|
|
On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
Yeah no worries, I think the leaders of the Republican Party are actually pretty smart reasonable guys, but are in a tough position, especially McConell being up for re-election soon. I think Boehner, I'm a little more skeptical of McConnell, will do the right thing in the coming months as far as the fiscal issues go, I hope Obama is able to get a reasonable deal with them. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years within the Republican Leadership dealing with the base.
|
On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile?
|
On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile?
I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said.
|
Let's be real. How else would you win an election besides buying it? Just different people selling...
edit: you guys should not dismiss superfan. there's a kernel of the real in there
|
On November 11 2012 07:52 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. Yeah no worries, I think the leaders of the Republican Party are actually pretty smart reasonable guys, but are in a tough position, especially McConell being up for re-election soon. I think Boehner, I'm a little more skeptical of McConnell, will do the right thing in the coming months as far as the fiscal issues go, I hope Obama is able to get a reasonable deal with them. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years within the Republican Leadership dealing with the base.
Yes, Boehner holds all the cards, and if he sees Ohio for what it is in terms of a motivated electorate, he'll reach across the aisle in a decisive way, both to ensure his long-term place in Congress and in the name of bipartisanship. We shall see.
|
On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said.
Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer.
By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut?
|
On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut?
except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is.
|
On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
Communicating... right. See that's the thing, it's not about fighting those feelings and just hiding them so you can get votes. You need to change those feelings altogether. People see through that shit and I can tell you easily that as long as Republicans keep throwing old white men up there and continue to say those things in private, Hispanics are going to continue to stay away. Bush won because his brother was already known in Florida and even then we saw how razor thin that was. It's only going to get worse if Republicans think that throwing brown skinned Rubio up there in 4 years is going to solve the problem. He'll do well with Cubans in South Florida but Puerto Ricans aren't going to care, Nicaraguans aren't going to care, Mexicans aren't going to care because he believes the same crazy shit a lot of Republicans believe.
He will be better at messaging than Romney, no doubt about that. But as long as those campaign events are still predominately white, Hispanics will see through it. They aren't as stupid as people think. Democratic campaign events look like the US and every single Republican event looked like it was taking place in the South. You know other than the token people right behind wherever Romney was speaking to make it seem like it was diverse.
|
On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is.
A tax cut is just buying votes with money from the national treasury rather than from rich people then 
|
On November 11 2012 08:01 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. Communicating... right. See that's the thing, it's not about fighting those feelings and just hiding them so you can get votes. You need to change those feelings altogether.
didn't read past this. I said fighting and made it clear that I meant changing. this is exactly what I keep telling you: stop only seeing the caricature that you want me to be and address what I am really saying.
edit: I read the rest and lo and behold, it's a racist ass screed.
|
On November 11 2012 08:02 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. A tax cut is just buying votes with money from the national treasury rather than from rich people then
the money from the national treasury comes from American citizens. it's the taxpayers money already.
|
On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is.
Same thing..
R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !!
People: yeee i like money
D: We need government services. Live a better life!
People: yee I like food and healthcare
|
On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare
it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything....
|
On November 11 2012 08:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:02 synapse wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. A tax cut is just buying votes with money from the national treasury rather than from rich people then the money from the national treasury comes from American citizens. it's the taxpayers money already.
money is an inherently social phenomenon there's no such thing as "money already"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's JP morgan's money that they defrauded from these lazy minimum wage workers with 3 jobs.
|
On November 11 2012 07:47 sam!zdat wrote:
so then why do conservatives oppose sex education and birth control?
edit: answer, you WANT lots of poor babies to drive down your labor costs
Kinda useless, given that China exists 
Opposing sex ed is fairly common with conservatives because of the curriculum - they either don't agree with the content (homosexuality, abortion) or the age at which it is delivered.
Very few conservatives actually oppose birth control.
|
On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:On November 11 2012 07:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything....
So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money?
|
On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 07:33 XoXiDe wrote:
[quote]
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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money?
...
yes...
why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money?
|
On November 11 2012 08:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 07:47 sam!zdat wrote:
so then why do conservatives oppose sex education and birth control?
edit: answer, you WANT lots of poor babies to drive down your labor costs Kinda useless, given that China exists Opposing sex ed is fairly common with conservatives because of the curriculum - they either don't agree with the content (homosexuality, abortion) or the age at which it is delivered. Very few conservatives actually oppose birth control.
haha, yes it's true, why have a proletariat here when there's a huge proletariat over there that is much more docile?
nevertheless, somebody has to clean those toilets, can't outsource that to China
and yes, conservatives would prefer not to provide sex ed at a time when, you know, kids are starting to have sex
|
On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:41 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
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. You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money?
You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
