|
|
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: Show nested quote +More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
I believe Krugman's argument is that Obama has a mandate to raise taxes and should not budge on that. It's about not letting Republican hostage taking tactics win, otherwise it would just make them more brazen in the future. Although I don't necessarily agree with going over the fiscal cliff to make that point, unless it's only for a short while.
However, I believe Krugman's political calculations have now been obsoleted by this:
This move would be tactical and political genius.
|
Red an article today. Is it true 95% blacks voted on Obama, and no black celebrity supported Rommey? im no anyones fan but imo this is some kind of a democracy fail. In a 30 years no white candidate will stand a chance, no matter if hes Democratic or Republican.
|
I don't think a majority of the black population voted for Obama solely because he is black. I think Romney's position on healthcare, welfare, economy, and social issues turned blacks, asians, hispanics, etc from him.
|
On November 15 2012 00:27 mijagi182 wrote:
Red an article today. Is it true 95% blacks voted on Obama, and no black celebrity supported Rommey? im no anyones fan but imo this is some kind of a democracy fail. In a 30 years no white candidate will stand a chance, no matter if hes Democratic or Republican.
It was more like 90%, but Asians and Lations went for Obama something like 75% and 73% respectively.
I'd say most of the older Asian generation is still slightly racist against other non-whites, but they still went ahead and voted Obama for some reason or another. The Democrats have just been a much more minority-friendly party overall, and that's why they receive overwhelming support from these blocs.
relevant: (to the discussion as a whole)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aEhOy.jpg?1)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 15 2012 00:27 mijagi182 wrote:
Red an article today. Is it true 95% blacks voted on Obama, and no black celebrity supported Rommey? im no anyones fan but imo this is some kind of a democracy fail. In a 30 years no white candidate will stand a chance, no matter if hes Democratic or Republican.
The percentage of black people who vote Democratic has always been in the high 80s to low 90s over the last several elections.
![[image loading]](http://factcheck.org/Images/image/2008/ask_factcheck_images/april2008/BlackVote/Black_Vote_Pres.jpg)
Nothing special with Obama. It's only like 5% higher than last time.
|
On November 15 2012 00:27 mijagi182 wrote:
Red an article today. Is it true 95% blacks voted on Obama, and no black celebrity supported Rommey? im no anyones fan but imo this is some kind of a democracy fail. In a 30 years no white candidate will stand a chance, no matter if hes Democratic or Republican.
There are black celebrities that supported Romney (and they got bullied) but obviously, stop thinking it's a question of skin color. The black community is the poorest community in the US, why would they vote for a guy who is for tax cut and against healthcare...
|
I'm sure that there were plenty of black people who voted for obama because he is black, but you should also keep in mind that blacks have voted overwhelmingly for democrats for many, many years.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
It's 2 hour long and not really entertaining so I didn't watch it a lot but do they actually talk about international saving transfert from asian and developing countries (and even Germany to some extent) or do they only talk about the US side of things. Because I can't take seriously any explication on the current debt in the US but also in Europe if it does not take into consideration the under developped finance sector and middle class in those countries that provoque an irregular accumulation of capital and reduce the opportunities for investment and explain a lot on the current flow of savings from those countries to the developped countries.
they do talk quite a bit about foreign held debt but not address the particular problems in e.g. china that lead to capital outflow into the west. seems to be advantageous to the u.s. and europe (if they get their shit together) that their systems are more stable and well run.
the lack of investment opportunity in the u.s. is far less severe a problem than it is in china. for stuff like asset inflation id look at private banks and their money creation before looking at the fed.
|
So how's that whole secession bandwagon going...any of the remaining seven states jump on it yet? That drama was fun to watch...
|
On November 14 2012 21:04 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 14:49 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 14:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 14 2012 14:09 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 13:59 oneofthem wrote:On November 14 2012 13:41 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote:
if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much. So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning. I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there? Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process. First of all, why do they have to make sure the natives can keep the peace? Second of all, how is our presence going to help this? Third of all, I can understand it taking a few weeks, or at most a few months, but last time I checked it doesn't take years to remove equipment and sensitive documents... Why do we have to make sure natives can keep the peace? Think about what it would look like to other countries around the world if we go into a country with our military, tear up the place, find their head of state and execute him, and then just pick up and leave. If we left without making sure the country doesn't fall into chaos and it ends up doing so, our reputation abroad would plummet. And so why should we care what other countries think? Globalized economy, alliances vs common enemies, etc etc etc. Like it or not, even though were the strongest country in the world we still rely on other countries for so many things. If we look bad to other countries we might not get the cooperation we need for other foreign operations. Citizens of other countries might boycott our goods, might put pressure on their governments to not assist us, or whatever. There so many things to take into account, you cant just look at one issue as a standalone thing. Sorry if I sound confrontational but I'm tired of seeing people just taking a single issue, isolating it and coming up with some "brilliant", yet simple solution to the entire problem. People in the White House and the Pentagon have years of experience dealing with this and get their information about the issues directly from the source of conflict. We have absolutely 0 experience in these matters and get our information filtered through secondary and tertiary sources that no doubt have their personal biases infused in them. Of course we shouldn't just resign ourselves to ignorance and allow the government to do what they want without protest, but we should all try to employ more critical thinking to these matters
I really hate when I have a conversation and someone grabs a quote from the beginning of it to respond only to saying something that has already been addressed several times..please read the whole conversation before grabbing one little piece to attack. I already stated prior to this quote that this is not a subject I am completely knowledgeable on, that is why I am asking these questions, not to sound selfish. I am aware of our history, but my concern was the pros and cons of repeating it versus a never-ending presence in Afghanistan.
On November 14 2012 21:11 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 14:49 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 14:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 14 2012 14:09 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 13:59 oneofthem wrote:On November 14 2012 13:41 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote:
if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much. So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning. I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there? Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process. First of all, why do they have to make sure the natives can keep the peace? Second of all, how is our presence going to help this? Third of all, I can understand it taking a few weeks, or at most a few months, but last time I checked it doesn't take years to remove equipment and sensitive documents... because.. we broke their goddamn country in the first place? Seems a wee bit irresponsible to not at least help the new government that we put in place take care of their own people you know. Our presence is supposed to help train their troops and protect the people during this less-than-perfect time. We don't need the full hundreds of thousands of troops there, a fraction will do. You seriously can't be so selfish to think that after we ravage a country and install a government, that we would leave that same government and the confused civilians at the mercy of the exact same people we attacked?
Again...you are also addressing the same quote..
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more.
|
On November 15 2012 01:18 tMomiji wrote:
So how's that whole secession bandwagon going...any of the remaining seven states jump on it yet? That drama was fun to watch...
It's as much of a distraction and a non-issue as the birther movement as far as I can tell. Nothing to take seriously. Looks like just a bunch of babies who didn't get their president.
On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more.
I am really getting tired of the racism hyperbole. Racists of all platforms scare me, what is your point?
|
On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more.
What about African Africans? Do Asians like them?
|
On November 14 2012 15:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 14:40 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 14:20 white_horse wrote:On November 14 2012 14:02 BlackVelvet wrote:On November 14 2012 13:47 NicolBolas wrote:On November 14 2012 13:41 kmillz wrote:On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote:
if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much. So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it. Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war. Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't. It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin. Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo. I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014. I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.
obama followed bush's plan for withdrawal from iraq
|
On November 15 2012 01:44 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more. What about African Africans? Do Asians like them?
From my perspective as an Asian American, there's a certain amount if suspicion from both sides. Older Asians, (usually the first generation which immigrated here) don't really like Blacks. These guys (my parents included) got here with nothing and worked their way up. Now, they look down at the Blacks: they were down there, but they worked their way up but Blacks are still down there. A lot of their children look down on Blacks as well-- I have a good friend who has been complaining about Affirmative Action ever since she was rejected from Harvard. It's just so easy to say "we started in the same place as them and we uplifted ourselves".
On the other hand, Blacks look at Asians as stealing their opportunities. I don't know much more about that perspective.
|
On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more.
Not liking "African Americans" as a whole, and thinking they are scarry, isn't that a little xenophobic ?
|
its funny how perspectives like that come to be. It will be a long time before we have an Asian president but your parents still feel "above" blacks xD.
edit- responding to ticklishmusic btw.
|
On November 15 2012 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 01:44 PassiveAce wrote:On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more. What about African Africans? Do Asians like them? From my perspective as an Asian American, there's a certain amount if suspicion from both sides. Older Asians, (usually the first generation which immigrated here) don't really like Blacks. These guys (my parents included) got here with nothing and worked their way up. Now, they look down at the Blacks: they were down there, but they worked their way up but Blacks are still down there. A lot of their children look down on Blacks as well-- I have a good friend who has been complaining about Affirmative Action ever since she was rejected from Harvard. It's just so easy to say "we started in the same place as them and we uplifted ourselves". On the other hand, Blacks look at Asians as stealing their opportunities. I don't know much more about that perspective.
If there is any truth to that last statement...smack my head. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility for getting opportunities? People always wants to blame others for taking something from them or being racist. I can understand being angry about Affirmative Action though..and the ironic part is that some speculate that it does more bad than good for the people who it was intended to help (someone who gets accepted into Harvard despite not being ready for the academic challenge that ends up dropping out, whereas if they were accepted in a school more tailored to their capacity they would have succeeded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
