Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US Presidential Election 2: Revenge of the US Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PointMan View Post
    I could tell you the real reason for the economic collapse, but no one wants to hear that it was actually put in motion during the Clinton administration.
    Actions and reactions are the cause of everything, since the beginning of time.

    Originally posted by PointMan View Post
    You are criticizing Romney for doing knowing how to make money, which is exactly the kind of expertise we need right now? Obama has of seedy thing about him and yet no one seemed to care about that. If you are looking for the perfect candidate you're going to be looking forever, because there is no such thing. Romney however was the lesser of two evils, and that's what politics is usually about anymore.
    GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PROFIT MAKING ENDEAVOR. Clearly Romney knows how to make profits for his investors. It’s just as clear he does not care who is hurt in the process. Hardly a personality trait I would vote for in a Presidential candidate. Of course there is no perfect candidate, as I’ve said over and over. That I have to vote for the lesser of two evils is insane to me.

    Originally posted by PointMan View Post
    Here's another one, a story the press won't report on.
    What “press” would you be referring to? Clearly you found the story. Personally, I find Glenn Beck to be an extreme nut case and would never read anything published by him. I’ve never said Romney doesn’t care about *anyone*. I’ve said that there is too big a group of Americans he views with distain and beneath his time or effort. That’s by his actions and words, not by any “media bias”.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Hard not to defend against a charge so manifestly and provably false, so slanderous. What actually happens is that the essential ideological difference between left and right in this country -- the former's disdain and the latter's reverence for individualism, self-reliance, and the sticky chaos of true economic liberty -- is simply defined down as racism, because calling something racist is almost always a choice to intellectually disengage from serious response.
    I’ve never accused the Republican Party of being racist. I don’t believe they are. However, I don’t see them denouncing the extremists within the party, either. I personally heard a long time friend of my family, a long time Mississippi resident, say “We’ve got to get that (insert bad “n” word here) out of the White House". Both parties need to be harshly against the wack job elements at work in their organizations.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The Tea Party has only ever been tarred, dishonestly, with the ugly brush. Outright lies like spitting on a Congressman, all this reported violence, when in real life, Tea Party rallies end with people politely policing up their own trash, and not with, as for instance, people defecating in the street and vandalizing stores and vehicles, which has been the daily norm at Occupy sites like Oakland and Manhattan.
    I’ve never heard any of the examples you listed. What I meant was their “my way or else” philosophies. As has been referenced by more people than me in this thread, I view them to be anti woman in the extreme. I will work tirelessly to stop their social policies from being legislated. I would always be willing to work towards compromise on fiscal issues – I will NEVER be willing to compromise on my personal freedom. I don’t see why they can’t see the hypocrisy of “less is more, smaller government is the goal”, yet continue to try to pass legislation eroding my personal freedoms. Government small enough to fit in my uterus is what I see the Tea Party advocating.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Institutions are the people that make them up, the person who has to cut the check.
    People have civil rights, not institutions. Under this philosophy, since I don’t like my money paying to continued military action, I shouldn’t be made to pay for it, right?


    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The Full, Faith and Credit requirement in the Constitution does not say that if a couple get married in New York under New York rules, and Florida has to recognize it, that Florida has to also adopt New York's rules. It means that a marriage valid in New York has to be treated as valid in Florida. Same with a driver's license.
    I’m fine with that. But a legal union from one state must be recognized as a legal union in another state. Exactly like a drivers license.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The point is, a personal, individual tragedy (i.e. "but my dog will die if we pass the new food standards for dog food bill") is not a reasonable argument to direct policy that will apply to millions of people, indefinitely.
    Again, I ask why “people” aren’t relevant to forming a policy to govern “people.”

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Actually, the "little effect" goes both ways, which makes one wonder what there is behind it other than a compulsion to punish the rich. Raising the top marginal rate on those making over $250,000 a year would raise $56 billion in 2013... against a budget deficit that will be around $1.5 trillion. It's beans, it accomplishes nothing.
    Paying taxes is a punishment? I totally agree. And just like my own personal budget, you have to start somewhere. Revenue & expense cutting.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Your parents, and mine, were scammed just as much as a Madoff investor was scammed, because Social Security is exactly the same sort of con; it depends on additional investors to pay existing ones. Which is great, if there are enough of them to cover the bill, but there aren't.
    Well, the baby boomers (me!) are the largest generation in history. So, why isn’t there enough money? And what do you propose to replace Social Security? Nothing, I suppose. It’s not government’s role, so what? Cut the moochers off? Let them starve? There are entire generations involved here – not yours, I understand, but our parents and *me*. So, now that it’s inconvenient to continue the programs we have paid into all our lives, we just have to suck it up that the government took our money under false pretenses and feels no responsibility for the resulting situation?

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    And given the choice between taking ownership for their own retirement and their own money, even to such a modest degree, and leaving it up to the government, America chose the latter. That is nothing if not dependence on government, on wanting someone else to relieve the burden of making serious plans and choices for themselves. That is when I think I saw the writing on the wall for individual self-reliance, unfortunately.
    Considering my own IRA lost 30% of its value in the last 7 years, I doubt that would have been of any help. And, at that point, our parents generation already close to retirement. A little too late to do any serious investing for their “future”. Baby boomers were in their 40’s. Ditto for us.


    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Philosophically, any and all conservative ideas are going to tend toward reducing the role of government, the growth of government. And all those ideas have been rejected out of hand. What is the point of offering them again for continued rejection?
    Perhaps the definition of the word COMPROMISE should be painted on every wall in DC.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I don't expect maturity from Congress anymore. The Senate is three years without the self-respect to even pass a budget, even one of their own to take to conference with the House. If that's not immaturity, nothing is.
    Well, we should expect maturity. DEMAND it, even. Using your own rationality, why would the Senate bother, when it was a guarantee the House would never approve it, no matter what it contained?

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Well, if his reelection was a mandate for him, weren't the House Republicans also given a mandate?
    Nope, because not all House representatives were up for re-election. Some, like that (insert nasty word here) Speaker Boehner (I’m deeply ashamed he’s from Ohio) were not up for election this cycle. If the Republicans keep going down the road they are on now, the 2014 elections will find even more of them out of a job.


    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I honestly want to pull my hair out when people go on and on about how mean or (of course) racist it is that the GOP wanted Obama to be a one-term President. I mean, I would really love to know when all these other times where when the party without control of the White House was indifferent to or ambivalent about whether the other party kept control of it. In what alternate reality did the Bush or Clinton or Reagan or any of the 39 Presidents before him have an opposition party that was pretty comfortable with the idea of them having a second term? It's comical to suggest there was anything new about the GOP not wanting Obama reelected. The only President who even might have had that kind of comfort zone was George Washington.
    I agree. It was just the Republicans were either ignorant or arrogant enough to make the entire thing PUBLIC. They said *publicly* they were going filibuster and block the recovery of the entire country because of “party loyalty”. IMHO, they would not be where they are today if they wouldn’t have been so cheerful about obstructing our recovery.


    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I've wanted for a long time for candidates not to be identified by party affiliation on ballots.
    I, for one, would love that. I have never cared about any party affiliation, I care about the policies and positions of the candidates themselves.

    Originally posted by PointMan View Post
    Akin's remarks were definitely out of line. What you posted from Murdock however, well Christians believe that good things can come from tragedies. Life is full of such examples. It isn't a feel good statement though, which is what alot of people seem to want anymore. He certainly isn't condoning rape.
    Yes, we Christians do believe that good things come from tragedies. But if you continue the logic of his statement, then God must have arranged the rape in the first place. It can be easily assumed that he was condoning rape. He’s a nut case that has no business forming legislation regarding women’s health or freedom.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Yeah, Akin was a fruit loop, and I was amazed that I never even heard him clarify whether his mistake was saying that bit about women's bodies shutting down reproduction or if his mistake was actually believing it, because to actually believe something so asinine would be humiliating. I will admit, though, the criticism over the "legitimate rape" part was a bit unfair; it's clear in context he's talking about forcible rape as opposed to, for instance, statutory rape, which, being defined solely by statute and not by subjective consent or violence, is not something the human body could tell apart from just normal sex. He just chose a remarkably tactless and insensitive adjective to make that distinction.
    I watched that entire interview repeatedly. I did not draw the same conclusion. I read the Republican Party Platform. His error was saying OUT LOUD what was already the Party view – in their own words.

    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    But the Mourdock remarks... I balk at condemning anyone for operating under an opening premise as legitimate as "life is a gift from God" or "all life is precious". It's not to say, ever, that rape is a good thing, but rather to recoil from the inverse implication that a child of such is born somehow outside the sight of God, or in secular terms, as morally inferior, unloved, unloveable, or defective qua herself. I don't believe that at all, it sounds... cruel. I mean, for demonstration, I try to imagine someone having a conversation in which they express outrage at Mourdock's remarks to an actual child of a rape -- "can you believe the nerve of that Mourdock, thinking that someone like you were a gift from God?" I mean, nobody would actually say that, would they? .
    No, of course nobody would actually say that. And I respect that point of view – “live is a gift from God”. I have a problem with *legislating* that point of view.

    Originally posted by PointMan View Post
    My friend Dave, who is a liberal btw, actually had a very good answer to this problem. He said we should have the government stay out of marriage period. Let everything be a civil union, and let the churches fight it out over what is and isn't a marriage. I think he's right that that is the way to go.
    Yes. Marriage is a religious concept. However, the Vatican wants to make it a political one. It can’t be both ways – it’s either a religious organization with tax exemption or a political organization that is subject to all tax laws of other political organizations.

    Originally posted by Gemini9857 View Post
    I think anything not being in the Constitution makes it a state issue, not a religious one. All the states have their own marriage laws and always have, some allow gay marriage now and others don't. Some states have common law marriage, but a lot don't. I don't think the Federal Government should be involved at all in marriage. The reason some states have gay marriage now is that the people who live in that state voted for it. I think eventually it'll be passed in all the states, but it may be a while.

    I do think the Federal Government sometimes gets into issues that are not designated to them in the Constitution and without a Constitutional Amendment those issues should be left up to the states.
    Unfortunately, States make laws contradictory to the Constitution. The States do not have absolute freedom to legislate whatever they wish. That's why SCOTUS exists in the first place.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cinderela View Post
      GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PROFIT MAKING ENDEAVOR.
      One of its biggest flaws, in my opinion. Government should, at the least, have to operate under the fiduciary standards required of not-for-profit corporations, and it should have to follow the accounting rules required as well (which is to say, any private enterprise that did its books the way the federal government does would be committing a crime).

      ...I view them to be anti woman in the extreme.
      How do you view the women therein?

      People have civil rights, not institutions. Under this philosophy, since I don’t like my money paying to continued military action, I shouldn’t be made to pay for it, right?
      The "corporations are people" thing has been hard and fast law for almost the entire history of the country, and applies in multiple contexts. And the reason is ultimately that... they are manifestations of the people within them. If the CEO (a person) tells the CFO (a person) to have one of his clerks (a person) write a check to pay an increased premium to pay for a service against the beliefs that they either hold or at least agree to apply to their professional conduct in order to comply with a law, than those people have all been forced to do it.

      I’m fine with that. But a legal union from one state must be recognized as a legal union in another state. Exactly like a drivers license.
      And that would pretty quickly become the 50 states/50 answers norm. Florida would, in our ongoing examples, recognize a legal union between two men from New York, but would not be obligated to issue such a license to two women from Florida. But they could go get it in New York. This is something that is actually familiar to American culture -- the song "Jackson", for instance, or the reference to going to Reno in "The Shawshank Redemption", are both references to having to travel to a different place to obtain a legal divorce. Likewise, the Vegas wedding tourism industry is built around the convenience of their licensing.

      Again, I ask why “people” aren’t relevant to forming a policy to govern “people.”
      "Well, if you don't support public sector unions, you want my mother to lose her retirement and therefore hate my mother" is just... not a legitimate argument to me. I don't even really think I can articulate why, you'll either intuitively agree or intuitively disagree. It's an argument from pure emotionalism, it's anecdotal, it summarily deems all longitudinal arguments as invalid... I just can't do it, sorry.

      Paying taxes is a punishment? I totally agree. And just like my own personal budget, you have to start somewhere. Revenue & expense cutting.
      It is manifestly impossible to close the US budget deficit by raising taxes. Again, the top tax rate going up raises $56 billion in 2013; the projected deficit will be around $1.5 trillion. Or, as demonstrated from the Walter Williams column I was mentioning, if you a) take every cent earned over $250k in taxable income, all of it, and b) confiscate every cent of profit earned by the Fortune 500 in the US, and c)completely clean out and liquidate the wealth of all 400 billionaires in the US, you would have enough money to run the federal government for less than eight months... and you could only do it once.

      But that's not the half of it -- the fact is, taxes, like all other costs, affect economic behavior. Whatever you tax, you get less of it. So if you tax upward mobility in general, higher incomes, higher investment returns, etc... you get less of these. When the price of milk goes up enough, people eat dry cereal more often. When the price of gas goes up, people drive less (an explicit goal of liberal energy and environmental policy, as it happens). So when you raise taxes enough, people turtle up and spend less, do the things that cost them money, less. Fewer trips out to dinner; fewer tips for the waitstaff. Fewer tips for the waitstaff; fewer nights out at the bar or fewer classes taken at the learning annex, so less money made by the bartender and by the professor. And so on.

      Well, the baby boomers (me!) are the largest generation in history. So, why isn’t there enough money? And what do you propose to replace Social Security? Nothing, I suppose. It’s not government’s role, so what? Cut the moochers off? Let them starve? There are entire generations involved here – not yours, I understand, but our parents and *me*. So, now that it’s inconvenient to continue the programs we have paid into all our lives, we just have to suck it up that the government took our money under false pretenses and feels no responsibility for the resulting situation?
      Like privatizing that one narrow slice of social security, any attempts to actually solve these problems is met by total antipathy for the idea that people will have to take more responsibility for planning their own retirement and healthcare in the future, because there just aren't enough money trees for the government to pluck it off of. I mean, there was a plan on the table that let everyone 55 and up -- those in line of sight of social security/medicare -- keep the program they were promised, but begins creating other options and other plans for those younger than that, like me, who sit here knowing with total certainty that it won't be there for us even though we are paying in. Because it takes all we pay just to pay those getting it now, none of it is banking up for us; that's how a Ponzi works. And as Americans are barely reproducing at the replacement rate, we're not going to have enough people to bilk for our bill coming behind us.

      There is no answer beyond drawing some sort of demographic line in age and saying "sorry guys, everyone behind this line is going to have to start making other plans", but that's just a bit too honest and unseemly for American politics today.

      Perhaps the definition of the word COMPROMISE should be painted on every wall in DC.
      Compromise is not an implicit virtue. I am no fan of Ayn Rand in general, but a couple of her idioms are pretty hard to argue with. One is "what is the compromise between food and poison?" If all compromises ultimately require dismissing any hope of containing spending, reducing it, reducing borrowing, reducing the scale and scope of government, that's not actually compromise anymore, it's just polite capitulation.

      Well, we should expect maturity. DEMAND it, even. Using your own rationality, why would the Senate bother, when it was a guarantee the House would never approve it, no matter what it contained?
      They have a constitutional duty to pass a budget, even if it doesn't end up on the President's desk. The way this is supposed to work is that the two houses can pass wildly different bills and then they get together for the messy work of getting them together. The Senate not only won't give any House budget a vote, they won't even craft their own, and when they give the President's own budget a vote, it gets zero votes, including Democrats.

      Nope, because not all House representatives were up for re-election. Some, like that (insert nasty word here) Speaker Boehner (I’m deeply ashamed he’s from Ohio) were not up for election this cycle. If the Republicans keep going down the road they are on now, the 2014 elections will find even more of them out of a job.
      Actually, all members of the House of Representatives are elected to two year terms and are up for election every two years, all 438 members. So, again, the prior question stands -- how, if Obama has a mandate and Harry Reid's Senate majority has a mandate, does Boehner's House majority not have their own mandate?

      I, for one, would love that. I have never cared about any party affiliation, I care about the policies and positions of the candidates themselves.
      Almost all opposition for that sort of idea comes from your side of the political spectrum. That's the sort of idea that always gets branded as racist, because of some gobbledy-gook about white people getting to watch the news more and so they'll know what parties people are, bibble babble BS. Nevermind the legitimate question of "well, shouldn't anybody that has no idea without a single letter next to a name who to vote for just... stay home anyway, since they obviously have no idea what's going on?"

      Yes, we Christians do believe that good things come from tragedies. But if you continue the logic of his statement, then God must have arranged the rape in the first place. It can be easily assumed that he was condoning rape. He’s a nut case that has no business forming legislation regarding women’s health or freedom.
      I think it's ludicrous to propose he was actually condoning rape. We are at an absolutely intractable impasse on that, unfortunately.

      No, of course nobody would actually say that. And I respect that point of view – “live is a gift from God”. I have a problem with *legislating* that point of view.
      Well, no they wouldn't say it... they'd just think it. It seems a mandatory implication to denouncing Mourdoch's position; if one is disagreeing with him saying "all life is a gift from God", then one is necessarily saying "clearly, some life isn't". And if the context is rape, it seems one is also necessarily saying that that is the "some" that isn't.

      Unfortunately, States make laws contradictory to the Constitution. The States do not have absolute freedom to legislate whatever they wish. That's why SCOTUS exists in the first place.
      Well, the point is that if the Constitution doesn't actually take a position, it can't be contrary to the States, because the 10th Amendment says in pretty explicit terms that that which isn't dealt with in the Constitution belongs to the states. But taking that amendment seriously would have left the Supreme Court with a lot less to do, so they took it on themselves to... more or less ignore it.
      sigpic
      Banner by LRae12

      Comment


      • Regarding Murdoch and Akin's comments; why is it that anytime a Republican messes up and says something bad its all over the news, and yet when Obama says something like the deaths of 4 U.S. citizens in Libya is "not optimal" he gets a free pass? I'd be willing to bet that most Americans wouldn't have even known he'd said it if it hadn't been on the Daily show where it happened. He also didn't get called on his complaint about how people in the south "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
        “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” -- Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • I'm just going to leave this right here

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B...2&feature=plcp

          Comment


          • Well, I’ll just respond to posters replying to things I said. Essentially, I’m just interested in supporting and defending what I said.


            For the functioning Government thing: There are already Republicans saying that they will go against Grover Norquist and raise taxes. And the Senate Democrats should support filibuster reform. We know that whenever the Republicans get back in the majority that they will immediately support filibuster reform. So, the Democrats need to stop being such pushovers and dumbasses and return the Senate back to a 51-majority rule instead of a 60-majority rule. Reconciliation would have had the public option be part of the health care law and would have made the law more popular than it is.




            PointMan

            You can call yourself whatever you want, but nothing you have said reflects Libertarian ideals. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and I doubt he wants anything to do with any of the ideas you have espoused.
            I said that I’m a small l libertarian and/or Moderate. Ron Paul wants to rid of the Federal Reserve. Doing that would put either Europe or China in charge of the world economy. Or maybe the United Kingdom given The City’s role in the global economy. Plus, ridding of the Federal Reserve would make it extremely difficult to keep the Dollar Standard. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education. Employers have been complaining that even MBAs can’t write properly. We need better education in this country, not less.



            KingofCretins

            "Trickle up" economics don't even exist;
            Have you ever even taken a basic economics class? Do you know anything about Supply and Demand? Trickle up is a simple fact – people being able to buy stuff supports jobs and wealth, increases stock prices, and increases tax revenues.

            "trickle down" is a demagogic term for the simple economic reality that money a) exists, and b) travels by getting spent. Nothing more "voodoo" than that immutable fact. People that have money, spend money, and where they spend it opportunity for people to gain it appears, and then those people have money, and they spend it. It's more just trickle around, really, but it starts with people having the right to profit from their labor, without that, there is only depression, mediocrity, and despair.
            Um, it really seems that you don’t even know what “trickle up” and “trickle down” even means.

            “Trickle down” is basically the idea that taxing the rich less means that everyone benefits and tax revenues actually increase. And it’s been disproven. Reagan dramatically increased the national debt as did George W. Bush. All taxing capital gains and dividends less results in is an increase in wealth inequality and less Government revenues. Lowering the estate tax would simply result in an American aristocracy. Imagine the country if the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Carnegies didn’t have income or estate taxes and didn’t donate most of their money to charity.

            “Trickle down” doesn’t work because as income and wealth rises, less of a percentage of it is spent and goods and services. Also, money that goes into hedge funds and private equities or overseas accounts or on overseas investments doesn’t help the economy like money going into buying food and stuff.

            And the whole ‘small business’ argument is just stupid. How many people do you know use their profits for the sole purpose of hiring people? And a small business is simply a business with 100 employees or less. That includes law firms, private equity companies, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts, agencies, etc.

            I’ve already explained “trickle up”.

            Not an accident that anti-capitalism has yielded nothing but failure everywhere it been implemented.
            When was the last President who didn’t support capitalism? The only two I can possibly think of are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

            Honestly, the reason cap-and-trade didn't happen is because there just weren't enough votes on hand even with the Democrats holding absolute majorities to completely destroy the American domestic energy industry, which is what cap and trade would do.
            A few coal-state Senators didn’t support it. It’s an example of what is wrong with the Senate makeup. And rises fuel-standards hasn’t hurt the auto industry. Cap-and-trade would simply force renewables and cleaner energy.

            I still find all the abortion and contraception hype a bitter pill. The simple fact is that it's only through genuine unawareness of the legal status of both of these subjects that anybody could ever be genuinely concerned that a Romney presidency could have endangered either,
            This is untrue. The President picks federal judges and picks Supreme Court Justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is like in her 80s and has health problems. A Romney-Ryan Administration would have overturned Roe vs. Wade and most likely would have restricted contraception more than an Obama-Biden Administration.

            and they were only injected into this race to draw attention away from the economy.
            The Republicans in the House and Senate wanted to have the economy be the worst possible in order to try to stop President Obama from being re-elected. The economy would have been better had the Republicans supported Obama’s jobs bills or another stimulus. They tried to block even the Veterans Jobs Bill and had to be publicly shamed about that before they supported it.

            I’ll slip in the deficit thing here. The Republicans were against letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250K a year. If they let those go in 2010, the deficit would be better.

            The big lesson of this election, as they say, is demographics.
            All elections are won by appealing to more people than one’s opponent and/or by restricting the vote. The Republicans restricted the vote (and tried to restrict it far more than they succeeded in doing).

            I wish that it were not such a cynical world, where the new normal for winning a national office is to sort the country by color, pick your favorites, and go.
            First off, this is offensive. Demographics include race and ethnicity and so they are constituencies. I don’t know how your statement could be spun to appear inoffensive. Secondly, obviously a percentage of the country didn’t vote for Pres. Obama because Obama is Black and they are racist. Thirdly, neither Party appealed to Asians and Asians supported Obama over Romney at around the same percentage that Hispanics/Latinos supported Obama over Romney. Fourthly, Obama appealed to gays and women more than Romney did and so he won those constituencies by far margins. And Romney appealed to the Military and tried to appeal to Jews more than Obama did. Romney pretty much only won among men because of the support among men in the military and those who work in some way for the military (including manufacturers). And Romney appealed to those making a lot of money who don’t want to pay taxes and so won a majority of those making over 100K a year. It wasn’t just about the Dream Act or whatever you’re trying to suggest.

            Individualism and free enterprise and upward mobility have a built in universalism,
            Conservatives don’t support upward mobility. The Democrats are the ones who support upward mobility. Obama’s the one who increased Pell Grants and reformed the student loan thing. Individualism? The Republicans were against gay marriage, against contraceptives, against all abortion. Free enterprise? Under Obama, the stock market has skyrocketed and it’s a fact that the stock market does better under Democratic administrations.

            The non-socialist/progressive wing of American politics -- because merely "conservative" is no longer going to cut it -- has to get together and change their approach or figure out a better way to communicate.
            The Republicans can stop taking their orders and direction from Grover Norquist, the Tea Party (aka the Koch Brothers and such), talk radio, and Fox News. The Romney from 2008 may have been able to win this election. But instead, he had to win the Republican primaries and he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. John McCain became too ‘conservative’ in the 2008 Presidential election. Romney became even more ‘conservative’ in 2012. And now some Republicans are delusional enough to think that someone like Paul Ryan (or Marco Rubio) could actually win in 2016. Jeb Bush couldn’t win simply because of his association to Pres. George W. Bush. Chris Christie possibly could have won in this election, but it’s less likely he’d win in 2016 if Hilary Clinton is going to run. The Republicans simply don’t have anyone who could beat Hilary. Obama won big in this election and if Hilary were the candidate instead, she’d have won a lot bigger. And if somehow Bill Clinton could run again… Pretty much, if Bill Clinton could have gotten a third term, he’d still be the President.

            I find it impossible and contrary to all I know of particularly Latin culture and history, that such a traditionally family oriented, faith-driven, and hard working community is immune to the superiority of individualism and free enterprise.
            Simply put, Republicans delude themselves into thinking that they can get the Hispanic/Latino vote just because the Catholic Church is against abortion and contraception. They think that Hispanics/Latinos are cultural and social conservatives. But that is only true of those that actually fully follow the Catholic Church. After two generations of being in the United States, Hispanics/Latinos in California are Moderate. I went to Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles instead of doing a senior year of high school. This is the premier Jesuit University pretty much west of Georgetown University. Almost no one was a virgin, very few were actually religious. There were more atheists and agnostics than were in the junior high and high schools I went to. Pretty much everyone taking science or business classes weren’t that religious and were socially and culturally liberal. The school was more Republican than Democrat simply because most of the students there were from upper middle class families. But this was the Republican Party of 2002. This was before the Tea Party. Something like only 20% or whatever of the country supports the Tea Party. And take away the racists and the businesses that don’t want to pay for Obamacare – which by 2016 will be concrete law – and the Republican Party will have to moderate their positions in order to have any chance of getting the Presidency.

            On the political board I moderate we threw in our predictions, and I made some that I will add here, that at the scheduled end of Obama's Presidency, we will have --
            • a national debt between $20-$25 trillion dollars
            • annual budge deficits around $2 trillion
            • U3 unemployment between 7-9%
            • average gas prices between $5-$6 per gallon
            • Iran will have nuclear weapons and a de facto nuclear umbrella that covers the Middle East and much of Europe
            No one can predict such things 4 years out.

            The deficit will decrease as we get out of the ‘Recession’. And if tax rates go up (which will happen), it will decrease even more. Entitlement reform of some kind will eventually happen. Republicans already support lowering payments to upper income people (which is a Democratic idea).

            Gas prices are based off of Supply and Demand and the strength of the Dollar. Gas prices will only go down if Demand (meaning worldwide demand) decreases and/or the Dollar gets stronger. Obama has raised fuel efficiency standards and supports clean and renewable energy. Gas prices would be higher under Republicans.

            Unemployment will eventually go down.

            The problem with Iran is its leadership is anti-American and is a theocracy. The people of Iran are like the most moderate in the Middle East barring Israel. And Ahmadinejad is liked because he gives oil revenues to the people.

            Iran is no threat to Europe and Israel could obliterate Iran if Iran actually tried to nuke Israel.

            I don't even want to speculate about inflation or some other issues.
            That’s the Federal Reserve’s job. Inflation would only be a problem if the economy roars back quickly.

            But I think the President would leave office only regretting that eight years hadn't been enough time to undo the damage done by his predecessor and never having spent a day in his Presidency having taken ownership of anything that happened under his watch, let alone because of his watch.
            That bolded part is simply laughable to put it gently. Obama will take credit for killing Obama bin Laden, for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for repairing relationships with other countries, for trying to contain China, for increasing the percentage of the population covered by health insurance, for improving education, for putting the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, for stopping a Depression from happening, for being the first African American President of the United States, for creating millions of jobs, etc. Plus, he got a Nobel Peace Prize (which may or may not be deserved, but he still has one).

            I expect that we will see the full effect of the "fiscal cliff" here, because I don't think letting some of the tax rates continue past January was ever more than a campaign tactic for the DNC, I think their plan from day one has been to let all marginal rates go up.
            We’re still in a ‘recession’, but when the economy is better, all tax rates should go up. We need to pay down the debt.

            I'm actually hoping to see Boehner lose his job in January, I'd like to see Ryan run for Speaker.
            Eric Cantor is pretty much the Speaker. Boehner was going to do a Simpson-Bowles type long-term deficit reduction deal with Obama but the Republicans Study Committee and the Tea Party people – which includes Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan – were against it. John Boehner will be the House Speaker. Paul Ryan wasn’t even helpful on the Romney ticket, there’s about zero chance that he’d become Speaker. And Eric Cantor is next in line anyway.

            Comment


            • All caught up


              All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.





              * I'd like KingOfCretins to respond to my last post in this thread, as he was essentially incorrect about everything. And Paul Ryan was arguably the worst Speaker of the United States House of Representatives that I remember--meaning since George Hebert Walker Bush's Presidency.


              * Overall, I consider William Jefferson Clinton was a better US President than Barack Obama was.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MikeB View Post
                * I'd like KingOfCretins to respond to my last post in this thread, as he was essentially incorrect about everything. And Paul Ryan was arguably the worst Speaker of the United States House of Representatives that I remember--meaning since George Hebert Walker Bush's Presidency.
                Funny thing? I did, but I deleted it because it was getting mean and salty about your Dunning-Kruger effect about what you know about American law and politics vs. what I know about American law and politics. You have a lot to say, you think at least, about Florida law and government, for example, despite me being the one who is a member of the Florida bar and that's just, well, precious. Ultimately, I don't have the heart of a bully.

                There's really no upside to me in trying to convince anyone of anything politically on this board because I'd rather just enjoy the shared experience of the fandom. As for almost the entire time this "Boiler Room" has existed, I've stuck pretty closely to only chiming in to add some practical/academic insight to people's confusion about how our system of courts and political structures work, and I think that works best for all of us. I got no need to "beat" you, pace Malcolm Reynolds.
                sigpic
                Banner by LRae12

                Comment


                • All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.




                  Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
                  Funny thing? I did [respond to your most recent post], but I deleted it because it was getting mean and salty about your Dunning-Kruger effect about what you know about American law and politics vs. what I know about American law and politics.
                  Regarding US politics, your predictions since I've been posting on this Board in 2010 A.D. have been mostly to almost all wrong and/or incorrect and my predictions have been mostly to all right and/or correct.

                  The "Funny thing?" is your not acknowledging that your predictions for the end of Obama's term were almost all to all wrong.

                  Regarding law, you are either very misinformed and/or uninformed or you are being disingenuous when you say that a State Governor and that a Secretary of State for a State has no power over the elections within that State.

                  Ultimately, I don't have the heart of a bully.
                  Huh? What does bullying have to do with political discussions?

                  There's really no upside to me in trying to convince anyone of anything politically on this board
                  The entire point of discussing politics is to convince people and/or make people aware of your political opinions.

                  As for almost the entire time this "Boiler Room" has existed, I've stuck pretty closely to only chiming in to add some practical/academic insight to people's confusion about how our system of courts and political structures work,
                  Maybe read through your posts on this thread: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/sh...ntial-Election and probably every other political thread on this Board. You give your opinions and regards regarding political and social issues.

                  I got no need to "beat" you,
                  I'm curious how much political power and political influence you have in real life. Your not wanting to continue discussing politics with me is perfectly fine, as it saves me time.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MikeB View Post
                    Regarding law, you are either very misinformed and/or uninformed or you are being disingenuous when you say that a State Governor and that a Secretary of State for a State has no power over the elections within that State.
                    I'm telling you that for objective, documentable legal fact. I did not pick the Dunning-Kruger reference by accident, my dude. For the Nth time, the lawsuits alone can tell the story - every legal challenge against the election process in Florida or Georgia were brought against county boards. What is your issue in understand why that is? Do you think the state and federal judges in those claims just get their rocks off refusing to let candidates sue the "real" power, like the Governors or Secretaries of State? Or maybe does the fact that those county boards being the proper defendants alone prove that you don't quite "get it"? That the legal power over how counting is conducted, which votes, what processes for recounts, etc, are all localized at the county or district level?

                    I'm curious how much political power and political influence you have in real life. Your not wanting to continue discussing politics with me is perfectly fine, as it saves me time.
                    As much as anyone, I suppose. At issue is neither power, nor influence - it's simple knowledge. When it comes to American law and jurisprudence, I have it and you simply do not, especially in Florida.
                    Last edited by KingofCretins; 27-01-19, 08:42 PM.
                    sigpic
                    Banner by LRae12

                    Comment


                    • All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



                      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...eral_election/



                      I stopped by to say Knock Down the House on NetFlix is excellent.



                      * I support US Senator Bernie Sanders. I'm skeptical if US Senator Elizabeth Warren could beat US President Donald Trump in the US Presidential General Election Debates.

                      Vice President Joseph Biden is kinda a lesser version of US Senator Kamala Harris.


                      * The US and the Democratic Party have 'moved left' since 2016 C.E. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are no longer 'Progressive'. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are 'Progressive'.

                      Medicare For All and free public college (for useful degrees) is simply sensible.




                      KingOfCretins


                      I should have wrote: Regarding law [AND POLITICS], you are either very misinformed and/or uninformed or you are being disingenuous when you say that a State Governor and that a Secretary of State for a State has no power over the elections within that State.

                      [I have] as much [political power and political influence] as anyone, I suppose.
                      You mean the average voter? Or do you not understand that some people have more political power and political influence than others.
                      Last edited by MikeB; 06-05-19, 08:47 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X