| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 10 2012 03:31 acker wrote: So much for that mandate. If they're bending two days after the election, I look forward to December. Right now they seem to be signaling that they're taking a hard line on tax rates but are willing to compromise on tax revenue. There's a fuzzy line separating the two but they are different. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On November 10 2012 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Politics first, economics second. Typical Krugman... The alternative is doing whatever the Republicans say. It's like a hostage situation: the Republicans are saying, "Give us everything we want or we go over the fiscal cliff!!!" There are only two responses to this: give them what they want, or make them throw the country over the cliff. This is not a good place to be, but we're only here because the Republicans want to extort stuff from everyone else. Ironically quoting BillO: "They want stuff." Obama shouldn't give them "stuff". Not unless we get "stuff" in return (you know, a compromise). On November 10 2012 03:31 acker wrote: So much for that mandate. If they're bending two days after the election, I look forward to December. The question is if they're willing to compromise on "revenue increases" for the rich. If so, then this will probably be hammered out modestly amicably. If not, then it could get ugly. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On November 10 2012 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Right now they seem to be signaling that they're taking a hard line on tax rates but are willing to compromise on tax revenue. There's a fuzzy line separating the two but they are different. There's a difference between saying your willing to do something and actually doing it. Let's see how the negotiations go before laying blame I don't see the Democrats as unwilling to compromise in Obama's first term but things can always change. I really think the difference between tax rates and revenue increases through reducing deductions (I assume that's the plan, since it was Romney's) is something policy wonks and economist geeks care about, not the average voter, Republican, independent, or Democrat. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On November 10 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote: the specific campaign stuff means that the candidates' individual appeal and standing in the local community is important. "Congress" as an entity is detached from each congressperson, as far as evaluative process is concerned(sorites situation). congress itself has done a catastrophic job, congresspeople still get reelected by running on trivial stuff. mandate language is indeed a result of the two party system but it is just so contrived. Yes, I definitely agree with you here. The problem ends up being one of conflicting priorities; take a stand against the politically convenient language that stands at the center of our current maleficent discourse and risk bogging down the entire process even more than it already is, or simply continue on with the game in the hope that "progress" can overcome the inherent issues with phenomena like representing political choices as support of a "mandate". | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
Poll: Confidence in deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff"? We're Screwed (9) Somewhat Confident (7) Somewhat Skeptical (3) Strongly Confident (1) I don't know/care (0) 20 total votes Your vote: Confidence in deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff"? (Vote): Strongly Confident | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
Just a few of the companies laying people off after the election. The list also includes Energizer, Boeing, Lockheed ,and many in the medical field just to name a few. Expect second quarter of next year to be not just bad but a second recession. It is also no coincidence the DOW took a nose dive Wednesday morning. | ||
|
Waste
Sweden84 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:41 CajunMan wrote: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-election/2012/11/09/obama-reelection-triggers-massive-layoffs-across-america Just a few of the companies laying people off after the election. The list also includes Energizer, Boeing, Lockheed ,and many in the medical field just to name a few. Expect second quarter of next year to be not just bad but a second recession. It is also no coincidence the DOW took a nose dive Wednesday morning. when it comes to reliance on certain big companies or wasteful sectors for employment, republicans are suddenly not very interested in leaving things to the market. wonder why! a part of pessimism about the recovery is because of the fact that due to long term and catastrophic destruction of labor's bargaining power, the real economy's demand side is actually much weaker than is suggested by debt fueled booms of the last decade or so. it's the crows coming home to roost. | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:41 CajunMan wrote: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-election/2012/11/09/obama-reelection-triggers-massive-layoffs-across-america Just a few of the companies laying people off after the election. The list also includes Energizer, Boeing, Lockheed ,and many in the medical field just to name a few. Expect second quarter of next year to be not just bad but a second recession. It is also no coincidence the DOW took a nose dive Wednesday morning. Lol, did you read the article? 102 employees laid off in Utah. Sucks for them, but that is by no means a "recession." In total, the article mentions less than 1000 people losing their jobs. | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:49 TrickyGilligan wrote: Lol, did you read the article? 102 employees laid off in Utah. Sucks for them, but that is by no means a "recession." In total, the article mentions less than 1000 people losing their jobs. The article was just an example not the entirety of layoffs brohan. | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On November 10 2012 04:51 CajunMan wrote: The article was just an example not the entirety of layoffs brohan. K, well feel free to provide better sources next time. Also, I'm not your bro, han. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
2: Click the "Read Full Story" button. 3: Read the KSL/9WSYR title. Yep, Fox News. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 09 2012 00:30 antelope591 wrote: I could care less how long you've been in this thread...the facts are that the republican ideology undermined everyone who wasn't an old white male or from the south. The facts were supported 100% by the actual results. 70%+ for Obama with every minority group and massive lead amongst women and younger voters. Speaks for itself really white women voted for Romney over Obama.... so you 1) didn't read the exit polls and 2) still haven't proven your claim that the GOP platform was based on hate. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 09 2012 01:04 oneofthem wrote: not going to go very deep into this issue. but by cult i mean a distinct sociological profile. the social facts surrounding mormonism distinguishes it. you can also call it a regional theocracy or soemthing. for your second question, the answer is no as evidenced by your post. whats especially hilarious about this is you got it wrong.... again. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 09 2012 01:08 kwizach wrote: Karl Rove made no good point. The Fox News analysts weren't simply basing their projection on the difference at that point between the two candidates, they were basing it on where the remaining votes to be counted would go. They had way more information than Rove at their disposal on that matter - something he acknowledged himself -, and Rove's objection was precisely rooted in his incorrect belief that the Republican votes that remained to be counted could outweigh the Democratic votes that remained to be counted. Since the entire point of the projection was that this wasn't the case, Rove had no good point - only disbelief and shock at seeing his predictions be contradicted by reality. you missed the point: Karl Rove had different information than them. he was not aware, at the time, that the only county left to count was Cuyahoga. different information = different interpretation. who knew?!?!?! | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:02 sc2superfan101 wrote: you missed the point: Karl Rove had different information than them. he was not aware, at the time, that the only county left to count was Cuyahoga. different information = different interpretation. who knew?!?!?! he had the same info. it's right before his face. but he only focused on the fact that there are some republican counties left. he should know that cleveland and toledo were not counted yet, but he focused on a small piece of advantageous fact in order to say, wait a minute, we still have some time to spin this. edit: the cult 'argument.' let's consult the dictionary on that one cause language is god given and god speaks in a british accent. eh, mate? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 10 2012 05:02 sc2superfan101 wrote: you missed the point: Karl Rove had different information than them. he was not aware, at the time, that the only county left to count was Cuyahoga. different information = different interpretation. who knew?!?!?! Oh, is that his excuse? He was the only one in the news station who was unaware of information that they're all supposed to be aware of and have easily-available access to? That's funny. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
