dayman

The campaigns themselves are fine. Law requiring disclosure superPac information more quickly is something you are against why exactly? You don't want to know stuff quickly and are emotional in defending your right to be kept stupid?

It helps to strengthen disclosure requirements. Give more than 10K? Report within 24 hours, it's on the internet within 48. The general idea is that people should be able to find out, contemporaneously with their being hit with advertising, and BEFORE the election is over btw (free from evasion and stalling that happens now) who is saying what they're saying...so they can consider it as they will in context. The idea it chills speech? It's ridiculous. If you won't say something b/c your name might be linked with it, maybe it's a good idea you think twice. If you want to enter the realm of public discussion regarding our elections by giving over 10K (really IMO I wouldn't mind dropping it lower...bring on in the unions and NRA...if that's the GOP concern they should lobby for MORE sunlight) then enter the realm of PUBLIC discussion. It's not that hard. Citizens United majority decision talked about prompt disclosure being the remedy for the potential ills the dissent was concerned about. Nothing in the first amendment gives you a right to secret speech or protects you from potential legal consequences of your speech. If you want to take a stand but ONLY if nobody knows it is you, or if you want to push a message but feel it isn't effective unless people don't know it is you, well...go !@#$ yourself. All types of GOP Senators and House Members and perhaps some pundits will talk about how more sunlight in a more timely manner is somehow bad. It will restrict speech. It is purely political. It's garbage. Disclosure is a good thing. I fail to see how anyone can ultimately deny that with a straight face without resorting to nonsense political arguments.

It's far enough away. Superpacs put all kinds of stuff on the air, most of which is trash. Disclose who pays for it. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you vote GOP you don't have to be against this. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you give tons of money, then give it in a way that makes sure it will be spent so you aren't embarrassed for people to know it is you. You think the issue is really supporting Mitt Romney or Obama? Of course not. The issue is the trash ads that comes out from either side. B-Man is retarded by the way as always. Any issue in the history off PPP he seems to just google "find me the most conservative take on this to convince me it's bad." And then you run here and post the most ridiculous articles ever written. It's not scaring ExxonMObile or Sheldon Adelson. That's retarded. It's fair to know who is primarily funding the massive tv campaigns that are supposedly "on their own" and no associated with the actual campaigns. And it shouldn't even be a party issue for people to know who is shoveling **** at them. Wake up B-Man quite being, as DC Tom would aptly describe you, "an idiot." The bottom line, if you are a large donor to superPac TV ads put your name on it. Take some accountability for the messages you barrage the American people with. It's that simple. There's nothing more to it. It's something everyone should support, not something Democrats should see as a tool and Republicans a threat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/senate-bill-would-require-nonprofits-to-reveal-donors.html

Interesting piece about the largest political contributor of this election (maybe ever idk). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/his-man-in-macau-inside-the-investigation-into-sheldon-adelsons-empire/

I don't know about that. I would sell Bain as a success as he has done and it should be easy...but you have to talk about the companies Bain bought and what those companies did b/c those are the jobs people understand and care about. He has to make the argument that Bain was valuable to the American economy. He did that alright round 1 w/ the general attacks on private equity flopping (although a lot of that was the Obama campaign botching the first round). But in this new wave he's getting drowned out. He needs to adapt and find a way to say "Look, I ran Bain. We did a lot of good. I know business. As for the specific examples the President wants to use against me, those show first hand I know what government policy means to the decisions of business decision makers. I'm ready to change policy so that those decisions benefit America more than they have in the past, so that shot callers make the decisions America wants them to make b/c they're the most profitable decisions." Then roll into some ideas you want to run on. It doesn't seem that hard. You have to expose yourself a little, it's true. But you will be exposed either way. YOu have to be proactive and then transfer the discussion to the policy you think will change the situation for the better from American workers perspective. To do this you need to come out with your vision, specifics...then you can sell that you are a business guy on their side. You can't basically expose yourself to a business record that didn't always grow American jobs without some specifics on the plan that show you are in fact trying to do that in office. Generally speaking though, you have to own what you are running on. If you want the discussion on Bain and not Mass...then you can't marginalize it and run from it. Hard as it may be, you have to sell the success/high points and then use the vulnerable examples as a chance to explain why your specific policy you want to enact as President will change that.

You have to reduce issues to a way that you can communicate them to run for office. Now isn't really the time to just be realizing this as a Presidential campaign. And he was hammered (to be fair with far less money) on this in the primary and it lost him South Carolina ... later on you had Santorum going around proclaiming him the worst Republican to run against Obama ... Santorum is Santorum and I know the campaign hates him but they should at least listen to his attacks. He was trying to sell himself by saying Romney will have a difficult time selling himself over Obama b/c of Romneycare, wall street backlash, tax reform as a hot topic etc...this wasn't Santorum being a genius. This was Santorum stating the obvious. So from a campaign stand point you would think they would be ready to defend their own guy well on obvious points. Plant some seeds early, try and control the discussion, guard against potential pitfalls (taxes, the SEC filing)...but the discussion got away the tax/filing is currently hitting hard and the Obama referendum isn't going to be a campaign pitch if Obama uses these to continue to frame it as an actual election with 2 candidates where 1 is building the middle the class and the other is a rich outsourcing tax cheat who is nothing like average Americans. Now may not be the time to teach economics but he's got to be ready to sell what he's offering ... his economic vision with some level of detail and himself as a business man in a non-negative light.

And that sentiment is something the Romney campaign should be able to sell, would you agree? Why not try to own it? If some outsourcing happened under his watch then explain the situation that motivates business to do so and how you understand that well and want to enact policies to make America more competitive. Or you would just try and distance yourself from your own company even when there's clear ammo w/ the SEC filings...that seems less effective. If the tax issue isn't going away, why not just release them and say "there's the tax structure as is...we should reform it in following ways" and roll right into some specific plans for America regarding tax reform. They are going to have to outline a vision for America. If you are having trouble dealing with some fire then use it as a platform when all cameras are on you to talk about those issues and your vision for a plan regarding them. They said themselves...if you are defending you are losing....and then they just ... defend. Campaign wise the whole thing seems botched at this moment. Is this you channeling your frustration at over the Romney campaign into fueling your hate for Obama further?

They basically get at political/media lies/ridiculousness. The democrats have the presidency and for that year had both house and senate. If nothing else that alone sort of calms their propensity for those sort of things in that time period...what even handed approach would you like the show to have taken? Over the past few year certain elements that line up on the right just leave way more on the table to call ridiculous behavior...and certainly in that year. Even the oft referenced Occupy movement wasn't going then...

Last episode was the best yet in terms of the actual development of the show. As for the hard line liberal agenda...sure that is fair. But it's important to note..it's really focused on the radical elements...the tea party...the conspiracy theories and stuff...it hasn't necessarily been "anti-conservative." As the main character says over and over "I'm a registered Republican." Now take it for what it's worth...very little...but the premise is really more anti-radical GOP as opposed to anti-GOP generally speaking.

Just a disclaimer here this all politics I'm talking. Not policy or the candidates value etc.... The Romney campaign is clearly getting worked at the moment. So it's easy to say this now, and there is a long road ahead and Obama-camp will make mistakes and get pounced on and Romney-camp will also make more mistakes going forward...but as of right now it really seems kind of like the Romney campaign was not ready. The part highlighted above is what he obviously needs to do. But the narrative is nonexistent at the moment. The tax thing has completely gotten away from him, and as they always say citing Kerry if you get defined negatively early then when you come with whatever your pitch is later people tune out. Romney had a hard time putting people away in the GOP primary but was able to kind of stick around and drop strategic money bombs and ultimately out last all those candidates...who were IMO (and most people's I think) weak. He was sort of, by definition, a weak candidate himself based on his ability to deal with that group. But it was brutal, he refined his skills and you would think at worst he would be capable going forward with good political strategy. But this is sort of strange and tell me if you think I'm wrong. Does the campaign seem unprepared? They're sort of leaking nonsense about the VP, now talking about moving the pick up early to change the subject, and really the push back from those interviews regarding the tax issues did nothing. When you know you are going to distance yourself from Mass Governor tenure and that the Olympics is only going so far...you put business achievements/private sector success at the for front. Fair enough what else can you do. But this is post-'08. You have to know that can be made a weakness and you must be ready for heavy hitting in an effort to make it a weakness. So when the most predictable punch from Obamas campaign comes and comes hard, from a serious campaign that can spend on your level...you have to be ready to deal with it. If you know it's going to hurt and you aren't going to release more taxes and can't get into a debate delving into the necessary reality of outsourcing or whatever...then you should probably be ready to counter quickly with what you were talking about 3rd. But yet...it hasn't come. They need to roll out a more defined, specific and articulable vision. Obama has rolled out his counter to the "economy sucks, referendum" with his focus on the middle class angle/build for the future angle...and then came hard with the negatives on top of that. Romeny campaign response? Seems to have been at this point to just sort of eat it hoping they can endure it and get through it but they aren't really doing anything effective to minimize the damage or even roll out their own competing "vision." They seem to still be in referendum mode. There's always a way out from the fire and it's early but the campaign seems unprepared and is in this moment getting worked politically. I'm not sure what to think other that they didn't really foresee this and thus are not prepared to counter it effectively on the spot? Maybe they thought the Bain attacks failed and they got through them a few weeks back and thus let their guard down a bit and got caught sleeping? All in all, it just seems this was handled badly and it's hard to imagine they didn't have some sort of more defined plan.

Whatever size you are wearing and I would be sure to explain how you need to buy the more expensive model b/c as you know, the less expensive model aren't designed to withstand the chemicals used to maintain a golf course and as such will last what we golf shoe salesman would call "1 golf season." It's the way we justify the fact that they are designed to fall apart after a few (10/12) rounds or so. Of course that isn't true, but it worked about 1/3 of the time. Anyone over the age of 30, it worked. And if you bought Nike, God help you. You are too cool to care about price you sell yourself those shoes.

Oh ya eh? Not breaking 80 a bad day? Remind me not to play with you. Golf just isn't my game truth be told. Years ago but I worked a trailer style driving range 3 years through undergrad. 3 =years and I still will never be a great golfer. No course, just a trailer-based driving range w/ lights open until 11pm. Could swing an iron off the porch (w/ a fake grass carpet) and !@#$ around on the putting green but no room for driver while on the clock (would hit sides of trailer-porch fence thing and couldn't get too far off desk). Driver has always come and gone. I actually think swinging off that porch while working is what got me messed up for life. Got damn good with the putter but it comes and goes depending on the day still, the iron never leaves me. Never got too reliable with the driver but I'm hitting a good patch now. Needless to say despite my tenure there breaking 80 would be a great day. God knows my old boss/golf-pro wouldn't teach **** he had me doing weird ass exercises he called "gravity golf" to straighten me out off the tee...never did 1 single thing but mess me up more. It involved me moving around and stepping into it like I was happy Gilmore. How people paid him I will never know. Anyway, golf aside if there's one thing I could do to this day if I had to it's sell a pair of footjoys.

1) You are creeping me out. Yes, wine w/ the girlfriend stop spying. IDK wtf is going on 2) Good old North Florida at the moment although been around. Jaguar country. In other words, the part w/ no Obama fans. You would like it here.

Nope slicing. Working my way to a hook. For now I'm playing great and dominating those ass hole friends (except the one awesome friend...who we all have !@#$ him) for whom I paid for beer all this time.

Come to me 3rd. Come back to me. Come join me. You can still stay on the right side of the line, but you can come closer to me. And btw I've never even lived in Buffalo although I've visited family many times there and I may be wrong, but when he talked about fighting fires with multiple fire fighting companies/organizations...for some reason I thought of Buffalo.

I agree with the topic title. And will lobby for that policy at my job. Only b/c I can somehow now hit the driver straight all of the sudden. But if you can't drive, you just can't leave work. No point. You aren't scoring.

We could and we should. I argue with you a lot but at this point I'll call this one discussion. At this point I'm limited though the girlfriend is watching trueblood and demands I pay some limited amount of attention that qualifies as "watching with her" so I'm on fly by status for the immediate future.

Negative works. Period. That's been politics for centuries.

So are we/have we been too involved or not involved enough in you eyes? What are you suggesting? We should rig their election? We should have never been remotely involved for the past few decades? I'm not trying to attack you btw (since it takes a disclaimer these days on PPP) but just trying to understand if you have any thoughts on this other than just "Obama bad, use Egypt now as argument."

I was going to ask if you were a maniac suggesting we should go into Egypt, or that through policy we could somehow change their country. But then I realized that you just think supporting their electoral process is Obama supporting Islamic extremists.

For some issues I agree, for others I don't. And federal regulation isn't really just "one size fits all." It's one agency fits all, but the regulations/enforcement/exemptions are tailored. And I don't want to suggest I favor a complete federal system for all issues, or that I don't like our 2 tier system generally. But probably more than most clear cut conservatives (definitely more) I'll not view the federal government as inherently worse that the states. The "what about the states!?" movement and the "regulation is evil" movement are both popular right now I know that and it's not without merit on all issues otherwise it wouldn't forever be in our political dialogue for 200+ years running...but ultimately I'm just not so high on the states as others. And sometimes, I am. So you could absolutely make up any number of hypos or point to any number of existing federal regulation in action I won't defend. It really is a philosophical divide in terms of the view from the start.

I dream of Obama twice a night w/ a change of clothes in between. But anyway Joe 6 you sound like a Newt supporter in the primary? Yes? No? Or perhaps Paul?

Absolutely no argument that federal regulation can get out of hand and be unwise, but state regulation for many industries in most states is a joke. It's like Washington without even pretending it isn't for sale or that it's based in some sort of public policy And also that last comment may be a bit telling where I differ from a lot of anti-Fed sentiment (and for the record I don't differ in all of it). I live in Florida. I've seen what goes on. I have friends in Tallahassee working with it. While Washington is bad, here the legislature is basically some maniac holding up a bill and saying "this bill is bad, vote against it" or "this bill is good, vote for it" and then everyone gets behind their boss and votes. Nobody cares what the thing says. Is that basically Washington? Yes. Is it still far more retarded somehow in Florida? Take my word for it, the answer is yes. There's only 1 party in our state anyway. Then there's our Governor, his regulation policy is pretty easy to understand. "No regulation on anything ever." There's a reason the man got rich by Solantic defrauding medicare and it wasn't anything $75 million of his own money couldn't compensate for in his 2010 campaign for Governor.

We can bump up some older topics to not hijack this b/c I like a good politics thread as much as the next man w/ out policy creeping in. I couldn't agree less with your take on doing nothing re:economy though I think that's a bold thing to even suggest but that is just me. ACA...I've been in like every ACA topic there is The last sentence wasn't the most serious part of the post if you didn't catch that...