|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
Then you either vote for whoever you feel agrees with you on what's more important to you, vote for a third party that has no chance of winning, don't vote, or vote for whoever has the better smile.
|
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
You're fucked and like me lol. So you vote for whichever is more important to you (economic vs social)
|
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all.
|
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
Welcome to two party politics. If you read BluePanther's excellent post above you'll see part of the reason a third more centrist party doesn't exist. To answer your question, typically they end up in the middle. That's actually a lot of our "swing" voters.
What I'm about to say has changed some as our government has become even more polarized, but it helps answer your question. There's an old saying in baseball, "Every team is going to win 54 games and every team is going to lose 54 games. It's what you do with the other 54 that counts." That, with some caveats, basically sums up our national elections.
That and the yes/no to minorities is crap, but I understand why you'd think that based on the media coverage.
|
On October 25 2012 14:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:When's the last time a presidential candidate had a highly detailed plan?
Obama does. You should know, I gave you links to his jobs act and his 2013 budget detailing the tax reform he'd like to implement, and your reply was that you were not going to read through them because they were too long.
|
On October 25 2012 15:52 BluePanther wrote:It's a serious problem that demands serious change. I'm going to start a topic about this after the November general with you guys 
You tease. 
On sort of related topics, I just finished "The Price of Politics" and my god how dysfunctional the administration and congress are right now. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Regan must be rolling over in their graves.
Afterwards, instead of going to bed I picked up "Red Ink: Inside the High-Stakes Politics of the Federal Budget". 200 pages I couldn't put down. A seriously good read if you really want to understand where the budget has been and where it's going.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina3 Posts
|
It's one thing not to have a detailed plan. But the things that we do know about Romney's proposals seem nonsensical, and have for the past six months.
How does closing tax loopholes and spending that benefit middle and lower class families improve the economy during a recession?
How does increasing the debt with a tax cut on top of the Bush tax cuts, as well as tying military spending to the GDP, cut into the deficit?
For his principles or goals to make sense, you have to have profound, profound confidence in the extremely wealthy redistributing their wealth and investing in America, even though they have absolutely no mandate or obligation to do so.
It's a pretty horrible gamble, if you ask me.
|
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
Most republicans and democrats I know are liberal socially and economically. They real question is whether you believe the president or congress have any real say on social issues. Mostly, in my experience, republicans rationalize voting for the crazy "legitimate rape" anti-minority anti-intellectual creationist hate mongers by saying that none of those things matter because nobody will ever be able to do things like repeal the civil rights act regardless of how strongly they advocate for it. From this perspective you only really have to look at economic policy and foreign policy which is basically all republicans ever want to care about so it speaks to their bias.
Democrats are also very concerned about economic and foreign policy but see them as directly tied to the welfare of the people more so than the market. The idea being that a fair playing field with a minimum standard of security and equality of opportunity leads to the greatest prosperity. From this perspective the specifics of economic and foreign policies will work themselves out within a framework of strong social policies. This of course speaks to their bias.
This is of course only relevant to moderates. The more extreme you get the more cynical your view until you end up at Swazi Spring.
|
On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues?
Republicans are an odd marriage of liberal economics and conservative social norms (this isn't anti-minority). It's more of a very christian religious conservative. I want to clarify that a large percentage of Republicans are only one or the other, not both at the same time.
Democrats are regulated free market as well, but they promote redistribution, ie, very progressive taxation a la Sweden.
If you are liberal on both social issues and economic issues, our largest third party, Libertarian, is probably "your" party. Although most of us who identify as libertarian tend to break Republican.
|
On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote:
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all.
Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually.
|
United States43971 Posts
On October 25 2012 17:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote:
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually.
Maybe more than Obama had four years ago. Obama has had more experience at running a nation now than Romney, about four years more.
|
On October 25 2012 17:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 17:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote:
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually. Maybe more than Obama had four years ago. Obama has had more experience at running a nation now than Romney, about four years more.
Romney has finished a four year term as an executive, Obama has not. That said, Obama clearly has better experience at this point. I just wanted to make it clear that Romney's not exactly in above his head by any means.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2012 17:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? Republicans are an odd marriage of liberal economics and conservative social norms (this isn't anti-minority). It's more of a very christian religious conservative. I want to clarify that a large percentage of people are only one or the other, not both at the same time. Democrats are free market as well, but they promote redistribution, ie, very progressive taxation a la Sweden.
A significant portion of Democrats aren't very free market. I'd say they like small businesses but love wrapping red tape around huge corporations/banks which unfortunately affects small businesses negatively. I, personally, would love it if we didn't force punishment and red tape onto small businesses for the stuff that Wall Street does.
|
On October 25 2012 17:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 17:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? Republicans are an odd marriage of liberal economics and conservative social norms (this isn't anti-minority). It's more of a very christian religious conservative. I want to clarify that a large percentage of people are only one or the other, not both at the same time. Democrats are free market as well, but they promote redistribution, ie, very progressive taxation a la Sweden. A significant portion of Democrats aren't very free market. I'd say they like small businesses but love wrapping red tape around huge corporations/banks which unfortunately affects small businesses negatively. I, personally, would love it if we didn't force punishment and red tape onto small businesses for the stuff that Wall Street does.
regulated* free market.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 25 2012 17:59 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 17:57 Souma wrote:On October 25 2012 17:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? Republicans are an odd marriage of liberal economics and conservative social norms (this isn't anti-minority). It's more of a very christian religious conservative. I want to clarify that a large percentage of people are only one or the other, not both at the same time. Democrats are free market as well, but they promote redistribution, ie, very progressive taxation a la Sweden. A significant portion of Democrats aren't very free market. I'd say they like small businesses but love wrapping red tape around huge corporations/banks which unfortunately affects small businesses negatively. I, personally, would love it if we didn't force punishment and red tape onto small businesses for the stuff that Wall Street does. regulated* free market.
Don't forget we'd like to nationalize the healthcare system too! =)
|
On October 25 2012 09:05 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 Souma wrote:On October 25 2012 08:30 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote:On October 25 2012 04:18 Swazi Spring wrote:+ Show Spoiler +George W. Bush
* Son of president George H. W. Bush.
* Governor of Texas.
* Military veteran.
Bill Clinton
* Governor of Arkansas.
* Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush
* Vice President of the United States.
* Director of the CIA.
* Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
* United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
* United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
* Member of the US House of Representatives.
* Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan
* Governor of California.
* Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater.
* Military veteran.
* Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter
* Governor of Georgia.
* Member of the Georgia Senate.
* Military veteran.
Gerald Ford
* Vice President of the United States.
* US House of Representatives Minority Leader
* Member of the US House of Representatives.
* Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama...
* 1 incomplete term as US Senator.
* Member of the Illinois Senate. parallelluniverse*Seemingly liberal *Aussie economics guy *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words I hope you're joking, paralleluniverse is anything BUT a supporter of Austrian economics :p In fact, he's been doing a tremendous job debunking pretty much all of their claims in this thread. He meant parallel's Australian, not an Austrian economist. Hahahaha, I can't stop laughing at this. Just picture parallel's reaction XD
On October 25 2012 09:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Probably like how he'd look right after someone smacked him with a gold bar XD
lol
No confusion from me. "Aussie" is a very common Australian word.
|
On October 25 2012 14:58 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 14:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 11:20 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Hey check this out. When you get away from fox news and get an unbiased view of who is better this is the result ![[image loading]](http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif) single digits in almost every country for romney sounds about right I'm sorry, but this thread has shown several times that Canada is probably the only country that has citizens that understand American politics even remotely well (and even then it's pretty shoddy when you get the the nuances). The rest of the world just hates republicans because they like to hate Bush. True Story. The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties. You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It is true. If the Republican party came to Australia, they would be laughed out of town.
Being against universal healthcare, clinging to guns, being ideologically against government regulation, etc., these sorts of policies are completely unfathomable in any other advanced country other than the US.
|
On October 25 2012 17:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 17:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote:
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually. Maybe more than Obama had four years ago. Obama has had more experience at running a nation now than Romney, about four years more.
He has nearly 4 years of experience now, yes. Does that really mean anything when he hasn't done all too much but make things worse? His record is what counts, not what he says or how many years he has done less than adequate at his job. I see it the opposite, these 4 years have proven what I already knew and expected; he is not qualified to run this country, nor does he seem to even understand how it works.
To him, it's all class warfare, and blame. Regardless of his situation, he the leader of this nation and it his responsibility to get things moving forward, he couldn't even do that with full control for 2 years.
Social and foreign issues are not of utmost importance, this is about our saving our economy before everything recedes into chaos.
|
On October 25 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 06:13 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 06:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 05:57 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:53 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 25 2012 05:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote:
The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will. But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore. If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him. Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't. Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening. Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter). I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.> Edit: Wtf does a google search show? Seriously. What a fuckin' joke. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=international happiness with obama&oq=international happiness with obama&gs_l=serp.3...20999.25360.0.25527.12.12.0.0.0.6.193.1546.0j12.12.0.les;eesh..0.0...1.1.frNdpXdfyEQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=92da361fb107ce2f&bpcl=35466521&biw=1920&bih=976 Yes, you are a joke. Only one of the search results on the first page of your link is about foreigners being happy with Obama, and that was about them being happy he was elected. From four years ago. All the links on the first page of the results I posted, however, were articles from sources as various as Der Spiegel, Juan Cole, The Daily Mail, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc., all of them recent, about the world's disappointment with Obama. So good job, you made yourself look ridiculous. This is probably one of those Google knows what we want to see and prioritizes that. Which still ends up making you look like an ass. That makes no sense. Google divined my political orientation from my search history, and by clicking on a hyperlink you provided, it gave me a different set of results than it gave you? I clicked that link because I really wanted to see what came up. If Google just gave me bad results thanks to some algorithm of theirs, that's a disservice to me and it would be Google doing a bad job. Which wouldn't happen because Google would ruin its credibility for reliable search results if it was found out. So just give it up.
This was true once upon a time. However, now Google actually checks your history and modifies the search result accordingly, unless you specifically tell them not too, as this is enabled by default.
So it's probable that Risen and you get different SERPs (Search Engine Result Pages), if you both Google a lot of political results and have different views.
I'll just say that international happiness beats down international disappointment, 14 400 000 to 7 870 000 .
Also, I really think people should stop replying to Swazi, his nick seems to be a play on the words "swastika" and "nazi", that should be a big clue. Oh, and his apparent reading incomprehension despite being perfectly able to formulate sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
