|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2014 07:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 07:46 Introvert wrote:On June 19 2014 07:42 oneofthem wrote:
to flesh it out a bit, the dominant market triumphalism ideology held by whoever may hold them, has no space for a fair representation of crony capitalism. you get instead the perfect market and the ebil government whose touch taints these innocent and perfect captains of industry First of all, I don't know of any conservatives here who argue for a "perfectly free" economy (take that issue up with the libertarians who hang around here). Second, that still doesn't display how conservatives thin it doesn't exist. Unless you have some new definition and form for cronyism. Conservatives oppose people using the law and paying off the politicians for their own ends. They also acknowledge that it happens. So I see no denial of the problem, nor any reluctance to talk about it. I do, however, see establishment figures from both sides that try to avoid the topic. i don't think you have a point other than saying tea party is opposed to some cnoception of crony capitalism. in turn i responded that the populist strain in tea partyism, the one that accounts for dislike for Evil Corporations, is traditionally not a conservative theme. that they see things this way points to a more nuanced classification of tea partyism.
so really, my assertion simply needed some kind of additional classificatory specification, it is still true with respect to the truth it had in mind to represent. Other topics are more important, yes. That doesn't mean they A) don't believe it exists, or B) that they purposely ignore it. Otherwise I could say the same thing about the left- liberals don't really care, it's just the extreme, populist movement that cares! Don't equate the party and their hacks with the people in the movement. i suppose you think crony is restricted to cases where state intervention is involved, but that's not a general enough view of it. any type of power can potentially produce rent seeking and the ossification of that rent seeking order is crony capitalism. look at for example the italian arrangement of networked board members or korean chaebol. the crony, close association for interest, behavior is so basicly human it is not restricted to government. it is simply an aggregation and ossification of that aggregation of power. to whatever extent rightwing economists tackle crony capitalism it would be extremely disingenuous to restrict scope to government, rather than looking at similar phenomenon working between private actors.
I wasn't really interested in getting this far off track, I was adressing
le true believer conservatives do not believe crony capitalism exists.
and
let's be serious. if it wasn't for silly liberals bringing up the issue it would be swept under the rug
That's false. Whether you think conservatives restrict the definition too much or what have you, I was pointing out the above statements are wrong- at least as the blanket, one line statements you provided. That's all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
true believer conservatives are those that believe in market triumphalism, constitutional utopia etc. it's distinct enough for me to make it a thing. it's not really free market either, just a scheme of identifying business with good america. if i had free market economists in mind i would have said something else. what i had in mind are people like william f buckley.
i really see tea partyism as a distinct phenomenon apart from your regular conservative, so i didn't even have you guys in mind. feel free to exist though.
|
Market triumphalism is not an originally conservative position, far from it.
|
On June 19 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 07:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 07:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 06:58 oneofthem wrote:
le true believer conservatives do not believe crony capitalism exists. Huh? Do true conservatives also think that communism was a fairy tale myth? there's certainly a huge amount of people in the Anglo-Saxon economies that believe in the awesome self-regulating powers of free markets and everything that happens is a feature and not a bug. And because it happens, by definition it is totally legitimate. I don't see how a market outcome you don't like is 'crony capitalism' unless you are talking about a government action that enabled or exacerbated that market outcome. Because cronyism is the natural outcome if you just let the market run its course. Every single "free market" economy confirms it, and the less redistribution and regulation the worse it gets. Countries like the Netherlands at least have managed to write stuff like net neutrality into statute. In the US the guy that formerly has lobbied for industry interests now has the job that should actually prevent that kind of stuff. It could be out of a satirical movie if it wasn't reality.
I'm not sure if I should argue with you on this or not. We seem to be using wildly different definitions of a free market economy and crony capitalism.
|
On June 19 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 07:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 07:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 06:58 oneofthem wrote:
le true believer conservatives do not believe crony capitalism exists. Huh? Do true conservatives also think that communism was a fairy tale myth? there's certainly a huge amount of people in the Anglo-Saxon economies that believe in the awesome self-regulating powers of free markets and everything that happens is a feature and not a bug. And because it happens, by definition it is totally legitimate. I don't see how a market outcome you don't like is 'crony capitalism' unless you are talking about a government action that enabled or exacerbated that market outcome. Because cronyism is the natural outcome if you just let the market run its course. Every single "free market" economy confirms it, and the less redistribution and regulation the worse it gets. Countries like the Netherlands at least have managed to write stuff like net neutrality into statute. In the US the guy that formerly has lobbied for industry interests now has the job that should actually prevent that kind of stuff. It could be out of a satirical movie if it wasn't reality. I'm not sure if I should argue with you on this or not. We seem to be using wildly different definitions of a free market economy and crony capitalism.
You're not talking about a different definition unless you're going to argue that something like the invisible hand of the market (or the incorruptible arm of the legal system) will eliminate the principle of money taking away all those freedoms you hold oh-so-dear.
I mean technically there's no crony capitalism in a completely free market economy. This is only because there is no need for a proxy: the emergent economic monopolies will also have a monopoly on force in the absence of government.
|
On June 19 2014 09:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 07:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 07:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 19 2014 06:58 oneofthem wrote:
le true believer conservatives do not believe crony capitalism exists. Huh? Do true conservatives also think that communism was a fairy tale myth? there's certainly a huge amount of people in the Anglo-Saxon economies that believe in the awesome self-regulating powers of free markets and everything that happens is a feature and not a bug. And because it happens, by definition it is totally legitimate. I don't see how a market outcome you don't like is 'crony capitalism' unless you are talking about a government action that enabled or exacerbated that market outcome. Because cronyism is the natural outcome if you just let the market run its course. Every single "free market" economy confirms it, and the less redistribution and regulation the worse it gets. Countries like the Netherlands at least have managed to write stuff like net neutrality into statute. In the US the guy that formerly has lobbied for industry interests now has the job that should actually prevent that kind of stuff. It could be out of a satirical movie if it wasn't reality. I'm not sure if I should argue with you on this or not. We seem to be using wildly different definitions of a free market economy and crony capitalism. You're not talking about a different definition unless you're going to argue that something like the invisible hand of the market (or the incorruptible arm of the legal system) will eliminate the principle of money taking away all those freedoms you hold oh-so-dear.
What?
|
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition.
|
On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition.
Yeah, so?
|
So, there's no such thing as a truly free market because you need some kind of outside regulation to maintain competition between corporations.
I see a lot of people, not necessarily anyone in this thread, equating free markets with zero government.
|
On June 19 2014 09:58 SnipedSoul wrote:
So, there's no such thing as a truly free market because you need some kind of outside regulation to maintain competition between corporations. Oh, you often need a lot more than that for a functioning market.
I see a lot of people, not necessarily anyone in this thread, equating free markets with zero government.
Slap them in the face and blame the invisible hand 
|
On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 19 2014 03:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't listen to him but I do think he trolls a lot. No kidding. That's his job. He's not a politician. He's a radio personality. It doesn't change the fact that he does a better job communicating conservative ideals than any current politician does and that his conservative ideas are more influential than any conservative politician's. And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why. You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right? No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people?
McCain did not get more votes then Romney.
Some Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008
Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/
If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives.
If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania
Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820
Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885
Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005
Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219
Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case.
|
On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition.
You do know Corporations are creations of the State, right? Oh, you mean partnerships, trusts, and the like...umm..yeah, of course people will try to price fix and collude, but it's always transient. One of the parties will always end up cheating the other. Historically this has always been the case, and it also helps define monopoly. If your definition is as vague and meaningless as - a majority of market share, then we can't have an argument because of ontological differences. Rothbard tackles this easily enough in Power & Market.
Or you could easily enough head over to Center for a Stateless Society
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 19 2014 09:03 Hagen0 wrote:
Market triumphalism is not an originally conservative position, far from it.
well yea but ya know, recent history
|
On June 19 2014 12:52 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 19 2014 03:02 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No kidding. That's his job. He's not a politician. He's a radio personality. It doesn't change the fact that he does a better job communicating conservative ideals than any current politician does and that his conservative ideas are more influential than any conservative politician's. And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why. You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right? No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people? McCain did not get more votes then Romney. Some Sources: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/mainhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives. If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219 Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case.
Well this is disappointing to see. Good work, though.
|
On June 19 2014 23:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 12:52 rod409 wrote:On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why.
You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right? No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people? McCain did not get more votes then Romney. Some Sources: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/mainhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives. If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219 Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case. Well this is disappointing to see. Good work, though.
Do a lot of conservatives think that McCain outperformed Romney? Is that helping to drive the idea that most of America would/will vote more conservative than Republican primary voters?
Just curious xDaunt, how did you arrive at the conclusion that McCain got more votes than Romney (since it simply wasn't true)?
|
On June 19 2014 15:34 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. You do know Corporations are creations of the State, right? Oh, you mean partnerships, trusts, and the like...umm..yeah, of course people will try to price fix and collude, but it's always transient. One of the parties will always end up cheating the other. Historically this has always been the case, and it also helps define monopoly. If your definition is as vague and meaningless as - a majority of market share, then we can't have an argument because of ontological differences. Rothbard tackles this easily enough in Power & Market. Or you could easily enough head over to Center for a Stateless Society
You've convinced yourself, but we already knew that. How about convincing us?
What processes will exist to prevent humans from developing centralized power structures that haven't existed before, or why will the existing processes suddenly be more effective than any period in human history? You're trying to convince us that a new era of utopian anarcho-libertarianism is going to benefit us but you haven't given any evidence that it will. You've just said "Hey my ideology is great, just trust me, go read my manifesto because I'm not gonna tell you about it."
|
On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition.
i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position.
|
On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position.
No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations".
|
On June 19 2014 23:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 12:52 rod409 wrote:On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why.
You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right? No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people? McCain did not get more votes then Romney. Some Sources: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/mainhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives. If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219 Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case. Well this is disappointing to see. Good work, though. Disappointing or alarming?
|
On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations".
I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. A crony corporation is one that receives special favor from the government. If the government is less involved in industry, it should be harder for a player in that industry to receive special favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
