EPTRepublican nominations - Page 370
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:38 Sufficiency wrote: Watching the debates I think your parents' opinions are well-deserved. Haha oh I know, these debates are pretty awful. (Paul is good, but Romney and Gingrich remind me freshmen cheerleaders at my high school and Santorum just seems confused) They're not the only Republicans though, and certainly not the best of them, or close to it. (why they're the nominees though, I'm befuddled) | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:45 Jumperer wrote: 1Eris1 = anakin skywalker. If I get to walk around in a sick black outfit and choke people with my mind I'll become an evangelical. | ||
|
Raambo11
United States828 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:45 1Eris1 wrote: Haha oh I know, these debates are pretty awful. (Paul is good, but Romney and Gingrich remind me freshmen cheerleaders at my high school and Santorum just seems confused) They're not the only Republicans though, and certainly not the best of them, or close to it. (why they're the nominees though, I'm befuddled) Honestly Paul is pretty terrible in the debates (prolly get flamed by the masses of TLers who support him), a lot of the time he goes off on tangents unrelated to the question, keeps repeating himself, and honestly I'm surprised he gets applause when he does. I'm not trying to bash Paul at all, my point is these debates are a (IMO) not the greatest medium by themselves for people to get to know the candidates. Yes oratory skills and the ability to exude confidence (Gingrich) may be important skills for a President, but their are certainly more important skills (IE ability to make decisions. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:45 1Eris1 wrote: Haha oh I know, these debates are pretty awful. (Paul is good, but Romney and Gingrich remind me freshmen cheerleaders at my high school and Santorum just seems confused) They're not the only Republicans though, and certainly not the best of them, or close to it. (why they're the nominees though, I'm befuddled) I don't think Paul is good. Does he act like a saint? Yes. But his approach to foreign policy is very naive. This is not to say I support, say, Santorum's hawkish policies. But Paul has never held executive positions before and I don't think he is suitable. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 27 2012 14:22 Raambo11 wrote: Honestly Paul is pretty terrible in the debates (prolly get flamed by the masses of TLers who support him), a lot of the time he goes off on tangents unrelated to the question, keeps repeating himself, and honestly I'm surprised he gets applause when he does. I'm not trying to bash Paul at all, my point is these debates are a (IMO) not the greatest medium by themselves for people to get to know the candidates. Yes oratory skills and the ability to exude confidence (Gingrich) may be important skills for a President, but their are certainly more important skills (IE ability to make decisions. Martyr less. No one likes an internet martyr. No clue what you're getting at though, he's not as charismatic as the other three candidates but that's pretty obvious. Are you actually trying to say that's an important quality a politician should have? It's more of a means to the end of getting in office, if you're already in office it does you nothing. If you actually think about what they're saying he's the only competent one who seems honest and isn't just trying to say whatever to get elected. He's also the most consistent in voting records, which combined with his unified structure of beliefs puts his ability to make decisions above them as well. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
Ron Paul is just so funny. He's gotta stay in the race the whole way just for the entertainment and the real "moral" factor of being absolutely genuine. And GGTemplar if you honestly believe being charismatic has nothing to do with leading the country, leading policy makers, directing the military, negotiating with foreign leaders, smoozing with powerful people all over the world for the national interest, etc, then I highly encourage you to think about it again. With good power of persuasion and people generally liking you, you can accomplish more with less. Washington is a battlefield and being a natural leader and likable person will go a long ways to getting shit done, but yes, its immeasurable and only one of many qualities of an effective leader. | ||
|
Raambo11
United States828 Posts
On January 27 2012 14:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Martyr less. No one likes an internet martyr. No clue what you're getting at though, he's not as charismatic as the other three candidates but that's pretty obvious. Are you actually trying to say that's an important quality a politician should have? It's more of a means to the end of getting in office, if you're already in office it does you nothing. If you actually think about what they're saying he's the only competent one who seems honest and isn't just trying to say whatever to get elected. He's also the most consistent in voting records, which combined with his unified structure of beliefs puts his ability to make decisions above them as well. Yeah I figured this is what kind of response I would get, but no matter. If you read my post properly you would see that I am arguing that debates DO NOT BRING OUT THE QUALITIES A PRESIDENT SHOULD NEED> At the end of my post I said that yes being charismatic and charming and being a smooth talker helps you crush debates, but is not so useful when you are in the oval office. It is useful, their are just skills that are more important. So many Ron Paul supporters are so quick to defend him when anything negative is said. I didn't say anything about his policies, just that he is quite a bit worse on a stage then the rest of them. Also watching the debate from today, its clear Romney's strategist want him to be more Newt like in his confidence and criticism of other candidates. Worked as expected, looks like Romney has Florida. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 27 2012 14:24 Sufficiency wrote: I don't think Paul is good. Does he act like a saint? Yes. But his approach to foreign policy is very naive. This is not to say I support, say, Santorum's hawkish policies. But Paul has never held executive positions before and I don't think he is suitable. I don't think you understand the way our foreign policy is made out to be. The USA is known to use force on smaller countries in the name of democracy and killing "terrorists". When we go out using drones, people don't realize that there's always collateral damage and that creates more terrorists... | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
In which other state will they get to talk about Newt's grandiose Moon Colony project? | ||
|
Terry Bogard
36 Posts
On January 27 2012 15:28 Klogon wrote: As an Obama supporter, I would rather have Gingrich win because there is no way that guy is winning the general election, but I would not think it would be the end of the world if Romney got it and ended up winning the presidency as I think he's a very capable guy. Care to provide any substance for your reasoning regarding Romney being capable? | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 27 2012 18:05 don_kyuhote wrote: Sad that debates in Florida is over. In which other state will they get to talk about Newt's grandiose Moon Colony project? Texas, right? Texas has a big space program? | ||
|
tapk69
Portugal264 Posts
You americans know you´re in trouble dont you ? | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 27 2012 09:51 allecto wrote: You might want to look at other countries with high debt and the prospects for them borrowing in the future. Portugal is paying 15% on 10 year money now. That is not sustainable. Japan has over one QUADRILLION yen in public debt. That's over 200% of their GDP. Even though their interest rates are low on that debt, I think it takes something ridiculous like 40% of their government spending to just cover interest payments. Let that sit in your head for a second. Portugal and other Eurozone countries (excluding Greece) are in crisis because of trade imbalances and a loss of competitiveness with Germany (see: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114227¤tpage=55#1087), not because of debt. Their debt levels aren't even much higher than Germany. Here's a table giving debt per % of GDP for all Eurozone countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Economies_of_member_states As you can see, countries in crisis like Spain have very low debt level. In fact, Spain ran surpluses (meaning debt was decreasing) before the crisis hit. The debt was not the cause of the Eurozone crisis for all countries except Greece. And as you've pointed out, Japan's debt level is 200% of GDP and interest rates have over many years been very very low, about 1%. It's sustainable in the sense, that it's been sustained for like 20 years without signs of catastrophe. | ||
|
Terry Bogard
36 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Why Evangelicals Don't Care When Rich White Conservatives Defile Marriage Newt Gingrich’s win in the South Carolina primary looks like it may not be an outlier; Gingrich’s poll numbers are rising rapidly in Florida, and he has a good chance of beating Romney there as well. Gingrich is doing well in no small part because he has so much support amongst evangelical Christians; so much so that many evangelical leaders refused to go along with an attempt to unify the Christian right behind Santorum. In South Carolina, evangelical Christians voted for Gingrich 2-to-1 over boring family man Mitt Romney. For anyone who takes seriously the notion that evangelical Christians actually care about things like family and fidelity, this support for Gingrich is baffling, since he has a history of serial adultery that he barely bothers to disavow. But a closer examination of the situation makes clear what’s going on: for the Republican base, “family values” don’t actually matter, but are just a gloss painted over what really motivates them: reactionary rage. They love Gingrich because he’s a flaming ball of rage they can wield against everyone they hate. The sexual double standard is the most obvious way the us vs. them mentality works. There’s nothing the modern American conservative loves more than to decry our country's supposedly declining sexual morals. Once the Republicans swept state legislatures and the House of Representatives, punishing sexual freedom became their number one priority, which manifested in nearly 1,000 bills restricting reproductive rights in state legislatures and a bill attacking private insurance funding of abortion in the House. Eventually, House Republicans threatened to shut down the federal government in order to defund family planning clinics, basically because they’re in the business of providing contraception and STD prevention and treatment. All this while the base continues to push abstinence-only and reject gay marriage on the grounds that it’s not “traditional.” But when it comes to a serial adulterer like Gingrich, he gets a pass. After all, he’s one of theirs, and if you’re in the tribe, you get a lot more leeway. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the reaction to Marianne Gingrich sticking her head out, as she periodically does, to remind the world of what a terrible man her ex-husband is. This time she added the juicy detail that Newt basically demanded that he get to have both his wife and his mistress at the same time. It was a reminder that while this flagrant cheating was going on, Gingrich was repeatedly moralizing in public over President Clinton’s adultery. To this day, the GOP base still regards Clinton as some kind of perverted sex maniac. But Gingrich? Well, during the South Carolina debate when Marianne’s interview with ABC was brought up, the audience loudly booed the mere mention of her name. For the Republican base, Gingrich not only gets to cheat, he also gets to flaunt it in his wife’s face; but a Democrat like Clinton’s more secretive and brief affairs are unforgivable. Gingrich doesn’t live by the strict sexual rules laid out by conservatives, because those rules are meant for other people. Sex is a weapon being used against all those classes of Americans they don’t like: non-white people, gays, non-Christians, liberals, Democrats, people who have to work for a living, poor people, Democratic politicians. With rising levels of pious posing amongst Republicans, there has been some half-hearted attempts to pretend that they hold everyone to the same standards, which helped created the spectacle of Gov. Mark Sanford’s resignation. Gingrich represents a tossing-away of that feigned concern for fairness and a return to what conservatives really love best, a pedal-to-the-metal defense of straight white male privilege, especially that of wealthy white men. He’s the living id of the Republican Party: a spoiled brat who takes what he wants without apology, and then dresses down perceived inferiors for their supposed lack of morals and work ethic. You could easily imagine him drifting out of Tiffany’s, having bought wife number three fancy baubles with money generated from one of his direct mail schemes only to pause to lecture a homeless vet on how he deserved his fate because he didn’t sacrifice enough. In the Republican worldview, sex is a luxury item to be reserved for the privileged, and everyone else who indulges deserves whatever horrible fate befalls them. In the world imagined by Gingrich and his fan base, rich people get to say they’re sorry and run for public office if they have sex out of wedlock; poor people should see their health decline because they have an STD but can’t afford to see a doctor to treat it. The wealthy can afford contraception and have all the sex they want, but if Republicans succeed in cutting off family planning subsidies, poor people will go without. If abortion is banned, wealthy women will be able to travel to get abortions or depend on discreet doctors, but the poor will simply be forced to have babies. Of course, Republicans know better than anyone that simply giving into their worst instincts and promoting the career of someone like Newt Gingrich tends to turn off the moderates and swing voters they need to win elections. But it seems this year they don’t really care. Conservatives seem sick and tired of paying lip service to equality and family values, and instead are just enjoying the ride of cheering for the screw-you-I-got-mine guy. Will they wise up before it’s too late and Gingrich has the nomination? At this point, it’s hard to say. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On January 27 2012 20:40 paralleluniverse wrote: Portugal and other Eurozone countries (excluding Greece) are in crisis because of trade imbalances and a loss of competitiveness with Germany (see: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114227¤tpage=55#1087), not because of debt. Their debt levels aren't even much higher than Germany. Here's a table giving debt per % of GDP for all Eurozone countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Economies_of_member_states As you can see, countries in crisis like Spain have very low debt level. In fact, Spain ran surpluses (meaning debt was decreasing) before the crisis hit. The debt was not the cause of the Eurozone crisis for all countries except Greece. And as you've pointed out, Japan's debt level is 200% of GDP and interest rates have over many years been very very low, about 1%. It's sustainable in the sense, that it's been sustained for like 20 years without signs of catastrophe. 1) There isn't anything wrong about trade imbalances in it self. 2) However there could definitely be a problem if the competetiveness of a country isn't very high and the value of the currency is artifially high. This decreases the export of the country, and hence makes total production less. I guess this is what your implying? I agree that we need to make a distinction between a economical crises and high level of debt/Gdp. its not nessarcily this high ratio that triggers or even causes a financial crises. You can have tons of malinvestments by private comapanies while government has a balanced budget. Hence we need to distinct the economy of the government and the economy of the private citizenz + private comapnies. You point out that debt/Gdp isn't really a problem for most countries (if it just averages the historical rate). But thats not nessarcily true. The government can definitely go bankrupt if the interest rate coverage ratio gets to high. Now you make the case that the economy of Japan is sustainable. What we see in Japan is that prices are decreasing and the interest rate are marginally postive giving a positive real interest rates, and leading to a relatively high saving rates. These savings are often used to bying Japanish goverment bonds. From what I can derive from your logic, if the country buys it owns debt, it isn't a problem. However since we (I) made that disctincion between government and private people this very well could be a problem. If people can get a higher rate of return on foreign currencies they should (in theory) be buying other countries debt, and hence Jap. rates has to increase. But lets assume theory is wrong and doesn't work for Japan. If you look at Japan from a demographic point of view. The average age is really high and less people have been born. Hence working population is expected to decrease, which means that (everything being equal) less people are going to buy government bonds, which will increase rates --> itnerest paid/GDP increases --> Japan could very well be the next Greece. The thing is we have to remember. If a government doesn't have the production facility to be able to pay down its own debt, interest rates will eventually rise. It might take a long time, but for interest rates not to rise, it requires a constant inflow of money (which thanks to the central banks make this possible). | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On January 27 2012 14:22 Raambo11 wrote: Honestly Paul is pretty terrible in the debates (prolly get flamed by the masses of TLers who support him), a lot of the time he goes off on tangents unrelated to the question, keeps repeating himself, and honestly I'm surprised he gets applause when he does. I'm not trying to bash Paul at all, my point is these debates are a (IMO) not the greatest medium by themselves for people to get to know the candidates. Yes oratory skills and the ability to exude confidence (Gingrich) may be important skills for a President, but their are certainly more important skills (IE ability to make decisions. What sounds like tangents and talking about the same thing, are actually very relevant. They talk about an issue that would be fixed by a better economy almost everytime. He talks about how he will fix the economy to solve that problem. That's why it sounds like he is being repetitive, because that is repetitively the same way to fix a lot of the issues! | ||
KwarK
United States41961 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:34 1Eris1 wrote: Mmmm definetely. I just can't stand how stuck people are on some of their beliefs. I was born in one of the Liberalist Firstly, you're trying to say liberalest. It still isn't a word but you're using the 'est' ending to indicate that it is the most of something, for example biggest or richest. I'm honestly surprised that you don't know this, it should be your mother tongue. The 'ist' ending indicates that a person is associated with the activity, for example a scientist who does science professionally, an arsonist who just does arson or a nationalist who subscribes to a nationalistic set of ideas. Furthermore the capilisation of the L in liberal is hugely important. Liberalism is one of the founding principles of the United States and pretty much sums up all the things you were trying to say you support. Liberalism means freedom from interference, the right to property, freedom of speech and ideas, freedom from oppression, freedom of worship and all that stuff. You are a capital L Liberal, also known as a classical liberal. I believe what you were trying to say about where you were born is that it was one of the most liberal areas. Here you mean liberal as the antithesis of the old established value system. Classical liberals believe all men and women are born equal, that the personal lives of people are their own business and not that of the state or church and all people have the same inalienable rights. This set them at odds with the established family values/religious groups on topics such as abortion, race, gay marriage, national language, prayer in schools and a host of others. In a multi party system liberals, socialists, libertarians and conservatives would all have their own parties and their own distinct platorms but from the two party system emerged a strange union of socially conservative people (white Christian males) and economic Liberals while the social Liberals who subscribe to the exact same set of core beliefs as the economic ones, allied themselves with the more socialist party. Liberal became a term for the latter and the socialist ideas which are by definition the opposite of liberal became known as liberal. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43769 Posts
On January 27 2012 17:50 Sufficiency wrote: Not all GOPers are dumb, right? Watch this guy: http://youtu.be/BMYBl2uzXEw I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him. Very well-spoken indeed (but still falls short in actually establishing a proper logical argument against gay marriage in realistic contexts). He'll just confuse the hell out of many people and sound smart, which I suppose is better than sounding *obviously* stupid to the layman. He reminds me of those fast-talking creationists and evangelists (Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, William Lane Craig, etc) who debate against biologists or atheists using only their rhetoric (obviously something you might as well do if you're good with words) rather than rational arguments or facts. And then they get applauded because they sound interesting or smart to the common man (due to their eloquence), all the while the few people who actually know the logical fallacies and factual errors they've committed are banging their heads on their desks. But I agree with you that it would be rather interesting if we had more political debates and discussions where fewer candidates sounded like bumbling idiots and more candidates at least were able to pretend to be intellectuals. | ||
| ||
