EPTOn April 28 2012 06:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Really doesn't matter. Mitt will be the outright winner unless Ron Paul can get 70-something percent of the votes in every single remaining state. There's not even a remote chance that could happen.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
Really doesn't matter. Mitt will be the outright winner unless Ron Paul can get 70-something percent of the votes in every single remaining state. There's not even a remote chance that could happen. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 06:52 1Eris1 wrote: Ehh. I know quite a few parents who are requiring their children to pay them back or won't even really give loans at all. Shit happens, be thankful you have kind parents. No, that's what I'm saying. Not only is borrowing money from your parents NOT a risk for parents that can afford it, but most parents don't have fucking money to lend. He really is under the delusion that the middle class is doing much better than it actually is. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
Borrowing money from your parents is a "risk" in Mitt's mind? He really is clueless. The history of American business is full of story after story of men and women who borrowed money from their parents or siblings or other relatives, sometimes as part of their first attempt as an entrepreneur or investor. Yes it's a risk. It's always a risk. You seem to have a different definition of "risk" in your head than the one Romney was using. Clueless? Stop projecting. The man was and is an eeeeevil capitalist, I'm pretty sure he knows more about risk in business in all its forms than you. No, that's what I'm saying. Not only is borrowing money from your parents NOT a risk for parents that can afford it, but most parents don't have fucking money to lend. He really is under the delusion that the middle class is doing much better than it actually is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). Just because you can afford it doesn't mean it isn't a risk. Romney never said anything to suggest the middle class is doing better than it actually is, you're extrapolating a belief from him to fit the belief of him you already had, no evidence necessary. Just because most parents don't have money to lend doesn't mean that no parents do. Or that people shouldn't scrape money together and go for it, small businesses would never ever get started if people didn't stake what they had on making a successful enterprise. You seem to be saying it's better to stay in comfortable stagnation than take the chance of falling while trying to fly. Telling people to be ambitious and go for success is apparently out of touch if times are hard. That's when people need to be ambitious more than ever. This world really is in trouble if you can't tell people to strive for a shot at success because that's just out of touch and so wrong to say. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 28 2012 06:57 Defacer wrote: No, that's what I'm saying. Not only is borrowing money from your parents NOT a risk for parents that can afford it, but most parents don't have fucking money to lend. He really is under the delusion that the middle class is doing much better than it actually is. Err, no. I believe the idea is that the parents would take out a loan/2nd mortgage or something. If their kid drops out of college/can't get a job/loses the money then that is a huge loss for them and is thus a "risk." And no matter how wealthy someone is, if they lend out money that isn't guranteed a return then it is a risk, sorry. edit: DEB beat me by a minute -___- | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Your parents might make you pay them back for your college expenses, but that's usually more to teach you about budgeting and the value of thrift than about the money. If you can't or won't pay them back, your parents are pretty mean if they refer you to a collection agency and jack up your credit score. I hope you can appreciate the difference between tough love and interest. It's clumsy because it sounds like "get an education, borrow money from your parents, start a business" as though those are three separate things. | ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
Last point for me, the us politicians a lot of times seems to use god for their arguements. Don't you think this is outdated and has nothing to do with knowing how to rule a country or not. It's a bit dissapointing to see that people use god for their own benifits. (sincerely a dutch citizen with a lack of knowledge) | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 06:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: The history of American business is full of story after story of men and women who borrowed money from their parents or siblings or other relatives, sometimes as part of their first attempt as an entrepreneur or investor. Yes it's a risk. It's always a risk. You seem to have a different definition of "risk" in your head than the one Romney was using. Clueless? Stop projecting. The man was and is an eeeeevil capitalist, I'm pretty sure he knows more about risk in business in all its forms than you. ... Just because you can afford it doesn't mean it isn't a risk. You're right, I am projecting and betraying my bias against him, specifically. If Obama said something similar, I probably would have interpreted it differently. Forgive me for being chagrined by the notion that Mitt Romney knows anything about true risk for the average person. He was born into wealth, and had wealth as a safety net, with every 'risk' he took. For him, a risk is buying a company, and dissolving it if its assets are worth more if it were bankrupt. Mitt can't, has not, and never will take a risk that could force his parents out of retirement, or put his children's welfare in jeopardy, as he is suggesting in this video. But you're right, borrowing money from family does put yourself and your family's welfare at personal risk. I just don't think the solution to your floundering economy is for people to assume more debt, and live even closer to the edge. If all he meant was, "We all have to work harder, and be more entrepreneurial," than yes, who would disagree with that? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 norlock wrote: As a dutch citizen, the politicians in the U.S always seems to be so extreem in being left winged or right winged. Meaning that there is like either a very democratic way of seeing stuff, or a very republican way of seeing stuff. It doesn't seem to be a good middle, eventhough i would say that Barrack Obama is a middle candidate in the Netherlands, in the us he is been seen as a left wing figure right? Sorry for my lack of knowledge, don't you think it is good to have a good party in the middle that balances things out? So there isn't going to be this big fight about being democratic, or republican. Last point for me, the us politicians a lot of times seems to use god for their arguements. Don't you think this is outdated and has nothing to do with knowing how to rule a country or not. It's a bit dissapointing to see that people use god for their benifits. (sincerely a dutch citizen with a lack of knowledge) In Canada, a politician attempted to run a Right-Wing campaign in Alberta, a province which relies heavily on exporting oil and mining. She claimed that the climate change science wasn't conclusive. She was laughed out of her party and it instantly destroyed her career. We have a conservative 'right-wing' Prime Minister, and even he is considered to the left of Obama. I'm not sure what my point is, but yeah -- you're not crazy to ask these obvious questions. LOL. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 norlock wrote: As a dutch citizen, the politicians in the U.S always seems to be so extreem in being left winged or right winged. Meaning that there is like either a very democratic way of seeing stuff, or a very republican way of seeing stuff. There doesn't seem to be a good middle, eventhough i would say that Barrack Obama is a middle candidate in the Netherlands, in the us he is been seen as a left wing figure right? Sorry for my lack of knowledge, don't you think it is good to have a good party in the middle that balances things out? So that there isn't going to be this big fight about being democratic, or republican. Last point for me, the us politicians a lot of times seems to use god for their arguements. Don't you think this is outdated and has nothing to do with knowing how to rule a country or not. It's a bit dissapointing to see that people use god for their own benifits. (sincerely a dutch citizen with a lack of knowledge) No, no, no.... You are from the Netherlands. You aren't supposed to say that US politicians are extreme left and right wing. You are supposed to be EVEN MORE extreme than US politicians by claiming that all US politicians are hard core right wing. Edit: See learn from Defacer ^ | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
Hint: It's not Mitt Romney. This thread is an interesting look into the mediocrity of thought of the massly educated masses. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 norlock wrote: As a dutch citizen, the politicians in the U.S always seems to be so extreem in being left winged or right winged. Meaning that there is like either a very democratic way of seeing stuff, or a very republican way of seeing stuff. There doesn't seem to be a good middle, eventhough i would say that Barrack Obama is a middle candidate in the Netherlands, in the us he is been seen as a left wing figure right? Sorry for my lack of knowledge, don't you think it is good to have a good party in the middle that balances things out? So that there isn't going to be this big fight about being democratic, or republican. Last point for me, the us politicians a lot of times seems to use god for their arguements. Don't you think this is outdated and has nothing to do with knowing how to rule a country or not. It's a bit dissapointing to see that people use god for their own benifits. (sincerely a dutch citizen with a lack of knowledge) liberals in america laugh when fox calls him a liberal. hes one of the most conservative democrats we've had. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On April 29 2012 09:59 Silidons wrote: liberals in america laugh when fox calls him a liberal. hes one of the most conservative democrats we've had. This isn't quite accurate, at least from my point of view. I would say he was a somewhat center-left (a little more left) politician when he started his campaign (early primaries) and has gradually moved more and more center since then. I'd agree that he is hardly "liberal" at this point, though. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
| ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On April 28 2012 00:49 kwizach wrote: Funny statement considering the Ron Paul compaign was actually the one trying to steal delegates from other candidates at various caucuses, with the RP supporters consistently staying after the vote to get elected to represent the state. If the other candidates had be doing that to Ron Paul, the rage of RP supporters would make every political forum online unreadable. Face it, Romney doesn't need to "steal" delegates from Romney - he's vastly more popular among the Republican electorate and will win the nomination in a landslide in terms of delegate count. How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates. lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:20 SpeaKEaSY wrote: How is being proactive and running for delegates "stealing" delegates from other candidates? Ron Paul's supporters are much more dedicated than the senior citizens being bused in to vote for Romney, so they actually stick around to become delegates. Ron Paul supporters are actually working by the rules of the election process; it's the Republican establishment that is breaking rules and committing fraud in order to prevent Ron Paul from obtaining delegates. lol, Romney is by no means popular at all. Pretty much no one outside of like Massachusetts and Utah actually like Romney as a person, they only vote for him because they perceive him to be the person with the best shot at beating Obama. To add to the discussion, who is comitting fraud? Lets follow the trail of resigning State GOP chairs. Hmmm, no Ron Paul supporters there. What was the causitive factor to those chairs resigning? Fraud with regard to their own rules in favor of Romney and against Ron Paul. So there is a thought that bears some consideration: If Romney is such a shoe in, why must they commit fraud? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:14 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, Obama broke the vast majority of promises he made 4 years ago, but I think he's still untouchable. To be frank, he's untouchable BECAUSE he broke those promises. There is no way the independents would vote Obama for a second term if he delivered on what he promised. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected Most people in other countries don't really understand American politics. And the truth is that most foreign nationals who DO follow American politics are likely to favor the Democratic mentality. It's just like how most Americans who study International affairs tend to be Dems. You're also talking about a generation who grew up with American wars and the GWB hate that was spewed by... everyone. Republican government theory (state's rights) is based on American history and culture. It's not surprising in the least that foreigners are unable to relate to it. | ||
|
Man with a Plan
United States401 Posts
The GOP is in a terrible pit now I guess | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On April 29 2012 10:23 GhandiEAGLE wrote: it says something when just about everybody in smarter countries wants Obama re-elected Please define "smarter countries." | ||
| ||
