2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Race

[Eaglestrike]

The division won't hurt because the moment the Republicans get past their "anyone but Romney" stint, they'll back the main Republican candidate (which will be Romney) and put all of their money into the "Anyone but Obama" campaign.

The reason the election will be close isn't because of the economy (you can sell numbers in any way you want to make it look better or horrifyingly worse). The reason the election will be close is the same reason the 2010 elections were so crazy: Citizen's United. The Super Pacs are going to put so much money into this election that the world will stop and stare as America demonstrates just how broken our political system is, and how desperately we need campaign finance reform.

This election is going to be disgusting, on a level that people can't imagine.

The question I've been wondering through all this: The money is being spent, but who is getting it?

[Churchill]

China

[Churchill]

Oh and Israel

[Eaglestrike]

Good jokes, but I mean, does it mostly go to TV ads, so TV companies get it? Making signs and shirts, so manufacturers get it? Is it actually useful to the economy that they're spending all this money, even if it's bad that it is influencing elections?

[archibaldcrane]

I think the bulk of SuperPAC spending is spent on television ads - so production companies/their employees/media conglomerates benefit.

[djzombie]

this is a great post lol

the difference between what i said and what the government tries to pass of as actual data is i flat out said my post was a guess, and thats all it could be, due to lack of actual data, but nice try.

what was actually important, if you failed to read the rest of the conversation, was this

the official numbers are lies, they are under any administration, but the gap between true unemployment and the reported rate is the widest it has been in modernity.

who the fuck really knows what actual unemployment numbers are, no one.

[archibaldcrane]

Depends on how you define "unemployment" bro. 4 year old kids and 90 year old retirees are unemployed, the point is to provide a meaningful number.

[Terrestrialrage]

People who are looking to vote for one of the Republican candidates will unite under whoever gets nominated. There is a small handful of people I have spoken to who are Ron Paul Democrats (wtf?), but they are few and far between. Also with regards to the unemployment numbers, it skews so far either way that it's impossible to tell, like DJ said. Democrats say 8%, because they don't count people who haven't looked in 6 months, or people who are overqualified for what they are doing and took the job because they had to. Republicans say 17% because they count homeless, part-time, underemployed, overqualified, and everyone they can fit in their umbrella.

[djzombie]

Depends on how you define "unemployment" bro. 4 year old kids and 90 year old retirees are unemployed, the point is to provide a meaningful number.

How about of legal age to work and not retired for starters?

[archibaldcrane]

How about of legal age to work and not retired for starters?

Noone is not doing that.

[djzombie]

Noone is not doing that.

Democrats say 8%, because they don't count people who haven't looked in 6 months

.

[archibaldcrane]

Those people who haven't looked in 6 months are not of legal age or retired?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

No mention of Romney's political fuck up this morning?

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...not-very-poor/

[Demosthenes11]

why should people that haven't looked for work in 6 months be counted toward unemployment? If you ain't lookin, you ain't gettin. It inflates the numbers

99% of people that aren't looking for a job are not going to get a job
8% of people that are looking for a job are not getting a job

OMG 20% unemployment!!!!

[archibaldcrane]

Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

If he's considering the "very poor" to be the bottom 4 to 8%, whatever. 90-95% is a huge range from very poor to quite well-off. If he actually focuses on helping people other than the rich (a good start would be saying he will eliminate the carried interest tax break), good for him.

[Demosthenes11]

what romney said isn't that bad in the full context of what he said. What IS bad, though, is him saying there are safety nets for the poor, so we don't need to worry too much about that now, but then turning around and campaigning for massive spending cuts to "entitlement spending" and public works

[Ragnus]

Imo, that's not really a fuck up compared to other things he's said.

Yeah, he's not saying he's going to prop the poor up with tons of government subsidies but at the same time he's saying he's not going to rip out the safety nets like other Repubs want to all the time to "balance the budget". Tons of people bitch about the dwindling middle class and how the poor and rich have it way better than them from a standpoint of what they get from the government compared to what they contribute in taxes. Here comes Romney who says that he'll focus on the middle class and yet he's still demonized for it.

EDIT: Then again him saying that he won't rip the nets out could just be another flip flop on issues to get votes.

[Kaylia]

Those people who haven't looked in 6 months are not of legal age or retired?

Welfare.

Well, I'm not exactly how it's counted in USA, but I know they are generally excluded from unemployment statistics in Canada.

[Drex]

I would consider an unemployment statistic that includes people not actually seeking a job more misleading than one that excludes them. If the point is to portray how difficult it is to get a job, why include people who aren't trying to get one?

[Kaylia]

It's always risky to look at statistics in vacuum. Knowing that 8% looked for a job has its use, but it doesn't tell you how many gave up when you compare it to older number.

Our provincial goverment (canada) bragged that unemployment rates were stable not too long ago, but when you omit to mention that more people are living on welfare, you're just bullshitting. This isn't how unemployment rate should be used.