|
|
On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 09 2012 02:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 09 2012 02:53 coverpunch wrote:On November 09 2012 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2012 02:32 micronesia wrote:On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote:
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate. If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made. My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that? Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish. Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans. You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series. Or to any Oakland Raiders game. Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside. Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off. Have you been paying attention to the campaign? It was nearly all about the issues. Even the personal attacks are about the issues, e.g. portraying Romney like he doesn't care about poor people. It was not a popularity contest. It was a campaign fought on the issues. There were lots of attacks, but that's how politics works, when you get attacked, you have to attack back. It was a popularity contest, voters were looking by far at who looked more "presidential", and who scored the most "points" politically. Why do you think Romney was so close to coming back into the game after the first debate? His demeanor, his tone, and his aggressiveness totally shit on Obama, even though he completely lied through his teeth about a number of things he supported during his campaign up until that point. Even moving past that, many of the salient issues facing the United States weren't discussed in any serious manner during the debates, or even during any of the campaign rallies. The campaigns were only fought on issues when it enabled one candidate to attack another, and nothing was discussed constructively that hadn't already been mentioned before the campaigns even started. Obama won because he and his campaign did an incredible job defining Mittens as "not one of us", a vulture, an elitist, and overall, not someone you could sit down and have a beer with in the swing states. Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Gotta interject here. The question here is about the theme of the election. If you think about the past great presidents, they have this theme. Clinton got a lot of traction out of wanting America to be the richest country in the world, positioning his policies to do just that.
Obama successfully made the theme to want America to be a fair country. This immediately raises all kinds of issues and IMO it's a reason why his presidency has been confusing and not particularly successful, and this election brought up the idea of two kinds of fairness - the fairness of equality where we help the poor and tax the rich and the fairness of consequences where people who are smart and hard-working get rich and people who are lazy and stupid get poor. In the course of it, Obama made Romney look heartless and contemptuous of the poor, which resonated more strongly than Romney's attempts to make Obama look foolish for wanting to support the needy at the expense of the productive.
The bottom line is that Romney overestimated the effects that a tough economy would have on people's sympathies for the poor vs their acceptance that growth can only happen if people work harder and smarter. Although it shouldn't be too much of a surprise considering the way the same debate has played out in Japan and Europe.
Social conservatism is an easy target to beat up but IMO most of that debate is a red herring to this theme, which signals a change to the way people approach the question of what a good economy looks like and where the government fits in to mold that structure.
|
On November 09 2012 03:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Okay just back from assignment overseas and finally have internet access once again, my response: No surprise. I think this shows the, literally, bubble that the Republican party has been forced into due to the neoconservative influence. The fact that every time a poll showing a Obama gain was considered a conspiracy or just biased polling, and the fact that Karl Rove's reaction to Ohio going to Obama( then again if I lobbied for $300 million dollars on promising a Romney win I would be nervous/anxious as well) + Show Spoiler +As well as the fact that it was reported Romney only wrote a victory speech is very telling. Either his campaign staff was lying to him or they were that delusional, as for Rasmussen, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz who really took them seriously in the first place? Big win for progressives, and the moderate Republicans have got to make their voices heard in their own party now, or never.
I think 'only writing a victory speech' is a pretty standard response from any political campaign.
|
On November 09 2012 03:04 Sanctimonius wrote:
It's easy saying they need to have a more moderate party and candidates but these guys do have to fight through a Republican nominee process before they get to take on the Democrat candidate, and to win that they have to appeal to as much of the party's base as possible. While those votes are still up for grabs the Republican nominee will have to appeal to the right-wing, the Baptist, the xenophobic or racist votes, then swing more to the centre for the main election. Right now it's hurting the Republicans for having those elements in their base but if they don't try and pander to them, they run the risk of losing the nomination before the election.
Personally I want to see a new party in the US, the far-right. Have the Republicans move centre-right, the Dems can stay centre left and the nut-jobs can move off for their Tea Party and libertarianism.
edit: and Donald Trump can lead them, apparently. Correct me if I'm wrong but Obama won the popular vote, no?
The far right party already exist with Virgil Goode as their presidential candidate. It is called the Constitutional Party. Actually they are not that far right of what Santorum ran on in the primaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)
The other affliated party of the republicans is the libertarians. I don't see it as possible to remove those people from the republican party. Instead they should start running candidates with the guts to actively speak up against the far out opinions and give a reasonable alternative. Something like:
"No, personally I oppose the notion of pro-life, however I respect the opinion and I am all for states making their own legislation on the issue."
"No, personally I do not believe increasing military budget is a necessity at this time. It is important that we start to develop our military to work better in the future world where drones are one of the most important units of war to avoid having to burry our brave heroes."
It will cost some rural voters and it will hurt in the bible belt, but who would seriously suggest that they start voting democratic in Wyoming and Utah? The anti-federal sentiment should by far be enough to keep those states red. In the primaries these states are again of lesser importance and gaining some traction among young voters and city-dwellers can easily make for a better strategy in the northeast.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2012 03:08 oneofthem wrote:a recent, informative talk about the economy featuring stiglitz and krugman + Show Spoiler +
to expand a little on this so people watch it,
they make the excellent point that usually high returns and interest distorting moves by corporate (mis)management is rentseeking behavior by the managers. a low high tier marginal tax rate as well as capital gains rate is a huge incentive for engaging in this type of behavior. creating a high bracket of say above 1m in income and cap gains and heavily taxing that is a method of targeted taxation against rent seeking behavior, something no economist should be opposed to for both efficiency and fairnes reasons.
i'll also recommend people to read this book about management culture's role in the recent crisis
http://www.amazon.com/From-Higher-Aims-Hired-Hands/dp/069112020X
|
paralleluniverse linked to the stiglitz and krugman conversation about a week ago :-) It's very interesting indeed!
|
On November 09 2012 03:37 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:08 oneofthem wrote:a recent, informative talk about the economy featuring stiglitz and krugman + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd0Uz__ebzA to expand a little on this so people watch it, they make the excellent point that usually high returns and interest distorting moves by corporate (mis)management is rentseeking behavior by the managers. a low high tier marginal tax rate as well as capital gains rate is a huge incentive for engaging in this type of behavior. creating a high bracket of say above 1m in income and cap gains and heavily taxing that is a method of targeted taxation against rent seeking behavior, something no economist should be opposed to for both efficiency and fairnes reasons. i'll also recommend people to read this book about management culture's role in the recent crisis http://www.amazon.com/From-Higher-Aims-Hired-Hands/dp/069112020X
Krugman's a smart guy but he's just too driven by political ideology for me to watch an almost 2h video of him.
|
On November 09 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:37 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2012 03:08 oneofthem wrote:a recent, informative talk about the economy featuring stiglitz and krugman + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd0Uz__ebzA to expand a little on this so people watch it, they make the excellent point that usually high returns and interest distorting moves by corporate (mis)management is rentseeking behavior by the managers. a low high tier marginal tax rate as well as capital gains rate is a huge incentive for engaging in this type of behavior. creating a high bracket of say above 1m in income and cap gains and heavily taxing that is a method of targeted taxation against rent seeking behavior, something no economist should be opposed to for both efficiency and fairnes reasons. i'll also recommend people to read this book about management culture's role in the recent crisis http://www.amazon.com/From-Higher-Aims-Hired-Hands/dp/069112020X Krugman's a smart guy but he's just too driven by political ideology for me to watch an almost 2h video of him.
In this one Stiglitz is almost completely in line with Krugman on most of the issues they "discuss", including healthcare where both complain about Obamacare being too little equalisation of opportunities and a single payer system being the far better choice from a broader economic standpoint. They are significantly to the left of the middle in european context on most economic issues even and they both seem to know about how the european systems work, so it is not just empty rhetorics!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
most of the stuff they talk about is old news. i summarized a novel (at least i haven't heard it raised much) point that was prompted by a student question. the healthcare bit is pretty obvious. healthcare cost as currently configured is regressive and a huge burden on the middle and entry tier class. i don't see a single payer system as all that partisan.
|
On November 09 2012 03:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Okay just back from assignment overseas and finally have internet access once again, my response:
No surprise. I think this shows the, literally, bubble that the Republican party has been forced into due to the neoconservative influence.
The Republican Party has indeed literally been forced into a bubble by neocons. See for yourself:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Wow, is that really how it works?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indexp.php?src=hp
That is a fairly large amount of money spent to put down Obama, like a 3 to 1 in negative ad super PAC spending targeted at Obama compared to Romney and 300 millions to smear is completely nuts!
The support-spending from super PACs also seem to be 1 to 2 in favour of Romney.
I guess the other significant stat is this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
Where Obama was able to get significantly more spending on own campaign, than Romney. In the end super PACs seem to have been less effective than candidate spending, given that republican elephants in total outspend democrat zebras in the most expensive election ever. 2 billion dollars wasted and all that jazz...
|
Someone really need to learn Americans what socialism means. My country is considered social/liberal, we pay about half of our income in taxes (Northern Europe) America is NOT a socalist contry, not even freaking close. Im sick of hearing rednecks calling Obama a socialist. You have no clue what you are talking about sigh... On topic i am really glad Obama won, like everyone else in the world is, besides right-winged conservative americans.
|
On November 09 2012 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:23 acker wrote:On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote:
Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 The lesson learned here is not to give your editorials really, really stupid titles if you plan for running for office. I still can't believe he was that shortsighted. It's hard to twist your way out of "Let ______ go bankrupt."
Are you sure it was Romney who entitled that editorial and not the NY Times ? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney.
|
I also noted that the vast majority of Obama ads, especially as it got closer to election day, focused on convincing people to go out and vote, with almost no content about either candidate. Obviously he was feeling pretty confident that we got good turnout that the election would go his way, which makes sense because the apathetic non-voters are usually young people and minorities.
|
On November 09 2012 03:25 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:23 acker wrote:On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote:
Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 here's a suggestion as to why he might want to do that. http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/31272075809/ron-bloom-explains-financebasically, after these companies go through bankrupcy, he can move to kill the auto unions and their pensions/deferred pay by using their lower priority on the list of guys having a grab at the bankrupt company's assets. so his op ed title is totally honest and might be one of the few things he said honestly
Sort of, what he was suggested was very similar to what the government eventually did to the autocompanies.
The only problem was it was pie in the sky thinking and a bit of pandering to the small government people. Both the Bush and Obama administration looked for private backers for a managed bankruptcy and just couldn't find any. So the government ended up playing the role of financial backer out of necessity. Pretending that there was someone else out there to fix the auto companies was a little disingenuous (especially since he ended up playing the made-in-america card by condemning the government for letting Fiat buy Chrysler).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2012 05:42 radiatoren wrote:Wow, is that really how it works? http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indexp.php?src=hpThat is a fairly large amount of money spent to put down Obama, like a 3 to 1 in negative ad super PAC spending targeted at Obama compared to Romney and 300 millions to smear is completely nuts! The support-spending from super PACs also seem to be 1 to 2 in favour of Romney. I guess the other significant stat is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.phpWhere Obama was able to get significantly more spending on own campaign, than Romney. In the end super PACs seem to have been less effective than candidate spending, given that republican elephants in total outspend democrat zebras in the most expensive election ever. 2 billion dollars wasted and all that jazz...
it's a more luxurious and less effective way of buying influence i guess.
|
On November 09 2012 05:52 ZasZ. wrote:
I also noted that the vast majority of Obama ads, especially as it got closer to election day, focused on convincing people to go out and vote, with almost no content about either candidate. Obviously he was feeling pretty confident that we got good turnout that the election would go his way, which makes sense because the apathetic non-voters are usually young people and minorities.
Democrat voters, especially minorities, are much less likely to vote than white conservative males.
If America had a 'you must vote' law in the books, the Democrats would have won every election since Clinton.
|
On November 09 2012 05:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 09 2012 03:23 acker wrote:On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote:
Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 The lesson learned here is not to give your editorials really, really stupid titles if you plan for running for office. I still can't believe he was that shortsighted. It's hard to twist your way out of "Let ______ go bankrupt." Are you sure it was Romney who entitled that editorial and not the NY Times ? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney.
When you write an op-ed piece I'm 95-100% sure you get to entitle it (or at least get veto power over the title). This isn't writing a letter to the paper. And it's not as though he ever protested what they titled it...
Edit: Guess not at NYT, sorry. Learn something new every day. You're supposed to suggest a title, though.
|
Someone made an interesting point about Mr. Adelson in particular (the biggest GOP money contributor by a wide margin, having spent at least $70 million total throughout this election).
Almost half of that money was spent campaigning for Newt Gingrich in the primary, which was largely spent on ads attacking Mitt Romney -- calling him a say-anything political-hack and a Wall Street insider. Mitt Romney won in spite of those ads.
But then Mr. Adelson throws his support in the general election, giving at least $30 million in SuperPAC money to..... Mitt Romney, the guy he just spent several million dollars funding attack ads against. So now he's paying copious money to combat the rhetoric against Mitt Romney that Mr. Adelson himself had just helped perpetuate in the primary election.
What an idiot, and what a waste of $70 million. It also kind of sums up the schizophrenia of the GOP right now.
|
On November 09 2012 06:02 Leporello wrote:
Someone made an interesting point about Mr. Adelson in particular (the biggest GOP money contributor by a wide margin, having spent at least $70 million total throughout this election).
Almost half of that money was spent campaigning for Newt Gingrich in the primary, which was largely spent on ads attacking Mitt Romney -- calling him a say-anything political-hack and a Wall Street insider. Mitt Romney won in spite of those ads.
But then Mr. Adelson throws his support in the general election, giving at least $30 million in SuperPAC money to..... Mitt Romney, the guy he just spent several million dollars funding attack ads against. So now he's paying copious money to combat the rhetoric against Mitt Romney that Mr. Adelson himself had just helped perpetuate in the primary election.
What an idiot, and what a waste of $70 million. It also kind of sums up the schizophrenia of the GOP right now.
That's really more about the problems of a 2-party system when there aren't really two parties. There are two factions with many sub-parties within them. Gingrich has his supporters, Romney has his. But all of their supporters must be against the Democrats no matter what.
That is, you fight against each other during the primaries to see which sub-party wins, but then you all decide to work together to take out your real enemy.
The same thing happened with Hillary and Obama, when the fighting got really viscous in 08. Their supporters attacked the other candidates, but in the end rallied around Obama. McCain even used some of Hillary's own attacks against Obama.
Yes, it's stupid. But what's the alternative?
|
On November 09 2012 06:02 Leporello wrote:
Someone made an interesting point about Mr. Adelson in particular (the biggest GOP money contributor by a wide margin, having spent at least $70 million total throughout this election).
Almost half of that money was spent campaigning for Newt Gingrich in the primary, which was largely spent on ads attacking Mitt Romney -- calling him a say-anything political-hack and a Wall Street insider. Mitt Romney won in spite of those ads.
But then Mr. Adelson throws his support in the general election, giving at least $30 million in SuperPAC money to..... Mitt Romney, the guy he just spent several million dollars funding attack ads against. So now he's paying copious money to combat the rhetoric against Mitt Romney that Mr. Adelson himself had just helped perpetuate in the primary election.
What an idiot, and what a waste of $70 million. It also kind of sums up the schizophrenia of the GOP right now.
70 million. Out of his ~20 billion fortune. Meh, just play money for him. That he plays with every 4 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee204/flurkerer/elephant_in_a_bubble_by_shy_attitudes-d2yw3k8.jpg)
