dayman

That's a clarification? And supply side GOPers expect this to spur growth how?

No b/c the truth (regardless of the propaganda some on the right like to spew) is that Obama, and Romney if he were elected, would like to try and work this way. It won't happen. B/c the problem isn't the President. The problem is the parties. So anytime someone says that b/c Mitt was Governor of Mass so he somehow can fix partisanship in Washington...they sound (respectfully speaking) like a huge idiot.

Let me ask you, and I'm not here to claim Mitt is some demon-like man ready to transform the country into the hunger games. Is Washington a game of parties? What part of GOP push does Mitt repudiate and what makes you think it/when has he shown that. Then, how is Mitt somehow uniquely equipped to install a bipartisan cooperative culture in Washington? I'm not using this against him, b/c no 1 person can. Sadly, not even the President with the power of the bully pulpit. But you aren't going to sit down with those "across the aisle" and say "I want to cut taxes 20%, continue to increase military spending like always, cut PBS and planned parenthood, repeal Obamacare and replace with "something" that doesn't address people who can't get coverage b/c of preexisting injuries, and on and on"...and then say "I was Governor of Mass...so I'm bartisan so lets do it."

• If Ryan uses his mother as an example to pitch Romney's Medicare plan, take a drink. • Every time Biden inappropriately uses the word "literally," take a sip. • If the war in Afghanistan, now entering its 12th year, is mentioned, take a drink. • On Medicare, if either candidate mentions the figure $716 billion, chug two drinks. • If either candidate alludes to the historic age gap between them, which places Joe Biden in the Senate when Paul Ryan was only 2, take two drinks. ...ok...we're doing it...Biden is going to "literally" kill us tonight

How about when it comes to his tax cuts. There was a pretty damn big nevermind there, supply side nuts on the right must be wondering what the !@#$ he's talking about. And btw on these "social issues" he's still not saying never mind...he saying never mind on tv then releasing "never mind the never mind" pressers...same w/ preexisting injuries etc... Someone chalked it all up earlier to Obama having positions last time that he didn't deliver on (like every elected official ever), this is not that. This is not being straight up about the positions you take in the first place. It's transparent. I know it's just a talking point to you guys that Mitt is somehow doing this, but it's right there...for all to see.

How about this, you tell me what policies you think Mitt stands for and for the purposes of this discussion we'll use those, and then I'll tell why it doesn't matter that he was Governor of Mass (which should be self explanatory).

Of all people Tom I can't believe you buy this pitch. Anybody who knows anything about Washington, and listens to Mitt's agenda....knows that "being Governor of a Liberal State like Mass" means precisely nothing.

I would expect him to govern more far-right than you give him credit for. I don't know what makes you think he wouldn't be a hawk given his advisers and rhetoric and military budget. And when that GOP congress sends him the stuff he was made to talk about in the primary, he's going to sign it. As for his tax plan, he's going to cut on top of Bush-cuts...it's his number 1 promise. Perhaps he cuts less than 20% if it will blow up the budget....but he isn't interested in revenue/balanced approach. And it's going to be tough to govern in a bi-partisan way like that....this ain't Mass State Legislature Mitt....this is the **** show in all it's glory.

I'm glad this guy speaks on behalf of the economy.

Honestly isn't 12M the number projected for either candidate based on trajectory expected (particularly from 2014-2016 when we supposedly are more likely to break through)

You don't think it will eventually hurt him when he's doing things like this stupid abortion thing. Or when he tell 70 million people preexisting injuries are covered under his plan in a debate about Obamacare. Just generally being uncomfortable to be straight up about his own positions?

The Romney strategy seems to be to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in debates and interviews, then have campaign release pressers the next day explaining that it isn't the case.

I would go with: "I don't like Obama, and I want my 7000 employees to know their jobs may be at risk if he's reelected."

"Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan" - Mitt Romney to 70 million people

Are you John McCain? It's blasphemy to not be interested in everything that goes in the middle east being 'our responsibility' b/c of Iran?

Hehe, well they won't be nailed w/ a liberal search bias. It is funny how worst president comes up with basically the last 5 presidents minus Clinton (and also H. Bush doesn't show up much).

So to summarize: "Iran" Still not sold...the American people should not buy this load of **** from our leaders anymore. If they start gassing a bunch of civilians or something...maybe I'll buy it under the "humanitarian BS"....but jump all around the middle east to curb Iranian influence? Not interested...

type "completely wrong" in a google images search and tell me what you results you get

A Syrian Civil war is our responsibility? Putting aside Obama or Romney...just as America...this is our "responsibility?" If Turkey is mad that the **** show is spilling over...then fine. It's about time the regional neighbors take a more active role if they feel they need to do so. But us? I still don't get how everything is our "responsibility." Is it b/c we are the "one indispensable nation?" So we need to arm someone every time a civil war breaks out? Make no fly zones in every dispute? I mean...I just don't get it. I'm not a total isolationist but c'mon...

It's not about lazy. It's about the hard truth...that in the modern political climate you probably should just vote the party line (at least when it comes to the federal government) unless you have some really great candidates where you live.

Fix the obvious reasons why people would do this as opposed to complain that it exists. My take

Everyone hates Washington. And we go in year after year demanding "leadership" and voting for "something new" or "someone experienced" etc...it NEVER happens no matter who goes in b/c the system is broken. Say what you want..but it's true and IMO that's what Obama meant when he said "you can't change Washington from the inside"...in other words you can't fix the partisan problem from the middle of the partisan battle. So bellow is a quick summary of some stuff in Mickey Edwards new book "The parties v. the people: How to turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans." What does PPP think about it? ----------------------------------- Premise: We have ceded our representative democracy to satisfy the power lust of 2 private clubs and in doing so superimposed a European style parliamentary system atop the great framework that we so proudly call American. -------------------- Political scientists tell us that, at present, 40 to 45 percent of Americans are more or less moderate in their views, a percentage that has been fairly standard for much of American history. http://www.amacad.or...12/winter12.pdf "In 1970, 47 percent of the members of the U.S. Senate were regarded as moderate. Today, that figure is 5 percent, and it is even lower in the House of Representatives. The decline of moderate views in Congress suggests a kind of dysfunction: a dramatic gap between the views and attitudes of the American people and the commonalities and differences that exist among our citizens, on the one hand, and what we wind up with in our elected representatives, on the other. Something is going wrong in our politics. [not sure on the methodology used to state this...Stone (same guy in above link claims this] The problem isn’t that we are so ideologically polarized, but that we are overly partisan. It’s the different partisan affiliations that control debate in Washington, not their commonalities or the interests of their constituents. To the extent we may seem more polarized ..perhaps partisan brainwashing and idiot media has something to do with that. ------------------------------------------------- Florida Voter Registration as of: 10/2/2012 Republican: 4,202,863 Democrat: 4,684,152 Other: 2,829,900 Total: 11,716,915 1 in 4 in my state are not affiliated http://registration....heckVoterStatus Between 1987 and 2004 independent voters in Florida have quadrupled (whatever number they used probably not the same as I looked up above b/c it's changing and mine is more recent...but the point stands...."no party" is the fastest growing party) November 2006 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows 4 in 10 nationally are not affiliated with either party... In other words...1 in 4 CAN'T even participate in closed primaries in my home state....even if they wanted to do so. Additionally, primary participation is much lower than it was 50 or even 30ish years ago. ---------------------------------------------------- Thus...you have increasingly polarized candidates coming out of stupid primaries after appeasing their "base" (read: retarded radicals) and then whichever idiot wins a the general goes to Washington. Hence, the system rewards those walk the party line without thought or attention to their local constituency. Is your representative representing you or the Republican/Democratic party? Well....they live in safe districts (on both sides) constructed by state legislatures who are subservient to the beast and craft districts that reward partisan intransigence and punish independent representation with a challenger “further from the right/left.” A shocking number of Representatives and Senators vote with their party 90% of the time or more. Surely you would expect them to vote more often in line with their party, but a diverse group of people from diverse locations serving wholly different constituencies aught to deviate more than that. -------------------------------------------------------- THe 2 parties keep candidates off the ballot through sore loser laws.. Not just 3rd parties, but moderate candidates from their own parties who loss hypercharge partisan primaries (with historically decreasing participation) yet may easily command the majority of the general vote. Strange Gerrymandered districts produce pols who are unrepresentative of localities, non-competitive races, and make for an uncompromising and ideologically rigid blocks in Washington. No wonder we shake our heads year after year as Congress approval rating plummets...perhaps voters should choose their representatives...and not the other way around? ------------------------------------------------------- Suggested solutions: Elections- Candidates should take donations from within their constituency. Radio and tv should allow free advertising for legit candidates. Some free postage for challengers (as incumbents get). Make the money less necessary…. Nonpartisan redistricting committee on state level (not partisan state legislature doing it)... produce districts on the state level that actually represent communities, don't rig to make elections anti competitive (competition is good...more moderates positions who appeal to both sides and will work together in washington) No sore loser laws...open up the ballot for losers of primaries (if they wish) and 3rd parties Congress – Speaker reform…60% approval so it's more bipartisan/more moderate in appointing committee heads and rules committee and deciding about what bills will come to the floor…minority party has more of a voice so there isn't AS MUCH cutthroat need to amass a majority at all costs. Reform internal congress rules (can be done at the start of any session)..problem spots: Blocking rules (from coming to votes), closed rules (no amendments allowed...speaker reform can help this), filibusters (should have to stand up and physically do it, should have cosponsors to filibuster, should talk only about the issue of why you are blocking it so the media/people can hear...and over time the number of votes to end it should drop, and holds (also reform this arbitrary "hold" process in senate) Rearrange the furniture - literally change up the seating...they are our congresscritters...they don't need to physically sit across the isle they should just sit according to seniority and all address the floor from one podium in the center (not two...one at center right and the other center left) Congressional independence from the presidency…you don’t serve him/her...there's an actual separation of powers at work here... No more pledges...you owe 1 pledge to the people...if your voters want you to sign a pledge then they don't trust you and shouldn't vote for you anyway...you need to be able to have an open mind and creative approach despite having principles you ran on

What kind of question is this? Congresscritters vote for who they represent, their party. As if the constituents in their district want to be represented....lol

Well you are good in all but that one circuit. You are also explicitly good in the 9th circuit where the rule is that foreign manufactured goods imported and sold lawfully in the US then gets first sale protection. That is a likely track SCOTUS takes to refine the 2nd circuit ruling.

Well in any event we're looking at almost nobody. Maybe a few foreign service guys and collectors who imported a car that has protection here in the US and a rights holder who is ready to find out about this and sue. In other words...basically nobody.