|
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 February 05 2014 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 04:57 Mercy13 wrote:On February 05 2014 04:49 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 04:32 Mercy13 wrote:
You "guess" it's adjusted for inflation? Of course it's adjusted for inflation... a graph measuring the change of value in USD is meaningless if it isn't adjusted for inflation.
Also, I would note that your chart, which comes from a website that is trying to convince people to buy gold coins, demonstrates that the price of gold is highly volatile, and doesn't support your contention that "the price of gold has only gone up."
I was speaking of the price of gold in nominal terms. Adjusting the price for inflation only measures the price of gold relative to other goods during the same period of time. I'm sorry, but I think you should learn some basic economics, finance, and numbers before continuing to discuss this subject. You aren't making any sense. Well to be fair that makes some sense. If the value of the US - Dollar doubles, the cost for a specific amount of gold in dollar will half. That doesn't mean that gold suddenly is less valuable, it just means that the exchange rates changed. In terms of purchasing power gold pretty much is as stable as it gets.
Hey hey, what's inflation please ? You are mistaking the inflation rate, that takes into consideration the general increase in price over the years, and the exchange rate...
The inflation rate is not the value of a dollar, it is the purchasing power of the dollar. Thanks god, the purchasing power of a US dollar CANNOT double (did you ever see a deflation that big ? lol) it's the opposite (the purchasing power of a dollars is less).
Basically you are putting too much interest on the money, it is just an intermediary. If the value of the dollars is less (because of inflation) and you can't buy as much gold with one dollars, it doesn't mean much, because the value of gold RELATIVELY to other goods still stay the same, and that's what we are trying to see by adjusting for inflation.
To say it in another way, if the cost of gold has gained 2%, but that all goods also have gained 2% price increase, then nothing has changed.
|
On February 05 2014 03:45 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 03:35 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 03:28 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:20 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Government is scared of losing their monopoly on the money supply and losing tax revenue. Not really a conspiracy as much as a logical conclusion. Taxation has nothing to do with this issue. Government has no problem taxing things without the currency. Do you think that if you do business in gold that IRS will not come after you if you do not pay taxes ? On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And the same is true for the "fiat" currency and goods valued in it. Gold suffers the same problems as "fiat" currency and brings multiple new ones. It gives absolutely no benefit. On February 05 2014 03:01 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On February 05 2014 02:49 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Gold isn't even slightly scarce. We have far more than we consume. The amount of pretty much anything in circulation is fixed. scarce in the sense that the amount of gold will not significantly increase anymore. Nor will the amount of iron. There's less gold than iron on earth but there's less iridium on earth than gold. Scarcity is relative to consumption and consumption of gold is pretty low. I don't believe Nyxisto is arguing that the price of gold should be higher and I'm not arguing that either. I'm simply arguing that with fiat currency it is impossible to value assets correctly, which makes it very difficult to plan for the future, which is why economic growth (with the exception of Asian countries) have been so stagnant. The same is true for gold to the same extent. 1) IRS will try to come for taxes using Bitcoin transactions but it is still to be seen if they can actually do that. 2) See my post to Mercy13. The only advantage of paper to currency to gold is that it is more easily transported (which is why bank notes were created). 3) No. Advantage of paper currency is the fact that it is fiat and uphold by a strong party - government. I see no benefit in having to manage 2 grams of gold. Light wind and all your money are gone, woops. Of course you can solve it today with banks and electronic payments, but the problematic state of you owning microscopic amounts of currency remains. And if you plan to argue that you can barter with other things, than at that point you lost all the benefits of currency. ad 3) Gold in its history was pretty volatile and unpredictable. So no to your unsubstantiated claim. Seems you are very close to Austria...I suggest you try and take an Austrian economics class. I wish I had that opportunity, but universities in the States brainwash today's kids with Keynesian economics. ...so you think...the Austrian school of economics...refers...to a geographical location?...and the rest of you didnt pick up on this or the conspiracy theory of a small coterie of jews controlling all of finance? damn tl, you slipping.
|
On February 05 2014 05:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 04:49 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 04:32 Mercy13 wrote:
You "guess" it's adjusted for inflation? Of course it's adjusted for inflation... a graph measuring the change of value in USD is meaningless if it isn't adjusted for inflation.
Also, I would note that your chart, which comes from a website that is trying to convince people to buy gold coins, demonstrates that the price of gold is highly volatile, and doesn't support your contention that "the price of gold has only gone up."
I was speaking of the price of gold in nominal terms. Adjusting the price for inflation only measures the price of gold relative to other goods during the same period of time. So you're speaking of the price of gold using terms that can't measure its volatility as a currency... in order to prove that it isn't volatile? An effective tactic if you're talking to high schoolers.
Using an inflation adjusted chart I'll concede an argument can be made that gold prices have been volatile. But just like any asset class, irregularities occur. The spike in Mercy13's chart can be contributed to to Fed chairmen Volker dramatically increased the Fed funds rate from 10% to 20%. What a surprise...gov't tinkering is to blame.
|
On February 05 2014 03:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 18:27 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 18:20 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:01 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.
Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.
I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.
Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then. I like your choices, but then again who wouldn't I vote for instead of Hillary? It's kind of tainting the whole thing... I'm kind of surprised, it would not have amazed me to find out I was the only one who would vote for Palin if it came down to it... Paul Ryan has proven he's soft on some things (* cough* immigration *cough*), so I'd take Cruz or Paul before him. Despite the conventional wisdom in this thread, I think either of them has a good shot at wining. Recall, everyone said Reagan "couldn't win", "look at what happened to Goldwater", etc. Good parallels too, Reagan made the establishment very angry when he ran in a primary against Ford. He lost, but it was hardly by a large margin (it was decent, but for a sitting president?)...I think they even blamed him for Ford's loss by dragging out the primary. Some interesting modern parallels can be made. Cuccinelli would be good, but he lost the governors race, I don't think we'll see him this time. Same- Christie and Huckabee are dead last. We have people as least as conservative as Reagan and maybe even Coolidge now, and I think if Obamacare is bad enough, we'll get a conservative before 2030. I hope. Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position. I think I debated it with Roe? Or was it that other guy, DoubleReed? Anyway, it's been hashed out, though at the slightest prompting I would take it up again. I can't help it. I meant more on the theme of who do you think it will be, not who would you vote for. I think you have to try really really hard to think there will be a Reagan moment -- at the end of the day he was governor of California not a Southern state. It will be interesting to see who the establishment will pick if Christie doesn't work. It might be Huckabee. In terms of Conservatives- Cruz is running, as is Rand. We may see Walker as well. I think Ryan will be in it. I don't think Rubio will...his name was there for a while, but after the immigration debacle he lost a lot of pull. He might be the establishment choice if it comes down to it (to appease the Tea Party), but I think he's a little down the line. Jindal may run too. It's really early, so it's hard to tell. I'm not an expert so I look for the obvious like Christie, Paul, and Cruz. Honestly, I can only say that 3 or 4 are for sure running right now. As to the Reagan comment, I would just say that it's hard to know. He really was the last time the establishment was pushed this hard, so that's the main similarity I see. That and the general down feeling in the country. Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see what that last bit has to do with anything. Anyone can win, look at Obama. A one term senator plucked from obscurity. Cruz and Paul are not governors either, they are in similar positions to the one Obama was in. They don't need to be a high profile governor, they've already made their mark. I think a "Reagan moment" is not for sure, but it is possible. Ya but Obama also clearly is an excellent electioneer, whatever else you want to say about him the guy crushed the Clinton machine completely and utterly and then won one of the most improbable elections in '12. Ya the Republicans went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot but he definitely wakes up for the elections. After that disaster show that was the GOP primary I wonder who would be as solid in the other side. I think your assessment of the Obama campaign is quite good and is a valid point. Certainly no Republican is as charismatic as him or Reagan. Perhaps since we are no longer in the 20s, to get anyone who runs on a extreme agenda elected, one needs charisma. And I agree that neither Paul or Cruz has an overabundance of it... The great thing is though, Hillary doesn't either! So that isn't as much of an issue. Also, Obama was hardly invincible, his victory margin (in the popular vote) was much lower than 2008, and (I haven't checked the numbers on this) but if everyone who voted for McCain in '08 had actually voted in 2012 Romney could have won! (or been MUCH closer.) Which brings me to... Show nested quote +Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney? Who even remembers the government shutdown? Who is going to vote on it? I think Cruz is actually quite smart, Obamacare is going to be such a large issue both this year and 2016 that him being associated with the shutdown will be a great boon to him. He can say that he stood against it to the end when no one else (except Mike Lee) would. I hate playing the group game- "can they get this group and that group?" Women, I don't know what to do about. Someone has to intelligently present the argument of small government and personal responsibility to those women who apparently vote on the issue of birth control, abortion, and the small wage gap. For Hispanics, I think the Republicans won't win them for decades. Reagan granted amnesty in his last term and Bush Sr. still got a crappy percentage of the vote. The Democrats always manage to take credit for anything that benefits minorities. Ironic, considering their history. I want to know what imagination land you live in that a party needs the majority of both groups to win. Romney and McCain didn't lose because they were too conservative. Obama didn't win that way! He won by taking a far left tact and getting his vote out. He LOST the independent vote last time. But I don't even want to argue this point. In the world where most of TL seems to live, McCain and Romney were two extreme conservatives. Due to "internet culture" I always take a liberal's assessment of candidate viability and what counts as "extreme" with a very large pallet of salt. When 90% of the people you interact agree with you, it can alter your perception on these issues.
Obama didnt win in '12 because of charisma, he won because he ran a much more efficient electoral campaign. Getting out his voters to vote is exactly how Bush got re-elected in '04. Romney, despite all his vaunted experience as a super duper genius manager and a staff of elite, well educated technocrats floundered completely in that field. And Romney was the most organized of the lot. Just makes me wonder, who has the technical skills to fight a modern election these days. And this applies to Clinton too, the 08 primary was hers from the beginning and she just assumed the coronation was complete and let her team of friends-employees muck it all up.
|
On February 05 2014 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 03:45 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:35 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 03:28 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:20 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Government is scared of losing their monopoly on the money supply and losing tax revenue. Not really a conspiracy as much as a logical conclusion. Taxation has nothing to do with this issue. Government has no problem taxing things without the currency. Do you think that if you do business in gold that IRS will not come after you if you do not pay taxes ? On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And the same is true for the "fiat" currency and goods valued in it. Gold suffers the same problems as "fiat" currency and brings multiple new ones. It gives absolutely no benefit. On February 05 2014 03:01 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On February 05 2014 02:49 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Gold isn't even slightly scarce. We have far more than we consume. The amount of pretty much anything in circulation is fixed. scarce in the sense that the amount of gold will not significantly increase anymore. Nor will the amount of iron. There's less gold than iron on earth but there's less iridium on earth than gold. Scarcity is relative to consumption and consumption of gold is pretty low. I don't believe Nyxisto is arguing that the price of gold should be higher and I'm not arguing that either. I'm simply arguing that with fiat currency it is impossible to value assets correctly, which makes it very difficult to plan for the future, which is why economic growth (with the exception of Asian countries) have been so stagnant. The same is true for gold to the same extent. 1) IRS will try to come for taxes using Bitcoin transactions but it is still to be seen if they can actually do that. 2) See my post to Mercy13. The only advantage of paper to currency to gold is that it is more easily transported (which is why bank notes were created). 3) No. Advantage of paper currency is the fact that it is fiat and uphold by a strong party - government. I see no benefit in having to manage 2 grams of gold. Light wind and all your money are gone, woops. Of course you can solve it today with banks and electronic payments, but the problematic state of you owning microscopic amounts of currency remains. And if you plan to argue that you can barter with other things, than at that point you lost all the benefits of currency. ad 3) Gold in its history was pretty volatile and unpredictable. So no to your unsubstantiated claim. Seems you are very close to Austria...I suggest you try and take an Austrian economics class. I wish I had that opportunity, but universities in the States brainwash today's kids with Keynesian economics. ...so you think...the Austrian school of economics...refers...to a geographical location?...and the rest of you didnt pick up on this or the conspiracy theory of a small coterie of jews controlling all of finance? damn tl, you slipping.
When troll posts like this start popping up you know you've won the debate. Austrian economics were originated in Vienna, Austria and are taught all over the world. I'm sure they are actual schools in Austria that teach Austrian economics and there are schools in the United States that teach Austrian economics.
Please stop with the troll posts.
|
United States42775 Posts
On February 05 2014 05:21 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:06 Jormundr wrote:On February 05 2014 04:49 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 04:32 Mercy13 wrote:
You "guess" it's adjusted for inflation? Of course it's adjusted for inflation... a graph measuring the change of value in USD is meaningless if it isn't adjusted for inflation.
Also, I would note that your chart, which comes from a website that is trying to convince people to buy gold coins, demonstrates that the price of gold is highly volatile, and doesn't support your contention that "the price of gold has only gone up."
I was speaking of the price of gold in nominal terms. Adjusting the price for inflation only measures the price of gold relative to other goods during the same period of time. So you're speaking of the price of gold using terms that can't measure its volatility as a currency... in order to prove that it isn't volatile? An effective tactic if you're talking to high schoolers. Using an inflation adjusted chart I'll concede an argument can be made that gold prices have been volatile. But just like any asset class, irregularities occur. The spike in Mercy13's chart can be contributed to to Fed chairmen Volker dramatically increased the Fed funds rate from 10% to 20%. What a surprise...gov't tinkering is to blame.
If you don't use inflation adjusted figures you'll end up being the guy trying to explain that "yes, I know you can't buy as much stuff with it as you could back then but the number of dollars it's worth has gone up and it's not my fault that the value of each dollar has fallen by even more so really the value, as measured in number of dollars and not purchasing power, has still increased". Inflation adjusted or nothing.
|
On February 05 2014 05:26 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 03:45 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:35 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 03:28 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:20 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Government is scared of losing their monopoly on the money supply and losing tax revenue. Not really a conspiracy as much as a logical conclusion. Taxation has nothing to do with this issue. Government has no problem taxing things without the currency. Do you think that if you do business in gold that IRS will not come after you if you do not pay taxes ? On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And the same is true for the "fiat" currency and goods valued in it. Gold suffers the same problems as "fiat" currency and brings multiple new ones. It gives absolutely no benefit. On February 05 2014 03:01 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:On February 05 2014 02:49 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Gold isn't even slightly scarce. We have far more than we consume. The amount of pretty much anything in circulation is fixed. scarce in the sense that the amount of gold will not significantly increase anymore. Nor will the amount of iron. There's less gold than iron on earth but there's less iridium on earth than gold. Scarcity is relative to consumption and consumption of gold is pretty low. I don't believe Nyxisto is arguing that the price of gold should be higher and I'm not arguing that either. I'm simply arguing that with fiat currency it is impossible to value assets correctly, which makes it very difficult to plan for the future, which is why economic growth (with the exception of Asian countries) have been so stagnant. The same is true for gold to the same extent. 1) IRS will try to come for taxes using Bitcoin transactions but it is still to be seen if they can actually do that. 2) See my post to Mercy13. The only advantage of paper to currency to gold is that it is more easily transported (which is why bank notes were created). 3) No. Advantage of paper currency is the fact that it is fiat and uphold by a strong party - government. I see no benefit in having to manage 2 grams of gold. Light wind and all your money are gone, woops. Of course you can solve it today with banks and electronic payments, but the problematic state of you owning microscopic amounts of currency remains. And if you plan to argue that you can barter with other things, than at that point you lost all the benefits of currency. ad 3) Gold in its history was pretty volatile and unpredictable. So no to your unsubstantiated claim. Seems you are very close to Austria...I suggest you try and take an Austrian economics class. I wish I had that opportunity, but universities in the States brainwash today's kids with Keynesian economics. ...so you think...the Austrian school of economics...refers...to a geographical location?...and the rest of you didnt pick up on this or the conspiracy theory of a small coterie of jews controlling all of finance? damn tl, you slipping. When troll posts like this start popping up you know you've won the debate. Austrian economics were originated in Vienna, Austria and are taught all over the world. I'm sure they are actual schools in Austria that teach Austrian economics and there are schools in the United States that teach Austrian economics. Please stop with the troll posts. Ya, when people call you out on ignorance of basic economic history and anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering you definitely won the debate.
|
On February 05 2014 05:21 zusch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:06 Jormundr wrote:On February 05 2014 04:49 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 04:32 Mercy13 wrote:
You "guess" it's adjusted for inflation? Of course it's adjusted for inflation... a graph measuring the change of value in USD is meaningless if it isn't adjusted for inflation.
Also, I would note that your chart, which comes from a website that is trying to convince people to buy gold coins, demonstrates that the price of gold is highly volatile, and doesn't support your contention that "the price of gold has only gone up."
I was speaking of the price of gold in nominal terms. Adjusting the price for inflation only measures the price of gold relative to other goods during the same period of time. So you're speaking of the price of gold using terms that can't measure its volatility as a currency... in order to prove that it isn't volatile? An effective tactic if you're talking to high schoolers. Using an inflation adjusted chart I'll concede an argument can be made that gold prices have been volatile. But just like any asset class, irregularities occur. The spike in Mercy13's chart can be contributed to to Fed chairmen Volker dramatically increased the Fed funds rate from 10% to 20%. What a surprise...gov't tinkering is to blame.
Lol
On February 05 2014 03:56 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 03:51 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:43 Mercy13 wrote:On February 05 2014 03:36 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:33 Mercy13 wrote:On February 05 2014 03:24 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:16 Mercy13 wrote:On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And how is that different from how paper currency is valued? Paper currency cannot be accurately valued because a tiny group of individuals (not all market participants) are in charge of how much is out there. They can change the amount at any time without notice. When they do this they send ripples (or shockwaves) throughout the entire economy that produces unintended consequences. That doesn't have anything to do with how accurately it is valued. The Fed manipulates the money supply in part to make sure that the value is stable and predictable. Unlike the price of gold. Can you imagine what it would be like to take out a loan denominated in an asset without predictable value? Can't do anything but LOL at this post, sorry buddy. Everything has risk associated with it...nothing is 100% predictable. I never suggested that anything is certain... just that the value of currency is stable and predictable relative to gold, in part because of the intervention of the Fed. Fiat currency has no value...none. Assets have value and we denominate those assets in fiat currency because that is what is forced upon us by the gov't who controls the fiat currency supply...as I've already said. And I suppose you have a theory for why the historical price of gold is so volatile? Is it the Fed's fault?
|
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida measure that would allow the use of medical marijuana has cleared its final hurdle and will be on the November ballot.
The state Supreme Court on Monday approved the language for the proposed constitutional amendment.
The justices approved the ballot summary 4-3 just three days after a petition drive reached the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The decision is a defeat for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who challenged the ballot language by saying it's misleading.
Channel 9's Greg Warmoth has been following the issue since November when he flew to California to cover it.
Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, it's up to the voters in Florida and attorney John Morgan told Warmoth research polling shows that a large majority of Florida voters will vote "yes" on medical marijuana.
Morgan poured $2.8 million into the effort this fall to get the vote on the ballot. In fact, his family and law firm accounted for 83 percent of the legalization effort's entire budget.
Source
|
On February 05 2014 05:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 03:17 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:27 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 18:20 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:01 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.
Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.
I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.
Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then. I like your choices, but then again who wouldn't I vote for instead of Hillary? It's kind of tainting the whole thing... I'm kind of surprised, it would not have amazed me to find out I was the only one who would vote for Palin if it came down to it... Paul Ryan has proven he's soft on some things (* cough* immigration *cough*), so I'd take Cruz or Paul before him. Despite the conventional wisdom in this thread, I think either of them has a good shot at wining. Recall, everyone said Reagan "couldn't win", "look at what happened to Goldwater", etc. Good parallels too, Reagan made the establishment very angry when he ran in a primary against Ford. He lost, but it was hardly by a large margin (it was decent, but for a sitting president?)...I think they even blamed him for Ford's loss by dragging out the primary. Some interesting modern parallels can be made. Cuccinelli would be good, but he lost the governors race, I don't think we'll see him this time. Same- Christie and Huckabee are dead last. We have people as least as conservative as Reagan and maybe even Coolidge now, and I think if Obamacare is bad enough, we'll get a conservative before 2030. I hope. Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position. I think I debated it with Roe? Or was it that other guy, DoubleReed? Anyway, it's been hashed out, though at the slightest prompting I would take it up again. I can't help it. I meant more on the theme of who do you think it will be, not who would you vote for. I think you have to try really really hard to think there will be a Reagan moment -- at the end of the day he was governor of California not a Southern state. It will be interesting to see who the establishment will pick if Christie doesn't work. It might be Huckabee. In terms of Conservatives- Cruz is running, as is Rand. We may see Walker as well. I think Ryan will be in it. I don't think Rubio will...his name was there for a while, but after the immigration debacle he lost a lot of pull. He might be the establishment choice if it comes down to it (to appease the Tea Party), but I think he's a little down the line. Jindal may run too. It's really early, so it's hard to tell. I'm not an expert so I look for the obvious like Christie, Paul, and Cruz. Honestly, I can only say that 3 or 4 are for sure running right now. As to the Reagan comment, I would just say that it's hard to know. He really was the last time the establishment was pushed this hard, so that's the main similarity I see. That and the general down feeling in the country. Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see what that last bit has to do with anything. Anyone can win, look at Obama. A one term senator plucked from obscurity. Cruz and Paul are not governors either, they are in similar positions to the one Obama was in. They don't need to be a high profile governor, they've already made their mark. I think a "Reagan moment" is not for sure, but it is possible. Ya but Obama also clearly is an excellent electioneer, whatever else you want to say about him the guy crushed the Clinton machine completely and utterly and then won one of the most improbable elections in '12. Ya the Republicans went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot but he definitely wakes up for the elections. After that disaster show that was the GOP primary I wonder who would be as solid in the other side. I think your assessment of the Obama campaign is quite good and is a valid point. Certainly no Republican is as charismatic as him or Reagan. Perhaps since we are no longer in the 20s, to get anyone who runs on a extreme agenda elected, one needs charisma. And I agree that neither Paul or Cruz has an overabundance of it... The great thing is though, Hillary doesn't either! So that isn't as much of an issue. Also, Obama was hardly invincible, his victory margin (in the popular vote) was much lower than 2008, and (I haven't checked the numbers on this) but if everyone who voted for McCain in '08 had actually voted in 2012 Romney could have won! (or been MUCH closer.) Which brings me to... Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney? Who even remembers the government shutdown? Who is going to vote on it? I think Cruz is actually quite smart, Obamacare is going to be such a large issue both this year and 2016 that him being associated with the shutdown will be a great boon to him. He can say that he stood against it to the end when no one else (except Mike Lee) would. I hate playing the group game- "can they get this group and that group?" Women, I don't know what to do about. Someone has to intelligently present the argument of small government and personal responsibility to those women who apparently vote on the issue of birth control, abortion, and the small wage gap. For Hispanics, I think the Republicans won't win them for decades. Reagan granted amnesty in his last term and Bush Sr. still got a crappy percentage of the vote. The Democrats always manage to take credit for anything that benefits minorities. Ironic, considering their history. I want to know what imagination land you live in that a party needs the majority of both groups to win. Romney and McCain didn't lose because they were too conservative. Obama didn't win that way! He won by taking a far left tact and getting his vote out. He LOST the independent vote last time. But I don't even want to argue this point. In the world where most of TL seems to live, McCain and Romney were two extreme conservatives. Due to "internet culture" I always take a liberal's assessment of candidate viability and what counts as "extreme" with a very large pallet of salt. When 90% of the people you interact agree with you, it can alter your perception on these issues. Obama didnt win in '12 because of charisma, he won because he ran a much more efficient electoral campaign. Getting out his voters to vote is exactly how Bush got re-elected in '04. Romney, despite all his vaunted experience as a super duper genius manager and a staff of elite, well educated technocrats floundered completely in that field. And Romney was the most organized of the lot. Just makes me wonder, who has the technical skills to fight a modern election these days. And this applies to Clinton too, the 08 primary was hers from the beginning and she just assumed the coronation was complete and let her team of friends-employees muck it all up.
I agree that in 2012 he didn't win that way- that's how he won the first time, which is the situation we are currently discussing (since it will have to be a newcomer). Charisma is needed when one is an unknown and has no record at the time, like Obama. But Hillary has a record and Cruz/Paul have made names for themselves. And none of them are particularly charismatic.
But I agree that Obama won in 2012 due to his get out the vote stuff.
That also relates back to my point that Romney/McCain didn't lose because they were "too conservative" it was because (IMO) they failed to be conservative enough to pull voters to them. Romney got fewer votes than McCain despite winning independents, so he clearly failed on that front.
|
On February 05 2014 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida measure that would allow the use of medical marijuana has cleared its final hurdle and will be on the November ballot.
The state Supreme Court on Monday approved the language for the proposed constitutional amendment.
The justices approved the ballot summary 4-3 just three days after a petition drive reached the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The decision is a defeat for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who challenged the ballot language by saying it's misleading.
Channel 9's Greg Warmoth has been following the issue since November when he flew to California to cover it.
Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, it's up to the voters in Florida and attorney John Morgan told Warmoth research polling shows that a large majority of Florida voters will vote "yes" on medical marijuana.
Morgan poured $2.8 million into the effort this fall to get the vote on the ballot. In fact, his family and law firm accounted for 83 percent of the legalization effort's entire budget. Source
I wonder how quickly the marijuana legalization program is going to go. Danglers, Introvert, xDaunt, you are my conservative newssources, is anyone super angry about ganja being legal on your end? Is it a Muslim conspiracy to weaken America's resolve and make it open to Communist infiltration? Because if not seems like the momentum is there for it being moved off the schedule 1 drug list, the only people being viciously opposed would be the special interests who benefit from current laws (DEA? the tobacco companies?)
|
On February 05 2014 05:31 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:26 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 03:45 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:35 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 03:28 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:20 mcc wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Gold is so valuable because it's scarce and the amount of gold in circulation is practically fixed. Also it's a long and well established currency.
And please stop this currency conspiracy nonsense, the government isn't "scared of Bitcoins". Government is scared of losing their monopoly on the money supply and losing tax revenue. Not really a conspiracy as much as a logical conclusion. Taxation has nothing to do with this issue. Government has no problem taxing things without the currency. Do you think that if you do business in gold that IRS will not come after you if you do not pay taxes ? On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And the same is true for the "fiat" currency and goods valued in it. Gold suffers the same problems as "fiat" currency and brings multiple new ones. It gives absolutely no benefit. On February 05 2014 03:01 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2014 02:54 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
scarce in the sense that the amount of gold will not significantly increase anymore. Nor will the amount of iron. There's less gold than iron on earth but there's less iridium on earth than gold. Scarcity is relative to consumption and consumption of gold is pretty low. I don't believe Nyxisto is arguing that the price of gold should be higher and I'm not arguing that either. I'm simply arguing that with fiat currency it is impossible to value assets correctly, which makes it very difficult to plan for the future, which is why economic growth (with the exception of Asian countries) have been so stagnant. The same is true for gold to the same extent. 1) IRS will try to come for taxes using Bitcoin transactions but it is still to be seen if they can actually do that. 2) See my post to Mercy13. The only advantage of paper to currency to gold is that it is more easily transported (which is why bank notes were created). 3) No. Advantage of paper currency is the fact that it is fiat and uphold by a strong party - government. I see no benefit in having to manage 2 grams of gold. Light wind and all your money are gone, woops. Of course you can solve it today with banks and electronic payments, but the problematic state of you owning microscopic amounts of currency remains. And if you plan to argue that you can barter with other things, than at that point you lost all the benefits of currency. ad 3) Gold in its history was pretty volatile and unpredictable. So no to your unsubstantiated claim. Seems you are very close to Austria...I suggest you try and take an Austrian economics class. I wish I had that opportunity, but universities in the States brainwash today's kids with Keynesian economics. ...so you think...the Austrian school of economics...refers...to a geographical location?...and the rest of you didnt pick up on this or the conspiracy theory of a small coterie of jews controlling all of finance? damn tl, you slipping. When troll posts like this start popping up you know you've won the debate. Austrian economics were originated in Vienna, Austria and are taught all over the world. I'm sure they are actual schools in Austria that teach Austrian economics and there are schools in the United States that teach Austrian economics. Please stop with the troll posts. Ya, when people call you out on ignorance of basic economic history and anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering you definitely won the debate.
Quite slanderous to claim I'm anti-Semitic when I've posted nothing to give that idea.
Mercy13 -- We have a difference of definitions when describing gold prices. You still believe that the Fed's actions make the U.S. $ "stable." This post from you demonstrates your complete blindness to what is happening:
On February 05 2014 03:33 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 03:24 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:16 Mercy13 wrote:On February 05 2014 03:05 zusch wrote:On February 05 2014 03:02 Mercy13 wrote:
So how do you value gold? Gold is valued by the collective opinions of all market participants, like any commodity or asset class should be. And how is that different from how paper currency is valued? Paper currency cannot be accurately valued because a tiny group of individuals (not all market participants) are in charge of how much is out there. They can change the amount at any time without notice. When they do this they send ripples (or shockwaves) throughout the entire economy that produces unintended consequences. That doesn't have anything to do with how accurately it is valued. The Fed manipulates the money supply in part to make sure that the value is stable and predictable. Unlike the price of gold. Can you imagine what it would be like to take out a loan denominated in an asset without predictable value? Show nested quote +zusch wrote:
It costs resources to mine gold (same as Bitcoin I may add), while printing money requires little to zero resources. Mercy13 wrote: How do you account for the volatility of the price of gold then? The price doesn't have anything to do with it's scarcity or how difficult/easy it is to mine.
You actually said that the price of gold isn't stable and predictable as if the underlying factors and properties of gold are constantly changing. When instead you have it completely backwards...the money supply and value of the $ is completely unpredictable and is constantly changing thanks to the Fed.
I see you also added another bit (in bold) I did not at first see because you edited your post so I'll address it now...
Of course price of gold is influenced to some degree by the costs to mine it. Again, LOL...you really just said that. The falling price of gold is a good reason why many of the gold mining companies are on the verge of bankruptcy.
One of the concerns of Bitcoin's future is that the cost to mine a single Bitcoin is just about the current price of Bitcoin. Go print a couple thousand Ben Franklin's in your basement...I'm sure it won't cost you more than 100 Ben Franklins.
|
On February 04 2014 19:39 Velr wrote:
Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney?
Sorry to requote my question but i really, really wonder how the republican voters think they can get it this time when like.. nothing changed since the election (baring a giant scandal and stuff like that).
|
On February 05 2014 05:45 Introvert wrote:
That also relates back to my point that Romney/McCain didn't lose because they were "too conservative" it was because (IMO) they failed to be conservative enough to pull voters to them. Romney got fewer votes than McCain despite winning independents, so he clearly failed on that front.
Yes, they were way too conservative. Look at how the public opinion of the GOP went down after the government shutdown. What is "more conservative" than McCain even meaning? A guy with a gun in his hand and an eagle on his shoulder? If the GOP wants to win an election again they'll need a moderate candidate, especially on social and technological stances. The majority of the US is not going to elect an "anti - gay marriage, anti - abortion I'd like to know what goes on in your bedroom" kind of guy.
Maybe a female "down to earth" version of Mitt Romney wouldn't be a bad idea.(If someone like that exists)
|
On February 05 2014 05:56 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 19:39 Velr wrote:
Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney?
Sorry to requote my question but i really, really wonder how the republican voters think they can get it this time when like.. nothing changed since the election (baring a giant scandal and stuff like that).
Nothing much has changed except voter ID laws which is the GOP last best chance to secure election wins despite it being a poisoned chalice. The GOP are slowly becoming an obsolete party and they know it is happening but refuse to change or look in the mirror to address it's problems.
|
On February 05 2014 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:45 Introvert wrote:
That also relates back to my point that Romney/McCain didn't lose because they were "too conservative" it was because (IMO) they failed to be conservative enough to pull voters to them. Romney got fewer votes than McCain despite winning independents, so he clearly failed on that front.
Yes, they were way too conservative. Look at how the public opinion of the GOP went down after the government shutdown. What is "more conservative" than McCain even meaning? A guy with a gun in his hand and an eagle on his shoulder? If the GOP wants to win an election again they'll need a moderate candidate, especially on social and technological stances. The majority of the US is not going to elect an "anti - gay marriage, anti - abortion I'd like to know what goes on in your bedroom" kind of guy.
For Introvert/Dangelrs a conservative would be someone who: Undoes a significant portion of Supreme Court legislation grounded on the commerce clause, disbands a significant portion of the federal government, ends or significantly curtails social security and medicare and also grants significantly more power to individual states. They would also probably be okay with some kind of mass arrest and deportation of latinos. Danglers seems the more social conservative so I think the end of abortion laws and re-criminalization of homosexuality would be okay with him. Also, all taxes would be slashed and all property of individual Americans that could be better used by American corporations would be seized immediately.
|
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes.
It's a pity that so much work is put into elections yelling rather than on actually selecting good people to do the job. So much effort wasted on just running campaigns.
|
On February 05 2014 05:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida measure that would allow the use of medical marijuana has cleared its final hurdle and will be on the November ballot.
The state Supreme Court on Monday approved the language for the proposed constitutional amendment.
The justices approved the ballot summary 4-3 just three days after a petition drive reached the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The decision is a defeat for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who challenged the ballot language by saying it's misleading.
Channel 9's Greg Warmoth has been following the issue since November when he flew to California to cover it.
Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, it's up to the voters in Florida and attorney John Morgan told Warmoth research polling shows that a large majority of Florida voters will vote "yes" on medical marijuana.
Morgan poured $2.8 million into the effort this fall to get the vote on the ballot. In fact, his family and law firm accounted for 83 percent of the legalization effort's entire budget. Source I wonder how quickly the marijuana legalization program is going to go. Danglers, Introvert, xDaunt, you are my conservative newssources, is anyone super angry about ganja being legal on your end? Is it a Muslim conspiracy to weaken America's resolve and make it open to Communist infiltration? Because if not seems like the momentum is there for it being moved off the schedule 1 drug list, the only people being viciously opposed would be the special interests who benefit from current laws (DEA? the tobacco companies?)
I don't know anyone who is super opposed to marijuana legalization. Most conservatives are either for legalization, decriminalization, or at least ambivalent to the issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 05 2014 05:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:23 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 03:17 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:27 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 18:20 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:01 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.
Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.
I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.
Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then. I like your choices, but then again who wouldn't I vote for instead of Hillary? It's kind of tainting the whole thing... I'm kind of surprised, it would not have amazed me to find out I was the only one who would vote for Palin if it came down to it... Paul Ryan has proven he's soft on some things (* cough* immigration *cough*), so I'd take Cruz or Paul before him. Despite the conventional wisdom in this thread, I think either of them has a good shot at wining. Recall, everyone said Reagan "couldn't win", "look at what happened to Goldwater", etc. Good parallels too, Reagan made the establishment very angry when he ran in a primary against Ford. He lost, but it was hardly by a large margin (it was decent, but for a sitting president?)...I think they even blamed him for Ford's loss by dragging out the primary. Some interesting modern parallels can be made. Cuccinelli would be good, but he lost the governors race, I don't think we'll see him this time. Same- Christie and Huckabee are dead last. We have people as least as conservative as Reagan and maybe even Coolidge now, and I think if Obamacare is bad enough, we'll get a conservative before 2030. I hope. Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position. I think I debated it with Roe? Or was it that other guy, DoubleReed? Anyway, it's been hashed out, though at the slightest prompting I would take it up again. I can't help it. I meant more on the theme of who do you think it will be, not who would you vote for. I think you have to try really really hard to think there will be a Reagan moment -- at the end of the day he was governor of California not a Southern state. It will be interesting to see who the establishment will pick if Christie doesn't work. It might be Huckabee. In terms of Conservatives- Cruz is running, as is Rand. We may see Walker as well. I think Ryan will be in it. I don't think Rubio will...his name was there for a while, but after the immigration debacle he lost a lot of pull. He might be the establishment choice if it comes down to it (to appease the Tea Party), but I think he's a little down the line. Jindal may run too. It's really early, so it's hard to tell. I'm not an expert so I look for the obvious like Christie, Paul, and Cruz. Honestly, I can only say that 3 or 4 are for sure running right now. As to the Reagan comment, I would just say that it's hard to know. He really was the last time the establishment was pushed this hard, so that's the main similarity I see. That and the general down feeling in the country. Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see what that last bit has to do with anything. Anyone can win, look at Obama. A one term senator plucked from obscurity. Cruz and Paul are not governors either, they are in similar positions to the one Obama was in. They don't need to be a high profile governor, they've already made their mark. I think a "Reagan moment" is not for sure, but it is possible. Ya but Obama also clearly is an excellent electioneer, whatever else you want to say about him the guy crushed the Clinton machine completely and utterly and then won one of the most improbable elections in '12. Ya the Republicans went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot but he definitely wakes up for the elections. After that disaster show that was the GOP primary I wonder who would be as solid in the other side. I think your assessment of the Obama campaign is quite good and is a valid point. Certainly no Republican is as charismatic as him or Reagan. Perhaps since we are no longer in the 20s, to get anyone who runs on a extreme agenda elected, one needs charisma. And I agree that neither Paul or Cruz has an overabundance of it... The great thing is though, Hillary doesn't either! So that isn't as much of an issue. Also, Obama was hardly invincible, his victory margin (in the popular vote) was much lower than 2008, and (I haven't checked the numbers on this) but if everyone who voted for McCain in '08 had actually voted in 2012 Romney could have won! (or been MUCH closer.) Which brings me to... Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney? Who even remembers the government shutdown? Who is going to vote on it? I think Cruz is actually quite smart, Obamacare is going to be such a large issue both this year and 2016 that him being associated with the shutdown will be a great boon to him. He can say that he stood against it to the end when no one else (except Mike Lee) would. I hate playing the group game- "can they get this group and that group?" Women, I don't know what to do about. Someone has to intelligently present the argument of small government and personal responsibility to those women who apparently vote on the issue of birth control, abortion, and the small wage gap. For Hispanics, I think the Republicans won't win them for decades. Reagan granted amnesty in his last term and Bush Sr. still got a crappy percentage of the vote. The Democrats always manage to take credit for anything that benefits minorities. Ironic, considering their history. I want to know what imagination land you live in that a party needs the majority of both groups to win. Romney and McCain didn't lose because they were too conservative. Obama didn't win that way! He won by taking a far left tact and getting his vote out. He LOST the independent vote last time. But I don't even want to argue this point. In the world where most of TL seems to live, McCain and Romney were two extreme conservatives. Due to "internet culture" I always take a liberal's assessment of candidate viability and what counts as "extreme" with a very large pallet of salt. When 90% of the people you interact agree with you, it can alter your perception on these issues. Obama didnt win in '12 because of charisma, he won because he ran a much more efficient electoral campaign. Getting out his voters to vote is exactly how Bush got re-elected in '04. Romney, despite all his vaunted experience as a super duper genius manager and a staff of elite, well educated technocrats floundered completely in that field. And Romney was the most organized of the lot. Just makes me wonder, who has the technical skills to fight a modern election these days. And this applies to Clinton too, the 08 primary was hers from the beginning and she just assumed the coronation was complete and let her team of friends-employees muck it all up. I agree that in 2012 he didn't win that way- that's how he won the first time, which is the situation we are currently discussing (since it will have to be a newcomer). Charisma is needed when one is an unknown and has no record at the time, like Obama. But Hillary has a record and Cruz/Paul have made names for themselves. And none of them are particularly charismatic. But I agree that Obama won in 2012 due to his get out the vote stuff. That also relates back to my point that Romney/McCain didn't lose because they were "too conservative" it was because (IMO) they failed to be conservative enough to pull voters to them. Romney got fewer votes than McCain despite winning independents, so he clearly failed on that front.
a literal donkey would have won against mccain palin after 8 years of bush. pls.
|
You actually said that the price of gold isn't stable and predictable as if the underlying factors and properties of gold are constantly changing. When instead you have it completely backwards...the money supply and value of the $ is completely unpredictable and is constantly changing thanks to the Fed.
What I find odd is that the price of gold is constantly changing (a lot) when the underlying factors and properties of gold are constant. The price of gold is driven by financial speculators, not it's qualities. Look at the charts again. Why has the price of gold fluctuated so drastically when the qualities of the metal have not changed?
As for the value of currency, it is predictable because the Fed tries to make it predictable - they shoot for annual inflation of about 2% over time. This doesn't mean that it will always grow by 2% annually, but at least the mechanisms which affect it's value are well understood.
Last time I used the term "predicable" you said something like "LOL you think it's 100% predictable newb!" or something, so to be clear I do not think it's certain, or even likely, that inflation will be 2% every year. However, I think it's a pretty safe bet that it will be close to that over time.
I see you also added another bit (in bold) I did not at first see because you edited your post so I'll address it now...
Of course price of gold is influenced to some degree by the costs to mine it. Again, LOL...you really just said that. The falling price of gold is a good reason why many of the gold mining companies are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Earlier you said for some reason that the price of gold was steadily increasing, but now you claim that it is falling? Either way, if the price to mine gold was a significant factor in its price, why would mining companies be on the verge of bankruptcy?
One of the concerns of Bitcoin's future is that the cost to mine a single Bitcoin is just about the current price of Bitcoin. Go print a couple thousand Ben Franklin's in your basement...I'm sure it won't cost you more than 100 Ben Franklins.
OK... and since the price to mine a single bitcoin is constant (I think? I don't really know much about bitcoin), I assume you think its price is stable? It may stabilize in the future, but during its brief history it has bounced around a lot. If the cost of mining it was a significant factor in its price this wouldn't be the case.
Just like if the cost of mining gold was a significant factor in its price it would also be stable rather than rising steadily or falling or whatever it is that you are claiming that it is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
