Politics

[gkIrish]

You should still vote no matter what, even just vote for an unknown 3rd party candidate, that way your voice is heard and when politicians make policy , they look at how the voters will react, more than how all citizens will react

I definitely will vote. The content of the article was more what I was going for, rather than the ultimate conclusion

 

[Cackalacky]

5 Ways the Internet Convinced Me Not to Vote | Cracked.com

I didn't read every word of the article but this pretty much sums up how I feel about discussing politics now

Wish I could read this. My work cpu filter system blocked this and labeled it as "Tasteless"...LOL

 

[Cackalacky]

...I revoke your "funny" badge. That wasn't funny it was however kinda awkward and uncomfortable....

Oh come on now, who doesn't have a sense of humor now.

 

[phgreek]

Yeah, I remember being married. Monday night was ususally sleep night.


EDIT: This was about ph's comment. NOT my Palin comment.

...yea well...then you know saturday and sunday are usually spent doing the stupid sh!t she asks for in hopes of pay dirt...hehehehe

 

[phgreek]

Oh come on now, who doesn't have a sense of humor now.

I'm over it now...a$$ is a little red...but I can stand up and laugh...

 

[DSully1995]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tQohUKieSEE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm sorry, but this is comedic gold. I beg you all to watch. Flame out.......

I watched it and do watched quite a bit of TYT, good stuff mostly, although Cenk goes too far with some stuff.

On the video, anyone else think Ryan was just caught off guard by actual questions with substance? Current media has dumbed down (i feel) alot of very complexe and difficult issues, I mean for any politician to outline a washington type plan to balance the budget would take hours :

*Well we begin in 2017with 30% cuts of all futur medicare spending, then slowly disintegrate the planned parenthood spending over 7 years, end EPA spending increases etc.

I want changes now, in the first year, not a balanced budget planned for when im 40 and old (yeah i said it, old haha)

 

[phgreek]

I watched it and do watched quite a bit of TYT, good stuff mostly, although Cenk goes too far with some stuff.

On the video, anyone else think Ryan was just caught off guard by actual questions with substance? Current media has dumbed down (i feel) alot of very complexe and difficult issues, I mean for any politician to outline a washington type plan to balance the budget would take hours :

*Well we begin in 2017with 30% cuts of all futur medicare spending, then slowly disintegrate the planned parenthood spending over 7 years, end EPA spending increases etc.

I want changes now, in the first year, not a balanced budget planned for when im 40 and old (yeah i said it, old haha)

I don't disagree with any of this...clearly I'm pisseed the guy allowed himself to be caught off guard. Britt hume ain't katie couric or chris mathews...he is going to know his sh!t...there are a handfull of folks on both sides of the aisle form the press corps that are capable of putting on their game face, and conducting an interview...I think the VP candidate ought to know who they are...

In an attempt to make it funny, so I don't choke the guy myself...I see it like this...Paul Ryan expected his brother to be at the door, so he answered it in his underware, and found the church lady on the other side...you can't undo that!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

...I revoke your "funny" badge. That wasn't funny it was however kinda awkward and uncomfortable...I would have thought these guys would avoid a Palin moment. Yes Mrs. Palin is smarter than the media made her out to be, by a long shot, but so was Dan Quayle.

Look its not fair, its not in the best interest of anyone to do what the media does to these folks, and to say what happened to Palin and Quayle was good journalism is insulting...HOWEVER, YOU KNOW ITS COMING...its like going into combat w/o body armor...are you kidding me?

How in the F%$^ can anyone be this unprepared...especially since this wasn't Chris Mathews asking you some left field touchy-feely, chill down the leg BS...this was substantive, should be in your wheelhouse, and the answer sucked ....total failure right out of the gate.

Won't matter though...economy still sucks, and even if the restooglicans can't figure out the right answer...perception is, it's different. This is Karma for Bill Clinton '92...change for change's sake. Tough pill.

No matter what the press does or doesn't do...no matter how staggering either party makes the debt and defecit spending...people don't conceive it...its too abstract. However, they care about the current economy, and their purse. No matter how the employment and economy numbers are parsed, twisted, obfuscated, manipulated....they suck. They Suck beyond Romney and Ryan's apparent inability to articulate their message. The rest is noise...Just MHO.

Honestly, ph, this is where I believe you and I do miss. Our mutual respect and admiration is unquestionable. So I have to say, this is the only place, but we do not agree on this. You know how this goes. They set up an interview(s) with sympathetic interviewers that can be counted on to throw softballs. And then they have a teaching moment. They keep the first interviews close to the vest.

When Palin was keeping track of Putin at three miles distance and couldn't remember what the last thing she had read was, that was after a lot of coaching, and instruction. This is someone that I am sure was considered to be a good interview subject. However he had been caught with his Rand down. And his budgets not adjusted properly. This is how caught this guy is. He has been a house obstructionist and enjoyed the role. Now, as Desi said, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

Palins interview was a train wreck. This interview, with the Obama camp pushing Rand against the Christians, and his and Romney's plans versus Obama's based upon the fact that there is little difference, is no less than a Chernobyl.

It's not the message, it's not the numbers, it's all the past lies that are coming due. We could have a factual conversation that all of the "Right's" successes since JFK has been based upon lies, and that Dwight Eisenhower (a hero of mine) was the last truly honest Republican president.

 

[DSully1995]

Anyone else feel like the republicans need a restructuring soon before they can win elections.
I mean, they are beaten by dems in huge demographics: women, blacks, hispanics, any minority.

I think that over the next five years they should convert their image, right now its just lower taxes for all (especially the irch and job creators). Me personnaly id adopt a message of Freedom and liberty ( the ron paul message, since its inspires individuals while increasing their own responsibility -----> kinda like Ayn Rand individualism but with a much better political look).

Without even looking at the actual results of trickle down economics, the politics of it is an uphill battle when the other guy is giving out 'free stuff'. Any thoughts on this? (i dont even live in the US so id like to see some 1st hand perspectives)

 

[Cackalacky]

In that clip Britt Hume was basically leading Ryan with his questions, and Ryan did not get it or something. He was handing the interview to him on a platter, putting things in his wheelhouse... whatever you want to call it. Anyway, I'm glad someone had some fun with it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anyone else feel like the republicans need a restructuring soon before they can win elections.
I mean, they are beaten by dems in huge demographics: women, blacks, hispanics, any minority.

I think that over the next five years they should convert their image, right now its just lower taxes for all (especially the irch and job creators). Me personnaly id adopt a message of Freedom and liberty ( the ron paul message, since its inspires individuals while increasing their own responsibility -----> kinda like Ayn Rand individualism but with a much better political look).

Without even looking at the actual results of trickle down economics, the politics of it is an uphill battle when the other guy is giving out 'free stuff'. Any thoughts on this? (i dont even live in the US so id like to see some 1st hand perspectives)

I think in general politicans as a whole are being exposed through this last cycle, but the republicans definitely need a re-branding. The obstructionist republicans, the blue dog dems, Obama's failed "Change" campaign......, doesnt matter. They are bought and sold by lobbyists and special interests and they dont give **** about you or me. They dont represent the people of their district, they represent their biggest donors. You want a good investment... buy a politician. Its legal and cheap and your return on investment is incredible.

 

[tadman95]

I think in general politicans as a whole are being exposed through this last cycle, but the republicans definitely need a re-branding. The obstructionist republicans, the blue dog dems, Obama's failed "Change" campaign......, doesnt matter. They are bought and sold by lobbyists and special interests and they dont give **** about you or me. They dont represent the people of their district, they represent their biggest donors. You want a good investment... buy a politician. Its legal and cheap and your return on investment is incredible.

Sadly there is too much truth in this. I haven't decided on who to vote for yet. I was hoping one of these guys would come up with something different but alas, NO, same ole', same ole'.

The fact is neither party has much to hang their hat on. Clinton was at least smart enough to stay out of the way and was lucky enough to be president when the new technologies, pc's and the internet exploded on the scene. Add the free trade agreements allowing corporations to move their manufacturing to low cost countries and he came out looking pretty good.

Still, there's problems that won't be fixed quickly. I actually don't think Obama has done that badly, I just don't know what he has left in the tank. Before anyone wants to argue that, this economy was on melt down and keeping it from melting down was pretty major and a little lucky.

Less government, maybe but be careful what you ask for. Lack of financial oversight was, and still may be, a big problem. That said, yea we could live with a little less government.

I'm feeling a ramble coming on so I'll stop, Wish I felt better about our direction but more of the same, from either party is how we got here.

 

[autry_denson]

My undergrad business degree was in Finance at ND, the #1 undergrad biz school in the country (granted that is largely based on job placement thanks to our alum network). I topped that off with an MBA concetration in analytical finance at the University of Chicago. I fear for our country if only people with my education can fathom this point.

I want absolutely nothing to do with this thread...but, I have to say this quote is one of the funniest I've seen on this site. The combination of arrogance, complete lack of self-awareness and condescension is truly unmatched. If it were on some random chat site, it would be one thing - but the fact that it's on a site where most went to ND, I would guess about half have graduate degrees, and a good number have phd's makes it even more impressive. Well done.

Woolybug, reps for calling him out on this.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I want absolutely nothing to do with this thread...but, I have to say this quote is one of the funniest I've seen on this site...

I don't know...There are some pretty funny things people come up with on here. For example, if you venture into the Leprechaun Lounge you'll probably get a few more laughs.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Romney said that the facination with his taxes is "small minded." So the more than 60% of us who want to see more than one year are small minded? Was his dad small minded?

So are the other things Romney doean't want to talk about small minded? Taxes, Bain, his time as governor, differences between his budget and Ryan's budget. He doesn't want to talk about any of that. He just wants your vote because he's not Obama. What a platform.

 

[Grimm]

Anyone else feel like the republicans need a restructuring soon before they can win elections.
I mean, they are beaten by dems in huge demographics: women, blacks, hispanics, any minority.

The strategy actually is just to change voter registration laws so less of this demographic is in a position to vote.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

The strategy actually is just to change voter registration laws so less of this demographic is in a position to vote.

Exactly. In PA, up to 1 million may not be able to vote. Ridiculous.

 

[magogian]

Except, of course, in the litigation against the voter ID laws, the opponents have been unable to show a single person who wouldn't be able to vote. This has been pointed out by numerous court decisions and is one of the prime reasons these challenges have been rejected.

But, by all means, don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand conspiracies.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Except, of course, in the litigation against the voter ID laws, the opponents have been unable to show a single person who wouldn't be able to vote. This has been pointed out by numerous court decisions and is one of the prime reasons these challenges have been rejected.

But, by all means, don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand conspiracies.

How many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted nationwide in the past 30 years? Don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand voter fraud conspiracies.

 

[magogian]

How many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted nationwide in the past 30 years? Don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand voter fraud conspiracies.

Protip: when making a counterargument, trying countering an argument that was actually made.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

There haven't been any cases of voter fraud. That's the argument. I can't believe I have to explain that.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Grimm]

Except, of course, in the litigation against the voter ID laws, the opponents have been unable to show a single person who wouldn't be able to vote. This has been pointed out by numerous court decisions and is one of the prime reasons these challenges have been rejected.

But, by all means, don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand conspiracies.

So what's the point of the voter law changes? Why did the head of the republican party of PA House say that this law will deliver PA to Romney? This isn't a conspiracy. It's just politics. Long history on both sides unfortunately of trying to manipulate outcomes through gerrymandering and the like. But I thought trying to prevent people from voting was a thing of the past. And, if you are right, that this will change nothing, then don't change the voting laws. But my guess is that your position is to change the law - but then to argue that it won't matter.

For the record, I don't have a dog in the race. Seriously, I can't stomach either candidate or party at this point. I just think what is happening to politics in the US is a travesty. Congress is a sham. Special interests on both sides highjack the agenda and the law. And with all this mess, somehow all these systemic issues are lost in debates about whether to raise taxes or cutting expenses (what's the debate, you have to do both). In the meantime, in my opinion, (and yes it is my opinion without a bunch of facts - and more based on personal experience working for a congressman), I think this is an attack on poor people's right to vote. Which I believe to be un-American.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Nobody is going to walk in and out of polling places all day, trying to figure out the names of voters there and forge their signatures to try to change the outcome of an election. Not happening. The Voter ID laws were stablished to stop the poor and the elderly from voting.

 

[potownhero]

As regards your example for making a product, you are right, there is a maximum revenue to be made, the trick is to find where that maximum is (inflection point of model). But regarding goverment tax revenues versus the rate, please see Pose #601. This Laffer curve makes the same assumptions you do about your widgets 1) at 0% tax rate you will recieve 0% revenue and 2) at 100% tax rate, you will receive no revenue, therefore based on perfectly well known mathematical principals there must be a maximum and minimum within the boundaries you have assumed.

This works for product and production mostly as there are fewer variables. You have cost of production to include overhead, wages etc. and then you have what you must sell the item for to make a profit. 2 variables. That is all well and good and jives with reality for the most part.

The difference in the Laffer curve, as I understand it, applied to government tax revenue is that there are numerous sources of tax revenue all at different rates, and are not necessarily all derived from sources or equal value (investments, versus worker production, versus savings, etc). Therefore if you read Post #601, you will see the problems associtated with this model and why it is not a good model to base government level financial policies off of (particularly supply side economics). The article attached to Post #601 makes some excellent points though it is slanted against the conservative view. Nonetheless, the points made are well supported from what I can see. The republicans in this country have used this flawed model since as early as Regan's term to support his trickle down policy.

Based on Laffer's assumptions, there may not be only 1 max or min in the curve and it has been shown to not approach 0%revenue at 100% tax rate either in some cases as well. The model is significantly flawed on this level and should by no means be used to form government level financial decisions IMO, but I am not a financial guy and am looking at this purely from a modeling/mathematical aspect. TIFWIW.

Your analysis is in the immediate term and fails to deal with the static vs. dynamic dimension. More investments will be made when the anticipated return > the cost of capital threshhold. If more businesses start; more people are employed, and therefore the taxbase is increased and in the long term revenues are increased.

Please see that the growth of the overall GDP Pie increases when the return hurdle (of which tax rates are a factor) is lower.

As an aside, how does everyone feel about Corzine getting off?

 

[magogian]

There haven't been any cases of voter fraud. That's the argument. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Even Justice Stevens, who is likely to take a very critical eye to Republican arguments on voter fraud, acknowledged it in his majority opinion in Crawford v. Marion County: "It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

Oops.

This is why arguing on this board is so pointless.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No comment on the video?

 

[magogian]

Nobody is going to walk in and out of polling places all day, trying to figure out the names of voters there and forge their signatures to try to change the outcome of an election. Not happening. The Voter ID laws were stablished to stop the poor and the elderly from voting.

Seriously, you have no idea what you talking about.

There are several very easy ways to do it that are virtually impossible to detect given the resources available to states and counties.

For example, in Wisconsin in 2008 (not sure if the law has since changed), with the same day registration, you can just show up to the poll, register and vote. What did registration require? All you had to do was have someone attest that you lived in the precinct, and poof, you are registered and can vote. As far I know, the local election boards would not go back and review to confirm that those people actually lived in the precinct. I know this from being a poll watcher in Wisconsin in the 2008 election.

As another example, remember all the massive numbers of fraudulent ACORN voter registrations? In many states it has been quite easy to fraudulently register voters. Then, all you have to do is know what names were submitted for what precints and, poof, you can vote, without ever having to show ID and without anyone ever being able to track you down to prove you voted fraudulently.

The voter ID laws (properly drafted, and most, if not all, are) create such an infinitesimal burden it is just hilarious to watch Dems cry voter disenfranchisement. The states make it ridiculously easy to get IDs, and if you are poor, you are entitled to it free. So, please stick with an argument that has at least a good faith basis.

No comment on the video?

He is an idiot playing to a crowd.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Thats not how it works in PA. So how many cases of voter fraud did former PA Attorney Gen. (now Gov.) Tom Corbett prosecute? NONE!
You need to get your facts straight. Voter fraud is a made up problem to stop people who normally vote Democratic from voting. Please find some actual cases of voter fraud and how they changed the outcome of an election.

He is an idiot playing to a crowd.

He's an idiot telling why the voter ID law was passed.

 

[Grimm]

But, by all means, don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of your grand conspiracies.

So you are arguing voter fraud is the issue - with no facts. Figures. Googling a justice stevens quote isn't providing pesky facts nor is talking about Chicago under Daly. There is zero facts of any material voter fraud in recent history and the reality is that to accomplish meaningful fraud at the national level probably isn't possible. Could it happen as you state based on your experiences in polling stations, maybe. And maybe you have a point that further steps against fraud should take place.

But if you are being honest, you have to acknowledge that the reason these laws are being enacted now (by members of the Republican party) is to prevent legitimate voting. It's not about voter fraud. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and that it is un-patriotic if that is the intent.

 

[irishfanjho15]