Who will be the next president

[Argus]

As if the voters are all totally pious and never lie. Perhaps the voters are simply realistic and don't expect 'he who is without sin' to be running for office, if such a person could be found.

I think voters would profer someone who didn't lie, if such a person could be found, and wasn't a nut job or idiot.

[Argus]

So what is the difference between a lie lie and a politician lie?

Every single American politician who takes hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars from particular the wealthy PACs, corporations or lobbyists for corporations and piously claims that money doesn't influence his/her behavior at all.

And yes, that includes Hillary Clinton. It is a lie which can't be proven, in other words.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Obama has certainly f'ed it up bigtime, but not in the way you think.

Obama won the election largely because of young voters... voters who traditionally didn't vote much until Obama came along.

Now those voters are looking at the guy they put in the White House, and they are thinking "WTF is this crap? Pro war? Pro surveillance? Nothing done about Wall Street accountability, nothing done about tuition fees... why did we vote for this big fat phony?"

Obama is in danger of convincing one of they keys to his election win to not bother voting in 2014 and 2016, which is bad news for his successor and for Democrat candidates in 2014.

Obama's major failure has been his inability to cut deals. I grant you this Republican congress is probably the most ideological and least compromising in decades, but from all acounts Obama simply loaths the presidential game of smooth talking and trading favors with individual congressmen and senators. Not all the gridlock in Congress has been because of the Republicans. Much of it is his inability to understand how that town works and how politicians make backroom deals. He doesn't know how to get things done, so nothing gets done. Even Clinton (Bill) would have had trouble with this House, but he still would have gotten a lot more done.

[Argus]

You're partially right regarding Romney kimmy. It's not that conservatives didn't think he wasn't conservative enough, it's that they didn't believe he was actually conservative, and thus, didn't really trust what he was campaigning on. It's one reason why there were a few million voters that voted for McCain in '08, but stayed home in '12.

Romney, by almost any assessment, was more conservative than McCain, despite the latter having a late season 'conversion' in order to win over the religious right.

[Argus]

Every election has 4 years worth of new young people to swallow the hope and change promises though, new young people that didn't follow politics before then, aren't yet accustomed to the reality that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Also, as much as Obama has failed (whether from the liberal or conservative viewpoint), I think the Republicans are just too far gone to be able to nominate an electable candidate for president. They're not gonna pick Christie or anyone like that, they're gonna pick Nutso McJesusCamp with an agenda of banning the teaching of evolution, following Russia's example on the gays, vaginally probing rape victims, and deciding foreign policy by talking to "god".

Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct. Which will probably give us President Hillary Clinton...

[Argus]

Do you think the IRS suppressing conservative organizations' fund raising hurt Romney's vote numbers at all?

Imaginary things don't hurt political campaigns in real life.

[GostHacked]

Imaginary things don't hurt political campaigns in real life.

Quite right, but what sharkman mentions is quite real and did really happen. The IRS targeted more than just conservative groups.

[Argus]

Quite right, but what sharkman mentions is quite real and did really happen. The IRS targeted more than just conservative groups.

I work for the Canada Revenue Agency. I know exactly how targeting works, and none of it is politically based.

Besides, no one has ever suggested the Republicans lacked money during the last election.

[Guest American Woman]

I think voters would profer someone who didn't lie, if such a person could be found, and wasn't a nut job or idiot.

Would they? I'm not so sure. Do you think they want a goody two shoes in that position? I think most people just accept that a politician is going to tell a lie or two on occassion - just like the rest of the general population.

[GostHacked]

I work for the Canada Revenue Agency. I know exactly how targeting works, and none of it is politically based.

Besides, no one has ever suggested the Republicans lacked money during the last election.

We are talking about the IRS.

[GostHacked]

Would they? I'm not so sure. Do you think they want a goody two shoes in that position? I think most people just accept that a politician is going to tell a lie or two on occassion - just like the rest of the general population.

Lies about the Iraq war resulted in thousands of US soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Trillions of dollars spent. If I tell a lie it won't result in a country being invaded under false pretenses.

[Guest American Woman]

Lies about the Iraq war resulted in thousands of US soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Trillions of dollars spent. If I tell a lie it won't result in a country being invaded under false pretenses.

Iraq would have happened with or without any "lies."

[Shady]

The IRS absolutely did target groups. It's documented. People have already been fired over it.

[Shady]

Lies about the Iraq war resulted in thousands of US soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Trillions of dollars spent. If I tell a lie it won't result in a country being invaded under false pretenses.

The biggest lies being told by Saddam Hussein.

[GostHacked]

Iraq would have happened with or without any "lies."

Not "lies" AW, lies. Typically the way you put words into quotes means that you are looking at the opposite, or in a sense, mocking the term or word.

So why even lie in the first place if the war was going to happen no matter what? Find those pesky WMDS yet?

[GostHacked]

The IRS absolutely did target groups. It's documented. People have already been fired over it.

Conservatives were targeted, some of the Occupy*.* groups. Even some charities were targeted.

[Guest American Woman]

Not "lies" AW, lies. Typically the way you put words into quotes means that you are looking at the opposite, or in a sense, mocking the term or word.

So why even lie in the first place if the war was going to happen no matter what? Find those pesky WMDS yet?

Why do you keep asking me such a ludicrous question, considering I've told you countless times now that I never believed that Saddam had WMD?

I put it in quotes because I have no idea what all you are referring to as lies, so I didn't want to give tacit agreement to your statement.

As for "why the lies?" - how do you know that Bush/Blair/et al didn't believe that Saddam had WMD? In other words, they may not have been "lying" from their POV.

Edited September 10, 2013 by American Woman

[Argus]

We are talking about the IRS.

Do you really think the modelling and confidence validity formulas they use are all that different from the ones we use to target tax cheats?

[Argus]

The IRS absolutely did target groups. It's documented. People have already been fired over it.

Targeting is kind of what we both do. But it's WHY that matters. The Republicans will say it was done out of political bias because they were conservatives. The IRS will tell you it was done because of suspicious conduct and a well known propensity to cheat.

And no, nobody has been fired.

[Argus]

Conservatives were targeted, some of the Occupy*.* groups. Even some charities were targeted.

Yes, and CRA does the same thing each and every year. It's not done out of political bias.

[kimmy]

Do you think the IRS suppressing conservative organizations' fund raising hurt Romney's vote numbers at all?

If the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporate America funneled into conservative superPACs couldn't get Romney into the White House, what makes you think the chickenfeed that the Tea Party bumpkins could have chipped in would have made a difference?

Also, the IRS was right to investigate these political groups. Here are the criteria for what groups are actually supposed to receive tax exemptions:

Section 501©(4) exempts from taxation "social welfare" groups, that is, "[c]ivic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare … and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." Although the statutory language states that such organizations must operate "exclusively" for the promotion of social welfare, IRS regulations state that these organizations must only be "primarily engaged" in promoting social welfare: An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.

...and anybody who thinks that Tea Party Patriots of Tuskaloosa fits those criteria would have to be borderline retarded.

-k

Edited September 11, 2013 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

If the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporate America funneled into conservative superPACs couldn't get Romney into the White House, what makes you think the chickenfeed that the Tea Party bumpkins could have chipped in would have made a difference?

Hi Kimmy - just to add an interesting point: I read last week that most of the big money for these PACs comes from super wealthy individuals and not corporations, who are starting to become aware of public boycotts for "controversial" politics.

Unfortunately, I didn't remember the source (I think it was NYT or Harper's magazine) and went down the data rabbit hole trying to find a corroborating source.

[GostHacked]

Hi Kimmy - just to add an interesting point: I read last week that most of the big money for these PACs comes from super wealthy individuals and not corporations, who are starting to become aware of public boycotts for "controversial" politics.

Unfortunately, I didn't remember the source (I think it was NYT or Harper's magazine) and went down the data rabbit hole trying to find a corroborating source.

Two polarizing media giants have a lot of influence. George Sorros and Rupert Murdoch. Follow the money.

[sharkman]

If the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporate America funneled into conservative superPACs couldn't get Romney into the White House, what makes you think the chickenfeed that the Tea Party bumpkins could have chipped in would have made a difference?

I wasn't inferring that this might have cancelled Romney's parade to the White house. I was wondering if the fact that conservative(not just tea party groups) groups were delayed by about 5 to every 1 progressive or liberal group, if this hurt Romney's voter turn out at all. Because I think that if a government body even accidentally affects voter turn out, then that is wrong. Even these tea party people you hate so much have a right to vote.

Sure there are some extremists in their numbers, but there are extremists on both sides.

Edited September 11, 2013 by sharkman

[Shady]

Yes, and CRA does the same thing each and every year. It's not done out of political bias.

Well, the IRS acted much differently. Unless you think asking a pro-life group to agree not to protest abortion providers in exchange for their tax exempt status is appropriate.

IRS Urged Pro-Life Group Seeking Tax-Exempt Status Not to Protest at Planned Parenthood Clinics

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-urged-pro-life-group-seeking-tax-exempt-status-not-protest-planned-parenthood