US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[Aetherous]

"When all the bills are in, total spending for the 2012 election (all federal and state races) could top a record-breaking $6 billion."

- CNN

[JustARandomPanda]

Here's an interesting article on a new breed of political statisticians and how they correctly called 50 of 50 states with these new math techniques.

 

 

An excerpt of the article:

 

The captain of the math brigade, Nate Silver, a former baseball statistician turned New York Times blogger, correctly called 50 of 50 states in the electoral college, assuming Florida remains blue. Sam Wang, a Princeton University neuroscientist who moonlights as an election forecaster, accurately predicted that Obama would capture 51.1% of all votes cast nationwide. Drew Linzer, a political science professor at Emory University, five months ago predicted that Obama would win 332 electoral votes, which will hold up if Florida goes to Obama.

 

All told, about a dozen math wizards entered the political fray this campaign cycle, championing statistical methods and advanced computing power over partisan bias and conventional wisdom.

 

"The principle behind this movement is that numbers aren't ideology," said Scott Elliott, a computer engineer in North Carolina who operates the site electionprojection.com.

 

A deeply religious Christian conservative, Elliott voted for Mitt Romney. But his computer model predicted months ago that Obama would easily win the electoral college. Elliott correctly called every state except Florida.

 

"The poll data don't come in wearing a blue shirt or a red shirt," he said. "They are what they are."

[joeblast]

And Romney would've fixed all of that....?

Certainly not all of that. But I'm pretty sure he would have respected bankruptcy law, not done half a dozen different stimulus measures that all failed to produce a single thing aside from union dues, not shuffle high powered rifles off to the mexican drug cartels (cant honestly say the same for weapons to the middle east though), prevent as much energy development from taking place as possible while at the same time lending out money for energy development elsewhere, get an actual realistic budget put forth, not seat unqualified ideological hacks in SCOTUS who will rubber stamp ideology and forget what the constitution says,...do I need to keep going? Ton of ways an Obama admin is wrong for the country - I dont knnow how the progressives managed to pull this off, its a grand subterfuge.

 

What exactly happens to someone in the U.S. who does not have health care and suddenly comes down with a disease requiring lots of treatment. For example, 25 years later when everybody realizes the latent dangers of pollution and artificial ingredients?

Are they not stuck with a $100,000+ bill? Doesn't it seem worth the extra 2% or whatever tax, to know that you can actually afford to survive the onset of something like that?

 

It's like a small entry chip at a poker game, you might lose it, but don't you think that's worth the risk? Is this not a gamble that it would be a gamble not to enter?

 

I feel like there is a Republican "boy's club" of "real men do things this way" attitude which manages to bypass any reflection on the reality of what they are not talking about, especially towards collective, inclusive, politics, or considering that everybody needs to mow the lawn if they want to live in the the same house.

 

I hope the Republican party will start to get wise to this fallacy phallically obsessed hypocrisy so their good politics can be made use of.

Oh, if only it were only just a(nother) 2% tax. So the solution is yet another governmental spending orgy, sold on a pack of lies and flawed numbers? Sorry, but look at where the government subsidizes things and there is a very high correlation with the price jumping way up. Healthcare is among the worst of industries where government intervention has made products and services astronomically more expensive than they would have been otherwise. Look at the cost curves for things like healthcare, college, green energy's burning food as fuel...the government screws up, bastardizes, twists to its own ends pretty much everything it puts its greasy mitts on. No pun intended.

 

 

I applaud the states exercising their rights and pushing back at a freakishly large frankenstien central government.

[zanshin]

What exactly happens to someone in the U.S. who does not have health care and suddenly comes down with a disease requiring lots of treatment. For example, 25 years later when everybody realizes the latent dangers of pollution and artificial ingredients?

Are they not stuck with a $100,000+ bill? Doesn't it seem worth the extra 2% or whatever tax, to know that you can actually afford to survive the onset of something like that?

 

It's like a small entry chip at a poker game, you might lose it, but don't you think that's worth the risk? Is this not a gamble that it would be a gamble not to enter?

 

I feel like there is a Republican "boy's club" of "real men do things this way" attitude which manages to bypass any reflection on the reality of what they are not talking about, especially towards collective, inclusive, politics, or considering that everybody needs to mow the lawn if they want to live in the the same house.

 

I hope the Republican party will start to get wise to this fallacy phallically obsessed hypocrisy so their good politics can be made use of.

 

If you really wanted to know. Lower income people, who don't have health insurance, can usually fill out lots of paperwork and get their bills paid each state has a version of this program

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/cms/dsh.html

 

Middle to higher income people really take a gamble without insurance, because you really do have to deplete your assets to pay the bill.

[Aetherous]

Certainly not all of that. But I'm pretty sure he would have respected bankruptcy law, not done half a dozen different stimulus measures that all failed to produce a single thing aside from union dues, not shuffle high powered rifles off to the mexican drug cartels (cant honestly say the same for weapons to the middle east though), prevent as much energy development from taking place as possible while at the same time lending out money for energy development elsewhere, get an actual realistic budget put forth, not seat unqualified ideological hacks in SCOTUS who will rubber stamp ideology and forget what the constitution says,...do I need to keep going? Ton of ways an Obama admin is wrong for the country - I dont knnow how the progressives managed to pull this off, its a grand subterfuge.

 

Your information appears to be inaccurate to me.

[joeblast]

Please elaborate...

-would he have handed GM over to the UAW and screwed the people that invested their money, who were rightly first in line? give the keys to the folks who made it unprofitable in the first place?

-we all saw how 'shovel ready' "shovel ready" was, it barely blipped the job numbers, the u6 rate is still over 15% last I saw

-have you read *anything* on fast & furious? do you know of holder's stonewalling and lies on it?

-obama ignored orders from a judge on the drilling moratorium who said what he did wasnt within his powers...what me worry? ignore that!

-turned right around and loaned petrobas a few bil for oil drilling down in brazil - soros cashes in on that one

-bad DoE loan after bad DoE loan, who cares what their status is or whether the company is actually viable or not...or how much they gave to democrats for that matter...

-do you recall his budgets getting zero votes? and the senate didnt submit any budgets? and flatly rejected anything that came from Rs without even looking at it? (Reid is basically the only one that's not claiming to be bipartisan, but look at videos from 20 years ago and you see him railing against the fed and wanting it to be audited...he's very silent on that since coming to a position of power...)

-we all knew sotomayor & kagan were absolute 100% locks to uphold obamacare no matter what the arguments were, we knew kagan wasnt going to excuse herself like she should have because she was on the team crafting legal defenses to it

[Aetherous]

Okay, I'll elaborate a bit...

 

But I'm pretty sure he would have respected bankruptcy law, not done half a dozen different stimulus measures that all failed to produce a single thing aside from union dues

 

I came across a book the other night saying how the economic stimulus actually saved our country from something worse than the great depression. Not saying I believe it. Haven't read the book...but that opinion is out there, just as yours is. What is true?

 

not shuffle high powered rifles off to the mexican drug cartels (cant honestly say the same for weapons to the middle east though)

 

This to me seems very inaccurate. Where's your evidence that this happened?

 

Weapons to the middle east...you mean, for American soldiers? They are more than well equipped.

 

prevent as much energy development from taking place as possible while at the same time lending out money for energy development elsewhere

 

If what you said about drilling near Brazil is correct...is this oil or money going to Brazil? If it's coming to us, then what's the problem? We're maintaining our resources at home.

 

About green versus nonrenewable energies...I'm not seeing eye to eye with you on this. I've read very promising things about solar energy...for instance, if the entire world relied on solar energy alone, the space needed with the current solar technology would only cover something like 10% of the world's desert land. Investing in that, as Obama has done, is a good thing...even if some of the companies have failed (which was not the fault of the government at all, according to what I read about what went down, for instance with Solyndra). The solution will not be to drill until it's completely depleted...we must be future oriented now.

 

get an actual realistic budget put forth

 

This is easy to say, but where are we seeing an alternative? AFAIK, Romney didn't actually reveal his plan in detail, and what we did know showed how it was actually worse (with shifting war funds to the Pentagon base budget for no reason, for instance). Cutting PBS, which is a fraction of spending; cutting student loans, which are a great benefit to our nation that is already behind in education...such ideas are a joke. It was corruption attempting to enter office, in my eyes.

 

not seat unqualified ideological hacks in SCOTUS who will rubber stamp ideology and forget what the constitution says

 

I'm sort of with you, at least potentially in regard to some issues. But what are you thinking is unconstitutional exactly, and how specifically is it unconstitutional? How are they unqualified, in your opinion?

 

...do I need to keep going?

 

Please don't. Game's over, and talking it out might be cathartic, but it won't solve the issues that you see.

 

Plus, I am barely competent to be talking about this stuff...so when I say that something you're talking about seems inaccurate, I'm more-so asking for evidence rather than trying to start an argument. My mind is open to truth.

 

Ton of ways an Obama admin is wrong for the country - I dont knnow how the progressives managed to pull this off, its a grand subterfuge.

 

I just don't see how a Romney Ryan admin would have been any better. Considering how extreme the right has become, it'd have probably been a horrible thing for our nation. At least that's apparently how the majority of Americans have been feeling. I suspect it will keep shifting in the current direction, as the senior citizens (with their outdated views) die off.

 

This is potentially enlightening:

 

[Apech]

@turtle

 

That map is exactly the same pattern as the voting in the election! is that the point? seems to say that the US is still two nations.

[Marblehead]

@turtle

 

That map is exactly the same pattern as the voting in the election! is that the point? seems to say that the US is still two nations.

That would sum it up pretty nicely, I think, at least as far as social and political philosophy go.

[Aetherous]

It definitely reveals two different mindsets. I think it's perpetuated by the media (more drama and polarization, more like a sport it is where you want your team to crush the other = more views and money)...in truth, if you educated and quizzed the American public on their views of how the country should be in detail, you wouldn't find that people fit so nicely into one of two political ideologies. Most people I know are totally clueless and just rehash what Fox News or other idiots tell them is going on. Joeblast is atypical of that demographic, in my view.

 

(it's not exactly the same map, but pretty close)

[joeblast]

Okay, I'll elaborate a bit...

 

 

 

I came across a book the other night saying how the economic stimulus actually saved our country from something worse than the great depression. Not saying I believe it. Haven't read the book...but that opinion is out there, just as yours is. What is true? 3 easy words: "created or saved" - do you think it is wise to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars per job created or saved (if not millions per job depending on the context)...for temporary jobs? where's that money coming from?

 

 

 

This to me seems very inaccurate. Where's your evidence that this happened?

ok, so you know nothing of brian terry or the 2,000+ weapons that were let walk over the border, at the direction of 'ATF officials' ...the House finding Holder in contempt of congress...the piles and piles of dead bodies in mexico, where they're finding .50 cals and stuff that walked and of course Holder and Obama knew nothing of it...

Weapons to the middle east...you mean, for American soldiers? They are more than well equipped.

...and you dont know anything about Benghazi, why was the ambassador there and who was he meeting with...we've already heard hilary talk about arming syrian rebels, who do you think armed libyan rebels, why do you think they didnt want to send in air support (hint, it was the surface to air missles that the ambassador was trying to get back)

 

 

If what you said about drilling near Brazil is correct...is this oil or money going to Brazil? If it's coming to us, then what's the problem? We're maintaining our resources at home.it was a 2 billion+ loan to petrobas for open water drilling - the very same thing obama declared a moratorium on for US shores, the oil is not coming to us

 

About green versus nonrenewable energies...I'm not seeing eye to eye with you on this. I've read very promising things about solar energy...for instance, if the entire world relied on solar energy alone, the space needed with the current solar technology would only cover something like 10% of the world's desert land. Investing in that, as Obama has done, is a good thing...even if some of the companies have failed (which was not the fault of the government at all, according to what I read about what went down, for instance with Solyndra). The solution will not be to drill until it's completely depleted...we must be future oriented now.and that 10% of desert land leaves out all kinds of infrastructure and transmission loss that would render it completely unviable - so its not such an easy thing to simply cover the deserts in solar cells. Obama didnt so much invest in it as he gave massive cover to donors so that when their already non viable tech crapped out they were sure to get their money covered and still be able to donate! Its one thing to nudge a fledgling industry along - its an entirely different concept to take something in its infancy, go against the law of economics and artificially create demand for said industry. the government does not have "a command and control economy" like they wish they had where they can dictate something get done and it happens with any sort of balanced budget - what happens is shitloads of money gets tossed at it and they sink or swim, always entirely dependent on that flow of subsidy cash - which has to come from somewhere! What happened to Spain's green industry? They are running out of money, stopped the subsidies, and the industry dried up pretty badly. That is called misallocation of funds.

 

 

 

This is easy to say, but where are we seeing an alternative? AFAIK, Romney didn't actually reveal his plan in detail, and what we did know showed how it was actually worse (with shifting war funds to the Pentagon base budget for no reason, for instance). Cutting PBS, which is a fraction of spending; cutting student loans, which are a great benefit to our nation that is already behind in education...such ideas are a joke. It was corruption attempting to enter office, in my eyes.

 

 

 

I'm sort of with you, at least potentially in regard to some issues. But what are you thinking is unconstitutional exactly, and how specifically is it unconstitutional? How are they unqualified, in your opinion?

Obamacare was not only unconstitutional, it was rammed through right around the legislative process and deemed into existence - if the media werent already in the tank for it, there would have been an uproar. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the powers that it claimed in Obamacare. None.

 

 

 

Please don't. Game's over, and talking it out might be cathartic, but it won't solve the issues that you see.

 

Plus, I am barely competent to be talking about this stuff...so when I say that something you're talking about seems inaccurate, I'm more-so asking for evidence rather than trying to start an argument. My mind is open to truth.

 

 

 

I just don't see how a Romney Ryan admin would have been any better. Considering how extreme the right has become, it'd have probably been a horrible thing for our nation. At least that's apparently how the majority of Americans have been feeling. I suspect it will keep shifting in the current direction, as the senior citizens (with their outdated views) die off.And I'm sure its mere coincidence that Obama lost every state that has a photo voter ID law in place. In many ways they would have been no different - but the biggest ones for me were 1) Obamacare, 2) a couple more SCOTUS appointments, 3) runaway EPA and pretty much every other regulatory agency that was nice and quiet in the bunch of months leading up to the election, 4) a DoJ that has an interest in the law and not undermining the second amendment and overlooking things like that black panther case - and I wonder if that's mere coincidence also that where the black panthers showed up, tossed out the republican monitors, they had 99.5% of the vote for Obama and despite most other places having roughly 60% turnout, they somehow had a 90% turnout there. Sounds like election fraud is alive and well in '12.

 

This is potentially enlightening:

 

Its sad that as much as people claim to be post racial, race is right at the forefront of some people's minds, they trot it out at every available opportunity...not saying you're racist but for chrissakes, there's a whole lot about it that's certainly not about the content of one's character.

Regardless of whether or not its 2 nations, 1.9 of them doesnt seem to have any problem with spending far more than they take in. We took in about 2.4 tril in tax revenue and spent 3.6 tril last year. How much longer does that continue until we get this?

 

[Brian]

The problem with that map (or, more correctly, the modern "red/blue" counterpart) is that it lacks the granularity needed to show the urban/extra-urban dimension that is critical to seeing through the deliberate smokescreen.

[Aetherous]

joeblast,

 

I'll be looking into a lot of the things you're saying. I'm not well informed about most of them. Thanks for revealing these issues.

 

And I'm sure its mere coincidence that Obama lost every state that has a photo voter ID law in place.

 

I'm totally not with you on this.

 

Its sad that as much as people claim to be post racial, race is right at the forefront of some people's minds, they trot it out at every available opportunity...not saying you're racist but for chrissakes, there's a whole lot about it that's certainly not about the content of one's character.

 

Even in WI, the people who voted for Romney in my opinion have remnants of racism, or the mindset that has come from racism and supports it (I'm speaking of my own family here, as well as friends, acquaintances, random people talking)...and some are outright racist.

 

I think you're an exception in that you're making what seem to be actual points. In contrast, here are some examples of others who voted the same way as you:

 

 

You think the people in this video aren't influenced by the undercurrent of racism that still exists?

 

Regardless of whether or not its 2 nations, 1.9 of them doesnt seem to have any problem with spending far more than they take in. We took in about 2.4 tril in tax revenue and spent 3.6 tril last year. How much longer does that continue until we get this?

 

Well, the upcoming fiscal cliff is a temporary solution to the problem you present. It will at least keep things even over a 10 year period, rather than rapidly increasing as it has been (this is my understanding of it, at least). But the Conservatives I know are whining about that, too. FISCAL CLIFF, AHHH. Well, you wanted cuts, and you wanted the budget balanced...

 

If there is a real solution, where is it? Why is it so hard to cut things that are unnecessary and increase revenue in ways that don't ruin the country? I don't think it actually is.

 

 

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2009.E2.80.932011:_Operation_Fast_and_Furious

 

I completely fail to see how you link this to the Obama administration (when it actually ended under the same administration), and suggest that Romney would be a solution to this type of thing.

Edited November 8, 2012 by turtle shell

[Aetherous]

The problem with that map (or, more correctly, the modern "red/blue" counterpart) is that it lacks the granularity needed to show the urban/extra-urban dimension that is critical to seeing through the deliberate smokescreen.

 

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main

 

Vote by size of place contains nationwide stats on that.

[joeblast]

Well, the upcoming fiscal cliff is a temporary solution to the problem you present. It will at least keep things even over a 10 year period, rather than rapidly increasing as it has been (this is my understanding of it, at least). But the Conservatives I know are whining about that, too. FISCAL CLIFF, AHHH. Well, you wanted cuts, and you wanted the budget balanced...

it doesnt sound like you understand what the fiscal cliff is. it is not a solution, it is a problem. "keeping things even" does not mean flat and no increase, it means a flat rate of increase!

 

If there is a real solution, where is it? Why is it so hard to cut things that are unnecessary and increase revenue in ways that don't ruin the country? I don't think it actually is.

because "the real solution" requires screwing with our entitlement programs. which are set to cost the entirety of the federal tax revenue in the near future.

 

edit: http://en.wikipedia....ast_and_Furious

 

I completely fail to see how you link this to the Obama administration (when it actually ended under the same administration), and suggest that Romney would be a solution to this type of thing.whaa? they took a bush admin program that was being closed down, resurrected it, changed the parameters and let the guns walk. I dont see any "failing to link" - the link is there and it is a separate operation than the gunrunner thing where straw buyers were apprehended - instead they just let 'em walk away and go over the border with it! you know they hate gun rights, this is entirely to drum up anti 2nd amendment sentiment.

[Aetherous]

it doesnt sound like you understand what the fiscal cliff is. it is not a solution, it is a problem. "keeping things even" does not mean flat and no increase, it means a flat rate of increase!

 

You say it's not a solution, but it is clearly going to be preventing much bigger problems from occurring...

 

because "the real solution" requires screwing with our entitlement programs. which are set to cost the entirety of the federal tax revenue in the near future.

 

Then it's not a real solution. And because it's not, lets stop harping on about the same unworkable idea, and move onto cuts that work. And lets raise the revenue (why don't Repubs want to do this?). Pretty simple.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it isn't, though.

 

whaa? they took a bush admin program that was being closed down, resurrected it, changed the parameters and let the guns walk. I dont see any "failing to link" - the link is there and it is a separate operation than the gunrunner thing where straw buyers were apprehended - instead they just let 'em walk away and go over the border with it! you know they hate gun rights, this is entirely to drum up anti 2nd amendment sentiment.

 

Perhaps...but I'm not seeing it.

[ralis]

Here is one solution that was offered to all whining Romney supporters.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/08/fox-station-tells-romney-supporters-how-to-beat-the-traffic-to-canada/

 

 

The Fox station in Oklahoma on Wednesday gave supporters of former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney some helpful tips for fleeing the country before President Barack Obama starts his second term.

In the Fox 23 “Beat the Traffic” segment on the morning after Obama won re-election, traffic reporter Jeff Brucculeri took a look at some of the delays around Tulsa before having some fun with disgruntled voters.

“We had some folks make a special request,” Brucculeri explained. “I know a lot people said that if their candidate lost the election, they’d be moving to Canada — not sure why, but that was some of the folks’ promises out there.”

So, the traffic anchor proceeded to give “the quickest and directest route” up north, where big government, same sex marriage and universal health are a part of everyday life.

Brucculeri advised Tulsa residents to take Highway 75 to Omaha, and then I-29 to the Canadian border.

“This is serious stuff,” he told laughing staff in the newsroom. “When you get to Canada, you’re going to hit the border here, make sure you got either your [passport] card or your passport, OK, to get into Canada now. Then you’re going to get back on Highway 75 in Canada or it’s actually the Lord Selkirk Highway. If you’re moving to Canada, you’re going to need to know this. Lord Selkirk Highway, OK?”

Montreal-based immigration lawyer immigration lawyer David Cohen told CNN that he had received calls from all over the United States after Romney lost on Tuesday.

“That’s the amazing thing, when they speak on the phone. They’re adamant. They feel very, very strong about it,” Cohen said. “This government doesn’t speak for me’ is the language that we often hear.”

Watch this video from Fox 23, broadcast Nov. 7, 2012.

 

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1sDP1)

[Marblehead]

Well, just to remind Y'all, Romney paid a lower tax rate than I did last year and my taxable income was less that $20,000. And not only that, the IRS decided it wasn't getting enough of my money so it taxed part of my Social Security. All that was done or has been manitained by the Obama administration. No, rich people don't want to be taxed so they make laws that allow the lower income people (middle classes) to be taxed at a higher rate.

 

Rich people are greedy. That is how most of them became rich. The richer they become the poorer all others become. There ain't no free lunches, remember? If someone wins someone else has to lose. That's the way the system is set up now.

[Jetsun]

I was amazed that a party which had been hijacked by religious extremists got that close to winning to be honest.

[Marblehead]

I was amazed that a party which had been hijacked by religious extremists got that close to winning to be honest.

I'm surprised that that amazed you. Same story, same book.

[joeblast]

You say it's not a solution, but it is clearly going to be preventing much bigger problems from occurring...

 

 

 

Then it's not a real solution. And because it's not, lets stop harping on about the same unworkable idea, and move onto cuts that work. And lets raise the revenue (why don't Repubs want to do this?). Pretty simple.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it isn't, though.

 

You dont seem to get it - it is pretty simple when you are presented with some near mathematical certainties...spending over a trillion more than you take in per year is a poster child for unsustainability - growth of federal entitlement programs are going to take up the entirety of tax receipts - so your solution-suggestion is simply to "raise an extra trillion per year in revenue"??? Exactly where is this money going to come from again? Sucked out of our boomin' economy??

 

Sorry Scotty, but "raising the revenue" might as well be "getting more blood out of a stone" at this point in time - are you under the illusion that simply raising rates is going to increase the revenue? The size and weight of the government is the reason tax receipts are down in the first place. The tax increases that were suckered into existence to pay for the progressive laundry list is not any real solution, it is but feeding the beast.

 

Entitlements WILL be modified, one way or the other. Either they get trimmed back to something workable, or we wind up in fiscal ruin and the programs themselves might not be funded at all. Argue that all you want, but the country cannot keep running yearly trillion dollar deficits without utterly trashing the dollar, it losing reserve status, and the progressive action-point of hobbling america and "putting it in its place" will be fulfilled - the american people seem to be voting for the ruin of their country via endless growth of government and entitlements. At the rate of spending for Obama it wont be long before we're negotiating a new value of the dollar against the new IMF reserve currency, and we'll be the ones crying about austerity measures being forced upon us because we can no longer even service our debt.

 

Why am I practically teaching class here?

 

Dis-missed.

[zerostao]

Well, just to remind Y'all, Romney paid a lower tax rate than I did last year and my taxable income was less that $20,000. And not only that, the IRS decided it wasn't getting enough of my money so it taxed part of my Social Security. All that was done or has been manitained by the Obama administration. No, rich people don't want to be taxed so they make laws that allow the lower income people (middle classes) to be taxed at a higher rate.

 

Rich people are greedy. That is how most of them became rich. The richer they become the poorer all others become. There ain't no free lunches, remember? If someone wins someone else has to lose. That's the way the system is set up now.

the last 2 candidates that the gop has run, (well maybe more than 3, coz of dubya) have been seriously flawed.

the extreme right has poisoned their own party's chances. that rush limbaugh idiot has done great harm to the conservative movement, and the quicker that guy is discredited and removed from his vitriolic spewing position- the better for everyone.

especially better for republicans. hard right talk radio is not a noble endeavor. keep agitating and you end up with a bunch of agitated folks, is this a good thing?

conservatives are not only found at the country club or on the yacht. the libertarian ideas of smaller govt, less taxes, less govt in our dailey lives appeals to a larger audience than the 1%.

where have the days gone when the well-off displayed their big hearts, their generosity, their humanness?

when exactly did they all become some idiot of an a$$ day in and day out, spewing hate and fear? yeah i am still talking to you rush-man. or some rich guy (trump-man) who likes to say "you're fired"

what exactly was romneys message? he wasnt exactly forth coming about much at all, he didnt want to talk about his taxes obviously. didnt romney say sth like how he liked to fire people, wanted to take away medicare and medicaid,and education from half the population so he could fund tax cuts for the richest of the rich? is that a message we all can feel good about?

republicans need to let go of their fear and hate and find a way to show the world, that they do have a heart. and that they are human. i know that they do indeed have a big heart. i reckon a few of them need reminded. mcconnell, demint.

if i was still a republican, and thinking about how everything is right now, the image of republicans, i would be looking to roll a few heads. trump-man and rush-man is a starting point.

i think most folks have had enuff of the hate vitriolic speech from the far hard right, i think this election reflected that.

politics is worse than rust in that it never sleeps ever, so , i probably aint got any news here, but clinton vs bush in 2016

is a real possibility. (barf)

[Brian]

See also: Cloward & Piven...

[joeblast]

Paul on Boehner's address to Congress on the fiscal cliff:

 

 

"Well, there are a couple of things in there. The problem is, there is no credibility. What I run into going around the country is that people I talk to generally do not believe anything they hear.

Someone said we want to work together, fine

. We will not raise taxes. They do not believe that. It goes on and on. They're just looking for the truth. They say all we need is a little compromise. No one expects that because they do not admit the truth.

The truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise?

They only way you are going to compromise if you agree on what to cut. Instead they're trying to find out how they will agree on what they will protect.

I do not think I have heard the answer.

They talk about this fiscal cliff, but in my mind I work with the assumption we are already over the cliff, we're just wondering how we're going to land…it is unsolvable because you have to cut spending."

[Marblehead]

the last 2 candidates that the gop has run,

I am still registered as a Republican. This is because my philosophy is conservative. One must go back fifty years to see, in politics, the conservative I base my philosophy on.

 

Of course, I always vote for whoever I think would do the best job for our nation regardless of party affiliation. I am still sad that Jill didn't win.