Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate **official thread**

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Quick internet polls are usually a bit sill but i have NEVER EVER seen one at msnbc.com showing a favorable conservative / Republican result until today with 50+ vs 30+ saying Ryan is a good choice.  Between that and the unreal enthusiasm from the base, if I were a Democrat I am not sure I would be gleeful as some seem.  He will get attacked, but so would any other choice. Between his smarts and his happy warrior demenor, he won't get pigeonholed as a goon like Palin did.

A freeped internet poll? LOL!

[pepper11]

Quick internet polls are usually a bit sill but i have NEVER EVER seen one at msnbc.com showing a favorable conservative / Republican result until today with 50+ vs 30+ saying Ryan is a good choice.  Between that and the unreal enthusiasm from the base, if I were a Democrat I am not sure I would be gleeful as some seem.  He will get attacked, but so would any other choice. Between his smarts and his happy warrior demenor, he won't get pigeonholed as a goon like Palin did.

A freeped internet poll? LOL!

So its pure chance that EVERY other poll on MSNBC has shown pro Dem consensus?

[King]

Quick internet polls are usually a bit sill but i have NEVER EVER seen one at msnbc.com showing a favorable conservative / Republican result until today with 50+ vs 30+ saying Ryan is a good choice.  Between that and the unreal enthusiasm from the base, if I were a Democrat I am not sure I would be gleeful as some seem.  He will get attacked, but so would any other choice. Between his smarts and his happy warrior demenor, he won't get pigeonholed as a goon like Palin did.

A freeped internet poll? LOL!

So its pure chance that EVERY other poll on MSNBC has shown pro Dem consensus?

Yes, because only people who seek out on MSNBC vote on most days.  On big breaking news like Paul Ryan, every website which syndicates MSNBC news sends readers to the poll.

[AmericanNation]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

You would vote for Scott Walker but not Paul Ryan?  I never imagined (on the Republican side) that someone would pick a slight difference (in denomination only) that has nothing to do with public office and go crazy about it.

1.  I think Romney how has a much better shot at IA and WI, because of Ryan.  Possibly OH and NH as well.

Perhaps CO as well.  Ryan is perfect and practiced at selling his brand in "purple" territory.  

For aficionados of the "2012 is 1996" theory, isn't Paul Ryan kind of the Jack Kemp of his generation?

Indeed he is.

 
Ryan wrote Kemp's speeches and Kemp's "happy warrior" personality rubbed off on Ryan.

[You kip if you want to...]

Sarah Palin hasn't commented yet.

She'll be declaring as an independent on Monday no doubt, since it wasn't her who was picked.

[Svensson]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

[You kip if you want to...]

He's a policy wonk, he'll come off as too much of a smart alec to exactly the people he's meant to attract, especially when compared to Joe Biden in the VP debate. He's an intellectual Sarah Palin, except he won't be able to win the "folksy" vote, which is important.

[Supersonic]

He's a policy wonk, he'll come off as too much of a smart alec to exactly the people he's meant to attract, especially when compared to Joe Biden in the VP debate. He's an intellectual Sarah Palin, except he won't be able to win the "folksy" vote, which is important.

Oxymoron?

[You kip if you want to...]

He's a policy wonk, he'll come off as too much of a smart alec to exactly the people he's meant to attract, especially when compared to Joe Biden in the VP debate. He's an intellectual Sarah Palin, except he won't be able to win the "folksy" vote, which is important.

Oxymoron?

That's exactly my point though

[LastVoter]

I posted this earlier and it was deleted, are mods doing nazi-style censorship today? Should say that it was inspired by you in the IRC chat.

[Supersonic]

He's a policy wonk, he'll come off as too much of a smart alec to exactly the people he's meant to attract, especially when compared to Joe Biden in the VP debate. He's an intellectual Sarah Palin, except he won't be able to win the "folksy" vote, which is important.

Oxymoron?

That's exactly my point though

Oh.

[You kip if you want to...]

Oh, and expect the White House to start stirring up some stuff abroad. Considering the precarious situation with Syria (although not just Syria), Romney best hope nothing comes up. Remember the Georgia/South Osetia thing in 2008?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

Are you saying fundies aren't sane? I happen to be quite sane.

To those put off by my engaging in identity politics, many of you have no room to talk. I hate to say it but to some degree we all do it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Are you saying fundies aren't sane? I happen to be quite sane.

To put it mildly, that's debatable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

Are you saying fundies aren't sane? I happen to be quite sane.

To those put off by my engaging in identity politics, many of you have no room to talk. I hate to say it but to some degree we all do it.

Not really, my desired positions are so nuanced and intricate that to pick someone based on some trivial issue of image would be to sacrifice the greater game for the most part. To put it simply, I couldn't afford to engage in identity politics, even if I found it acceptable to engage in it.

[Marston]

Ryan ties the wonkish numbers bit with a passion about how while the medicine does not taste good, it is essential for your health, and that he really cares about your health, in a way Mittens is simply not capable of projecting.  In a word, Mittens is uptight - and Ryan isn't.

When you get tied at the hip to someone else's policy, and the guy who formulated the policy is a good salesman, you hire the salesman.  KISS.  

What about when the product is a piece of crap?

Ryan's plan is just a massive cost-shifting scheme. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

\

You're going to be sad when Romney loses.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

Yes, but these are politicians we are talking about.

[Napoleon]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

Are you saying fundies aren't sane? I happen to be quite sane.

Not my diagnosis.

[Torie]

Ryan ties the wonkish numbers bit with a passion about how while the medicine does not taste good, it is essential for your health, and that he really cares about your health, in a way Mittens is simply not capable of projecting.  In a word, Mittens is uptight - and Ryan isn't.

When you get tied at the hip to someone else's policy, and the guy who formulated the policy is a good salesman, you hire the salesman.  KISS.  

What about when the product is a piece of crap?

Ryan's plan is just a massive cost-shifting scheme. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

No, it is more complicated than that.  In the end, one ends up at the same place regarding how to deal with medical subsidies we cannot afford going forward, and/or go outside of/bust the budget. One approach is that you just by regulation set forth the basket of care the government will subsidize, and when, and trim the basket if you run out of money, or appropriate more money. In the Ryan plan, you set up a budget in advance of how much you get, which is the current cost of care increased by 3% a year or something. If the amount of the sums handed out turn out not to buy enough of a basket of services down the road, just like with the regulatory regime, either you hand out more government dough, or the basket shrinks.  Just what is the real economic difference, putting aside issues of efficiency, and price policing, and more choices, etc? The answer is - none, nada, nothing.

You see what I am saying Marston?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

\

You're going to be sad when Romney loses.

Oh really? And upon what exactly do you base that analysis? I don't get emotionally attached to politics either, which is  the other detriment to our politics other then indentity politics.

[Marston]

Ryan ties the wonkish numbers bit with a passion about how while the medicine does not taste good, it is essential for your health, and that he really cares about your health, in a way Mittens is simply not capable of projecting.  In a word, Mittens is uptight - and Ryan isn't.

When you get tied at the hip to someone else's policy, and the guy who formulated the policy is a good salesman, you hire the salesman.  KISS.  

What about when the product is a piece of crap?

Ryan's plan is just a massive cost-shifting scheme. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

No, it is more complicated than that.  In the end, one ends up at the same place regarding how to deal with medical subsidies we cannot afford going forward, and/or go outside of/bust the budget. One approach is that you just by regulation set forth the basket of care the government will subsidize, and when, and trim the basket if you run out of money, or appropriate more money. In the Ryan plan, you set up a budget in advance of how much you get, which is the current cost of care increased by 3% a year or something. If the amount of the sums handed out turn out not to buy enough of a basket of services down the road, just like with the regulatory regime, either you hand out more government dough, or the basket shrinks.  Just what is the real economic difference, putting aside issues of efficiency, and price policing, and more choices, etc? The answer is - none, nada, nothing.

You see what I am saying Marston?

I don't think it is that complicated. Indexing the premium-support system to no more than half-a-percent above the growth rate of the economy when inflation for healthcare is rising so much faster than that... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what the end-result will be. Medicare coupon-thingy beneficiaries will be priced out of the system and the "basket of services" - as you call it - will shrink lest seniors pay more out-of-pocket. That's the whole cost-shifting thing I was talking about.

That kind of system give the feds a lot more leeway in saying to seniors that the problem lies with the private insurers who set the premiums and then the whole usual political game of hot potato takes place with the private insurers saying that the feds should appropriate more money to the premium-support vouchers and the feds saying that the insurers should lower/not increase premiums. And, as usual, in the end nothing gets done and people will suffer.
 

[You kip if you want to...]

https://twitter.com/PaulRyanGosling

Just gonna leave this here.

[Torie]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

The problem is that current system is a gurranteed benefit backed up the by the solvency of the US Treasury (a dubious claim going forward which each passing decade as the current status quo is continued), which eats the entirety of the rising cost of healthcare every year. Most people don't understant the numbers belying where he are heading, which means that the situation is such that you essentially have to beat it into people's heads what almost every knowledgeable person knows about this. IT CAN'T CONTINUE LIKE THIS!!!

Obama and his team have proven that winning a second term is more important then anything else and thus rather than also speak to the problem and offer an alternative reform package, he would rather try to reap the benefits of "Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff". I will also bet anything that a meeting was held in January of 2011 between Reid and Pelosi in which the same "politics first, country second approach" was adopted in order to make themselves the "great knight rushing to protect the seniors from the anti-gov't tea party" as a a way to avenge what Republicans did with Seniors in 2010. From the playground to the congress, "tit for tat" reigns supreme. I hope Obama realizes that if in the process he makes it politcally impossible to reform entitlements he will go down in history as the President who literally ruined America. I wouldn't count on it and therefore I won't be.