Advanced Search

Author Topic: 2012 Presidential Election  (Read 16131 times)

November 08, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Reply #75

noby

  • (● ̄▽ ̄●;)ゞ

  • *

  • cutest mod on wheels

  • 388
    Posts

  • you're a kitty cat mrow

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2012, 03:41:46 PM »
You missed the entire point on economic mobility with your droning propaganda and gloating over the failures of the Republican Establishment--which if you haven't noticed by now, I couldn't give a flying fuck about the incompetent elites.  For my points, those who wish to learn and understand can read.  If you are satisfied with your ignorant perspective, I'm not wasting any more time on you.  You've gotten four more years of your President and your Senate, and you'll get to enjoy the next economic collapse just like the rest of us under the Statists and their Marxist class warfare ilk.

economic mobility is a complete fantasy. you are being willfully dense. if you think obama is a marxist you watch too much fox news. he is a moderate conservative at best.

November 08, 2012, 04:55:59 PM
Reply #76

Mirai

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Wanderluster

  • 2413
    Posts

  • 心無きの戦士

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2012, 04:55:59 PM »
You're ignorant and delusional with that statement.  Any basic understanding of history and economics proves the existence of economic mobility.  It can be fucked up through excessive government regulation, taxation, and--recently--bailouts of politically-connected businesses with the "too big to fail" mantra, but there are no set classes in the United States.  Wealth can be created and obtained just as it can be lost, and there is no system more accommodative of growth than capitalism.  Take Microsoft, Apple, Google, UPS, FedEx, any transportation company, any service industry chain, any medical business, or any business for that matter.  There is growth that started with one dude in his garage with a brilliant idea, and failure from a company that could no longer sustain business.  Otherwise, the United States, and most developed countries would be nothing more than medieval serfdoms with subsistence farmers with a few thuggish lords self-appointed as rulers.

Obama is "moderately conservative" compared with Marxists like the Bolsheviks, Maoists, and their ilk who propose violent revolution for egalitarian collectivism.  Otherwise, he is a collectivist and a statist who aims to achieve egalitarianism through government redistribution of wealth.  Listen to his statements, research his voting record, examine his economic policies, and read Marx or whatever classical statist and collectivist philosophy to match up the ideology and goals.  Open your mind, research, and you'll come to understand.

And, don't waste your time with Fox News quips.  I couldn't care less about them these days. The majority of their programming is as vapid as the rest of the cable news networks, and they're half overrun with Bushies and crusty, old guard Republican elite for guests analysts.

November 08, 2012, 10:58:54 PM
Reply #77

Sz

  • Pasta

  • *

  • 3667
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2012, 10:58:54 PM »
'sup noby?

Mirai, it's no propaganda, unless I'm to take that as a compliment -- all original material!

The class mobility you mention is possible, yes, but those are the exceptions. If Apple and UPS were common, they wouldn't be household names. For every great success there are hundreds of failures, and those people might be every bit as talented as the big names that made it, just not as lucky. Entrepreneurship should not and cannot be the only path to upward mobility in a democratic society -- because only the smallest percentage of the population, well less than "1%", can make their money that way. Most people have to slog it out... and upward mobility by way of the daily grind has been crushed under big business's boot over the last 30 years, with a huge helping hand from conservatives who care more about winning elections than the long term stability of the country.

You use egalitarianism as if it's a dirty word.

November 08, 2012, 11:40:37 PM
Reply #78

Squishdiboo

  • Moderator

  • **

  • Ruiner

  • 8503
    Posts

  • sniff

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2012, 11:40:37 PM »
I don't think Obama, or even Democrats are Mirai's problem.  Mirai's problem is we've got a two-party system, and the party that he best identifies with has been taken over by morons, gun-toting rednecks, liars, extremists, and nutjobs.  And the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say, so I feel for him.  But really, that's the system's fault, and the media's fault, and the average stupid citizen's fault. BUT IT IS NOT OBAMA'S FAULT.  YOU LEAVE OBAMA ALONE YOU MEANIE.

November 08, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
Reply #79

noby

  • (● ̄▽ ̄●;)ゞ

  • *

  • cutest mod on wheels

  • 388
    Posts

  • you're a kitty cat mrow

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2012, 11:51:57 PM »
'sup noby?

Mirai, it's no propaganda, unless I'm to take that as a compliment -- all original material!

The class mobility you mention is possible, yes, but those are the exceptions. If Apple and UPS were common, they wouldn't be household names. For every great success there are hundreds of failures, and those people might be every bit as talented as the big names that made it, just not as lucky. Entrepreneurship should not and cannot be the only path to upward mobility in a democratic society -- because only the smallest percentage of the population, well less than "1%", can make their money that way. Most people have to slog it out... and upward mobility by way of the daily grind has been crushed under big business's boot over the last 30 years, with a huge helping hand from conservatives who care more about winning elections than the long term stability of the country.

You use egalitarianism as if it's a dirty word.

Most of those aren't even exceptions - Bill Gates, Larry Page, and to a very slightly lesser extent Sergey Brin came from very well-to-do families. Going from rich to super-rich is not class mobility. Show me one fortune 500 CEO who was born in south central LA. Show me one even who was not born into money of any kind. What few exceptions there are only prove the rule. Someone in poverty may, if they work hard enough, be able to claw their way bloody and screaming into lower-middle-class. <-- is what I would have said in the 90's, but now instead they will just be buried underneath student loans and medical debt. Mirai you're right about government regulation, and by right I mean completely wrong: excessive deregulation is the problem, and if you can honestly tell me to my face after 2007 that deregulation is a good idea then there is nothing left to discuss.

hi sz!!!

November 09, 2012, 11:57:48 AM
Reply #80

▲ndrusi

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Lalaist Precurian

  • 2223
    Posts

  • Precure... In... SPACE!

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2012, 11:57:48 AM »


This adequately summarizes my feelings about Romney's supporters.  They're turned around all wrong, they're failing over and over, and their bitter tears are delicious.

November 10, 2012, 04:34:41 PM
Reply #81

AJ

  • 3 ring meals a day

  • *

  • 674
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Save Shaq Fu
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2012, 04:34:41 PM »
I would love to see people discuss politics without tossing in the word "fuck", as it always boils down to "WELL YOU'RE NOT IMMEDIATELY FUCKING BELIEVING WHAT I AM SAYING SO I AM FUCKING DONE WITH YOU", congrats, that means the entire conversation was pointless and neither of you made any headway whatsoever. As important as politics are, debating them in such a fashion means nothing and goes nowhere. You're both walls that have gained the ability to shout at one another like anything is going to happen.

Uncontrolled capitalism is bad. It practically leads to the same place as uncontrolled communism. Society has evolved to a point where the systems being used are so shallow and faulty that they accomplish nothing. People toss around the word "socialist" like how people used to toss around the word "witch", when a lot of the things we use every day are built off of socialist ide--fdklajfslajdf you know what, this is dumb, cause I don't want to write a huge wall of text to five people and then realize that it was just as pointless as all the other huge walls of text that I just called pointless.

November 10, 2012, 04:36:25 PM
Reply #82

AJ

  • 3 ring meals a day

  • *

  • 674
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • Save Shaq Fu
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2012, 04:36:25 PM »
Yet, I am still baffled by how any WOMAN could have ever voted for Romney, and yet I saw so many. That'd be like the nation's men voting for a guy who promises to castrate all men at the age of 18  or something.

November 10, 2012, 07:05:24 PM
Reply #83

noby

  • (● ̄▽ ̄●;)ゞ

  • *

  • cutest mod on wheels

  • 388
    Posts

  • you're a kitty cat mrow

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2012, 07:05:24 PM »
Yet, I am still baffled by how any WOMAN could have ever voted for Romney, and yet I saw so many. That'd be like the nation's men voting for a guy who promises to castrate all men at the age of 18  or something.


never underestimate the desire of the american people to intentionally vote against their best interests.

November 10, 2012, 08:03:21 PM
Reply #84

Mirai

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Wanderluster

  • 2413
    Posts

  • 心無きの戦士

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2012, 08:03:21 PM »
I would love to see people discuss politics without tossing in the word "fuck", as it always boils down to "WELL YOU'RE NOT IMMEDIATELY FUCKING BELIEVING WHAT I AM SAYING SO I AM FUCKING DONE WITH YOU", congrats, that means the entire conversation was pointless and neither of you made any headway whatsoever. As important as politics are, debating them in such a fashion means nothing and goes nowhere. You're both walls that have gained the ability to shout at one another like anything is going to happen.

Uncontrolled capitalism is bad. It practically leads to the same place as uncontrolled communism. Society has evolved to a point where the systems being used are so shallow and faulty that they accomplish nothing. People toss around the word "socialist" like how people used to toss around the word "witch", when a lot of the things we use every day are built off of socialist ide--fdklajfslajdf you know what, this is dumb, cause I don't want to write a huge wall of text to five people and then realize that it was just as pointless as all the other huge walls of text that I just called pointless.

A fuck isn't the end of the world when the point is "You're arguing against points I've never even made, and you are unwilling to explore the historic examples and philosophy behind what points I actually make."  I follow where people are coming from, and if someone wants to debate, have the courtesy to read up on the concepts and examples presented.  I I'd like to have a better discussion than the cartoony sloganeering of "Republican/Democrat,  pro-healthcare/anti-healthcare, pro-life/pro-death, pro-Big Bird/anti-Big Bird, pro-vagina/anti-vagina" which is worthlessly shallow and usually wrong when you read into the details of the debate.

Uncontrolled capitalism isn't the point either; it's having constitutional government to protect the liberty to make a living through capitalism and then said government not vilifying successful people just because they found success.  Government exists for the protection of its citizens, not their caretaker.  It's not to micromanage economics and control success which results in stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, inability to get loans, and massive waste through an ineffective yet ever-increasing bureaucracy.

The nuances of socialism, communism, progressivism, third-way fascism, tyrannic authoritarianism, enlightened despotism--with details to demonstrate whatever the case--are not important in the long run; the point is the oppressive governing style they share and the unwillingness for the government to limit its operations within the constrains of founding documents.   The more power it has, the more inefficient, corrupt, cronyistic, and rogue it becomes.  Everyone--men, women, young, old, poor, rich, etc.--suffers under oppression, and that's why you see continued economic stagnation, high unemployment, increasing goods prices, financial disaster, and general hopelessness for years after the economic collapse of 2008.  It's the case in every other country where you have continued government strangulation of the economy--whether malicious or good-intentioned.  It's the same bad results every time, everwhere.

Does that make it within the word limit?



never underestimate the desire of the american people to intentionally vote against their best interests.

Amen to that.  Ain't that a sad truth?

November 10, 2012, 09:17:59 PM
Reply #85

Southbird

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • AKA "RobS" and something Epoch

  • 1139
    Posts

  • Starbounder

    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2012, 09:17:59 PM »
While I thought it was stupid that Republicans had spent so much energy on being these ultra-social conservative types instead of focusing on practical problems, a discussion I had with my brother plus comments I've seen on political news articles and the like helped me realize that there are a lot of very religious people out there who honestly believe that the decay of conservative values signals the end of times.  Given that many religions practice scare tactics to keep their faithful in line (e.g. you'll burn in hell if you don't believe in Jesus), I can see how the Republicans could latch on to that and use similar scare tactics to their advantage.  If they want to take a power control, utilize the things that many are afraid of, make them believe that they are honestly a detrimental issue, and appear as "saviors" that will usher in a new era of conservative values.  It didn't stick though because fortunately it seems that the majority voter base was not made up of these hyper religious doomsday sayers, although I'm guessing the Republicans were partly betting on it.

November 11, 2012, 01:56:26 AM
Reply #86

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2012, 01:56:26 AM »
Romney lost the election, because of republicans and his own hateful rhetoric. That 47 percent comment really screwed him. Saying poor people are victims isn't how you talk about the people who you want the vote from. Most of the nasty rhetoric comes from the conservative news media outlets though. Something about them is really..well, just hateful. They're hateful people. Go on drudgereport.com to see what I mean. Also, Romney didn't give any specifics as to how he would fix the economy, and create those seven million jobs. What industry would these jobs come from? How was he going to do it? This stuff is important to know, and shouldn't be kept a secret. Me personally, I'm not happy with either party right now.

November 11, 2012, 10:17:42 AM
Reply #87

Shinmera

  • 3 ring meals a day

  • *

  • un-FUCKING believable!

  • 659
    Posts

    • View Profile
    • tymoon.eu
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #87 on: November 11, 2012, 10:17:42 AM »
I would love to see people discuss politics without tossing in the word "fuck", as it always boils down to "WELL YOU'RE NOT IMMEDIATELY FUCKING BELIEVING WHAT I AM SAYING SO I AM FUCKING DONE WITH YOU", congrats, that means the entire conversation was pointless and neither of you made any headway whatsoever. As important as politics are, debating them in such a fashion means nothing and goes nowhere. You're both walls that have gained the ability to shout at one another like anything is going to happen.
Yet, I am still baffled by how any WOMAN could have ever voted for Romney, and yet I saw so many. That'd be like the nation's men voting for a guy who promises to castrate all men at the age of 18  or something.

I found a fine specimen for your description: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoqti0lzAw
(embedding is disabled)

November 11, 2012, 07:28:31 PM
Reply #88

Mirai

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Wanderluster

  • 2413
    Posts

  • 心無きの戦士

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #88 on: November 11, 2012, 07:28:31 PM »
Those are a variation of "Republican Progressives" that I refer to as part of the problem with the party.  They're the kind who throw aside the constitutionally outlined functions of government and instead want to expand government to control morality.  Nothing is wrong with personal beliefs, but the Bushies, the Mike Huckabees, and their ilk are the one ones who waste time wanting to craft legislation based on morality--which is NOT the role of the federal government.  You get the crap about sanctity of marriage amendments or abortion as a "yes/no" hypothetical which is a media landmine and practically a non-topic due to the protected constitutionality by the courts.  They're embraced by the Republican Party elites as they play well with the Evangelical base and are perfectly comfortable with increasing government controls over insignificant issues.  They're good to have to get power and then enjoy the benefits of the government largesse.

Romney lost the election, because of republicans and his own hateful rhetoric. That 47 percent comment really screwed him. Saying poor people are victims isn't how you talk about the people who you want the vote from. Most of the nasty rhetoric comes from the conservative news media outlets though. Something about them is really..well, just hateful. They're hateful people. Go on drudgereport.com to see what I mean. Also, Romney didn't give any specifics as to how he would fix the economy, and create those seven million jobs. What industry would these jobs come from? How was he going to do it? This stuff is important to know, and shouldn't be kept a secret. Me personally, I'm not happy with either party right now.

The Drudge Report is a news aggregate site.  Most of what Matt Drudge does is post like to articles on whatever topics are big in the news.  It's a site to click through and read the news yourself from whatever his sources.

Regarding the jobs issue, it not like it was kept secret to figure out with a Ouija board.  Job creation specifics are a problem.  What fosters job creation is a good economic climate.  Manageable tax rates, ability to invest through capital or loans, and--of course--viable businesses are what it takes.  Government can create jobs internally and temporary make-work projects, but these are not successful long term.  Government jobs require revenue (taxes) to sustain.  They don't produce much except for rules and regulations; they just manage whatever the task.  Make-work jobs like the New Deal or the 2009 Stimulus might causes a temporary fix, but they require continuous government spending to be effective and are subjected to all kinds of political cronyism and waste.  Unemployment continued to balloon after the 2009 stimulus and has remained stagnant since the 2008 financial disaster.  This simple graph sums up the ineffectiveness of it all by showing what actually happened with unemployment despite government predictions.  This breakdown shows all the forms of spending...none of which are effective in fostering long-term job creation aside from a few construction projects that have not amounted to much.

If a business can't make a profit by hiring a larger workforce and expanding, it goes into damage control to do what it can with what it has...or less.  Consider that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  That's a third of all capital lost federally--plus state taxes--which goes straight to the government and can't be used for expansion of the business or the employees.  That's just how it is.

November 11, 2012, 09:45:24 PM
Reply #89

yaj

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1729
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #89 on: November 11, 2012, 09:45:24 PM »
Yeah, drudge links to stories from other websites; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about their headlines, which are disturbing to me. Some of them seem to have a racial element. They're bullies.

I can't read his mind. Romney didn't talk about what "viable business" would be the employer of those 7 million people. He didn't, because he didn't know himself. It was just a talking point that would never come to fruition if he was president. And of course the private sector should be the main job creator. Nobody's arguing that they shouldn't, and that doesn't have to be a partisan issue. Being a democrat and a capitalist aren't always in conflict. My problem is when people want no government intervention in stuff like healthcare. If somebody's dying, then an insurance company denying them coverage because they have a pre existing condition is just wrong.

I don't know if taxes should be raised, lowered, cut or whatever. It's always gone over my head, and I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about with that. We have to pay for two wars that were started by a republican president somehow, so maybe you have a better idea than to raise taxes to pay for them. And you're right to be disappointed about the slow job growth; I am too. If in the next four years things are still the same, then the current administration should be to blame.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 09:49:21 PM by yaj »

November 12, 2012, 12:44:58 AM
Reply #90

Zodberg

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • Playing it bogard.

  • 3687
    Posts

  • the day Adorable won

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2012, 12:44:58 AM »
what has the Bushes been up to?

November 12, 2012, 07:13:24 AM
Reply #91

suit

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 2781
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #91 on: November 12, 2012, 07:13:24 AM »
ron paul

November 12, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
Reply #92

noby

  • (● ̄▽ ̄●;)ゞ

  • *

  • cutest mod on wheels

  • 388
    Posts

  • you're a kitty cat mrow

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #92 on: November 12, 2012, 08:42:35 AM »

November 12, 2012, 06:08:04 PM
Reply #93

AnKylo

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • 1838
    Posts

  • Also known as Hearty Beef 'n Potatoes.

    • View Profile
    • SpadeRunner Illustrations

November 14, 2012, 04:06:31 AM
Reply #94

Sofox

  • Administrator

  • ****

  • Yep, just hanging out

  • 1858
    Posts

  • Avatar by Beanie

    • View Profile
    • Sofox Central
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #94 on: November 14, 2012, 04:06:31 AM »
You know, a while back I was imagining making a sci fi movie. Something moderate, like a decent guess of where Dublin would be in the year 2040 with the intention of showing people how times inevitably change but have an honest, even optimistic view of things.

Anyway, at one point I was going to show a map of the world briefly, only it would be a political map. Now one thing a lot of movies get wrong is not realising how drastically countries and borders change over time, even the movie Titanic showed a modern map when the world has drastically chanced since 1912 (India was still part of Britian, Zambia was still Rhodesia, heck Ireland and UK were one country at the time!). So anyway, the idea would be to make a bunch of decent guesses over what the country borders of 2040 would be. It would always partially be by whim because being accurate is impossible, but one of them was always about splitting the USA into two countries, as it kinda made sense since the country has such a diversity of culture throughout its landmass.
Anyway, I think in my future history, it took a far more significant event before the split took place, but this and American history shows that there is some interest in moving in that direction.

November 14, 2012, 06:41:58 AM
Reply #95

Zodberg

  • Should go on a ring diet

  • *

  • Playing it bogard.

  • 3687
    Posts

  • the day Adorable won

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #95 on: November 14, 2012, 06:41:58 AM »
I'm not really too opposed to the notion of America dropping a few of it's states. I mean really, look at Canada, we're fine with three territories, nine provinces, and whatever British Columbia is.
Fifty One states is just being ostentatious about it.

November 14, 2012, 10:16:46 AM
Reply #96

Squishdiboo

  • Moderator

  • **

  • Ruiner

  • 8503
    Posts

  • sniff

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #96 on: November 14, 2012, 10:16:46 AM »
I bet everybody who wants to secede gets mad when people don't stand up and put their hand over their heart to say the pledge of allegiance.

I bet these same people never listened to the words they were reciting, either.

"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

November 14, 2012, 10:59:42 PM
Reply #97

Sz

  • Pasta

  • *

  • 3667
    Posts

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #97 on: November 14, 2012, 10:59:42 PM »
You know, a while back I was imagining making a sci fi movie. Something moderate, like a decent guess of where Dublin would be in the year 2040 with the intention of showing people how times inevitably change but have an honest, even optimistic view of things.

Anyway, at one point I was going to show a map of the world briefly, only it would be a political map. Now one thing a lot of movies get wrong is not realising how drastically countries and borders change over time, even the movie Titanic showed a modern map when the world has drastically chanced since 1912 (India was still part of Britian, Zambia was still Rhodesia, heck Ireland and UK were one country at the time!). So anyway, the idea would be to make a bunch of decent guesses over what the country borders of 2040 would be. It would always partially be by whim because being accurate is impossible, but one of them was always about splitting the USA into two countries, as it kinda made sense since the country has such a diversity of culture throughout its landmass.
Anyway, I think in my future history, it took a far more significant event before the split took place, but this and American history shows that there is some interest in moving in that direction.

It's very unlikely that the USA will ever split, at least not while we're still enjoying "world power" status. The federal government is way too powerful at this point, in part due to the attempt at secession we had in the 1860s.

These petitions don't really show any desire to secede, they just show the extent of the bitter tears that Obama's re-election has inspired.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 11:01:38 PM by Sz »

November 15, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Reply #98

▲ndrusi

  • Ring connoisseur

  • *

  • Lalaist Precurian

  • 2223
    Posts

  • Precure... In... SPACE!

    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential Election
« Reply #98 on: November 15, 2012, 09:43:48 AM »
A lot of those signatures are from people who aren't even in those states.  Probably a lot of overlap between the petitions, too.

Also, this.