Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DalaiLama4Ever

Romney Picks Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as VP Candidate

Recommended Posts

With the retired military battleship Wisconsin as a backdrop, Mitt Romney will announce Saturday that House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan will be his running mate, multiple news sources reported Friday night.

 

Ryan, of Wisconsin, is a bold choice for the ever-cautious Romney campaign. The wonkish House budget chairman, 42, won the admiration of conservatives after championing major tax budget cuts while advocating deep changes to Medicare, the popular healthcare program for seniors — long viewed as a third rail of politics.

 

 

The choice promises a fierce debate over the size and role of government in America over the next few months, and Democrats are relishing the chance to take on that fight.

 

LA Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 more years I spose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just...why?

 

Why aren't you a fan of Congressman Paul Ryan taylor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Why aren't you a fan of Congressman Paul Ryan taylor?

 

He idolizes Ayn Rand, perhaps one of the most delusional "ideologues" of the last century, and is trying to carry out her theory of objectivism. There's more, but that's reason enough for me but it's beside the point. I wouldn't vote for Romney regardless of who he picked as VP. I just don't understand why he would pick Paul Ryan.

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He idolizes Ayn Rand, perhaps one of the most delusional "ideologues" of the last century, and is trying to carry out her theory of objectivism. There's more, but that's reason enough for me but it's beside the point. I wouldn't vote for Romney regardless of who he picked as VP. I just don't understand why he would pick Paul Ryan.

 

Because Romney, being a liberal douche, needs to try and cater to the conservative wing of the republican party. Don't think it's going to do much.. But it will be fun watching Ryan destroy Biden in the VP debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Because Romney, being a liberal douche, needs to try and cater to the conservative wing of the republican party. Don't think it's going to do much.. But it will be fun watching Ryan destroy Biden in the VP debates.

 

See that's what I thought at first too, but Ryan doesn't poll well with Independents. I'm not sure Republicans would vote for anyone but a Republican to begin with, so I figured Romney would aim for a candidate who could draw in Independents and/or Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See that's what I thought at first too, but Ryan doesn't poll well with Independents. I'm not sure Republicans would vote for anyone but a Republican to begin with, so I figured Romney would aim for a candidate who could draw in Independents and/or Democrats.

 

Nah. He needed somebody to tap into the old school Republican base like Romney can't. I think Ryan does that, although I haven't looked up any of the polling numbers.

 

You also have to take into consideration that I think his presence is a lot stronger than Romney's.

 

I know Americans should be focusing on his politics, but the fact is that most don't. Ryan has the stature, the look, the confidence, and speaking ability of a man who the general public could see in office. All points in which Obama destroyed McCain in 4 years ago, and something he destroys Romney in.

 

I hate listening to Mitt Romney talk. My skin begins to crawl. Listening to Ryan's speech on the other hand, was a much different experience.

 

Now... his politics on the other hand... Are also a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Ryan is a very popular republican in my state amongst republicans so I wasn't surprised that Romney picked him. Paul Ryan had spoken highly of Romney months prior to this announcement so it might work out for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Why do these guys want to fuck with the Fed so badly? And they all do it on learned misinformation.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/forget-paul-ryans-budget-his-scariest-idea-is-about-the-federal-reserve/261066/

 

Forget Paul Ryan's Budget: His Scariest Idea Is About the Federal Reserve

By Matthew O'Brien

 

inShare Aug 13 2012, 5:17 PM ET

 

It's time to put down Ayn Rand, and pick up Milton Friedman

RyanRomney12.jpg

 

Paul Ryan is worried about the Federal Reserve. He's worried the Federal Reserve will try to bring unemployment down. There's a word for this. I can't print it, because this is a family publication.

 

For the past four years, Ryan has repeatedly warned about the real menace threatening the economy: inflation. Forget that long-term unemployment has surged to levels not seen since the Great Depression, and prices have barely risen -- Ryan is scared of the inflation monster under his bed, and thinks you should be too. He thinks that trying to bring down unemployment will unleash the inflation monster -- and that's why he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal back in May of 2008 calling on Congress to revoke the Fed's dual mandate to target both low inflation and low unemployment.

 

Ryan is pushing bad economics, and worse history. The chart below looks at core PCE inflation -- the measure the Fed considers -- since Congress passed the Humphrey-Hawkins Act in 1978 that gave the Fed its dual mandate. After spiking due to the second oil shock, inflation has been on a steady downward trajectory for the past 30 years.

 

HHInflation-thumb-615x306-95926.png

 

It takes a vivid imagination to interpret this as evidence that Humphrey-Hawkins has caused an inflation problem. Reality says the opposite. Actually, it's much, much worse for Ryan -- the Fed has gotten much, much better at maintaing price stability since the advent of the dual mandate. We don't have data on core PCE inflation before 1959, but we do have numbers for CPI inflation -- that is, including food and energy costs -- going back to 1914. Which period looks like the nirvana of price stability to you in the chart below? (Note: the yellow dot shows when Humphrey-Hawkins became law).

 

CPIInflationMarker-thumb-615x298-95959.png

 

There was 4.3 times more variance in prices before the dual mandate than after it. And those first 20 years came under the gold standard -- which its advocates today claim would "cure" inflation! This last point is crucial because Ryan has something of a soft spot for goldbugs. Now, Ryan doesn't want to bring back the gold standard itself, but he does want to create a commodity standard -- in other words, tie the value of the dollar to a basket of commodities. This is a distinction without much of a difference. The Fed would have to raise interest rates when commodity prices go up, regardless of the state of the economy. This is all kinds of crazy. Commodity prices have shot up the past decade as developing nations have developed -- unrelated to inflation here. It makes no sense to make our economy worse because China's economy is getting better.

 

Where did Paul Ryan get such a truly nutty idea? It's not from the hero of conservative economic thought, Milton Friedman. Republicans have abandoned him -- at least when it comes to monetary policy. (Although conservatives like Scott Sumner, David Beckworth, and Evan Soltas still carry the torch). Friedman's insight was that low interest rates don't necessarily mean that Fed policy is easy -- usually the reverse -- and that the Great Depression wouldn't have been quite so great if the Fed had printed money to prevent the banking collapse. But Ryan hasn't just ignored Friedman; Ryan is the anti-Friedman. He has sharply criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke for printing money, and issued melodramatic (and incorrect) predictions about "currency debasement." Why is Ryan so out of step with what conservatives used to believe about monetary policy? Because he takes his cues on the Fed from a fiction writer instead of a Nobel laureate.

 

Back in 2005, Ryan explained that one person informed his thoughts on monetary policy: Ayn Rand. In a great catch by Dave Weigel of Slate, Ryan said that he "always goes back to" Francisco d'Anconia's speech from Atlas Shrugged when he thinks about the Fed. The speech in question consists of a rant against paper money and an ode to gold -- in other words, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump from this to Ryan's championing of a commodity-backed dollar. But even that makes more sense than Ryan's suggestion in a 2010 interview with Ezra Klein that the Fed should raise rates to help the economy. As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, making credit more expensive does not lead to more growth. Now, long-term interest rates do rise when growth goes up, but that doesn't mean that growth will go up when the Fed raises short-term interest rates. The opposite, actually. It was a disaster when the Fed tried that in 1931. Or when the ECB did in 2008. Or when the ECB did in 2011. It's curious that Ryan isn't aware that his ideas have been tried, and failed spectacularly.

 

Paul Ryan is a true believer. Back in 2009 he invested in commodity and TIPS funds -- in other words, he really does think the inflation monster is about to jump out from under the bed. But Ryan keeps getting it wrong because he has a wrong understanding of monetary policy. He needs to put down the Ayn Rand and pick up the Milton Friedman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Ryan pick is great for firing up conservatives, I'm not sure it helps with independent voters. Romney himself was already an economic guy; why be redundant with Ryan? Also, his bold budget plans--especially concerning Medicare--will probably not sit well with old people, a huge voting population. Also, Ryan has some pretty interesting social policies, specifically with regards to women. Worth looking in to.

 

As a minor, inconsequential note, anyone else notice that he sounds exactly like Eric Foreman from That 70's Show? Seriously, listen to one of his speeches.

 

This is just the final confirmation that I'll be voting for Johnson/Gray. :yep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Ryan pick is great for firing up conservatives, I'm not sure it helps with independent voters. Romney himself was already an economic guy; why be redundant with Ryan? Also, his bold budget plans--especially concerning Medicare--will probably not sit well with old people, a huge voting population. Also, Ryan has some pretty interesting social policies, specifically with regards to women. Worth looking in to.

 

As a minor, inconsequential note, anyone else notice that he sounds exactly like Eric Foreman from That 70's Show? Seriously, listen to one of his speeches.

 

This is just the final confirmation that I'll be voting for Johnson/Gray. :yep:

 

Translation: My vote just might as well go to Obama but I'm too pussy to actually do so.

 

Voting for the 3rd party does absolutely nothing besides weaken the voting numbers for one of the candidates. Does the name Ross Perot sound familiar? He's the reason H.W. didn't get a second term. And one the reasons Clinton was able to wipe the floor with Dole in '96. There's a reason it's called a "throw-away" vote.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: My vote just might as well go to Obama but I'm too pussy to actually do so.

 

Voting for the 3rd party does absolutely nothing besides weaken the voting numbers for one of the candidates. Does the name Ross Perot sound familiar? He's the reason H.W. didn't get a second term. And one the reasons Clinton was able to wipe the floor with Dole in '96. There's a reason it's called a "throw-away" vote.

 

Translation: I'm too much of a moron to understand that constantly voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages the two-party system to become a one-party system.

 

(Note that I mean what the voter considers to be the lesser of two evils, this swings both ways.)

 

It's a vote of protest, neither of the two candidates fits SteVo's idea of a presidential candidate, (and for that matter, neither fits mine either). If you continue to always vote for the guy who is just a little bit better than his opponent, both parties will come as close together as they possibly can while still retaining their base, who votes for them because of your insane logic.

 

Creating a 3rd party would take a very long time with lots of sacrifices in the short-term, but it can be done and has been done before. Saying it's merely a throwaway vote simply misunderstands the idea behind voting for a 3rd-party candidate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: I'm too much of a moron to understand that constantly voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages the two-party system to become a one-party system.

 

(Note that I mean what the voter considers to be the lesser of two evils, this swings both ways.)

 

It's a vote of protest, neither of the two candidates fits SteVo's idea of a presidential candidate, (and for that matter, neither fits mine either). If you continue to always vote for the guy who is just a little bit better than his opponent, both parties will come as close together as they possibly can while still retaining their base, who votes for them because of your insane logic.

 

Creating a 3rd party would take a very long time with lots of sacrifices in the short-term, but it can be done and has been done before. Saying it's merely a throwaway vote simply misunderstands the idea behind voting for a 3rd-party candidate.

 

Do you see third party candidates making a serious run in the future? The closest they'll ever get is what Ross Perot accomplished in 1992.

 

So yes, it is a throw-away vote. You can validate your moronic judgement all you want by calling it a "protest" but the fact is, it's never going to happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting for a third party just enables the party who is furthest from the independent to run away with the poll. Two party systems are messed, the ideal option is to have a bunch of parties present, like a green party, a libertarian, and whatever and have voters rank which parties they like the most.

 

Say you've got a Socialist Party, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and a Green Party as options, and you have voters ranks the parties they liked best for worst. You add up all their votes and you get something like this:

 

Socialists: 10%

Democrats 25%

Libertarians 20%

Republicans 30%

Green 15%

 

The Socialist voters move down to their second choice, and you count the numbers up again. so you get more Democrat votes and a few Libertarian and Green votes.

 

Democrats 30%

Libertarians 22%

Republicans 30%

Green 18%

 

The Green Party ends up pretty much split between Democrat and Libertarian votes when you do the recount so the results look like this.

 

Democrats 39%

Libertarians 31%

Republicans 30%

 

Republicans are extremely down on Democrats and most of their votes end up going towards the Liberatarian party instead. Leaving the final numbers looking something like this.

 

Democrats 45%

Libertarians 55%

 

Of course, that would mean getting rid of the electoral college first... which is the most retarded voting structure I've ever seen. In the end, you're getting most people's second or third choice, while if you just left it as is, approximately 70% of people would hate who ended up running the country.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see third party candidates making a serious run in the future? The closest they'll ever get is what Ross Perot accomplished in 1992.

 

So yes, it is a throw-away vote. You can validate your moronic judgement all you want by calling it a "protest" but the fact is, it's never going to happen.

 

Certainly isn't if people always think that way. Yes, I do see the potential for a serious third-party run in the next twenty years or so. You can validate your moronic follow-the-herd stance all you want, but all you are going to get, most of the time, is a candidate that you simply don't hate as much as you hate the other guy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see third party candidates making a serious run in the future? The closest they'll ever get is what Ross Perot accomplished in 1992.

 

So yes, it is a throw-away vote. You can validate your moronic judgement all you want by calling it a "protest" but the fact is, it's never going to happen.

 

The feds won't allow it to happen. They were scared shitless after the run Perot had.

 

Perot ran on a huge platform that was spearheaded by the idea to reduce the deficit. Neither candidate took him seriously and completely avoided the topic and scoffed at any such plan to do so. Just so happens... In '96, both parties united and agreed to lower the deficit which cut into a lot of Perot's popularity for his next run.

 

Getting on the ballot for a 3rd party is like jumping through flaming hoops naked while covered in gasoline. The Libertarians usually have a pretty good turnout ballot wise, but other than that other parties really struggle.

 

And let's not even talk about the debates. Perot did an INSANE amount of damage in those debates and his poll numbers more than doubled. It will probably never happen again... 3rd party candidates are required to be running at at least 15% prior to the debates now, something that would have kept Perot out of the debates. The US Supreme Court has actually made numerous rulings, saying that this is completely okay. Really? Yes. lol

 

Let's not forget the media attention -- or lack thereof -- that 3rd parties get. Even though that is partly the systems fault... A lot of it has to do with resources and money available to the 3rd parties. Usually they have to really pick and choose how, when, and where they spend their money. And the less exposure these guys get, the less people know of them, and the less people know of them, the lower their chances are.

 

Perot was, in part, so successful because he was a self made millionaire and he funneled a significant chunk of his wealth into funding his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brownage is also entirely missing another point.

 

Voting for a 3rd-party candidate is not about, necessarily, trying to get them to actually win. It is indeed a vote of protest, letting the party in question know they have taken things too far. It is also a victory if you get your party to come back a bit towards their base.

 

If all you ever do is vote for the lesser of two evils, then you shouldn't be complaining when you have a choice between two middle-of-the-road guys who differ very slightly on some issues, but do pretty much the same things while in office. Oh wait... we've already had that several times now.

 

By voting for the guy "your" party puts up, even if he doesn't agree with your values, you are telling your party that they can go even farther to the left/right because you'll still vote for them just because they are slightly better than the alternative. It's time to stop this. Romney is not someone I can trust. The guy has flip-flopped on several things, even had his own individual mandate, and has pretty much given me no reason why he would be any better than Obama.

 

I'm not voting for him, and Obama is out of the question. Just because Mittens is a bit better than Obabma, which I'm not even sure of that, is not a good enough reason for me to vote for him. Let the Republicans get smeared in 2012, for all I care. Maybe it will send them a message.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

The Republican and Democratic parties are so much alike because the average American identifies with centrist policies. It's why those 2 parties are so successful and so much alike, and why extreme leaning parties like Libertarians or candidates like Ron Paul will never be relevant. Has anyone stopped to consider this or are we just assuming "the powers that be" are preventing it? Because one of those is a plausible theory and the other isn't.

 

Voting for a 3rd party is not a "throw away" vote (imo), it's an expression of your ideals. That that candidate has a snowball's chance in hell is irrelevant. You vote for your ideals, not for the lesser of 2 evils.

Edited by Phailadelphia
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican and Democratic parties are so much alike because the average American identifies with centrist policies. It's why those 2 parties are so successful and so much alike, and why extreme leaning parties like Libertarians or candidates like Ron Paul will never be relevant. Has anyone stopped to consider this or are we just assuming "the powers that be" are preventing it? Because one of those is a plausible theory and the other isn't.

 

Voting for a 3rd party is not a "throw away" vote (imo), it's an expression of your ideals. That that candidate has a snowball's chance in hell is irrelevant. You vote for your ideals, not for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

I agree with the second part, not the first. Razor laid out exactly why the Dems and Repubs have a choke-hold on the current political process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican and Democratic parties are so much alike because the average American identifies with centrist policies. It's why those 2 parties are so successful and so much alike, and why extreme leaning parties like Libertarians or candidates like Ron Paul will never be relevant. Has anyone stopped to consider this or are we just assuming "the powers that be" are preventing it? Because one of those is a plausible theory and the other isn't.

 

Voting for a 3rd party is not a "throw away" vote (imo), it's an expression of your ideals. That that candidate has a snowball's chance in hell is irrelevant. You vote for your ideals, not for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

That doesn't explain why the feds make it damn near impossible for 3rd parties to have success? Or why they even further strengthened their policies after Ross Perot stole the campaign from Daddy Bush.

 

The Democrats and Republicans are so much alike because they are the same. It doesn't matter who you or I vote for as far as Romney or Obama are considered. Generally speaking, the same policies are going to get passed either way.

 

OH.. and the feds WANT you to believe that Ron Paul and other candidates that aren't Rep. or Dem. are extreme leaning. Just because they don't follow same tune as our one and only political party here in the US doesn't mean they are extreme.

 

A victory for either a Democrat or Republican is a loss for the American people.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

That doesn't explain why the feds make it damn near impossible for 3rd parties to have success? Or why they even further strengthened their policies after Ross Perot stole the campaign from Daddy Bush.

 

The Democrats and Republicans are so much alike because they are the same. It doesn't matter who you or I vote for as far as Romney or Obama are considered. Generally speaking, the same policies are going to get passed either way.

 

OH.. and the feds WANT you to believe that Ron Paul and other candidates that aren't Rep. or Dem. are extreme leaning. Just because they don't follow same tune as our one and only political party here in the US doesn't mean they are extreme.

 

A victory for either a Democrat or Republican is a loss for the American people.

 

"The feds" this and "the feds" that. Sorry but you just sound like a crazy person.

polls_its_a_conspiracy_0548_471334_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The feds" this and "the feds" that. Sorry but you just sound like a crazy person.

polls_its_a_conspiracy_0548_471334_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

 

Taylor, he's right though. The media works hand in hand with both political parties to repress other candidates. A true democracy lets every viewpoint (that doesn't advocate violence) to prevail in a national election so that the people can make a choice that's best for the nation. I'm really tired of the liberal bias in the US media that makes the average American think a certain way. It has to stop, and I think any person on TV that does this is a disgust human being that should be ashamed of themselves. Like why do they focus so much on Romney's tax returns, like fuck off already and focus on the important issues like the fact that millions of people are out of work, and millions more are struggling to get by. I wish someone would run for President, and many more people run for Congress and say and propose real solutions to America's fundamental problems and didn't care about what other people thought. America needs a leader in the White House and Congress that only want to help make America better off in the present and the long - term future by focusing on real solutions to America's fundamental economic, social and political problems that it faces. From an outsiders perspective, I really respect the American justice system and other aspects of the country over Canada. I really feel sorry for the American people who have lost hope because of the constant stupid arguing over things as stupid as whether a member from the other party is socialist for wearing a red T-shirt, or racist for saying that people in welfare should have to work to receive their benefits to help lift themselves out of poverty.

 

I may seem a bit naive based on the current contemporary context, but I like and enjoy studying politics and aspects related to political science because I think if your in a position of authority in any country or any sub-national or international institution you have a great chance to improve the lives of millions of people. I personally like to set my life goals through that type of thinking and hopefully I get the opportunity to realize those goals one day. I just wish someone in America will have their patience break and stand up and run for a political office position at any level and try to make a real difference for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The feds" this and "the feds" that. Sorry but you just sound like a crazy person.

polls_its_a_conspiracy_0548_471334_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

 

What? It's a lot shorter than saying "the federal government" 10,000 times in the same post. I apologize for being lazy and taking some shortcuts... lol. Why that sounds crazy, I am not really sure...

 

I also find it disturbing that you really didn't respond to the post, but instead focused on one word and said I sounded crazy.

 

The tactic of someone who has no leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×