Official Political Thread

[qwesley]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by qwesley:
You really don't think people are worried about the debt?

"Independents, by 49% to 34%, also say their bigger concern is that raising the debt limit would lead to more spending and more debt. Nearly half of Democrats (48%) say their greater concern is that not raising the debt limit would lead to a government default, but 38% say they are more concerned that raising the debt limit would lead to higher spending.

Absolutely not. Obviously deficits are a big concern (see: 2010 elections). Just that there is, and will be, a greater focus on the economic condition:

This post was edited on 6/8 5:14 PM by Mime-Is-Money

Your poll is a 19 months old.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

^True. I'm guessing it's more lopsided in favor of a recovery at this point. I'll see if I can find anything more recent.

 

[Jeh_]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by CatsRuleSEC:
Democrats in general hate this country and they could care less about our national debt. If they cared, they wouldn't have endorsed Obama who compounded our debt even way more than Bush. Obama has almost thoroughly destroyed any chance of an economic recovery.

hate to nitpick but:

- under GWB our national debt rose from ~ $6T to $10T for a 74% increase.
- the estimated increase under Obama, if he is in office until 2016, is $8T, with a starting point of $11T, for a 70% increase.

With current estimates, which are always subject to change, our total debt as a % of GDP is slated to decrease.

Actually, what am I saying? I love to nitpick.

If you really want to go in depth, a lot of programs that added to the national debt was George Bushes polices continued on by President Obama. But I somehow doubt we will hear any of this.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by qwesley:

Your poll is a 19 months old.

Couple more from this year:

(I'm assuming deficit concerns = debt concerns)

"The public's policy agenda is again dominated by the economy and jobs with other major issues viewed as less important. Fully 87% say that strengthening the economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress and 84% rate improving the job situation as a top priority, by far the highest percentages among 22 issues tested.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 5-9 among 1,503 adults, finds that concern about the budget deficit has increased in recent years. Currently, 64% view reducing the budget deficit as a top priority, up slightly from 60% a year ago, and 53% in 2009. Yet reducing the deficit continues to lag far behind the economy and jobs among the public's priorities."

Fox News Poll. conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). May 15-17, 2011. N=910 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Which one of the following issues do you think the president and Congress should focuson right now? The economy and jobs. The deficit and government spending. Health care. Terrorism and national security. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immigration." Options rotated

Economy and jobs - 50%
Deficit and government spending - 22%
Health care - 8%
Terrorism and national security - 5%
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - 4%
Immigration - 2%
Other - 8%
Unsure (potheads?) - 1%

Americans' Concern About Economy Rises to 12-Month High

"The latest update is from a March 3-6 Gallup poll. The top five economic problems named this month are the economy in general (28%), unemployment (26%), the federal deficit or debt (13%), gas prices (6%), and lack of money (4%). The top non-economic problems are dissatisfaction with the nation's government or leaders (11%), healthcare (9%), wars (5%), education (4%), and ethical/moral decline (3%)."

This post was edited on 6/8 6:12 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by Jeh_:

If you really want to go in depth, a lot of programs that added to the national debt was George Bushes polices continued on by President Obama. But I somehow doubt we will hear any of this.

This is irrelevant, or it's relevant in that it justifies Obama's perceived stankiness.

 

[buckethead1978]

More like D.D. Cupp lol

 

[AustinTXCat]

We can't forget Nikki. Not bad.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Not good either

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

- From the old thread, worth bringing over:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

I would handicap the general election as follows. Assuming Romney wins the nomination (I give him an 80% chance) and let's say he taps Marco Rubio to grab Florida and help with the Hispanic vote. I would give him a 50/50 chance of beating Obama because he has a very strong and accomplished business background - just what is needed. Now if Romney would do something really bold like call for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 6 months, I would up that to a 90% chance of winning the general.

^ That, jagoffs, is a good rational take with political blinders off. I agree that a Rubio veep pick would be outstanding (for R's) and that would put the race at a pick 'em, only due to incumbency. Couple that with 7.5 or 8 unemployment I think MR wins. Interesting angle regarding the wars...MR calling for a troop withdrawal, ironically, would be not only a great political move but frankly the move a majority would back. Again, ironic that Obama has really moved passed the point of no return on Afg troop withdrawal (I think).

- Hot R's? There are a lot of them. Context though...are we talking hot among the public or hot among politicians? I have always assumed the latter. In that case, Mime, Nikki Haley is hot. Kristi Noem FTW doh. But in terms of Two Keys on a Thurs in the fall Nikki Haley would not get even an acknowledgement.

- CatsRuleBadPosts: You make cbpb's "raise your hand" post from a while back look more reasonable every day. I chastised it then, but rethinking. You bring nothing good to the table. Pretty terrible, really. Good day of mostly jeh/lumpy free politard posts and you choose to add BECAUSE DUMOCRATS HATE TEH AMURRICA!!!!11 Democrats don't hate Amurrica, they have a pretty different take on how Amurrica should operate. One I generally disagree with. Why don't you A.) post better takes with either linked facts or decent commentary 2.) practice over on the test board or III.) neither, renounce your Netzero account, and leave.

 

[Jeh_]

Another ad hominem attack. Well, color me surprised.

 

[WillGolf4Food]

From the other thread, Irish's take on MR...

Originally posted by Irish Beck:
And, let us not forget, the notion that he is a "wacky" Christ follower is something that a lot of his bible belt voting block will not be down with.

The wacky Christ factor is really a shame, although admittedly I never got comfortable around the few Mormons I’ve known casually/worked with, don’t know why.

Depending on Romney’s VP choice and after getting a chance to examine his policy on key issues there’s a chance he’d get my vote.

But I think one advantage Obama has is the electorate could be reluctant to give one party control of everything. Haven’t had a chance to look at the Senate race yet, but that could be a deciding factor.

 

[UKBlueBlood]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Yep, it is a choice for the majority of Americans, most choose to have a car and buy a house with a big yard in a suburb. I can see why, it's deemed easier, and in some cases, cheaper. Sustained high levels of gas consumption then becomes a must after you make that choice.

Re-posting this from the last Political Thread - didn't realize a new one had been started . . .

Regarding the millions of Americans who "choose" to have a car and buy a house in a suburb, where do you propose they all move to after they give up their car and house in the suburbs?

Is there a massive overabundance of empty urban housing/apartments in the cities? Are there lots of empty seats on the mass transit systems? Are there lots of empty schools and classrooms in the urban centers waiting for the kids from the suburbs to move in?

If you're going to question the logic behind the "choice" to have a car and a house in the suburbs, perhaps you could explain how it would all work if all of us gas guzzling suburbanites adopted your philosophy for reducing gas consumption.

 

[Irish Beck]

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:
The wacky Christ factor is really a shame, although admittedly I never got comfortable around the few Mormons I’ve known casually/worked with, don’t know why.

Depending on Romney’s VP choice and after getting a chance to examine his policy on key issues there’s a chance he’d get my vote.

But I think one advantage Obama has is the electorate could be reluctant to give one party control of everything. Haven’t had a chance to look at the Senate race yet, but that could be a deciding factor.

It has no bearing on my personal choice for President as I said in that thread, barring a left field choice for VP, that I would likely vote for Romney over Obama. I didn't intend to make it seem like there's something wrong with Romney being Mormon, it's just a matter of public perception. People don't like their politicians being weird. You need to eat apple pie and steak, hate communism, part your hair just right and father a stable of children to be acceptable.

As for CatsRuleSEC, his schtick is getting old and is on the verge of getting my "lalalala" treatment. Even people affiliated with his beliefs disregard his posts and write him off as a loon. Post_U_Up, CRSEC and NFLCat are all the same person to me. None of them post anything of substance and merely paint in broad brush strokes. When rebuffed, they all cite personal experience or "friends" who happen to have direct knowledge. At least Barry would distract you with a picture.

And, mods, please lock the other one up and make this bitch official.

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by Bill Cosby:
Did a bunch of blind people make that list?

A more appropriate title would be:

"19 women who I wouldn't necessarily describe as ugly all things considered and 1 hot chick"

S.E. "D" Cupp
Tina Korbe

Any list that includes Ann Coulter should be discounted with the quickness.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:
Not good . . .

** Breaking News **

Beauty Queen Chosen to Lead the 'Critical Thinkers'.

** Live at Five **

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:
Kristi Noem FTW doh. . . .

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

^ Not as hot as I remembered her, but still political-context-hot.

Jeh, chill out. This is still Teh Paddock, you know. I'll stop cracking on your posts.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

For the record, not really being critical of PBO here, not against airstrikes and covert ops against AlQ anywhere. Just surprised at the 'hawk' Obama has been during his presidency. The guy truly has held the GWB line on foreign policy if not expanded it. Shocking really.

LINK

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by AustinTXCat:
** Breaking News **

Beauty Queen Chosen to Lead the 'Critical Thinkers'.

** Live at Five **

5 PM is weird time for the news. This story must be getting buried. Not sure why, she's fire.

 

[WillGolf4Food]

Originally posted by Irish Beck:
It has no bearing on my personal choice for President as I said in that thread, barring a left field choice for VP, that I would likely vote for Romney over Obama. I didn't intend to make it seem like there's something wrong with Romney being Mormon, it's just a matter of public perception.

Didn’t mean to imply you would consider his faith, it was directed at those bible belters you mentioned. Very reminiscent of the challenges JFK faced and he acknowledged that in his “Kennedy” speech the last time around. JFK actually carried some Southern states (where Catholics were just a rung above blacks and choos) which shows it can be done.

Unfortunately polling has shown some folks have an issue with his faith.

But the reason I like him, and it will rock the boat with the republican hard liners/Tea Partiers, is he’s really a moderate. Gay rights, abortion, gun control, and climate change, issues where his stance is probably more left leaning than right. And contrary to the right wing talking points, Obama has resided as more of a moderate as well so it should be interesting. But MR has a penchant for getting things done.

 

[Irish Beck]

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:

But the reason I like him, and it will rock the boat with the republican hard liners/Tea Partiers, is he’s really a moderate. Gay rights, abortion, gun control, and climate change, issues where his stance is probably more left leaning than right. And contrary to the right wing talking points, Obama has resided as more of a moderate as well so it should be interesting. But MR has a penchant for getting things done.

I think things like this will get overlooked. Romney is in a very special situation (I can't remember if I posted this in here or in the other one) but he could very well win the nomination and the general as a Republican Mormon who is Liberal on most social issues, basically passed a miniature version of Obamacare in MA (although he's being consistent by insisting it should be a state issue) and is extremely moderate. That fact alone speaks volumes about how the public views our economy and the job market. The saying people vote with their wallets has never been more true than it is today.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by AustinTXCat:
** Breaking News **

Beauty Queen Chosen to Lead the 'Critical Thinkers'.

** Live at Five **

5 AM EST seems like a reasonable time for the morning news broadcast.

Fixed.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:
Is there a massive overabundance of empty urban housing/apartments in the cities? Are there lots of empty seats on the mass transit systems? Are there lots of empty schools and classrooms in the urban centers waiting for the kids from the suburbs to move in?

Yes, to all of this. C'mon in!

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:
If you're going to question the logic behind the "choice" to have a car and a house in the suburbs, perhaps you could explain how it would all work if all of us gas guzzling suburbanites adopted your philosophy for reducing gas consumption.

Not questioning the logic. In one of these 8 political threads I addressed a few reasons why that choice is made. It's paramount in achieving the American dream. However, it comes at a price, including economic costs and environmental impact. And owning a car isn't a bad thing, but relying on inefficient gas powered vehicles for every facet of life will take its toll. Most people don't take notice until the direct costs start to encroach on the direct benefits. What is often forgotten is that, when you ride alone, you ride with Ahmadinejad.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

What is often forgotten is that, when you ride alone, you ride with Ahmadinejad.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by Jeh_:
If you really want to go in depth, a lot of programs that added to the national debt was George Bushes polices continued on by President Obama. But I somehow doubt we will hear any of this.

Don't think that is accurate that Bush policies are responsible for much of the federal deficits we have had under Obama. But stil....how is that Hopey Changey stuff working out for all the 2008 voters who so hated George Bush, and voted for Obama pretty much because of that emotion alone?

Bush Tax cuts? Obama didn't end them, championed extending them
Iraq War? Troop drawdown began under Bush, Obama didnt speed it up or order all troops out of the country alltogether
Afganistan War? Obama dramatically escalated it
Other wars? Obama expanded military action inside Pakistan, and began operations against Libya and Yemen
Patriot Act? Still going strong!
Guantanimo Bay? Still open!

 

[UKBlueBlood]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:
Is there a massive overabundance of empty urban housing/apartments in the cities? Are there lots of empty seats on the mass transit systems? Are there lots of empty schools and classrooms in the urban centers waiting for the kids from the suburbs to move in?

Yes, to all of this. C'mon in!

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:
If you're going to question the logic behind the "choice" to have a car and a house in the suburbs, perhaps you could explain how it would all work if all of us gas guzzling suburbanites adopted your philosophy for reducing gas consumption.

Not questioning the logic. In one of these 8 political threads I addressed a few reasons why that choice is made. It's paramount in achieving the American dream. However, it comes at a price, including economic costs and environmental impact. And owning a car isn't a bad thing, but relying on inefficient gas powered vehicles for every facet of life will take its toll. Most people don't take notice until the direct costs start to encroach on the direct benefits. What is often forgotten is that, when you ride alone, you ride with Ahmadinejad.

This is about the lamest response I could have imagined. I expected better from you Mime.

If you can't see the fatal flaws in the logic behind your social utopia concept of everyone disposing of their suburban homes and cars and relocating to major urban centers for the sake of no longer buying gas, you're not living in the real world.

 

[Irish Beck]

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:

I expected better from you Mime.

In his defense, he has to be joking at this point. I understand the need to bring our energy dependence and all of the issues that come with that dependence to the forefront, but the level he is taking it to is farcical. Therefore, it has to be facetious posting.

 

[funkyFatCan]

you really make yourself sound like an idiot when you use ANY Sarah Palin quote.

If anything the promises of candidate Obama vs. the realities of President show that you can't really trust anything a candidate says with regard to their stand on certain issues, particularly foreign affairs. Because they find out the 'truth' when they get into that seat.

Iraq War - Bush only reduced some brigades from the 'surge' he didn't really initiate a drawdown. Obama DID speed it up.
christian monitor

Afghanistan & Pakistan - where the focus SHOULD have been all along. Obama has killed many top Al Quada leaders, including Bin Laden. I don't recall candidate Obama saying he was gonna pull out of Afghanistan but actually focus on it/Pakistan more.

Yemen - we've been doing drone attacks on Yemen for years, this is nothing new. Unless you are ok with Al Quada forming a base here. Is that what you are saying?

Libya - we're basically supporting an air war in Libya along with NATO. After UN resolutions. And no made up intelligence.

Bush Tax Cuts - yup, will give you that one. Republicans didn't want their rich buddies to get increased taxes so they held the rest of us hostage to make sure it stayed.

Guantanamo Bay - obviously harder to close than candidate Obama thought. Home countries don't want these guys.

Patriot Act - yup. Not a fan of this.

All in all, he's been a lot stronger on foreign policy than his detractors give him credit for. He's kept America safe and got our #1 enemy and SEVERAL top terrorists.

When did Republicans become such doves? Your list just shows the hyprocrisy of your side when it comes to Obama criticism. He's actually taken up the Republican cause on many of these fronts. Yet he's somehow ruining America. It's just Bill Clinton hate Part II. Even though Clinton was the best President we've had since Reagan.
This post was edited on 6/9 10:40 AM by funkyFatCan

 

[Jeh_]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:

Originally posted by Jeh_:
If you really want to go in depth, a lot of programs that added to the national debt was George Bushes polices continued on by President Obama. But I somehow doubt we will hear any of this.

Don't think that is accurate that Bush policies are responsible for much of the federal deficits we have had under Obama. But stil....how is that Hopey Changey stuff working out for all the 2008 voters who so hated George Bush, and voted for Obama pretty much because of that emotion alone?

Bush Tax cuts? Obama didn't end them, championed extending them
Iraq War? Troop drawdown began under Bush, Obama didnt speed it up or order all troops out of the country alltogether
Afganistan War? Obama dramatically escalated it
Other wars? Obama expanded military action inside Pakistan, and began operations against Libya and Yemen
Patriot Act? Still going strong!
Guantanimo Bay? Still open!

Emotion alone? Surely it couldn't have been other reasons? I agree there will always been blind supporters, but that happens on both sides.

And thanks for the list. That's exactly what I am saying. Strange that President Obama is seen as a far leftist bent on destroying America, but Bush wasn't.

Also you might want to add Yemen if this latest news article is correct. NYTIMES

This post was edited on 6/10 4:08 PM by Jeh_

 

[Irish Beck]

Originally posted by Jeh_:

Emotion alone?

As a college student during his campaign and eventual ascension to the Presidency, I can agree with the sentiment, at least on my campus, that many people didn't vote for Obama as much as they wanted to punish the Republican party for W's 8 years. Now, I don't know if everyone voted with their emotions or not (I personally voted based on VP picks and consistency of message, as I normally do), but I can say with some level of certainty that McCain was the closest thing to a grudge (#@* this country has ever seen politically.

What's really interesting to me was the surge of support for Ron Paul on many of NC's campuses. I helped campaign with Heath Shuler (not bad for a UT grad by the way) and we saw several groups and posters for Ron Paul.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by funkyFatCan:
All in all, he's been a lot stronger on foreign policy than his detractors give him credit for. He's kept America safe and got our #1 enemy and SEVERAL top terrorists. When did Republicans become such doves? Your list just shows the hyprocrisy of your side when it comes to Obama criticism. He's actually taken up the Republican cause on many of these fronts. Yet he's somehow ruining America. It's just Bill Clinton hate Part II. Even though Clinton was the best President we've had since Reagan.

You missed the point of my post entirely

Candidate Obama ran under the banner of being the anti-Bush, that everything Bush was doing was wrong and he would do the opposite. The reality has been indeed a continuation of much of the same Bush policies he so vocally criticised.

You shouldnt worry about what conservatives like myself say on this particular area of discussion friend....but the Obama voters of 2008. How do THEY feel about increased military action in different places than even Bush went into, or do you deny that Obama voters could be described as mostly made up of fervently anti-war folks? How do THEY feel about Guantanimo Bay (and its cousin, Bagrahm Air Base - which has tripled in capacity under Obama), and the Patriot Act?

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
Don't think that is accurate that Bush policies are responsible for much of the federal deficits we have had under Obama.

The deficit accelerated from about 400 Billion to over a Trillion in a short period of time in 2008 due to the economic meltdown. While the meltdown occurred on Bush's watch, some but not all of that was on him. In reality the meltdown occurred primarily due to over 2 decades of deregulation and lack of oversight by both parties, going back to the Reagan administration. Greed ran rampant and the bubble finally burst.

Bush's economic policies did, however increase the deficit substantially including two wars and multi-trillion dollar tax cuts paid for with borrowed money that did not effectively stimulate the economy. It's also fair to say that the current administration has continued a lot of those same policies with essentially the same results.

 

[cat_chaser]

Originally posted by Irish Beck:

In his defense, he has to be joking at this point.

He's not. He truly believes it is as easy as uprooting your entire family, profession, and way of life just so you can move to a place where you can bike/walk/bus/subway/rent a car to get around. And that's where/why he lost me as a reasonable poster.

 

[post_u_up]

Bush got the ball rolling/ Obama was 'hired' to stop the ball from rolling. Obama has not only failed, but has made things MUCH worse. Next...

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by Irish Beck:

In his defense, he has to be joking at this point. I understand the need to bring our energy dependence and all of the issues that come with that dependence to the forefront, but the level he is taking it to is farcical. Therefore, it has to be facetious posting.

About which part? I try to throw some humor in but the central message remains the same.

We do overly depend on gas powered vehicles to fill needs of just every aspect of our society. Do you agree or disagree? Is this sustainable? I don't see much good in the continued sprawl and increased reliance on conventional vehicles that run on depleting fuels that we, as a nation, have to import.

The automobile is a fascinating invention in that it's completely transformed developed societies. Some changes for good, others for the worse. I know we can diminish the negative impact of vehicular transportation in order to concentrate on the positive.

My ideas for decreasing the demand for oil doesn't necessitate a move to a large metropolitan area, rather closer to urban centers (downtown or uptown Lexington or Frankfort, for example) if your employment doesn't depend on agriculture. Decreasing the dependence on your vehicle doesn't mean completely uprooting and buying a pad in Manhattan.
This post was edited on 6/9 12:06 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by UKBlueBlood:
This is about the lamest response I could have imagined. I expected better from you Mime.

If you can't see the fatal flaws in the logic behind your social utopia concept of everyone disposing of their suburban homes and cars and relocating to major urban centers for the sake of no longer buying gas, you're not living in the real world.

Do you really want to address the feasibility and logistics of urban migration or are you more interested in making excuses for certain choices? From your posting history I assumed it was the latter, hence my response. I'd be more than happy to expound on the urban planning and coordination of a migration from the hinterlands if you're interested as well. There are certainly flaws in my interpretation of urban (populations above ~ 15K) living, just as there are obvious holes in the formulated American dreams, involving picket fences and two car garages, of yesteryear. I just believe the overall economic and environmental benefits of my views outweigh yours.

Fatal flaw? That's rather melodramatic. I didn't say major urban centers (I'm assuming you mean a top 10 US city in population/density), rather urban centers.

What's lame about the second part of post? (conceding that the first part was, in fact, lame......which was sorta the point).

 

[sinker16]

Dumbass

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by cat_chaser:

He's not. He truly believes it is as easy as uprooting your entire family, profession, and way of life just so you can move to a place where you can bike/walk/bus/subway/rent a car to get around. And that's where/why he lost me as a reasonable poster.

You're right, I'm not kidding. However I never said it was easy. There are obviously some difficulties and risks involved. But I wanted to face those risks for what I thought was a better way of living. My ancestors made the same choice when they uprooted from England & Ireland to Virginia/Massachusetts. The decision and move was much harder for them but they obviously faced different circumstances.

So far, IMO, the risks really paid off and the challenges were much less than anticipated.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by funkyFatCan:
you really make yourself sound like an idiot when you use ANY Sarah Palin quote.

** News Flash **

See BS Poll: "Most Republicans don't want Palin to run for president".

** Story at Noon **

 

[Irish Beck]

I'm for alternative fuel sources as much as the next guy but I don't think it's as feasible as you are making it out to be. I live 20 minutes from urban centers, and I say that lightly because they barely qualify based on your metric, and am forced to do so because my wife and I are equidistant from work (in opposite directions). It was the easiest and best choice for us. We could move to either Urban center, but the offset wouldn't outweigh the inconvenience. We, according to most models I have seen, still rank as average middle class Americans and aren't buckling under the pressure of high gas prices, yet.

I think you make a good point, but its the extreme.