Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion
Originally Posted by trumptman
First he wasn't handed a trillion dollar deficit. He signed it into existence.
Incorrect. It was Fiscal Year 2009 that had the first trillion dollar deficit. Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1st, 2008 thru September 30th, 2009 (as the federal fiscal year always does), and was the final Bush administration budget. It was George W. Bush that was signing all of the appropriations bills during 2008 that would enable the Fiscal Year 2009 spending.
It ran from that time frame in terms of what the legislation covers. However who passed the legislation and who signed it remains as I stated. Obama signed 9 of 12 appropriations bills for FY2009. He did so because they were late, stuffed with pork and the Democratic House and Senate knew Bush wouldn't sign them and in fact threatened a veto of them. Get your history straight.
Originally Posted by muppetry
That's an interesting question. I started reading PO as the election approached to get a feel for arguments on both sides. The discussion forums on most of the news sites do not get into much detail and are mostly polarized and ugly. What I found here was that there is obviously polarization, with a mixture of reasonable and unreasonable argument on both sides. I'd say that some of the more right-wing posters (yourself included) are better at arguing than those on the left, and the discussions often seemed imbalanced as a result, which is why I find myself arguing one way more often than the other. You may have noticed that all the recent new contributors have been doing the same.
Are you contending the new contributors are posting in a style similar to yourself, or the the prior participants on left or right? The other bits are appreciated in understanding why you do what you do.
But if your observation is that I'm not contributing new discussion topics then I would have to admit that you are correct - I seem to be more in the logic and fact check role. Part of the reason is that I'm not a Democrat and I don't have much of a "persuasion" - you may recall that I have argued against what I thought were baseless criticisms of Romney when they arose and were not clearly refuted. I'll happily dismantle fallacious arguments on either side as I see them arise. At present, the right-wing contributors who loudly, dismissively and aggressively backed the losing horse appear to be desperately trying to assert that it didn't happen / it doesn't matter / we were robbed / everyone else is stupid etc., etc.. It's embarrassing, a bit obnoxious, and entirely counter-productive.
I can see your point a bit but I can also understand where they are coming from as well. The point can and will remain that no one simply lies down for someone else even when there is a loss. People continue doing what they do and eventually a decision will be made again one way or another. With our system of checks and balances people want to make it sound like someone has one or lost a championship game when in reality it is more like they gained or lost yardage in a(n) (American) football game.
Honestly most of the threads around here have claimed that Obama has a strengthened position and that he should get more of what he wants and while he did get reelected, his position was far from strengthened and his agenda, what can be divined of it, is far from endorsed.
The thing that really is counter-productive though is to take a snapshot and make it a movie. There are tremendous amounts of money to be repaid, massive quantities of spending that cannot continue and additionally, this fiscal, which is really a tax crisis is coming do with TAXES threatening to destroy the current growth of the U.S. economy. It's sort of a serious matter and it's worth being cranky over.
I'm not sure about GIGO. I think that there is significant dissonance in the GOP, and that the party and its supporters are having a tough time adjusting to the changing demographics and increasingly liberal social attitudes. There are clear reservoirs of resistance, but these changes are inevitable and will continue to favor the Democrats. Denial will not work. Arguing that they need a more solidly conservative candidate will not work. It does not mean that conservatism is dead - far from it - but it needs to evolve. As many have pointed out, the GOP is a natural home for many Hispanics / Latinos if only they could adjust their message on some policy issues. The reluctance to separate religion clearly from politics also hurts the GOP. Religious diversity continues to increase, as does the fraction of the population that is eschewing religion entirely. The GOP increasingly looks like a party clinging to past values, and in this election cycle, a party rather out of touch with the electorate. Republicans may feel that they hold the moral high ground, but Democrats clearly hold the pragmatic high ground.
I concede part of what you say is true but what is also true, and this is a strong part of the ignorance within those changing demographics is that being that demographic doesn't automatically make one intelligent, hard working, enlightened, correct, etc. That is a core and profound dissonance within the left side. You actually hear the reasoning put forth, "This wouldn't happen if we had diversity" or "this wouldn't happen if women were running things", etc.
Those things are simply not true.
Likewise the ability to generate jobs, or make things add up doesn't change because the color, sex or ethnicity changes. In fact what is particular troubling is that some of these ethnic groups have a history of endorsing charismatic dictators or at a minimum, very authoritarian leaders. When you look at Mexico, Central and South America as an example, you don't see a lot of representative democracy and good results for the downtrodden. Suggesting that if the electorate here becomes more like the electorate in those countries, we will magically get a better result is a pure fallacy. We can say the same for African-American leadership in African American neighborhoods, cities districts and even large portions of certain states and can also say that for the countries within Africa itself if we care to dive as far as that.
So when we look at what cobbles the left together, it appears to be a radically divergent groups of people and when we ask what brings them together beyond claims of oppression and a desire for financial redress, we don't see much in common. There isn't a core there to adjust. There isn't a way forward beyond, these people are racist and bad, we give you things today without thought for tomorrow, give us your votes.
The media are dismissed a liberal mouthpieces, which seems to me to result from an inability to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces, although I admit that the news outlets in the US do not go out of their way to make the distinction obvious. Personally, I find the actual news reports from most of the big players, including Fox, to be just fine. The right-wing propaganda sites are a joke; there may be left-wing equivalents, but I haven't seen them. What continues to annoy me most is the seemingly rabid desire to portray Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, as purveyors of the demise of the United States, if not the world. One may disagree with the social or economic policies of the party in the White House, but the clumsy and obvious distortions of the truth that are continuously generated and circulated are dishonest and counter-productive. My junk mailboxes fill up with this crap, and it is almost entirely right-wing nonsense. Very little left-wing nonsense. Actually none at all, to be honest. And then these same "talking points" end up on here being quoted as "facts" or "evidence". That's what drives me to post - I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Well take what I discussed above, run it down the line a bit and get to a state where the reasoning is circular, the result is terrible and there is no way out of the circular reasoning. Perhaps I'm a little ahead in the game because I live in California. In California white males and whites as a whole are a minority majority. They are the largest minority group in which no group is a majority. Whites were 45% of the population last I checked. The state is hopelessly broke. Our unemployment rate is several points higher than the national average. The Republican Party due to demographics and also due to media demonization (it is a media center as are all blue states coincidentally) is not a major player and reduced to the sort of role Republicans played after Watergate. They can offer token resistance at best.
The state is a giant mess and it becomes laughable to continue to blame it on what amounts to 22% of the population (aka white males.) We have free tuition and financial for illegal immigrants, we have green industries a plenty wherever they can get past environmental lawsuits. We engage in minimal to no oil drilling. We have a Democratic executive branch and Democratic majorities that are now super majorities in both parts of the legislative branch. (Assembly and Senate)
The problems haven't gone away. They have only grown worse. The state has the most progressive and highest state income and sale taxes in the nation all so we can be the most broke state with the worst credit rating. (Illinois is similar) We can build bullet trains while we are broke. We can offer everything to 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients. The problem is always someone else and never the party or the policy.
In short we are the blue utopia where the WASP's and all their ignorant ways and claims are banished and the result isn't utopia but a doubling down on the misery.
If we double down on the problems we have at the federal level, the U.S. as we currently know it wont' survive. I can fully understand that there is nuttiness on both sides and some are more concerned with motivations than actions.
I mean look at the left. They are saying things like spending cuts, balancing budgets, etc are racial code words. That is crazy. It is so nutty that of course people encountering it are going to think that no one would say it and have the best interests of a nation at heart. How can someone have the best interests at stake when they say the numbers don't have to add up when the faces are brown or the gender is female or that caring, empathy and other traits are exclusive to certain sexes or cultures? Again it becomes a strange circular logic that cannot be penetrated. It is vote your skin or your gender instead of vote your pocketbook or the reality in front of you. That is very much not in the interest of anyone let alone our nation.