Barry! Barry! Barry!

Barry oh Barry where forth art thou oh Barry! The front runners are getting warmed up and all flexy for whats a cumming....thats right folks the 2012 Election season has officially begun! and here is the thread for us to make fun, debate, sometimes grind our collective teeth and maby just maby come to a better understanding of each other.

Lets see what the tone of this upcomming election cycle may be like in the year ahead shall we?

Joe Pompeo had this to say:

As reports that Meredith Vieira is planning an exit from NBC's "Today Show" swirl, the anchor has sparked controversy over her failure to question a number of unsubstantiated challenges to the U.S. citizenship of President Barack Obama that Donald Trump floated in an interview with Vieira this morning.

Trump--the billionaire real estate tycoon and reality TV figure who is flirting with a 2012 presidential run--again sought to suggest that Obama was not born in the United States. "Birther" activists on the right have circulated the unsubstantiated claim in an effort to depict Obama's presidency as the outgrowth of a shadowy, constitutionally illegitimate conspiracy.

The birther position has been thoroughly debunked, and it hasn't gained traction within the journalistic mainstream. But Trump has nonetheless been on a media blitz in recent weeks promoting it.

When the issue came up on "Today"--which airs on the same network as Trump's "Celebrity Apprentice"--Vieira didn't exactly hold his feet to the fire.

"His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya and she was there and witnessed the birth," said Trump, reiterating a claim that has been proven false, as Vieira sat by silently. (You can watch the exchange in the clip above.)

Critics took note.

"Trump simply steamrolled over her challenges, for instance, on Hawaii's policy as to what birth documents it makes available," writes Time's James Poniewozik. "But she also let him make the claim that Obama's grandmother said she saw him born in Kenya--an old, and long-debunked, chestnut of birthers that ranks up there with the fake Mombassa birth certificate--without questioning it. So now millions of Today viewers are invited to take it as fact."

A spokeswoman for the "Today Show" did not respond to a request seeking comment on whether Vieira felt that she had adequately pressed Trump on his claims. But judging by how some of her peers in TV news have handled Trump in the same situation, she appears to have failed.

Take, for instance, conservative Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, who had Trump on his prime time show several weeks ago, and was well prepared to spar with his guest on the birther issue.

"There were two announcements the week [Obama] was born [in his native Hawaii] in both Honolulu newspapers saying that he was born. That is impossible to make happen if he had not been born in the hospital," said O'Reilly, incredulously. "What is he, baby Jesus? There was a sophisticated conspiracy to smuggle that baby back into the country?"

Vieira, meanwhile, is said to be ready to abandon her anchor chair at "Today." TV Guide reported Tuesday that the host is expected to leave the show when her contract expires later this year. Items reporting the same development swiftly followed in the Hollywood Reporter and the New York Times.

NBC News pushed back on those reports--and a separate one claiming that Vieira's co-host, Matt Lauer, is also on his way out the door--via the network's own internal news service.

"There seems to be an awful lot of speculation around news anchors these days, and it's not our practice to comment on any of it," the network said in a statement.

I don’t think the Americans can write Donald Trump of as a complete loss, as I saw him on a program over here the other week on UK TV.

He did say one thing that was very interesting, and also a valid point that makes me really wonder what the Americans are doing about their debt problem. He said, “The Chinese are stealing American Jobs,” and the reason for saying this he stated, “If a tax of 25% was put on all Chinese products then the Chinese would have to revalue their currency and bring it in line with the rest of the world.”

Here in the UK we can only get limited trade from the Chinese because of the union, but it is a fact that all the time they bring cheap goods into the UK or the USA there will be jobs lost on both sides of the pond. We tax everything that comes into the UK with and import duty unless it is from the union. However our contribution is just a blip on the screen, whereas the Americans could make a difference worldwide. As the saying goes, if America sneezes the whole world gets a cold.

Be well Ian 2411

I don’t think the Americans can write Donald Trump of as a complete loss, as I saw him on a program over here the other week on UK TV.

He did say one thing that was very interesting, and also a valid point that makes me really wonder what the Americans are doing about their debt problem. He said, “The Chinese are stealing American Jobs,” and the reason for saying this he stated, “If a tax of 25% was put on all Chinese products then the Chinese would have to revalue their currency and bring it in line with the rest of the world.”

Here in the UK we can only get limited trade from the Chinese because of the union, but it is a fact that all the time they bring cheap goods into the UK or the USA there will be jobs lost on both sides of the pond. We tax everything that comes into the UK with and import duty unless it is from the union. However our contribution is just a blip on the screen, whereas the Americans could make a difference worldwide. As the saying goes, if America sneezes the whole world gets a cold.

Be well Ian 2411

The USA puts a tariff on Chinese goods. The Chinese dump US paper on the market. The US dollar falls so far that it no longer is the global reference currency. The US bond rating falls to a B-. No more borrowing to pay the government bills. US defaults. Time to move to Costa Rica.

Snark, i understand what your saying but sooner or later the Chinese are going to dump paper on the market whether you like it or not, it happened in the UK with the American banks and we are now up to our necks in debt. It will take a long time to recover but when we do the UK will be a lot stronger country. Surely it is better for the Americans to push button when they know they can mannage, rather than the Chinese doing for their gain when they might not be able to. Shit happens with money and finance because its a gamble, so is life, but like life if you have the operation early when the complaint is first diagnosed you get better that much quicker.

Be well IAN 2411

Right now the Chinese are gambling along with the US. As long as they believe that they can make money holding the paper, they will. But by setting a tariff we do at least two things to change the balance. A: Their currency advantage disappears. B: Their most favored trading partner advantage is decimated - a major insult. If they aren't making the money they want AND feel that we're pissing on them ...they'll piss back. Right now the biggest thing they have going is the trade they are doing with the US. Reduce that and the game changes. I would rather see the US pass the Fair Tax and equal the playing field from that perspective; plus get the Feds off of the backs of the manufacturers so they can build something profitably (GASP!!! THAT WORD!) There are twice as many people working for government than there are in manufacturing. While manufacturing is more dependent on systems and technology than labor now, at least the money is made here and stays here. And labor is required to keep the systems working. Contrary to what a lot of people think, Government never invented anything substantial. It took money at gunpoint from it's citizens and paid private industry to do the work. If we cut out the middle man (government) it would be a lot more efficient.

A large group of noted whistleblowers--including Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers--has written an open letter asking that the "transparency award" given to President Obama by five open government organizations in March be rescinded.
In the letter, published in the UK Guardian, the group of 50 individuals and watchdog organizations called the Obama administration's record on secrecy and surveillance "a disgrace."
The group claims that petitioners have filed more Freedom of Information Act requests made during Obama's first term--with fewer responses--than have been logged in previous years; that the administration has squashed "legal inquiries into secret illegalities more often than any predecessor" and "amassed the worst record in U.S. history for persecuting, prosecuting and jailing government whistleblowers and truth-tellers," including WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning. The letter also notes that the White House has refused to make its visitor logs public, while overseeing a 15 percent spike last year in budgetary outlays for classifying secrets. The Obama administration has spent $10 billion in enforcing secrecy protocols, the letter notes--the first time any White House has eclipsed that mark."Obama's department of justice is twisting the 1917 Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national security leaks," the letter reads, "more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous administrations combined."
The president "has set a powerful and chilling example for potential whistleblowers through the abuse and torture of Bradley Manning."
And:
President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.
One such case—the subpoena of author and former New York Times reporter James Risen involving a CIA leak—is still pending.
"Ironically—and quite likely in response to growing public criticism regarding the Obama administration's lack of transparency—heads of the five organizations gave their award to Obama in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House," the letter adds. "If the ceremony had been open to the press, it is likely that reporters would have questioned the organizations' proffered justification for the award, in contrast to the current reality."

Also the GOP recently had their first televised debate...Mr Trump wasnt there but then again he really wasnt a serious contender.

Anyone watch it other than me?

According to Rachel Rose Hartman:

It's been a little less than three months since President Obama announced his 2012 re-election campaign. While that carefully choreographed rollout was hardly a surprise, the Obama campaign team has run into some early unexpected bumps in run-up to 2012.

Just this week, the Obama camp was forced to defend using the White House as a backdrop for a re-election campaign commercial after some questioned whether the White House was improperly blurring the lines between the presidency and the campaign. (The Obama camp, for the record, cited past precedent and said there was nothing improper about the White House imagery in the spot.)
Below we review this and other recent presidential campaign blips:
• Filming at the White House: National Review Online's Jim Geharty on Monday questioned the apparent politicization of the White House after a newly released campaign commercial used it as a backdrop to promote a raffle for dinner with Obama. Other news outlets questioned the legality of the filming and whether it violated campaign finance laws. But the White House quickly stepped in to defend the location choice, telling Real Clear Politics the following: "The raffle isn't the type of fundraising that would be off-limits under the law, there was no direct appeal for donations, the video was shot in the residence portion of the White House, and his predecessors have acted similarly."

• Report: concern over small donors: The Obama campaign has decided to strongly target wealthy donors under the expectation that the grassroots small donors who boosted him to a win in 2008 may not step up this cycle, the Los Angeles Times reported this week. Both major parties in this cycle are pushing hard to reel in big-ticket donors in the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, which legalized some political groups to raise unlimited anonymous funds. The new Obama program, called "Presidential Partners," asks supporters to donate $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund (a joint project with the Democratic National Committee). Donors in this elite class would be maxing out on their allowable contributions to political parties for the 2012 cycle, meaning they can't donate to congressional party committees. The Obama campaign followed up with the Times to dispute the newspaper's findings saying the president's upcoming finance report will show that the number of small donors has dramatically increased compared to this time in 2008.
• Memo revealed granting appearance of donor access: The Obama campaign instructed the White House to give a top donor the appearance of access to the administration, the Huffington Post reported earlier this month. A private memo indicated that the donor, Full Sail University CEO Ed Haddock, was to be made to feel as if he had a direct "in" with the administration. "Ed needs and wants an ongoing point of contact inside the White House to periodically give input," the memo reportedly stated. The memo raised questions about the Hatch Act, which technically prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities. "It is an inappropriate memo," Fred Wertheimer, Founder and president of the group Democracy 21 told the Huffington Post. "And as we head into the campaign season and the political money raising season the Obama campaign should be extra careful about creating the potential impression that access is being provided for campaign contributions and fund raising."
• Economic woes drag down poll numbers: When the president announced the killing of Osama bin Laden, the development was widely hailed as not only an international victory but a major coup for Obama's 2012 election campaign. But any bin Laden-related polling bounce for Obama quickly faded as unemployment and economic woes continued to grip the American public. A poll released this month showed Obama tied with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney due to voter anxiety about the economy. This week, Obama is busy trying to broker an 11th-hour deal with Congress to raise the national debt ceiling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Snark, i understand what your saying but sooner or later the Chinese are going to dump paper on the market whether you like it or not, it happened in the UK with the American banks and we are now up to our necks in debt. It will take a long time to recover but when we do the UK will be a lot stronger country. Surely it is better for the Americans to push button when they know they can mannage, rather than the Chinese doing for their gain when they might not be able to. Shit happens with money and finance because its a gamble, so is life, but like life if you have the operation early when the complaint is first diagnosed you get better that much quicker.

---

The problem with economics is that if you know an economy is riding for a fall, and you do something about it, you get blamed for the tough consequences. If you wait till it falls down by itself, you can take the credit for picking up the pieces.

Years before the crash, plenty of economists were pointing out that sub-prime debt was running the US economy over a cliff. But if Bush had done anything to rein it in, he'd have been blamed for the resulting slump. Like 9/11, better to ignore the warnings and let it happen, then take credit for reacting.

Considering the complaints that Obama isn't rebuilding fast enough from the Bush crash, one can only imagine the howls if he slowed down the economy by taxing Chinese imports.

According to THOMAS BEAUMONT of the Associated Press:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a conservative Iowa Christian group's far-reaching pledge opposing gay marriage, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to reject it.

Two of Romney's rivals for the Republican nomination, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have signed the The Family Leader's 14-point pledge, which calls on the candidates to denounce same-sex marriage rights, pornography, same-sex military accommodations and forms of Islamic law.
When it was first circulated last week, the introduction to the pledge stated that African American children were more likely to be raised in two-parent households when they were born into slavery than they are today. The group struck that language and apologized after black ministers complained, but it said it stands by the rest of the document.
Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney, told The Associated Press in a written statement Tuesday that Romney "strongly supports traditional marriage," but that the oath "contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign."
Bachmann and Santorum have been campaigning hard to court the influential social conservatives in Iowa, which holds the nation's first caucuses. Romney's rejection of the pledge reflects his diminished focus on winning Iowa, where he spent $10 million during his 2008 presidential campaign only to finish second.
None of the other GOP presidential hopefuls, including former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have said whether they will sign the pledge or not.
Romney, who supported rights for gay couples in Massachusetts, was criticized in Iowa by some Iowa social conservatives during his 2008 campaign, when he finished second in the caucuses after aggressively courting Christian conservatives.
In his second bid, Romney, who leads in national GOP polls, has cast himself as a national figure more focused on the economy, and has said he would not spend as much time and money campaigning in Iowa as he did during his $10 million effort for the 2008 caucuses.
The Family Leader, an organization formed last year and positioning itself to be an influential player in the 2012 caucuses, said Tuesday they stand by the 14 policy positions listed under the promise to "defend and to uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman."
The points include the promise to be faithful to their spouses, enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act and support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The group said signing the oath is a condition of winning its endorsement before the caucuses.
"We are standing firm that the 14 points of the marriage vow are right on target and we are creating higher standards for the presidential candidates," said Julie Summa, director of marketing and public outreach for The Family Leader. "We are not backing away from that at all."
Gay marriage has been a volatile issue in Iowa in recent years, and came to a head in 2009 when the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on gay marriage, making same-sex marriages legal.
Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is not campaigning in Iowa, citing his past opposition to farm subsidies, although he also supported rights for same-sex couples as governor of Utah. Huntsman campaign aides said Tuesday the former U.S. ambassador to China is declining to sign any pledges as part of his campaign.