Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[ydoaPs]

I almost wish the republicans would win this thing, a continuation of republican policies would result in the total destruction of our economy and civil rights

 

FTFY

Edited October 27, 2012 by ydoaPs

[Moontanman]

FTFY

 

 

Thanks, i had to look that one up...

[Ringer]

Perhaps you should try that logo on for size. Better yet, believe what you think to be factual, and I will do the same. And you're right; ignorance is only relevent in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. Think about it. By the way, what was that question again. I would really like to give you an understandable answer, if I can.

 

[bolded mine]

 

I think that's the problem you keep running into. Belief doesn't regulate the real world. If you have to tell someone to let you believe what you think to be factual, then you really shouldn't be debating anything. That would be like me arguing about today's politics on the basis of what would probably work in 16th Century Japan. It's not reality, it's a fantasy and does nothing to improve the real world.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps you should try that logo on for size. Better yet, believe what you think to be factual, and I will do the same. And you're right; ignorance is only relevent in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. Think about it. By the way, what was that question again. I would really like to give you an understandable answer, if I can.

 

 

Belief does not equal knowledge rigney... you know that...

[iNow]

By the way, what was that question again. I would really like to give you an understandable answer, if I can.

You asserted that we're quickly turning into a socialistic state and the clear implication was that this is thanks to Obama.

I corrected you that Obama's policies and behaviors have actually been slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan.

I asked you if you think Ronald Reagan was a socialist, since that's what your assertion implies given the logic above.

 

So, the question was, do you think Ronald Reagan was a socialist? If you say no, then you really have no place thinking that Obama is a socialist since Obama's policies have been slightly to the right of Reagan.

 

Does this clarify matters?

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps you should try that logo on for size. Better yet, believe what you think to be factual, and I will do the same. And you're right; ignorance is only relevent in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. Think about it. By the way, what was that question again. I would really like to give you an understandable answer, if I can.

This is a science website , not a theological one.

So you should believe what the evidence shows.

So, for example, you should believe that Obama is not a socialist.

BTW, in any other Western country he would be viewed as a fairly right wing Conservative.

[Phi for All]

But not as I believe to be happening, our quick transition into a socialistic state.

Could you perhaps give us more detail on this part? A lot of folks talk about our becoming socialist, and I can understand that you may think Europe has gone too far that way; in some ways I might even agree. But the US on the whole, and certainly the two major parties, are far too conservative when it comes to social programs to suddenly become a "socialistic state" as you put it.

 

For instance, healthcare is not something that works well with a standard business model. Business wants to keep customers coming back often, but healthcare customers want to be healthy and NOT come back often. It's the perfect thing to use public funds to support. Personally, I think the government should be offering healthcare insurance, at a lower rate than private healthcare insurance can offer due to profit concerns. But at least Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Romney's voucher system will only drive costs up even more.

 

I think you assume that capitalists can't use socialism when it's smart to do so. If you like, we can start another thread about that, because I think that's a big part of our problems these days, thinking that being liberal when it's smart makes us liberals, or being conservative when it's smart makes us conservatives. The real key here is being smart as much as we can, and not letting people make up our minds for us by pressing our dumb buttons and getting us to side with idiocy, convenience and special interests.

 

How do you rationalize that Romney was left leaning?

Saying that Obama is a bit to the right of Reagan isn't the same as saying Romney is left leaning.

 

It all boils down, imo, to business interests. We gave them too much wiggle room and they bent us over pretty badly. The pendulum is starting to swing back, we're starting to see smarter banking regulations, corporations are being held accountable and the wild excesses (which a conservative person should be appalled about) are starting to be brought under control. BUT, Romney wants to roll back all those new regulations, wants us to go back to what got us into big trouble. He's a businessman, and I think he should stick to business instead of politics. We tend to have bigger problems in this country when we put the fox in charge of the henhouse. I used to think lawyers were bad, but businessmen turning into politicians has historically been horrible for us.

 

I miss Ike.

[rigney]

This is a science website , not a theological one.

So you should believe what the evidence shows.

So, for example, you should believe that Obama is not a socialist.

BTW, in any other Western country he would be viewed as a fairly right wing Conservative.

Don't confuse fact with fantasy John. At present Romney leads in all categories except women voters, and once they realize a decent paying job will buy them oodles of goodies, Obama hasn't a chance. And if you are referring to political science 101, i'm not really into that stuff at all.

 

I almost wish the republicans would win this thing, a continuation of republican policies would result in the total destruction any credibility the republicans have, sadly it would also hurt our country in the extreme as well...

I hate to break your train of thought Moon, but I hope you're on your way to Sissonville and out from under that torrential rain storm coming your way. Edited October 27, 2012 by rigney

[overtone]

Don't confuse fact with fantasy John. At present Romney leads in all categories except women voters' date=' and once they realize a decent paying job will buy them oodles of goodies, Obama hasn't a chance. [/quote'] Even Romney winning in a landslide of all voters would not make an obviously and consistently rightwing politician like Obama a "socialist". Only actual socialist policies and proposals would do that.

 

The overlooked factor is how bizarrely fantasy-driven and unreal Romney's meager hints of definable policy would be in practice. They boil down to one thing and one thing only: tax cuts for rich people. Since when do tax cuts favoring the already cash-heavy rich create jobs? That's never happened and never will - it goes against even rudimentary, basic economic theory. You might as well sacrifice chickens under a full moon, and bury their innards under the local employment agancy's front steps.

 

As with any potential President: ever mind what he says, look at what he does. Romney has, all his life, used power granted him by others to move in on troubled, confused, debt-ridden organizations and sell them on his ability to turn them around if given control; whereupon he breaks them up to increase his cadre's profits, sells the pieces for more money yet, moves remnant operations to low cost areas and takes a cut of the savings, saddles the remains with heavy debt while pocketing the equity, and decamps.

 

I think he will continue to do as he has done. There's not reason for him to do any different.

[Moontanman]

I hate to break your train of thought Moon, but I hope you're on your way to Sissonville and out from under that torrential rain storm coming your way.

 

 

Not a biggie, tropical storms are what we rely on for our water table. We need two or three more this year.... maybe a good northeaster will come later in the fall. I've surf fished in worse weather than this...

 

Edited October 28, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

Even Romney winning in a landslide of all voters would not make an obviously and consistently rightwing politician like Obama a "socialist". Only actual socialist policies and proposals would do that.

 

The overlooked factor is how bizarrely fantasy-driven and unreal Romney's meager hints of definable policy would be in practice. They boil down to one thing and one thing only: tax cuts for rich people. Since when do tax cuts favoring the already cash-heavy rich create jobs? That's never happened and never will - it goes against even rudimentary, basic economic theory. You might as well sacrifice chickens under a full moon, and bury their innards under the local employment agancy's front steps.

 

As with any potential President: ever mind what he says, look at what he does. Romney has, all his life, used power granted him by others to move in on troubled, confused, debt-ridden organizations and sell them on his ability to turn them around if given control; whereupon he breaks them up to increase his cadre's profits, sells the pieces for more money yet, moves remnant operations to low cost areas and takes a cut of the savings, saddles the remains with heavy debt while pocketing the equity, and decamps.

 

I think he will continue to do as he has done. There's not reason for him to do any different.

You may be right! But If he does no better than what I've seen these past four years, we kick his ass to thr curb and try

again. Who knows, we may get another Bill Clinton?

Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney

[Ringer]

Don't confuse fact with fantasy John. At present Romney leads in all categories except women voters, and once they realize a decent paying job will buy them oodles of goodies, Obama hasn't a chance. And if you are referring to political science 101, i'm not really into that stuff at all.

 

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

[rigney]

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

Can't you see how dumb it was for the three million women now unemployed, who voted for Obama the first time around? Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney

[Ringer]

Can't you see how dumb it was for the three million women now unemployed, who voted for Obama the first time around?

 

Crap, did you see where those goalposts went?

[uncool]

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

Not to defend someone that I think is a troll, but rigney is presenting a (very, very, very dumbed down) valid argument, which says that if women believe that Romney will have a sufficiently positive effect on the economy compared to Obama, then that may override other concerns about women's rights. In other words, some women may think it's better to live in a rich America where there is discrimination than a poor American where there isn't.

=Uncool-

[Essay]

Not to defend someone that I think is a troll, but rigney is presenting a (very, very, very dumbed down) valid argument, which says that if women believe that Romney will have a sufficiently positive effect on the economy compared to Obama, then that may override other concerns about women's rights. In other words, some women may think it's better to live in a rich America where there is discrimination than a poor American where there isn't.

=Uncool-

But Rigney's "argument" is based on the rhetoric that our bad economy results from the past three to four years of "rescue policies," rather than being the result of overwhelming job loss (especially for women) and economic disruption coming from the 2008 collapse. If we're wondering what "some women may think," let's hope it is not based on rhetorical associations, but instead on history.

 

~

[uncool]

But Rigney's "argument" is based on the rhetoric that our bad economy results from the past three to four years of "rescue policies," rather than being the result of overwhelming job loss (especially for women) and economic disruption coming from the 2008 collapse. If we're wondering what "some women may think," let's hope it is not based on rhetorical associations, but instead on history.

 

~

I agree with you; I was simply responding to the apparent underlying assumptions of what Ringer posted (which are that rigney's point was as banal as it appeared). I agree that Romney is unlikely to do better for the economy than Obama will; however, if you do make that assumption, then if you squint the right way, rigney might have a point.

=Uncool-

[John Cuthber]

You may be right! But If he does no better than what I've seen these past four years, we kick his ass to thr curb and try

again. Who knows, we may get another Bill Clinton?

 

 

 

OMG! Another Clinton!

You mean another president who, like Clinton and Carter (and unlike all the others since Nixon) actually lowered the US national debt?

 

If the new guy does no better than Obama then he will presumably continue to reduce unemployment (Obama had to reverse the steep rise generated by Bush- it took Obama some months to get it going down rather than up but he has and it's now falling). Incidentally, the last time unemployment was as bad as it was when Obama took office was under Reagan, who raised it to the highest levels seen since WWII.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=-691977600000&tend=1348786800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

If Romney is going to win, the women are just one group who have to swallow the lie that his policies are good for the economy.

The interesting thing is that so many men have already done so.

 

That's the "fantasy", the idea that Romney, who has said he doesn't worry about half the population, is going to make things "better" for them by letting his rich friends take more of the majority's money.

 

It may well be that, in the US, Romany is leading the polls, but in the rest of the world (where Fox isn't viewed as a news organisation), Obama is a clear first choice.

Edited October 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Essay]

...letting his rich friends take more of the majority's money.

 

It may well be that, in the US, Romany is leading the polls, but in the rest of the world (where Fox isn't viewed as a news organisation), Obama is a clear first choice.

Yes, it's mainly in America, with its Free-Market Fundamentalist, that Romney's friends are seen as the Job Creationists.

[John Cuthber]

It doesn't count if you generate jobs in China (unless, of course, you are in China.)

[rigney]

It may well be that, in the US, Romany is leading the polls, but in the rest of the world (where Fox isn't viewed as a news organisation), Obama is a clear first choice.

Unless he is leading in the US, it really dosn't matter, does it?

John CuthberPosted Today, 05:40 AM

It doesn't count if you generate jobs in China (unless, of course, you are in China.)

Romney hasn't created jobs in China, but as I understand it, Obama has.

 

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

No Ringer I didn't say that and take umbrage with your assumption! My point was: "WOMEN can and will be able to hold jobs once Romney is elected" and buy their own birth conyrol pills, if they want. The government doesn't buy my condoms or viagra. Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

What Rigney actually said was this "At present Romney leads in all categories except women voters, and once they realize a decent paying job will buy them oodles of goodies, Obama hasn't a chance".

There's a clear implication both that Romney will provide more jobs, and that women are slow to notice this.

It might also be taken to imply that women are particularly keen to acquire "oodles of goodies" which seems odd.

 

The fact is that, under Obama more people (men and women) are getting jobs to buy goods.

Under Bush the number of unemployed was rocketing.

 

Like I said, it's not men or women that stand against Romney, it's the economic facts.

 

BTW, Essay, employers can only provide decent jobs if the infrastructure is there- an educated workforce, a reasonable transport network, and so on. Tax cuts don't go to pay for those so they rather reduce the opportunities for growth in jobs and the economy. All they lead to is a greater gap between rich and poor. So, it's no shock that the guy who says he doesn't care about those without much cash wants to make them relatively poorer.

 

http://capitalogix.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502e47b28833013489833759970c-pi

 

Someone just summed it up rather better than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U9G8XREyG0Q#!

Edited October 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Ringer]

Not to defend someone that I think is a troll, but rigney is presenting a (very, very, very dumbed down) valid argument, which says that if women believe that Romney will have a sufficiently positive effect on the economy compared to Obama, then that may override other concerns about women's rights. In other words, some women may think it's better to live in a rich America where there is discrimination than a poor American where there isn't.

=Uncool-

 

See that sounds so much more sensible. The problem I had was the seemingly sexist remark that women wanted jobs so they could buy 'goodies', as if they don't support families or anything. I have no real problem with the underlying assumption of job creation.

 

No Ringer I didn't say that and take umbrage with your assumption! My point was: "WOMEN can and will be able to hold jobs once Romney is elected" and buy their own birth conyrol pills, if they want. The government doesn't buy my condoms or viagra.

You didn't say that? That's odd because there's someone with your name and avatar who said something very similar. I may have misunderstood, but you did say it. Women are holding jobs with Obama being in office, and why would they prefer to have birth control treated differently than their other medicines?

Edited October 28, 2012 by Ringer

[Phi for All]

Romney hasn't created jobs in China, but as I understand it, Obama has.

Oh, please. Are you seriously blaming Obama for Big Business sending jobs overseas? They promised they would create jobs if he extended the Bush tax cuts, but 3 out of 4 jobs Big Business created were overseas. And that's all Romney did when he was with Bain, fire Americans, downsize companies, transfer jobs to China, India and Mexico and skim off the profits before saddling them with debt and selling them off.

[Moontanman]

50 ways to hate Obama....