|
On January 22 2012 04:47 FlyingToilet wrote:
One of my friends on sc2 asked me yesterday if i liked Romney and was going to vote him, i pretty much went anti-capitalist on him and said im not gonna vote for no illuminate puppets! he said i was a conspiracy theorist and took me for granted, oh well just another brainwashed shitberg...
Dropping the i-word kind of already puts you into the 'conspiracy theorist' bucket for many people bro.. You might want to watch your words if you are actively trying to convince someone of a better alternative rather than delegitimizing yourself by the use of a single word.
If you just wanted to tell him no, then ignore me.
|
Via Nate Silver:
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/21/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0121-SCoverview1/fivethirtyeight-0121-SCoverview1-blog480.png)
After tonight it will be interesting to see how Florida voters react.
|
C'mon, Newt draw this thing out.
|
On January 22 2012 06:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Via Nate Silver: After tonight it will be interesting to see how Florida voters react.
Honestly it should be after monday any reasonable grasp of Floridas pattern would be available
|
Honestly, I'd prefer Newt over Paul or Santorum, but I think Gingrich is too far on the right to reunite the country, too many liberals would seal themselves completely off, while Romney wouldn't be as effective of a leader but at least ease the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to get rid of gridlock in Congress.
|
On January 22 2012 05:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote:On January 22 2012 04:22 Meta wrote:On January 22 2012 01:07 DoubleReed wrote:On January 22 2012 01:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 21 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:On January 21 2012 21:03 Hider wrote:On January 21 2012 14:01 DoubleReed wrote:On January 21 2012 10:07 Meta wrote:
The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else.
One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough.
Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none. Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs. I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive. Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea. How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place? Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined. Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you. Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things. It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone. Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us. This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone. But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries. The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is. The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people. It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work. And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit. I'm not entirely against helping downtrodden nations if they are in need and if we have the capability to do so. However, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY NO capability to help anybody else. Maybe after we're out of debt we can resume sending out foreign aid. Until then, we have a growing economic problem here at home where an increasing number of recent college graduates are unable to find work and end up unemployed because there's not enough money going back into our own system, too much is going overseas! We need to stop this ridiculous spending overseas, for now anyway. Let countries that have decent economies deal with it if they want. Right now, it's impossible for us to continue this ridiculous nation building. This would have a point if the world wasn't so global. It's only going to become more and more globalized. Things that affect other countries have a direct impact on American investments. It makes us money while helping people at the same time. It's not like we just send money overseas and we never get any back. Ron Paul even said exactly this and he's the non-interventionist. That money comes straight back to us because people buy our stuff. Also, I really have no idea why you think we don't have the capability. We are still have an incredibly powerful economy, regardless of the economic trouble we are currently having. uhh no. Some money come back, but compared to alternative costs these investments are bad from an economical point of view. If you want good return/strong eco let private companies do the investments. Lead government out of the market.
People drastically underestimate how much the US government does through private contracting. Make no mistake, private companies are the ones pushing for this kind of thing.
|
Gingrich rubs me the wrong way. He made a statement a while ago saying something like he thinks political leaders need to be religious because that's the only way to have a good moral compass. Then when he shat on John King during the last debate using him as a scapegoat to get a cheer from the crowd.
|
On January 22 2012 06:38 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Honestly, I'd prefer Newt over Paul or Santorum, but I think Gingrich is too far on the right to reunite the country, too many liberals would seal themselves completely off, while Romney wouldn't be as effective of a leader but at least ease the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to get rid of gridlock in Congress.
I just can't stand Gingrich when he says stuff like "judges should be in accordance with public opinion or they can be removed" or something like that. I understand it's probably just to garner support with certain factions, but bleh, makes you wonder at the same time
Of course, that's not even including the whole marriage debacles. (Which personally, I could give a shit if a politician cheats on his family, as long as he does a good job in office. I just hate when they lie/make excuses about it!)
|
I'm amazed at how little republicans seem to care about Newt's baggage. It seems like they respect his intellect and presentation so much (as compared to Romney's) that they're willing to overlook all of his other shortcomings.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Probably the ugly devil you know vs the slick devil who hasn't revealed his hand yet. (Mixed metaphor's...)
And mostly just the anything but Obama, but also anything but Romney.
|
On January 22 2012 06:38 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Honestly, I'd prefer Newt over Paul or Santorum, but I think Gingrich is too far on the right to reunite the country, too many liberals would seal themselves completely off, while Romney wouldn't be as effective of a leader but at least ease the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to get rid of gridlock in Congress.
Congress isnt gridlocked because of how far on the left or right the president is, they are gridlocked because it is the smart thing to do. Everytime the president signs a major bill his popularity goes up a bit, so if you are a republican who wants to have the white house what motivation do you have to give the president a victory on anything. That logical approach is what creates the gridlock that makes it impossible to do anything even if you offer everything the other side wants.
|
On January 22 2012 07:33 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 06:38 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Honestly, I'd prefer Newt over Paul or Santorum, but I think Gingrich is too far on the right to reunite the country, too many liberals would seal themselves completely off, while Romney wouldn't be as effective of a leader but at least ease the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to get rid of gridlock in Congress. I just can't stand Gingrich when he says stuff like "judges should be in accordance with public opinion or they can be removed" or something like that. I understand it's probably just to garner support with certain factions, but bleh, makes you wonder at the same time Of course, that's not even including the whole marriage debacles. (Which personally, I could give a shit if a politician cheats on his family, as long as he does a good job in office. I just hate when they lie/make excuses about it!)
About the last part I also don't give a crap about what their relationships looks like except when they make a big deal of themselves standing for family values and all that jazz. Hate hypocrisy when it's so blatant.
|
On January 22 2012 07:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 05:48 Hider wrote:On January 22 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote:On January 22 2012 04:22 Meta wrote:On January 22 2012 01:07 DoubleReed wrote:On January 22 2012 01:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 21 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:On January 21 2012 21:03 Hider wrote:On January 21 2012 14:01 DoubleReed wrote:On January 21 2012 10:07 Meta wrote:
The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else.
One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough.
Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none. Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs. I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive. Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea. How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place? Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined. Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you. Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things. It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone. Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us. This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone. But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries. The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is. The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people. It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work. And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit. I'm not entirely against helping downtrodden nations if they are in need and if we have the capability to do so. However, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY NO capability to help anybody else. Maybe after we're out of debt we can resume sending out foreign aid. Until then, we have a growing economic problem here at home where an increasing number of recent college graduates are unable to find work and end up unemployed because there's not enough money going back into our own system, too much is going overseas! We need to stop this ridiculous spending overseas, for now anyway. Let countries that have decent economies deal with it if they want. Right now, it's impossible for us to continue this ridiculous nation building. This would have a point if the world wasn't so global. It's only going to become more and more globalized. Things that affect other countries have a direct impact on American investments. It makes us money while helping people at the same time. It's not like we just send money overseas and we never get any back. Ron Paul even said exactly this and he's the non-interventionist. That money comes straight back to us because people buy our stuff. Also, I really have no idea why you think we don't have the capability. We are still have an incredibly powerful economy, regardless of the economic trouble we are currently having. uhh no. Some money come back, but compared to alternative costs these investments are bad from an economical point of view. If you want good return/strong eco let private companies do the investments. Lead government out of the market. People drastically underestimate how much the US government does through private contracting. Make no mistake, private companies are the ones pushing for this kind of thing.
I second this, especially regarding the armaments, transport and oil industries. It's much easier to get a foothold for these corporations if the US government is there to provide leverage. A lot of presidential visits involve the negotiation of (very) big contracts.
|
NBC just declared that it is predicting Newt Gingrich to win the SC primary.
|
On January 22 2012 09:00 Xivsa wrote:
NBC just declared that it is predicting Newt Gingrich to win the SC primary.
have a stream somewhere? Was looking myself but couldn't find one.
|
On January 22 2012 09:05 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 09:00 Xivsa wrote:
NBC just declared that it is predicting Newt Gingrich to win the SC primary. have a stream somewhere? Was looking myself but couldn't find one.
I just heard Brian Williams announce it after the NBC Nightly News Broadcast and before their 7:00 EST programming started. If you want a source, NBC's twitter is saying the same thing: NBC Nightly News Twitter
|
On January 22 2012 09:16 Xivsa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 09:05 Derez wrote:On January 22 2012 09:00 Xivsa wrote:
NBC just declared that it is predicting Newt Gingrich to win the SC primary. have a stream somewhere? Was looking myself but couldn't find one. I just heard Brian Williams announce it after the NBC Nightly News Broadcast and before their 7:00 EST programming started. If you want a source, NBC's twitter is saying the same thing: NBC Nightly News Twitter
Gingrich winning this changes everything. Romney is no longer top of the food chain, and there is actually no one who can claim that they are. Santorum will probably be done after this primary. He just doesn't have the money for it.
|
On January 22 2012 08:20 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 06:38 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Honestly, I'd prefer Newt over Paul or Santorum, but I think Gingrich is too far on the right to reunite the country, too many liberals would seal themselves completely off, while Romney wouldn't be as effective of a leader but at least ease the tensions between Republicans and Democrats to get rid of gridlock in Congress. Congress isnt gridlocked because of how far on the left or right the president is, they are gridlocked because it is the smart thing to do. Everytime the president signs a major bill his popularity goes up a bit, so if you are a republican who wants to have the white house what motivation do you have to give the president a victory on anything. That logical approach is what creates the gridlock that makes it impossible to do anything even if you offer everything the other side wants.
It's smart but accomplishes nothing. It just means we need 67% of congress to be either Republican or Democratic to get things done (vetoing everything Obama/President 45 doesn't like)
|
It looks like Santorum is probably dead, leaving the battle to be between the newt and mittens. I love how sc primary voters decided that the family values candidate they want elected is the one who has remarried multiple times and is the only speaker to ever be sanctioned for ethics violations. Somehow the frothy one got no love... maybe because Gingrich is a Southerner?
|
South carolina exit polls from the NYTimes.
Link
Edit: Look at the evangelicals lol. Apparantly its easier to trust an adulterer then a mormon ;p. Romney faces quite a problem with them, and they're quite important in the general election turn-outgame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
