Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

But that was my point. No one can argue with the definition of what it means to be "18". When you start bringing other criteria into it besides age pretty soon you won't have a democracy.
This whole voting thing is a red herring. The problem isn't the voters it's the choice of people to vote for. No amount of intelligence/experience would help you decide who is the best candidate in the next election. They ALL stink.
Now if you had rules on who could become a politician I might be more sympathetic.
For example 1. You've had a real job before. (not as a politician)
2. You understand a balance sheet.

I don't want a democracy! If you've read my prior posts on this and other threads, you'll understand why. Democracy means slavery, it means holocaust, it means separate but equal, it means all manner of tyranny of the majority. Democracy means a political class that specializes in dividing the country against itself, whether that's economically, racially, socially, or any other way that is perceived to be at the advantage of the political class.

The "problem" if you believe in such a thing is most certainly the voters. Voters can choose people other than the the "lesser of two evils," but too often choose not to exercise that choice.

[lektrode]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I don't want a democracy! If you've read my prior posts on this and other threads, you'll understand why. Democracy means slavery, it means holocaust, it means separate but equal, it means all manner of tyranny of the majority. Democracy means a political class that specializes in dividing the country against itself, whether that's economically, racially, socially, or any other way that is perceived to be at the advantage of the political class.

The "problem" if you believe in such a thing is most certainly the voters. Voters can choose people other than the the "lesser of two evils," but too often choose not to exercise that choice.

+1
what has happened, is the country has be overtaken by a bunch of politicrats, that somehow think the answer to every problem is a bunch of new laws - written specifically vague so they can loophole themselves around them, any time its convenient - or if the perpetrator is wealthy enough, can afford to buy his way out any legal entanglement.

this has just been proven beyond any shadow of doubt with the legislation to 'fix the banking system', 'fix the healthcare system'.

neither of which has fixed anything, but has and WILL create more complication/obfuscation/confusion/chaos upon which the politicrats gorge themselves - nothing more than a jobs program for the lawyer brigade - yet still cant seem to find any time/reasons to investigate or prosecute ANY the clear violations of all the laws they spent all that time on since repeal of glass-steagall?

WHEEEEEE! aint this all this 'democracy in action' stuff fu'un? = pure BS/kabuki designed to keep the political aristocracy in power, as they give away the treasury to buy a few more votes of the ignorant/dependant class.

with the beltway bought-off and paid for by the inhabitants of lower manhattans skyscapers, cheer-led by the liberal media/chattering class - who just a few years ago made politcal hay railing against huge gov deficits, now makes the claim that the deficits arent big enough??

seems to me this is precisely why the founders setup The US as a federal REPUBLIC and NOT a 'democracy'

sez the 'small-r' guy from the state that still understands why and proves it with NO SALES NOR INCOME TAXES,
who's legislature makes 100bux/year for a 30day session and goes home and back to work like The Rest of US.

i know, boring.

[skeeter]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Bigotracy.

Which is the word that comes to my mind when - as a foreigner - i should describe the political debate (and state of the nation) in the US.


It makes me sick.

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Bigotracy.

Which is the word that comes to my mind when - as a foreigner - i should describe the political debate (and state of the nation) in the US.


It makes me sick.

Is that a word?

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Ron Paul weighs in . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t3vZ...layer_embedded

[LargoWinch]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I watched the debate very carefully, and I found that the 4min. clip below is doing an excellent job at summarizing the issues :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=QlwilbVYvUg#!

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Let's kick it off, 15 months out. This is not a thread for ideological debates. Please keep your partisan hackery to yourself. From time to time I will update with odds, polls etc.

If I had to guess today, I'd say that Rick Perry is going to be the GOP nominee. The big money will split between him and Romney and the Heartland base of voters will give it to Perry, not Bachmann. He's a Governor with a history that Bachmann can't touch as a mere Representative. Obama coming out of the Senate was not the start of a new trend. The big money is not backing Bachmann, she's getting the small money checks from the Heartland.

Having so thoroughly disregarded the bolded portion of this, I think it might be prudent to go back to the original intent of the thread since the election is so close now.

I would put real money down that Romney wins the popular vote and the electoral college. Too many polls have him ahead in general and/or an even matchup and now a few have him pulling ahead in Ohio. With Sandy basically "locking in" the coverage of the race until election night when the campaigns finally become a bigger story than the storm, that means that Romney will win.

Frankly, I think that's a bit more healthy for the country than if Obama wins. At least it means that we still, on some basic level, try to hold our Presidents accountable. The "Obama Recovery" is historic in its lackluster nature, and on a primal level I am glad that America is poised to reject this level of mediocrity and overt cronyism. The gist of the following video: the "guitar string" nature of the economy that, when plucked, bounces back to the "normal or expected" rate of growth seems to have been stretched and worn for some reason recently.

All that being said, it won't be all bad news if Obama gets re-elected. The disasters that are bound to happen on his second term will, in theory at least, utterly discredit progressivism for a period of time. Whether that means anything, like removing the tentacles of FIRE and other industries from government, remains to be seen.

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I'm curious; which of Obama's actual policies do you consider "progressive?" What elements of his record do you see as advancing a progressive political agenda?

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

It's not really what I define as progressive that matters, but what is perceived by the public at large. By whatever definition or term you use, the institutional failures that are likely to occur over the next four years will be blamed at least in part on Obama and also on Romney if he gets elected. I can only hope that they take the blame, actually, because history has at least one prominent example of a failed president (FDR) getting re-elected over and over despite his policies exacerbating the huge economic calamity of his time.

Granted, the more accurate definition of Obama's policies is crony capitalism with a dash of raw authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution. That doesn't mean that's how people perceive him and his policies though.

[Woodsman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I think it matters. Words have meaning and largely define our perceptions.

If we describe Obama and the Democratic party as "progressive," then we should be able to define what that means and point to cases that demonstrate this as fact. If Obama is a socialist, as so many seem to believe, then it should be an easy thing to identify this or that policy that makes him so.

The converse is also true; if Obama's policies are "crony capitalism with a dash of raw authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution" then so were the policies of the Bush administration (and to a degree, Clinton), given the remarkable continuity between them. It's also hard to see much daylight between Romney and Obama on the key issues of foreign and domestic policy. What differences do exist seem more of scope or speed of implementation rather than any substantive disagreement.

So what exactly are we saying when we call Obama a progressive, leftist or socialist (or Romney a conservative)? Do these terms have any common meaning? Does our understanding of their meaning in any way reflect the reality these terms attempt to name and describe? And how can we have politics without a common language possessed of meaning? If we can't, what exactly is it that we're doing here?

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I think it matters. Words have meaning and largely define our perceptions.

If we describe Obama and the Democratic party as "progressive," then we should be able to define what that means and point to cases that demonstrate this as fact. If Obama is a socialist, as so many seem to believe, then it should be an easy thing to identify this or that policy that makes him so.

The converse is also true; if Obama's policies are "crony capitalism with a dash of raw authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution" then so were the policies of the Bush administration (and to a degree, Clinton), given the remarkable continuity between them. It's also hard to see much daylight between Romney and Obama on the key issues of foreign and domestic policy. What differences do exist seem more of scope or speed of implementation rather than any substantive disagreement.

So what exactly are we saying when we call Obama a progressive, leftist or socialist (or Romney a conservative)? Do these terms have any common meaning? Does our understanding of their meaning in any way reflect the reality these terms attempt to name and describe? And how can we have politics without a common language possessed of meaning? If we can't, what exactly is it that we're doing here?

One problem is that people describe themselves in ways that are inaccurate. Most people are unwilling to think critically about a president's actions and decide whether they believe them to be liberal/progressive or conservative.

I've said many times if you showed someone the bills that Bush and Obama signed without the names and dates, I doubt people would do very well in distinguishing them. But if you asked which president was conservative or liberal they would answer in a heartbeat.

I think there's a few areas where there is a real and consistent difference (albeit with some exceptions): gay marriage, abortion, maybe gun control

On most other issues the difference in perception is fake or wildly exaggerated: government spending (conservatives pretend to want less), socialized healthcare (conservatives pretend to want less), big business favoritism (liberals pretend to oppose), foreign policy (liberals pretend to be for peace), personal freedom (both pretend to want more), transparency (both sides pretend to want more)

It's possible that on an average joe level, the people who describe themselves as one ideology are much more true to it. But on the political candidate level I think they just want votes.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I think it matters. Words have meaning and largely define our perceptions.

If we describe Obama and the Democratic party as "progressive," then we should be able to define what that means and point to cases that demonstrate this as fact. If Obama is a socialist, as so many seem to believe, then it should be an easy thing to identify this or that policy that makes him so.

The converse is also true; if Obama's policies are "crony capitalism with a dash of raw authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution" then so were the policies of the Bush administration (and to a degree, Clinton), given the remarkable continuity between them. It's also hard to see much daylight between Romney and Obama on the key issues of foreign and domestic policy. What differences do exist seem more of scope or speed of implementation rather than any substantive disagreement.

So what exactly are we saying when we call Obama a progressive, leftist or socialist (or Romney a conservative)? Do these terms have any common meaning? Does our understanding of their meaning in any way reflect the reality these terms attempt to name and describe? And how can we have politics without a common language possessed of meaning? If we can't, what exactly is it that we're doing here?

You pose some good questions, but I would offer that the results of labeling may just be empiric. People choose their ideology for any number of reasons, and what I am trying to convey is that just as Bush discredited "neo-conservatives" and the various other labels that one can reasonably apply to him, so too will Obama discredit whatever labels can be applied to him. At least, that is my hope if he ends up getting re-elected (which I find less likely now).

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I would put real money down that Romney wins the popular vote and the electoral college. Too many polls have him ahead in general and/or an even matchup and now a few have him pulling ahead in Ohio. With Sandy basically "locking in" the coverage of the race until election night when the campaigns finally become a bigger story than the storm, that means that Romney will win.

I'll gladly take that bet. I'm not sure what "polls" you are reading, but you might want to consider going to a more fact based source.

Obama will win 303 EV and 50.2% of the popular vote, with Romney at 235 and 48.6%, and I'm being generous by giving Romney Florida.

Romney has damaged our political system almost as much as the Citizens United decision. He's shown that he can bald face lie about anything he wants, whenever he wants, say anything to anyone at anytime and the 4th estate will simply turn it into a false equivalency instead of calling him out. When his campaign said they "will not be dictated by fact-checkers" they knew nobody would read any corrections at the bottom of page 44 2 days after they lied. But his lies about Chrysler moving Jeep production to China was a lie too far. The backlash in some key states will probably cost him any chance he had.

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Romney has damaged our political system almost as much as the Citizens United decision. He's shown that he can bald face lie about anything he wants, whenever he wants, say anything to anyone at anytime and the 4th estate will simply turn it into a false equivalency instead of calling him out. When his campaign said they "will not be dictated by fact-checkers" they knew nobody would read any corrections at the bottom of page 44 2 days after they lied. But his lies about Chrysler moving Jeep production to China was a lie too far. The backlash in some key states will probably cost him any chance he had.

It's so bizarre reading ridiculous partisan nonsense like this. You can't seriously be pretending that Romney has uniquely damaged our political system on some kind of unprecedented level by lying on the campaign trail, can you? Like he's the first one? Like Obama doesn't lie? Like nearly every two party candidate doesn't lie in nearly every election?

And now there's some kind of Romney biased conspiracy in the media?

Give me a break.

[Raz]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

...And now there's some kind of Romney biased conspiracy in the media?