Busted

[Leonel]

You know what really gets my goat besides people trying to have conversations with me in the men's bathroom? People speaking for me as if they assume I'm for their side.

Maybe I like the idea of Romney's attempt at sustainability with his Office of Commonwealth Development. Ever consider that?

 

[Leoreth]

Looking at a decision on voting for Romney or Obama I can't find much of a difference. Am I supposed to vote for Romney simply because Obama is black?

Really?

So the only difference you see between Romney and Obama is that one's black? *high-pitched voice* Unfortunate implications!

Okay,well that clears it up. Inevitable electibility due to freshness. What was I thinking?

Hard to tell from your current inconsistent rambling.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Actual policy has nothing to do with it any more. The list of policies on which Obama is identical to his predecessor is huge. And still growing. Yet, what are most true liberals doing? Holding their noses and supporting Obama, even though they hate his guts, because they still consider him better than "any" Republican. They support him because he has the word "Democrat" stamped on his forehead, and that's the only reason.

Bush had a gay prostitute in the white house and Republicans still loved him.
EDIT: Dont ask Dont tell !

 

[caketastydelish]

Okay,well that clears it up. Inevitable electibility due to freshness. What was I thinking?

You see, the masses of people do not realize that Obama and Romney have a lot in common. They do realize however that Obama has "messed things up" for the last 4 years, whereas Romney has never had a shot at this before.

 

[Core Imposter]

You see, the masses of people do not realize that Obama and Romney have a lot in common. They do realize however that Obama has "messed things up" for the last 4 years, whereas Romney has never had a shot at this before.

As a conservative I believe in the concept of creative destruction. If a concern has become untenable, don't bail it out. Let it go bankrupt. Set it afire and step back. New growth will emerge and prosper from the ruin.

Sometimes however there is uncertainty. An adjustment of managment and a resolute turn of the rudder might be sufficient to save the day without the pain and heartache of a more drastic solution.

To put it in political terms, the country is headed for bankruptcy. We might save her by electing a Perry and letting him level Washington with a wrecking ball. Or a Ryan.

Or, we can do a bailout and bring in a Wall Street bred silver spoon aristocrat to fiddle the numbers and kick the can down the road for another decade.

Or we can continue barreling into the mouth of Hell with the guy we got and therefore accomplish a couple of things quicker and surer. One, we will get into bankruptcy quicker and thus get back on the right track sooner. Second, no taint of the failure will acrue to the conservative movement.

So there we can see a perfectly logical rationale for conservatives to vote for Obama. Perhaps a moral imperative.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Romney's changed. Do you realize how many Democrats have become Republicans with age? I wouldn't be surprised if Traitorfish joined the Tea Party in a few decades.

 

[caketastydelish]

As a conservative I believe in the concept of creative destruction. If a concern has become untenable, don't bail it out. Let it go bankrupt. Set it afire and step back. New growth will emerge and prosper from the ruin.

Sometimes however there is uncertainty. An adjustment of managment and a resolute turn of the rudder might be sufficient to save the day without the pain and heartache of a more drastic solution.

To put it in political terms, the country is headed for bankruptcy. We might save her by electing a Perry and letting him level Washington with a wrecking ball. Or a Ryan.

Or, we can do a bailout and bring in a Wall Street bred silver spoon aristocrat to fiddle the numbers and kick the can down the road for another decade.

Or we can continue barreling into the mouth of Hell with the guy we got and therefore accomplish a couple of things quicker and surer. One, we will get into bankruptcy quicker and thus get back on the right track sooner. Second, no taint of the failure will acrue to the conservative movement.

So there we can see a perfectly logical rationale for conservatives to vote for Obama. Perhaps a moral imperative.

If you are saying the democrats are soley responsible for the American economic problems, I would have to seriously disagree with you.

In fact, if I recall during 1929 the President was a Republican (herbert hoover) and we got out of that depression with FDR (democrat)

and a lot of the debt was added by Bush, not just Obama.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, Romney's changed a lot of his positions on social issues, but you're probably right. That's why Ron Paul's really the only candidate democrats would vote for.

Only stupid democrats. Ron Paul is, quite literally, Mr. Conservative. He just appeals to democrats because of his foreign policy, and the young dems because of his "libertarian" stance on illegal drugs.

 

[kramerfan86]

lol Perry? He is a low intelligence nitwit. If you want to blame anyone blame the republicans for not sending anyone competent up for the primaries this year. Perry was low IQ, Santorum and Bachman are both insane, Romney is a ? mark because his positions are whatever the current electorate wants, Paul has a mix of good and insane ideas, Newt doesnt have the mental stability to be president, and Cain just didnt seem remotely ready for the prime time

 

[BasketCase]

No, that isn't what it means at all.

Of course it is. If independents were mostly liberal, Democrats would usually win; if independents were mostly conservative, Republicans would usually win. The winnage is split between Republicans and Democrats because the voters are split between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If you are saying the democrats are soley responsible for the American economic problems, I would have to seriously disagree with you.

In fact, if I recall during 1929 the President was a Republican (herbert hoover) and we got out of that depression with FDR (democrat)

and a lot of the debt was added by Bush, not just Obama.

It is interesting, because I'm reading a book right now, about American politic rhetoric and the mythology surrounding American capitalism, that was written in 1937, and the tactics and arguments being made are practically identical to the ones being made today, about the same things! The ironic part is that in the Depression, Keynesianism won out and became the dominant economic theory for the US for the next 40 years, which was the greatest period of American economic performance in history. So it seems to me that the problem today is twofold: 1, Republicans have forgotten that Keynesianism vindicated itself magnificently and created the great prosperous time they so rhetorically worship; and 2, Democrats have forgotten how Keynesian fiscal policy is supposed to work, and are operating a farcical version of it, which is why it's not working very well and actually seeming to give their conservative critics' incredibly backwards assessments some legitimacy!

 

[Miles Teg]

Looking at a decision on voting for Romney or Obama I can't find much of a difference.

Well honestly, what did you expect? You're an identity politics voter, and Romney's never going to be able to speak the evangelical language fluently cause, y'know, Mormon. Speaking as a democrat, I would say that Romney's campaign promises make him more consevative than Dubya back in 2000. And the Republican party in its current state is likely to hold him to those promises.

You want to know what the differences are between Obama and the Mittster?

The Economy: This is obviously issue No. 1, and its where the biggest differences crop up, and get to big to treat with any justices in a paragraph or two. Suffice it to say that while Obama is sticking with the moderate Democratic approach that worked for Clinton in the 90s (but wouldn't be my preferred course of action), Mitt seems to think that the way to prosperity is to hand money, and power to the same corporations that got us into this mess, then step back and stop regulating them.

The Budget: Romney has endorsed Paul Ryan's budget that would recognizes and gives comfort to those of us who are really suffering in the recession (the military and the ultra-rich) punishes the people who don't need any government assistance (everyone else).

Healthcare: Romney has promised to do what he can to dismantle Obamacare. Of course, we don't know how he plans to do that, but considering the ACA is projected to reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million (while slightly shrinking the deficit) I'd say it's important.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Romney signed on to Ryan's plan to kill off Medicare as we know it.

Energy: Romney may grudgingly acknowledge that global warming is happening, but he doesn't seem prepared to do anything about it. Obama's EPA is finally starting to do its job after 8 years of dormancy, and Romney would kill that.

Foreign Policy: Romney seems determined to get us into a war with Iran at the nearest opportunity. He mocked Obama's succesful "lead from behind" strategy in Libya, and thinks we shoudl make the same mistakes in Syria. Like the rest of his party, Romney seems to think that the way to beat Al Qaeda is to piss off Muslims until we're fighting the entirety of Islam.

Immigration: If it passed Congress, Obama would sign the DREAM act, and Romney would veto it. Obama believes in a path to citizenship for immigrants, and Romney either doesn't or is to afraid to say so. Simple as that.

The War on Women: Romney may not be able to "shut down" Planned Parenthood, but he could certainly deny it federal funding. That would increase the number of abortions performed in the US, but whatevs. He'd re-institute the Mexico City Policy, with the same results overseas.

Judges: They say that the longest-lasting legacy of a president is the judges he leaves behind. I don't think anyone told Obama that, because the federal judiciary has an alarming number of unfilled seats, due to a combination of unprecedented Republican obstruction (not hyperbole, check out the statistics on senate holds and filibusters) and Obama's seeming disinterest. And of course, the Supreme Court is a knife's edge, with four conservatives, four liberals, and one kind of conservative moderate. The winner in 2012 is going to have a lot of impact over judicial decisions for decades to come.


In anycase, the Presidential election isn't really about electing Presidents, it's about electing Presidencies. A Santorum staffed Executive Department would have the same people as a Romney staffed Executive Department, and both would look frighteningly different from Obama's Executive Department. The differences between Candidates Santorum and Romney would be smoothed out by their essentially identical appointments.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course it does. In the United States, anyway. Keep in mind, the United States is constantly flip-flopping between electing Republicans and Democrats. If Independents were either "mostly liberal" or "mostly conservative" that wouldn't be happening. This flip-floppage allows us to place America's independent voters squarely in the middle.

This ignores the fact that most Americans are quite conservative. Simply because you are to the left of the typical opinions hardly makes you a liberal.

 

[Core Imposter]

Can someone photoshop that graph and place me in a far right orbit. Well, we just have to make do. I've written George Allen taking him to task for his liberal leanings but included a check. We have to work with what we have I guess.

 

[caketastydelish]

This ignores the fact that most Americans are quite conservative. Simply because you are to the left of the typical opinions hardly makes you a liberal.

I would like to see on what basis that John Edwards is to the right side of the political spectrum... I would consider myself to be heavily left.

And I think a big part of why John Edwards was unelectable (even before his affair) was the fact that he was simply too far to the left for mainstream america.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As you can see from the graph he was indeed minutely further to the left than Obama and Biden, so he was indeed the furthest to the left of all the mainstream candidates. He was also the least authoritarian, which to many is even more important.

People seem to forget that only 20% of Americans are liberals so they are essentially not electable at the national level, much like atheists and agnostics. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are over there all by themselves. Even John Kerry couldn't win against George Bush.

 

[Core Imposter]

I would like to see on what basis that John Edwards is to the right side of the political spectrum...

That would tend to happen when you have socialists map out the spectrum. If I mapped it out they would all shift to the left side of the spectrum.

As you have it now all the conservatives are off the scale, heck, even old school moderate Republicans like Jesse Helms can't fit on there.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now that's an incredibly tiny group. I would guess that 2-4% of the US population are actually socialists, which shouldn't be terribly surprising given how persecuted and vilified they have been since the advent of the 20th Century.

How ‘socialist’ became the dirtiest word in American politics

“The closest thing we had to a successful socialist candidate for president was Eugene V. Debs, who ran his 1920 campaign from a prison cell,” Snow said. “He was fantastically popular in comparison to any other socialist who’s run — but in terms of real electoral success, he didn’t come close.”

“The fact is, Americans are often in favor of socialist policies but oppose ‘socialism’ in some abstract, Stalinist, scary sense,” Snow said. “For instance, public-opinion polling has indicated that 70 to 80 percent of Americans agree with the notion that the government should help the truly needy who are unable to help themselves.”

And Jesse Helms was far from being a "moderate" Republican.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/conservatives-a.html

On respect for the President:

"Just days after Mr. Helms, a Republican from North Carolina, created a furor by saying that President Clinton was not up to the job of Commander in Chief, he told The News and Observer, a newspaper in Raleigh: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard.""

On race:

"From the beginning, Helms was schooled in the political device of using race to propel white conservatives to the polls. As news director for WRAL radio, Helms supported Willis Smith in his 1950 Senate campaign against Frank Porter Graham, the former president of the University of North Carolina. The campaign theme was that Graham favored interracial marriages. "White people, wake up before it is too late," said one ad. "Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

And:

"Helms warned that, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced."
He suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist dupe and refused, even decades after King's death, to honor the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

He dismissed the civil rights movement as a cabal of communists and "moral degenerates."

As the movement gathered strength -- and as murderous violence against activists in particular and African-Americans in general increased -- Helms menacingly suggested to non-violent civil rights activists that, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights.""

 

[bernie14]

This ignores the fact that most Americans are quite conservative. Simply because you are to the left of the typical opinions hardly makes you a liberal.

do you think these people actually took the tests? or are these "expert interpretations" ...cuz common sense tells me that although obama may certainly be more authoritarian than I, he is certainly much more left on the economic scale, which does not seem to be the case if you look at the numbers ....

i took the test assuming obama's positions and i got this:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

with respect to OT, i would like to think that romney just knows how to get things done....i mean, a gov or prez does not do it all, he has to work with the other parts of government...in mass, romney had to work with a legislature which was 85% dem....of couse he had to move a little left....this does not mean he is a liberal or will support liberal policies when he is able to work with a much more reasonable approx 50-50 split....he will obviously move more to the right....

 

[ParkCungHee]

I do not think this is true. Independent does not mean centrist.

Speaking of which, it also doesn't mean moderate. That got abused alot in 2008.