|
|
On April 19 2012 23:59 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:57 Etrnity wrote:On April 19 2012 23:47 Sweepstakes wrote:
I'm failing to see how having a president who takes the idea of the separation of church and state seriously (much like our founding fathers) is a bad thing.
Religion has no place in American government. The majority of the world seems to agree. You misunderstand, the founding believed that the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of people to follow their own religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"That does not mean that we cannot vote or elect based on religion, nor does that mean that our leaders have to be atheists. I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Romney (I would prefer Paul, but he's got no chance). Remember that our country was founded over two-hundred years ago, trying to escape the rule of England. The role of religion was still being figured out back then (as it is today), but the founding fathers favored people being able to have whatever religion they wanted. That's all that separation of church and state means. When a politician wants to make a law and their reason for said law is that "the Bible says this is the way it should be" that is absolutely violating the separation of church and state. If a law ought to be made you need to be able to provide reasons for it absent a religious text.
Fact of the matter is that I don't disagree with you at all. I think that we should have reasons other than a religious text in order to pass a law. I think this way because our country isn't just believers, but all varieties.
|
On April 19 2012 23:59 Trezeguet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:53 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel. People were fired means jobs got destroyed. You don't need to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand English. The fact that you think this is a simply matter of English reveals your ignorance. If companies lose money they lose jobs, regardless of who does the firing. If I fire someone who doesn't contribute to the profitability of the company, sure 1 person loses a job. But it only happens quicker, and the increase in profit allows growth and job creation elsewhere. Left wing economists don't seem to recognize profit as a factor. That is where they fail. The part you are ignoring is that often when profits increase, it doesn't actually lead to job creation, it just leads to the people involved having more money or more advanced (expensive) equipment being bought so reduce the number of employees needed in the long run. Everyone seems to agree that increasing the profitability of companies is good, but the discussion really seems to stem from what people think the companies then do with the money. Conservatives say that the money is then used to create more jobs, and Liberals say the money is used to make the people involved richer.
It is a material fact that a company needs profit to experience job growth. Or if you are a Keynesian then government injection of taxpayer funds can mean growth.
The liberal view is that profit is bad and job creation should be left to the government. It matters not what you think management does with that money. Some companies will reinvest if an opportunity will present itself. Others will not. You can't put these superficial demands on companies because you think every company should behave exactly the same.
And I don't know why the Australian guy keeps insisting that LBO's matter. This is a separate issue.
|
On April 20 2012 00:01 fritfrat wrote:
I am not surprised at the voting percentages, because of the europeans voting, but I am surprised at the "who do you think will win" poll!
Intrade has had Obama at around 60% for a while now- it's interesting that people naturally lean towards thinking that their own ideology is more likely to win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
TL:DR on confirmation bias - you search for and uncritically evaluate the information that supports the things you believe. And you ignore or downplay information that goes against the things you believe.
I didn't vote in the poll since I'm EU, but I'm really hoping Obama will win. I agree he hasn't been the best president, he rolled over on the tax cuts, he failed to keep at least a few of his promises (is Guantanomo [spelling?] Bay closed yet?), and that whole debacle with the debt ceiling... but I think Obama STILL beats any Republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I'm confounded constantly by the policies of the GOP, and I hope they won't get a candidate in until their policies are significantly less crazy.
|
Obama will win. Not because he's great, but because the opposition is a fucking travesty.
|
On April 20 2012 00:11 Razakel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:01 fritfrat wrote:
I am not surprised at the voting percentages, because of the europeans voting, but I am surprised at the "who do you think will win" poll!
Intrade has had Obama at around 60% for a while now- it's interesting that people naturally lean towards thinking that their own ideology is more likely to win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biasTL:DR on confirmation bias - you search for and uncritically evaluate the information that supports the things you believe. And you ignore or downplay information that goes against the things you believe. I didn't vote in the poll since I'm EU, but I'm really hoping Obama will win. I agree he hasn't been the best president, he rolled over on the tax cuts, he failed to keep at least a few of his promises (is Guantanomo [spelling?] Bay closed yet?), and that whole debacle with the debt ceiling... but I think Obama STILL beats any Republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I'm confounded constantly by the policies of the GOP, and I hope they won't get a candidate in until their policies are significantly less crazy.
Well Santorum's spectacular failure in the public eye has sorta proven that the fundies don't have much sway anymore. He got a lot of press because he was crazy and interesting and the fundies were SUPER loud because they're terrified of losing their majority power but I think that's more a sign of progress than anything. I don't anticipate anymore Santorum spilling into our politics.
|
On April 19 2012 23:55 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Their views are based purely on Bush being a Republican, not a real understanding of US government/politics.
I rather think that US are so far on the right that even our right wingers are leftist there. A typical Sarkozy supporter would be much closer to Obama than to Romney, not to talk about Santorum or Lol Paul.
Believe me, someone who would believe in "Intelligent Design", be against abortion, or have the kind of ideas on international politics or economy that the Republicans have, would be either 70 years old +, either considered as a fascist or just being a bit fucked up here.
As for TL being very liberal, the funny thing is that for us, liberal basically means right wing. It says a lot on the political spectrums (although the thing is that "liberal" in the US is applied to society issues while when we say liberal, it's about economics. In terms of economy, the Republicans are far more liberal than the Democrats)
|
On April 20 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Their views are based purely on Bush being a Republican, not a real understanding of US government/politics. I rather think that US are so far on the right that even our right wingers are leftist there. A typical Sarkozy supporter would be much closer to Obama than to Romney, not to talk about Santorum or Lol Paul. Believe me, someone who would believe in "Intelligent Design", be against abortion, or have the kind of ideas on international politics or economy that the Republicans have, would be either 70 years old +, either considered as a fascist or just being a bit fucked up here. As for TL being very liberal, the funny thing is that for us, liberal basically means right wing. It says a lot on the political spectrums (although the thing is that "liberal" in the US is applied to society issues while when we say liberal, it's about economics. In terms of economy, the Republicans are far more liberal than the Democrats)
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea.
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 00:07 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:59 Trezeguet wrote:On April 19 2012 23:53 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel. People were fired means jobs got destroyed. You don't need to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand English. The fact that you think this is a simply matter of English reveals your ignorance. If companies lose money they lose jobs, regardless of who does the firing. If I fire someone who doesn't contribute to the profitability of the company, sure 1 person loses a job. But it only happens quicker, and the increase in profit allows growth and job creation elsewhere. Left wing economists don't seem to recognize profit as a factor. That is where they fail. The part you are ignoring is that often when profits increase, it doesn't actually lead to job creation, it just leads to the people involved having more money or more advanced (expensive) equipment being bought so reduce the number of employees needed in the long run. Everyone seems to agree that increasing the profitability of companies is good, but the discussion really seems to stem from what people think the companies then do with the money. Conservatives say that the money is then used to create more jobs, and Liberals say the money is used to make the people involved richer. And I don't know why the Australian guy keeps insisting that LBO's matter. This is a separate issue.
"He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel."
Your bias and lack of financial knowledge is leading you astray.
Bain is an LBO shop which destroys jobs (and creates some as well). It has been well established through research that LBOs do no create efficiency.
Therefore Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction != creating efficiency, like you mentioned before.
And going all the way back, I am still waiting for something to be cited as incorrect in that Krugman - GOP Gekko article.
|
It takes longer to get yourself out of a pit than to all into one. It takes <1 second to be shot with a bullet, but could take weeks to fully recover. I'm just confused at how people apparently think the budget can be balanced in 4 years.
|
On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made...
You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right?
|
On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 23:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Their views are based purely on Bush being a Republican, not a real understanding of US government/politics. I rather think that US are so far on the right that even our right wingers are leftist there. A typical Sarkozy supporter would be much closer to Obama than to Romney, not to talk about Santorum or Lol Paul. Believe me, someone who would believe in "Intelligent Design", be against abortion, or have the kind of ideas on international politics or economy that the Republicans have, would be either 70 years old +, either considered as a fascist or just being a bit fucked up here. As for TL being very liberal, the funny thing is that for us, liberal basically means right wing. It says a lot on the political spectrums (although the thing is that "liberal" in the US is applied to society issues while when we say liberal, it's about economics. In terms of economy, the Republicans are far more liberal than the Democrats) Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US. When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea.
I know i should stay away from this but your government right now and during bush probably has the lowest tax rates (and with that one would assume, smallest government) it has had in a long long while 
|
On April 20 2012 00:28 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made... You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right?
Source?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I am just genuinely interested.
|
On April 20 2012 00:12 SeaSwift wrote:
Obama will win. Not because he's great, but because the opposition is a fucking travesty.
Yep, pretty much it.
The whole Republican caucus was a travesty, but that's history. Romney's got some absolutely stupid handlers imo. Who is telling him to be this corny optimistic fake smiling Reagan wannabe? Seriously this guy has a heavy financial background, instead of hiding from it like it's some horrible thing, they should have just run with it. I know people hate the rich financial types with a passion but people still have respect for someone who can kick some asses and get shit done in the business world. You'd think with the economy being such a big issue that would be the proper way to go, maybe?
I don't know just brainstorming here.
|
On April 20 2012 00:28 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made... You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right?
This is actually quite interesting. Is there some source of this that I can read more into because it would definitely be a good read!
And please. His campaign money is not his own money, it's donated money. Obama's grassroots donations still outpace Romney like night and day. There will always be outside influence in Washington, it just seems Romney is moreso than anyone else.
|
Oscar Wilde said in 1891 that artists under pressure (of money) cannot deliver good art.
The same applies to politicians. They are under pressure by their donors to deliver a certain result, in a way their souls are not theirs anymore but belong to their donors. It's not like there are no honest politicians anymore but that the ones that get far enough to run for president already sold their soul to donors because it's the only way to get there, that's why america with so many brilliant people can only get these pathetic candidates. It's the system, not the people.
I wonder if people like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln could have been elected today. Probably not.
|
I think it will be closer than the landslide that was the last election... but unless some crazy unforeseen shit happens Obama obviously has it in the bag. Republicans needed a person they could all be happy about and pull for, sadly Romney is a ridiculously awkward rich dude with tons of baggage. He's John Kerry 2.0.
|
On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 23:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Their views are based purely on Bush being a Republican, not a real understanding of US government/politics. I rather think that US are so far on the right that even our right wingers are leftist there. A typical Sarkozy supporter would be much closer to Obama than to Romney, not to talk about Santorum or Lol Paul. Believe me, someone who would believe in "Intelligent Design", be against abortion, or have the kind of ideas on international politics or economy that the Republicans have, would be either 70 years old +, either considered as a fascist or just being a bit fucked up here. As for TL being very liberal, the funny thing is that for us, liberal basically means right wing. It says a lot on the political spectrums (although the thing is that "liberal" in the US is applied to society issues while when we say liberal, it's about economics. In terms of economy, the Republicans are far more liberal than the Democrats) Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US. When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea.
This is a misunderstanding of history. Americans used to have a HUGELY involved government. For pretty much all of the 20th century the government was the biggest player in the country, taxes were obscene, and the government controlled corporations and people in frightening ways. The New Deal is a big example of just how big government got. There was obviously some ebb and flow even back then but today our government is much smaller than it was previously (at the federal level, state government is ballooning) and taxes are at historic lows...for the rich at least (perhaps for the poor as well).
What's got people up in arms about small government now is that what little government we have is almost completely run by corporate and lobbying money. And now that we have access to a lot more information we're realizing that much of Congress is just a giant game to pocket as much money as possible while creating laws that only allow more profiteering and lobbying. When we scream for small government now we mean we don't want corporations to be able to buy laws and we don't want our tax dollars paying their performance bonuses.
|
Both are bad candidates, both have done nothing for America, neither will produce anything in their 4 years if they get elected. I'm just hoping there isn't another multi billion dollar bailout if Obama wins or any of Romney's policies if he wins.
|
On April 20 2012 00:35 mastergriggy wrote:
Both are bad candidates, both have done nothing for America, neither will produce anything in their 4 years if they get elected. I'm just hoping there isn't another multi billion dollar bailout if Obama wins or any of Romney's policies if he wins.
I think it's more about spending than stimulus now that the worst is over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
