View Full Version : 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So apparently someone on the inside leaked 950 pages of Bain financial documents (http://gawker.com/5936394/) to the press. Somebody pass the popcorn.
He owns part of ManU (http://gawker.com/5936868). He's dead to me.
Hooahguy
08-23-2012, 23:43
Now that the ever-vague Mr. Romney has an articulate whacko to help him out I'd be surprised if Dems don't have good turnout. Romney/Ryan is a scary ticket, in a 'I can't believe my country has come to this' kinda way.
I think you are giving the average US citizen too much credit. I fully believe that Obama won last election because he wasnt a Republican. So McCain was pretty much doomed to fail. Plus Obama had his whole "hope and change and blah blah blah" campaign which wont work this time around because things havent changed all that much. Its more of "I can do better!" campaign for Obama while all Romney really has to do is point out all of Obama's failures, ergo, doing what Obama did last election just instead of the liberal base, hes doing it to the conservative base.
This election will be neck and neck, thats for sure.
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2012, 02:24
So apparently someone on the inside leaked 950 pages of Bain financial documents (http://gawker.com/5936394/) to the press. Somebody pass the popcorn.
(Note that if you don't see the delicious irony of hosting an event themed on fake outrage (at a misleading quote to gin up anti-"socialist" something-or-another) in a majority-taxpayer-funded arena, well ...)
Incidentally, Gawker.com is housed in the Cayman Islands and has a pretty shady financial structure.
Funny how this works out. It's like two fatties arguing who is fatter, two drunks arguing who is drunker
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314853/gawker-and-bain-and-caymans-kevin-d-williamson
HopAlongBunny
08-24-2012, 03:29
Or you could argue they did Mitt a favor. "Hey, the Bain stuff is all a matter of public record...go look yourself."
It is unlikely that it contains anything not allowed by US law; one bullet gone from the Dem character assassination arsenal. (or were they shooting blanks all along...)
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2012, 03:45
Well, I have no reason to believe the guy did anything illegal. Tacky maybe, but not illegal.
If this is the case, it is interesting misdirection on the part of Romney. I have often wondered why campaigns don't do this more, as Obama kind of did it with the birthers:
Basically, refuse to answer questions about x,y and z. This makes the hounds spend time and resources running down the answers because you "look guilty", and in the end they are left holding a turd
I'll leave the Bain files to people with accounting degrees and CPA status. It's just nice that some info is coming out. (And potentially popcorn-worthy.)
Interestingly, I was not aware of just how solid Obama's support was in his own base (http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/23/where-the-presidential-race-stands-now/). There's been so much talk of disappointed voters, it kinda obscured it for me. Lots of countervailing winds out there.
Although commentators have often been quick to compare Obama to Carter, one key difference between them is how much more Democrats supported Obama than they did Carter. When Carter’s approval was at its nadir in the fall of 1979, barely one-third of Democrats approved of the job he was doing (compared to about 20% of Republicans), according to Gallup polls. Even Bill Clinton, now seemingly beloved by Democrats, was less popular among Democrats—63% of whom approved of him in June 1993—than was Obama in his first term. In fact, averaging over each Democratic president’s first three years in office, Obama was more popular with Democratic voters than every one of them except John F. Kennedy—and even Kennedy’s average approval among Democrats was only 4 points higher than Obama’s. Obama was actually as popular among Democrats during these years as was Reagan among Republicans in 1981–83.
Hooahguy
08-24-2012, 04:54
Just someone wake me up November 7th. This presidential race is getting on my nerves and Im tired of it.
Hooahguy, if it makes you feel any better, a national model that has correctly predicted every Presidential winner since 1980 says it's going to be Romney (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says).
Hooahguy
08-24-2012, 05:53
Cool. Now if you dont mind, I start college in less than a week so Im just going to wallow in drunken debauchery until November.
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2012, 06:37
The best thing you can do at a university is to propogate your seed and impregnate no less than 5 girls in the first week.
Hooahguy
08-24-2012, 12:38
Roger.
Montmorency
08-24-2012, 15:59
What is it with you and impregnation, MRD?
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2012, 18:17
What is it with you and impregnation, MRD?
I am 37 and have no children, and I am an only child on my fathers entire side of the family, as one uncle is sterile and the other is gay. I got baby fever in Afghanistan.
I am going to impregnate everything
Good man. It's the best thing you can do for yourself, provided you're there to see/support the end product.
Read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/brooks-ryans-biggest-mistake.html) at lunchtime, seems a like a coherent and accurate point. Thoughts?
-------------
The Simpson-Bowles plan would have simplified the tax code and lowered rates. It would have capped the size of government. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, it would have brought the federal debt down from 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product today, to 67 percent of G.D.P. in 2022.
Ryan voted no for intellectually coherent reasons. He argued that the single biggest contributing factor to public debt is the unsustainable growth of Medicare. Yet the Simpson-Bowles plan did nothing to restructure Medicare, and it sidestepped health care issues generally. Ryan said that it was silly to come up with a debt-reduction proposal that didn’t fix the single biggest driver of the nation’s debt.
This is the sort of argument that makes a lot of sense in a think-tank auditorium. The problem was there were almost no Democrats who endorsed Ryan’s Medicare reform ideas. If Ryan was going to pinion debt reduction to Medicare reform, that meant there would be no debt reduction.
But Ryan had another way forward, noting: We’re going to have an election in 2012; the country will choose between two different visions; if we Republicans win, we’ll be able to reform Medicare our way and reduce the debt our way.
In other words, Ryan was willing to sacrifice the good for the sake of the ultimate.
In order to get this ultimate solution, though, Ryan was betting that three things would happen. First, he was betting that Republicans would beat President Obama. Second, he was betting that Republicans would win such overwhelming Congressional majorities that they would be able to push through measures Democrats hate. Third, he was betting that a group of Republican politicians would unilaterally slash one of the country’s most popular programs and that they would be able to sustain these cuts through the ensuing elections, in the face of ferocious and highly popular Democratic opposition.
To put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.
Ryan’s fantasy happens to be the No. 1 political fantasy in America today, which has inebriated both parties. It is the fantasy that the other party will not exist.
Read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/brooks-ryans-biggest-mistake.html) at lunchtime, seems a like a coherent and accurate point. Thoughts?
Seems like in order to move forwards we need to hand over the congress and the presidency to one party. The question is, should it be stupid donkeys or evil elephants.
Disagree. Our system is designed for compromise. Traditions such as the filibuster make it possible for a minority to bring the process to standstill. This does, however, require that everyone at least try to find some common ground.
I see plenty of evidence that the Dems have tried (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/politics/23fiscal.html?pagewanted=all). I see none for the Repubs, who have, by their own admission, the single overriding priority of making Obama a one-term president (http://nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-priority-make-obama-a-one-term-president-20101023).
So here's a question: Let's hypothesize that Obama wins in November. Let's also imagine that the power structure in the House and Senate remains more or less unchanged. Will there be any impetus for Republican to bargain on anything? Or will they continue to stand firm on ideological purity? Sample (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/mourdock-compromise-is-democrats-agreeing-with-republicans-20120509) of Republican thinking: "What I've said about compromise and bipartisanship, I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans [...] We are at that point where one side or the other has to win this argument. One side or the other will dominate. [...] The fact is, you never compromise on principles. If people on the far left, they have a principle to standby, they should never compromise; those of us on the right should not either."
I don't know how anyone can be expected to work with that.
I don't know how anyone can be expected to work with that.
True, but then again, Obama had a full year with a Dem-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate. He pissed it away on Obamacare.
True, but then again, Obama had a full year with a Dem-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate. He pissed it away on Obamacare.
Strange assertion.
Point 1: Presidents have been trying to pass something resembling universal healthcare since Nixon (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx).
Point 2: That filibuster-proof majority was not in place for a year (or two (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html), as Governor Romney claims). Best estimate is seven weeks. Even when they had that, it had to encompass and satisfy some pretty out-there people, such as Joe Lieberman.
Point 3: Our system, as I said, is not designed for one-party rule. This should not be our aspiration or our goal.
Point 1: Presidents have been trying to pass something resembling universal healthcare since Nixon (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx).
And he happened to pick the worst possible time for that. He had a chance to raise revenue, cut the military budget, etc, i.e. do all things that normally a Dem President can only see in his dreams.
Point 2: That filibuster-proof majority was not in place for a year (or two (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html), as Governor Romney claims). Best estimate is seven weeks. Even when they had that, it had to encompass and satisfy some pretty out-there people, such as Joe Lieberman. Long enough to make a difference.
Point 3: Our system, as I said, is not designed for one-party rule. This should not be our aspiration or our goal.
Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you. Today, not so much.
Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you. Today, not so much.
Really? You're having a Carthago delenda est kinda moment? I'd be curious to hear what brought you to that point ...
Really? You're having a Carthago delenda est kinda moment? I'd be curious to hear what brought you to that point ...
Like you said, once Obama got elected the Republicans in congress went into the sabotage mode. The era of bipartisanship and compromise is likely over. Sad, but has been true for a while now.
Montmorency
08-24-2012, 21:29
TOAW III ME shipped with a US Civil War 2008 scenario back in 06.
Too bad it didn't prove prescient, you mean?
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2012, 22:11
The best thing to come out of this election so far (for me at least) is that while browsing Gawker.com I discovered a hilarios writer named Caity Weaver.
To put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.Yes, a fantasy of a White House and both houses of congress under one party. Such a fantastical thing we have not seen the likes of since 2008! ~:handball:
Ironside
08-25-2012, 08:10
Yes, a fantasy of a White House and both houses of congress under one party. Such a fantastical thing we have not seen the likes of since 2008! ~:handball:
Filibuster? I suspect that a mere majority is not enough. And it will only last 2 years, tops. Than the massive whipplash comes.
Anybody got any idea how to bring both parties (but in particular the Republicans) back to actually consider real comprimises?
Shaka_Khan
08-25-2012, 13:39
I'm more interested in this presidential election more than ever before because all the Americans I know are heavily divided politically. Here's one example. I'm friends with my former high school teacher on facebook. He posts angry political pictures everyday. The angry remarks by his fb friends who disagree with him make my facebook look like a political debate forum. Most of my American friends would go ballistic if the candidate who they'd vote for didn't win. And both candidates are being brutally criticized more than the earlier ones did as far as I know.
Fisherking
08-25-2012, 14:41
Filibuster? I suspect that a mere majority is not enough. And it will only last 2 years, tops. Than the massive whipplash comes.
Anybody got any idea how to bring both parties (but in particular the Republicans) back to actually consider real comprimises?
Actually the Democrats were just as bad when they were out of power.
It is not all together a bad thing though. It kind of puts a limit on the amount of garbage they can pass into law.
When you read the bills/laws, you wonder if anyone ever bothered to read them before and what kind of people would inflict such :daisy: on the public at large. But that is bipartisan at least.
Actually the Democrats were just as bad when they were out of power.
Demonstrably, provably untrue. Dems worked with Bush 43 on NCLB, TARP, off-the-books-war funding, appointee and judge approval. They were spineless wimps cooperative, within bounds. To compare their behavior under 43 the Republican behavior under 44 is epic false equivalence.
Take any metric you like. Filibusters, anyone?
https://i.imgur.com/1t1zl.png
As you can see, it starts to spike under Nixon, but really gets going under Clinton, and shoots up into uncharted territory under President 44.
Appointee nominees, anyone?
https://i.imgur.com/Gy9yd.png
And so on and so forth. Our system is designed to allow a minority to bring things to a halt, and the Repubs have done so with gusto. This may help explain why congress polls lower than Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.
Noncommunist
08-25-2012, 18:20
Though at least for the amount of judges successfully nominated, Obama has only had half the time to nominate judges as opposed to Bush or Clinton who have about twice as many.
ajaxfetish
08-25-2012, 18:45
Though at least for the amount of judges successfully nominated, Obama has only had half the time to nominate judges as opposed to Bush or Clinton who have about twice as many.
Caption reading fail?
Number of confirmed judges under presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Carter at this point in their presidencies
Ajax
Centurion1
08-26-2012, 02:37
I am 37 and have no children, and I am an only child on my fathers entire side of the family, as one uncle is sterile and the other is gay. I got baby fever in Afghanistan.
I am going to impregnate everything
same only male heir to my name. I don't use condoms i just cromartie the living hell out of everything
Fisherking
08-26-2012, 08:56
Dose anyone have figures for number of Judges nominated vs. just approved?
Besides each of those congresses were different. It has always been the cry of any administration with a divided or opposition congress. It is not a straight apples vs. oranges comparison.
How dose that go about Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics?
a completely inoffensive name
08-27-2012, 07:35
Like you said, once Obama got elected the Republicans in congress went into the sabotage mode. The era of bipartisanship and compromise is likely over. Sad, but has been true for a while now.
The era of bipartisanship and compromise is not over. A republic cannot survive without it. If we are going to talk about bipartisanship being a thing of the past then we should open up a thread on how best to dismantle these pesky checks and balances that are hindering America from progressing under a new strong one party leadership (of our choosing of course).
a completely inoffensive name
08-27-2012, 08:07
That's kind of the point. We live in an age of almost unlimited information and political conscience--if Democracy was going to work, this should be the era where it works best. Instead, when faced with nearly unlimited access to information, people have chosen to take sides and become combative, as if they could fight off the information they didn't want to hear by banding together with like-minded sheeple.
You think twenty years of "unlimited" information is going to bring about democratic utopia? What's that saying about getting the horse to drink?
You have a baby boomer generation that grew up for the first 30-40 years of their life before they even owned a computer. An entire generation of older people still hanging around due to modern medicine that has likely never even used a computer beyond sending emails to their relatives. Christ I have helped three elderly people myself who don't understand that when a man calls you on the phone asking to remote control your computer he probably isn't calling to make sure you are receiving your relatives emails just fine.
As with any massive revolution in lifestyle, the transition is rough and society has to go through growing pains before we collectively learn the pros and cons of our new responsibilities. We realized that while we love having more goods for a price cheap enough for the masses, it is not acceptable that we should suffer degrading work environments or send children into the machines (hypocrisy over china notwithstanding). Over time society will learn to be smarter about the information we present and receive online through social media and utilize our access to information a lot better. You have to be blind to not see the difference between how a twenty year old uses the internet and how a 60 year old does.
Instead of taking the information we have and processing it into something that fits a bigger picture, people get lost in the individuals. They see murder or robbery or kidnapping everyday on KTLA5 and believe they are living in an age of violence when the FBI shows overall violent crime on the decline for two decades now.
You don't get to be cynical around here GC there are too many of those in the backroom already.
a completely inoffensive name
08-27-2012, 08:46
That ship sailed a long time ago, but the mark of a good cynic is that they hope they're wrong.
You're right though, its not as simple as 'Hey everyone, its the information age, stop being stupid.' These things take time, if they 'take' at all.
My point, though, was that even the older among us--people in their 60s or 70s--are still massively more informed (or should be) than previous generations of Americans, and yet our government is less transparent and more corrupt than ever (relatively speaking, of course--its hard to speak of early administrations in these terms, since poor people, black people, and women weren't even allowed to vote; but for those who had the franchise, my point stands) something that is strictly on the shoulders of the voters at the end of the day, regardless of what politicians are doing. As alien as the train of thought might be to me, it has occured to me more than once that our system may simply not be able to cope with human stupidity--in which case I can't think of anything else to advocate besides moving to the woods and arming oneself.
:soapbox:
This is where history majors come in and provide context. But if I remember my history classes correctly the Presidential Election of 1876 was decided in backrooms by party leaders. Elections in general had a lot of taint in the early 1900s on the federal and state levels (Boss Tweed's and party leaders shaking hands). Nixon could never had pulled off what he did in today's political environment precisely because presidents are crucified for everything and anything they do due to the new ability of massive information distribution quickly. We prosecute presidents for blowjobs now, let alone Watergate level things.
As I have said, people are able to hear about every incident of injustice the government commits nowadays, but in a system that governs 300+ million people, of course there will be something everyday to get riled up over. But whether or not this represents a larger decay overall from previous generations, when we wouldn't know about what food New York schools are forcing kids to eat in school, is to be examined closer.
a completely inoffensive name
08-27-2012, 09:42
Good post, it's making me think. Only thing I can come up with is that our Federalist structure enables government to take initiative with smaller, more homogeneous groups.
I can never bring myself to watch political convention coverage, and honestly, I don't see why they are still held. So it's interesting to read a full-throated defense of the institution (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/25/save_the_conventions/). I don't agree, but the guy makes some good points. (Still not gonna watch 'em.)
So should the parties just give up the ghost and let these institutions die a dignified death?
No way.
First of all, while they’re not busy being extras, the delegates (and the alternates, and the rest of the crowd) use the party conventions in the same way that every organization uses their national meetings: to network, to spend time with old friends, to scare up a little business, to work rooms on behalf of themselves or their causes. That’s a useful function [...]
The second reason that the conventions are worth saving is that they still seem to do a good job of transmitting information from the parties to the relatively less attentive rank-and-file voters. Conventions almost certainly do very little persuading. Most often, partisans watch their own convention and tune out the other one. [...]
But really, the reason I think that the conventions are worth saving is because both a democracy and its political parties need rituals, and we really don’t have that many left. [...] I’m all for hanging on to what we have – and so I’m very glad that the conventions have survived 40 years after their original political function was stripped from them.-edit-
I suppose there are other reasons (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/tampa-gop-strip-clubs/index.html) to preserve the seemingly outdated tradition. The Onion, as per usual, nails it (http://www.theonion.com/video/tampa-bay-gay-prostitutes-gearing-up-for-flood-of,29263/).
Strike For The South
08-27-2012, 19:59
Lemur has gone further to the left since the actual leftists left.
It's good to have company, it's better when the company posts coherent and sober as opposed to my drivel
Major Robert Dump
08-28-2012, 02:38
Conventions would be far more appealing were they not paid for by taxpayers.
I cannot say the same about hookers
a completely inoffensive name
08-28-2012, 04:47
It's hard to say when tradition becomes a joke and should be scrapped.
Maybe. I think the problem goes a lot deeper. I have a hypothesis that racism, bigotry, partisan politics, and all the ills that can befall our sort of society which stem from an irrationally uncompromising and antagonistic viewpoint are the product of biology, to a larger degree than we can correct for. For over a million years it has behooved groups of humans to shun things that are different or confusing--this might seem like a bit of a truism, but when put in the greater context of a society that is on the threshold of an information revolution (or whatever you want to call it) it makes a lot of sense.
And perhaps that biological tendancy to group up into combative factions when times get confusing or hard is something we will never be able to correct for? If that's the case, our civilization--like all the ones before and (ostensibly) after--is surely doomed to fall apart.
I think those tendencies are possible to correct. Most of us on this board are able to accept each other's viewpoints and have rational, respectful debate. We're a little more intellectually minded than your average citizen, but I don't think we're special.
Call me naive but I think there are politicians out there that believe what they say and are willing to compromise and make sacrifices. But of course there are also the politicians that are greedy, corrupt and motivated by self interest. I believe that governments will always be a mix of both. So, is it possible to have more "good" politicians than "bad" ones? I think so. Greed, self-interest, narrow mindedness and bigotry may be the products of biology, but then so are altruism, the ability to think critically, etc.
In a democracy, people aren't born politicians, they make the choice to become politicians later on in life. Our elected leaders went to school, watched t.v., maybe even worked minimum wage jobs just like the rest of us. They are a product of our culture. If we want good politicians, then we need to cultivate and encourage the values that make for good politicians. The battle for good governance isn't only to be fought in the political arena, but in society at large.
a completely inoffensive name
08-28-2012, 07:07
Wow, I missed an entire word in my last post. I am not going to even try anymore.
I wonder how well the convention takes off...
GIT IN MAH BELLAY!!!
ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2012, 04:16
They crushed those speeches.
They crushed those speeches.
Oh, was the convention televised tonight? Or did you stream the coverage from somewhere? I have not been keeping up.
They crushed those speeches.
Did anyone claim a natural event as an act of god this time?
a completely inoffensive name
08-29-2012, 05:44
I enjoyed the Paul supporters having their delegates stripped by last minute rule changes and then being shouted down in the middle of the convention with chants of USA USA USA.
Blind nationalism and party identity no matter how sketchy things look. I prefer the Christian God over the capitalist one (Romney).
Blind nationalism and party identity no matter how sketchy things look.
Romney's wife's speech was a beautiful example of this!
I prefer the Christian God over the capitalist one (Romney).
The Real Romney: More Impressive Than You’ll Ever Be (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html?_r=1)
ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2012, 13:01
That was hilarious. Thank you.
I love Mitt Romney, I think he is awesome and his wife did an excellent job last night. I hope that he wins and we are within striking distance.
gaelic cowboy
08-29-2012, 13:23
I hope that he wins and we are within striking distance.
eh striking distance of what??
eh striking distance of what??
Well, it is a close election. Things can go either way.
Hooahguy
08-29-2012, 22:05
Obama is doing (or maybe was?) an "Ask Me Anything" on Reddit. Over 10,000 replies and its crashing the Reddit servers.
I love Mitt Romney, I think he is awesome and his wife did an excellent job last night. I hope that he wins and we are within striking distance.
Why?
What policies of his benefit you? What policies benefit America as a whole?
I'm sorry, but business as usual (as represented by the GOP) is not going to help the states this time around.
Additionally, why did you enjoy his wife's speech? It was such a vapid attempt at pandering to women and the "common man", so incredibly contrived. Romney is not "in touch" with the the average American, and his policies will not help them. Romney said it best himself:
“I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
— When asked if he follows NASCAR (Feb. 26, 2012)
and
“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there.”
— (Feb. 2, 2012)
He's so against the poor he and his party had the Tampa police clear them all out of the city before they had their big bucks convention.
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2012, 04:15
Why?
What policies of his benefit you? What policies benefit America as a whole?
I'm sorry, but business as usual (as represented by the GOP) is not going to help the states this time around.
Additionally, why did you enjoy his wife's speech? It was such a vapid attempt at pandering to women and the "common man", so incredibly contrived. Romney is not "in touch" with the the average American, and his policies will not help them. Romney said it best himself:
“I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
— When asked if he follows NASCAR (Feb. 26, 2012)
and
“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there.”
— (Feb. 2, 2012)
He's so against the poor he and his party had the Tampa police clear them all out of the city before they had their big bucks convention.
Republicans were honest enough to admit that Obama's speeches were excellent. I've watched every one of these speeches from 6PM to 11 for the past 2 days. I've seen some excellent stuff (including a few duds). I know Romney's record. I like his results and his moderate governing philosophy. I like that he was capable of governing a Democratic state and governing it well, passing middle of the road and successful, lasting policies. I believe that it is time for an administration that is realistic and pragmatic and knows how to accomplish tough things with restraint. I also know that this government is hostile in a new way to individual liberty, business creation and reasonable consensus. I'm not going to say that Obama is the worst President because I don't believe that can be judged reasonably right now, but I don't believe that anyone can honestly say that he has his priorities in order or has been effective. He is governing like a popular junior Senator. Nothing that he proposes will help me or any of my issues along - to answer your question he does nothing for me. I want a Republican administration which will focus government on core responsibilities. I believe that this one will be different because of the individuals that will run it. I could be wrong. I thought Barack Obama could bring Americans together with his lofty and excellent speeches but I was wrong on that. I didn't vote for him, but I wasn't thrilled by any means by McCain
Most political speeches are attempts to court certain voters and check the right boxes. I'm not sure you get off criticising a speech as "pandering", i'm not sure why you would give one if you weren't trying to tell a story and influence people. Anne Romney is a mother and wife of the nominee, not a politician. I didn't expect much from her having heard her speak before. I was impressed and I know that it was effective.
Is it "the economy. stupid" or not? People will vote for Obama because of image, not results. I don't know anyone who is better off today than they were 4 years ago. That is a good place to be for the G.O.P. going into a November election.
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2012, 12:30
I saw some great speeches. I read some random article about Chris Christie's speech being "panned". That is nonsense, it was a great and effective speech. I also saw some crappy ones which leave me questioning the future of some of them. (Ayote, Paul,)
I thought Rice, Martinez and Ryan had great ones last night. I really didn't know anything about Martinez, but she speaks with the confidence of a trial attorney and has alot of appeal. She's a contender for 2016.
What I find interesting is that everyone who knows Romney personally finds him incredibly kind and likeable. But this somehow gets lost in translation. (Showing my age here, but) he kinda reminds me of Walter Mondale in this respect. Folks who met Mondale in person were always struck by how handsome and charismatic he was, but it did not transmit over a camera. Similar dynamic seems to be at work with Romney; people who actually know him find him warm and charismatic, but it does not translate on camera.
Hooahguy
08-30-2012, 14:26
Why?
What policies of his benefit you? What policies benefit America as a whole?
I'm sorry, but business as usual (as represented by the GOP) is not going to help the states this time around.
As if Obama's policies are doing any good... :wall:
While I hate Romney's social conservative side, I have faith that he will substantially help the economy, which, IMO, is much more important than most social issues.
...I have faith that he will substantially help the economy, which, IMO, is much more important than most social issues.
Could you elaborate on that? How do you think Romney will help the economy?
Hooahguy
08-30-2012, 15:03
Could you elaborate on that? How do you think Romney will help the economy?
Hes a fiscal conservative. I like that. Less regulation means more company growth. Which in turn creates jobs. Taxing the rich even more doesnt do anything because they can still afford to take advantage of loopholes. Plus what kind of message does that send? That success is punished? We should not be vilifying the rich just for being rich. Taxing them will not solve the debt problem as Obama seems to think. To solve the debt problem we need to take in more than we spend. The fact that Obama increased the debt by trillions in one term, and yet still thinks that the solution to the debt problem is more taxation is foolish and incredibly naive. I have to wonder who is giving economic advice to him.
So lets say Obama wins, and increases the tax rates on the rich even more. What happens when their money dries up? Im fairly certain that the rich people in this country do not have $16 trillion to solve the debt problem.
And about Romney's comment about the poor- so what? There are charities and other programs in place that assist them. Welfare is a massive sinkhole for federal spending. Ive seen many people who are on welfare using iPods and other fancy electronics. For a while I volunteered regularly at a soup kitchen. I would often see people who we served on smartphones after they took their food. If they were really that poor, why do they have those things? Granted, poverty is still an issue and Im not saying that we should ignore the poor, but it cannot be a concern of the Feds.
Hes a fiscal conservative. I like that. Less regulation means more company growth. Which in turn creates jobs. Taxing the rich even more doesnt do anything because they can still afford to take advantage of loopholes. Plus what kind of message does that send? That success is punished? We should not be vilifying the rich just for being rich. Taxing them will not solve the debt problem as Obama seems to think.
Certainly. But on the other hand, reducing taxes on the rich won't help the economy either and will only eat into the already low revenue stream. As for what message it sends, that might be important from a symbolic perspective but irrelevant from the practical one.
To solve the debt problem we need to take in more than we spend.
Absolutely. The question is, how is Romney gonna go about doing that.
The fact that Obama increased the debt by trillions in one term,...
He has no money and an uncooperative House. What do you expect him to do, default?
and yet still thinks that the solution to the debt problem is more taxation is foolish and incredibly naive. I have to wonder who is giving economic advice to him.Taxation today is at its lowest level in the past ...umm... 30 years or so.
So lets say Obama wins, and increases the tax rates on the rich even more. What happens when their money dries up?
Their money won't dry up.
Im fairly certain that the rich people in this country do not have $16 trillion to solve the debt problem.
Raising taxes on the rich won't help much, I agree there. Romney wants to *lower* their taxes. How's that supposed to help?
And about Romney's comment about the poor- so what? There are charities and other programs in place that assist them. Welfare is a massive sinkhole for federal spending. Ive seen many people who are on welfare using iPods and other fancy electronics. For a while I volunteered regularly at a soup kitchen. I would often see people who we served on smartphones after they took their food. If they were really that poor, why do they have those things? Granted, poverty is still an issue and Im not saying that we should ignore the poor, but it cannot be a concern of the Feds.Here's the thing...the poor like to spend, which in many cases accounts for their poverty. Poor will spend close to 100% of what they make. The rich won't. That means that pumping money into the poor == boosting the economy, as almost 100% of that money will be spent. And that's what our economy needs right now: spending. Giving a tax break to the rich will just mean that they have more money to play with on the stock market. How does it help the economy? It doesn't. The poor and their spending drives this economy far more than the rich and their spending. By further crippling the poor, we'll be crippling ourselves. Is it fair to give money to the poor? Hell no. The question is: do you want the economy to recover? If you do, then spending on the poor is a good strategy.
Hooahguy
08-30-2012, 15:53
Absolutely. The question is, how is Romney gonna go about doing that.
Cut spending. Its the best way. Cut out unnecessary programs, and consolidate ones that overlap.
He has no money and an uncooperative House. What do you expect him to do, default?
He had control of both for the first two years. Even then he didnt do anything. People voted out the Democratic house because of this. Not saying that the Repubs did any better, but its fair to point out that even when he had both there was nothing.
Even so, he didnt have to spend like crazy, $6+ trillion in four years! I mean come on, at this rate the national debt will be way over $20 trillion in 2016.
Taxation today is at its lowest level in the past ...umm... 30 years or so.
Ok, but that doesnt change the fact that Obama still drones on about how the solution to the debt problem is high taxes for the rich.
Their money won't dry up.
Is that guarantee? I think that when push comes to shove, they will just move their capital somewhere else.
Raising taxes on the rich won't help much, I agree there. Romney wants to *lower* their taxes. How's that supposed to help?
See below.
Here's the thing...the poor like to spend, which in many cases accounts for their poverty. Poor will spend close to 100% of what they make. The rich won't. That means that pumping money into the poor == boosting the economy, as almost 100% of that money will be spent. And that's what our economy needs right now: spending. Giving a tax break to the rich will just mean that they have more money to play with on the stock market. How does it help the economy? It doesn't. The poor and their spending drives this economy far more than the rich and their spending. By further crippling the poor, we'll be crippling ourselves. Is it fair to give money to the poor? Hell no. The question is: do you want the economy to recover? If you do, then spending on the poor is a good strategy.
Lol wut?
Because they are spending 100% of their money, which isnt a lot, they will stay forever poor. Do you even realize what you are saying? If that was really true, why isnt the nation better off? Because the poor are a small percentage of the population. There simply are not enough of them that if they all did what you are saying, to make a difference. If the majority of the country was poor, then maybe it would make a difference. But thankfully, most of Americans are not poor, so your idea has no solid ground to stand upon. A couple million people spending their paychecks, either through a job or through welfare, wont boost the economy.
However, the rich do not just "play with the stock market." They invest. Invest in the stock market, which has a major effect on the economy, they invest in companies, in new businesses. I wouldnt turn to a poor person to help me fund my new small business proposal. Like it or not, the rich drive the economy.
He had control of both for the first two years.
How often does this lie need to be debunked? The correct figure for a super-majority (which is what you need to override a filibuster) was seven weeks.
Cut spending. Its the best way. Cut out unnecessary programs, and consolidate ones that overlap.
That's very broad. Can you be more specific?
He had control of both for the first two years. Even then he didnt do anything. People voted out the Democratic house because of this. Not saying that the Repubs did any better, but its fair to point out that even when.
Yes, Obamacare is a shame. I'll just point out that Romney was thinking along the same lines in MA.
Even so, he didnt have to spend like crazy, $6+ trillion in four years! I mean come on, at this rate the national debt will be way over $20 trillion in 2016.
Can you be specific about the "like crazy" part?
Ok, but that doesnt change the fact that Obama still drones on about how the solution to the debt problem is high taxes for the rich.
Fair enough. So, neither candidate is offering anything tangible.
Is that guarantee? I think that when push comes to shove, they will just move their capital somewhere else.
You might notice a trend: European elite tends to move their money and residency to the U.S. to avoid taxes. Not the other way around. Capital gains is 15%, that's pretty low considering that most people who work for a living are paying twice as much in taxes.
Lol wut?
Because they are spending 100% of their money, which isnt a lot, they will stay forever poor.
So? Let them stay poor. Their choice. We're talking about boosting the economy.
Do you even realize what you are saying? If that was really true, why isnt the nation better off? Because the poor are a small percentage of the population. There simply are not enough of them that if they all did what you are saying, to make a difference.
Hmm...15% of the 300,000,000. That's 45 million people. I wouldn't call that "small"
If the majority of the country was poor, then maybe it would make a difference. But thankfully, most of Americans are not poor, so your idea has no solid ground to stand upon. A couple million people spending their paychecks, either through a job or through welfare, wont boost the economy.
45 million. 45.
However, the rich do not just "play with the stock market." They invest. Invest in the stock market, which has a major effect on the economy,
Can you be more specific about how that would have a major effect?
they invest in companies, in new businesses. I wouldnt turn to a poor person to help me fund my new small business proposal. Like it or not, the rich drive the economy.And their tax rate is 15%. Lower than anyone else except the poorest of the poor.
Not that anyone cares, but apparently Paul Ryan's speech last night set some sort of land-speed record for easily disproved falsehoods (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/the-true-the-false-and-the-misleading-grading-paul-ryans-convention-speech/). But I'm not sure anyone gives a damn, given how entrenched positions are. As Romney's pollster said, "We aren't going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
Eerie flashbacks to Bush 43 and his administration's dismissal of the "reality-based community."
“[Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report,” Ryan stated. “He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” But the bipartisan debt commission itself didn’t come back with a report. There were not enough votes to agree upon recommendations, in part due to opposition (http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=216858) from committee member, er, Paul Ryan. The statement misleads viewers by implying that Ryan supports the proposal, when he aggressively opposed it, and by using the third person to avoid noting that Ryan was on the commission and voted no.
a completely inoffensive name
08-30-2012, 17:19
I think it is cute, hooahguy has bought into the sound bytes without looking into the real numbers.
Best takedown of the Ryan speech (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-large-lies-and-one-big-truth.html) I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
Best takedown of the Ryan speech (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-large-lies-and-one-big-truth.html)
Good article.
gaelic cowboy
08-30-2012, 19:15
Best takedown of the Ryan speech (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-large-lies-and-one-big-truth.html) I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
Ah ye cannot beat a bit of double think can ye, I see he claims a plant that closed under Bush is Obama's fault.
Hooahguy
08-30-2012, 23:06
That's very broad. Can you be more specific?
How specific? Like naming specific programs?
Yes, Obamacare is a shame. I'll just point out that Romney was thinking along the same lines in MA.
For the record, if it wasnt for the fact that Obamacare would force people to get health insurance, Id be behind it. Its only for that reason I dont like it.
Can you be specific about the "like crazy" part?
Seriously? Is $6+ trillion in 4 years not enough?
#
Fair enough. So, neither candidate is offering anything tangible.
Says you.
You might notice a trend: European elite tends to move their money and residency to the U.S. to avoid taxes. Not the other way around. Capital gains is 15%, that's pretty low considering that most people who work for a living are paying twice as much in taxes.
Exactly. So why stop a good thing?
So? Let them stay poor. Their choice. We're talking about boosting the economy.
But would it actually do anything? My bet is on no.
Hmm...15% of the 300,000,000. That's 45 million people. I wouldn't call that "small"
But how much of that would get back to the government? I remind you that not every poor person has the same spending habits. Lets say someone gets a check for $1,000. How much of that do you honestly think would get back to the government? Id say, not that much.
And 15% is pretty small.
Can you be more specific about how that would have a major effect?
Seriously? :wall:
When the stock market is doing well it usually translates to an overall good economy.
And their tax rate is 15%. Lower than anyone else except the poorest of the poor.
Can you be more specific?
I think it is cute, hooahguy has bought into the sound bytes without looking into the real numbers.
Feel free to refute me rather than make snide comments.
And Lemur: Im sorry, you are right. I keep forgetting that fact. I stand corrected.
How specific? Like naming specific programs?
Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?
For the record, if it wasnt for the fact that Obamacare would force people to get health insurance, Id be behind it. Its only for that reason I dont like it.
Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.
Seriously? Is $6+ trillion in 4 years not enough?
Did you expect him to default?
Says you.
I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.
Exactly. So why stop a good thing?
Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.
But would it actually do anything? My bet is on no.
Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.
But how much of that would get back to the government? I remind you that not every poor person has the same spending habits. Lets say someone gets a check for $1,000. How much of that do you honestly think would get back to the government? Id say, not that much.
People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)
Seriously? :wall:
When the stock market is doing well it usually translates to an overall good economy.
DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.
Can you be more specific?
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
Centurion1
08-31-2012, 00:53
Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?
Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.
Did you expect him to default?
I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.
Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.
Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.
People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)
DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!
a completely inoffensive name
08-31-2012, 00:57
I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!
Ur caps is on btw.
Hooahguy
08-31-2012, 01:16
Did you expect him to default?
True, but I didnt expect him to spend that much money either.
I was going to keep arguing, but then I realized that I dont know very much about the economy, so Im going to concede this argument on the basis of ignorance.
Best takedown of the Ryan speech (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-large-lies-and-one-big-truth.html) I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
The BBC contributed this:
Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has come under fire for alleged inaccuracies during his convention debut in Tampa, Florida. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19427111)
Major Robert Dump
08-31-2012, 08:20
My imaginary girlfriend really liked the imaginary suit imaginary Obama wore during Eastwood's speech
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2012, 14:28
Best takedown of the Ryan speech (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryans-large-lies-and-one-big-truth.html) I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
Almost single-handedly prevents a solution? :inquisitive: :rolleyes:
My prefered column about the speech, media, and political process: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/election-2012-media-vast-rightwing-conspiracy-stupid)
Wednesday night, the GOP's nominee for vice-president, Paul Ryan, delivered a speech loaded with pure, fundamental deceit on its core claims. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn has the clearest and most concise explanation of those falsehoods.
Reflecting the pure worthlessness and chronic failure of CNN, however, here is how that network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer, reacted after the speech was finished:
"So there he is, the Republican vice-presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of Republicans here, certainly Republicans all across the country, were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech, Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked seven or eight points, I'm sure the fact-checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward; I'm sure they will. As far as Mitt Romney's campaign is concerned, Paul Ryan on this night delivered."
Blitzer's co-anchor, Erin Burnett – who, the night before, described how she "had a tear in [her] eye" as she listened to Ann Romney's convention speech – added this journalistic wisdom:
"That's right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He's a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate."
As Gawker's Louis Peitzman wrote:
"'A powerful speech' with only 'seven or eight' facts to dispute? Sounds like a winner … [I]n the end, isn't 'precise, clear, and passionate' more important than truthful?"
...
The election process is where American politicians go to be venerated and glorified, all based on trivial personality attributes that have zero relationship to what they do with their power, but which, by design, convinces Americans that they're blessed to be led by people with such noble and sterling character, no matter how much those political figures shaft them. (Wednesday, President Obama, during his highly-touted "Ask Me Anything" appearance on Reddit, predictably ignored the question from Mother Jones's Nick Baumann about Obama's killing of the American teenager Abdulrahman Awlaki, in favor of answering questions about the White House beer recipe and his favorite basketball player.)
The election process is where each political party spends hundreds of millions of dollars exploiting the same trivial personality attributes to demonize the other party's politicians as culturally foreign, all to keep their followers in a high state of fear and thus lock-step loyalty.
It's the supreme propaganda orgy, devoted to aggressively reinforcing the claim to American exceptionalism: the belief that even when things look grim, America will forever be that special God-favored land of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity, and all citizens should therefore be deeply grateful – quietly and passively so – for the privilege of residing in such a land, no matter how wretched are their circumstances and how pervasive is the corruption.
CR
Almost single-handedly prevents a solution?
The attempt by Obama and the Congress to achieve a "Grand Bargain" on the deficit, with a mix of spending cuts and tax raises, was torpedoed by the House. This is a matter of record. Who led the opposition to the Grand Bargain in the house? I'll give you a hint (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/guess-who-stuck-a-knife-in-the-budget-deal.html) ...
President Obama and John Boehner had struck a deal, one that was far more favorable to Republicans than either Bowles-Simpson or the Senate plan — a horrible deal, I would say. Guess who stuck in the knife? [...]
Mr. Ryan’s enormous influence was apparent last summer when Representative Eric Cantor, the second most powerful House Republican, told Mr. Obama during negotiations over an attempted bipartisan “grand bargain” that Mr. Ryan disliked its policy and was concerned that a deal would pave the way for Mr. Obama’s easy re-election, according to a Democrat and a Republican who were briefed on the conversation.A little more detail (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/246815-ryan-criticizes-obama-boehner-debt-talks) (including Ryan not only acknowledging but justifying his active opposition to a Grand Bargain):
Speaking on CNN, Paul appeared to implicitly criticize House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for having engaged in secretive deficit talks with President Obama last year.
Ryan characterized the talks as leading to a “backroom deal” and blasted Obama’s role.
Negotiations take two, however, so the comment appears to also hit at Boehner, who tried to craft a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending with the president.
“Cutting a backroom deal that gives you plausible deniability is not leadership. Offering a plan, submitting a budget to Congress that fixes the problem is leadership. And we haven’t seen it for four years from President Obama,” Ryan said.
The talks blew up over the issue of raising taxes on the wealthy, and Ryan was seen as instrumental in scuttling the deal.
“That wasn’t even close to fixing the problem. That was a medium-sized deal,” Ryan said of the effort.
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2012, 15:47
Ah, okay then.
CR
http://p.twimg.com/A1mFDrFCMAElNUb.jpg
http://8.mshcdn.com/wp-content/gallery/clint-eastwood-chair-at-rnc/mckayla-eastwood.jpg
http://9.mshcdn.com/wp-content/gallery/clint-eastwood-chair-at-rnc/30564617987.png
http://9.mshcdn.com/wp-content/gallery/clint-eastwood-chair-at-rnc/30567813240.jpg
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/388/244/1a9.jpg
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/388/377/591.jpg
Major Robert Dump
09-01-2012, 14:00
the first one was the best
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
Romney pays an effective federal tax rate of 13% per year. Marginal tax rates really are useless when debating this issue as one has to take into account deductions, exemptions, credits, and additional taxes (ex payroll taxes) to see how much tax a individual pays out of pocket. State taxes also add to the burden ranging from 0% in Florida to a high of 11% in California. An argument for the 15% tax rate (0% for low earners) on dividends is that it prevents heavy double taxation (corporation distributes its already taxed earnings to its shareholders where they are taxed again). As for capital gains, well they probably should be taxed at ordinary rates as many of our tax laws are in place to deter people from abusing the 15% dividend rate and classifying something as a "dividend".
Hooahguy
09-03-2012, 22:33
I wish this system was more friendly to third party candidates. If it was Id totally be voting for Gary Johnson.
Major Robert Dump
09-03-2012, 23:26
All the arguments in favor of the two party system are deemed invalid the more and more each of the two current parties exploit public funding.
Kill public funding, and open it up. Tree will be shaken. This is ridiculous. I cannot stand either candidate for the last 4 elections now
Oh, and Ross Perot was right. Suck on that. Too late to go back now
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Personal theory: Cord-cutters like me are slicing into ratings everywhere. Secondary theory: Political conventions are relics from another age, and people are kinda done with 'em.
-edit-
Pretty much how I imagine political conventions:
https://i.imgur.com/x6qzm.jpg
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Personal theory: Cord-cutters like me are slicing into ratings everywhere. Secondary theory: Political conventions are relics from another age, and people are kinda done with 'em.
It might mean that we are just sick of the charade. Candidates announced in what, February 2011? Primaries/caucuses from January to July, but everything was decided by April. It's been 5 months of blathering since, with 2 more months to go. With today's tech and media, is there any reason why the schedule for primaries to the convention couldn't be compressed into about 4 months? Waste of time and money, and a great way to turn off the voting public.
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Maybe people have already decided? It is either Romney or thousand years of darkness! (http://youtu.be/7ud3pK5Wa90) Maybe people were just busy registering or buying food and ammo.
Major Robert Dump
09-04-2012, 18:28
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY GOT CHUCK
Goofball
09-04-2012, 21:05
The BBC contributed this:
Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has come under fire for alleged inaccuracies during his convention debut in Tampa, Florida. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19427111)
The Romney campaign will continue to lie for one main reason: they have discovered that there are absolutely no consequences for doing so. A good article about "post-trust" politics:
http://grist.org/politics/as-romney-and-ryan-lie-with-abandon-how-should-journalists-navigate-post-truth-politics/
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2012, 04:13
This convention is a dud so far. I have to admit, if Mayor Castro wasn't so obviously parroting the platform he would be an interesting player. O'Malley is going nowhere, Ed Rendell should run in 2016
Major Robert Dump
09-05-2012, 04:40
When do we get to see Betty White?????
a completely inoffensive name
09-05-2012, 04:42
You people are watching one big infomercial. I am disappointed.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2012, 14:05
You people are watching one big infomercial. I am disappointed.
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
Goofball
09-05-2012, 16:34
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
Not to turn this into an abortion argument, but you brought it up, so.....:
There are no "rights" for the unborn. There are, however, constitutionally enshrined rights for women (as they are actually, beyond a shadow of a doubt, human beings). I would suggest that any president who, as the sworn defender of the constitution tries to balance (and by "balance" I mean "infringe upon") the legitimate constitutional rights of women by placing them on the same level as the in no way legal "rights of the unborn" has broken his promise to defend the constitution by putting his personal beliefs before the law of the land.
If he wants to infringe upon womens' rights so much, he should have the balls to propose a constitutional amendment and put his money where his mouth is. Who knows, he might even win. You guys did a pretty good job getting the hate vote out against teh gheys in a bunch of constitutional amendment votes at the state level, maybe you can roust up the same brown-shirt base to take down teh chix at the federal level.
Strike For The South
09-05-2012, 16:43
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
humane to you
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2012, 00:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg
Greyblades
09-06-2012, 00:38
So... What does that mean to the uninitiated?
So... What does that mean to the uninitiated?
It means that the Dems now recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney would be proud.
I believe it means that the Democrats have now taken the same "stand with Israel" position that the Republicans have, in a reversal of their earlier reversal. Is that really how they do that? That seemed more like how to get kindergartners to choose what they wanted for lunch than how to decide the fate of nations.
Hooahguy
09-06-2012, 00:59
I believe it means that the Democrats have now taken the same "stand with Israel" position that the Republicans have, in a reversal of their earlier reversal. Is that really how they do that? That seemed more like how to get kindergartners to choose what they wanted for lunch than how to decide the fate of nations.
Agreed. The turnout seemed pitiful. The arena seemed almost half empty. And they voted by "aye" and "nay"? Seriously? Isnt there some sort of better way? The vote seemed very close judging by the number of voices. Plus the shots of the arab voters was funny. You could see the desperation in their eyes.
Guess that means they lost some voters.
Agreed. The turnout seemed pitiful. The arena seemed almost half empty. And they voted by "aye" and "nay"? Seriously? Isnt there some sort of better way? The vote seemed very close judging by the number of voices. Plus the shots of the arab voters was funny. You could see the desperation in their eyes.
Guess that means they lost some voters.They would've likely lost more by not changing the platform- that's why they were willing to run roughshod over their own rules to do it.
I think what's most interesting is that in light of the closeness of the vote (and the likelihood that the nays actually won), the removal of the phrases in 2012 that were in the platform in 2008 was no accident or oversight- but deliberate. It's too bad the party leaders didn't have the courage to stick to their decisions. The more daylight we can put between the two parties, the more of a choice we have.
Hooahguy
09-06-2012, 01:12
The more daylight we can put between the two parties, the more of a choice we have.
Agreed. South Park pretty much hit the nail on the head on this topic a while back.
So... What does that mean to the uninitiated?
"Bow to your AIPAC masters! Bow I say!"
Hooahguy
09-06-2012, 03:08
Im going to guess that the Dems are trying to court the Jewish vote, while leaving the Muslims and Atheists in the dust. Which is interesting because according to a Pew report (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) Jews are only 1.7% while Muslims are 0.6%. Which on paper isnt much, but combine that with Atheists and Agnostics which they also alienated, that equals over 4%. Granted, its old, but the info is still pertinent, Id say. If anything the number of Atheists have grown.
Plus they cant even guarantee all the Jewish vote with that platform change since the GOP been holding that since I can remember, so this just looks fake.
Stupid, stupid.
PanzerJaeger
09-06-2012, 03:20
It's more about the Christian vote.
Hooahguy
09-06-2012, 03:30
It's more about the Christian vote.
True, but if that really was an issue for Christian voters they would be voting for Romney by default.
a completely inoffensive name
09-06-2012, 03:40
The convention behaved like a convention is supposed to, to hammer out the final policy and the final candidate, and people then call them weak. I guess we are at the stage where unless you have your candidate and policies all chosen 2 years before the election, you look weak.
HopAlongBunny
09-06-2012, 03:42
- that's why they were willing to run roughshod over their own rules to do it.
That was disgusting. The issue has its own debate, but to have a "vote" and then simply interpret it as "whatever I want it to say" is complete fail.
Major Robert Dump
09-06-2012, 04:02
They should vote on everything that way
Also I am tired of hearing 4.5 million
They should say "oodles" instead
Or, more hotdogs than Christie could eat
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2012, 04:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg
Beautiful. I'm happy with the results AND with the fact that they look even worse about them with their own supporters.
As much as I hold Israel in contempt, Jerusalem makes sense as the capital of Israel, even if it has to be a shared capital with Palestine (which I favor)
Just finished listening to Bill Clinton's speech. The man's a genius. The rest of the convention was one big blah, but he might just have handed Obama four more years in the office. Brilliant speech.
Just finished listening to Bill Clinton's speech. The man's a genius. The rest of the convention was one big blah, but he might just have handed Obama four more years in the office. Brilliant speech.
Clinton is a master, without term limits he might still be the Prez. There's a reason the GOP brass despises him, they know they can't beat him.
Of course, the DNC is stupid enough to put it's sole rockstar on TV at the same time as the first NFL game of the season. I caught the speech on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDhk3BHi6Q), who is going to pick DNC speeches over Cowboys v Giants? :no:
WaPo has a synopsis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woodward-book-chronicles-obamas-fiscal-policy-battle-with-congressional-republicans/2012/09/05/0b6ac24c-f6dd-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html) of Woodward's new book, chronicling the infamous debt ceiling negotiations.
Among the more interesting tidbits to me was the amount of contempt Pelosi/Reid showed towards Obama...
As the final details of the 2009 stimulus package were being worked out on Capitol Hill, Obama phoned the speaker’s office to exhort the troops. Pelosi put the president on speakerphone so everyone could hear.
“Warming to his subject, he continued with an uplifting speech,” Woodward writes. “Pelosi reached over and pressed the mute button. They could hear Obama, but now he couldn’t hear them. The president continued speaking, his disembodied voice filling the room, and the two leaders got back to the hard numbers.”
Of course, the DNC is stupid enough to put it's sole rockstar on TV at the same time as the first NFL game of the season. I caught the speech on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDhk3BHi6Q), who is going to pick DNC speeches over Cowboys v Giants? :no:
Apparently a lot of people. I do not claim to understand this, but then, I gave up on broadcast TV entirely, so your world is a mystery to me.
Democratic Convention Beats Football In Ratings (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=160709091)
The second night of the Democratic National Convention beat the Republicans in television ratings and, perhaps more impressively, beat pro football.
An estimated 25.1 million people watched the convention between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday, when former President Bill Clinton delivered an impassioned nomination speech for President Barack Obama, the Nielsen ratings company said.
During that hour, just over 20 million people were watching the second half of the Dallas Cowboys' season-opening victory over the New York Giants. Faced with competition from Clinton, ratings for football's first game were down from the past two years. [...]
The entire football game was seen by an average of 23.9 million people on NBC, Nielsen said. Last year's opening game was seen by 27.1 million, and 2010's game had a record 27.5 million. The opening game generally features the Super Bowl champion from the year before.
An estimated 25.1 million people watched the convention between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday, when former President Bill Clinton delivered an impassioned nomination speech for President Barack Obama, the Nielsen ratings company said.
I had no idea we had that many communists in this country!
Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness' (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/)
https://i.imgur.com/HgKUp.jpg
CHARLOTTE, NC—With the savage roar of the heathen Democratic horde rising all around him, President Barack Obama delivered an incendiary speech to close his party’s national convention Thursday night, commanding the ultraprogressive minions in attendance to help him “destroy Jesus and usher in a new age of liberal darkness that shall reign o’er the earth for a thousand years.”
The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.
“My fellow Americans and godless infidels, I command you to join me as we cast an endless pall of far-left evil across the hills and valleys of our nation!” Obama bellowed from the stage, as thousands in attendance moaned in compliance and gyrated their hips and groins in a lascivious dance. “Together, as a barbarian people forged by the wicked flames of irreligiosity and united by visions of a liberal dystopia, we will rise up as one to scorch the earth with boundless amorality.”
“The streets shall run red with the blood of forced sodomy, performed daily upon every American man, woman, and child!” the commander-in-chief shouted, froth forming around his mouth as the crowd threw hundreds of aborted fetuses onto the stage. “Die, Christians, die!”
Slamming his fists on the lectern until his hands began to bleed, Obama proceeded to lay out a “three-point plan of sin and lechery” for his second term. If reelected, the president said, he would begin by banning organized religion entirely—starting with Christianity—and burning all churches to the ground, preferably “with their wretched, Jesus-loving congregants still huddled inside like rats.”
As members of the audience violently tugged at their genitals and howled like sex-starved, atheist wolves, Obama stated that his administration would then seek to make free, taxpayer-funded abortions legal at any stage of pregnancy, even up to one full year after birth, in order to supply his newly created “federal stem-cell harvesting plants” with raw materials.
In addition, the cackling president vowed to “end traditional marriage as we know it” by passing legislation that would allow only homosexuals to raise children, a longtime Democratic policy goal.
“A glorious new age of sinister, unconstrained liberalism is dawning! Oh, dear Satan, I can feel it coursing through my veins at this very moment!” shrieked Obama, ripping off his shirt to reveal an ornate tattoo of a pentagram, with a different homosexual act positioned at each of the star’s five points. “Agnosticism, contempt for human life, and radical sexual experimentation shall rule the day! Any good, virtuous, family-values-oriented Christian Americans who seek to topple our magnificent liberal kingdom of eternal darkness will be powerless to stop us! We will crush them!”
Added Obama, “Thank you, may Satan reward you all, and may God tremble in fear at the United States of America!”
The president was then handed an unbaptized, orphaned newborn baby drenched in the blood of 666 slaughtered Christians, which he handed over to its new, gleefully squealing homosexual parents.
Fisherking
09-07-2012, 15:51
Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness' (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/)
https://i.imgur.com/HgKUp.jpg
So, no new policy changes then?
Gregoshi
09-07-2012, 16:28
Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness' (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/)
Below is a Facebook post from an old friend of mine who is a priest after he watched the DNC on Wednesday night:
LOL - I don't listen to Hannity or Glenn Beck. I am my own person and I truly believe that it's time for God to rain down fire upon this Earth and I look forward to the end times more than ever. When it comes, I'll be standing calmly awaiting His Judgement while the rest grind and gnash their teeth. The DNC is the party of fornication and baby murderers.
He used to be a rather mild mannered guy but politics the last few years seems to have gotten the better of him. Now I envision him with a face beet red in anger and frothing at the mouth. Kind of makes me sad.
Major Robert Dump
09-07-2012, 17:11
I think the point about the NFL and timing of the speech was that even more would have watched had the time perhaps been different.
But then again, the people who stayed away probably already have their mind made up
But then again, the people who stayed away probably already have their mind made up
I do not get the impression that the undecideds are a large group this time around. The Prez election will probably be decided by which side gets more fired up and who has a better get-out-the-vote operation.
Hooahguy
09-07-2012, 17:36
I do not get the impression that the undecideds are a large group this time around. The Prez election will probably be decided by which side gets more fired up and who has a better get-out-the-vote operation.
If thats what were going by, Im going to guess that the GOP is going to win, merely by the fact that at least on the surface, Obama hasnt held up.
a completely inoffensive name
09-07-2012, 18:12
If thats what were going by, Im going to guess that the GOP is going to win, merely by the fact that at least on the surface, Obama hasnt held up.
You already have your mind made up, and I am guessing you don't have liberal friends.
Below is a Facebook post from an old friend of mine who is a priest after he watched the DNC on Wednesday night...
A priest of what, I wonder. My bet is on Kukulkan.
PanzerJaeger
09-07-2012, 19:07
Another month, another poor jobs report. When was the last time creation even kept up with population growth?
Another month, another poor jobs report. When was the last time creation even kept up with population growth?
Obama needs to stop shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Enough is enough.
Gregoshi
09-07-2012, 19:41
A priest of what, I wonder. My bet is on Kukulkan.
No, it is legit - nothing crazy or whacky.
So, is he a priest or a minister?
Gregoshi
09-08-2012, 03:31
So, is he a priest or a minister?
Priest, but if he was a minister my reaction would have been the same.
Priest, but if he was a minister my reaction would have been the same.
Wow. I truly did not expect such enthusiasm about The Apocalypse coming from a priest.
Major Robert Dump
09-08-2012, 03:58
I think that once Chuck Norris unleashed 1000 years of Darkness, everyone else followed suit
a completely inoffensive name
09-08-2012, 06:40
Obama needs to stop shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Enough is enough.
Companies decide to ship jobs overseas, and nothing the president can do will stop that.
Is the exorbitant 15% tax on capital gains killing our economy?
Is it the outrageous minimum wage that prevents our citizens from competing with the $2/day Chinese workers?
Seriously, because from what I read, the US is still the biggest manufacturing country in the world, we just have robots do the work now. The problem isn't that the President can't create manufacturing jobs for the public, the problem is that the public still thinks they can do manufacturing jobs.
Free re-education for unemployed workers in needed trade services or technical fields is the way forward, not asking GM to give you that door welding job.
Major Robert Dump
09-08-2012, 09:12
You're idea seems so simple and plausible, right up until the Robots Rights movement starts, then I'll be laughing at you.
Fisherking
09-08-2012, 09:37
Flash! ACIN proposes Reeducation Camps!
Whaaat? What we really need is cheaper college tuition, and easier access to higher education for the poor. Hardly re-education camps.
What you really need is a similar, albeit smaller scale system to what we have here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia) You do not have the same "skills shortage" that we "suffer". Yet, it is a system that works, leads to a better and more educated workforce, who in turn can create and take part in better jobs without unfair burden.
I.e. it allows a doctor to study, then join a small rural practice where he is needed and not have to worry about a debt he otherwise could not pay off.
-----
What I would like to know is does Romney plan to run the United States in the same way as he did Bain & Company?
Centurion1
09-09-2012, 08:56
You already have your mind made up, and I am guessing you don't have liberal friends.
hooah is jewish with university professor parents.....
Hooahguy
09-09-2012, 16:39
You already have your mind made up, and I am guessing you don't have liberal friends.
Actually, false. My best friend is liberal.
a completely inoffensive name
09-09-2012, 17:36
Actually, false. My best friend is liberal.Than you should know the enthusiasm gap is closing and Nate Silver is giving Obama a higher chance of victory than ever before this election after weak viewers at the RNC and a large bump in support at the DNC. all my liberal friends are going haywire.
Fisherking
09-09-2012, 18:23
Than you should know the enthusiasm gap is closing and Nate Silver is giving Obama a higher chance of victory than ever before this election after weak viewers at the RNC and a large bump in support at the DNC. all my liberal friends are going haywire.
Perhaps haywire is a good term for them.
I haven’t see anything that predicts a large bump. It is not that I expect Obama to lose. I just can’t see any cause for jubilant calibration.
Hooahguy
09-09-2012, 20:01
Than you should know the enthusiasm gap is closing and Nate Silver is giving Obama a higher chance of victory than ever before this election after weak viewers at the RNC and a large bump in support at the DNC. all my liberal friends are going haywire.
Yeah, and everyone was sure Kerry would win too.
a completely inoffensive name
09-09-2012, 20:43
Yeah, and everyone was sure Kerry would win too.
You are going to have to provide sources on that.
Hooahguy
09-09-2012, 20:56
I cant provide sources on the discussion I had with friends and family before the 2004 election. My family is pretty liberal, and so are many of my friends. All of them were so sure that Kerry would win because everyone seemed to hate Bush.
The only reason why I think Romney will win is because of that group which has correctly predicted every election since 1980 said that he would win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErU524mN768
I gotta say, I am not easily impressed by speeches, but this is awesome. It is really one of the best, and most moving speeches I have seen in recent history. I hope this guy becomes more involved in Republican politics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-10-2012, 01:50
Richard Dawkins may have called the next President of the USA a gullible fool.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html)
Hooahguy
09-10-2012, 01:58
Richard Dawkins may have called the next President of the USA a gullible fool.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html)
Very distasteful on Dawkins part. Romney's religion is of no business of Dawkins. I hate atheists who attack other religions as much as religions who attack other religions. Or lack of religion.
Very distasteful on Dawkins part. Romney's religion is of no business of Dawkins. I hate atheists who attack other religions as much as religions who attack other religions. Or lack of religion.
/amen
Richard Dawkins may have called the next President of the USA a gullible fool.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html)
Dawkins seems to think that anyone who believes in a religion is a fool. One time I read an article in the newspaper about an astronomer who was suing the University of Kentucky because he thought he was denied a job because of his religion (tried to find a link to the article but I couldn't ), according to the article Dawkins responded to the incident by saying "You wouldn't want a dentist who believes that babies are delivered by storks to work on your teeth would you?"
The man is prejudiced if you ask me.
The man is prejudiced if you ask me.
Of course he is. He's a fanatic.
HopAlongBunny
09-10-2012, 03:47
Dawkins is a man of faith. He has absolute faith that God does not exist.
As the go-to-guy for media looking to stir the pot (at least since the death of Hitchens) what would you expect him to say? Dawkins calling any form of religion snake-oil is not news_news would be Dawkins proclaiming the second coming.
Very distasteful on Dawkins part. Romney's religion is of no business of Dawkins. I hate atheists who attack other religions as much as religions who attack other religions. Or lack of religion.
Ah but don't worry. When Richard Dawkins dies, I'm sure Romney will get him baptized into the one true Mormon church. You know, just like they did with Romney's (atheist) father in law.
When public figures use their religion to gain political office, I see no problem with people expressing their opinion about such religions and their followers.
Centurion1
09-10-2012, 04:39
Ah but don't worry. When Richard Dawkins dies, I'm sure Romney will get him baptized into the one true Mormon church. You know, just like they did with Romney's (atheist) father in law.
When public figures use their religion to gain political office, I see no problem with people expressing their opinion about such religions and their followers.
mormonism doesnt help you into office in the US so your point is???
mormonism doesnt help you into office in the US so your point is???
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0909/Mitt-Romney-My-heritage-and-my-faith-have-made-me-the-person-I-am
I'm convinced that my background, and my heritage and my faith have made me the person I am to a great degree
What is his faith? And why mention faith at all?
Centurion1
09-10-2012, 05:08
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0909/Mitt-Romney-My-heritage-and-my-faith-have-made-me-the-person-I-am
What is his faith? And why mention faith at all?
mormonism is mor of a negative thing than a positive in the majority of americans minds accept it or not thats the fact.
Hooahguy
09-10-2012, 05:13
Ah but don't worry. When Richard Dawkins dies, I'm sure Romney will get him baptized into the one true Mormon church. You know, just like they did with Romney's (atheist) father in law.
What his family did to their father in law after he died is a family matter and has no relevance to this conversation.
What his family did to their father in law after he died is a family matter and has no relevance to this conversation.
Next time it will be Catholics and Jews...wait they have already done that. But if it does not matter if Romney is part of such a church, then so be it and we will just agree to disagree.
Richard Dawkins may have called the next President of the USA a gullible fool.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9532199/US-election-2012-Richard-Dawkins-calls-Mitt-Romney-gullible-fool-over-Mormon-faith.html)
To be fair, Mormonism is really quite damn ridiculous. They believe all men can become God(s):
“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, so man may become.”
Mormonism also is very intolerant of all other denominations:
“I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me [God the Father] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors [of Christian religion] were all corrupt; that ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’
He [God the Father] again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again [fully regained his senses], I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering it in some degree, I went home.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, I 3. [The Pearl of Great Price], pp. 4-6)
For a Mormon, all other Christians are also wrong on all accounts, which I personally find surprising.
Kralizec
09-10-2012, 09:14
mormonism is mor of a negative thing than a positive in the majority of americans minds accept it or not thats the fact.
While I do not approve of the prejudice that protestants and catholics have against mormons, I don't like the way Romney or other prominent mormons have dealt with this.
I would have hoped that being from a religion which is looked upon unfavourably would have inspired some humility and a healthy respect for religious indifference, i.e. let everyone believe what they will and keep it out of political discussions. I get the distinct impression however that some Mormons just want to be co-opted into the religious right, or at least be accepted by it, and are perfectly okay with its crusade against secularism and its hostility towards non-christian religions.
Fisherking
09-10-2012, 09:21
I take the religion of most every US politician as nothing more than platitudes. Some may believe what they say but for the most part I take it as cynical pandering to the more religious voters.
Kralizec
09-10-2012, 09:33
I take the religion of most every US politician as nothing more than platitudes. Some may believe what they say but for the most part I take it as cynical pandering to the more religious voters.
That's my impression as well.
If Romney had said to the republican base:
"Yeah, I'm a mormon and that's nobody's business except mine, God and my wife. The founding fathers would never have envisioned a country where politicians must satisfy religious criteria to be elected. Anybody who disagrees with me on this can STFU and GTFO."
Then I'd have a great deal of respect for him. As it stands however Romney is attempting to use his faith to pander to religious voters. Dawkin's comments seem unnecessarily harsh, but if you use your religion as a selling point don't expect people to leave it alone :shrug:
Fisherking
09-10-2012, 10:10
As to Dawkins’ attack on Romney because of his religion I find it small and mean.
It is not that he expressed anything that I have not thought about that particular denomination, myself but he did it for his own political motivations.
Something particularly noticeable to those who profess a left leaning political viewpoint is they the enjoy portraying their opponents as either fools or evil because they disagree with their enlightened viewpoint.
It is not exclusive to the left, just much more noticeable, in that they cloak themselves in the idea that they are more excepting and open-minded than those on the right.
Perhaps it is just the hypocrisy of it but to me they come off as being more closed-minded and elitist.
a completely inoffensive name
09-10-2012, 10:12
Hatred begets hatred I guess. The Religious right had three decades of political will and evangelical preaching, and now the nonreligious lash out. It's all very sad.
Fisherking
09-10-2012, 10:22
Hatred begets hatred I guess. The Religious right had three decades of political will and evangelical preaching, and now the nonreligious lash out. It's all very sad.
I am also extremely uncomfortable with those who say they have a better insight into the will of God than the rest of us. Particularly if they seem to actually believe it.
One sets of alarm bells for me, the other is just disgusting. Usually it comes down to finding which side is the least revolting.
a completely inoffensive name
09-10-2012, 10:27
I am also extremely uncomfortable with those who say they have a better insight into the will of God than the rest of us. Particularly if they seem to actually believe it.
One sets of alarm bells for me, the other is just disgusting. Usually it comes down to finding which side is the least revolting.
Isn't that what life is? Making choices, and choosing the least revolting according to your preferences?
Fisherking
09-10-2012, 10:42
Isn't that what life is? Making choices, and choosing the least revolting according to your preferences?
Is that how you select from a menu or pick a wine?
I prefer to make choices on a more positive note. What is best or most enjoyable is what I normally look for.
However, in US politics, for those who try to be more informed on issues and consequence it is often more like choosing between burning at the stake or being skinned alive.
a completely inoffensive name
09-10-2012, 10:49
Is that how you select from a menu or pick a wine?
I prefer to make choices on a more positive note. What is best or most enjoyable is what I normally look for.
However, in US politics, for those who try to be more informed on issues and consequence it is often more like choosing between burning at the stake or being skinned alive.
Isn't it two sides of the same coin? I look at what is best choice/most enjoyable choice = least worst, lesser of two evils. I guess you can't call wines evil, unless you forget to drink enough water before going to bed.
Fisherking
09-10-2012, 10:58
Having the opportunity to select between to enjoyable items, while still a choice is not the same as being forced to select from to very painful ones.
With presidential elections though you are usually assured that both will be equally bad for the majority of the population. It is more a matter of which special interests are going to benefit and to what degree.
Hooahguy
09-10-2012, 12:17
Next time it will be Catholics and Jews...wait they have already done that. But if it does not matter if Romney is part of such a church, then so be it and we will just agree to disagree.
One might make the same argument about Obama- he regularly went to a church where the pastor went on vitriolic rants against the US, yet the left dismissed it.
As to Dawkins’ attack on Romney because of his religion I find it small and mean.
It is not that he expressed anything that I have not thought about that particular denomination, myself but he did it for his own political motivations.
Something particularly noticeable to those who profess a left leaning political viewpoint is they the enjoy portraying their opponents as either fools or evil because they disagree with their enlightened viewpoint.
It is not exclusive to the left, just much more noticeable, in that they cloak themselves in the idea that they are more excepting and open-minded than those on the right.
Perhaps it is just the hypocrisy of it but to me they come off as being more closed-minded and elitist.
Fisherking. I will preface my response:
Although I like to think of myself as a Bokononist ("Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."), I am fundamentally an anti-theist. When I was in my teenage years I was a Christian, of a Protestant denomination, I went on a mission, I went to Bible Study, I went to Youth Groups, etc.
Now my response:
I have come to realise, through study, research and my own independent thought that all religion is merely meta-physics whose doctrinal underpinnings are entirely the mythological and fictional thoughts of those who authored them. I believe the sooner that all religion, at first, is left at home and then, eventually, is forgotten entirely the better our societies will become, on the whole. We will be able to discuss the here, the now, the future and the past without shoehorning in the dogma and emotional baggage that comes with belief without evidence.
I also understand that it can be and often is disingenuous to attempt to disenchant the devout and the believers, (hence why I try to act and live as a Bokononist). I understand that an existential view of the world, and understanding that everything we think we know of ourselves has its basis in the social constructs we live by, is not a mindset that appeals to everyone. They are often happy with their myth of choice. Others may be intellectually unable to grapple with the notion that existence, as viewed through the senses of a being of this dimension, space and density, is not unified in any sense other than the quantum mechanical -- at least by any measure that we could imagine or understand. If people are generally happy with their faith then I have no quarrels with that. In the same way that no one would quarrel whether I had vanilla or chocolate ice-cream this evening. I also understand, first-hand, that numinous experience is of profound importance to an individual of faith, and they often describe the events with deep emotion and beauty. Yet, it is nothing more -- intense, well-worded emotion.
Let us set aside the labels of "left-leaning" and "right-leaning" as they are irrelevant. It is possible to be a progressive member of any denomination, just as it is possible to be a conservative atheist. Additionally it is usually, in our society, in the interest of any politically interested group to further their aims by demonising their opponent. The same usually holds true in the practice of law, where cases are often won and lost by showing your opponent to be of disrepute. I would prefer we as a society did not need to do so, but it is an effective tool -- ask, or better watch the speeches of, any member that participated in the Republican National Convention. After all our minds are significantly quicker to emotion than to reason.
Now, I know exactly what you mean, and have experienced what you say first hand. Atheists, especially on the internet often come across as if they were "shouting" their opinions. I feel Kurt Vonnegut sums up this mindset best:
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
These people often come across as if they are members of some elite club that have had the good grace to stumble upon the fundamental truth that all religion is fiction, without exception. That is not to say that a work of fiction cannot pose questions, or provide advice, or satire or any other number of possibilities, as any fiction is ultimately grounded in the dissection and synthesis of someone's or some group's reality. However, at it's core it is not reality and should never be applied wholesale.
However, for anyone who has ever taken the time to study the core beliefs and myths of any religion it quickly becomes obvious that those people who do not question the flaws in logic, the dogma and the absurdity of their chosen belief are likely to either be deluded automatons or intellectual children. It is overwhelmingly frustrating to deal with people who have an almost irrational fear of science, a fear of facts and a fear of evidence based reasoning. Despite all the benefits these methods have bestowed upon us both practically and theoretically. People who will often even attribute these advances and gains to their chosen fiction, failing to see the contradiction in doing so.
I would hazard a guess that Dawkins, like so many other atheists, is ultimately tired of and frustrated with arguing with people who bury their heads in the sand when the truth and evidence conflicts with the fiction they have chosen to believe. In a gross effort to lessen the cognitive dissonance caused by said evidence. My evidence for this guess would be based on the method of his outburst -- Twitter. A means of communication that at its core is an internet microblogging outlet for thoughts and emotions.
Ultimately, I am not saying god does not or meta-physics do not exist. What I am saying is, that god is irrelevant and so too is the question of god.
Ultimately, I am not saying god does not or meta-physics do not exist. What I am saying is, that god is irrelevant and so too is the question of god.
Irrelevant how exactly?
That's my impression as well.
If Romney had said to the republican base:
"Yeah, I'm a mormon and that's nobody's business except mine, God and my wife. The founding fathers would never have envisioned a country where politicians must satisfy religious criteria to be elected. Anybody who disagrees with me on this can STFU and GTFO."
Then I'd have a great deal of respect for him. As it stands however Romney is attempting to use his faith to pander to religious voters. Dawkin's comments seem unnecessarily harsh, but if you use your religion as a selling point don't expect people to leave it alone :shrug:
the irony is if he had said that, he would be a non-entity in the US political scene, and you would have no respect for him....simply because you would have never heard of him.
As for Dawkin's, the guy is almost always right, but also almost always a pretentious bore...I read his book and couldn´t get through more than half of it before putting it down.
it was the most clear experience I had of agreeing almost 100% with everything that was written, but being completely turned off by the tone it was written in.
it's a shame we don´t have Christopher Hitchens around any more....he would have said the same truths, but he was a better writer and had wit about him to make it interesting.
One might make the same argument about Obama- he regularly went to a church where the pastor went on vitriolic rants against the US, yet the left dismissed it.
And he left the church. If was IMO a valid criticism and he took the consequence.
Hooahguy
09-10-2012, 18:52
And he left the church.
After how long again?
IIRC, it was only after the whole controversy came to light in 2008.
Greyblades
09-10-2012, 20:42
Irrelevant how exactly?
I assume it's because piousness is only as important in politics as the voters think it is.
Repeated facepalming (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden):
In what some have called "a stroke of comic genius," Public Policy Polling decided to ask Ohio Republicans who they thought "deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In what some (my colleague Tim Murphy) have called "the greatest thing ever," a full 15 percent of Ohio Republicans surveyed said Romney deserved more credit than the president. Another 47 percent said they were "unsure."
Hooahguy
09-10-2012, 22:15
Repeated facepalming (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden):
In what some have called "a stroke of comic genius," Public Policy Polling decided to ask Ohio Republicans who they thought "deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In what some (my colleague Tim Murphy) have called "the greatest thing ever," a full 15 percent of Ohio Republicans surveyed said Romney deserved more credit than the president. Another 47 percent said they were "unsure."
Well duh. Republicans wouldnt be caught dead giving Obama credit for anything.
Kralizec
09-10-2012, 22:18
the irony is if he had said that, he would be a non-entity in the US political scene, and you would have no respect for him....simply because you would have never heard of him.
True.
I think it's safe to say that a fairly large amount of the elected politicians in the USA are secretly atheist or at least agnostic but deliberately keep a lid on it about it to remain electable. Allthough it's not an entirely correct quotation, the words "every country gets the government it deserves" comes to mind.
Repeated facepalming (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden)
'Tis a thing of beauty...
Well duh. Republicans wouldnt be caught dead giving Obama credit for anything.
I guess this is its own field of academic study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/do-15-of-ohio-republicans-think-romney-killed-bin-laden-probably-not/).
[V]oters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like. [...] What’s more, correcting peoples’ factual misunderstandings doesn’t seem to help at all. Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth and Jason Reifler of Georgia State ran experiments measuring whether partisans who read news articles with correct information that ran against their ideological views were likelier to hold the right factual beliefs. They found the opposite effect — correcting people, in other words, doesn’t inform them, it creates a backlash.
Telling conservatives that there were no WMDs in Iraq made them more likely to say there were weapons, and telling them that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue made them more likely to say they increased revenue. Same for liberals — while conservatives and moderates were less likely to think Bush banned all stem-cell research after reading an article pointing out that he only banned federal funding of it, liberals’ stated factual beliefs didn’t change at all. So ream after ream of news articles wouldn’t have done much to help any unfortunate souls who formed the belief that Romney killed bin Laden.
Psychologists call the phenomenon on display here “motivated reasoning,” [...] But the Romney-killed-bin Laden finding also fits in with the broader literature on polling generally.
-delete me please, browser acting up-
Tellos Athenaios
09-10-2012, 23:00
I assume it's because piousness is only as important in politics as the voters think it is.
Nah the "irrelevant" issue is actually the ancient critique of religion, nothing to do with politics in fact. The possibility that supernatural beings exist is not rejected entirely, but it is pointed out that the assumption of supernatural intervention does not stack up in light of how the world actually works. Furthermore such assumptions cannot be held as the basis for ethics, which is usually explained in terms of a thought experiment along the lines of:
Suppose that supernatural beings do in fact exist, there is no reason then to assume that they care for earth, for humans, or for you in particular. Suppose furthermore that such supernatural beings not only do exist but they also care for you in particular, it still does not follow that they have the power to influence your life at all. Finally even if they do exist, care and have the power to affect your life it still does not follow that they themselves are just and virtuous. So you should justify your morals not in terms of what some supernatural being might or might not approve of, you should not hope for some supernatural being to come and fix it all; instead you should look to more practical concerns such as consequences (e.g. what if everyone did this, what if this was done to me?) to determine whether something is the right thing to do or not.
Greyblades
09-10-2012, 23:38
If god ceases to exist will we notice?
After how long again?
IIRC, it was only after the whole controversy came to light in 2008.
Yes and? Maybe he slept through the sermons, never listened to them because he was there for the company or he was a firm believer of all the hate talk. Either way, it was poor judgement or bad taste, or whatever you're gonna call it, and he distanced himself from it and later left.
Are you saying that his church/religion should have been off limits? That Christopher Hitchens should not have called Obama's church a "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" because it was not his business? I guess it is some of that wit that Ronin is missing these days.
Major Robert Dump
09-10-2012, 23:44
Mitt Romney nees this election so he can get to Level 15 of Mormonism, which gets him a bigger space planet with more animalz when he dies. Right now he is stuck at level 12, where he only gets a little planet and has to share a tee pee with Indian Jesus.
Major Robert Dump
09-10-2012, 23:47
Yes and? Maybe he slept through the sermons, never listened to them because he was there for the company or he was a firm believer of all the hate talk. Either way, it was poor judgement or bad taste, or whatever you're gonna call it, and he distanced himself from it and later left.
Are you saying that his church/religion should have been off limits? That Christopher Hitchens should not have called Obama's church a "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" because it was not his business? I guess it is some of that wit that Ronin is missing these days.
Actually, Obama initially said he was not paying attention and did not notice the statements so there was no need to rebuke. In later interviews, I believe after more witnesses came forward to put O in the pews at the time of said statements, he said he heard the statements and did not agree, and that he talked to the Pastor about it.
His story changed, so he lied about something, somewhere.
They all lie
Repeated facepalming (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden):
In what some have called "a stroke of comic genius," Public Policy Polling decided to ask Ohio Republicans who they thought "deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In what some (my colleague Tim Murphy) have called "the greatest thing ever," a full 15 percent of Ohio Republicans surveyed said Romney deserved more credit than the president. Another 47 percent said they were "unsure."Dumb survey question gets dumb answers- story at 11. :coffeenews:
Hooahguy
09-11-2012, 02:57
I was discussing this with a few friends today and I kinda want to know what fellow Orgahs think.
What if instead of four years per term we did a 6-8 year term with a new round of voting in year 2 of the presidency? I feel that so much time is wasted in a first term presidency just from campaigning for a second term. If the president can concentrate on getting stuff done for his first two years, he can have the next four-six completely worry free to continue doing a good job.
Just a thought.
Greyblades
09-11-2012, 03:21
Ah the problem of democracy; the rulers are more concerned with making sure they still have power later than using it, that and it breeds politicians who are good at winning elections instead of running a country.
Fisherking
09-11-2012, 08:57
Absolutely. The most crippling part of our government is the industry that surrounds elections. However, that's just a symptom of a larger problem, which is that the kinds of people who WANT to be powerful are most often the least capable--or at least the least desirable--people you want there.
It is a bit funny really. Other nations manage to elect a government without a two year campaign costing billions of dollars. It is not much more than a popularity contest and very likely that the contestants are equally poor choices for the job. Chances are you base your preference on political party. Not that anyone reads the party platforms of course. If you were voting on that basis and you read what they stood for most of you would be choosing between Libertarians and Socialists. But those are only names on the ballet. You have always been told that you are only throwing away your vote if you don’t vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Most of you are not delusional enough to think that either party will do what they claim to stand for but they might lean in that general direction once the special interests are taken care of.
Ironside
09-11-2012, 10:08
Found a good page for trustworthyness on statements and campaign promises. politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)
Swedish standards is around 80% kept promises and has been for a long time.
The statements are quite different, Obama is on 73% true to half true statments, Mitt is on 58%. Mitt also got 9% pants on fire statements compared to Obama's 1%.
Fisherking
09-11-2012, 11:41
Found a good page for trustworthyness on statements and campaign promises. politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)
Swedish standards is around 80% kept promises and has been for a long time.
The statements are quite different, Obama is on 73% true to half true statments, Mitt is on 58%. Mitt also got 9% pants on fire statements compared to Obama's 1%.
I am sure half truths are perfectly ok then. It is not like someone would make a deliberately misleading statement.
Both candidates have low percentages of true statements. That should tell you something right there.
SoFarSoGood
09-11-2012, 11:51
I'm not a big Romney fan (there were better GOP Candidates in my book) but another Obama administration would be a disaster for the US and the West in general.
Major Robert Dump
09-11-2012, 12:42
Because Obama wants to destroy Merica and will lead us to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 years of darkness.
I'm not a big Romney fan (there were better GOP Candidates in my book) but another Obama administration would be a disaster for the US and the West in general.
A bigger disaster than the Bush administration which crippled the worlds economics which we are still experiencing?
A bigger disaster than the Bush administration which crippled the worlds economics which we are still experiencing?
Bush tried to reform FM and the government policies which started the crisis, but was called heartless by the libs and stopped by democratic Congressmen.
Conradus
09-11-2012, 17:36
Bush tried to reform FM and the government policies which started the crisis, but was called heartless by the libs and stopped by democratic Congressmen.
Seems like a regular thing to happen to presidents.
Fisherking
09-11-2012, 17:39
A bigger disaster than the Bush administration which crippled the worlds economics which we are still experiencing?
Yep! The bubble broke on Bush but the whole mess started under Clinton and Oboma got to spend his share on “Too Big to Fail” of course the rest of the world never thought of Banking Regulations before that, did they?
Seems to me there is enough blame for everyone to get a large share.
Centurion1
09-11-2012, 18:01
A bigger disaster than the Bush administration which crippled the worlds economics which we are still experiencing?
please give me some actual numbers and data on that beyond durr bush was president in 2008
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2012, 18:09
The setup for the bubble bursting took place when the GOP controlled Congress all the way from 1992 to 2006.
I don't believe there is a politician who can claim blame or credit for the meteoric rise of mortgage-backed securities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security) or sub-prime lending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis). The markets did an exemplary job of committing suicide without any outside help. Indeed, for those who want to put it all on Fannie or Freddie, note that the definition of "subprime" in the USA is a loan that does not meet the Fannie or Freddie minimum guidelines.
A little bit of detail:
During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.
Goofball
09-11-2012, 18:31
Bush tried to reform FM and the government policies which started the crisis, but was called heartless by the libs and stopped by democratic Congressmen.
Yes, it's well known that it's conservatives that favor heavy regulation of the financial markets while liberals take a much more laissez-faire attitude. lol
Are you listening to yourself?
Yes, it's well known that it's conservatives that favor heavy regulation of the financial markets while liberals take a much more laissez-faire attitude. lol
Are you listening to yourself?
Actually, it was big government that started the problem. Without government regulation there would have been no Fannie or Freddie. Bush wanted to roll back the BS.
Actually, it was big government that started the problem. Without government regulation there would have been no Fannie or Freddie.
Again, the subprime crisis was a private market phenomenon. The private-label securitization-backed assets were a market phenomenon. I do not understand why it's so hard to understand that markets can behave irrationally. After all, markets are made of people, and people can be irrational (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html).
Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages, with great trepidation, only in 2005 and 2006, and only because they were losing so much market share to Wall Street. Among other things, the Wallison-Pinto case relies on inflated data — Pinto classifies just about anything that is not a 30-year-fixed mortgage as “subprime.” The reality is that Fannie and Freddie followed the private sector off the cliff instead of the other way around. [...]
[A]s of the second quarter of 2010, the delinquency rate on all Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans was 5.9 percent. By contrast, the national average was 9.11 percent. The Fannie and Freddie Alt-A default rate is similarly much lower than the national default rate. The only possible explanation for this is that many of the loans being characterized by the S.E.C. and Wallison/Pinto as “subprime” are not, in fact, true subprime mortgages.
Goofball
09-11-2012, 19:02
Actually, it was big government that started the problem. Without government regulation there would have been no Fannie or Freddie. Bush wanted to roll back the BS.
Sorry, but if you believe that then it demonstrates to me that you have not even a basic understanding of the sub-prime debt disaster in particular, nor of the financial markets in general. Trying to explain it to you would simply be a waste of time, as you would not be likely to understand the explanation.
please give me some actual numbers and data on that beyond durr bush was president in 2008
Well, it happened before 2008 and Obama walked into it all.
But I learnt it all like nearly 8 years ago from the "Anti-Bush Game" where you fight off Bush Jr and Voltron for ruining America before the actual crisis. For example:
https://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx102/tiaexz/bushgamefigures.png
He did that during the boom years/his first term.
Then Obama ended up inheriting a mess from his predecessor and faced the second great depression, along with the whole stimulus packages used to try to restore the economy and you know what? Things in America are actually improving now America is getting its finances in order which will end up reversed under Romney and end up pummelling further when more tax breaks are introduced for the super rich and reversing welfare plans which are for the most vulnerable in society.
Fisherking
09-11-2012, 20:31
Well,... which will end up reversed under Romney and end up pummelling further when more tax breaks are introduced for the super rich and reversing welfare plans which are for the most vulnerable in society.
:laugh4:Did you arrive at this bit of information psychically or is this just a partisan attack?
:laugh4:Did you arrive at this bit of information psychically or is this just a partisan attack?
Typical Republican policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/11/mitt-romney-budget-proposals-jobs-investment?newsfeed=true).
Romney and Ryan have failed to provide specifics about how they would reduce the fiscal deficit, relying on "trust me" assertions. But the overarching direction of their proposals is clear: more tax cuts, disproportionately benefiting those at the top, coupled with significantly lower non-defence discretionary spending, disproportionately hurting everybody else – and weakening the economy's growth prospects.
It is effectively their manifesto or is pointing this out classified as a purely partisan attack?
Fisherking
09-11-2012, 20:58
Typical Republican policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/11/mitt-romney-budget-proposals-jobs-investment?newsfeed=true).
It is effectively their manifesto or is pointing this out classified as a purely partisan attack?
I have no love for either American Political Party but let me tell you this is more partisan tripe.
It is not a 100% lie it is just not the truth.
Everyone knows that these guys lie. They just think they will tell the truth when they are elected.
Major Robert Dump
09-11-2012, 22:37
I never thought I would see the day when the Presidential race was down to a Kenyan Muslim and a Satan Worshipper. This is truely the end times, and the rapture is inevitable, so please leave your goox XBOX games and tastey fatty cakes where I can easily find them.
Again, the subprime crisis was a private market phenomenon. The private-label securitization-backed assets were a market phenomenon. I do not understand why it's so hard to understand that markets can behave irrationally. After all, markets are made of people, and people can be irrational (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html).
Markets can behave irrationally when government creates perverse incentives. Call it Alt-A or subprime, it's a loan sensible banks would not make without regulatory prodding. Having been pressured into taking on these turd sandwiches, they did the sensible thing and packaged them as MBS's and sold them off. It turned out to be quite profitable- so the practice continued, cheered on by regulators. Bankers were making money, and the regulators were meeting their goal of issuing loans to people who couldn't afford them. :dizzy2:
Markets can behave irrationally when government creates perverse incentives. Call it Alt-A or subprime, it's a loan sensible banks would not make without regulatory prodding. Having been pressured into taking on these turd sandwiches, they did the sensible thing and packaged them as MBS's and sold them off. It turned out to be quite profitable- so the practice continued, cheered on by regulators. Bankers were making money, and the regulators were meeting their goal of issuing loans to people who couldn't afford them. :dizzy2:
This is true.
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 01:08
Markets can behave irrationally when government creates perverse incentives. Call it Alt-A or subprime, it's a loan sensible banks would not make without regulatory prodding. Having been pressured into taking on these turd sandwiches, they did the sensible thing and packaged them as MBS's and sold them off. It turned out to be quite profitable- so the practice continued, cheered on by regulators. Bankers were making money, and the regulators were meeting their goal of issuing loans to people who couldn't afford them. :dizzy2:
Markets can behave irrationally by themselves. There is no shortage of examples where maximizing the short term profits have destabilized and ruined companies in the future, to the detriment of all but a few at the top. This has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with human stockholders demanding higher returns on their stock immediately.
Markets can behave irrationally when government creates perverse incentives.
Ah, Austrian Economics, we meet again. For those who don't know, under Austrian Economic theories, all bad things are due to government interference, and markets are perfect if left in a state of pristine isolation. Never mind that market panics and crashes existed long before any systematic regulation. It's all the government's fault, somehow!
Read the Austrian theory for unemployment (http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Unemployment) for a few laughs. "What if people want to work, but can't get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness."
Ah, Austrian Economics, we meet again. For those who don't know, under Austrian Economic theories, all bad things are due to government interference, and markets are perfect if left in a state of pristine isolation. Never mind that market panics and crashes existed long before any systematic regulation. It's all the government's fault, somehow!
Read the Austrian theory for unemployment (http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Unemployment) for a few laughs. "What if people want to work, but can't get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness."1 Internet to the first person to identify the logical fallacy exhibited above.
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 02:28
1 Internet to the first person to identify the logical fallacy exhibited above.
Believing in Austrian Economics?
Markets can behave irrationally by themselves. There is no shortage of examples where maximizing the short term profits have destabilized and ruined companies in the future, to the detriment of all but a few at the top. This has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with human stockholders demanding higher returns on their stock immediately.Why didn't you cite any examples if there's no shortage?
It doesn't really matter though. Of course there are badly managed businesses out there- and they should and do go out of business.... unless the government bails them out, thereby nationalizing risk while privatizing reward.
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 02:55
Why didn't you cite any examples if there's no shortage?
It doesn't really matter though. Of course there are badly managed businesses out there- and they should and do go out of business.... unless the government bails them out, thereby nationalizing risk while privatizing reward.
Point being that I just got you to recognize that large private institutions do make irrational decisions all the time, undermining the argument that somehow the private sector as a whole would never veer into the wrong direction unless it was government's fault.
Point being that I just got you to recognize that large private institutions do make irrational decisions all the timeYou did?
undermining the argument that somehow the private sector as a whole would never veer into the wrong direction unless it was government's fault. It did?
Are you telling me none of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble) contributed to the housing bubble- it was all just personal greed?
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 03:10
You did?
Of course there are badly managed businesses out there- and they should and do go out of business....
All it takes is for enough businesses to be badly managed all at once...and you have yourself a market failure.
All it takes is for enough businesses to be badly managed all at once...and you have yourself a market failure.Ok, now it's time... examples? Show me instances when simultaneous bad management of "enough" companies was the sole cause of "market failure".
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 04:48
Ok, now it's time... examples? Show me instances when simultaneous bad management of "enough" companies was the sole cause of "market failure".
Just look at 2007/2008. Honestly, I probably should have just made the general point Lemur made because pointing out the obvious must be a bad tactic if your opponent simply demands for examples when there are many all around him.
Crazed Rabbit
09-12-2012, 07:13
I don't believe there is a politician who can claim blame or credit for the meteoric rise of mortgage-backed securities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security) or sub-prime lending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis). The markets did an exemplary job of committing suicide without any outside help. Indeed, for those who want to put it all on Fannie or Freddie, note that the definition of "subprime" in the USA is a loan that does not meet the Fannie or Freddie minimum guidelines.
A little bit of detail:
During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.
We're quoting wikipedia, eh? Well let's not stop before the part that disputes your claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis);
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S.[dubious – discuss] A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSE taking on additional risk, beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing throughout the crisis and their government takeover in September, 2008.[36][37]
HUD loosened mortgage restrictions in the mid-1990s so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before.[38] In 1995, the GSE began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities.[39] In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. These targets increased over the years, with a 2008 target of 28%.[40]
In 2004, HUD ignored warnings from HUD researchers about foreclosures, and increased the affordable housing goal from 50% to 56%.
...
Economist Paul Krugman has also argued in July 2008 that although the GSE are "problematic institutions," they played a small role in the crisis because they were legally barred from engaging in subprime lending.[49] Economist Russell Roberts has taken issue with Krugman's contention that the GSEs did not engage in subprime lending,[50] citing a June 2008 Washington Post article which stated that "[f]rom 2004 to 2006, the two [GSEs] purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending."[51] Furthermore, a 2004 HUD report admitted that while trading securities that were backed by subprime mortgages was something that the GSEs officially disavowed, they nevertheless participated in the market.[52] However, in 2011, the Federal Reserve, using statistical comparisons of geographic regions which were and were not subject to GSE regulations finds that GSEs played no significant role in the subprime crisis.[53] In the final analysis, those who seek to deflect criticism of Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac by pointing out that private lenders eventually issued most of the worst performing loans ignore the primary role that the GSE's played in expanding the use of subprime loans. In 1999, Franklin Raines first put Fannie Mae into subprimes, following up on earlier Fannie Mae efforts in the 1990's which reduced mortgage down payment requirements. At this time, subprimes represented a tiny fraction of the overall mortgage market. [54] In 2003, after the use of subprimes had been greatly expanded, and numerous private lenders had begun issuing subprime loans as a competitive response to Fannie and Freddie, the GSE's still controlled nearly 50% of all subprime lending. From 2003 forward, private lenders increased their share of subprime lending, and later issued many of the riskiest loans. However, attempts to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their role in the crisis, by citing their declining market share in subprimes after 2003, ignore the fact that the GSE's had largely created this market, and even worked closely with some of the worst private lending offenders, such as Countrywide. In 2005, one out of every four loans purchased by Fannie Mae came from Countrywide. [55] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac essentially paved the subprime highway, down which many others later followed.
Yes, it's well known that it's conservatives that favor heavy regulation of the financial markets while liberals take a much more laissez-faire attitude. lol
Are you listening to yourself?
Have you read about what happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis)? -
There appears to be ample evidence that the Bush administration recognized both the risk of subprimes, and specifically the risks posed by the GSE's who had an implicit guarantee of government backing. For example, in 2003, the Bush administration, recognizing that the current regulators for Fannie and Freddie were inadequate, proposed that a new agency be created to regulate the GSE's. This new agency would have been tasked specifically with setting capital reserve requirements, (removing that authority from Congress), approving new lines business for the GSE's, and most importantly, evaluating the risk in their ballooning portfolios. It was in specific response to this regulatory effort that Barney Frank made his now infamous statement "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [72] Had this new regulatory agency been put in place in 2003, it likely would have uncovered the accounting fraud regarding executive bonuses which was occurring at that time at Fannie Mae. This accounting scandal would later force the resignation of Franklin Raines and others executives. [73] This new agency may also have slowed or stopped the further movement of the entire mortgage industry into subprime loans by exposing the full extent of the risks then taken by Fannie and Freddie, who at this time, controlled nearly half of all subprime loans being issued.
Efforts to control GSE were thwarted by intense lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[74] In April 2005, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow repeated call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." Then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation saying " we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." [75] A 2005 Republican effort for comprehensive GSE reform was threatened with filibuster by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).[76]
Ah, Austrian Economics, we meet again. For those who don't know, under Austrian Economic theories, all bad things are due to government interference, and markets are perfect if left in a state of pristine isolation. Never mind that market panics and crashes existed long before any systematic regulation. It's all the government's fault, somehow!
Read the Austrian theory for unemployment for a few laughs. "What if people want to work, but can't get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness."
So, with your attack on your strawman - are you denying what Xiahou said about the government being able to create perverse incentives through certain policies and laws? Are you saying this is not possible?
CR
a completely inoffensive name
09-12-2012, 07:44
So, with your attack on your strawman - are you denying what Xiahou said about the government being able to create perverse incentives through certain policies and laws? Are you saying this is not possible?
CR
Your second quote explained how the deregulation caused by the GOP Congress in 1992-2000 was almost countered by Bush through government regulation. But then Liberals who were convinced by the bubble that the deregulation helped the economy (the GOP mantra) then opposed the regulations, leading to the disaster in 2007/2008.
Thus the problem was.....government incentives?
Ironside
09-12-2012, 09:08
Now, explain to me how US housing is related to Icelandic banks in the UK, or Swedish banks in the Baltic, etc, etc. Or why a US house crash caused global recession.
Where banks activly loaned way above what they could handle in case of a crisis, by bypassing the regulation in place, that's been created from past experiences. Crashes will happen, it's a fundamental flaw built into the system. By acting as crashes can never happen and ignoring the warning signs are a sign of extremely poor self regulation. Need I mention that it's evidently the standard thinking in the financial sector?
Ok, now it's time... examples? Show me instances when simultaneous bad management of "enough" companies was the sole cause of "market failure".
If only there were some sort of example from a market that predated any attempt at systematic regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) ... (And yes, I'm aware there was contract regulation, and some Austrian Economists have attempted to blame the Tulip Bubble on that, to which I say, so sorry I can't provide you with a perfect, government-free market example from the realm of pure reason. Markets happen in the real world, so the Austrian appeal to Platonic Ideals is as predictable as it is maddening.)
are you denying what Xiahou said about the government being able to create perverse incentives through certain policies and laws? Are you saying this is not possible?
Not even close to what I wrote. Of course government can create perverse incentives, and does so in an ongoing manner. What I find frustrating about Austrian Economics is the dogmatic simplicity of "markets good" and "guvmint bad," which is the premise of anyone who tries to argue that the housing bubble was solely (or primarily) the fault of the wicked, evil guvmint.
Bubbles and market crashes pre-date government regulation of markets. Furthermore, mass unemployment (and starvation) pre-date the welfare state. But don't try to tell this to any true believers in Austrian Economics. Unlike a theory, Austrian Economics cannot be proved wrong. It can only be adhered to and believed with varying levels of religious fervor.
Exemplum gratum, according to Austrian Economics, all famines are government-made (http://austrianeconomicsandliberty.blogspot.com/2012/06/famines-are-government-made.html). What's that, you say? Famines have occurred at different points in history, for different reasons, under different policies and governmental systems? So how can a single cause be ascribed to all of them? And how do we then account for pre-civilization famines, which would seem to be due to things like climate variations and droughts? Don't ask! It's Austrian Economics! If it isn't working it's because you are not sufficiently pure in your belief and application!
As long as I'm gleefully ripping on the Austrian School, let's look at a statement of principles from one of their Wikis (http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki):
Members of this school approach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, not as an empirical science like physics. They strive to discover axioms of the science of human action (called "praxeology") and deduce further truths.If you can't see the problem in this approach, you aren't looking very hard. Theories are lovely, but empiricism is necessary. You can reason yourself into all sorts of interesting positions, but at some point you have to subject theories to a simple test: does it work in real life? Austrian Economics attempts to turn a (soft) science into a theology, or in the most charitable view, a philosophy. Real-world results and empiricism are discarded (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/austrian-economics-101-lesson-1-five-key-characteristics/); we're arguing from a priori knowledge here. Bah.
Goofball
09-12-2012, 16:15
Ok, now it's time... examples? Show me instances when simultaneous bad management of "enough" companies was the sole cause of "market failure".
Xaihou, I haven't been around for a while, but I remembr you being smarter than this. Are you honestly trying to make the argument that the 2008 meltdown was caused by overregulation? I usually lean more to the right on economic and fiscal issues (especially anything to do with lying, stinking unions). But it is well documented and plain to see that it was lack of oversight and downright knowing, willful thievery on the part of the investment banking firms that led to the 2008 collapse. I've worked in banking and finance for almost twenty years, and I honestly can't believe that executives weren't sent to jail over this. What they did was worse than what Enron and Arthur Anderson got up to.
Team Romney's pounce on the Libya attacks, with a little behind-the-scenes detail (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php):
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.
Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing. According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.
The campaign also authorized Romney’s top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
Goofball
09-12-2012, 20:35
Team Romney's pounce on the Libya attacks, with a little behind-the-scenes detail (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php):
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.
Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing. According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.
The campaign also authorized Romney’s top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
I agree. Not very presidential.
Xaihou, I haven't been around for a while, but I remembr you being smarter than this. Are you honestly trying to make the argument that the 2008 meltdown was caused by overregulation? In a sense, I suppose so. You can pretty much always count on the fact that a business is going to try to make money- no matter what else, they're trying to make money. Why else would you run a business? So under pressure to make loans to people with bad credit, banks found a way to make money off it.
Like I said previously, banks were raking in profits and regulators were happy because their 'home-ownership above all else' goals were advancing.
Just look at 2007/2008. Honestly, I probably should have just made the general point Lemur made because pointing out the obvious must be a bad tactic if your opponent simply demands for examples when there are many all around him. So, someone says that that mortgage crisis was wholly due to the free market system. I dispute their claim. You state that there's no shortage of examples for such a thing. When pressed for an example, you state 'Well, look at the mortgage crisis!' :dizzy2:
The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romneys-lehman-moment/) unpacks just how bad this might be for Governor Romney:
Romney has made many foreign policy blunders before now, but this is the only one that has provoked such swift, harsh, and near-unanimous criticism. The most incredible part is that all of this has been self-inflicted. Romney and his campaign volunteered for this by inserting themselves into the story. If it were simply the other campaign or Democratic partisans that were hammering Romney on this, it wouldn’t be any different from previous mistakes, but the backlash hasn’t been limited to his partisan foes. The dishonesty of the original Romney statement and the gall of his press conference this morning have combined to create serious doubts about his judgment and to confirm the impression that there are no limits to his opportunism.
As a practical matter, this episode shows how useless Romney’s main foreign policy theme has been. According to Romney, Obama “apologizes for” America, and Romney won’t. He tried to shoehorn the embassy attacks into this frame, and it didn’t work for at least two reasons. First, Obama didn’t respond to the attacks by apologizing for anything or sympathizing with the attackers, as Romney’s original statement charged, so it was blatantly false. Romney’s position that the U.S. should never “apologize for” American values is almost beside the point. Would this have made any difference to the people assaulting the embassy in Cairo or the consulate in Benghazi? Would the attacks not have happened if Romney had been conducting his own brand of thoroughly unapologetic activist foreign policy? It seems unlikely. Romney might have legitimately questioned the security arrangements for the consulate, for example, or he could have made the fair observation that Libya’s new government is very weak and Libya as a whole has serious security problems, but that wouldn’t have translated into the easy and satisfying point-scoring that Romney seems to prefer. It wouldn’t have fit his ready-made scheme of Obama-as-Carter, but it would have spared him of most of the ridicule he’s receiving now. Now instead of portraying Obama as Carter, he has presented himself as the bumbling McCain figure of 2012.
The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romneys-lehman-moment/) unpacks just how bad this might be for Governor Romney...
Romney was referring to the statement made by the U.S. embassy in Cairo after the attack there. And yes, it sounded like apologetic bleating to me.
If Governor Romney were merely referring to the unauthorized Tweet from the Cairo embassy, he's had ample time to correct the record. Timeline (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/emphasizing-the-cairo-timeline-after-the-breach-is-the-key-phrase.html):
First, the embassy in Cairo--not the White House, not Foggy Bottom, but the embassy--released its statement denouncing (not by name) the makers of the inflammatory film about Mohammed. That was around noon local time Tuesday.
Then the attacks happened.
Then, last night, came Romney's statement criticizing the Obama administration for its allegedly "disgraceful..first response" being "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
But: the attack hadn't happened! That first embassy statement was apparently issued because word was circulating about possible violence, and the embassy was trying to quell it.
Then the Obama administration distanced itself from the original embassy statement, and then Romney issued last night's statement.
So here's Romney now, at 10:18 am, now that he must surely know this chronology, still defending his statement from last night and criticizing Obama for defending the attackers. He is continuing to say that the original statement came "after the breach." So he's accusing the embassy and State and the administration of lying. And, by the by, he is criticizing US embassy officials who were under attack.
If he is factually wrong about the first statement happening "after the breach," then this press conference, mark my words, will go down in history as a textbook disaster. Chuck Dodd is being professional but clearly can't believe what we just saw. Amazing, with four people dead, and two not even yet named publicly, that Romney would do this.
This is his meltdown moment, like McCain suspending his campaign. As someone just tweeted: "I mean, seriously. Mitt Romney's first statement after an ambassador was killed was to attack the President over tweets?"
Are you talking about the attack in Cairo or in Benghazi?
I was quoting a timeline.
https://i.imgur.com/9MZd0.png
Meanwhile, Team Romney is circulating talking points (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romney-camp-tries-to-manage-fallout-from-libya-response/). Most interestingly, the bolded bit below is almost word-for-word identical to the unauthorized tweet Romney and Priebus so urgently condemned. Fascinating.
Questions & Answers:
Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this?
— Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.
— But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
— Storming U.S. missions and committing acts of violence is never acceptable, no matter the reason. Any response that does not immediately and decisively make that clear conveys weakness.
— If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.
Reports indicate the embassy in Cairo released its initial statement before the invasion of the embassy commenced. Doesn’t this show they were trying to tamp down the protest and prevent what ultimately happened, not sympathize with the protesters?
— The Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions.
If Governor Romney were merely referring to the unauthorized Tweet from the Cairo embassy, he's had ample time to correct the record. Timeline (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/emphasizing-the-cairo-timeline-after-the-breach-is-the-key-phrase.html):
Oh, I think I see your angle: you're saying that the condemnation was Romney's failure. That very well may be, but that does not subtract from the shameful response by the embassy in Cairo. That ambassador better lose his job.
That ambassador better lose his job.
Text of the infamous Cairo tweet: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"
Text from Governor Romney's talking points: "Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."
One is a betrayal of America which must be condemned in the middle of hostilities, one is not. Go figure.
Goofball
09-12-2012, 21:50
Text of the infamous Cairo tweet: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"
Text from Governor Romney's talking points: "Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."
One is a betrayal of America which must be condemned in the middle of hostilities, one is not. Go figure.
There is an obvious difference between those two statements; they are like night and day.
If you didn't hate freedom, you would be able to see it.
Kralizec
09-12-2012, 22:12
In a sense, I suppose so. You can pretty much always count on the fact that a business is going to try to make money- no matter what else, they're trying to make money. Why else would you run a business? So under pressure to make loans to people with bad credit, banks found a way to make money off it.
Like I said previously, banks were raking in profits and regulators were happy because their 'home-ownership above all else' goals were advancing.
I largely agree. Banks and other companies are out for themselves and blaming them, or an abstract entity called "the market", for not acting in the collective self-interest is stupid.
If the rules aren't designed with that basic premise they're stupid. The problems in this case didn't arise from overregulation as much as from bad and half-assed regulations.
Text of the infamous Cairo tweet: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"
Text from Governor Romney's talking points: "Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."
One is a betrayal of America which must be condemned in the middle of hostilities, one is not. Go figure.
Romney's flip-flop does not surprise me. If anything, he's very consistent at being inconsistent. The embassy's reply was an epic fail though. I'm disappointed.
There is an obvious difference between those two statements; they are like night and day.
If you didn't hate freedom, you would be able to see it.If you look at the actual press release from the embassy and contrast it with the entirety of Romney's talking points, there's quite a bit of difference. Taking a tweet and putting it alongside a cherry-picked excerpt isn't very productive outside the bounds of political gotcha games.
September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
Where Romney went wrong was when he queued a statement for release before the timeline of events was solidified- he stepped in it there. He was right to criticize the embassy's statement, while wrong to assert that the statement was in response to the attack.
But, too much is being made of that and too little questions are being asked about why the embassies were so poorly defended, particularly Benghazi, even though the warning signs were there (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9539148/US-consulate-attack-in-Libya-the-warning-signs-were-there-in-Benghazi.html).
There is an obvious difference between those two statements; they are like night and day.
If you didn't hate freedom, you would be able to see it.
Both statements are expressively public disapproval for religious hatred and intolerance.
I think Lemur has the ball on it.
If you look at the actual press release from the embassy and contrast it with the entirety of Romney's talking points, there's quite a bit of difference. Taking a tweet and putting it alongside a cherry-picked excerpt isn't very productive outside the bounds of political gotcha games.
So if we just had more context we'd see that the Cairo embassy was freedom-hating, and Governor Romney was freedom-loving. Gotcha.
Entire text of the Cairo embassy press release (http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html): "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
God, you can smell the appeasement and freedom hatred just rising off it in waves!
Compare that with what a real freedom-lover (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romney-camp-tries-to-manage-fallout-from-libya-response/) has to say: "We have seen a foreign policy of weakness and decline in American influence and respect. Yesterday, we saw the consequences of this perceived weakness."
-edit-
Frum, as per usual, has a good grip on what happened (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/romney-libya.html):
The incident reminds of one other thing: the dangerously distorting effect of disrespect for one's political opponents. Inside Team Romney, and among Romney's donors and core supporters, it may be taken absolutely for granted that Barack Obama is a weak-willed appeaser of radical Islam, a cringing apologizer for America who does not love the country the way "we" do. So why not say it loud, especially when you think you've just caught his administration doing it again? And then you discover the mistake only after the statement has departed the outbox.And here's a roundup of the tacks being taken by apologists (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/romneys_canny_sympathy_smear/). I'll file the one just stated in this thread under "Romney was unfortunately careless with his timing but essentially correct in his criticism."
After a period of practically bipartisan disgust with Romney, the right is finally lining up behind him. A whole set of (frequently contradictory) defenses are already being mustered: that Romney was totally right, that Romney was unfortunately careless with his timing but essentially correct in his criticism, that Romney is the victim of a liberal media conspiracy, that the Democrats are actually the ones politicizing the tragedy and demanding that no one criticize the president during a crisis, etc.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 04:31
Actually, I wasn't talking about the embassy statement, as that was released before the news of the deaths broke, and is making Romney come off as a bit of a buffoon.
I was referencing the lack of mention that Merica had Freedom Teh Speech, and the muslims needs to just deal with it. We are all no more koran burners than they are all goat sexing homoes.
Crazed Rabbit
09-13-2012, 05:54
Not even close to what I wrote. Of course government can create perverse incentives, and does so in an ongoing manner. What I find frustrating about Austrian Economics is the dogmatic simplicity of "markets good" and "guvmint bad," which is the premise of anyone who tries to argue that the housing bubble was solely (or primarily) the fault of the wicked, evil guvmint.
But that's what Xiahou was discussing in the quote you responded to. The whole austrian economics thing you launched into was a bit of a non-sequitor at best.
Bubbles and market crashes pre-date government regulation of markets. Furthermore, mass unemployment (and starvation) pre-date the welfare state. But don't try to tell this to any true believers in Austrian Economics. Unlike a theory, Austrian Economics cannot be proved wrong. It can only be adhered to and believed with varying levels of religious fervor.
Exemplum gratum, according to Austrian Economics, all famines are government-made (http://austrianeconomicsandliberty.blogspot.com/2012/06/famines-are-government-made.html).
...
As long as I'm gleefully ripping on the Austrian School, let's look at a statement of principles from one of their Wikis (http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki):
Members of this school approach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, not as an empirical science like physics.They strive to discover axioms of the science of human action (called "praxeology") and deduce further truths.
...
Your arguments against Austrian Economics seem to be based on arguing against the idiots who purport to be Austrian economists. Simply because one blog claiming to be written by a believer in Austrian economics says all famines are government made does not mean such a belief is core tenant of Austrian economics. The same can be said for the wiki article. I do not need to go into detail with examples on how silly this would be by doing the same thing with fringe morons from the republican or democratic parties.
I would advise reading what actual Austrian Economist Professors with graduate degrees write;
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/
Note that this blog used to have a name involving Austrian Economics, but they changed it after moronic blogs named after Austrian Economics flooded the internet.
As luck would have it, the blog post at the top at this moment reads thusly (http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2012/09/is-austrian-economics-empirical-this-months-cato-unbound.html):
But it is not the case, as Josh Barro recently argued, “that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles.” To say so is to misinterpret what Mises meant by the word praxeology and therefore fail to understand what he recommended as the appropriate methods for economists. It is also to rely on interpretations of what people like Mises and Rothbard had to say, as well as the pronouncements of various advocates of Austrian economics on blogs and Internet forums, rather than engaging with the professional research being published in the peer-reviewed journals by practicing Austrians. That research offers a very different picture of the way in which Austrian economics engages the real world. Finally, as that research demonstrates, modern Austrians distinguish among “empirical evidence,” “quantitative data,” and “statistical correlation” in such a way that allows all of them, though less so the third, to play a role in their work. Rather than being anti-empirical, modern Austrian economists are trying to open up the box of what counts as “empirical evidence” to include forms normally dismissed out of hand by the rest of the profession. Arguably, then, modern Austrians might well be more empirical than other economists, at least as judged by their professional work.
Your second quote explained how the deregulation caused by the GOP Congress in 1992-2000 was almost countered by Bush through government regulation. But then Liberals who were convinced by the bubble that the deregulation helped the economy (the GOP mantra) then opposed the regulations, leading to the disaster in 2007/2008.
Thus the problem was.....government incentives?
Please tell me more of this parallel universe where the GOP controlled Congress in 1992. And do go into detail on this supposed deregulation that's to blame. From the same link as earlier:
Economists Robert Kuttner and Paul Krugman have criticized the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 as possibly contributing to the subprime meltdown, although other economists disagree.[8][9] The vast majority of failures were either due to poorly performing mortgage loans, permissible under Glass-Steagall, or losses by institutions who did not engage in commercial banking and thus were never covered by the act.[10]
In my first quote you can see that the government steadily increased the percentage of below-median-income mortgages that the GSE's Fannie and Freddie had to provide.
The liberals were not convinced of the economic benefits so much as they liked the idea of "affordable housing" for people who should not be getting home loans.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2012, 07:08
Please tell me more of this parallel universe where the GOP controlled Congress in 1992. And do go into detail on this supposed deregulation that's to blame. From the same link as earlier:
My bad, it was....1994/1995 ish when Congress switched to Republican control. Should have just looked up the correct year in the first place. Point is that under this divided Government (GOP Congress and Dem President) that deregulations started to occur which built up the bubble.
In my first quote you can see that the government steadily increased the percentage of below-median-income mortgages that the GSE's Fannie and Freddie had to provide.
The liberals were not convinced of the economic benefits so much as they liked the idea of "affordable housing" for people who should not be getting home loans.
CR
From what I remember reading there was:
A. An act in 2000 that prevented any regulation of the derivative market.
B. The SEC at some point allowed banks to take on more debt than they were previously allowed, to dangerous levels.
C. Rampant fraud regarding the rating of bundles of bad mortgages, which was allowed unchecked by government agencies.
None of these were particularly good for the economy.
Your arguments against Austrian Economics seem to be based on arguing against the idiots who purport to be Austrian economists.
No true Scotsman would argue from a priori knowledge!
Note that this blog used to have a name involving Austrian Economics, but they changed it after moronic blogs named after Austrian Economics flooded the internet.
It should be instructive that the owner of the blog felt the need to distance himself from morons who have latched onto the version of Austrian Economics that has metastized in the public and policy spheres.
His full essay about the multi-hued perfection of Austrian Economics (which is merely quoted in the blog) can be found here (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/05/steven-horwitz/the-empirics-of-austrian-economics/). Reading it through, and reading between the lines, he appears to be rather worried about those "morons" who espouse Austrian Economics. An interesting nugget from his fourteen-paragraph self-congratulation:
Rendering human action intelligible means telling better stories about what happened and why. [...] [Austrian Economics is] used to offer a better understanding of history and contemporary events by organizing a wide range of empirical data into a coherent narrative that renders those events intelligible. We can never have the knock-down power of the scientist’s laboratory (though even there, rhetoric and storytelling matter a great deal), so the best we can do as economists is tell better-organized, more richly empirical, and more logically valid stories. If we economists limit ourselves to just econometric evidence, we are cutting ourselves off from important parts of the empirical world, and it is those who do so, and not the Austrians, who are being insufficiently empirical.I certainly have more sympathy for a storyteller than a philosopher; the resulting writing is going to be a lot better, and narratives are usually more engaging and meaningful than espoused theories. I think Horowitz's assertion that he and his True Scotsmen are more empirical than anyone else is laying it on a bit thick.
There remains the underlying problem that Austrian Economists (the Scottish and un-Scottish varieties) tend toward this wild bias against government, which is reflected in certain strands of Libertarian and GOP ideology (http://atr.org/about-grover). Frankly, it's foolish. Governments are one way to organize people; corporations are another. Limited partnerships? Sole proprietorships? Armies? Navies? Useful ways to organize people. All can co-exist, all have their weaknesses, all have their strengths.
Was the wicked, evil government behind the Dutch tulip crisis? The dot-com bubble? The junk bond collapse? The 1907 banker's panic? The 1997 Asian market panic?
Anyone who has worked in a commodities pit or a brokerage will tell you that markets are subject to herd behavior, and herds can do illogical things. Thus I find the reflexive assumption that markets are logical absolutely maddening. Sure, markets are logical in the long run, but in real-time they can behave like a panicked mob, and a lot of folks can get trampled before that mob calms down. And in a long enough timeframe, we are all dead. So the ultimate logic of a market may or may not have the smallest bearing on the results for individuals and corporations in a relevant timeframe.
As for Fannie and Freddie, it sure as hell looks as though they were participants but not causal in the 2008 market collapse. Some bits to chew on (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/some-thoughts-on-tyler-cowens-points-on-the-gses/):
Many others are answering this question by looking at the collapse moment; I want to focus on the origination of bad mortgage debt and the bubble itself. [...] from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30% of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10% to about 40% over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans.Furthermore, there was a severe and simultaneous bubble in commercial real estate. (Peaked in 2007 at approx. $6t, which was down to $3.5t by 2010.) Please point out the government policies that created a perverse incentive for subprime lending leading to the bubble/crash in commercial real estate, which just happened to coincide with the housing bubble/crash. You'll have a hard time finding that set of policies, because they did not exist.
From where I'm standing, it sure as hell looks as though some people want to blame the government for reasons that have nothing to do with observable reality, and reasoned backward from that conclusion to their evidence.
So if we just had more context we'd see that the Cairo embassy was freedom-hating, and Governor Romney was freedom-loving. Gotcha.I already posted the entire press release, but I guess you posting it again doesn't hurt. Yes, it was a profoundly stupid press release- even the White House says it was released without authorization and that it should have had major revisions before being released, but don't let that stop you.
Here's an article from Foreign Policy - Inside the public relations disaster at the Cairo embassy (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/inside_the_public_relations_disaster_at_the_cairo_embassy)
"People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content," the official said. "Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'"
Despite being aware of Washington's objections, the embassy continued to defend the statement for several hours, fueling the controversy over it, a decision the official again attributed to Schwartz.
"Not only did they push out the statement but they continued to engage on Twitter and retweet it," the official said. "[Schwartz] would have been the one directing folks to engage on Twitter on this."
Centurion1
09-13-2012, 18:33
Actually, I wasn't talking about the embassy statement, as that was released before the news of the deaths broke, and is making Romney come off as a bit of a buffoon.
I was referencing the lack of mention that Merica had Freedom Teh Speech, and the muslims needs to just deal with it. We are all no more koran burners than they are all goat sexing homoes.
but....
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2012, 18:36
Vis-a-vis the election itself, a scan of the numbers (I recommend 270towin.com) suggests the following:
Obama is significantly less popular than in 2008. For a host of reasons (first black, guilt, tired of the GOP, etc.) Obama enjoyed a 5-6% upsurge in support over normal Dem voter support in the last few Presidential elections. This support has eroded and Obama's support has faced a "regression towards the mean" this time around. States he won last time, like Virginia and Colorado, are too close to call or leaning Romney this time around.
Nevertheless, the slight shift in electoral votes, coupled with the voting patterns and percentages suggested by the contests in '04, '00, and '96, suggests that Obama is heading into November with a clear -- arguably insurmountable -- lead in the Electoral College despite Romney's strong overall support. Simply put, too much of Romney's popular support is concentrated in states where he will win anyway, whereas Obama's support -- particularly powerful in urban areas throughout the nation -- gives him a leg up on many of the closely contested states.
Drawing on 270towin's data -- re-interpreted slightly to account for my "read" on recent polls, I suggest the following division of Electoral Vote standing:
Safe Obama: DC, DE, HI, IL, MD, NY, RI, & VT totalling 76 electoral votes.
Very likely Obama: CA, CT, MA, NJ, NM, OR, & WA totalling 111 electoral votes.
Leaning Obama (but not a sure thing yet): ME, MI, MN, NH, PA totalling 54 electoral votes.
Too Close to Call: CO, FL, IA, NV, OH, VA, & WI totalling 91 votes.
Leaning Romney: AZ, GA, IN, NC, SC, & SD totalling 65 votes.
Very likely Romney: AK, AR, KS, MO, MT, ND, NE, TX, & WV totalling 79 votes.
Safe Romney: AL, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, & WY totalling 61 votes.
Thus, in terms of states these candidates are likely to win without any further effort or fear of reversal, Obama starts with 187 electors to Romney's 140.
If Obama wins only Maine and Minnesota from his list of "leaning" states, his total goes to 201. If we presume that all of the other leaning states are 50/50 propositions like the too close to calls (and I think that is being generous to Romney), Obama still only needs to secure 69 electors of 131 (FL, PA, NH, & OH would suffice) to win.
By contrast, if we assume that ALL states leaning toward Romney vote for Romney, Romney produces a total of 205 electors. To win, he needs 65 of the 91 available on the original too close to call listing above and MUST include a win in Florida under any and all circumstances to produce enough electors to reach 270. He could afford to drop Ohio and Iowa or Ohio and Nevada; He could afford to drop Iowa, Nevada, and Either Colorado or Wisconsin or Virginia...
In short, Romney must nearly run the table on the too close to call states to win AND hold all of those states that are leaning his way. Obama only needs to take a chunk out of the too close crowd.
Could this all shift? Of course. The media is saying that it will all hinge on the debates. If, however, both experienced pols live up to their normal solid performances in the debate, the real truth is that the media is promoting them in order to sell advertising time.
This one is Obama's to lose folks. Romney could even win the popular vote and still come up short.
The media is saying that it will all hinge on the debates.
They always say that, and it's rarely true. Remember the true media bias: simplified conflict.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 20:23
Oh how I doth hate winner-takes-all rules in states, and the Electoral College. It doesn't even have a football team
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.