2012 Election [All discussion here]

[Darth]

Maybe you don't have to accept gay marriage, but there should be a civil union movement at least nationally. And stop bashing them.... There are numerous ways the GOP can decide to do this but "self-deportation" and "deportation" isn't a solution...You can be pro-life still and that's not a problem. What you cannot be is against abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother.... This is not to say you can't fight for tax reform or tax cuts or spending cuts. You can do so and successfully. But stop pretending cutting taxes on the wealthy or "job creators" is the way to solve the problem.... Look, you want to make the argument that they shouldn't have contraception paid for, fine. Make it. But don't go around calling those women *****s...

This is such a typical liberal framing of the conversation:

"It's OK for you to still believe _____, but you can't believe _____, that's not OK."

Hilarious that liberals think they get to set the rules on what is and isn't acceptable!

 

[Mike32ct]

Sivil unions is an INTERIM step. It's not some long term compromise solution as it is made to look like.

Every state that has sivil unions will eventually have full g a y marriage.

I don't care either way since it doesn't affect me. I'm not even really opposed to either.

Just don't be fooled by "interim" steps that are designed to look like permanent long-term compromise solutions.

(Just like the health care bill is an interim step towards full government-run healthcare.)

True compromise is when both parties give a little, reach an agreement, and leave it at that.

Compromise is NOT....

I get part of what I want this time and keep pushing for the other parts over time until my side has everything they want.

That's bait and switch.

 

[Leporello]

Hard work, intelligence and perseverance made the American dream. Living off of government handouts certainly did not.

Weeeelllll.....we did get a little help from the GI Bill, and the interstate highway system, and the Homestead Act, and the Social Security and Medicare administrations which keep our streets from being clogged with tens of millions of poor and sick people...to name a few things...

You're acting as if the government is some alien entity imposed on us from nowhere. This is a democracy we're living in; a government founded to 'establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'.

We can disagree on how best to achieve those aims, but ideological blindness hasn't served us well. Do you really think the government is the ONLY thing that can oppress you?

 

[Bible_Belt]

An enormous amount of ignorance in those quotes, especially from 4 on down.

What's ignorant is how so many rich people gave Karl Rove $400 million to completely piss away on losing an election. Ironically, those are the same people who are terrified that Obama is after their money.

Obviously, those quotes are correct about how Americans feel, as evidenced by the election results. Do you mean that the predominance of those viewpoints represents the ignorance of the masses? Or are you saying the viewpoints are wrong? I don't see how anyone could argue with the points themselves. Karl Rove will argue, but that's because he wants to blow another $400 million in 2016.

4. Trickle-Down Economics - It's dead. On the issue of the economy Mitt Romney barely won nationally (like 3-4 points). Most people said the economy was bleh and still basically were split 50/50 on who is better for the economy. By an overwhelming margin people said Bush was more to blame for the economy than Obama. People are plainly saying we don't believe in trickle-down anymore. And for good reason, it's been demonstrably proven wrong. This is not to say you can't fight for tax reform or tax cuts or spending cuts. You can do so and successfully. But stop pretending cutting taxes on the wealthy or "job creators" is the way to solve the problem. Most people also said we should raise taxes on the wealthy. If Romney had proposed tax cuts for everyone but the wealthy and small tax raises on the wealthy, there's a good chance he'd have won. The GOP has tons are arguments to make in this realm but no longer based on trickle-down economics. You lost this battle.

5. Healthcare - You cannot have no plan for healthcare other than "leave it to the states" since that hasn't worked ever. I'm not telling you what your plan has to be but it has to be something. You ran for 2 years on repealing Obamacare, which the nation actually agreed with you on, but then provided no alternative at all. You cannot come to the table and say "your plan sucks but we have no plan." If you offer no choice then you won't be picked. You cannot win this battle without ammo.

6. Women's rights - Can someone explain to me why the GOP was even against Lily-Ledbetter? Do you not see how bad the optics are for this? Can't even stand up and say that women should have equal pay for equal work? WTF decade are you living in? And demonizing women for wanting contraception? Look, you want to make the argument that they shouldn't have contraception paid for, fine. Make it. But don't go around calling those women *****s. No one is going to take you seriously when you act like *******s. Your opinions on some of these issues may very well be valid but the way you present your argument turns off everyone from listening.

7. Anti-intellectualism: The hate against educational institutions, science, math, etc has to stop. Arguing any of these things as a negative is really short-sighted. You should be embracing these things, not shunning them.

8. Energy policy: it cannot be all about oil and coal, anymore. Come to the table with real ideas. Obama's approach may be wrong but you offer no alternatives besides the same old crap that we know isn't enough.

9. Global Warming: It's time to accept that it's real and most likely man-made. The question becomes how do we address it? That is where you need to bring ideas into the fold (this also ties in with #7 &#8, of course). When you simply deny what overwhelming amount of scientists claim to know and then ignore it, you look foolish. Granted this issue isn't that big right now, but it is an issue you will lose and continue to lose.

10. Stop denigrating everyone, especially minorities - Newsflash: most people on welfare don't want to be there and are there because they're down on their luck. Most have paid into the system in the past. Most people are not moochers and don't like being on the government's tit. Stop mentioning welfare queens. When you attack these people you look like you have no empathy. Start working on helping these people rather than shaming them.

 

[SXS]

Obama got his 4 more years.
4 years from now, let's reevisit this topic and see if the economy and the overall state of America has improved.

 

[zekko]

This was supposed to be a fairly close election, but still most people knew going in that Obama was very likely to be the victor. Yet I watched Fox News on Saturday, and they had several people on openly predicting that Romney was going to win the election.

This reminded me that in 2008 Fox News was openly predicting that John McCain was going to win the election. Now this election may have been tight, but anyone with any common sense at all knew that Obama was going to win in 2008. Now we all know Fox is a right wing news organization, but my question is why do they do this? Are they trying to get the Republican base excited and motivated to get out and vote? Because to me it just appears dishonest at best, and flat out stupid at worst.

I mean if they had just played it as "here's a scenario that shows how Romney might pull off a win", that would have been okay. But when they come straight out and say "Romney is going to win", it just makes them look like idiots. Surely they must know that?

 

[backbreaker]

This was supposed to be a fairly close election, but still most people knew going in that Obama was very likely to be the victor. Yet I watched Fox News on Saturday, and they had several people on openly predicting that Romney was going to win the election.

This reminded me that in 2008 Fox News was openly predicting that John McCain was going to win the election. Now this election may have been tight, but anyone with any common sense at all knew that Obama was going to win in 2008. Now we all know Fox is a right wing news organization, but my question is why do they do this? Are they trying to get the Republican base excited and motivated to get out and vote? Because to me it just appears dishonest at best, and flat out stupid at worst.

I mean if they had just played it as "here's a scenario that shows how Romney might pull off a win", that would have been okay. But when they come straight out and say "Romney is going to win", it just makes them look like idiots. Surely they must know that?

http://www.political-crossfire.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=941

(i'm nordictruce btw)

 

[Who Dares Win]

This was supposed to be a fairly close election, but still most people knew going in that Obama was very likely to be the victor. Yet I watched Fox News on Saturday, and they had several people on openly predicting that Romney was going to win the election.

This reminded me that in 2008 Fox News was openly predicting that John McCain was going to win the election. Now this election may have been tight, but anyone with any common sense at all knew that Obama was going to win in 2008. Now we all know Fox is a right wing news organization, but my question is why do they do this? Are they trying to get the Republican base excited and motivated to get out and vote? Because to me it just appears dishonest at best, and flat out stupid at worst.

I mean if they had just played it as "here's a scenario that shows how Romney might pull off a win", that would have been okay. But when they come straight out and say "Romney is going to win", it just makes them look like idiots. Surely they must know that?

It's no different than on a boxe match when both the boxers raise their hands to influence the jury even before the decision has been made.

Nobody would vote for someone who doesnt see himself as the winner.

 

[zekko]

http://www.political-crossfire.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=941

(i'm nordictruce btw)

Interesting discussion there, although it doesn't answer my question, unless your point is that Fox just has its head in the sand?

Also, the right has dropped the ball in a lot of ways, a lot of ways. But I'm not sure that the answer to their problem is to reform the Republican party into a mirror image of the Democratic party. There's scarcely enough choice now as it is. Personally, I'm sick to death of the two party system.

I also don't think it's correct to say the Republican party is dead, as some are seeming to suggest. They failed to win back the White House, but they do still control the House and most of the Governor's seats. That's half of the four big prizes, although clearly the party has its issues, that's no lie. It's always been smaller than the Democratic party, and probably always will be.

I was pleased to see two states legalize marijuana. I don't smoke it (or anything else), but I think it's beyond stupid to put people in jail for it, or to waste our tax dollars trying to fight it.

It's no different than on a boxe match when both the boxers raise their hands to influence the jury even before the decision has been made.

Yeah, probably. It just seems like an insult to my intelligence.

 

[backbreaker]

Interesting discussion there, although it doesn't answer my question, unless your point is that Fox just has its head in the sand?

pretty much. Bill Mahar has a segment on his show called dispatches from inside the bubble. I think that's an accurate assessment of FOX, if it's all you listen to all the time, you will believe it.

But I'm not sure that the answer to their problem is to reform the Republican party into a mirror image of the Democratic party. T

I never implied that. I don't want the GOP to become the Democratic party. It just needs to stop being the Neoconsertivie party. I want reasonableness. I want people that listen to scientists on science things, to educators in education, to researchers on everything. I don't want Jesus in my politics. I can get that at Church. I don't want someone telling me their for "small government" but only in the areas of their choosing. I don't want someone telling me they want to cut spending, except for things they care about.

 

[Leporello]

Scientists are infallible.

Assuming you're being sarcastic, do you have a better source of information on science? Are you more inclined to take the scientific opinion of a person who has never studied it?

Psst....the group in this country which receives by far the largest portion of government handouts is the elderly (SS and Medicare, mostly). It's also the cohort that went for Mitt Romney by the highest margin.

I don't blame them for taking the money...after the smashing of unions and the collapse of the pension system SS is the ONLY source of income for one-fifth of seniors, and no insurance company would cover them anyway.

Everyone likes big government...but only for themselves.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The argument over trickle-down economics at is base is an argument against free markets, or for socialism. The fact that there is even a debate about HOW involved the Government should be demonstrates that there is still a belief that the Government should be involved in the economy. That is not capitalism.

No, it's not pure capitalism, I agree. But the 1800's should have shown us what pure capitalism will lead to. Most people want child labor laws, workplace safety, product liability and environmental regulations. The only ones who say they don't are politicians and media types.

The GOP wants to be the party that uses scapegoating to harness resentment, but the problem is that the list of people to resent has grown so long that, in the 'us vs them' mentality, there are too many 'thems.' As long as the GOP is seen as being the party that is against the political interests of women, gays, latinos, and blacks, they're never going to win another presidential election. The Fox News/ talk radio demographic is getting old and dying off. They just don't have the numbers to compete anymore in a national election.

 

[Leporello]

No, it's not pure capitalism, I agree. But the 1800's should have shown us what pure capitalism will lead to. Most people want child labor laws, workplace safety, product liability and environmental regulations. The only ones who say they don't are politicians and media types.

Pure capitalism is also extremely volatile...that's why it was ultimately reformed, not for do-gooder reasons like child labor...unregulated capitalism is susceptible to violent periods of boom and bust. Look at the economic history of the US up until the 1940s....the Great Depression was simply the last and biggest in a long series of Panics and Crises which had continually shook the nation.

People like Danger who argue that any government intervention in the market is 'socialism' are just silly. Up until the Reagan years government-regulated capitalism was seen as the ALTERNATIVE to communism, because 'capitalism' by itself is generally a failure.

 

[Bible_Belt]

To have any chance at winning, the next Republican presidential nominee is going to have to be a moderate and a female or hispanic, possibly both. It's over for the rich white guy Republican candidates. The only way around that is if the Repubs went with someone completely outside of politics, like that pilot who landed the passenger jet on the Hudson River, or maybe a retired sports hero.

 

[backbreaker]

Pure capitalism is also extremely volatile...that's why it was ultimately reformed, not for do-gooder reasons like child labor...unregulated capitalism is susceptible to violent periods of boom and bust. Look at the economic history of the US up until the 1940s....the Great Depression was simply the last and biggest in a long series of Panics and Crises which had continually shook the nation.

People like Danger who argue that any government intervention in the market is 'socialism' are just silly. Up until the Reagan years government-regulated capitalism was seen as the ALTERNATIVE to communism, because 'capitalism' by itself is generally a failure.

\

there were 8 separate depressions/recessions, including the 2nd worst in american history to date (the long depression) in THIRTY YEARS from 1870 to 1900. in fact that was the thought process behind wilson changing from the gold standard in 1913.. it was just too volatile. Now alot of that was beucase of the obvious... lol let's just say that the economics of a particular business changed dramatically and a lot of... umm.. businesses, that were once profitable now weren't under the new.. um... model.

but that in itself is the problem with pure capitalism. markets are violate and you need the government at times to come in and stabilize things.

Every more ironic, every time, it was the government even then, not pure caplistiam, that corrected the economy. either by railroad expansions, or in one instance asking Rockefeller to lend the government money lol (true story)

 

[SXS]

Look to the people that actually predicted this economic crisis. They did it by looking at government intervention in the economy via the Fed. The Fed caused this downturn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826q7...eature=related

Why that guy isn't the president ?

 

[Quiksilver]

That thirty year "depression" assumes what its trying to prove: the economy was strong but we had deflation during the period so left wing economists assume its automatically a depression. Maybe the assumption that deflation=depression is wrong?

The two Depressions(this one and the Great Depression) and Stagflation were ALL post government regulation of the economy. Namely, the Federal Reserve, which blows up bubbles via monetary policy larger than a market naturally can which therefore leads to more severe downturns. Furthermore, we had such government intervention prior to the Fed(our third central bank) in 1913. Yet, the Fed was justified on the grounds of preventing such downturns as a lender of last resort.

Look to the people that actually predicted this economic crisis. They did it by looking at government intervention in the economy via the Fed. The Fed caused this downturn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826q7RqTEk8&feature=related

The words 'inflation/deflation' are academically meaningless without the requisite prefixes:

Monetary

or

Economic

---

Monetary Inflation =/= Economic Inflation

Economic deflation =/= Monetary deflation


With respect to this discussion, the word 'Depression' is related to Economic, and unrelated to Monetary.

So you can have Economic Deflation while having Monetary Inflation, and vice versa.




^ The reason why so many idiots are confused, that our money supply could be increasing (Monetary Inflation) as an attempt to stave off depression (Economic Deflation).

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

No, it's not pure capitalism, I agree. But the 1800's should have shown us what pure capitalism will lead to. Most people want child labor laws, workplace safety, product liability and environmental regulations. The only ones who say they don't are politicians and media types.

It's a matter of record that successful, profit making, PRIVATE companies enacted child labor policies BEFORE they were laws.

And in fact, THEY were the ones that lobbied congress to enact such laws.

Why? Because of their economic success, they DIDN'T need to employ child labor. But their competitors did, as they hadn't achieved those same level of profits. By pushing for child labor laws, they were making it HARDER on their competition.

Please take the time to understand this. It's very important and shows how misguided current progressive thinking is.

1) Profitable companies voluntarily ended child Labor BECAUSE they were so profitable.

2) Governments enacted child labor laws NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOBLE or compassionate. Because THEY WERE LOBBIED TO DO SO.


Similar with workplace safety laws, environment protection laws, whatever other reason people give for "needing" government.

Nobody "needs" to bring any sort of "plan" to the table. The only thing governments need to do is enforce the protection of private property.

THAT IS ALL.

The free market, freely choosing HUMANS PURSUING SELF INTEREST will ALWAYS come up with their own, "order from spontaneity" plans that will ALWAYS trump the best laid plans of ANY government.

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's a matter of record that successful, profit making, PRIVATE companies enacted child labor policies BEFORE they were laws.

What's your source, please? If that's true, it was not common enough to be relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws
It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide....In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

What's your source, please? If that's true, it was not common enough to be relevant.

It's true, and it's often ignored. And yes, it's very common.

Source: http://mises.org/daily/2858

You might be surprised to know that the laws against "child labor" do not date from the 18th century. Indeed, the national law against child labor didn't pass until the Great Depression — in 1938, with the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was the same law that gave us a minimum wage and defined what constitutes full-time and part-time work. It was a handy way to raise wages and lower the unemployment rate: simply define whole sectors of the potential workforce as unemployable.

By the time this legislation passed, however, it was mostly a symbol, a classic case of Washington chasing a trend in order to take credit for it. Youth labor was expected in the 17th and 18th centuries — even welcome, since remunerative work opportunities were newly present. But as prosperity grew with the advance of commerce, more kids left the workforce. By 1930, only 6.4 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 15 were actually employed, and 3 out of 4 of those were in agriculture.[1]

To reiterate, by the time child labor laws were passed, the vast majority of kids WERE NOT working. They were in school.

Also note the phrase: "Washington chasing a trend in order to take credit for it."

Clearly, child labor laws DID NOTHING that the free market hadn't already accomplished.

Any other specific case or example where you think government policy somehow "saved" some sector of society, I'll explain, with sources, why it's not true.