposed to, to prevent fraud.) If cops pull you over while you're driving, you're expected to be able to show your ID. And so on. I realize for the average American, that prospect must be tantamount to living in a repressive police state.

Nah, our stores do the same things, or are supposed to. And the cops do expect that the driver of a vehicle will have ID. Though, it's not necessary for the passengers.

The problem is that we have had a history of using things like poll taxes and reading tests to prevent people from voting. Those are unconstitutional. If you're over 18 and a US citizen, then the government cannot block you from voting unless you're a felon (in certain areas, criminals lose the right to vote). Requiring an ID is seen as one such hurdle, because even if the ID itself is free, people sometimes don't have the documentation necessary to get an ID. In that case, it often costs money to obtain that documentation, and it's not always easy to get that documentation.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think most of the people on the Left in the US who are against registration and ID's are against it because they want illegal immigrant votes, as well as people who aren't eligible to vote (both groups often vote Democrat).

[Dacke]

Here, you need to register where you live regardless of whether you vote or not. We don't have occasional censuses (censi?) the way the US does, but rather a continual update of things. When voting season rolls around, voting cards are issued to everyone who's eligible to vote (you only need to have been resident in the country for a few years to be able to vote in local and regional elections, but you need to be a citizen to vote in the national ones). The voting card includes information on where your official voting precinct is. A week or two before actual voting day, you can cast a pre-ballot in a number of public/central locations, in which case they seal your separately-sealed ballot with your voting card in an envelope and send it to your official voting location. On voting day, you can either vote in any voting location with your voting card and ID, or you can vote in your official location with just ID. If you do vote ahead of time and in your official location, they will see that you already voted there and thus throw out the ballot you cast ahead of time.

One of the things you gotta say for the Swedish gov't, they do go out of their way to make it easy to vote. I just wish they had a better system for the actual ballots, but that's a separate issue.

[cyphersmith]

I think most of the people on the Left in the US who are against registration and ID's are against it because they want illegal immigrant votes, as well as people who aren't eligible to vote (both groups often vote Democrat).

That's not the argument most of the people I have talked to have. It's that the people who don't have IDs are usually poor, minorities, women or young people. They are also the most likely to have problems having the funds to pay for the IDs. And like I said earlier, even if you make the IDs free (regular IDs, drivers licenses should still cost), it's still not free.

Their next point is usually a political point. Who generally puts this kind of legislation in? Republicans. Who do the people who might be disenfranchised generally vote for? Democrats. So they see it as not only illegal because it's a poll tax (either directly or indirectly), but the Republicans are trying to prevent people who generally don't vote for them from voting at all.

Personally, I think that everyone should be registered when they get ID, if they're eligible to vote. The ID requires enough documentation to prove eligibility, so why not do that? You're legally required to inform the government when you move, so when you do that your registration moves with you.

[Aloysius]

Nah, our stores do the same things, or are supposed to. And the cops do expect that the driver of a vehicle will have ID. Though, it's not necessary for the passengers.

I guess the "supposed to" makes the difference. It's really impossible for an adult to live without ID card. They are not very expansive, and are not hard to get if you were born in France, but you need them for a lot of things.

[AZRogue]

I guess the "supposed to" makes the difference. It's really impossible for an adult to live without ID card. They are not very expansive, and are not hard to get if you were born in France, but you need them for a lot of things.

I agree. I understand the argument against requiring them but I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people out there without ID in the first place. It's required to basically live, at this point (and whether that's how it should be is an entirely separate, if worthy, argument). You need them for just about everything. Bank account, school, renting property, interacting with the government, seeing a doctor, driving, cashing a check (if he or she is collecting Social Security, they have an ID, either to cash the checks or to open their original bank account), library card, open utilities, visit the pharmacy, and on and on.

Hell, no matter your age, you need to show ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes, at least here in Arizona, even if you look 60 years old. That pretty much takes care of a large swath of the vagrant population who might be disenfranchised. :tongue:

If it could be shown that there is a significant group of people living out there without ID then I'd completely be against such legislation, instead of just indifferent. Mostly I would just be curious to see how these people live, unable to cash most checks, buy alcohol or tobacco, rent property, or even go to the library. How do they live and, really, why? Don't they see a doctor, other than an emergency room, or go to the pharmacy (well, when you have an insurance card, at least; not sure it's required without having to match up against an insurance card to prevent identity theft, at the pharmacy). The cost is not a factor; I could panhandle enough to get an ID by taking a nap with a tin cup nearby.

Of course, I freely admit that I have an attitude towards ID that is conditioned by the requirements instituted by my place of employment. So many patients of ours come over from Florida or New England for the winter and many of them are shocked when we require a photo ID and their Social Security card (or something with their social on it) to let them see a doctor. "What? I will not!" "That's too bad. Where would you like us to forward your medical records to?" "Oh, alright, here you go." Maybe it varies much more from State to State than I realize.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(looks at the polls)

That Herman Cain person is in the lead in South Carolina?
He is polling THAT well in other states?

Tonight's debate is going to be a brawl.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(muses)

Conspiracy Theory? No.

I am merely asking who you think the Koch Brothers and their particular power bloc (one of many, in our world) support for the Republican Presidential Candidacy.

-

-

-

(chuckles without mirth, without any mirth at all)

Conspiracy Theory?

If I told you what *I* believe is ACTUALLY happening out there, and why, you'd sit there at your computer, mouth hanging open, not thinking to blink your eyes, for quite a long time.

But I am not discussing that here, nor does it pertain to the question I am asking above.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

The Koch brothers are just one of a number of power brokers who operate in either party.

[Snatch]

If I told you what *I* believe is ACTUALLY happening out there, and why, you'd sit there at your computer, mouth hanging open, not thinking to blink your eyes, for quite a long time.

But I am not discussing that here, nor does it pertain to the question I am asking above.

Can you paraphrase it?

[Edena_of_Neith]

(off-topic)

Can you paraphrase it?

I can, although only in allegory.

Remember Knights of the Dinner Table?

Imagine a whole bunch of organizations like KODT. Most are overconfident (if not downright overarrogant), over sure of themselves, overestimating of their own power, overestimating of their power over others, and certainly overwilling to be over pushy (to put it mildly.)
They can't get along with each other, their meetings are brawls, their shared goals elude them despite all efforts to meet them, they scheme and plot and maneuver endlessly, and inevitably they never quite accomplish what they set out to do, assuming they manage to accomplish anything.
Much like the KODT.

In our real world, some of these KODT type groups arose long before the 20th century. Others arose during World War II. Others, during the Cold War. Others, more recently. Some, are individuals out for their own personal dreams and goals, or wealth.

We have reached a stage in history where all these groups are at complete odds.
It's KOTD, except this is an entire Convention of KODT, with no moderators, no convention managers, no security, nobody except the KODT players and GMs themselves.

They can't agree on America's role in the world. The EU's role. Japan's role. China's role. India's role. Russia's role. OPEC's role. NATO's role. The UN's role.
Indeed, they cannot even manage to do something as minor as send tanks of reserve fuel to the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant (the place had 8 hours of reserve fuel on hand, and had additional reserve fuel arrived, the place would not have melted down) after that tsunami catastrophe.
They cannot agree on something as simple as the mess in Sudan. The mess in Libya. The mess in Iraq.
They cannot even address the Greek Debt mess.
It's so messy, that it has ended up with things like the French electing Sarkozy (widely viewed as the French George Bush.)

But, as with the squabbling of the KODT, the squabbling of the Power Elite in the real world, has thrown our world into chaos.
The chaos is growing, and probably will continue to grow. Sorta like those KODT sessions continued to grow, until something disastrously humorous happened, except that in the real world it's not my idea of a laughing matter.

The chaos could evolve into full blown Interesting Times. It could even evolve further into Opening Pandora's Box (remember those last scenes in KODT, where the table is overturned, and everyone is laying unconscious, except one person?)

Except in this case, you are sitting at that table. I'm sitting at that table. You, me, everyone on this board, everyone in the world, is sitting at that table. Or those tables, in the Grand KODT Convention, with No Moderators.

Welcome to the fun.

EDIT:

And these jokers have nukes?
KODT with nukes? (Brian: 'When you're the last power standing with nukes, you don't NEED experience points!')
I wouldn't trust all these so-called Movers and Shakers with those foam rubber nerf swords.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Of course, you knew all of the above, right?
Obviously, you know. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows the above.

What makes my view different from the norm?

Imho, the chaos, the level of infighting, the level of uproar between all these KODT types, is on something dangerously close to a wartime level of uproar.
It has already caused a great deal of misery, suffering, in America, Europe, Japan, and other places. It is threatening to cause more, and deeper, misery and pain.
Ultimately, it may lead to an actual major war, or even a World War.

Why?
Because all these jokers, these world be Power Elites, are so bent on achieving their ends, so determined to win against each other, and they just don't know when to quit.
I'm afraid they will not be happy until they have created true chaos, truly opened Pandora's Box. It is just in their nature, it seems.

[cnath.rm]

Can't really say that I agree with your view of KoDT, though I can see what you mean. I don't know if you have kept up with them, but there has been (from time to time) some actual growth in the chars over the years, and the best way to get the knights to quit fighting each other is to give them a common enemy. :D (that said, I'm likely biased as once I pick up the last issues the flgs is holding for me I'll have had the pleasure of owning/reading all but that blasted issue 14 or 15 that I could never get my hands on. :mad: )


That said, it's nice to know that Someone finds Iraq, Libya, and Sudan to be easy problems to solve, care to share your insight?

Edit: Agreement on fuel not getting to the reactors being insane, problem with lousy emergency planning to put it mildly imho.

[Edena_of_Neith]

That said, it's nice to know that Someone finds Iraq, Libya, and Sudan to be easy problems to solve, care to share your insight?
Edit: Agreement on fuel not getting to the reactors being insane, problem with lousy emergency planning to put it mildly imho.

I wish to answer your question above now. I have considered the question, and some unspoken questions related to it, for some time now.
My answer, for my own protection, is an analogy.

Iraq, Libya, and Sudan are *wars*. There is nothing easy, simple, nice, or pleasant about wars. Wars are the worst in human politics and human nature.
If I said there was an *easy* answer to the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Sudan, you have my apologies and my full retraction: there are *no* easy, simple, or pleasant resolutions to those wars. Only complicated, unpleasant, answers.

I always opposed the war in Iraq. I opposed the war in Libya. I am saddened by the war and genocide in Sudan.
There is nothing reasonable about war. I opposed our involvement in those wars. I still oppose the wars. (I certainly oppose the potential attack on Iran, that our government seems to be currently considering!)

-

Now for the analogy, to that other question: what do I see, when I look at the current situation?

You know that World of Warcraft game?
You know the group called Forsaken in that game?
You know how the Forsaken have been wrecking places, killing everyone in their way, in the latest expansion? (it's all over the internet.)
You know the general Forsaken attitude?

Imagine the Forsaken, with nukes. Imagine the Forsaken, with ICBMs and the hydrogen bomb. And bioweapons like blackpox. And the leftovers of the world's largest military.
And ready to take vengeance ... on anyone and everyone they even *imagine* might have hurt them.

That will be America, in another 5 years.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(off-topic)

I suggest, if it is possible, splitting off into a new thread on this one.

I am reading, from the Guardian - a British publication - that Great Britain is preparing to support the United States in an attack on Iran.

There are a couple of problems with this. I will cite four of the many numerous said problems:

- I don't particularly want us in yet another war.
- Iran has biological weapons that could devastate the world, such as blackpox, and ...
- Russia has specifically stated: An Attack on Iran, is an Attack on Russia.
- That reactor in Iran is up and running. An attack could lead to a meltdown, to a Chernobyl or multiple Chernobyls.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(chuckles)

And, yet another Negative Reputation Point from the Good Mr. Glass. Glass, that is.
I'd shit my pants, if he didn't do that. Why, I think the wheels of our reality would go flying off, if I didn't get my Regular Daily Negative Rep from Glass!

Keep it up, please. I wouldn't want my reality to be ruined, by a break from my regularly scheduled routine! :D

[Harry]

(chuckles)

And, yet another Negative Reputation Point from the Good Mr. Glass. Glass, that is.
I'd shit my pants, if he didn't do that. Why, I think the wheels of our reality would go flying off, if I didn't get my Regular Daily Negative Rep from Glass!

Keep it up, please. I wouldn't want my reality to be ruined, by a break from my regularly scheduled routine! :D

If you don't want neg-rep, put Glass on ignore. You'll never see it. Whining about neg-rep is neg-rep worthy in itself. If you'll notice, it's usually specific behaviors or things said that bring on the neg-rep. I've given pos and neg rep to the same people, and received pos and neg rep from the same. Correct the behaviors that consistently draw neg-rep, and the neg-rep will magically stop coming.

Or ignore those who neg-rep you. But constantly crying in the open forums about it is childish, and you've consistently done that as well.

[cnath.rm]

They can't agree on America's role in the world. The EU's role. Japan's role. China's role. India's role. Russia's role. OPEC's role. NATO's role. The UN's role.
Indeed, they cannot even manage to do something as minor as send tanks of reserve fuel to the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant (the place had 8 hours of reserve fuel on hand, and had additional reserve fuel arrived, the place would not have melted down) after that tsunami catastrophe.
They cannot agree on something as simple as the mess in Sudan. The mess in Libya. The mess in Iraq.

My answer, for my own protection, is an analogy.

Iraq, Libya, and Sudan are *wars*. There is nothing easy, simple, nice, or pleasant about wars. Wars are the worst in human politics and human nature.
If I said there was an *easy* answer to the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Sudan, you have my apologies and my full retraction: there are *no* easy, simple, or pleasant resolutions to those wars. Only complicated, unpleasant, answers.Sadly the analogy doesn't do me a lot of good as I've never played WoW... not sure why you needed to use one for protection... In any case, I will accept the retraction, I'd been hoping that someone had some answers. (and you REALLY wouldn't likely be happy with my quick/dirty solutions in light of not having actual answers... I'm really glad that I'm not in charge of this f'd up planet... so should the rest of you be.:tongue: )

[Edena_of_Neith]

Sadly the analogy doesn't do me a lot of good as I've never played WoW

In World of Warcraft, there was this nation called Lordaeron. It was the Superpower of the continent of Eastern Kingdoms, the greatest bastion of human power in the world.
The nation came under attack, from both without and within. It's allies ran away. It's leadership (the King) could not cope with the reality. It's defense force was led by a paladin who turned traitor, who fell, who joined the enemy and became the enemy commander. His name was Arthas.
The enemy, led by this Arthas, destroyed Lordaeron and reduced it's people to undead slavery. In this slavery, the people of Lordaeron served the enemy as foot soldiers as he destroyed other nations around, reducing the entire region to ruin.

The enemy leadership then turned their attention elsewhere, and a good part of these undead slaves broke free. They remained undead, but regained free will. Led by a former commander - Sylvanas - from another fallen nation, they retook the old capital city of Lordaeron and the lands around, then began expansion from there.
They called themselves the Forsaken.

Under the leadership of Sylvanas and willing to do whatever it took to win, ruthless, psychopathic, without pity or remorse, fanatically loyal to their leader, the Forsaken retook the entire western half of Lordaeron, occupied the lands of 3 former neighboring nations successfully (Gilneas, Alterac, Dalaran) and are on the verge of taking the entire northern part of the continent.
They are the new Superpower of that continent (Eastern Kingdoms.)

Other nations and peoples dispute their claim, stating Lordaeron (and other areas) belongs to the native people (those still alive) of those areas.
The Forsaken state THEY ARE the native people of Lordaeron, and concerning other nations, they insisted on getting in the way of the Forsaken War of Reconquest, and paid the ultimate price for it (ala, the town of Southshore, for example.)
Furthermore, the Forsaken state that since the other nations continue to fight them, resist their rightful claims, ALL of those nations shall pay that ultimate price. They will rue the day they crossed the Forsaken. ALL shall see the Power of the Forsaken, when they head forth to avenge themselves on these warmongers (ala, if you live in Stormwind, Ironforge, Gnomeregan, you'll be the first to go, and watch all the others go as you are forcibly converted to the service of Sylvanas in undeath.)

-

What does this have to do with Real Life?

Events frightfully close to the above have happened, in the real world, time and again.
No, people were not literally converted to undeath. But whole peoples have been enslaved, murdered, starved, their homes and lands confiscated, left to die in starvation and poverty.
And whole peoples have risen up, armed themselves, gotten themselves effective (at least militarily) leaders, and gone out to ravage and destroy all the lands around them.
I need not cite examples: the history books are full of such examples, and even the recent war in Sudan suffices as a reasonable example of the horrors of war.

What does this have to do with America? Or Europe?

Look at the AD&D Thieves' Guild.
Well, a bunch of real world thieves' guilds (they don't call themselves that, but that is what they are) decided to plunder the United States.
The groundwork for this plunder was laid decades ago, it's implementation began 15 years ago, and full implementation began 8 years ago.
The plundering was so well executed, so well cheographed, it might as well have been a ballet. A grisly ballet. A ballet that continues as I write this.
Damage? Damage is currently at least 20 trillion US dollars, but that is a conservative estimate (by comparison, the entire damage total from Katrina, including New Orleans, was 1 trillion dollars.) The damage continues to rise rapidly, as the ballet continues.

The people who orchestrated this, also helped themselves to power in the process, and are still in power today (both Democrats and Republicans.) And they are going to stay in power, too ... they've made sure of it.
Nobody is going to be allowed to interrupt the Great Plunder.

This assault (for that is what it is, whatever anyone wishes to call it) has already changed the country I knew, beyond recognition. It continues to alter, further and further beyond anything I remember.

As it changes, altitudes change. I don't speak of any Tea Parties or Occupy Movements. I speak of an absolute collapse of civility, courtesy, mercy, charity, and the rise of anger, rage, hatred, and widespread advocacy of violence.
And it's getting worse. Fast. You don't need me to tell you that: just turn on the TV or internet or read a newspaper, and see it for yourself.
The same thing is happening in Europe. Ask the Germans. Ask the Greeks. Ask the French. Ask the Dutch.

What does this have to do with a Forsaken America, ready to go to War?

Look at your history books.
What has happened, over and over again, when an entire people become violent, militant, ready to take out rage, anger, and hatred (and isn't that what really defines the Forsaken, and not their undeath?) on anyone and everyone they think hurt them, or just anyone they happen to see?
Just add in a militant leader to lead them, and Presto! ... guess what happens next!

Many prominent economists expect, 5 years from now, an America where the majority of Americas have been thrown out of their homes into the street to starve. Tent cities. Food riots. Attacks on anyone considered to be better off. Widespread breakdown of law and order.
Don't think it can happen? It happened in the former Soviet Union. It can happen here, in America, and it can happen in Europe, too.
What do you think happens next, if a militant, violent, warmonger takes power in this country of mine?
And ... you might ask ... will the American people support this warmonger? Will the American people be ready to go to war, even with a mighty nuclear power like, say, Russia?

In India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, the people have been clamoring for war. Many articles written by people in the know, have discussed the horrors of a nuclear war between the two. This has not deterred the general attitude.
Back in 1961, when America was at it's most prosperous and the leader was considered a moderate, we and the Soviets nearly destroyed the world in nuclear war, over Cuba.
Yes, the American people will follow this militant maniac. Enough propaganda, enough showmanship, enough lies and promises, and angry, violent, hate-filled people will be ready for war with anyone.
And heck, they have basically lost everything. Homes taken from them, medicine taken from them, heat and light taken from them, their lives effectively taken from them (the Forsaken don't have it nearly as bad ...) what have they got to lose? Or if they have something to lose, will they particularly care?

It's happening now. Take a good look at what is happening. The criminals continue the great plunder. They continue to reward themselves for that plunder. They continue to hold the reins of power, rewarding themselves for said plunder. Damages continue to mount up through trillion after trillion after trillion of US dollars. The entire world economy is threatened, may collapse, thanks to their plundering (not that they seem to care.)
As they continue, American culture continues it's shift, growing more violent, more militant, more infuriated, with each new theft.
As it continues, violent, militant politicians rise, eager to exploit the pain, eager to heap power and privilege and wealth on themselves, using the exploited to vault themselves into power (both parties.)

Heck, I hope I am wrong. I don't want the situation to devolve into what I see it devolving into. If it does devolve that far, it could lead to World War III. That wouldn't be my idea of a good outcome.
But the thieves continue to plunder, the opportunistic politicians continue to rise, the world economy teeters of the brink of collapse, more regional wars rage, new wars threaten, the instability threatens to take down entire governments, and the chaos continues to grow and grow and grow.

So yes, we will end up with an America that is very akin to the Forsaken. With an economic situation that bad, just add in a militant warmonger leader (there are plenty of warmongering maniacs out there, as we all know, ready to leap in if given the chance) and we are there.
The Forsaken, with nuclear weapons. And ICBMs to deliver them. An equally enraged, Forsaken Europe, ready to join with Forsaken America (or to fight it, either way we all lose.)

The Forsaken, with nukes. Real pretty picture, no?
I don't want to go there. I hope others don't either. I hope some voices of reason and sanity prevail, before we end up going there.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(chuckles)

It does appear Herman Cain has the support of the Koch Brothers.
Don't take that from me. Take that from Herman Cain, himself.

It isn't important. What is important, is the Republican Party is in all out civil war.

(muses)

Sign of the times ...

[cnath.rm]

Many prominent economists expect, 5 years from now, an America where the majority of Americas have been thrown out of their homes into the street to starve. Tent cities. Food riots. Attacks on anyone considered to be better off. Widespread breakdown of law and order. Any chance of a cite for the many?

It isn't important. What is important, is the Republican Party is in all out civil war.Sadly I think this is accurate. On the downside of the GOP combusting is that even if the Dem's get back into power I don't trust them** to actually have the balls to get anything done. (due to them being even more fragmented then the GOP when they aren't united by an "anything but Bush" type gig.)

**(judging from what they did with a larger majority then when Bush was in office and could get almost anything passed that he wanted)

[DarwinOfMind]

I'll forget about MANY, I'll take FIVE PROMINENT economists

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'll forget about MANY, I'll take FIVE PROMINENT economists

Cnath wanted my opinion, Darwin. I have given it.
I explained far above that if I gave my opinion, people's mouths would be hanging open.

You know, and I know, that there are no economists in existence who talk about a 'Forsaken with Nukes' future. That expression is something I coined.
If I believe that is the future, that America will become a 'Forsaken with Nukes' style country, then obviously I do not truly agree with any of the economists. I am only extrapolating from what some of them are saying.

I can give you names. And we can get into a debate over whether these economists know what they are talking about.
But I can answer that for you.
The economists, in general, are full of crap. We know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Why they are paid such large salaries is quite beyond me, since they make the weather forecasters look good in comparison.

There isn't much point, then, in debating over economists, when we all know they are full of it. And we DO all appreciate they are full of it.
This is about whether my opinion is valid. Not about those (stupid) economists.

You know what?
If my opinion of the future is true, if the future I foresee actually turns out that way, it will mean my death. And the deaths of my parents. And probably, the deaths of others in my family.
Not through some nuclear war, not through civil disorder, not through this or that (insert whatever wild thing one wants, here) not through spectacular anything. Mostly through lack of medical care, which we are depending on, since we are all suffering from serious physical medical troubles.
If our economy suffers the kind of total collapse I am projecting, there will be no money for Social Security and Medicare, so those programs will end, by default (regardless of which party is in power, or what they try to do about it ... even if they retain the programs, they won't be worth the paper they are printed on.)

So I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Or, in the venacular, full of shit.
Most people think I'm full of shit (or worse), and you know what? In this case, I really hope they are right.
I really want to be wrong about this.
I really do not want the future I see coming.

You don't want it, either, obviously.
If the United States and Europe go down, China goes down, India goes down, Russia goes down, everyone goes down.
In the ensuing anarchy, tyrants and madmen jump into power, and seize the world's militaries. Militaries with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everybody loses.

Instead of arguing over specific economists (who, as I said, make weather forecasters look positively accurate in their forecasts) and their crap, just conclude I don't know what I'm talking about (which is a safe bet), and assume the future I am projecting is full of crap (which I hope to God, is the safe bet), and leave it at that.

[Harry]

When you take literary license when making an argument, just own up to it. Don't try to justify it. That's just pathetic. We all make exaggerations when we write. Hell, I've been doing it myself for something like a hundred years. Just own it.

[cnath.rm]

Cnath wanted my opinion, Darwin. I have given it.Yep, just like I asked for a cite of your "Many prominent economists" comment.

You know, and I know, that there are no economists in existence who talk about a 'Forsaken with Nukes' future. That expression is something I coined.Agreed, which is why I didn't ask about the economists talking about "Forsaken with Nukes" it's why I asked about economists talking about what you had posted. (quoted below)
Many prominent economists expect, 5 years from now, an America where the majority of Americas have been thrown out of their homes into the street to starve. Tent cities. Food riots. Attacks on anyone considered to be better off. Widespread breakdown of law and order.

The economists, in general, are full of crap.If they are full of crap, why did you use them as support?

You know what?
If my opinion of the future is true, if the future I foresee actually turns out that way, it will mean my death. And the deaths of my parents. And probably, the deaths of others in my family.Not that long ago you were saying that the same thing would have happened if you had voted in the last election. Either you live in the worst Country/State/County/City ever, or I think you need to admit to having blown things just slightly out of proportion.

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to call you on the fact that you not only didn't answer my question, but you then apparently decided to change the question that I had asked. If you don't have stats that you can pass on, no worries, it's cool. I'd just like a straight answer like I try to give you when you ask questions.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(solemnly)

Well said. I should not have invoked economists. I retract that statement about economists.
I don't need economists to form my view. I WILL own it all myself. It is my opinion, and an opinion formed without the help of economists.

I absolutely WILL OWN it myself. It is my opinion. As it happens, I do believe this future is coming, do believe it is basically a done deal, I don't need economists to back it up, and I am not going to change my view of that dark future.
Unless the dark future does not happen. Pray it does not.
If it does not, I and you can all have a good laugh. If it does happen, it ... happens.

[cnath.rm]

Fair enough, thank you for your candor. I don't entirely agree with your view of the future, as is my right, just as it is your right to hold yours.

[DarwinOfMind]

Thank you for your honesty Edena, admitting your prejudices are what they are is admirable.

[Harry]

...and it turns out, the IMF chief and Edena are on the same wavelength!*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15649985

IMF chief warns of a 'lost decade' for global economy

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, has warned that the global economy is at risk of being plunged into a "lost decade".

Ms Lagarde said the ongoing debt crisis in Europe has resulted in an uncertain outlook for the global economy.

"There are clearly clouds on the horizon", she said.

The IMF chief added that whilst efforts to solve the crisis were heading in the right direction, more needed to be done to restore confidence.

Speaking in China, Ms Lagarde called upon Beijing to rebalance its economy.

"Our sense is that if we do not act boldly and if we do not act together, the economy around the world runs the risk of downward spiral of uncertainty, financial instability and potential collapse of global demand," she said.

"We could run the risk of what some commentators are already calling the lost decade," Ms Lagarde added.

*kinda

[Harry]

http://www.funnyordie.com/lists/e0cb0351f6/presidential-candidates-explained-through-dungeons-and-dragons-character-sheets

[Aloysius]

When Lagarde was still a minister, she was all "everything is fine, everything is under control". Now that she does not have to care about Sarkozy's anger, she is obviously more frank...

[Harry]

Perry makes his move!

Perry calls for government overhaul

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press – 1 day ago

BETTENDORF, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Tuesday that if elected he would end lifetime appointments for federal judges and slash the pay for federal lawmakers, effectively turning Congress into a part-time institution.

In a speech laying out how he would "uproot and overhaul" Washington, the Texas governor suggested that his Washington outsider background — unlike some of his GOP rivals — would help him succeed at changing the city's culture. Changing Washington also was one of President Barack Obama's goals and he's had no success on that front since taking office.

"Unique to the Republican field, I have never been an establishment figure, have never served in Congress or part of an administration and have never been a paid lobbyist," Perry said. "My career has been that of a Washington outsider."

Until he jumped into the presidential race in August, Perry spent his entire political career in his home state of Texas.

The plan Perry rolled out at a heating and cooling company in Iowa also calls for requiring a two-thirds vote in Congress for any tax increases, halting all proposed federal regulations and criminalizing insider trading by Washington lawmakers.

Perry includes the president in the call for a pay cut and said lawmakers' pay would be halved again — or essentially slashed by three-fourths — if the federal budget isn't balanced by 2020.

The president's annual salary is $400,000. Members of Congress not in leadership positions earn $174,000 a year.

"We should cut the salary of the president of the United States in half until that budget is balanced," he said.

With voting set to begin in Iowa in less than two months, Perry is looking to turn around his once high-flying campaign. He is no longer a top-tier candidate, largely because of disappointing debate performances, including an embarrassing blunder in front of his rivals last week when he struggled to name the three federal departments he says he'd dismantle if elected.

The plan Perry unveiled Tuesday lets him stress his outsider credentials at a time when large swaths of the public say they are fed up with Washington and its seeming inability to function. Several of Perry's rivals either are or have been members of Congress, or have served in presidential administrations, including Obama's.

"The issue this election is not whether Washington is broken, but how we go about fixing it," said Perry. "There are two approaches and even my own party is split."

Throughout his speech, Perry sought to distinguish himself from his Republican rivals while not mentioning them by name.

"There are some who want to tinker with the status quo, they want to work within the current system to achieve marginal change," he said of his rivals. "Then there are those who believe Washington is too broken to be fixed by tinkering within the margins."

The plan also helps Perry appeal to conservatives who deplore activist judges, tax increases and government regulations. He added to that by attacking the financial industry bailout. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for bad decisions by stockholders, he said.

Perry claims the proposal is far more aggressive than any of the other Republicans who are challenging him for the right to go up against President Barack Obama next November because of his promise to do away with lifetime tenure for federal judges.

He focused the speech on judges and turning Congress into a part-time institution. A constitutional amendment would be required to eliminate lifetime appointments for federal judges. They are allowed, under the Constitution, to hold office during "good behavior" — interpreted to mean for the rest of their lives, unless they voluntarily step down.

"Too many federal judges rule with immunity from the bench and those who legislate from the bench should not be entitled to lifetime abuse of their judicial authority," Perry said.

Polls have shown that voters have little regard for Congress, a sentiment Perry played on by arguing for deep cuts in congressional budgets and limiting the time lawmakers spend in Washington.

"Congress is out of touch because congressmen are overpaid, overstaffed and away from home too much," he said. "It's time to create a part-time Congress where their pay is cut half, their office budgets are cut in half and their time in Washington is cut in half."

In Washington, House Minority leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., questioned the seriousness of Perry's proposal and suggested he was pandering to tea party supporters.

"Is this a serious proposal he is making for a country that has very high unemployment, whose budget deficit is larger than it has ever been in history, where we have two wars that we are confronting and trying to bring to a conclusion?" Hoyer said. "If this is what he thinks is pandering to the tea party, it is not in my opinion speaking to the issues that the American people feel are very, very critical to them."

Perry said he was not surprised by Hoyer's reaction.

"It's not a surprise to me when I laid out this fundamental reform that I talk about and ask the American people to consider a part-time citizen Congress, that career politicians like Steny Hoyer don't like my plan to overhaul Washington," Perry told conservative radio host Sean Hannity. "They're making a great living up there."

[Hatter]

Lowering congressional pay will just make the current problems with corruption worse as lawmakers become even more beholden to lobbyists. Making congress a part-time job will just cause lawmakers to have sidejobs that increase conflicts of interest. The plan is just ludicrous.

Reducing judicial terms is a pipe dream, of course. No such controversial amendment will ever pass. Pandering candidate is pandering.

[Dacke]

Doesn't Congress set its own salary?

And making Congress a part-time job is a bad idea. A better idea would be having an independent agency prepare a short quiz on important parts of any bill, and unless a congressperson aces the quiz they don't get to vote on it. You shouldn't vote on a bill if you don't know what it says. Yeah, I know that's not workable in practice, but I think it's a nice idea.

[cnath.rm]

Doesn't Congress set its own salary?If either side were smart (or smarter then greedy) they would put up a bill to freeze congressional pay for the next 5 years or something like that. Of course, I'd also like to see them change things so a one term fluke doesn't get the same uber-healthcare/retirement package as the person who has been there for 30+ years. (even though I like term limits, I see it as a job and don't have a prob with better bennies building over the years.)

[Hatter]

I don't think congressional pay is really an issue, people don't become congressmen for the honest money they can make.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Ban the lobbyists and hire someone from the NCAA to police lobbying violations.

[The Winslow]

If either side were smart (or smarter then greedy) they would put up a bill to freeze congressional pay for the next 5 years or something like that.

Reminds me of the "symbolical" austerity measure taken by the French government recently to freeze presidential and minister pay. How the poor dears, how are they going to cope? I mean, Sarkozy's first measure as a president was to increase his wage by only 140%. With an inflation rate at 3% (it's less than that), it'd give him only a meager 30 years of buffer before this exceptional temporary measure starts reducing his wage below what it was when he entered office!

Our hearts bleed for him and the exemplary self-sacrifice he is committing for the good of the nation.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(off-topic, dark humor)

-

(looks at the polls)

NEWT GINGRICH?! FRONT RUNNER?!
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.

[Aloysius]

NEWT GINGRICH?! FRONT RUNNER?!
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.

He is the current "not Mit Romney".

[Schizm]

I think how ironic it is that the Republicans are now focusing on being not Romney, instead of not obama.

Its bound to bite them right in the scrotum.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

(off-topic, dark humor)

-

(looks at the polls)

NEWT GINGRICH?! FRONT RUNNER?!
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.

Newt is the most intelligent policy-maker in the race, on either side. Sure, he's a smug douche bag, but he's smart, and he's probably the only person running who could actually beat Obama in a debate.

[Critter]

Newt is the most intelligent policy-maker in the race, on either side. Sure, he's a smug douche bag, but he's smart, and he's probably the only person running who could actually beat Obama in a debate.

This.

Although I'm still on the fence as to whether that's a tragedy or not.

[Hatter]

Gingrich isn't even on the primary ballot in Missouri since he didn't file in time. Either his campaign is mismanaged or he's not really running. Either way, he's not going to win.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(again off-topic, but not worth a new thread)

Talk about a three-ring circus ... Trump is threatening to run again.
Trump says he will run if the Republicans do not nominate the 'right' candidate (whoever that is ...)

My television set is being desecrated. (I wouldn't wish this kind of desecration on the oldest black and white NTSC television set I ever knew.)

[Name Lips]

Aaaand, Cain's out. Even if it's not official. He's admitted to too much to be able to plausibly deny the rest.

link (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9148351-cain-gave-affair-accuser-money-without-wifes-consent)
Cain gave affair accuser money without wife's consent
By NBC's Jo Ling Kent and Andrew Rafferty and msnbc.com's Michael O'Brien

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Herman Cain said Thursday that he repeatedly gave money without his wife's knowledge to Ginger White, the Atlanta woman who alleged carrying on an affair with Cain for 13 years.

In an editorial interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said Mrs. Cain "did not know that we were friends until [White] came out with this story" and he regrets not telling her sooner. Cain acknowledged sending White money for "month-to-month bills and expenses."

Cain said that White sent him about 70 text messages in which, he said, she seemed economically troubled. "She was out of work and had trouble paying her bills and I had known her as a friend," he said. Cain would not elaborate as to how much he gave her.

Cain justified his described behavior as nothing out of the ordinary, saying, "I'm a soft-hearted person when it comes to that stuff. I have helped members of my church. I have helped members of my family."

The newspaper interview had been rescheduled after a scheduling mishap last month that caused Cain to miss a meeting with the influential paper's editors. Since then, the paper endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the GOP presidential primary.

Both before and after his interview with the Union Leader today, Cain said that his campaign remains in a state of flux. He will move forward with a "reassessment" this weekend and make a final decision soon.

"I will say something formal over the next several days," he told reporters.

[Schizm]

There's a part of me that's sad he didn't get caught screwing some nice young (male) political intern.

But I'll take this.