I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
On June 23 2012 01:29 Epocalypse wrote: Good article on Socialism vs Fascism <--- which is Obama? http://bit.ly/MBLI05
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
I feel incredibly hopeless with this upcoming election. I don't think Obama can put anything new and worthwhile on the table considering his original campaign consisted of a number of non-specific promises, half of which were never even fulfilled. Even if he does come up with something "brilliant" there is nothing that says that he will actually go through with it in the end. When people elected him in the first place how many thought he would just give unregulated money to corporations and banks, ignore any environmental concerns entirely and perform Bush/Reagan-esque stealth war missions. Romney is just a politician who will say anything to get elected and will probably not represent any form of beneficial change for the world or the US.
Oh and if you don't like either of them, Americans are too heavily guided by the media and established money to actually allow any new parties to stand. Compromise will only ever be between two parties who in all honesty are not that different as one only stands for privatization and austerity and refuses to make any compromise in the other direction while the other party will only ever compromise. Your choice
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
...where did I ever even imply that Obama doesn't get money from billionaires and corporations too?
Yea, academic was pointless. I just couldn't think of a noun...
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
...where did I ever even imply that Obama doesn't get money from billionaires and corporations too?
Yea, academic was pointless. I just couldn't think of a noun...
I think academic is a rather fitting term of differentiation with which to describe Obama, as while Romney certainly comes from the Ivy League his demeanor and speaking style are far more Wall Street then anything else. In other words, Obama=classroom, Romney=boardroom, at least as far as pedantic simplifications go.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
So his goal is to make an impact leaving room for Rand Paul : D (or so it seems) this should be a rocking time in Tampa
The election is between Obama and Romney, any vote for any other party is just a wasted vote.
So you're left with 2 choices which are basically the same. This is a smart kind of totalitarism.
For presidential elections, third parties are a wasted vote with the current system.
If you want real third party change, vote for third parties in House and Senate races first.
It's easier to elect a 3rd party congressman or senator than a president, it's true, but that's no way to start a viable 3rd party alternative. There are a few reasons:
1. Our system dictates that we vote in single-member, majority districts. This means that in order to get a significant number of legislators from a 3rd party, they actually have to have majorities (or pluralities, depending on the district) in dozens of different states and congressional districts. Without that, you don't have a viable party. We don't just have a system that's set up for a 2 party presidential race. It's set up for 2 parties at every level of federal government. Something more like a proportional system would make it much easier.
2. Because you need a majority in both houses of congress to get anything done, including a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, individual legislators from 3rd parties have an inordinate amount of power in any closely divided congress. This puts them in a position to wield an outsized influence over policy. It's necessarily polarizing (especially since there really isn't room for a "centrist" party), which is bad for the overall political process. Both parties will do anything they can to force out or otherwise marginalize 3rd parties. This potentially means something as drastic as refusing to field a candidate for a close seat (which they expect to lose) if it might mean the 3rd party could win. The goal is to consolidate power, even if that means you guarentee a win for your opponent over a 3rd party candidate. The key is to hedge against volatility.
3. The way a 2 party system is supposed to work is that each of the parties periodically adopt positions held by other, new or previously-marginalized constituencies. If the parties are functioning the way they're supposed to (and there's reason to believe at least one of them is), any growing 3rd party will have it's platfrom either partially or completely absorbed by either Democrats or Republicans. This starves the 3rd party of support and strenthens the party that absorbed their platform.
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
...where did I ever even imply that Obama doesn't get money from billionaires and corporations too?
Yea, academic was pointless. I just couldn't think of a noun...
This quote
You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama.
implies that voting for Obama would means you don't want more money in politics, or that he is somehow immune from the influences of donations. Eitherway, I think such a statement is misleading. Obama might not get all of his money from the same sources as Romney, but he still is greatly tied into money and you can bet it affects some of his policies.
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
...where did I ever even imply that Obama doesn't get money from billionaires and corporations too?
Yea, academic was pointless. I just couldn't think of a noun...
You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama.
implies that voting for Obama would means you don't want more money in politics, or that he is somehow immune from the influences of donations. Eitherway, I think such a statement is misleading. Obama might not get all of his money from the same sources as Romney, but he still is greatly tied into money and you can bet it affects some of his policies.
Obama hasn't said things like "Corporations are people my friend." Just because they both take large donations and such doesn't mean they're the same. Romney openly embraces the money that's taking over politics.
It's about betting on not only this election but for future elections. Which is more likely to take on bullshit like Citizen's United? The one who has spoke against it and now uses it (possibly because he's a hypocrite or possibly because he has to in order to compete), or the one who openly embraces it?
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
So his goal is to make an impact leaving room for Rand Paul : D (or so it seems) this should be a rocking time in Tampa
The election is between Obama and Romney, any vote for any other party is just a wasted vote.
So you're left with 2 choices which are basically the same. This is a smart kind of totalitarism.
For presidential elections, third parties are a wasted vote with the current system.
If you want real third party change, vote for third parties in House and Senate races first.
It's easier to elect a 3rd party congressman or senator than a president, it's true, but that's no way to start a viable 3rd party alternative. There are a few reasons:
1. Our system dictates that we vote in single-member, majority districts. This means that in order to get a significant number of legislators from a 3rd party, they actually have to have majorities (or pluralities, depending on the district) in dozens of different states and congressional districts. Without that, you don't have a viable party. We don't just have a system that's set up for a 2 party presidential race. It's set up for 2 parties at every level of federal government. Something more like a proportional system would make it much easier.
2. Because you need a majority in both houses of congress to get anything done, including a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, individual legislators from 3rd parties have an inordinate amount of power in any closely divided congress. This puts them in a position to wield an outsized influence over policy. It's necessarily polarizing (especially since there really isn't room for a "centrist" party), which is bad for the overall political process. Both parties will do anything they can to force out or otherwise marginalize 3rd parties. This potentially means something as drastic as refusing to field a candidate for a close seat (which they expect to lose) if it might mean the 3rd party could win. The goal is to consolidate power, even if that means you guarentee a win for your opponent over a 3rd party candidate. The key is to hedge against volatility.
3. The way a 2 party system is supposed to work is that each of the parties periodically adopt positions held by other, new or previously-marginalized constituencies. If the parties are functioning the way they're supposed to (and there's reason to believe at least one of them is), any growing 3rd party will have it's platfrom either partially or completely absorbed by either Democrats or Republicans. This starves the 3rd party of support and strenthens the party that absorbed their platform.
4. Money. Yeah, that about covers it. Money.
I really respect this reasoning and I completely agree on all points. However, getting the candidate and the policies in the news might be worth it, to establish an alternative. While it might take a very long time to end up getting the presidency in play for such a party, it might end up something like the liberals in UK with a good representation in the house and maybe even congress.
On June 24 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: Regardless of if Obama is a real progressive or representative of actual change, that is his perception. You want to show that you're in favor of a corporate-bought sleazy businessman like Romney? Vote for him. You will show the media and congress that you want more money in politics, and are perfectly comfortable with a corrupt wall street.
You want an academic who is actually willing to make comprehensive changes to things and is willing to take on politically challenging tasks like healthcare, vote for Obama. Like they keep saying that the majority of Americans are against Obamacare but they leave out the fact that it's because the majority of Americans wanted more drastic reform. Hell, he even took down DADT.
If you don't agree with either of them, then just vote for what they represent. The only way you're going to get actual libertarian or socialist or progressive or liberal ideas is if you show the media and governments that you don't want to put up with corrupt bullshit and want actual change. And to me, that means it is essential that Romney cannot win and Obama should.
You know, not that I'm bias or anything.
It's his perception because you're listening to the same bullshit that you're lambasting Romney for supposedely being bought by. Newsflash, Obama gets money from billionaires and corporations too.
p.s. Romney went to Harvard too, so I'm not sure what the point of "academic" was
...where did I ever even imply that Obama doesn't get money from billionaires and corporations too?
Yea, academic was pointless. I just couldn't think of a noun...
I think academic is a rather fitting term of differentiation with which to describe Obama, as while Romney certainly comes from the Ivy League his demeanor and speaking style are far more Wall Street then anything else. In other words, Obama=classroom, Romney=boardroom, at least as far as pedantic simplifications go.
If you guys are familiar in non-profit or community organizations, I think you'd find that Obama's style of leadership is reflective of that kind of experience.
To be an effective leader in a non-profit, you can't motivate people with the kind of money, promotions or incentives that are typical in corporation or large business. Non-profits rely on minimal funding and a large base of volunteers.
You actually have to inspire and mobilize people with ideas, a 'mission', and educate/indoctrinate people about social issues, and training those people how to spread your message to others to expand your base. The turnover of volunteers is typically high, and so you never stop talking or giving speeches. You typically try to target and bring together disenfranchised, maligned groups around a single cause for 'the greater good'.
I'd argue that it's much harder to be an effective leader of a non-profit than a corporation in many ways, but like corporations, leadership in these goody-two-shoes organizations can be easily corrupted.
That being said, I think Obama should be considered a 'rockstar' leader and speaker by most standards. If this 'president' thing doesn't pan out he has a long career as a world leader for some global organization ahead of him.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
So his goal is to make an impact leaving room for Rand Paul : D (or so it seems) this should be a rocking time in Tampa
The election is between Obama and Romney, any vote for any other party is just a wasted vote.
Unless you live in a swing state it's a wasted vote anyway. What a great "democracy."
edit: and what do you recommend doing when neither of them represents your interests?
You vote for the lesser of the evils in order to buy you time to change public opinion and for a better candidate to appears. In this case it's Romney because, as has been said various times, he is a wishy washy candidate with no clear agenda, while Obama is full on Fascist. Both of their end games are the same... Fascism, but Romney will get us there much slower; slow enough that I hope it buys time for a good candidate with public support to emerge.
Here's a brief clip expressing this sentiment, not very full of content but still illustrates the point in a very simplified way.
80% think Obama is going to win? 70% are voting for him? Welcome to the internet. If you haven't been on your first salary job you shouldn't be allowed to click on that poll. If you don't know what a ROTH IRA is versus a traditional IRA, don't have money in either one (hint: if your on your first job and at your lowest tax rates of your life start getting your $5,000 a year into your ROTH right NOW!) or have money to manage you shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything. If you haven't saved a penny of your money and you're over 25 you shouldn't be allowed to click on that poll. You do realize we won't have social security like those retired right now get, right? You HAVE to start investing earlier in your life. I believe a large chunk of anyone that has realized this and the time value of money will understand my argument otherwise this is just going to wash over you and you can move on not investing a penny until your 40, voting for plagued down unions, social issues, claiming the corporations are bad guys (that just hire you and drive your investments and future wealth to retire in a reasonable fashion), government debt, and everything else ridiculous.
As an investor and someone who makes money, unlike over 70% of the internet apparently, the social issues will not matter for this election. Whoever says otherwise is naive and stupid. US and global economics, debt, employment, and taxes are deciding this election. Guess what's happening? 4 week rolling unemployment numbers are rising, Europe is a ticking debt bomb, China is in contraction and likely lying about ALL their economic data, and the US is starting to show BIG signs of contraction in Q2. Q1 was decent for the US I will admit (and anyone going swing trades and momentum stocks made a ton of money, just look at the S&P 500 performance over the first months of the year). What's happening recently? US Unemployment is getting worse, contraction in manufacturing and purchasing, and the global debt bombs are weighing on the US decisions too. In my opinion Q2 results from the large corporations, especially those companies in Europe and China heavily, are going to TANK. Tanking stock market, unemployment, debt, etc. will get the 5-10% that haven't already decided to go Romney. That's a whole different point that 90% are decided on who they will vote even though KEY and ESSENTIAL facts of the state of the US economy and global economy are still uncertain going into the election. Really? REALLY? At the end of March I actually said to myself if we can keep improving employment and churn along at 1-2% GDP then Obama would be the best bet going forward because the Republicans are a mess and Romney really isn't the most inspiring figurehead in the world to just swap over from Obama. Now? Not so sure... I want more data, more information, and more results going into the future before deciding. It's going the wrong way for Obama right now.
Random thoughts, my favorite short play going forward is CAT and related names in that industry. They've been screaming bloody murder about China sales going forward and Q2 has gotten worse and worse for China, Europe, and US data. Too bad X and AKS have already hit pretty low otherwise I'd still be hammering them as shorts too. AKS has had tons of resistance at $5 so I find it hard to see it breaking that outside of a massive stock market downturn from a major news item. Anyway, global steelmakers, global industrial equipment and production type companies are going to have trouble. T has been my killer long in my ROTH, loving that stock still and going forward. Perfect buy, hold, forget type of stock paying insane dividends (unless Obama actually raises the 15% dividend tax rate... corps will cut dividends and individuals well sell off in mass). INTC has 35% Asia exposure (according to their 10-K) and I'm really worried they hit their numbers. They are tech too so mehhhh nto quite the industries I'm hating on. Debating a short play into earnings but gambling earnings is pretty stupid and I would need to do much more research before pulling that trigger. Blah blah blah off topic suddenly.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
So his goal is to make an impact leaving room for Rand Paul : D (or so it seems) this should be a rocking time in Tampa
The election is between Obama and Romney, any vote for any other party is just a wasted vote.
Unless you live in a swing state it's a wasted vote anyway. What a great "democracy."
edit: and what do you recommend doing when neither of them represents your interests?
You vote for the lesser of the evils
I don't buy it. I will probably never in my lifetime have a candidate who actually cares about me to vote for. I am completely disenfranchised. What a ludicrous system. I just get to pick which flavor of neoliberal I want to see run things into the ground to prop up the interests of the ruling class.
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/25/opinion/042512krugman4/042512krugman4-blog480.jpg)
