Now What? (American Politics)

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 19, 2012, 10:33 am

BobHelm wrote:No criticism Ricohoc , just a desire for accuracy.

You do not have a monopoly on that...
The use of the final 'Conservative' in your last post is as inaccurate as, in your eyes, anyone who calls America a democracy. You can't pick & chose the truth, as much as you would like to.... :D
What the hell are you talking about?



Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 19, 2012, 10:36 am

KHONDAHM wrote:Conservatives and Conservatism are absolutely associated with the Republicans in American politics. Sorry, but you do not get to choose your own reality.
But I do get to choose where I align myself, and that is MY reality. Isn't that what you do, KD? Good for you, but not anyone else?

I am not a Republican, but I am a Conservative, and there are many, MANY Conservatives who have great disdain for the Republican establishment. I am one of them.

User avatar
Laan Yaa Mo
udonmap.com
Posts: 9185
Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
Location: ขอนแก่น

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Laan Yaa Mo » February 20, 2012, 4:15 am

BobHelm wrote:
Ricohoc wrote:Some text removed.... but Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, rick.
If you want to be pedantic, Ricohoc, which I know that you often like to be... :D

Conservatives, with a capitalised first letter in mid sentence, can rarely be Republicans.
While it can, I understand, refer to Conservative Jew or Conservative Judaism & hence from that route possibly be a Republican, its main use is as a member of the Conservative Party of Great Britain & so highly unlikely to be Republican, indeed I believe that the rules of the party would prevent that being allowed...

If you mean conservative, with a small initial letter that is a different matter...

Well, there is a Conservative Party closer to the United States than Great Britain and that one resides in Canada. However, the Canadian Conservative MP's have less independence than their British counterparts, and in most cases must follow the guidance of the whip.
You only pass through this life once, you don't come back for an encore.

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16079
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by jackspratt » February 20, 2012, 7:22 am

Laan Yaa Mo wrote: Well, there is a Conservative Party closer to the United States than Great Britain and that one resides in Canada. However, the Canadian Conservative MP's have less independence than their British counterparts, and in most cases must follow the guidance of the whip.
I understand from previous reading that the UK conservatives have a long association and preference for the whip ........ ............ and handcuffs ......... and latex ............ and ......

Now, back on topic please. :oops:

User avatar
KHONDAHM
udonmap.com
Posts: 2428
Joined: November 15, 2009, 3:07 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by KHONDAHM » February 20, 2012, 10:14 pm

These are a few reasons why I voted for Ron Paul in 2004. While I will not be voting for him in 2012 (if he were to get the Republican nomination - which is unlikely), I would not be unhappy if he were to win. I would not vote for him because IMHO, Presidents need 2 terms to be effective at implementing changes. Obama needs his 2nd and I just don't see Paul lasting 2 terms at his age. An interesting play would be Paul as VP...I still would not vote for the ticket, but it would attract a decent number of Independent votes.

Enjoy this site much more by adding idiots to your ignore list (Friends & Foes tab).
http:\\www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/ucp.php? ... &mode=foes

User avatar
LoveDaBlues
udonmap.com
Posts: 891
Joined: December 30, 2005, 3:06 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by LoveDaBlues » February 21, 2012, 5:41 pm

The Geography of Government Benefits

Very interesting link:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... d=fb-share

Income Support

Big cities have populations that rely heavily on these benefits, but many are rural counties like Owsley County, Ky.,
where payments for food stamps are the highest per capita. The county voted Republican overwhelmingly in 2008.

WTF?? The Dumbocrats are usually associated with welfare programs.....these people are biting the hand
that feeds em..... :confused:

Jing Jing
udonmap.com
Posts: 566
Joined: January 12, 2008, 8:44 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Jing Jing » February 21, 2012, 6:59 pm

Owsley County, Kentucky the 2010 population is 4,755 and 98.7% is white. The median household income 2006-2010 was $19,351 and the percent of persons below poverty level is 41.5%. This was coal country. Not hard to understand why they need food stamps. THE NYT could do better research but why bother the facts may get in the way of the story they are trying to spin.

This area probably has always been Republican since the time of Lincoln. They were poor then so not much has changed.

User avatar
LoveDaBlues
udonmap.com
Posts: 891
Joined: December 30, 2005, 3:06 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by LoveDaBlues » February 21, 2012, 9:16 pm

Jing Jing wrote:Owsley County, Kentucky the 2010 population is 4,755 and 98.7% is white. The median household income 2006-2010 was $19,351 and the percent of persons below poverty level is 41.5%. This was coal country. Not hard to understand why they need food stamps. THE NYT could do better research but why bother the facts may get in the way of the story they are trying to spin.

This area probably has always been Republican since the time of Lincoln. They were poor then so not much has changed.
What story is the NYT trying to spin? Seems to me it's a pretty dry (but interesting) article of income stats from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. :-k I just thought it unusual (as perhaps the writers of the article did) these particular folks would vote Republicant since this party is normally perceived to be against the lower economic class.......(as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").

User avatar
KHONDAHM
udonmap.com
Posts: 2428
Joined: November 15, 2009, 3:07 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by KHONDAHM » February 21, 2012, 9:36 pm

The story and the facts highlight one of the biggest problems of the electorate. People vote because "that's how they've always voted" rather than actually paying attention. If the majority of poor and working class Republican voters were paying attention, they would have figured out by now that Republicans are essentially not doing anything for them and have no plans to do anything for them (empty "jobs" rhetoric notwithstanding). So, yes it is pretty dumb that they would continue to vote Republican rather than Democrat - as it is the Democrats who are advocating programs which would better their situation.
Enjoy this site much more by adding idiots to your ignore list (Friends & Foes tab).
http:\\www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/ucp.php? ... &mode=foes

Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 21, 2012, 10:03 pm

LoveDaBlues wrote:as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").
You really need to finish the statement if you're going to quote someone. 'I'm not worried about the poor. There is a safety net for them.'

And of course, even the statist media tries to spin it. In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY

Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 21, 2012, 10:12 pm

The story and the facts highlight one of the biggest problems of the electorate. People vote because "that's how they've always voted" rather than actually paying attention.

If the majority of poor and minority Americans were paying attention, they would have figured out by now that Democrats are not doing anything for them except buying their votes and keeping them on the Liberal Plantation of welfare, food stamps and entitlements. So yes, it is pretty dumb that they would continue to vote Democrat. How is it that Democrats can be so insulting to these Americans by repeatedly reminding them that they can't make it alone without government handouts? Are these groups incapable of success and achievement? I think Democrats need them to think that they are incapable.

After all of these decades since LBJ's "War on Poverty" in the 1960s, there are generations of poor and minorities who are still on food stamps and welfare. The Democrat solution has not solved the problem. How long will it take? How much money will the government continue to take from productive Americans to fund it? At what point will the Utopian Liberals finally admit that it's not working? Liberal Democrats can't answer those questions. They just want more and more and more.

User avatar
KHONDAHM
udonmap.com
Posts: 2428
Joined: November 15, 2009, 3:07 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by KHONDAHM » February 21, 2012, 10:35 pm

@Ricohoc - How did you come to be so misinformed? I am genuinely curious. What is your education background? What publications do you typically read? Where did you grow up and under what conditions? You can reply with a PM if you would like.
Enjoy this site much more by adding idiots to your ignore list (Friends & Foes tab).
http:\\www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/ucp.php? ... &mode=foes

Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 21, 2012, 10:40 pm

KHONDAHM wrote:@Ricohoc - How did you come to be so misinformed? I am genuinely curious. What is your education background? What publications do you typically read? Where did you grow up and under what conditions? You can reply with a PM if you would like.
Refute it. And do so with something other than Ms. Madow from MSNBC or the Huffington Post.

I already told you. I don't play your games. Move along.

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 3238
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by rick » February 21, 2012, 11:53 pm

It seems Rick Santorum is no environmentalist (mind you, he is a Republican, so that's no surprise). But it seems he doesn't believe in Global warming, and wants more oil exploration and coal mining. Such a nice, old fashioned outlook. But i doubt it will increase his voter base.

User avatar
LoveDaBlues
udonmap.com
Posts: 891
Joined: December 30, 2005, 3:06 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by LoveDaBlues » February 22, 2012, 7:04 am

Ricohoc wrote:
LoveDaBlues wrote:as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").
You really need to finish the statement if you're going to quote someone. 'I'm not worried about the poor. There is a safety net for them.'

And of course, even the statist media tries to spin it. In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY
His gaff shows he has no real concern for the poor. Otherwise he would have said something along the lines of, "Although there's a safety net for the poor, if elected I'll make it a priority to lift all Americans who want to work
out of poverty.

Ricohoc
udonmap.com
Posts: 1718
Joined: February 8, 2007, 5:37 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Ricohoc » February 22, 2012, 9:13 am

LoveDaBlues wrote:
Ricohoc wrote:
LoveDaBlues wrote:as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").
You really need to finish the statement if you're going to quote someone. 'I'm not worried about the poor. There is a safety net for them.'

And of course, even the statist media tries to spin it. In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY
His gaff shows he has no real concern for the poor. Otherwise he would have said something along the lines of, "Although there's a safety net for the poor, if elected I'll make it a priority to lift all Americans who want to work
out of poverty.
So now you're going to try to hide your purposeful misquote by calling Romney's complete statement a gaffe. Are you really Khondahm? Red herrings and semantics are part of his tactics.

Jing Jing
udonmap.com
Posts: 566
Joined: January 12, 2008, 8:44 pm

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by Jing Jing » February 22, 2012, 9:49 am

Romney has yet to develop a "fire in the belly" message. I don't think he will ever will. That is why he keeps making all these gaffs. Thei NYT article tries to paint individual for being hypocrites for being Republican and taking government benefits. Unfortunately they were promised in the 50's and 60's a non-stop Disney World in the future. The Ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare are beginning to collapse. Any one with half a brain wants to fix the system. Obama Care is yet another government Ponzi scheme. Both parties need to stop the printing press and get serious about reforms. I think we will need a new third party. The "Independents" need to get off the fence and create a viable middle way party.

User avatar
randerson79
udonmap.com
Posts: 532
Joined: March 6, 2006, 7:08 am

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by randerson79 » February 22, 2012, 9:59 am

Ok! I nominate Richo and Jing Jing as new third party candidates.

User avatar
merchant seaman
udonmap.com
Posts: 2221
Joined: November 13, 2005, 2:58 pm
Location: looking out my backdoor

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by merchant seaman » February 22, 2012, 10:05 am

anyone but Obama

User avatar
JimboPSM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3581
Joined: July 4, 2005, 3:23 pm
Location: Isle of Man / Bangkok / Udon Thani

Now What? (American Politics)

Post by JimboPSM » February 23, 2012, 11:10 pm

An interesting article about left and right and vice versa :shock:
Why Voters Shouldn’t Trust Their Own Political Party:

By Ezra Klein - Feb 23, 2012 12:00 AM GMT

Perhaps my biggest frustration with the U.S. news media (and yes, I am a card-carrying member) is that we permit the two parties to decide what is “left” and what is “right.” The way it works, roughly, is that anything Democrats support becomes “left,” and everything Republicans support becomes “right.”

There are good reasons for this. It isn’t the media’s job to police political ideologies, and it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to try. But that leaves ordinary voters in a bit of a tough spot.

The reality is that most Americans aren’t policy wonks. They don’t sit down with think-tank papers or economic studies and puzzle over whether it’s better to address the free-rider problem in health care through automatic enrollment or the individual mandate. Instead, they outsource those questions to the political actors they trust.

Unfortunately, those political actors aren’t worthy of their trust. They’re trying to win elections, not points for intellectual consistency. So the voters who trust them get taken for a ride.

Consider the partywide flips and flops of just the past few years:

-- Supporting a temporary, deficit-financed payroll-tax cut as a stimulus measure in 2009, as Republican Senator John McCain and every one of his colleagues did, put you on the right. Supporting a temporary, deficit-financed payroll tax-cut in late 2011 put you on the left. Supporting it in early 2012 could have put you in either party.

-- Supporting an individual mandate as a way to solve the health-care system’s free-rider problem between 1991 and 2007 put you on the right. Doing so after 2010 put you on the left.

-- Supporting a system in which total carbon emissions would be capped and permits traded as a way of moving toward clean energy using the power of market pricing could have put you on either the left or right between 2000 and 2008. After 2009, it put you squarely on the left.

-- Caring about short-term deficits between 2001 and 2008 put you on the left. Caring about them between 2008 and 2012 put you on the right.

-- Favoring an expansive view of executive authority between 2001 and 2008 put you on the right. Doing so since 2009 has, in most cases, put you on the left.

-- Supporting large cuts to Medicare (USBOMDCR) in the context of universal health-care reform puts you on the left, as every Democrat who voted for the Affordable Care Act found out during the 2010 election. Supporting cuts in the context of deficit reduction puts you on the right, as Republicans found out in the 1990s, and then again after voting for Representative Paul Ryan’s proposed budget in 2011.

-- Decrying the filibuster and considering drastic changes to the Senate rulebook to curb it between 2001 and 2008 put you on the right, particularly if you were exercised over judicial nominations. Since 2009, decrying the filibuster and considering reforms to curb it has put you on the left.

-- Favoring a negative tax rate for the poorest Americans between 2001 and 2008 could have put you on the right or the left. In recent years, it has put you on the left.

I don’t particularly mind flip-flops. Consistency is an overrated virtue. But honesty isn’t. In many of these cases, the parties changed policy when it was politically convenient to do so, not when conditions changed and new information came to light.

There are exceptions, of course. It’s reasonable to worry about short-term deficits during an economic expansion and consider them necessary during a recession. That’s Economics 101.

But nothing happened to explain the change from 2006, when the individual mandate was a Republican policy in good standing, to 2010, when every Senate Republican, including those who had previously supported it, agreed it was an unconstitutional assault on liberty. Nothing, that is, but the Democrats’ adopting the policy in their health-care reform bill.

Flips and flops like these make the labels “left” and “right” meaningless as a descriptor of anything save partisanship over any extended period of time. I could tell you about a politician who supported deficit-financed stimulus policies and cap-and-trade, and I could be describing McCain. Or Newt Gingrich. And I could tell you about another politician who opposed an individual mandate, and who fought deficits, expansive views of executive authority and efforts to reform the filibuster, and be describing Senator Barack Obama.

Parties -- particularly when they’re in the minority -- care more about power than policy. Perhaps there’s nothing much to be done about this. And as I said, it isn’t clear that the media, or anyone else, should try. But it puts the lie to the narrative that America is really riven by grand ideological disagreements. America is deeply divided on the question of which party should be in power at any given moment. Much of the polarization over policy is driven by that question, not the other way around.

But the voters who trust the parties don’t know that, and they tend to take on faith the idea that their representatives are fighting for some relatively consistent agenda.

(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Original article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-2 ... klein.html
Ashamed to be English since 23rd June 2016 when England voted for racism & economic suicide.

Disgusted that the UK is “governed” by a squalid bunch of economically illiterate, self-serving, sleazy and corrupt neo-fascists.

Post Reply

Return to “World News”