or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2012 U.S. Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 U.S. Elections - Page 3

post #81 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What was the composition of Congress during each of those administrations?

More importantly, what did the Federal Reserve do during those administrations? Wait...we don't really know the answer to that question, as we've never audited the Federal Reserve.

Please stop trying to cloud the issue with pertinent facts when someone is in the midst of making superficial observations and drawing simplistic conclusions.

P.S. You could simply note the selection bias in the posted list.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #82 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What was the composition of Congress during each of those administrations?

More importantly, what did the Federal Reserve do during those administrations? Wait...we don't really know the answer to that question, as we've never audited the Federal Reserve.

If you'd read the link you would have gathered some of that information.

Here's a bit of it-


"Average job growth under Republican Houses has been 1.1%/year. The average under Democratic Houses has been 2.5%. For Republican Senates it has been 1.6%, while for Democratic Senates it has been 2.6% (excluding the 107th split Senate). This makes a Democratic Congress look good, but the difference is not as big as that between Democratic presidents (3.6%) and Republican presidents (1.1%).

Best of all is to have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. When the president and both houses of Congress are Democratic, annual job growth has been 3.7%."
~ http://www.laprogressive.com/who-cre...presidents-do/

I'm sure you already know that repub presidents have created much lower gdp, had higher inflation and increase the debt at a much higher rate than dems, hence the fed's role could be described as intensified during repub control.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #83 of 184
Thread Starter 
Rick Santorum is done.

And good riddance.

Hopefully his delegates are smart and decide to support the only GOP candidate who poses any real threat to the status quo: Ron Paul.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #84 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Rick Santorum is done.

And good riddance.

Hopefully his delegates are smart and decide to support the only GOP candidate who poses any real threat to the status quo: Ron Paul.

He did the right thing. I'm not sure I expected it. I was wondering if he'd go Full Retard like Gingrich and stay in until the bitter end.

As for the delegates, that won't happen my friend. Romney is the nominee...it's over.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 184
Thread Starter 
Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

As soon as the national convention is over I'll be re-registering independent or PND (Party Not Declared) and looking at 3rd party candidates (if I even vote).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #86 of 184
Thread Starter 
Newt Gingrich stiffs Utah

Quote:
Five Republicans have filed the necessary papers and $500 fee to qualify for the June 26 Utah presidential primary election, but with Rick Santorum dropping out of the race Tuesday, only four will be on the ballot.

Or, make that possibly three.

Newt Gingrich’s check bounced.

Utah Elections Director Mark Thomas said a designated agent for the Gingrich campaign brought the filing papers and a check for $500 in March, but after the check was deposited, the state was notified by the bank that the check had bounced. He said the office has tried to contact the Gingrich campaign through the telephone number and email provided on the application, but have not received a response.

Gingrich's campaign has been poorly run from the get-go. If he can't even run a respectable campaign and meet his financial obligations, how can he expect people to think he's competent enough to be POTUS?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #87 of 184
Well I agree, it looks like the choices will be Obama or Obama-slightly-right.

It is looking more likely that the Republicans will retain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. This will be a good counter-weight to a 2nd Obama term.

This combination is probably the best for the country. It worked out fairly well in the 1994-2000 period.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well I agree, it looks like the choices will be Obama or Obama-slightly-right.

Romney is far more conservative than Obama and far more competent.

Quote:

It is looking more likely that the Republicans will retain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. This will be a good counter-weight to a 2nd Obama term.

This combination is probably the best for the country. It worked out fairly well in the 1994-2000 period.

To even have a chance of getting things back on track fiscally, we need a Republican House, Senate and President. I'd take 2/3 to counter Obama, but all that will do is slow the train to hell.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Romney is far more conservative than Obama and far more competent.



To even have a chance of getting things back on track fiscally, we need a Republican House, Senate and President. I'd take 2/3 to counter Obama, but all that will do is slow the train to hell.

We can't get things back on track fiscally without changing our foreign policy, and neither Obama nor Romney has any intention of doing so.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #90 of 184
So the U.S. will end up with either a Liberal or a Moderate as President.

That's going to work out well.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #91 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

We can't get things back on track fiscally without changing our foreign policy, and neither Obama nor Romney has any intention of doing so.

That's not true. The idea that U.S. deficits are created largely by foreign aid and wars is a myth.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #92 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's not true. The idea that U.S. deficits are created largely by foreign aid and wars is a myth.

It accounts for a sizable chunk of our spending and must be reigned in with everything else.

http://costofwar.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #93 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's not true. The idea that U.S. deficits are created largely by foreign aid and wars is a myth.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #94 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Romney is far more conservative than Obama

We'll see. A conservative from Massachusetts is like...well...like a liberal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

and far more competent.

Faint praise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

To even have a chance of getting things back on track fiscally, we need a Republican House, Senate and President. I'd take 2/3 to counter Obama, but all that will do is slow the train to hell.

I disagree. I think R house and senate with D president would work better. Reason being that congress controls the budget. With R's in control there in opposition to a D president they're more likely to be fiscally conservative in opposition to that D president. This is how it basically worked from 94-2000. However, there's some concern that an R president might allow things to get a little out of control if they all think they're kings of the world. That's with a conservative president. Mitt Romney will not likely be that. At least I don't expect him to be so fiscally. Romney is only slightly right of Obama.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 184
Would you knock on doors for Mitt Romney?

No, I didn't think so. Gallup has measured just how little excitement there is for Romney, and it's bad, really, really bad. Romney fails the inspiration test, but meanwhile Obama's the complete opposite- (short Gallup video)- http://www.gallup.com/video/153146/D...OP-Romney.aspx
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #96 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He did the right thing. I'm not sure I expected it. I was wondering if he'd go Full Retard like Gingrich and stay in until the bitter end.

As for the delegates, that won't happen my friend. Romney is the nominee...it's over.

Unfortunately you are right. Romney vs Obama in 2012.At least both are good debaters.Gingrich is through completely now.He is making a jerk by staying in really.
post #97 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you knock on doors for Mitt Romney?

No, I didn't think so. Gallup has measured just how little excitement there is for Romney, and it's bad, really, really bad. Romney fails the inspiration test, but meanwhile Obama's the complete opposite- (short Gallup video)- http://www.gallup.com/video/153146/D...OP-Romney.aspx

Ron Paul has a way of generating excitement about his campaign and the political process.

I'm attending my first ever GOP legislative district meeting tonight to do whatever I can to make sure delegates are selected who support Ron Paul.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #98 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul has a way of generating excitement about his campaign and the political process.

I'm attending my first ever GOP legislative district meeting tonight to do whatever I can to make sure delegates are selected who support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul stands for something on principle, Romney often is just lining up votes for himself. It's blatant and it's a big turn off.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #99 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Ron Paul stands for something on principle, Romney often is just lining up votes for himself. It's blatant and it's a big turn off.

So we will soon have two people running against each other doing the same thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

We can't get things back on track fiscally without changing our foreign policy, and neither Obama nor Romney has any intention of doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We'll see. A conservative from Massachusetts is like...well...like a liberal.



Faint praise.




I disagree. I think R house and senate with D president would work better. Reason being that congress controls the budget. With R's in control there in opposition to a D president they're more likely to be fiscally conservative in opposition to that D president. This is how it basically worked from 94-2000. However, there's some concern that an R president might allow things to get a little out of control if they all think they're kings of the world. That's with a conservative president. Mitt Romney will not likely be that. At least I don't expect him to be so fiscally. Romney is only slightly right of Obama.

That's possible. It's just that controlling the purse strings is not enough. We need major reforms, which I think will take both branches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you knock on doors for Mitt Romney?

No, I didn't think so. Gallup has measured just how little excitement there is for Romney, and it's bad, really, really bad. Romney fails the inspiration test, but meanwhile Obama's the complete opposite- (short Gallup video)- http://www.gallup.com/video/153146/D...OP-Romney.aspx

I absolutely would. And I don't buy the enthusiasm stat at all, especially given where we are in the political calendar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul has a way of generating excitement about his campaign and the political process.

That's why he's won....zero primaries.

Quote:

I'm attending my first ever GOP legislative district meeting tonight to do whatever I can to make sure delegates are selected who support Ron Paul.

Honestly, good for you in terms of standing up for what you believe. That said, I'm not sure why you'd do that given Paul now has a less than zero chance of becoming the nominee.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 184
Thread Starter 
Romney doesn't even have half the delegates needed to secure the nomination yet and he's being declared the de facto nominee.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 184
Thread Starter 
Last night I attended my first ever Republican Legislative District Meeting. At this meeting the PCs (Precinct Committeemen) elected delegates to the Arizona GOP State Convention to be held in May. I heard about the meeting from a friend of mine who is in the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION Meetup group and since I am a registered Republican (to support Ron Paul) I felt I should attend the meeting and at the very least try to learn a little more about how the process works.

Here are some observations:
  • The meeting was held at a hotel. When we arrived, the parking lot was completely full and we had to park in an adjacent office building parking lot. I later learned that there are 170+ PCs (Precinct Committeemen) and if all of them had showed up the venue wouldnt have been big enough to accommodate everyone.
  • I counted 5 sheriffs deputies (that I could see) at the event. At one point 2 of them were checking cars in the parking lot. Were they expecting trouble? Protests? I later overheard one of the attendees thanking a deputy for keeping us safe. She obviously hasnt seen CopBlock.org.
  • Those who attended the meeting were overwhelmingly middle age or elderly. Very few young people were there and they were all Ron Paul supporters. We really need to get more young folks open to the idea of freedom participating in the political process at the local level. Most people think all they have to do is vote and thats the end of it.
  • 42 delegates from our district were elected. There were 170+ PCs and they automatically put all the PCs on the delegate election ballot unless they specifically said they didnt want to be on the ballot. If they couldnt get ahold of a PC to determine whether they wanted to be on the ballot or not, they put them on the ballot anyway. They did allow any registered Republican to sign up to be a write-in candidate, so I and the other Ron Paul meetup folks all signed up.
  • First, they had a PC Only meeting. I have no idea what occurred in this meeting, as I was not allowed in. In the next meeting they invited PCs in first, followed by non-PC write-in candidates for delegate (me and my crew).
  • Only PCs can vote on delegates. They handed all the PCs a ballot and a list of names. They had a laptop hooked up to a projector which displayed all the write-in candidate names (including mine). Then they opened the polls and the PCs voted.
  • It was explained that the first 42 people who received the most votes would be delegates, the next 42 would be alternates. Any ties would be broken by drawing names out of a hat (or box, as was the case here). To my surprise, I and most of the write-ins were elected as alternates (even though it was widely know that we were Ron Paul infiltrators). There were also several Ron Paul supporting PCs who were elected as delegates. Im sorry, I dont know the exact numbers.
  • During the voting, a chairman gave a speech about how we all know what we have to do now and how we have to put aside our differences and make sure Obama is not reelected because he would destroy our country. He professed his neutrality and claimed to not endorse any particular candidates, but it was painfully obvious that he was pleading with everyone to hold their noses and vote for Romney. My stomach turned as I listened to the rhetoric and heard some of the attendees voice their approval of what this man was saying. These people think Romney is actually different from Obama in some meaningful way. Its scary.

Overall I see this as a positive experience because it helped me learn a little more about how the political process currently works on the local, grassroots level. It makes me want to spread the word and get more of the R3VOLUTION involved in this because there are still more state primaries and caucuses to be held and Romney doesnt even have half of the delegates he needs to secure the nomination yet.

Ron Paul is holding another money bomb with a goal of $2.5 million this weekend and I plan to donate. Its time to send a message to the establishment - who has already declared Romney the de facto nominee - that we will not buy what theyre selling. We will see this through to the end and make Romney (Obama Lite) fight for every single delegate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #103 of 184
That's awesome JG. I used to be pretty heavily involved in the Republican Party at the state level and even went to the state convention for a couple year and attended the national convention in 1996 in San Diego.

As you note, it is sort of hard to jump into this stuff at the last moment. I can honestly tell you that for committed folks in the party, it is absolutely their church. Their donations are nothing short of a tithe. They attend functions weekly.

I participated for a while at the county level in Los Angeles and since LA is not an especially Republican county, it was pretty easy to get to some of the goodies with regard to posts, positions and even running as a candidate if you desired because they were largely vacant. It can be a lot of fun but the sausage making is more troublesome than I care to put up with. I'd rather just post a few times a week and chat about politics.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Last night I attended my first ever Republican Legislative District Meeting. At this meeting the PCs (Precinct Committeemen) elected delegates to the Arizona GOP State Convention to be held in May. I heard about the meeting from a friend of mine who is in the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION Meetup group and since I am a registered Republican (to support Ron Paul) I felt I should attend the meeting and at the very least try to learn a little more about how the process works.

Here are some observations:
  • The meeting was held at a hotel. When we arrived, the parking lot was completely full and we had to park in an adjacent office building parking lot. I later learned that there are 170+ PCs (Precinct Committeemen) and if all of them had showed up the venue wouldnt have been big enough to accommodate everyone.
  • I counted 5 sheriffs deputies (that I could see) at the event. At one point 2 of them were checking cars in the parking lot. Were they expecting trouble? Protests? I later overheard one of the attendees thanking a deputy for keeping us safe. She obviously hasnt seen CopBlock.org.
  • Those who attended the meeting were overwhelmingly middle age or elderly. Very few young people were there and they were all Ron Paul supporters. We really need to get more young folks open to the idea of freedom participating in the political process at the local level. Most people think all they have to do is vote and thats the end of it.
  • 42 delegates from our district were elected. There were 170+ PCs and they automatically put all the PCs on the delegate election ballot unless they specifically said they didnt want to be on the ballot. If they couldnt get ahold of a PC to determine whether they wanted to be on the ballot or not, they put them on the ballot anyway. They did allow any registered Republican to sign up to be a write-in candidate, so I and the other Ron Paul meetup folks all signed up.
  • First, they had a PC Only meeting. I have no idea what occurred in this meeting, as I was not allowed in. In the next meeting they invited PCs in first, followed by non-PC write-in candidates for delegate (me and my crew).
  • Only PCs can vote on delegates. They handed all the PCs a ballot and a list of names. They had a laptop hooked up to a projector which displayed all the write-in candidate names (including mine). Then they opened the polls and the PCs voted.
  • It was explained that the first 42 people who received the most votes would be delegates, the next 42 would be alternates. Any ties would be broken by drawing names out of a hat (or box, as was the case here). To my surprise, I and most of the write-ins were elected as alternates (even though it was widely know that we were Ron Paul infiltrators). There were also several Ron Paul supporting PCs who were elected as delegates. Im sorry, I dont know the exact numbers.
  • During the voting, a chairman gave a speech about how we all know what we have to do now and how we have to put aside our differences and make sure Obama is not reelected because he would destroy our country. He professed his neutrality and claimed to not endorse any particular candidates, but it was painfully obvious that he was pleading with everyone to hold their noses and vote for Romney. My stomach turned as I listened to the rhetoric and heard some of the attendees voice their approval of what this man was saying. These people think Romney is actually different from Obama in some meaningful way. Its scary.

They are right. He is different.

Quote:

Overall I see this as a positive experience because it helped me learn a little more about how the political process currently works on the local, grassroots level. It makes me want to spread the word and get more of the R3VOLUTION involved in this because there are still more state primaries and caucuses to be held and Romney doesnt even have half of the delegates he needs to secure the nomination yet.

Dude, they're saying it's over because...it's over. It doesn't matter if only half the delegates have been selected. That's how the process works. Ron Paul or another candidate are not going to suddenly start picking up delegates.

Quote:

Ron Paul is holding another money bomb with a goal of $2.5 million this weekend and I plan to donate. Its time to send a message to the establishment - who has already declared Romney the de facto nominee - that we will not buy what theyre selling.

You won't be sending any message. You'll just be making yourself feel better. Don't get me wrong...support Paul all you want. But that's all it is.

Quote:
We will see this through to the end and make Romney (Obama Lite) fight for every single delegate.

That is absolutely not the right thing to do. All it does is weaken Romney or at least divert his attention. Your choice is between Romney and Obama now. Pick one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #105 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They are right. He is different.

Well sure, he looks different. He says different things.

Quote:
Dude, they're saying it's over because...it's over. It doesn't matter if only half the delegates have been selected. That's how the process works. Ron Paul or another candidate are not going to suddenly start picking up delegates.

I don't think you understand how the process works. I don't profess to either, but I understand a little more after last night.

Quote:
You won't be sending any message. You'll just be making yourself feel better. Don't get me wrong...support Paul all you want. But that's all it is.

It's not to make myself feel better, I assure you.

Quote:
That is absolutely not the right thing to do. All it does is weaken Romney or at least divert his attention. Your choice is between Romney and Obama now. Pick one.

Romney deserves to be weakened. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I refuse.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #106 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Well sure, he looks different. He says different things.

That's because he stands for different things.

Quote:

I don't think you understand how the process works. I don't profess to either, but I understand a little more after last night.

You're probably right when it comes down to the intricate details of selecting delegates and what not. But I do understand what the ultimate political realties are with regard to when nominations are settled. Having "only" half the delegates is misleading. The race is over.

Quote:

It's not to make myself feel better, I assure you.

But then why is it? You understand that Paul now has a 0% chance of winning. He didn't have much more than that to begin with, but now it's truly 0%. Well, strike that. Let's say .0001%.

Quote:

Romney deserves to be weakened. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I refuse.

I just don't understand that view. Why does he deserve to be weakened? I'm not asking you to vote for the guy, but by deliberately trying to weaken him you increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected. And really, you can't tell me you don't care about that just because Mitt Romney is his opponent. I understand you don't think Romney is all that different from Obama (we disagree...but whatever), but do you acknowledge he'd be at least somewhat better? At all? In any way?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #107 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


That's because he stands for different things.

He also stands for a lot of the same things as Obama.

Quote:
You're probably right when it comes down to the intricate details of selecting delegates and what not. But I do understand what the ultimate political realties are with regard to when nominations are settled. Having "only" half the delegates is misleading. The race is over.

No, it is not. My state convention has not taken place yet. The national convention has not taken place yet. The race is not over.

Quote:
But then why is it? You understand that Paul now has a 0% chance of winning. He didn't have much more than that to begin with, but now it's truly 0%. Well, strike that. Let's say .0001%.

I thought I didn't have a chance of even being selected as an alternate delegate in my district last night.

Quote:
I just don't understand that view. Why does he deserve to be weakened? I'm not asking you to vote for the guy, but by deliberately trying to weaken him you increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected. And really, you can't tell me you don't care about that just because Mitt Romney is his opponent. I understand you don't think Romney is all that different from Obama (we disagree...but whatever), but do you acknowledge he'd be at least somewhat better? At all? In any way?

What you fail to understand - in spite of me repeating it over and over - is that from my perspective there is no meaningful difference between Obama or Romney. None. We've been over this.

This is what we are dealing with:



The only candidate who is proposing real solutions for this mess - such as cutting $1 trillion in his first year in office - is Ron Paul.

The only candidate talking about auditing the Federal Reserve and holding it accountable is Ron Paul.

The only candidate talking about allowing competition in currency is Ron Paul.

None of the other stuff really matters if we collapse under the weight of our own debt - which we will unless some drastic measures are taken to turn things around.

Romney and Obama aren't talking about any of this. It's completely off their radars.

Ron Paul has been talking about this for 30 years. And he's right.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #108 of 184
Variations on a Corporatist Theme:

Quote:
Thus Barack Obama claims and Mitt Romney implicitly concedes that the free market 1) has existed and 2) therefore presumably created the housing and financial debacle. This bodes ill for advocates of liberty and voluntary exchange.

Notice what will happen if this framing is widely accepted: Genuinely freed markets wont make the list of feasible options. That will leave us with mere variations on a statist theme, namely, corporatism. How will voters choose among them? Most of those who abhor socialism (however they define it) will rally round Republican corporatism because of the pro-market rhetoric, while most who abhor the cruel free market (Look at the hardship it created!) will rush to Democratic corporatism because of its anti-market rhetoric.

And the winner will be: Corporatism. (That is, the use of government force primarily to benefit the well-connected business elite.) The loser? The people, who would benefit from freedom and freed marketsmarkets void of privileges and arbitrary decrees. Thats what maximizes consumer and worker bargaining power and enhances general living standards.

Quote:
Does that mean the two contenders are really on the same side? Yes and no. They each want the reins of power. But the stakes are not what they are represented to be, and the differences are not fundamental. At the most fundamental level and despite appearances, Obama the government man and Romney the business man share common ground.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #109 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

He also stands for a lot of the same things as Obama.

From your point of view, which is fine.

Quote:

No, it is not. My state convention has not taken place yet. The national convention has not taken place yet. The race is not over.

Oh stop. It's nothing but a formality at this point. It's the 3rd quarter and Team Romney is winning 99-0. Half the other team has gone home. It's over, and deep down I think you know it. You don't like it, but you know it.

Quote:


I thought I didn't have a chance of even being selected as an alternate delegate in my district last night.

You had a much greater chance of that than Ron Paul does wrt winning the GOP nomination. By many orders of magnitude.

Quote:

What you fail to understand - in spite of me repeating it over and over - is that from my perspective there is no meaningful difference between Obama or Romney. None. We've been over this.

That's not what I asked you. I asked if Romney is ANY better in ANY way. Don't give me this "from my perspective" and "meaningful way" nonsense. The question is whether you think Romney is even marginally better than Obama. That's all I'm asking.

Quote:

This is what we are dealing with:



The only candidate who is proposing real solutions for this mess - such as cutting $1 trillion in his first year in office - is Ron Paul.

You can't do that. It will hurt the economy by pulling money out too quickly.

Quote:

The only candidate talking about auditing the Federal Reserve and holding it accountable is Ron Paul.

That's fine. Paul is not one of the legitimate choices, especially in the GOP race.

Quote:

The only candidate talking about allowing competition in currency is Ron Paul.

You mean domestically? Like states issuing their own money? That's nuts.

Quote:

None of the other stuff really matters if we collapse under the weight of our own debt - which we will unless some drastic measures are taken to turn things around.

Romney and Obama aren't talking about any of this. It's completely off their radars.

Ron Paul has been talking about this for 30 years. And he's right.

That's objectively false. Romney talks about the debt and deficit all the time...constantly. He's also been critical of the Fed, though he doesn't favor ending it. Romney's record is not one of ever expanding debts and deficits, either.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #110 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You can't do that. It will hurt the economy by pulling money out too quickly.

Wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You mean domestically? Like states issuing their own money? That's nuts.

Why?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #111 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Wrong.

Care to elaborate? The government doesn't spend money as well as the private sector does, but it does play a role.

Quote:

Why?

You really want to end a unified currency for the nation? You want PA and NJ and NY to use different money with different exchange rates? You want to have to convert CA and WY dollars when making a purchase on the internet? I mean...wow. It's a nightmare to even consider.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Care to elaborate? The government doesn't spend money as well as the private sector does, but it does play a role.

Exactly because it doesn't spend as well as the private sector. First the money cut from spending will either be cut from debt accumulation (most likely) reducing inflationary spending/borrowing as well as credit demand (and thus interest rates) and future taxation...or from current tax-funded spending which would return money to the private sector for spending and (better) investment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You really want to end a unified currency for the nation? You want PA and NJ and NY to use different money with different exchange rates? You want to have to convert CA and WY dollars when making a purchase on the internet? I mean...wow. It's a nightmare to even consider.

I asked you why it is "nuts." You've responded by not answering my question but instead asking other questions in an attempt to appear incredulous. I can only assume this means you have no real basis for this claim of "nuttiness." and are simply trying to hand wave me away.

\

In terms of it being a "nightmare", this is almost certainly wrong. In fact the market forces in this would assure it wouldn't be. What would most likely happen is that there really wouldn't be any competing currencies per se...only printed pieces of paper standing in for an underlying sound commodity money like gold or silver.

More importantly though it would almost certainly keep fiat currencies at bay and most if not all currencies would gravitate toward basis on something sound like gold or silver (or both) which will maintain pretty strong stability among different currencies. Essentially the different currencies will become simply names for certain quantity of the underlying stable, sound commodity.

The goal here is to put some natural constraints on the government's ability to inflate the money supply and all of the destruction that comes from that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #113 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Exactly because it doesn't spend as well as the private sector. First the money cut from spending will either be cut from debt accumulation (most likely) reducing inflationary spending/borrowing as well as credit demand (and thus interest rates) and future taxation...or from current tax-funded spending which would return money to the private sector for spending and (better) investment.

I support spending reductions, but my point is cutting one trillion in a year will have short term consequences, or is at least likely too.

Quote:

I asked you why it is "nuts." You've responded by not answering my question but instead asking other questions in an attempt to appear incredulous. I can only assume this means you have no real basis for this claim of "nuttiness." and are simply trying to hand wave me away.

\

I outlined several major problems. I didn't avoid anything.

Quote:

In terms of it being a "nightmare", this is almost certainly wrong. In fact the market forces in this would assure it wouldn't be. What would most likely happen is that there really wouldn't be any competing currencies per se...only printed pieces of paper standing in for an underlying sound commodity money like gold or silver.

More importantly though it would almost certainly keep fiat currencies at bay and most if not all currencies would gravitate toward basis on something sound like gold or silver (or both) which will maintain pretty strong stability among different currencies. Essentially the different currencies will become simply names for certain quantity of the underlying stable, sound commodity.

The goal here is to put some natural constraints on the government's ability to inflate the money supply and all of the destruction that comes from that.

It would be a logistical nightmare in the least. You'd have states refusing to accept other's currency, currency wars, trade wars, interstate commerce problems, government intervention as a result (under their legitimate authority in the commerce clause--imagine the irony there).

And we're not going back to the Gold standard, friend. It would contract the money and credit supply so drastically that we'd plunge into a depression.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #114 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I support spending reductions, but my point is cutting one trillion in a year will have short term consequences, or is at least likely too.

Yes, but the medium and long-term will be much better. It has to be done anyway so may as well just rip the bandage off fast.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I outlined several major problems. I didn't avoid anything.

You said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You really want to end a unified currency for the nation? You want PA and NJ and NY to use different money with different exchange rates? You want to have to convert CA and WY dollars when making a purchase on the internet?

Begging the question. Begging the question. Begging the question.

All that said, if it mean the government couldn't tax away my savings by printing money for whatever grand plans they have, then I'd put up with those minor inconveniences (if they even came to pass).


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It would be a logistical nightmare in the least.

Highly doubtful actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You'd have states refusing to accept other's currency, currency wars, trade wars, interstate commerce problems, government intervention as a result (under their legitimate authority in the commerce clause--imagine the irony there).



That's the whole point that the interstate commerce clause was intended to deal with.

In reality, there'd be nothing wrong with the government having its own currency. The idea here is to open currency up to competition. Same thing with open competition with something like the post office. Just eliminate the statutory monopoly on these things.

Of course given the way the government runs things their money will be an un-wanted commodity (and their post office will be an un-used service.)

What you may not realize is that money is a good or commodity like any other. There's nothing particularly special about it other than it has properties that make it better for use as a money. There's no reason this good/commodity needs to be controlled by the government any more than any other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And we're not going back to the Gold standard, friend.

If the system crashes we will.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It would contract the money and credit supply so drastically that we'd plunge into a depression.

You're misinformed.


The real question is why you distrust the market so?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, but the medium and long-term will be much better. It has to be done anyway so may as well just rip the bandage off fast.

That's a reasonable point. I still think it can be done with hurting the economy in the short term.

Quote:

You said this:



Begging the question. Begging the question. Begging the question.

All that said, if it mean the government couldn't tax away my savings by printing money for whatever grand plans they have, then I'd put up with those minor inconveniences (if they even came to pass).

You're avoiding the potential pitfalls I listed. Minor inconveniences?

Quote:


Highly doubtful actually.

Why...because you say so?

Quote:



That's the whole point that the interstate commerce clause was intended to deal with.

I know...that's why I said it was ironic that the government might actually use it for legit reasons

Quote:

In reality, there'd be nothing wrong with the government having its own currency. The idea here is to open currency up to competition. Same thing with open competition with something like the post office. Just eliminate the statutory monopoly on these things.

Of course given the way the government runs things their money will be an un-wanted commodity (and their post office will be an un-used service.)

What you may not realize is that money is a good or commodity like any other. There's nothing particularly special about it other than it has properties that make it better for use as a money. There's no reason this good/commodity needs to be controlled by the government any more than any other.

We just disagree here. There are so many problems with different currencies and currency systems between the states (and presumably, localities, correct?). The complexity alone would be problematic, as would counterfeiting, conversion, credit markets, etc. It's simply an impractical solution. You would have hundreds...maybe thousands of types of currency. It'd be like going back to the days when the railroads paid their workers in store tokens.

Quote:

If the system crashes we will.

I suppose.

Quote:

You're misinformed.



What do you think a sudden contraction of the money supply would do, then? Make the case.

Quote:

The real question is why you distrust the market so?

I do trust the market. I'm saying that having different currencies is impractical.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're avoiding the potential pitfalls I listed. Minor inconveniences?

And you're begging the question that they would occur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Why...because you say so?

I'm basing in my observation of how the market works. Those issues would be worked out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We just disagree here. There are so many problems with different currencies and currency systems between the states (and presumably, localities, correct?). The complexity alone would be problematic, as would counterfeiting, conversion, credit markets, etc. It's simply an impractical solution. You would have hundreds...maybe thousands of types of currency. It'd be like going back to the days when the railroads paid their workers in store tokens.

I do trust the market. I'm saying that having different currencies is impractical.

Some additional study on money might be helpful. These issues would not likely be as bad as you think. Furthermore there would likely evolve a single or couple of widely used currencies anyway.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What do you think a sudden contraction of the money supply would do, then? Make the case.

Ummm...you're begging the question again on the claim of sudden money supply contraction. A transition to a sound money wouldn't have to happen that way.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

observation

Oh, like how we gather evidence in supporting evolution (that you willfully deny)?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #118 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, like how we gather evidence in supporting evolution (that you willfully deny)?

This thread is about the 2012 U.S. elections.

If you'd like to discuss that other topic perhaps you could do it in another thread.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #119 of 184
I would prefer to elect a president that doesn't let the insanity of religion decide what is taught in science classrooms. I have more of a problem with a Mormon president than what we have now. The cult of Mormon is so easily debunked because it takes Christian crazy to a new absurd level much more recently, allowing evidence of the ridiculous conjob to easily be found.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #120 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I would prefer to elect a president that doesn't let the insanity of religion decide what is taught in science classrooms.

I would prefer a president that would separate education from the government and allow everyone to decide for themselves the best way to educate their children and in what subjects.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I have more of a problem with a Mormon president than what we have now.

I have a problem with a president that has so much power that his personal beliefs, no matter what they are, could potentially effect my life so profoundly by his use of that power.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2012 U.S. Elections