|
|
I just don't understand why any reasonable people would ever want to put more power into the anti-intellectual, anti-science, authoritarian, and socially backwards side of politics. That's what a Romney/Ryan presidency would do. It would put these people in more power and more influence. Despite how you want to deny it, the Republican party is a party, and it has a lot of these crackpots.
40% of US population is creationists. It's truly scary stuff. And we have reasonable-minded people who are still voting for Republicans. I don't understand why this doesn't seriously concern people.
Romney isn't McCain. Romney will shift and will do as he's told.
|
On September 01 2012 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 05:40 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 05:30 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though. Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me. Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good". Obama needs 'big things' to come out of the DNC ... however the tone and tenor of the event has to be perfect in light of how well the RNC panned out, despite all the shitty golfing jokes. I'm genuinely interested in how the Democrats respond, and personally, I don't know what the best strategy is. They've been on the offense the entire time leading up to the convention, and in light of the RNC they have to prepare to go on the defense without appearing weak ... The only reason I wouldn't vote for Romney is because of how he has proven, time and time and again, that he can be manipulated and pushed around by the people around him and can't control the extreme elements of his party. I would consider voting for Businessman Romney, or Governor of Michigan Romney, but NeoConTeaPartyRebulican Romney? No thanks. Depends on what the goal is. Getting the tone right and putting forth big plans will appeal to the left and left leaning moderates, but it won't do much to sway moderate conservatives to his cause. For that I think he'd need to address fundamental criticisms about his presidency.
Elections aren't actually about convincing people. It's about getting the right people to show up. The entire convention will be about 'look at our reasonable candidate' compared to the 'lying, flipfloppig romney/ryan who want to undo the last couple of decades of progress'. Noone in their right mind is going to be adressing fundamental criticisms at a convention, its not like the republican convention resulted in anything concrete. Both are just a couple of days of primetime election commercials interluded with out of touch delegates waving flags.
|
On September 01 2012 06:15 DoubleReed wrote:
I just don't understand why any reasonable people would ever want to put more power into the anti-intellectual, anti-science, authoritarian, and socially backwards side of politics. That's what a Romney/Ryan presidency would do. It would put these people in more power and more influence. Despite how you want to deny it, the Republican party is a party, and it has a lot of these crackpots.
40% of US population is creationists. It's truly scary stuff. And we have reasonable-minded people who are still voting for Republicans. I don't understand why this doesn't seriously concern people.
Romney isn't McCain. Romney will shift and will do as he's told.
Democrats can be pretty damn anti-intellectual too.
Most social issues that I disagree with Republicans on aren't on the table and so they are a red herring as far as I care.
|
On September 01 2012 06:22 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 05:40 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 05:30 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though. Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me. Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good". Obama needs 'big things' to come out of the DNC ... however the tone and tenor of the event has to be perfect in light of how well the RNC panned out, despite all the shitty golfing jokes. I'm genuinely interested in how the Democrats respond, and personally, I don't know what the best strategy is. They've been on the offense the entire time leading up to the convention, and in light of the RNC they have to prepare to go on the defense without appearing weak ... The only reason I wouldn't vote for Romney is because of how he has proven, time and time and again, that he can be manipulated and pushed around by the people around him and can't control the extreme elements of his party. I would consider voting for Businessman Romney, or Governor of Michigan Romney, but NeoConTeaPartyRebulican Romney? No thanks. Depends on what the goal is. Getting the tone right and putting forth big plans will appeal to the left and left leaning moderates, but it won't do much to sway moderate conservatives to his cause. For that I think he'd need to address fundamental criticisms about his presidency. Elections aren't actually about convincing people. It's about getting the right people to show up. The entire convention will be about 'look at our reasonable candidate' compared to the 'lying, flipfloppig romney/ryan who want to undo the last couple of decades of progress'. Noone in their right mind is going to be adressing fundamental criticisms at a convention, its not like the republican convention resulted in anything concrete. Both are just a couple of days of primetime election commercials interluded with out of touch delegates waving flags.
If that's what the convention is then Obama won't get anyone right of center to vote for him. To do that he needs to rebuild trust with that group and he won't do that with a love Dems / hate Reps festival.
|
On September 01 2012 06:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 06:22 Derez wrote:On September 01 2012 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 05:40 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 05:30 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though. Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me. Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good". Obama needs 'big things' to come out of the DNC ... however the tone and tenor of the event has to be perfect in light of how well the RNC panned out, despite all the shitty golfing jokes. I'm genuinely interested in how the Democrats respond, and personally, I don't know what the best strategy is. They've been on the offense the entire time leading up to the convention, and in light of the RNC they have to prepare to go on the defense without appearing weak ... The only reason I wouldn't vote for Romney is because of how he has proven, time and time and again, that he can be manipulated and pushed around by the people around him and can't control the extreme elements of his party. I would consider voting for Businessman Romney, or Governor of Michigan Romney, but NeoConTeaPartyRebulican Romney? No thanks. Depends on what the goal is. Getting the tone right and putting forth big plans will appeal to the left and left leaning moderates, but it won't do much to sway moderate conservatives to his cause. For that I think he'd need to address fundamental criticisms about his presidency. Elections aren't actually about convincing people. It's about getting the right people to show up. The entire convention will be about 'look at our reasonable candidate' compared to the 'lying, flipfloppig romney/ryan who want to undo the last couple of decades of progress'. Noone in their right mind is going to be adressing fundamental criticisms at a convention, its not like the republican convention resulted in anything concrete. Both are just a couple of days of primetime election commercials interluded with out of touch delegates waving flags. If that's what the convention is then Obama won't get anyone right of center to vote for him. To do that he needs to rebuild trust with that group and he won't do that with a love Dems / hate Reps festival.
That's the point. Obama doesn't need anyone right of the centre to vote for him. All he needs is good turnout on the left, combined with getting a good percentage of the center. The same goes for Romney, all he needs is turnout on the right combined with some part of the centre, and he wins.
Bush (for example) didn't win because people on the left flipped, he won because of massive turnout on the right, mainly the evangelicals, part of the centre and low turnout among the left. Obama won 2008 on high turnout among left leaning groups, combined with grabbing part of the center and the right staying home. The percentage of people that flip from one party to another one election to the next is small compared to the number of people that vote for one party one election and then stay home. Again, perfect example would be 2008, where a large part of the right wing stayed home because McCain didn't live up to the ideals of the social conservatives and the other part he alienated by picking Palin.
This, in my opinion, is also why Romney will ultimately lose. Every major position he holds now he contradicted when he was governor. What's gonna happen is that the Obama team is going to dig up every single quote showing he isn't a 'true' republican, have him endorsing socialism and all that, and severely diminish republican excitement. Why go vote when the choices are two equally terrible candidates in the eyes of the 'true believers' your turn-out game depends on.
|
On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played.
The convention was all spin and promises with no substance. This was even worse then the leadup for Romney. People were already asking how can you achieve what you state you will, and the big conference hasn't added any detail around this.
Not to mention rehashing all the spin / lies etc around the 'building it'.
Surely you want to actually promote specific policies and detail how this will benefit America? Romney and Ryan lost a lot of credibility by not talking about real issues and solutions.
If this strategy works anyone can get elected.
|
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39463
I thought we were done with blockbuster election law decisions before Labor Day, but now comes this order from a federal district court in Ohio in Obama for America v. Husted granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from enforcing a new law barring early voting on the weekend before election day. The state had such voting in 2008 but eliminated it in 2012 except for UOCAVA voters–including military voters, who might be deployed at any time.
Some good news for Ohioan voters. Thank you, Clinton-appointed judge.
The Sixth Circuit has proved itself to be bitterly divided in election law disputes in the past. The Voting Wars details the bitter dispute over a 2008 case, Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner. The Republican-appointed judges all read a federal statute (the Help America Vote Act) broadly, going beyond the statutory text, and the Democratic judges read the statute narrowly and textually. The flipping of usual jurisprudential opinions seems to have been driven by the judges’ different perceptions about the prevalence of voter fraud and voter suppression.
ORP v. Brunner ended when the Supreme Court sided with Democratic Secretary of State and that the Republican Party likely did not have standing to sue for a supposed violation of HAVA. This case too could end up before the Supreme Court.
This could get very ugly very quickly. This is certainly not the last word, unless SOS Husted chooses not to appeal.
Yes, appeal! That'll be a hilarious news bit.
|
On September 01 2012 06:41 ContrailNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. The convention was all spin and promises with no substance. This was even worse then the leadup for Romney. People were already asking how can you achieve what you state you will, and the big conference hasn't added any detail around this. Not to mention rehashing all the spin / lies etc around the 'building it'. Surely you want to actually promote specific policies and detail how this will benefit America? Romney and Ryan lost a lot of credibility by not talking about real issues and solutions. If this strategy works anyone can get elected.
Yup.
I just pointing out that he's playing the right build order. I'm not saying that the game is balanced, fair or just.
|
On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:16 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:08 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right? You realize that's irrelevant, right? You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit? So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit? Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated.
At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article.
|
Slightly off topic-!
On September 01 2012 03:28 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 03:07 Rassy wrote:
"But don't tell me everyone who made a dumb decision before 2008 got tricked. The vast majority of them knew what they were getting into"
Maybe, but then they didnt have a choise.
I dont care about bubbles and crashes in the stockmarket, normal people dont need to own stocks and normal people can be indifferent towards that.
Everyone needs a house though ,
you cant blame the people taking a huge mortgage and buying a house in 2007-2008 at peak,people have to live somewhere. Actually, most normal people DO own stocks because they have some kind of invested savings, whether it is private, a mutual fund, or some kind of pension. Buying a house is very different from having somewhere to live. Buying a home IS an investment, which is what caused the mania. There was this idea that house prices could never fall, so people could buy homes they couldn't afford and keep refinancing the loan until their income rose to a level where they could make payments. Out of curiosity, coming from the Netherlands, do you ever learn about the Tulip mania?
NO!
Buying a house is not an investment for normal people!, nor should it ever be.
People buy a house with no intention of selling it for a profit, they buy a house to live in (at least that is how it should be)
Some people, mostly in the usa,started seeing houses as an investment though,they purchased willingly houses they could not afford, speculating that they would rise so that they could sell them on for a profit.
That thoose people loose monney i dont mind,(and they probs didnt leven oose monney as they could just give the house to the bank to settle anny debts)
But there are millions of people who bought a house without the intention of making a profit.
They bought their house to live in, as soon as they could afford as maybe 50% of all people do.
Thoose people bought at an inflated peak and you can,t blame them annything.
Now in america you are lucky that you can just give up the house if your house is worth less then you own on your mortgage,and the bank is forced to take the loss.
This is why freddy and fanny had to be bailed for something around 1000 billion dollars.
In europe its different though, and people stay liable for 100% of their debt,
So:if you bought your house for 200k with a 200k mortgage, and your house is now worth 150k you are left with 50k debt to the bank.
Currently 30% of all dutch house owners is in the red on their mortgage, there is no bail out for them.
Sad thing is that this happend to a whole generation of young people, people who bought their first house in their 20,s
They will be left with a debt to the bank for a verry long time to come,they stuck in their current house because they cant move and refinance another house either (due to beeing in the red on this one) ,its almost a lost generation and it realy is a tragic situation.
And yes, i have heard of tullip mania
|
On September 01 2012 06:41 ContrailNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. The convention was all spin and promises with no substance. This was even worse then the leadup for Romney. People were already asking how can you achieve what you state you will, and the big conference hasn't added any detail around this. Not to mention rehashing all the spin / lies etc around the 'building it'. Surely you want to actually promote specific policies and detail how this will benefit America? Romney and Ryan lost a lot of credibility by not talking about real issues and solutions. If this strategy works anyone can get elected.
Roomney doesn`t need to rush it, not at least untill the Democrat convention, since AFAIK Obama didn`t quite released his plans either.
He has somewhat descriptive plans on his website, that were released during the time of the convention, and i hardly think that going into quite boring and routine specifics of numbers was a good way to go from the "boring CEO Roomeny".
The convention was about giving Roomney a human face, rather than giving out the hard and dry figures and specifics for the industry insiders only to understand. And that things are easier to release on the web, rather than on air.
On September 01 2012 07:44 Rassy wrote:Slightly off topic-! Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 03:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 03:07 Rassy wrote:
"But don't tell me everyone who made a dumb decision before 2008 got tricked. The vast majority of them knew what they were getting into"
Maybe, but then they didnt have a choise.
I dont care about bubbles and crashes in the stockmarket, normal people dont need to own stocks and normal people can be indifferent towards that.
Everyone needs a house though ,
you cant blame the people taking a huge mortgage and buying a house in 2007-2008 at peak,people have to live somewhere. Actually, most normal people DO own stocks because they have some kind of invested savings, whether it is private, a mutual fund, or some kind of pension. Buying a house is very different from having somewhere to live. Buying a home IS an investment, which is what caused the mania. There was this idea that house prices could never fall, so people could buy homes they couldn't afford and keep refinancing the loan until their income rose to a level where they could make payments. Out of curiosity, coming from the Netherlands, do you ever learn about the Tulip mania? NO! Buying a house is not an investment for normal people!, nor should it ever be. People buy a house with no intention of selling it for a profit, they buy a house to live in (at least that is how it should be) Some people, mostly in the usa,started seeing houses as an investment though,they purchased willingly houses they could not afford, speculating that they would rise so that they could sell them on for a profit. That thoose people loose monney i dont mind,(and they probs didnt leven oose monney as they could just give the house to the bank to settle anny debts) But there are millions of people who bought a house without the intention of making a profit. They bought their house to live in, as soon as they could afford as maybe 50% of all people do. Thoose people bought at an inflated peak and you can,t blame them annything. Now in america you are lucky that you can just give up the house if your house is worth less then you own on your mortgage,and the bank is forced to take the loss. This is why freddy and fanny had to be bailed for something around 1000 billion dollars. In europe its different though, and people stay liable for 100% of their debt, So:if you bought your house for 200k with a 200k mortgage, and your house is now worth 150k you are left with 50k debt to the bank. Currently 30% of all dutch house owners is in the red on their mortgage, there is no bail out for them. Sad thing is that this happend to a whole generation of young people, people who bought their first house in their 20,s They will be left with a debt to the bank for a verry long time to come,they stuck in their current house because they cant move and refinance another house either (due to beeing in the red on this one) ,its almost a lost generation and it realy is a tragic situation. And yes, i have heard of tullip mania
WEll, let`s face it. House is a big purchase. Considering it is something you have to pay for in years, spending a few weekends of time to do at least some reserch doesn`t look like too much of a thing to demand.
Than, maybe a week of work can save you decade of pain, and you can rent for some time untill you`re safe to do the purchase.
Not to mention, a person could probably take the contract offered, and before signing it, go and get a consultation(paid if needed) of some other people. It is absolutely eveident, that a bank is interested in your purchase, so asking somebody that is not, to take a look at what they propose will never hurt.
I guess US citisens have a little different definition of what investment is, since they generally refer to any large purchase as more or less investment. And you actually invest in you`r futule housing fees decrease, since you will have your own home, and will not have to rent (which is by definition is more expencive in the life-time run), and you can give your house to your children, eventually.
Also, i heard, Neds is a democratic country. Why can`t people gather and push for a more balanced creditor-debtor law, is beyond me, considering most people will have to buy housing at some point of their life.
|
My predictions for the elections and after.
If romney wins he will go to war with iran.
If obama wins he wont go to war with iran,
then republicans will be sure to win the 2016 election after 4 more years obama (if they got a somewhat decent candidate) and they will go to war with iran in 2017.
Till recently i saw obama as a clear cut favorit but am no longer certain.
First there was this weird tour romney did to the uk and israel,
i have never ever before seen a presidential canditate make a comparable tour, it felt a bit as if romney got introduced to americas most important alies, as preperation for a later presidency.
Second, various sources tell me that romney is gaining more and more on obama and that he is currently even a favorit.
So: Romney will win, then war with iran in 2013
|
On September 01 2012 07:58 Rassy wrote:
My predictions for the elections and after.
If romney wins he will go to war with iran.
If obama wins he wont go to war with iran,
then republicans will be sure to win the 2016 election after 4 more years obama (if they got a somewhat decent candidate) and they will go to war with iran in 2017.
Till recently i saw obama as a clear cut favorit but am no longer certain.
First there was this weird tour romney did to the uk and israel,
i have never ever before seen a presidential canditate make a comparable tour, it felt a bit as if romney got introduced to americas most important alies, as preperation for a later presidency.
Second, various sources tell me that romney is gaining more and more on obama and that he is currently even a favorit.
So: Romney will win, then war with iran in 2013
There won't be full scale war and invasion. We will just bomb the hell out of them.
|
On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:16 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You realize that's irrelevant, right? You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit? So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit? Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article.
Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy.
|
On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:16 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit? So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit? Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy.
Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy.
|
On September 01 2012 07:58 Rassy wrote:
My predictions for the elections and after.
If romney wins he will go to war with iran.
If obama wins he wont go to war with iran,
then republicans will be sure to win the 2016 election after 4 more years obama (if they got a somewhat decent candidate) and they will go to war with iran in 2017.
Till recently i saw obama as a clear cut favorit but am no longer certain.
First there was this weird tour romney did to the uk and israel,
i have never ever before seen a presidential canditate make a comparable tour, it felt a bit as if romney got introduced to americas most important alies, as preperation for a later presidency.
Second, various sources tell me that romney is gaining more and more on obama and that he is currently even a favorit.
So: Romney will win, then war with iran in 2013
Obama actually started the tour tradition, kinda.
I do not think US would want to invade Iran same way as Irak. It is quite useless. Just bomb whatever the usefull facilities that they have, and the country will be ruined economically and will not be dangerouse for years to come.
Romney has a nonzero chance of winning presidency. That one is for sure. I think the polls pretty clearly show that the two are almost tied, and in this kind of situation, the turnout is more impotaint than the nominal rating.
|
On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit? Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy.
So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated.
They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire.
|
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to begin a bombing campaign against Iran.
|
On September 01 2012 08:27 Romantic wrote:
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to begin a bombing campaign against Iran.
What is the big deal, exactly?
Unless they have modern, ICBM, and in numbers, US is perfecly safe and sound. US has a lot of support in the region against Iran, Israel, Saudi, ex.
They can just bomb the most importaint infrastructure, oil pipelines, power stations, sewage, R&D facilities, and selective plants.
And Saudi did provide US the airports for invasion into Irak.
|
On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 10:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 10:24 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional?
Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did. Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty. $1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you. Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal). The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are. If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad. No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire.
The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
