U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[KingHorse]

Completely unrelated but I have to say something about it. The local news is on in the background. Some guy was shot breaking into an uninhabited house that is being renovated. There was an interview of a guy who heard the police cars. Not an eye witness, just some guy who heard sirens.

The guy they interviewed: "I was like 'dag gone' so I knew it was pretty serious."

His own response of "dag gone" proved to him that the situation was serious. I fucking love this state.

I don't recall any time in history when both sides have been so opposed to work with each other on such a broad scale though. On top of that the amount of NO that the Republicans have been screaming and by just how insanely far right they've gone (See the 1800s), Democrats risk their own jobs if they work with people who've signed the Grover Norquist pledge, who think rape can be "illegitimate" or a "gift from God", think that Colin Powel can't see passed his own skin color, and don't have any qualms about lying to everyone's faces and then laughing about it later. Democrats are no saints but damn the Republican party is scaring the shit out of me. "American Taliban" is sort of a nickname that comes to mind. They aren't violent but they feel like they have the same ideals. I just don't understand what happened to the moderates and reasonable people. This is negatively affecting the Left now too, because we're starting to see the 'kickback' from the right's extremism and developing extremism of our own and I really don't want to see that. The moment our politics turns into a true "Us Vs. Them" is the moment I see dire consequences for our country and subsequently the world.

As has been stated of many political issues, the youth is coming. Politicians beat the war drum for things like gay marriage, abortion, taxation and a variety of social causes that get the older base riled up and get them voting in droves. The old guard all have something in common: the number of elections they get to vote in is quickly dwindling. People on both sides are actually becoming more moderate, and as we turn voting age and enter political positions, the country is being slowly shifted to the middle. Both sides like to scare their base by claiming it's going the direction of the opposition, but they're both wrong. The meek inherit fuckall. The young inherit everything. Make the country what you want it to be. Keep voting, keep complaining, keep yelling. It will get there.

[therayeffect]

As has been stated of many political issues, the youth is coming. Politicians beat the war drum for things like gay marriage, abortion, taxation and a variety of social causes that get the older base riled up and get them voting in droves. The old guard all have something in common: the number of elections they get to vote in is quickly dwindling. People on both sides are actually becoming more moderate, and as we turn voting age and enter political positions, the country is being slowly shifted to the middle. Both sides like to scare their base by claiming it's going the direction of the opposition, but they're both wrong. They meek inherit fuckall. The young inherit everything. Make the country what you want it to be. Keep voting, keep complaining, keep yelling. It will get there.

Yes my generation (and I'm going to assume yours too) is indeed far more moderate than any currently in office. The problem is that our generation doesn't really give two shits about politics. On top of that, I don't know if we have 20 years to wait until they feel like voting. The problems our country currently face are quite large and dire and they need to be addressed very soon and I sure as hell don't want the nutcases deciding those issues. I also don't see how in the hell any moderate is going to be able to wade through the corrupt mess that our politics have become in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. Money is now King and there is no limit to that power. The only way they could revert that mistake would be to have a large majority of politicians with the integrity and stones to agree to not take millions and millions from these extremist groups. I laugh at your naivete if you think that is ever going to happen.

[Sunseeker]

That's the thing for me though: he's liberal enough for me to be perfectly fine casting my vote for him.

On a related note: I think a Romney presidency would be absolutely excellent for the Republican party, but not for the reasons many may think. I think Romney would drag the party back from the "holy shit, Bachmann?!?" right wing ledge they've been dancing on. A few years of slightly right of center leadership should drag the rest back off the ledge. Hopefully.

My biggest doubt to this is that we haven't had a Republican party being led by the president since Reagen. The Party set policy for Bush, Bush did not set party policy. McCain(though not elected) was the same, his platform was determined by the Party, not the Party adapting to McCain(which would have been freaking amazing, but...). Romney is far too wishy-washy on his positions to oppose Republican Party central leadership. I see absolutely no hope for Romney taking the reigns of the Party.

[Willeonge]

History has indicated that Democrats are more willing to compromise than Republicans. A Romney presidency would lead to much work actually getting done. Arguments can be made about what good said work would do, but bills would be passed either way.

---------- Post added 2012-10-27 at 11:37 PM ----------



So your proof that he won't do what he's always done, and what he usually says he will do, is that you don't think he will.

OK then.

You have a greater opinion of Harry Reid than I do if you think he would work with the Republicans.

[belfpala]

Really, Wells gets banned but not one or two others?

[Felya]

Really, Wells gets banned but not one or two others?

If you don't like it, report them. I don't get why people do it, but that's how it works. Mods are not omniscient...

---------- Post added 2012-10-28 at 06:47 AM ----------

You have a greater opinion of Harry Reid than I do if you think he would work with the Republicans.

Also, in this day and age, democrats need to get 60% majority, to be in position to aprove anything.

[belfpala]

If you don't like it, report them. I don't get why people do it, but that's how it works. Mods are not omniscient...[COLOR="red"]

I reported one of my OWN posts a couple days ago, in which I repeated the exact same words someone else got infracted for. I didn't get infracted. Even when reporting myself.

[Dakia]

Really, Wells gets banned but not one or two others?

If you have an issue with moderation, PM Sunshine or Boubouille. Don't discuss it here.

[Grummgug]

I was reading this article among others that discuss how Obama is losing Generation Y / Millennials.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/10/youn...cal_conse.html

What's shocking is the fact that the younger Gen Y group is overwhelmingly leaning conservative. Couple this with the fact that Generation X is overwhelmingly conservative, and you've got a dangerous situation for the democrat party. They are on the verge of being out in the political wilderness for 40 years once the boomers die off.

Obama was supposed to seal the deal with Gen Y and make them liberals for a lifetime. But he's failed. The tremendous amount of damage Obama has done to the party's future is shocking. I don't know if they can recover from this. Anyone with a fair eye looks at Obama and realizes he's done nothing to fix our problems and just blamed everyone else from Bush to Wall Street to corporations to oil companies and I'm sure if he loses he will blame something else. How can he be this bad?

[KingHorse]

Really, Wells gets banned but not one or two others?

I've made it a hobby to go look up what post he gets infracted for. It's occasionally deserved, but frequently not.

[Deadvolcanoes]

What's shocking is the fact that the younger Gen Y group is overwhelmingly leaning conservative.

From your blog article:

To be clear, polls show that President Barack Obama remains the favorite among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters, as he was in 2008.

The younger generations are not overwhelmingly leaning conservative.

[ptwonline]

From your blog article:

The younger generations are not overwhelmingly leaning conservative.

Yeah they are fiscal conservatives, which means neither party is a good choice. But they are social liberals, which means the Democrats are clearly the better choice.

Fiscal conservatives and social liberals? That's good news. Basically it means that young Americans are catching up with the rest of the world.

[Deleted]

Yeah they are fiscal conservatives, which means neither party is a good choice. But they are social liberals, which means the Democrats are clearly the better choice.

Fiscal conservatives and social liberals? That's good news. Basically it means that young Americans are catching up with the rest of the world.

Except most liberals are anything but fiscal conservatives. They may call themselves that, but when you start talking about cutting stuff, they shit their pants. It doesn't really matter what you suggest you cut, they'll shit their pants regardless, because every cut means someone loses income. Their only notion of fiscal conservatism is "eat the rich" and give me more stuff.

[KingHorse]

Except most liberals are anything but fiscal conservatives. They may call themselves that, but when you start talking about cutting stuff, they shit their pants. It doesn't really matter what you suggest you cut, they'll shit their pants regardless. Their only notion of fiscal conservatism is "eat the rich" and give me more stuff.

Not entirely true. They'd be fine with a huge cut to military spending. But they would want to "use those savings" on something else.

[Deleted]

Not entirely true. They'd be fine with a huge cut to military spending. But they would want to "use those savings" on something else.

There's a large amount of liberals who are against wars and so on, but when you start talking cuts they don't want them after all because it means people will lose their jobs. These are the kind of liberals who think a job is good even if it isn't productive.

[Sunseeker]

Except most liberals are anything but fiscal conservatives. They may call themselves that, but when you start talking about cutting stuff, they shit their pants. It doesn't really matter what you suggest you cut, they'll shit their pants regardless, because every cut means someone loses income. Their only notion of fiscal conservatism is "eat the rich" and give me more stuff.

"social liberals" are not capital "L" liberals. And these youth in particular have little connection to or interest in the Liberal establishment.

There aren't two groups of youth, one half being fiscal conservatives and the other being social liberals. They're the same people being both things. For a Libertarian that should be pretty damn reasonable considering that's the defining position of Libertarianism.

---------- Post added 2012-10-28 at 09:19 AM ----------

There's a large amount of liberals who are against wars and so on, but when you start talking cuts they don't want them after all because it means people will lose their jobs. These are the kind of liberals who think a job is good even if it isn't productive.

Even if a job is not productive, the individual earning an income is still playing a role in the economy. The best role they could? Perhaps not, but a role none-the-less. And playing a bad role is better than playing no role at all. This applies perfectly to cutting military spending. Military spending provides income to people who in turn spend it in the economy, it provides capital to businesses who have employees who spend money in the economy. So while military spending needs to be cut, we cannot wholesale slash it's budget because the sudden loss of money flowing into the economy would be devastating.

Even if cutting the military directly translated into a tax-reduction, that would at best only be about 25% of whatever you pay in taxes, and for many middle class or low income people, that could be a meaningless value. The money saved individually would not compensate for the spending lost. Buying a million-dollar jet does more for the economy than a thousand people buying a gallon of milk.

[Deleted]

Even if a job is not productive, the individual earning an income is still playing a role in the economy. The best role they could? Perhaps not, but a role none-the-less. And playing a bad role is better than playing no role at all. This applies perfectly to cutting military spending. Military spending provides income to people who in turn spend it in the economy, it provides capital to businesses who have employees who spend money in the economy. So while military spending needs to be cut, we cannot wholesale slash it's budget because the sudden loss of money flowing into the economy would be devastating.

Even if cutting the military directly translated into a tax-reduction, that would at best only be about 25% of whatever you pay in taxes, and for many middle class or low income people, that could be a meaningless value. The money saved individually would not compensate for the spending lost. Buying a million-dollar jet does more for the economy than a thousand people buying a gallon of milk.

Shhhh, King Horse look at this, I found one of those I was speaking of. Isn't nature amazing?

In all seriousness, building a million dollar jet surely does far more to the economy, but it's negative. Unless you're selling the jet to a foreign military or theres a legitimate need for the jet to maintain national security. I mean, you could as well be building a 40 feet dick out of gold with government money, it would surely create jobs and at the same time just be absolutely horrible for the economy.

You seem to be one of those guys who thinks breaking windows is actually good for the economy. The broken window fallacy suddenly becomes the broken window stimulus plan. It's fucking insanity.

[Sunseeker]

In all seriousness, building a million dollar jet surely does far more to the economy, but it's negative. Unless you're selling the jet to a foreign military or theres a legitimate need for the jet to maintain national security. I mean, you could as well be building a 40 feet dick out of gold with government money, it would surely create jobs and at the same time just be absolutely horrible for the economy.

You seem to be one of those guys who thinks breaking windows is actually good for the economy. The broken window fallacy suddenly becomes the broken window stimulus plan. It's fucking insanity.

"The economy" is the flow of goods, services and currency(in this case, nationally). Paying a guy to break windows and then paying a company to replace those windows would mean a lot of goods and services and currency are flowing. It may be pointless, but it will undeniably cause goods(windows), services(window replacement/breaking) and currency(the money being paid for all that) to flow. Demand for windows will be up(if artifically), which means there will be an increased market for window production, which in turn raises demand for window materials.

The fallacy of the broken window fallacy is that it accounts for a linear economy. IE: money moves in one direction, from the shopkeeper to the glazer, the end.

But the glazer will spend his 6 francs, and the recipient of that money will spend, and eventually someone will spend 6 francs in the shop whose window had been broken.

The parable itsself points out that the shopkeeper would have spent his 6 francs anyway, on a book, on a pair of shoes, ect... And while saving money is healthy, it does not benefit the economy(in the context of sticking it under your mattress). So if the shopkeeper had never spent their 6 francs on anything, then his 6 francs would be irrelevant to the economy.

Now, pay attention here because I have a feeling you're reading what you think I'm saying but you're not really reading what I'm writing. I don't think that paying for windows to be broken and then paying for them to be replaced is a healthy plan for the economy. But that's not to say that it doesn't work, at least in the short term or on the small scale, it's certainly not something you'd want as the basis to the entire economy, but replacability is an important and useful element of any product.

Take roads for example. We build roads, and their simple use causes their destruction. So we have to rebuild, repair, and replace them regularly. The longer our roads last, the less maintence is needed, and thus the fewer people and businesses we employ in that sector. Fewer businesses and fewer people means fewer jobs, and thus reduced currency flow. There is a very real "happy medium" in the replacability of a product that demands we make things that will break in order to employ people to fix or replace them. Now, it might be cheaper to build a new PS3 than to fix one, but selling new PS3's means you need new OR returning customers, so you build a PS3 that's designed to break in 4 years, so that you have a regular contingent of purchasers. If your PS3 lasted forever, once everyone had one, you'd be out of business!

[belfpala]

If your PS3 lasted forever, once everyone had one, you'd be out of business!

Nah, you just come up with another business model. Come out with a new PS every couple years. Oh... Apple mastered that.

Or you sell peripherals to go with your product. Companies that make printers mastered that with toner cartridges... crap, and Apple too.

But yes, currency flow is the goal.

[Deleted]

The fallacy of the broken window fallacy is that it accounts for a linear economy. IE: money moves in one direction, from the shopkeeper to the glazer, the end.

The broken window fallacy is about a guy who thinks a young teen helped the economy by breaking a window, because the shopkeeper had to buy a new window. The glazer then got more business and used the money he got from the shopkeeper to buy himself a suit. The tailor then used the money from the glazer to buy himself food, etc,etc. The fallacy comes from totally discounting the fact that the shopkeeper now has less money than he had in the beginning, and that society is less one window.

Take roads for example. We build roads, and their simple use causes their destruction. So we have to rebuild, repair, and replace them regularly. The longer our roads last, the less maintence is needed, and thus the fewer people and businesses we employ in that sector. Fewer businesses and fewer people means fewer jobs, and thus reduced currency flow. There is a very real "happy medium" in the replacability of a product that demands we make things that will break in order to employ people to fix or replace them. Now, it might be cheaper to build a new PS3 than to fix one, but selling new PS3's means you need new OR returning customers, so you build a PS3 that's designed to break in 4 years, so that you have a regular contingent of purchasers. If your PS3 lasted forever, once everyone had one, you'd be out of business!

If we could build roads that last forever at a reasonable price, society would be much better off if we did that. If we could totally eliminate the need for any road mantainance jobs at a reasaonable cost, society would be better off. We do not want jobs for their own sake. In fact, we want to minimize the work we have to do to achieve our goals. Jobs are a means to an end, to achieve higher prosperity and productivity.

Currency flow is negative for society if it means investing in things that aren't productive. Things that do not increase social welfare. This includes Jet fighters that cost billions of dollars but provide the US with no additional national security.

If what I've just said wasn't true, and what you said was true, then we should denounce capitalism immediately. We should prohibit anyone from laying off people. We should stop worrying about what to invest in, and just go all in with all available resources right now, as the end result would be positive anyhow due to the increased flow of resources.

You totally forget the opportunity cost of capital.