On November 11 2012 05:42 MattBarry wrote: Not that wikipedia is a valuable source, but it said the country is only 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. So apparently either these statistics are wrong, people are uncomfortable with calling themselves a liberal, or the republicans have little appeal to moderates. I'd say the 3rd is much more likely
42.6% registered Democrats in 2004. "Democrats were still the largest political party with more than 42 million voters (compared with 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents)"
If we're guesstimating, I would say it's 20% liberal, 20% conservative, 60% moderate.
And then when it comes to the moderates deciding who to vote for, it's going to be the guy with the better social policies imo.
The economy is gonna do what it's gonna do no matter what the president does imo, they hold little power in swaying it either way. And then the 2 candidates try to convince people with their so called plans describing how'd they fix the economy. The average vote, me included, don't know the inner workings of how to get an economy moving so we don't understand what we are being told. We just have opinions on the matter and base our decisions of personality and trustibility.
So if both candidates seem the same and we have no clue which plan is going to work better we will base our vote off of who shares the most similiar views on other things, like same-sex marriage, women's rights, global warming, alternative energy, immigration, etc. All things I think democrats have an advantage in.
Who wants to be in the party that doesn't want these things to come true?
On November 11 2012 04:17 oneofthem wrote: neocon is kind of a foreign policy term. (or really, freeing the fuck out of people with extreme neo liberal means) but the lack of regulation in finance was pretty much like storing bombs besides a volcano. the way people bundled risky loans into assets then leveraged those into more of the same, all the while underestimating others' risk and overestimating their own balance sheets...
systematic risk misestimation is very hard to avoid. it's best to just avoid overleverage.
Lax regulation and outright bad regulation played a role, but both political parties were in on that game. Bush wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie and good ol' Barney Frank shot down that idea. Dems also encouraged subprime borrowing which increased debt for households and encouraged banks to add leverage.
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: When it comes to women, Obama held an advantage. But I don't know if the trend holds beyond the Presidential race. Furthermore, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. It is bad statistics to say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and why.
When it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. I'm arguing that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and that presidential exit polls represent the full demographic picture, by party.
On a side note, has anyone said that Obama have a demographic problem of losing males, whites, and the elderly?
First and foremost, the trends hold beyond Presidential races. It's not exactly difficult to look up or infer.
It's perfectly good statistics to say women support Democrats by a large margin. That's because it's true. It does not mean that all women support Democrats or that some subgroups of women do not vote Republican. On the other hand, it's terrible statistics to go Texas sharpshooter and single out the subgroups as a counterexample to such a statement. Being a woman is a positive factor towards voting Democratic, not a neutral or negative factor.
I'm not sure why you'd say minorities going for Obama is considered a platform of hate. But I'm pretty sure that Republicans didn't lose the majority of the minority and female vote without trying really hard to do so.
The population is getting older, to be sure. However, the population is getting less white and males are, proportionally, losing votes to women. Is there some sort of demographic problem here for the Democratic Party?
the trend does not always hold true is the point.
so married women, which make up a massive portion of women, supporting Romney over Obama by 7 points, is just some small sub-group?
i didn't say that minorities voting for Republicans less is a sign of a platform of hate, I pretty clearly said that it doesn't...
also, 3 million Republicans didn't show up to the polls. demographics aren't why Romney lost. edit: and as for the Democrat demographic problem, I mean, if Obama had lost. would you call it a demographic problem. don't answer that though, cause I know you wouldn't.
On November 11 2012 04:17 oneofthem wrote: neocon is kind of a foreign policy term. (or really, freeing the fuck out of people with extreme neo liberal means) but the lack of regulation in finance was pretty much like storing bombs besides a volcano. the way people bundled risky loans into assets then leveraged those into more of the same, all the while underestimating others' risk and overestimating their own balance sheets...
systematic risk misestimation is very hard to avoid. it's best to just avoid overleverage.
Lax regulation and outright bad regulation played a role, but both political parties were in on that game. Bush wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie and good ol' Barney Frank shot down that idea. Dems also encouraged subprime borrowing which increased debt for households and encouraged banks to add leverage.
i linked to a video a bit above with bill black talking about the particular kind of dangerous loans made out to not so qualified lenders. those loans do not qualify under the assisted housing mandate of fannie/freddie and were only made to feed the appetite of banks running the risk-be-gone magic circus.
i do not blame republicans, i blame blindspots in economic theory. it's pretty bad.
On November 08 2012 23:22 revel8 wrote: So is Karl Rove still disputing Ohio?
damn, but I wish people would chill out with all the hate. I didn't mind too much during the election because everyone was excited and what-not, but fucking-A, I don't even hate Obama that much (I don't hate him at all actually, but you know what I mean).
I'm not saying don't be happy, and I'm not saying don't poke fun.... but it's this kind of shit, along with the "What kind of retard would vote for Mitt Romney!!!?!?!?!!?" crap that really makes Republicans want to laugh our asses off when you turn around and cry about bipartisanship and working together.
Karl Rove made a good point and god-forbid he was fucking wrong.... shit.
Republican's whole campaign was based on hate so for you to come in after the fact and cry about too much hate is hilarious to say the least
have you been in this thread.... at all? I reckon I've been discussing this election in here a whole lot longer than you, and I made this point before the election, so please try not to assume you know something when you don't.
"Kill Romney" was the Democrat strategy, in their own words, for this campaign. and that statement was made before Romney had even won the primaries, so don't come talking to me about running a campaign on hate.
edit: FTR, I do think the Republicans needed to be better with their language and with the perception that they were giving off. so to add to my first point, don't assume things. I'll condemn Republican hate just as much as I'll condemn any hate from any side.
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.
You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney.
When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this.
when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics.
on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly?
When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate.
On November 10 2012 05:44 acker wrote: I'm going to edit your...statement...into something more legible.
On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: When it comes to women, Obama held an advantage. But I don't know if the trend holds beyond the Presidential race. Furthermore, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. It is bad statistics to say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and why.
When it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. I'm arguing that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and that presidential exit polls represent the full demographic picture, by party.
On a side note, has anyone said that Obama have a demographic problem of losing males, whites, and the elderly?
First and foremost, the trends hold beyond Presidential races. It's not exactly difficult to look up or infer.
It's perfectly good statistics to say women support Democrats by a large margin. That's because it's true. It does not mean that all women support Democrats or that some subgroups of women do not vote Republican. On the other hand, it's terrible statistics to go Texas sharpshooter and single out the subgroups as a counterexample to such a statement. Being a woman is a positive factor towards voting Democratic, not a neutral or negative factor.
I'm not sure why you'd say minorities going for Obama is considered a platform of hate. But I'm pretty sure that Republicans didn't lose the majority of the minority and female vote without trying really hard to do so.
The population is getting older, to be sure. However, the population is getting less white and males are, proportionally, losing votes to women. Is there some sort of demographic problem here for the Democratic Party?
the trend does not always hold true is the point.
so married women, which make up a massive portion of women, supporting Romney over Obama by 7 points, is just some small sub-group?
i didn't say that minorities voting for Republicans less is a sign of a platform of hate, I pretty clearly said that it doesn't...
also, 3 million Republicans didn't show up to the polls. demographics aren't why Romney lost.
I'd venture to say that most married women are white according to your stastitics if looked at. Romney won the white vote.
Those 3 million Republicans must really be hating themselves, it's totally not like a comparable number of Democrats didn't vote at all either. I think everyone in the country should be forced to vote if they want a tax refund imo.
I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
On November 11 2012 06:45 oneofthem wrote: american moderates are prob very right wing by rest-of-west standard.
Depends very much on the issue, I would imagine. I still argue that political ideology is eternal and independent of society, while actual policies rely on society and ideology is only so important. Economic right wingers in america do exist in Europe and so does corporate republicans in pretty significant numbers even. The only non-existent right wing part is the religious and the social conservatives is far below 1%. What is different is the society in EU and USA. EU is a bunch of independent states, on the way towards a more official federation. USA is a federation of states. EU has a general ban on weapons (you can aquire a permit) while USA has a general permit with the possibility of a ban. EU has far different tax systems, while USA has a more homogenous. EU has a separation of religion and politics, while USA sees religion as a guidance for some policies.
My argument is that Europe is far more stratified politically, but when push comes to shove it is societies differering rather than ideologies.
Moderates in Europe are like 80% of the populations and that is why the politicians go there. "Moderate" is more of a: "I think that generally we are about where we should be"-thing than a real ideology. Actually some people, like me, see ideology in politics as more of a problem than an advantage in general and being able to pick and choose between the different ideologies is what is making it less of an issue. I can also tell you, that Turbin tax and stimulus is not liberal or moderate in EU, but exclusively socialist policies. Same goes for a few other of Obamas policies and suggestions. Calling US moderates in EU and the rest of the world far right is not even close. The american society is different and far closer to the right wing ideal, but the policies are universal and doesn't reflect that difference generally.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry.
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I think that's a strange statement to make, that the demographics that swung Obama this time around would have voted Romney if only they really understood what the GOP platform was. How about they just don't like the GOP platform?
And we ignore the minorities/young people who voted for Romney just the same way we tend to ignore the 55+ white population that voted for Obama.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry. + Show Spoiler +
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
what was offensive about what I said? the buying votes? it's true. people who receive welfare will mostly vote to extend said welfare, and vote against those who would limit their welfare. (your own source supports this. immigrants are voting for programs and benefits because they think those are what advances them)
I believe that immigrants use more welfare than natives. it is not surprising, if true, that they would generally vote for those who would extend those benefits.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I think that's a strange statement to make, that the demographics that swung Obama this time around would have voted Romney if only they really understood what the GOP platform was. How about they just don't like the GOP platform?
And we ignore the minorities/young people who voted for Romney just the same way we tend to ignore the 55+ white population that voted for Obama.
I didn't say they would or wouldn't have. I said that I don't know if our problem is that our policies are being perceived as specifically antagonistic to those groups.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
Keep believing that, it'll do you and your party wonderfully in years to come.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry.
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
I wouldn't take much sc2superfan says to heart; if we are to construct a character based purely on forum posting, he more or less represents the type of Republican thought process that lost the GOP the election. They are also the most likely to cover their ears and ignore any push to the center when presented with the ramifications of losing. We can only hope that Congress and the leaders of the Republican Party are of a different mindset.
On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote: It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter. Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how.
I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures.
NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force.
NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan.
Are you serious? Aside from the obvious laughable ironies here, poor families seeing having another child as a positive financial move? The ignorance of thinking that might be the case is astounding.
Also citing IQ and its limited measure of intelligence is the kind of old fashioned thinking that kills education.
a year ago I would of believed you, but then I walk talking ot my neightbors and they flat out said the reason they don't use birth control is 2 fold. One it costs money, 2 a second child would increase their household income and the child would be cheaper than ther 1st since they have all the old baby clothes. I admit I was a little shocked, but just cause people are poor doesn't mean they don't know how taxes work in America.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry.
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
I wouldn't take much sc2superfan says to heart; if we are to construct a character based purely on forum posting, he more or less represents the type of Republican thought process that lost the GOP the election. They are also the most likely to cover their ears and ignore any push to the center when presented with the ramifications of losing. We can only hope that Congress and the leaders of the Republican Party are of a different mindset.
Exactly how I see it. So long as the GOP is dominated by people like him, they'll never get back into power.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry.
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
I wouldn't take much sc2superfan says to heart; if we are to construct a character based purely on forum posting, he more or less represents the type of Republican thought process that lost the GOP the election. They are also the most likely to cover their ears and ignore any push to the center when presented with the ramifications of losing. We can only hope that Congress and the leaders of the Republican Party are of a different mindset.
that's selling me a bit short, man. but I'll admit that's my fault more than anyone's, I'm terrible at communicating:
I'm willing to move more to the center on immigration and welfare. let's pursue amnesty as a legitimate option and let's keep a lot of the programs that people need and want. no, I do not think it would serve us well to drop our core philosophies. our base is very socially and fiscally conservative, and we definitely can't win by pissing off the base. what we need to do is start communicating better. Romney's 47% remark betrayed an inner feeling that most conservatives (myself included) have, and I agree that we (conservatives) need to be better at fighting those feelings, because they are often inaccurate and they often turn people away from us.
On November 11 2012 07:13 TOloseGT wrote: I don't know how anyone can dismiss the demographics issue so callously. 3 million Republicans had their reasons for not showing up, and I doubt all of them thought Romney was too moderate.
because there is no proof that it is a direct cause of policy. by this I mean:
there can be two meanings to the phrase "demographic problem". in one meaning, we would say that these demographics are usually liberal and will therefore support liberal policy. the other meaning is that Republican policies are (or are perceived as being) directly antagonistic to those demographics. I do not believe it is necessarily the second, and therefore our core philosophy isn't the problem, just the way we are communicating it, and also the people we are choosing to communicate it.
though I do think it's time to look at our immigration policy. I like Krauthammers (can't spell the dude's name) idea of guaranteed amnesty after the border states control illegal immigration. though, the problem of welfare remains. in my opinion, Hispanics are not voting on immigration as much as welfare. we (conservatives) have allowed the Democrats and liberals to use welfare to buy votes and this will become a problem in the future...
either way, I don't think it's right to discount the millions of women, minorities, and young people who did vote for Romney and Republicans and act like they aren't important or don't exist.
I'm gonna go ahead and forgive you for being really, really offensive, and not take it personally, I believe it was unintentional, but goes to the heart of the Republican problem.
David Brooks does a good job of explaining the demographic change, and immigration as an issue is lower on the list than other major issues, but the rhetoric around it makes it that more of a rallying cry.
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.
Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.
Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.
For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.
I wouldn't take much sc2superfan says to heart; if we are to construct a character based purely on forum posting, he more or less represents the type of Republican thought process that lost the GOP the election. They are also the most likely to cover their ears and ignore any push to the center when presented with the ramifications of losing. We can only hope that Congress and the leaders of the Republican Party are of a different mindset.
Exactly how I see it. So long as the GOP is dominated by people like him, they'll never get back into power.
we have the House, we gained in the governorships. I agree that Republicans have to try harder to reach out and might need to move toward the center on some issues.
EPT
