EPTWhether she was qualified or not, didn't the Republicans CHOOSE her?
I mean, you can't blame her, can you? Almost anybody would accept an invitation to become America's next VP.
Future of the Republican Party... - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
Whether she was qualified or not, didn't the Republicans CHOOSE her? I mean, you can't blame her, can you? Almost anybody would accept an invitation to become America's next VP. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 07 2008 20:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future. Recent history, though is just 2 Bush's. Reagan cut domestic spending. Increased military spending but we were in the cold war. I think they can cut spending again with no Bush in power. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
A) Urban Gangsters - Progressive policies are causing crime. Please show me any correlation here. B) Welfare Queens - Again, please show me. Welfare programs are necessary unless you want to condemn the poor in your country to die. Show me the moral equivalence test here. C) Die-hard Warriors - What does this even? All I hear from your post is "White supremacy forever." The calling card of the republican party is dying, if you think the GOP is going to keep fighting race wars as the electoral balance shifts away, you're out of your mind. Fighting to secure the top 10% whites place in America and the bottom 30% white place in America with the same message is going to become increasingly difficult as the top 10% gets further and further from middle class. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
"who are against discrimination on the basis of race" So please, tell me how you aren't being racist. If you're against discrimination on the basis of race, why don't you support equivalence of races? If you think you don't get opportunities because you are white that someone from another race wouldn't get, you're lying to yourself. It *IS* racist to say: "I don't think the government should help anyone. Whoever makes it to the top, makes it to the top." Not everyone has the same opportunities as you do. Yeah, I'm white. I have a good education and an easy life. Know how much work I had to do for it? Nothing. I don't even try in school. I get a free ride. My mom takes off work whenever she wants, and we go on vacations every year. My dad works his ass off, but you know what? He made a mistake in college choosing the profession he got into. | ||
|
Flaccid
8836 Posts
On November 08 2008 01:24 Jibba wrote: You can't discount Reagan's military spending just because we were in the Cold War. We were in it for a lot longer than that and there's little justification for much of the spending, especially since they didn't even use the military when we were attacked (Beirut.) Coulda been worse, right? ;-) ![[image loading]](http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/6/66/300px-Star_Wars_Logo.svg.png){kind=logo} | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: Savio, I think if you stop caring about gay marriage and civil union, you're going to be pleasantly surprised by Obama in 4 years. He is not even close to Pelosi on the liberal spectrum. Things Obama could do that would impress me: 1. Veto or kill the bill to remove voter anonymity in unionizing 2. DON"T reverse the ban on partial birth abortions. The vast majority of Americans support this ban and only people like Nancy Pelosi would try to overturn it. 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty. 4. Despite his campaign promises, pull out of Iraq in such a way that it remains stable. Don't make the process rigid and inflexible. Go ahead and pull out, but adjust to circumstances on the ground enough that stability is maintained. I don't think that any of these things are unreasonable. He doesn't have to be conservative to impress me. But these issues here are important and only a far left individual would not heed these suggestions. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Hispanics are the fastest increasing demographic, and the Republican Party NEEDS some minorities in their column. | ||
|
Flaccid
8836 Posts
On November 08 2008 03:36 Savio wrote: 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty. Curious about NAFTA, from up here in Canadiana. With His Eminence, Barack Obama (or B-Rock as I call him - we're tight) becoming the President Elect of the USA, Canadians are doing their part to freak out over his remarks regarding NAFTA - specifically that it's not working how it should. Now, I'm not here to claim that it is working properly, but rather to ask "why?" Why freak out? NAFTA kind of sucks from a Canadian perspective. People don't seem to remember how heated of a debate existed in this country just mere decades ago when NAFTA was on the table. At the very least I'm sure some of us might remember seeing, at some point, those infamous clips from the Mulrooney-Turner debates. Point is, Canadians were very divided. But now that the deal is signed and out of the public-scope, we've all gone back to eating bacon and watching the Leafs lose. This is telling: A Canadian poll conducted in June 2003 by Ipsod Reid found that 70 percent of Canadians supported NAFTA, while only 26 percent were opposed. However, a May 2004 Ipsos poll found that "Six in ten Canadians (62 percent) disagree that Canada should sign a trade agreement that would open Canada's public services to competition from foreign companies" and "A further six in ten (60 percent) disagree that government should sign deals that would allow corporations to directly sue the Government of Canada if our public policies impair their ability to make profits". Which, if anything tells me that we're all doing the Canadian thing right now. We don't know what to think, but we hear things in the news that are scary so we accept the status quo. We're just lucky that doing so doesn't require actually knowing what the status quo actually is. From my point of view, I always thought that the real beneficiary from NAFTA was Mexico, but I've only ever looked at it from a Canadian perspective. So I'm curious, why do you feel that NAFTA is the *right* solution to free trade, and what, if anything would you change about it. From my perspective, the effectiveness of NAFTA was demonstrated quite vividly with the softwood lumber dispute. America imposed a 27% tariff on Canadian softwood (your mom didn't impose any tariffs on my hardwood - couldn't resist), and Canada was all "hey, u cnt do that!" America was like "fux dat, we do wat we want," all the while snapping fingers in front of its face and bobbing its head from side to side. And with America's dependance on Canadian oil, any future negotiations should find us holding a pretty good hand. edit: I'd like to say, in case there is any confusion, that I agree with the principles of free trade. But perhaps NAFTA isn't the best solution. edit2: And regarding your other points, I don't have much to say besides that I agree for the most part. Particularly with unions. At the risk of branching off into a mouth-breathing-tirade against modern unions, I'll put on the brakes and save it for another post =] | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
I am very interested to see that every election, more states are banning affirmative action. And they aren't red states solely: Michigan, California, Colorado and several others. This in my opinion is a huge step forward. Michigan has a large black population, and yet, I have not heard a huge outcry against the ban. This may mean that many minorities are not feeling the need for affirmative action, which could mean that they are not feeling as marginalized as they have been in the past. If this is true, then I am very happy for my country. I support ending affirmative action because I don't think it is needed anymore. And I am very happy to see both red and blue states, both states that have a lot of minorities and those without, choosing to end it without stirring a controversy. This looks very positive in my opinion. What you all think about affirmative action? | ||
|
Flaccid
8836 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
| ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
I agree that affirmative action based on income levels (for education at least) makes a lot more sense than race-based AA. I still don't know if there's any way to implement that so it results in a net gain for society. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 08 2008 03:36 Savio wrote: Things Obama could do that would impress me: 1. Veto or kill the bill to remove voter anonymity in unionizing 2. DON"T reverse the ban on partial birth abortions. The vast majority of Americans support this ban and only people like Nancy Pelosi would try to overturn it. 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty. 4. Despite his campaign promises, pull out of Iraq in such a way that it remains stable. Don't make the process rigid and inflexible. Go ahead and pull out, but adjust to circumstances on the ground enough that stability is maintained. I don't think that any of these things are unreasonable. He doesn't have to be conservative to impress me. But these issues here are important and only a far left individual would not heed these suggestions. I'm not sure what's going to happen with the card thing, but two of those seem fairly likely. The Iraq thing is rough. He hasn't said he'll bring troops home, he just said he's shifting them to Afghanistan which may or may not be a good idea. Afghanistan is essentially a failed state, and yes the Taliban are terrible, but I don't think there's a realistic shot that we'll be able to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I suppose part of the thought is that if Pakistan fully collapses, India will rush in and secure the country but I really don't know. The hispanic thing is huge. Do you realize how much better this country would be off today if we had had real immigration reform, instead of the asshole minute men and the fucking ridiculous wall? Our economy would likely be stronger if they were allowed to legally work. The safety threat is bogus, the last terrorists who attacked us were trained within the fucking US, not in Canada or Mexico. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 08 2008 03:50 Savio wrote: Regarding race and affirmative action: I am very interested to see that every election, more states are banning affirmative action. And they aren't red states solely: Michigan, California, Colorado and several others. This in my opinion is a huge step forward. Michigan has a large black population, and yet, I have not heard a huge outcry against the ban. This may mean that many minorities are not feeling the need for affirmative action, which could mean that they are not feeling as marginalized as they have been in the past. If this is true, then I am very happy for my country. I support ending affirmative action because I don't think it is needed anymore. And I am very happy to see both red and blue states, both states that have a lot of minorities and those without, choosing to end it without stirring a controversy. This looks very positive in my opinion. What you all think about affirmative action? Michigan has 10% unemployment, even if AA were around it likely wouldn't make a difference. Have you listened to Obama's race speech? I know he's against race based AA. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 08 2008 01:14 Savio wrote: Recent history, though is just 2 Bush's. Reagan cut domestic spending. Increased military spending but we were in the cold war. I think they can cut spending again with no Bush in power. Even if we do only count the two Bush eras then that is still 12 years in the White House and a 20 year total timeframe. That is not to be so easily dismissed. | ||
| ||
