9to5cynic

And whats worse, is that after the election, the split was even. Then the next day, somehow Romney pulled some strings and got one extra delegate from Santorum's side ... Not sure how that happens, but I'd love to have that kind of pull around the country.

__________________
Nandroid Backup Script|unanswered threads|BabyBlues Breast Cancer Pledge

TxGoat

Sadly, our political system is heavily influenced by money. Hell, even the decisions made by these policy makers are influenced by external money. I just hope eventually the right people start asking why our politicians are so easily accessible to the money of special interest groups. I don't think we're going to really get a handle on it in the immediate future, so I'd rather just make EVERY politician's finances available to public and media scrutiny. I know it sounds drastic, having full disclosure of every politician's, but if you think about it, there are some federal jobs where an employee's finances are tightly monitored to ensure that the employee isn't engaging in illegal activities that go against U.S. interests. My question is why aren't politicians subject to the same scrutiny?

breadnatty08

Anyone have any predictions for today? Here's a fun little flow chart from the Post that tells you who to vote for:

Unforgiven

Work is going to suck. There is a polling place upstairs from my office and no one can seem to find it. It's only been there for 150+ years but I will still have to tell at least 50 people where it is because they failed to notice all the florescent yellow signs.

__________________

breadnatty08

Yikes, sucks for that. I'm sure Romney will kill MA. Is there any other states that matter besides Ohio?

TxGoat

WORST MARCH MADNESS BRACKET EVAAAAAARRRR!!!

breadnatty08

Txgoat, as much as I (and probably most others) hate your avatar, I like your humor.
If Newt wins GA, do you think he'll still continue? After watching the news lately (mostly the Daily Show), it seems like no one likes any of the candidates. Do any of them stand a chance?
Voters to GOP candidates: We don’t like any of you - The Washington Post

ylexot

Yes, you do require a license currently. My argument (if you had been reading) is that government should step aside and not license marriages.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

TxGoat

Dis on my avatar aside, I think the GOP is going to be hard pressed to displace Obama. If you look at the candidates, each seems to personify what's wrong with today's GOP.

You have Romney, a good representation of the greed within the party. If he becomes their nomination, his time at Bain Capital is going to be put scrutinized, and considering how many people have been displaced in the past few years, they're not going to find his track record to their liking.

Then there's Santorum, who does a good job representing the religious zealots of the party. These people insist that gay marriage, gays in the military, and women's reproductive rights need to be rolled back to pre-1900 conditions. I'm sure he turned off a lot of voters when he stated that JFK's speech about religion having any role in government made him sick to his stomach. I guess someone forgot to inform Santorum that the model for countries that practice a theocracy are Islamic states.

Newt, where does one begin, there are his failed marriages, his constant attempts at blaming everything on the "elite media", his dealings with Fanny Mae, his corruption charges when he was in Washington, and lets not forget the billionaire behind his Superpac. I think Newt played his trump card when he went after the debate moderator a few months ago and played up to the Tea Party fanatics in the crowd. His campaign needs a "Do not resuscitate" label on it.

Ron Paul, as much as I'm intrigued by a candidate that doesn't have big money behind him, I see the special interests threatened by him more than by the other candidates, thus I don't see him standing when the dust settles. Some of his policies seem genuinely flawed as well, and I think if he were the GOP candidate, some of his more absurd ideas might be enough to dissuade voters in the end. It is nice to see that he has a lot of young voters energized, and lets face it the GOP is the unmarked-white-van when it comes to attracting a younger audience.

As ineffective as some people think Obama has been, I don't see any viable candidate from the GOP winning enough votes to displace him. The only strategy the GOP can consider at this point is to have Mitt Romney as their nominee and have someone like a Sarah Palin or some other fringe lunatic try to run as an independent to try steal some votes from Obama the way Ross Perot did back when he ran. I think the GOP is in for a long year.

9to5cynic

I agree. What, I think I read he's the only GOP canidate with 0 millionaires backing him I feel (what I can only assume is) the same way about him. There are a lot of points that he makes that I like, but hell, somethings are pretty much ... ehh.. no....

And the young vote is interesting, I remember that Obama got a large portion of the young vote and I think they even said that social media helped his campaign.... I wonder who the young vote would side with if it was RP v. Obama...

TxGoat

That's one of the reasons I see the GOP asking Ron Paul to run as an independent. He would siphon some of the young votes from Obama.

breadnatty08

So it looks like ST was a big victory for Romney (Ohio), but Santorum is still holding his own. Romney only won Ohio by 1%. Ron Paul got 40% of the vote in VA (okay, it was only RP and Romney on the ticket with no option of a write-in).
Gingrich won not only GA, but also the endorsement of Palin, wonder which was more important to his campaign?

doniago

Watching the whole thing as a liberal Democrat, I can't decide whether I'd like the craziest Republican nominee to win on the grounds that they would then almost certainly lose to Obama, or whether I'd like the least crazy Republican nominee to win on the grounds that if they then win the presidency it's at least not completely horrifying (though it will probably be horrifying enough).

The only nominee I saw who managed to elicit my interest in any significantly non-negative manner was Huntsman. Shame he dropped out.

AntimonyER

I think Romney all but clinched it last night (The one exception would be if Gingrich dropped out, but the man is so egotistical, I don't see it happening). I think we will see the Dems and Obama see it this way too, and the attack ads will begin soon.

TxGoat

I can't see myself playing the GOP's game on this one "if we lose, we'll ensure that America is driven to the dirt". I want the best candidate to win, regardless of which party he's from. I really don't see any GOP candidate that's a better option than Obama at this point. I actually think it's funny how some people get so wrapped up in politics that they put it ahead of the country.

The GOP policies have failed because it puts too much trust on the wealthy to do what's right. The wealthy have demonstrated that they'll put their bottom line ahead of what's right for their employees and their country time and time again. Instead of the GOP trying to address and adjust their antiquated policies, they keep trying to insist that it's the only way to go. " We need to lower taxes on the job creators", "We need to refocus on family values", those policies are not going to ensure American success, it's going to ensure that the wealthy get wealthier, the disenfranchised get more alienated, and the middle class get left holding the bag.

I for one am more than happy to vote for the best candidate, but until the GOP decides to change its ideology, I'll be voting for "the other guy" whether Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent.

AntimonyER

How can you say that running trillion dollars deficits is better than ANYTHING? Yes Republican policies help businesses. But businesses are by definition "The Economy". Profits are what companies use to expand (ie hire more people). It's also what those companies pay taxes on, which fund the government benefits liberals like so much. So what is it again that bothers you so much about business profits again? Would you rather they not make profits, and at the least stop hiring, at the worst lay off everyone that is employed there and close their doors, and not contribute any money to government coffers? Yes there are corrupt businesses, and sometimes they lose people's money. But that is the exception, not the rule. Being anti-business is the worst possible thing for America, because it's the foundation of what made this country what it is.

TxGoat

I think your memory is failing you. Obama wasn't in office when all these trillions were being run up. No he didn't fall over himself to end the spending (war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), and no he didn't let the Bush Era tax cuts expire as they were supposed to, but lets see, he bailed out GM/Chrysler which if he hadn't would've meant how many middle class workers unemployed? He signed off on the Stimulus package which slowed how many job losses per month? While he has contributed to our record deficits, there is no way you can claim the wars and the tax cuts were a direct result of his policies.

You can claim it's being "anti-business" all you want, I call it anti-trickle-down economics. If the policies are supposed to be successful, then why didn't we see job growth after Bush signed off on the tax cuts during his term? If a company is showing a profit because of tax cuts do you actually think they're going to hire someone just because they have extra money? Look at Apple, they have BILLIONS just sitting idle, do you think they're going to just hire people just to hire people?

No, it doesn't work that way. The rich are known to save their money, not spend it. I think you're confusing the rich with the middle class. If the middle class hadn't contracted as much as it has in the past 10 years then you'd have more spending dollars available. More disposable income equals more demand for goods and services. More demand for goods and services equals more growth.

The whole idea of "give the "job creators" more tax breaks, give them more wealth", resonates in my ear like "let them eat cake". It's a myth. If you believe giving the "job creators" more money is the answer to job growth, then couldn't you take that same logic and apply it to them when they become "job destroyers"? And lets not kid ourselves, if we're going to acknowledge them as "Job Creators" then we have to also realize that they're also "Job Destroyers". So, if we're going to pay them to create jobs, then it stands to reason that when they destroy jobs that we need to deduct money from them correct?

Think about that for just a little more than a minute, if the "Job Creators" were "Job Destroyers" back after the .com bubble burst, why didn't we recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts? If you reward the "job creators" with tax breaks after a lot of jobs have been lost, and don't see much in the form of recovery after you've rewarded them, what does that tell you about your reward?

AntimonyER

Well what you are talking about is corruption and crony capitalism, which Obama is just as guilty as the rest. (solyndra, ge, and any other "green" business). And as far as deficits, how do you explain that even with the 500 billion in mostly military cuts, being out of Iraq, and drawing down in Afghanistan, he is still projecting 1.3 trillion deficits. The stimulus jacked the last year under bush from 500 billion to 1.6 trillion, but instead of dropping back to 500 billion, it stayed above 1 trillion every year, because he jacked up spending in his first two years while he had a compliant congress. The Senate unanimously rejected his budget because the spending was out of control. His own party joined with Republicans. Sorry these deficits are on him, not Bush.

ylexot

And you do know that Obama voted for all that spending when he was in Congress. When it came to fiscal responsibility, Bush was much closer to Democrat ideology than Republican.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

cjr72

They will hire people if they think it will help them add to the billions that are sitting idle. If they see an opportunity to make more profit, and hiring people is what they need to do to help them do so, they will. Why do you think companies hire anybody in the first place?

Those two statements don't make any sense when taken together. The rich pretty much by definition have the most disposable income. If, as you say, they don't spend it how does it equal demand for more goods and services?

Once the Bush Tax cuts were made effective immediately in 2003 instead of being dribbled out slowly as first intended when passed in 2001, the unemployment rate fell significantly.

OutofDate1980

Perhaps the rich are known for other things.

""Across all seven studies, the general pattern we find is that as a person's social class increases, his or her tendency to behave unethically also increases," said Piff."

Upper class people more likely to behave unethically

TxGoat

They will hire IF it means more money for them, not because they HAVE the money. The demand has to be there and if no one is hiring then how are the millions laid off going to buy?



The rich are more frugal with their money, the middle class is what drives production and the economy. Giving the rich more tax breaks isn't going to create more demand. They already have money to spend, they're just going to save that money.


The department of Labor's statistics don't show this "significance" you speak of.




As your social class goes up, you tend to look down your nose at people and you find it easier to justify your malice and contempt towards them. A perfect example is Barbara Bush when she claimed that the victims of Katrina had it better off while stranded in the Superdome as opposed to pre-Katrina conditions.

cjr72

The point of tax cuts is to increase demand. Even liberal's favorite economist Keynes believed in cutting taxes during a downturn.



You know this how? And unless they are stuffing their unspent money in mattresses that money will still add to the economy when its parked in investments.

As the chart shows the unemployment rate fell after the tax cuts in 2003 from about 6% to a low of about 4.6% in 2007. I would consider getting the unemployment rate below 5% as pretty significant. I'm sure Obama would take it.

TxGoat

Like I said, the rich didn't get rich by spending, how is giving them MORE money going to convince them to spend more?

How do I know that the rich are more frugal? Well one doesn't get rich by buying a lot of consumer products. The best economies in the world are the best because they have a thriving middle class, not a thriving upper class.

I'd wager that the wars waged had more to do with lower unemployment rates than the tax cuts.

What I find curious about the GOP's base is that many talk about going back to the "way things were" back in the 50s and 60s (I won't get into whether or not I believe they also want minorities to be more subservient, via no civil rights, but it does make one wonder). The tax rates were MUCH higher, the wealth gap wasn't nearly what it is now, and unions were more prevalent. I always figured the GOP played a sinister brand of Jedi mind tricks, but damn.....

ylexot

I will respond thusly...

(FYI, I think the second video is better, but they are both good)

cjr72

You would have us believe the rich live in dirt hovels. Many of them do spend once they are rich as their toys attest to. Regardless, even the money they don't spend is contributing to the economy when it's parked in investments.

Anyhow your argument seems to hinge on the tax cuts only benefiting the rich and not the middle class. I benefited from the tax cuts, even the cuts in capital gains that make liberal's heads spin and spit green pea soup. And guess what? I'm not rich.

I'm sure you would after your initial claim that we didn't "recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts" was refuted by your own chart that's now conveniently missing.

That's neither here nor there when it comes to this discussion but I guess if your flailing why not throw out the race card?

You know contrary to what some believe Reagan wasn't the first president to cut taxes. He learned it by watching Kennedy cut taxes, in the 60s.

TxGoat

I didn't know anyone was still in love with trickle-down economics. I'll post a link so you don't accuse me of pulling images.. Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

cjr72

A website that is called faireconomy.org containing articles with loaded Democratic Party talking point phrases like 'tax cut for the rich©' is obviously an agenda driven site.

As far as not knowing anyone who still loved "trickle-down economics" apparently Obama does considering that he has extended the Bush cuts. But I guess it's not trickle-down or for the rich when a Democrat does it.

TxGoat

I guess GOP lapdogs are going to hope that everyone forgets about how the GOP held unemployment extensions hostage until Obama signed an extension of the tax cuts. Only fitting since some of the GOP are already trying to pin the bank bailouts on Obama.

ylexot

Already? That quote must be from 2009 since it says that the bailouts were "last fall". Also, (then Senator) Obama voted for the bailouts. He's complicit even if it wasn't "his administration". He can't support it and then blame Bush for it.

OutofDate1980

Believe all that's left is the deals made for Romney's opponents to drop out and endorse. Who gets certain cabinet positions, etc. Some of Romney's opponents backers have large investments in their candidates, so they are looking for a return on their investment.

9to5cynic

In regards to the debt issue that keeps popping up with political discussion, I think it's important to note that the GDP of the United States is the highest in the world, at over 15 trillion dollars. I'm not an economists, but I felt that it was important to point that out.

AndyLL

You do understand that the Judicial system is government don't you?

There are millions of issues were 2 parties might disagree and contracts cannot be created to cover every situation.

Laws ( created by government ) which are interpreted by the courts ( government ) rule for one party or another.

To remove government involvement ( which is what you want ) precedents, ruled on over time, turn many of those conflicts into black and white decisions.

One of the most common ones is the implicit power of attorney spouses have... both financial and medical.

After that comes parents, immediate family, distant family... then interested 3rd parties.

Even if you are in a decades long gay relationship... guess where you stand in that pecking order?

Even if your gay partner has a written medical power of attorney there have been plenty of cases where parents have gotten a court to override it because parental rights trump the rights of 3rd parties which is what the courts are required to consider gay relationships.

Marriage is not just a religulous contract... its a recognized contract by the legal system. You can be legally married outside of a church

The legal contract created by marriage grants 1000s of rights to the 2 partners.

You could never create enought 'simple' contracts to replace those rights.

TxGoat

He really hasn't blamed Bush for it as much as his backers have, but many GOPers claim it as a sign that Obama is a socialist and that he's completely responsible for the debt. I have no problem with him taking some responsibility for the debt, I mean we're in his 4th year and it's not getting any smaller. Where I have the problem is with the GOP that wants to act as if the entire debt is his fault when it was the previous administration that cut taxes while going to war on 2 fronts. That's like me taking a pay cut and deciding to buy 2 cars. Eventually my loss of income and my extra expenditures are going to catch up to me. I don't see why the GOP thinks anyone is fooled into believing that our debt is what it is exclusively because of the Democrats.



One of the more curious and amusing situations is that of Dick Cheney's. Under normal circumstances I'm betting he would be against gays having any civil rights at all. But because his daughter is a lesbian, he finds himself on the "liberal" side of this issue. It demonstrates to me the most flawed aspect of being a Christian but also belonging to the GOP. I don't think someone can call themselves Christian and show no empathy to their fellow man/woman. And if you think of some of the core values of the GOP, it just seems to contradict what it means to be a Christian with "Family Values". Like I said, the GOP's brand of Jedi Mind tricks is unreal....

breadnatty08

And herein lies one of those most difficult to swallow aspects of the religious right (Santorum, Gingrich). They use religion (Christian) when it pleases them, then shun certain tenants when it doesn't. Why Santorum still believes that God has dictated the laws of man over mans' ability to think is beyond me.

cjr72

Dick Cheney never struck me as a social warrior in the first place so I'm not sure how contradictory his support of his daughter would be from that aspect. He may very well prescribe to the more libertarian faction of the GOP of live and let live when it comes to social issues.

cjr72

I agree and I think it would be instrumental to compare revenues as a percentage of GDP and spending as a percentage of GDP through history to help determine the reasons for our current debt issues. Have revenues decreased significantly compared to the past or has spending increased significantly compared to the past?

TxGoat

I know the religious right were somewhat suspicious of his stance on these types of social issues because of his daughter, but you're right, he never really had any social platforms that he ran on. Although, he did try to play up the good ole boy/oil man angle, which I would say that it's hard to try to project that image if you appear liberal on the same sex issues.

ylexot

I guess you don't understand what I'm saying then. People enter into contracts with one another all the time with zero government involvement/approval/licensing. That doesn't mean that the judicial system isn't involved when there is a dispute with regards to that contract. That's how marriage should be.

Give me an example because I don't believe you. Give me 10 rights beyond those in a medical poa and financial poa because I can't think of anywhere near 1000s of rights that marriage grants. Keep in mind that medical poa and financial poa are each about 5 pages long and grant just about every right imaginable. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

cjr72

Maybe throwing F-bombs and shooting people in the face was a way to compensate

breadnatty08

Anyone with thoughts on today's primaries? If Romney sweeps, do you think he has a lock? Since they're both open primaries, I wonder how many Dems (though there's not a ton down there) will vote for Santorum or Gingrich to keep the fight rolling.

TxGoat

I was going to post earlier about how I don't see Romney getting a foothold on the south, not with Santorum right behind him (wait did I say that?) and Newt snatching up what's left by Santorum (wait eww again!).

The rural south has a deep rooted belief that Democrats and liberals are going to help usher in a dominion by the Antichrist and the GOP has no problem pandering to that belief.

'We did it again': Santorum wins Alabama, Mississippi - CNN.com


Below is a clip that pretty much sums it up (NSW BTW)

Last edited by TxGoat; March 14th, 2012 at 01:43 AM.

breadnatty08

I thought that was a great video when I watched the show on Saturday. Don't know if this clip explains it, but Maher was very explicit when he said nothing was doctored about it, and no one was cherry picked.

TxGoat

I'd hate to see the whole footage shot. And before anyone says anything, I know there are clueless people on BOTH sides of the aisle. The video clearly demonstrates that these people are perfectly fine with voting against their best financial district because they believe the leaders on the GOP side are righteous. The sad thing is the GOP leaders are just as slimy as ever, but somehow their base doesn't care. It's worse to vote for someone that believes in affording women their own responsibility when it comes to their reproductive health and providing rights to someone regardless of their sexual orientation.

I don't see how it's hard to be on the right side of these issues. You think about civil rights in the 60s, do the same people that would deny someone their civil rights based on their sexual orientation the same people that wish we could roll back civil rights to pre-60s conditions?

breadnatty08

Anybody catch Kermit the Frog's take?
March 14, 2012 - Pt. 3 - The Colbert Report - 2012-14-03 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

TxGoat

Silliness aside, "Kermit" makes a valid point, if Santorum and Newt decide to create a super-ticket (I'm not sure if they're allowed to transfer delegates between each other like Go Fish, but then again we're talking about Newts) and this goes to Florida. How would Florida decide this, and can they be trusted? I'm just glad that they would be deciding the GOP primaries and not a national election.

Steven58

I'm going to recommend a different thread for the marriage v. gay marriage partnership issue. This thread is about who do you like better and for what reason.

Me? Since I've elected to moderate this, I'll stay out of it.

__________________

Vihzel

Mitt Romney.

The GOP would be crazy to nominate Santorum to go against Obama. Santorum can't win independent votes because he's so extreme right. There's a very good reason why Democrats think he's one of the funniest candidates to have run in the past few elections.

I <3 Reddit

__________________
See a post that makes you go "WTH! "? Report it!

See a post that makes you go "That was helpful! "? Thank it!

Feeling a little on a certain topic or with your device? Ask for help!

Want to know if I am female or not? Ask Roze!

Last edited by Vihzel; March 15th, 2012 at 05:39 PM.

AntimonyER

I think Google wants Romney, because Santorum is not in the dictionary on my phone. Romney is.

TxGoat

I just watched Game Change (HBO docudrama on Sarah Palin) and I can't help ask myself if she's going to make it into the fray at some point. I'm actually surprised that she is nowhere to be seen this far into the primaries. I figured she'd put herself out there as another possible VP candidate after having 4 years to be primed and sculpted into VP material by the GOP handlers.

Oh and if anyone is interested in the movie, I thought it was done rather well. It doesn't hurt that I have a slight crush on Julianne Moore, but she really acted it out well. I found myself actually feeling somewhat sorry for Sarah near the end of the movie.