Let’s see how prescient our Let’s see how prescient our piggies are.
We shall find out in November.
livinincali
August 16, 2012 @
12:50 PM
Where’s the neither option, Where’s the neither option, of course if I’m just gambling I’d take Obama.
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
12:52 PM
Neither is not available. Neither is not available.
This is not a vote for a ticket you want. This is a prediction as to who will win this November.
no_such_reality
August 16, 2012 @
1:19 PM
Then where is Then where is Romney/Biden?
The fight is going to gridlock in the electoral college, Congress will name Romney to President, the Senate will name Biden to VP.
That said, I think the popular vote will bend close between 50/50 – 52/48 one way or another with the the Electoral college could blow out one way or another.
The campaign is negative and getting worse.
The voting populace is completely disgusted.
The economy is still a train wreck.
And both sides have large constituencies that feel completely justified in flat out lying to get their way.
In the end, I suspect we’re going to have more stamping of feet, more wailing, more gnashing of teeth more crying of foul at vote tampering than the hanging chads incident.
I predict Florida and Nevada to Obama because of “end Medicare as we know it.”
NSR, what scenario do you project a win for Romney/Ryan?
Time will tell…[/quote]
I don’t. 🙂
Although I put little faith in polls. The LATimes runs polls through USC Dornslife all the time, ever go read the questions? When pollsters call, do you talk to them? I don’t.
I think this election on a popular vote will be closer, on an electoral vote, Obama looks strong and heavy hitters like California aren’t going to suddenly go Republican. But really, in 2008, Obama has a 24% margin of victory in California, what will it be this year? 20% 15% 10%?
Florida is a must win for Romney. Obama can lose it and still win. If Romney loses Florida, he needs to take every other toss up State or some non-toss ups need to flip.
A lot of it depends on how disgusted the voters get between now and November. The poor swing States are being carpet bombed by negative advertising. Truth, even fragments of truth, disappeared long ago.
The real question is, in the States that are close or potential close whose team is going to have a bunch of no-shows. I honestly don’t know.
In my anecdotal world, I know tried and true democrats like my mother and father are just disgusted and are planning on not voting Democrat for the first time in their life. They not voting Republican either, but they’re just fed up. Meanwhile, I see the radical fringe of the Republican party getting more riled up and active. And a subset of left, poking them with a stick which keeps them active.
Frankly, in the next eleven weeks, I think it may boil down to which one gets a swiftboating to stick or lands a “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”
I give the edge to Obama on the latter two.
IMHO, President Obama has squandered his first term to politics and wasted an opportunity to be a truly great president.
briansd1
September 1, 2012 @
10:24 AM
It looks like the deciders It looks like the deciders this year will be woman and Hispanics. They will decide the elections. I can’t wait for the results.
svelte
September 2, 2012 @
12:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:It looks like [quote=briansd1]It looks like the deciders this year will be woman and Hispanics. They will decide the elections. I can’t wait for the results.[/quote]
You left out the Independents – they have a big voice also.
sdduuuude wrote:I’m writing [quote=sdduuuude]I’m writing in Markmax.[/quote]
+1
Where’s the Gary Johnson ticket?
Neighbors have a GJ sign in their front yard. It’s smaller than the old RP one they had before.
Anonymous
August 16, 2012 @
3:39 PM
UCGal wrote:Neighbors have a [quote=UCGal]Neighbors have a GJ sign in their front yard. It’s smaller than the old RP one they had before.[/quote]
That one sentence captures so much about the current state of the Libertarian party!
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
3:33 PM
The WH move to give 2 yr The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
Nice work, Jan.
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
4:10 PM
svelte wrote:The WH move to [quote=svelte]The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
briansd1 wrote:svelte [quote=briansd1][quote=svelte]The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ. It’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely to turn blue. There’s been pretty limited public polling and Obama has not spent any money yet targeting AZ, so internal polling isn’t giving his campaign any reason to fight for it. But that could change at any time, I’m watching for it.
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
5:57 PM
Don’t think there are enough Don’t think there are enough Hispanic voters in AZ to turn it blue (though I could be wrong), but there are probably other states where they make more of a difference…
briansd1
August 16, 2012 @
6:42 PM
AZ going blue would be a huge AZ going blue would be a huge demographic shift. With Nevada and Florida turning blue, that could mark a generation shift.
FL is interesting because I believe that fewer Cuban-Americans are votIng Republican strictly out of anti-communism.
Looking at the map, I see many scenarios where Obama could win. There are fewer possibilities for a Romney win.
Anonymous
September 4, 2012 @
7:49 AM
Too bad. Imagine if the whole Too bad. Imagine if the whole country turned blue because of the huge number of Hispanics (especially illegal immigrants) living here. Why, it would be as cool as living in Mexico! Or Guatemala! Or Honduras!
Imagine the PROSPERITY!!
no_such_reality
August 16, 2012 @
8:04 PM
I do love how the party of I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.
svelte
August 16, 2012 @
8:39 PM
no_such_reality wrote:I do [quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.
But I do think that many Republicans *are* racist.
mike92104
August 16, 2012 @
9:36 PM
svelte wrote:no_such_reality [quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[quote=svelte]But I do think that many Republicans *are* racist.[/quote]
As are many Democrats.
svelte
August 21, 2012 @
6:31 PM
mike92104 wrote:svelte [quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.
mike92104
August 21, 2012 @
8:41 PM
svelte wrote:mike92104 [quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.
no_such_reality
August 21, 2012 @
9:30 PM
Oh please, the context was Oh please, the context was clear.
Too many ‘old people’ ‘terrified’ of ‘brown people’
hence it’s a ‘red’ state and going to remain a ‘red’ state.
[quote=SK in CV] There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ. It’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely to turn blue. There’s been pretty limited public polling and Obama has not spent any money yet targeting AZ, so internal polling isn’t giving his campaign any reason to fight for it. But that could change at any time, I’m watching for it.[/quote]
svelte
August 22, 2012 @
6:53 AM
mike92104 wrote:svelte [quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.[/quote]
So you made assumptions about what was said and put words in the speaker’s mouth.
Additionally, no one even *implied* that people vote Republican because they are racist. That is totally an invention of no_such_reality’s imagination!
They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. And yes, there are racist Dems too. And racist blacks. And racist Hispanics. And racist Asians.
SK in CV
August 22, 2012 @
8:34 AM
svelte wrote:mike92104 [quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.[/quote]
So you made assumptions about what was said and put words in the speaker’s mouth.
Additionally, no one even *implied* that people vote Republican because they are racist. That is totally an invention of no_such_reality’s imagination!
They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. And yes, there are racist Dems too. And racist blacks. And racist Hispanics. And racist Asians.[/quote]
I’m a little confused about who said what in this series of comments, but svelte’s last comment pretty accurately sums up what I did say, and what I did not say.
There’s a pretty interesting dynamic in Az. I’ve lived here for a bit over a year, and after being here for a few months, I was a bit confused with the anti-immigrant sentiment of the voters here. I hadn’t seen it. So I started asking questions. Who are all these people that are so virultently anti-immigrant? It certainly wasn’t the people I was coming into contact with in the east valley of Pheonix. Invariably the response was that it is the elderly, many of them retirees from elsewhere, including the large population in the Sun City area. It’s not like one person told me that. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike.
I have absolutely no belief that all Republicans are racist (or conversely that all Dems are not). Nor, for that matter, that anti-immigrant racism necessarily extends to more general racism. The African American population here is pretty small, but I worked with two African American women in my last gig here, and both of them said that they’ve never felt any racism here, in contrast to where they previously lived. (One grew up on Oakland, the other in S. Central in LA.) Anectodal of course, but interesting.
no_such_reality
August 22, 2012 @
9:22 AM
So you just pulled ‘terrified So you just pulled ‘terrified of brown people’ out of your backside because? Is it a subconscious bias that you’re assuming they’re racist?
I’m in Phoenix a lot, and I have old people there. I get what you think you’re saying, but you didn’t say the retiree population is strongly anti-immigrant, you said ‘terrified of brown people’. So which is it? Terrified of brown people or anti-illegal immigrant? Cause frankly, if you can’t see the difference in those two statements and the underlying implied context, you’re being dishonest because I know you’re not that dumb.
You guys don’t get it. The left routinely dismiss the views of the right as driven by racism (what else do you say when they say “That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. ” Want exactly is many? He didn’t some, he said many.
They also dismiss positions as homophobic, misogynistic, or the newest one, they’re ‘haters’. That’s easy. It doesn’t require any thought on the left’s part.
BTW, svelte, it’s funny how you say it’s my imagination and in the next sentence say “many are racist”. So we’ll split hairs, [quote=svelte]“They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. “[/quote]
SK in CV
August 22, 2012 @
9:47 AM
no_such_reality wrote:So you [quote=no_such_reality]So you just pulled ‘terrified of brown people’ out of your backside because? Is it a subconscious bias that you’re assuming they’re racist?
[/quote]
From John McCain’s unfounded claim that illegal immigrants started wildfires, to Governor Brewer’s unfounded claim about illigal immigrants beheading people, these sorts of claims work. As do Joe Arpaio claims he’s made the streets safer by removing illegal immigrants. These appeals work.
svelte
August 22, 2012 @
4:29 PM
no_such_reality wrote:
You [quote=no_such_reality]
You guys don’t get it. The left routinely dismiss the views of the right as driven by racism (what else do you say when they say “That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. ” Want exactly is many? He didn’t some, he said many.
Still not getting through to you, no_such_reality. No one in this thread said that people vote Republican because they are racist, as you insinuated. Haven’t seen you admit that yet.
Then you go on to insinuate that my statement that many (and I meant many, not all, not most, but many exactly as your definition shows) are racist is a generalization that can’t be backed up with hard data.
All while you make generalizations about the left that can’t be backed up with hard data…which was started above and finished below:
[quote=no_such_reality]
They also dismiss positions as homophobic, misogynistic, or the newest one, they’re ‘haters’. That’s easy. It doesn’t require any thought on the left’s part.
[/quote]
See the humor, Mr. Kettle? 🙂
[quote=no_such_reality]
BTW, svelte, it’s funny how you say it’s my imagination and in the next sentence say “many are racist”…[/quote]
Not getting through to you….re-read what I wrote! I wrote that your insinuation that someone in this thread stated that people vote Republican because they are racist is your imagination and it is – because they never did that!
On to discussion with someone who has better reading comprehension…
mike92104
August 16, 2012 @
9:39 PM
no_such_reality wrote:I do [quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.
scaredyclassic
August 16, 2012 @
10:33 PM
im voting for gary johnson i im voting for gary johnson i guess. i hate romney and obama, but im kinda missing ron paul. please, anyone to shake it up some…
SK in CV
August 16, 2012 @
10:58 PM
mike92104 [quote=mike92104][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.[/quote]
Nobody ever said that. At least in this thread. You really don’t want to look foolish and make that argument.
afx114
August 17, 2012 @
10:48 AM
(No subject)
Coronita
August 17, 2012 @
11:15 AM
Lol…. Lol….
ctr70
September 2, 2012 @
1:49 PM
flu wrote:Lol….
Bingo with [quote=flu]Lol….
[/quote]
Bingo with that bumper sticker flu!
ctr70
September 2, 2012 @
5:33 PM
I’m an independent and I I’m an independent and I voted for Obama in 2008 but likely will not this year. I voted for him a lot b/c the Iraq war was still fresh and I was very much against that war and turned off how Bush handled it, and I associated Republicans with that.
One thing that really turned me off with Obama was all the Government intervention into the housing crash. I think we should have just let the banks foreclose on everyone like they have the last 100 years when people missed payments vs. all these crazy Government intervention & Gov influenced loan mods, letting people sit in their houses for 3 years not foreclosing, and the Robosigning settlement which I thought was complete Horse Sh*t. The whole Robosigning thing was such a non-issue, no one got foreclosed on that hadn’t missed a boatload of payments.
I am also a lot more clear now that I’m in favor of any candidate that is in favor of smaller Gov. And I do not want to see this country go the direction of the Euro welfare states.
Anonymous
September 4, 2012 @
7:53 AM
Are you out of your mind? The Are you out of your mind? The Government knows how to fix things so much better than you do. You need to relax and trust our wonderful “public servants.” They have your best interests at heart.
We need MORE government and politicians, not less. Think of how great things would be if EVERYONE worked for the Government?
Our politicians are the best money can buy.
mike92104
August 21, 2012 @
8:32 PM
SK in CV wrote:mike92104 [quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.[/quote]
Nobody ever said that. At least in this thread. You really don’t want to look foolish and make that argument.[/quote]
True, not in this thread. I have, however, been accused of being racist on this site simply because I disagreed with the Dems policies. I’m not sure anyone else took it as a actual argument.
zk
August 21, 2012 @
9:34 PM
mike92104 wrote: I have, [quote=mike92104] I have, however, been accused of being racist on this site simply because I disagreed with the Dems policies.[/quote]
I’m skeptical. Show us where this happened.
poorgradstudent
August 21, 2012 @
10:31 AM
no_such_reality wrote:I do [quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.
briansd1
August 21, 2012 @
1:28 PM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I also assume Republicans don’t care about poor people. Plus I assume that Republicans who are poor are below average intelligence.
livinincali
August 21, 2012 @
1:37 PM
briansd1 [quote=briansd1][quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I also assume Republicans don’t care about poor people. Plus I assume that Republicans who are poor are below average intelligence.[/quote]
I assume all people that are poor are probably below average intelligence, isn’t that the reason they’re poor in the first place.
sdduuuude
August 22, 2012 @
9:27 AM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.
SK in CV
August 22, 2012 @
9:35 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
If they [quote=sdduuuude]
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Like increasing availability of student loans and grants? Tuition credits? Jobs training programs? Improving other educational funding? Dem’s promote these policies too. It’s not either/or.
poorgradstudent
August 22, 2012 @
9:55 AM
sdduuuude wrote:If they [quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Ok, let’s use money to teach them how to make their own way in life. Let’s call it “Public Education” and make it affordable for all.
Of course, children can’t learn if they are sick and hungry, so maybe we should also make sure they have food in their bellies and aren’t sick all the time too.
zk
August 22, 2012 @
10:00 AM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Ok, let’s use money to teach them how to make their own way in life. Let’s call it “Public Education” and make it affordable for all.
Of course, children can’t learn if they are sick and hungry, so maybe we should also make sure they have food in their bellies and aren’t sick all the time too.[/quote]
Public education is good. But the school my daughter goes to is far different from (better than) the elementary school in National City. This helps perpetuate the cycle of poorness in that area.
zk
August 22, 2012 @
10:39 AM
sdduuuude wrote:If they [quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
I concur with this totally. And let’s be realistic about teaching them to make their own way in life. It’s going to be complicated.
Would you be in favor of:
Equally funded schools, regardless of the affluence of the students.
Free (federally paid) parenting classes.
Free life skills classes.
Federally funded information/education campaign to encourage the poor to attend the classes, emphasize education, and generally make their own way.
These are just a few that occur to me off the top of my head. It would take more than just these things, and I’m no expert on it. But obviously you can’t just say, “no more money for you” and expect them to figure it out on their own. They’re poor for a reason. Sure, in some cases it’s laziness or lack of personal initiative. But, in my opinion, more often it’s that they’re stuck in a culture that encourages behavior that results in them being supported by the government, whether it’s via prison, welfare, or other programs. Sure, some of that culture is a result of us giving them money. We fucked up. I think we agree on that.
So let’s fix it. But let’s be realistic about how it can be fixed. It can’t be fixed by just not giving them any more money. Anything that has a shot at working is going to be expensive. It’s going to be controversial (how dare you tell us our culture isn’t as good as yours). It’s going to take a long time. But in the long run, everybody is better off.
briansd1
August 22, 2012 @
3:49 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
I’m not so [quote=sdduuuude]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.[/quote]
It funny I was just talking about this with some friends. We finally got to the heart of our disagreement. It was just what you were touching on Brian. We were conflating absolute and relative poverty.
Our agreed upon definition of absolute poverty was having access/consumption of sufficient shelter, clothing, calories, and perhaps education. Obviously the word sufficient is debatable.
Our agree upon definition of Relative poverty is having an income some set amount below the median income.
Obviously it is impossible to eliminate relative poverty, being that it takes the median income into account. If income of the bottom increases the median will go up, by definition. So I think that using the term poverty to refer to relative poverty is a bit disingenuous, because there is no solution to relative poverty except complete homogenization of income.
scaredyclassic
August 22, 2012 @
9:21 PM
i’ll vote for the guy who i’ll vote for the guy who lucidly explains the difference between fake rape and real rape. and whoever i vote for shall win.
scaredyclassic
August 22, 2012 @
9:28 PM
interestingly, there is
interestingly, there is actual research supporting that a nontrivial number of female rape victims actually achieve orgasm during rape, dangerous stranger rapes. it’s very strange and almost unbelievable but it’s evidently true.
squat250 wrote:interestingly, [quote=squat250]interestingly, there is actual research supporting that a nontrivial number of female rape victims actually achieve orgasm during rape, dangerous stranger rapes. it’s very strange and almost unbelievable but it’s evidently true.
once watched an expert testify on the subject.[/quote]
If It’s inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it, right?
Actually the real Clayton Williams quote is:
“If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it”.
briansd1
August 23, 2012 @
12:35 PM
As of right now the piggies As of right now the piggies give a 20 to 17 advantage to Romney, even with the Akin and rape controversy and the bad week Romney has suffered.
I think we might have a voter fraud situation here, but I’ll give our piggies the benefit of the doubt.
Either piggies are very prescient or stupid. We shall see in November…
NotCranky
August 23, 2012 @
12:48 PM
Voter fraud is quite Voter fraud is quite possible.I seem to recall that when the poll first came out it was almost unanimously for Obama. I think it was about 14-3.
all
August 23, 2012 @
10:15 AM
squat250 wrote:i’ll vote for [quote=squat250]i’ll vote for the guy who lucidly explains the difference between fake rape and real rape. and whoever i vote for shall win.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.[/quote]
It funny I was just talking about this with some friends. We finally got to the heart of our disagreement. It was just what you were touching on Brian. We were conflating absolute and relative poverty.
Our agreed upon definition of absolute poverty was having access/consumption of sufficient shelter, clothing, calories, and perhaps education. Obviously the word sufficient is debatable.
Our agree upon definition of Relative poverty is having an income some set amount below the median income.
Obviously it is impossible to eliminate relative poverty, being that it takes the median income into account. If income of the bottom increases the median will go up, by definition. So I think that using the term poverty to refer to relative poverty is a bit disingenuous, because there is no solution to relative poverty except complete homogenization of income.[/quote]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.
NotCranky
August 23, 2012 @
8:31 AM
Evolution trends towards Evolution trends towards globalism. I hate to see people suffer. but we were never going to stay in this relative wealth bubble forever. Sure it will be a transition loaded with scams, and it is. On the other hand, being a dominant power on the planet is kind of a scam too.
livinincali
August 23, 2012 @
8:47 AM
CA renter wrote:
IMHO, [quote=CA renter]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.[/quote]
And the wealth gap would have shrunk quite a bit if we hadn’t bailed out those that made bad bets during the housing crisis. Bailing out those that made bad loans by allowing them to keep promise of future productivity by moving that promise from the debtor that couldn’t pay to the taxpayer is what allows for the wealth gap to grow. Deficit spending allows for the wealth gap to grow because every dollar borrowed from somebody comes with an interest payment.
Guess what happened during the great depression. There were tons of people that suffered but the rich lost the most. The wealth gap shrunk dramatically during that time. Allowing recessions to happen, allowing bad business decisions to have consequences, allowing stock market crashes and asset price crashes without government involvement would have prevented the wealth gap from growing so large. By pushing everybody into the stock market with 401Ks we created an incentive where we bail out the guy with $100 million who made a bad bet so we don’t lose our $50K.
CA renter
August 23, 2012 @
2:42 PM
livinincali wrote:CA renter [quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.[/quote]
And the wealth gap would have shrunk quite a bit if we hadn’t bailed out those that made bad bets during the housing crisis. Bailing out those that made bad loans by allowing them to keep promise of future productivity by moving that promise from the debtor that couldn’t pay to the taxpayer is what allows for the wealth gap to grow. Deficit spending allows for the wealth gap to grow because every dollar borrowed from somebody comes with an interest payment.
Guess what happened during the great depression. There were tons of people that suffered but the rich lost the most. The wealth gap shrunk dramatically during that time. Allowing recessions to happen, allowing bad business decisions to have consequences, allowing stock market crashes and asset price crashes without government involvement would have prevented the wealth gap from growing so large. By pushing everybody into the stock market with 401Ks we created an incentive where we bail out the guy with $100 million who made a bad bet so we don’t lose our $50K.[/quote]
Absolutely correct. This is why I have been vehemently opposed to the bailouts and asset price inflation from day one.
Coronita
August 17, 2012 @
11:16 AM
(No subject)
Aecetia
August 21, 2012 @
10:22 AM
Great bumper stickers, flu. Great bumper stickers, flu.
poorgradstudent
August 21, 2012 @
10:35 AM
Brian, it wasn’t clear from Brian, it wasn’t clear from your title if people were supposed to click who they want to win, or think will win. I imagine a lot of folks clicking Romney/Ryan want him to win but may not expect him to.
Veritas
August 21, 2012 @
11:21 AM
Hit the Road
“Let me begin my [img_assist|nid=16590|title=Hit the Road|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=369|height=500]
“Let me begin my restating my argument. President Obama should be judged on his record in office.”
poorgradstudent wrote:Brian, [quote=poorgradstudent]Brian, it wasn’t clear from your title if people were supposed to click who they want to win, or think will win. I imagine a lot of folks clicking Romney/Ryan want him to win but may not expect him to.[/quote]
Ok I changed the title based on your feedback.
We will see how prescient our piggies are.
To be successful at real estate you need to have good prescience. Do our piggies have that in them? Time will tell…
Coronita
August 21, 2012 @
1:51 PM
Well there’s the real poor Well there’s the real poor people out of bad luck or bad environment etc…..which has my empathy and compassion..
Then there’s the people that aren’t really poor out of bad luck/environment… but sure waste a hell of lot of time which probably ends up making themselves poor…since time is money….Such as posting political nonsense on a real estate blog (unpaid, mind you) which produces 0 investment knowledge/info…and yet somehow think others should pay more taxes to spread the wealth…
Go figure 🙂
briansd1
August 21, 2012 @
4:06 PM
There plenty of intelligent There plenty of intelligent people people. That’s why we should make higher education affordable to everyone.
Veritas
August 21, 2012 @
5:02 PM
Brian,
You should run for Brian,
You should run for office. A lot of parents who have to take out loans for their kids and even some of the kids would probably vote for you if you could figure out how to make higher education affordable. I have an idea: cut the salary of the professors.
jstoesz
August 22, 2012 @
9:29 PM
There goes the There goes the neighborhood…
I may have contributed to the thread drift, but mr weight lifter took it to a whole another level.
Coronita
August 22, 2012 @
11:47 PM
I hate politics…
All I hate politics…
All politics lately have proven to me is that…a lot of Americans are…..stupid elephant jackasses alike.
svelte
September 4, 2012 @
8:05 AM
Wow.
This poll will tell us Wow.
This poll will tell us just how astute Piggies are come Nov 6th…
poorgradstudent
September 4, 2012 @
10:30 AM
svelte wrote:Wow.
This poll [quote=svelte]Wow.
This poll will tell us just how astute Piggies are come Nov 6th…[/quote]
Based on current polling and projections, not very. I’m starting to think Obama may win in a landslide. It’s really not looking good for Romney at all.
Arraya
September 4, 2012 @
10:33 AM
Romney needs a good stock Romney needs a good stock market crash to push him in. That is probably the only thing that will do it at this point.
August 16, 2012 @ 12:41 PM
Let’s see how prescient our
Let’s see how prescient our piggies are.
We shall find out in November.
August 16, 2012 @ 12:50 PM
Where’s the neither option,
Where’s the neither option, of course if I’m just gambling I’d take Obama.
August 16, 2012 @ 12:52 PM
Neither is not available.
Neither is not available.
This is not a vote for a ticket you want. This is a prediction as to who will win this November.
August 16, 2012 @ 1:19 PM
Then where is
Then where is Romney/Biden?
The fight is going to gridlock in the electoral college, Congress will name Romney to President, the Senate will name Biden to VP.
That said, I think the popular vote will bend close between 50/50 – 52/48 one way or another with the the Electoral college could blow out one way or another.
The campaign is negative and getting worse.
The voting populace is completely disgusted.
The economy is still a train wreck.
And both sides have large constituencies that feel completely justified in flat out lying to get their way.
In the end, I suspect we’re going to have more stamping of feet, more wailing, more gnashing of teeth more crying of foul at vote tampering than the hanging chads incident.
August 16, 2012 @ 1:33 PM
Here’s the electoral map for
Here’s the electoral map for you guys to play with.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/ecalculator#_
I predict Florida and Nevada to Obama because of “end Medicare as we know it.”
NSR, what scenario do you project a win for Romney/Ryan?
Time will tell…
August 22, 2012 @ 1:27 PM
briansd1 wrote:Here’s the
[quote=briansd1]Here’s the electoral map for you guys to play with.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/ecalculator#_
I predict Florida and Nevada to Obama because of “end Medicare as we know it.”
NSR, what scenario do you project a win for Romney/Ryan?
Time will tell…[/quote]
I don’t. 🙂
Although I put little faith in polls. The LATimes runs polls through USC Dornslife all the time, ever go read the questions? When pollsters call, do you talk to them? I don’t.
I think this election on a popular vote will be closer, on an electoral vote, Obama looks strong and heavy hitters like California aren’t going to suddenly go Republican. But really, in 2008, Obama has a 24% margin of victory in California, what will it be this year? 20% 15% 10%?
Florida is a must win for Romney. Obama can lose it and still win. If Romney loses Florida, he needs to take every other toss up State or some non-toss ups need to flip.
A lot of it depends on how disgusted the voters get between now and November. The poor swing States are being carpet bombed by negative advertising. Truth, even fragments of truth, disappeared long ago.
The real question is, in the States that are close or potential close whose team is going to have a bunch of no-shows. I honestly don’t know.
In my anecdotal world, I know tried and true democrats like my mother and father are just disgusted and are planning on not voting Democrat for the first time in their life. They not voting Republican either, but they’re just fed up. Meanwhile, I see the radical fringe of the Republican party getting more riled up and active. And a subset of left, poking them with a stick which keeps them active.
Frankly, in the next eleven weeks, I think it may boil down to which one gets a swiftboating to stick or lands a “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”
I give the edge to Obama on the latter two.
IMHO, President Obama has squandered his first term to politics and wasted an opportunity to be a truly great president.
September 1, 2012 @ 10:24 AM
It looks like the deciders
It looks like the deciders this year will be woman and Hispanics. They will decide the elections. I can’t wait for the results.
September 2, 2012 @ 12:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:It looks like
[quote=briansd1]It looks like the deciders this year will be woman and Hispanics. They will decide the elections. I can’t wait for the results.[/quote]
You left out the Independents – they have a big voice also.
August 16, 2012 @ 2:33 PM
#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$321
#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$#@!$321
August 16, 2012 @ 2:36 PM
I’m writing in Markmax.
I’m writing in Markmax.
August 16, 2012 @ 2:58 PM
sdduuuude wrote:I’m writing
[quote=sdduuuude]I’m writing in Markmax.[/quote]
+1
Where’s the Gary Johnson ticket?
Neighbors have a GJ sign in their front yard. It’s smaller than the old RP one they had before.
August 16, 2012 @ 3:39 PM
UCGal wrote:Neighbors have a
[quote=UCGal]Neighbors have a GJ sign in their front yard. It’s smaller than the old RP one they had before.[/quote]
That one sentence captures so much about the current state of the Libertarian party!
August 16, 2012 @ 3:33 PM
The WH move to give 2 yr
The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
Nice work, Jan.
August 16, 2012 @ 4:10 PM
svelte wrote:The WH move to
[quote=svelte]The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
Nice work, Jan.[/quote]
I’m not au courant today, so I had to search for that news.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13317418-arizona-gov-jan-brewers-ban-on-drivers-licenses-for-undocumented-immigrants-likely-to-wind-up-in-court?lite
Does that mean we should color AZ blue, or red?
August 16, 2012 @ 6:46 PM
briansd1 wrote:svelte
[quote=briansd1][quote=svelte]The WH move to give 2 yr immunity to some immigrants was brilliant.
The knee-jerk reaction from the right reared it’s ugly head today with Brewer spewing venom about how there ain’t no way in hell they’ll get a driver’s license in HER state virtually guarantees the Hispanic vote clicks the Obama box.
Nice work, Jan.[/quote]
I’m not au courant today, so I had to search for that news.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13317418-arizona-gov-jan-brewers-ban-on-drivers-licenses-for-undocumented-immigrants-likely-to-wind-up-in-court?lite
Does that mean we should color AZ blue, or red?[/quote]
There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ. It’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely to turn blue. There’s been pretty limited public polling and Obama has not spent any money yet targeting AZ, so internal polling isn’t giving his campaign any reason to fight for it. But that could change at any time, I’m watching for it.
August 16, 2012 @ 5:57 PM
Don’t think there are enough
Don’t think there are enough Hispanic voters in AZ to turn it blue (though I could be wrong), but there are probably other states where they make more of a difference…
August 16, 2012 @ 6:42 PM
AZ going blue would be a huge
AZ going blue would be a huge demographic shift. With Nevada and Florida turning blue, that could mark a generation shift.
FL is interesting because I believe that fewer Cuban-Americans are votIng Republican strictly out of anti-communism.
Looking at the map, I see many scenarios where Obama could win. There are fewer possibilities for a Romney win.
September 4, 2012 @ 7:49 AM
Too bad. Imagine if the whole
Too bad. Imagine if the whole country turned blue because of the huge number of Hispanics (especially illegal immigrants) living here. Why, it would be as cool as living in Mexico! Or Guatemala! Or Honduras!
Imagine the PROSPERITY!!
August 16, 2012 @ 8:04 PM
I do love how the party of
I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.
August 16, 2012 @ 8:39 PM
no_such_reality wrote:I do
[quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.
But I do think that many Republicans *are* racist.
August 16, 2012 @ 9:36 PM
svelte wrote:no_such_reality
[quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[quote=svelte]But I do think that many Republicans *are* racist.[/quote]
As are many Democrats.
August 21, 2012 @ 6:31 PM
mike92104 wrote:svelte
[quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.
August 21, 2012 @ 8:41 PM
svelte wrote:mike92104
[quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.
August 21, 2012 @ 9:30 PM
Oh please, the context was
Oh please, the context was clear.
Too many ‘old people’ ‘terrified’ of ‘brown people’
hence it’s a ‘red’ state and going to remain a ‘red’ state.
[quote=SK in CV]
There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ. It’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely to turn blue. There’s been pretty limited public polling and Obama has not spent any money yet targeting AZ, so internal polling isn’t giving his campaign any reason to fight for it. But that could change at any time, I’m watching for it.[/quote]
August 22, 2012 @ 6:53 AM
mike92104 wrote:svelte
[quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.[/quote]
So you made assumptions about what was said and put words in the speaker’s mouth.
Additionally, no one even *implied* that people vote Republican because they are racist. That is totally an invention of no_such_reality’s imagination!
They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. And yes, there are racist Dems too. And racist blacks. And racist Hispanics. And racist Asians.
August 22, 2012 @ 8:34 AM
svelte wrote:mike92104
[quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=mike92104][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody said that in this thread.[/quote]
Besides this one:
[quote=SK in CV]There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.[/quote]
[/quote]
Mike. You just equated these two sentences:
1. There’s way too many old people that are terrified of brown people in AZ.
2. People vote Republican because they are racist.
(extracted from the sentence “I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.”)
Those are not equivalent sentences. That’s obvious to almost anyone, I would think.[/quote]
For some reason, I don’t think SK was making a general statement about “old people” being racist in AZ.[/quote]
So you made assumptions about what was said and put words in the speaker’s mouth.
Additionally, no one even *implied* that people vote Republican because they are racist. That is totally an invention of no_such_reality’s imagination!
They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. And yes, there are racist Dems too. And racist blacks. And racist Hispanics. And racist Asians.[/quote]
I’m a little confused about who said what in this series of comments, but svelte’s last comment pretty accurately sums up what I did say, and what I did not say.
There’s a pretty interesting dynamic in Az. I’ve lived here for a bit over a year, and after being here for a few months, I was a bit confused with the anti-immigrant sentiment of the voters here. I hadn’t seen it. So I started asking questions. Who are all these people that are so virultently anti-immigrant? It certainly wasn’t the people I was coming into contact with in the east valley of Pheonix. Invariably the response was that it is the elderly, many of them retirees from elsewhere, including the large population in the Sun City area. It’s not like one person told me that. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike.
I have absolutely no belief that all Republicans are racist (or conversely that all Dems are not). Nor, for that matter, that anti-immigrant racism necessarily extends to more general racism. The African American population here is pretty small, but I worked with two African American women in my last gig here, and both of them said that they’ve never felt any racism here, in contrast to where they previously lived. (One grew up on Oakland, the other in S. Central in LA.) Anectodal of course, but interesting.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:22 AM
So you just pulled ‘terrified
So you just pulled ‘terrified of brown people’ out of your backside because? Is it a subconscious bias that you’re assuming they’re racist?
I’m in Phoenix a lot, and I have old people there. I get what you think you’re saying, but you didn’t say the retiree population is strongly anti-immigrant, you said ‘terrified of brown people’. So which is it? Terrified of brown people or anti-illegal immigrant? Cause frankly, if you can’t see the difference in those two statements and the underlying implied context, you’re being dishonest because I know you’re not that dumb.
You guys don’t get it. The left routinely dismiss the views of the right as driven by racism (what else do you say when they say “That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. ” Want exactly is many? He didn’t some, he said many.
Here’s a definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/many
They also dismiss positions as homophobic, misogynistic, or the newest one, they’re ‘haters’. That’s easy. It doesn’t require any thought on the left’s part.
BTW, svelte, it’s funny how you say it’s my imagination and in the next sentence say “many are racist”. So we’ll split hairs, [quote=svelte]“They can vote Republican for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with racism – and often do. That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. “[/quote]
August 22, 2012 @ 9:47 AM
no_such_reality wrote:So you
[quote=no_such_reality]So you just pulled ‘terrified of brown people’ out of your backside because? Is it a subconscious bias that you’re assuming they’re racist?
[/quote]
From John McCain’s unfounded claim that illegal immigrants started wildfires, to Governor Brewer’s unfounded claim about illigal immigrants beheading people, these sorts of claims work. As do Joe Arpaio claims he’s made the streets safer by removing illegal immigrants. These appeals work.
August 22, 2012 @ 4:29 PM
no_such_reality wrote:
You
[quote=no_such_reality]
You guys don’t get it. The left routinely dismiss the views of the right as driven by racism (what else do you say when they say “That doesn’t change the fact that many are racist. ” Want exactly is many? He didn’t some, he said many.
Here’s a definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/many
[/quote]
Still not getting through to you, no_such_reality. No one in this thread said that people vote Republican because they are racist, as you insinuated. Haven’t seen you admit that yet.
Then you go on to insinuate that my statement that many (and I meant many, not all, not most, but many exactly as your definition shows) are racist is a generalization that can’t be backed up with hard data.
All while you make generalizations about the left that can’t be backed up with hard data…which was started above and finished below:
[quote=no_such_reality]
They also dismiss positions as homophobic, misogynistic, or the newest one, they’re ‘haters’. That’s easy. It doesn’t require any thought on the left’s part.
[/quote]
See the humor, Mr. Kettle? 🙂
[quote=no_such_reality]
BTW, svelte, it’s funny how you say it’s my imagination and in the next sentence say “many are racist”…[/quote]
Not getting through to you….re-read what I wrote! I wrote that your insinuation that someone in this thread stated that people vote Republican because they are racist is your imagination and it is – because they never did that!
On to discussion with someone who has better reading comprehension…
August 16, 2012 @ 9:39 PM
no_such_reality wrote:I do
[quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.
August 16, 2012 @ 10:33 PM
im voting for gary johnson i
im voting for gary johnson i guess. i hate romney and obama, but im kinda missing ron paul. please, anyone to shake it up some…
August 16, 2012 @ 10:58 PM
mike92104
[quote=mike92104][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.[/quote]
Nobody ever said that. At least in this thread. You really don’t want to look foolish and make that argument.
August 17, 2012 @ 10:48 AM
(No subject)
August 17, 2012 @ 11:15 AM
Lol….
Lol….
September 2, 2012 @ 1:49 PM
flu wrote:Lol….
Bingo with
[quote=flu]Lol….
Bingo with that bumper sticker flu!
September 2, 2012 @ 5:33 PM
I’m an independent and I
I’m an independent and I voted for Obama in 2008 but likely will not this year. I voted for him a lot b/c the Iraq war was still fresh and I was very much against that war and turned off how Bush handled it, and I associated Republicans with that.
One thing that really turned me off with Obama was all the Government intervention into the housing crash. I think we should have just let the banks foreclose on everyone like they have the last 100 years when people missed payments vs. all these crazy Government intervention & Gov influenced loan mods, letting people sit in their houses for 3 years not foreclosing, and the Robosigning settlement which I thought was complete Horse Sh*t. The whole Robosigning thing was such a non-issue, no one got foreclosed on that hadn’t missed a boatload of payments.
I am also a lot more clear now that I’m in favor of any candidate that is in favor of smaller Gov. And I do not want to see this country go the direction of the Euro welfare states.
September 4, 2012 @ 7:53 AM
Are you out of your mind? The
Are you out of your mind? The Government knows how to fix things so much better than you do. You need to relax and trust our wonderful “public servants.” They have your best interests at heart.
We need MORE government and politicians, not less. Think of how great things would be if EVERYONE worked for the Government?
Our politicians are the best money can buy.
August 21, 2012 @ 8:32 PM
SK in CV wrote:mike92104
[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
Remember that anyone not with Obama is racist.[/quote]
Nobody ever said that. At least in this thread. You really don’t want to look foolish and make that argument.[/quote]
True, not in this thread. I have, however, been accused of being racist on this site simply because I disagreed with the Dems policies. I’m not sure anyone else took it as a actual argument.
August 21, 2012 @ 9:34 PM
mike92104 wrote: I have,
[quote=mike92104] I have, however, been accused of being racist on this site simply because I disagreed with the Dems policies.[/quote]
I’m skeptical. Show us where this happened.
August 21, 2012 @ 10:31 AM
no_such_reality wrote:I do
[quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.
August 21, 2012 @ 1:28 PM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I also assume Republicans don’t care about poor people. Plus I assume that Republicans who are poor are below average intelligence.
August 21, 2012 @ 1:37 PM
briansd1
[quote=briansd1][quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I also assume Republicans don’t care about poor people. Plus I assume that Republicans who are poor are below average intelligence.[/quote]
I assume all people that are poor are probably below average intelligence, isn’t that the reason they’re poor in the first place.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:27 AM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=no_such_reality]I do love how the party of diversity automatically assumes people vote republican because they’re racist.[/quote]
I actually assume it’s because they don’t care about poor people.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:35 AM
sdduuuude wrote:
If they
[quote=sdduuuude]
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Like increasing availability of student loans and grants? Tuition credits? Jobs training programs? Improving other educational funding? Dem’s promote these policies too. It’s not either/or.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:55 AM
sdduuuude wrote:If they
[quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Ok, let’s use money to teach them how to make their own way in life. Let’s call it “Public Education” and make it affordable for all.
Of course, children can’t learn if they are sick and hungry, so maybe we should also make sure they have food in their bellies and aren’t sick all the time too.
August 22, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Ok, let’s use money to teach them how to make their own way in life. Let’s call it “Public Education” and make it affordable for all.
Of course, children can’t learn if they are sick and hungry, so maybe we should also make sure they have food in their bellies and aren’t sick all the time too.[/quote]
Public education is good. But the school my daughter goes to is far different from (better than) the elementary school in National City. This helps perpetuate the cycle of poorness in that area.
August 22, 2012 @ 10:39 AM
sdduuuude wrote:If they
[quote=sdduuuude]If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
I concur with this totally. And let’s be realistic about teaching them to make their own way in life. It’s going to be complicated.
Would you be in favor of:
Equally funded schools, regardless of the affluence of the students.
Free (federally paid) parenting classes.
Free life skills classes.
Federally funded information/education campaign to encourage the poor to attend the classes, emphasize education, and generally make their own way.
These are just a few that occur to me off the top of my head. It would take more than just these things, and I’m no expert on it. But obviously you can’t just say, “no more money for you” and expect them to figure it out on their own. They’re poor for a reason. Sure, in some cases it’s laziness or lack of personal initiative. But, in my opinion, more often it’s that they’re stuck in a culture that encourages behavior that results in them being supported by the government, whether it’s via prison, welfare, or other programs. Sure, some of that culture is a result of us giving them money. We fucked up. I think we agree on that.
So let’s fix it. But let’s be realistic about how it can be fixed. It can’t be fixed by just not giving them any more money. Anything that has a shot at working is going to be expensive. It’s going to be controversial (how dare you tell us our culture isn’t as good as yours). It’s going to take a long time. But in the long run, everybody is better off.
August 22, 2012 @ 3:49 PM
sdduuuude wrote:
I’m not so
[quote=sdduuuude]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.
August 22, 2012 @ 4:31 PM
briansd1 wrote:sdduuuude
[quote=briansd1][quote=sdduuuude]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.[/quote]
It funny I was just talking about this with some friends. We finally got to the heart of our disagreement. It was just what you were touching on Brian. We were conflating absolute and relative poverty.
Our agreed upon definition of absolute poverty was having access/consumption of sufficient shelter, clothing, calories, and perhaps education. Obviously the word sufficient is debatable.
Our agree upon definition of Relative poverty is having an income some set amount below the median income.
Obviously it is impossible to eliminate relative poverty, being that it takes the median income into account. If income of the bottom increases the median will go up, by definition. So I think that using the term poverty to refer to relative poverty is a bit disingenuous, because there is no solution to relative poverty except complete homogenization of income.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:21 PM
i’ll vote for the guy who
i’ll vote for the guy who lucidly explains the difference between fake rape and real rape. and whoever i vote for shall win.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:28 PM
interestingly, there is
interestingly, there is actual research supporting that a nontrivial number of female rape victims actually achieve orgasm during rape, dangerous stranger rapes. it’s very strange and almost unbelievable but it’s evidently true.
reality is very very odd….
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169474/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault#
once watched an expert testify on the subject.
August 23, 2012 @ 12:26 PM
squat250 wrote:interestingly,
[quote=squat250]interestingly, there is actual research supporting that a nontrivial number of female rape victims actually achieve orgasm during rape, dangerous stranger rapes. it’s very strange and almost unbelievable but it’s evidently true.
reality is very very odd….
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169474/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault#
once watched an expert testify on the subject.[/quote]
If It’s inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it, right?
Actually the real Clayton Williams quote is:
“If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it”.
August 23, 2012 @ 12:35 PM
As of right now the piggies
As of right now the piggies give a 20 to 17 advantage to Romney, even with the Akin and rape controversy and the bad week Romney has suffered.
I think we might have a voter fraud situation here, but I’ll give our piggies the benefit of the doubt.
Either piggies are very prescient or stupid. We shall see in November…
August 23, 2012 @ 12:48 PM
Voter fraud is quite
Voter fraud is quite possible.I seem to recall that when the poll first came out it was almost unanimously for Obama. I think it was about 14-3.
August 23, 2012 @ 10:15 AM
squat250 wrote:i’ll vote for
[quote=squat250]i’ll vote for the guy who lucidly explains the difference between fake rape and real rape. and whoever i vote for shall win.[/quote]
Would this be real or fake? Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim
August 23, 2012 @ 12:24 AM
jstoesz wrote:briansd1
[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1][quote=sdduuuude]
I’m not so sure the Dems really care about poor people, either. The only reason they appear to care is – there’s alot of them and they mean votes. You can buy alot more poor people votes for the same money than you can buy rich people’s votes. So, if you funnel money from the rich through the government to the poor, guess who is going to get more votes ? And that puts the Dems in office and gets them in a position to funnel money to themselves and their friends, who aren’t poor people.
If they really cared about the poor people, they would stop sending them money and teach them to make their own way in life.[/quote]
Democrats care about poor people a lot more than Republicans.
Poor is relative. Republicans like to say that people today are rich compared to 100 years ago. They have TV and heat in the winter. They even have cars! Imagine that…
There will always be poor people relative to what we consider “decent” in our society. We must always strive to improve the quality of life of our citizens and help the poorest among us.
We also need class mobility so poor children can grow up to become their best.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of an advanced society.[/quote]
It funny I was just talking about this with some friends. We finally got to the heart of our disagreement. It was just what you were touching on Brian. We were conflating absolute and relative poverty.
Our agreed upon definition of absolute poverty was having access/consumption of sufficient shelter, clothing, calories, and perhaps education. Obviously the word sufficient is debatable.
Our agree upon definition of Relative poverty is having an income some set amount below the median income.
Obviously it is impossible to eliminate relative poverty, being that it takes the median income into account. If income of the bottom increases the median will go up, by definition. So I think that using the term poverty to refer to relative poverty is a bit disingenuous, because there is no solution to relative poverty except complete homogenization of income.[/quote]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.
August 23, 2012 @ 8:31 AM
Evolution trends towards
Evolution trends towards globalism. I hate to see people suffer. but we were never going to stay in this relative wealth bubble forever. Sure it will be a transition loaded with scams, and it is. On the other hand, being a dominant power on the planet is kind of a scam too.
August 23, 2012 @ 8:47 AM
CA renter wrote:
IMHO,
[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.[/quote]
And the wealth gap would have shrunk quite a bit if we hadn’t bailed out those that made bad bets during the housing crisis. Bailing out those that made bad loans by allowing them to keep promise of future productivity by moving that promise from the debtor that couldn’t pay to the taxpayer is what allows for the wealth gap to grow. Deficit spending allows for the wealth gap to grow because every dollar borrowed from somebody comes with an interest payment.
Guess what happened during the great depression. There were tons of people that suffered but the rich lost the most. The wealth gap shrunk dramatically during that time. Allowing recessions to happen, allowing bad business decisions to have consequences, allowing stock market crashes and asset price crashes without government involvement would have prevented the wealth gap from growing so large. By pushing everybody into the stock market with 401Ks we created an incentive where we bail out the guy with $100 million who made a bad bet so we don’t lose our $50K.
August 23, 2012 @ 2:42 PM
livinincali wrote:CA renter
[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
IMHO, “wealth” is always relative because it indicates how much of today’s resources a person owns or controls relative to everyone else on the planet.
We don’t have to “homogenize” incomes, but society would probably be better served if the wealth differential between rich and poor was more moderate.
When you look at the histories of different civilizations, you’ll see that civilizations tend to thrive, socially and economically, when the wealth gap is more moderate; revolutions/wars tend to break out when the divide becomes too great. A huge wealth gap is often one of the leading indicators of a collapsing civilization/society/economy. This is pretty universal throughout all of human history.[/quote]
And the wealth gap would have shrunk quite a bit if we hadn’t bailed out those that made bad bets during the housing crisis. Bailing out those that made bad loans by allowing them to keep promise of future productivity by moving that promise from the debtor that couldn’t pay to the taxpayer is what allows for the wealth gap to grow. Deficit spending allows for the wealth gap to grow because every dollar borrowed from somebody comes with an interest payment.
Guess what happened during the great depression. There were tons of people that suffered but the rich lost the most. The wealth gap shrunk dramatically during that time. Allowing recessions to happen, allowing bad business decisions to have consequences, allowing stock market crashes and asset price crashes without government involvement would have prevented the wealth gap from growing so large. By pushing everybody into the stock market with 401Ks we created an incentive where we bail out the guy with $100 million who made a bad bet so we don’t lose our $50K.[/quote]
Absolutely correct. This is why I have been vehemently opposed to the bailouts and asset price inflation from day one.
August 17, 2012 @ 11:16 AM
(No subject)
August 21, 2012 @ 10:22 AM
Great bumper stickers, flu.
Great bumper stickers, flu.
August 21, 2012 @ 10:35 AM
Brian, it wasn’t clear from
Brian, it wasn’t clear from your title if people were supposed to click who they want to win, or think will win. I imagine a lot of folks clicking Romney/Ryan want him to win but may not expect him to.
August 21, 2012 @ 11:21 AM
Hit the Road
“Let me begin my
[img_assist|nid=16590|title=Hit the Road|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=369|height=500]
“Let me begin my restating my argument. President Obama should be judged on his record in office.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html
August 21, 2012 @ 1:22 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:Brian,
[quote=poorgradstudent]Brian, it wasn’t clear from your title if people were supposed to click who they want to win, or think will win. I imagine a lot of folks clicking Romney/Ryan want him to win but may not expect him to.[/quote]
Ok I changed the title based on your feedback.
We will see how prescient our piggies are.
To be successful at real estate you need to have good prescience. Do our piggies have that in them? Time will tell…
August 21, 2012 @ 1:51 PM
Well there’s the real poor
Well there’s the real poor people out of bad luck or bad environment etc…..which has my empathy and compassion..
Then there’s the people that aren’t really poor out of bad luck/environment… but sure waste a hell of lot of time which probably ends up making themselves poor…since time is money….Such as posting political nonsense on a real estate blog (unpaid, mind you) which produces 0 investment knowledge/info…and yet somehow think others should pay more taxes to spread the wealth…
Go figure 🙂
August 21, 2012 @ 4:06 PM
There plenty of intelligent
There plenty of intelligent people people. That’s why we should make higher education affordable to everyone.
August 21, 2012 @ 5:02 PM
Brian,
You should run for
Brian,
You should run for office. A lot of parents who have to take out loans for their kids and even some of the kids would probably vote for you if you could figure out how to make higher education affordable. I have an idea: cut the salary of the professors.
August 22, 2012 @ 9:29 PM
There goes the
There goes the neighborhood…
I may have contributed to the thread drift, but mr weight lifter took it to a whole another level.
August 22, 2012 @ 11:47 PM
I hate politics…
All
I hate politics…
All politics lately have proven to me is that…a lot of Americans are…..stupid elephant jackasses alike.
September 4, 2012 @ 8:05 AM
Wow.
This poll will tell us
Wow.
This poll will tell us just how astute Piggies are come Nov 6th…
September 4, 2012 @ 10:30 AM
svelte wrote:Wow.
This poll
[quote=svelte]Wow.
This poll will tell us just how astute Piggies are come Nov 6th…[/quote]
Based on current polling and projections, not very. I’m starting to think Obama may win in a landslide. It’s really not looking good for Romney at all.
September 4, 2012 @ 10:33 AM
Romney needs a good stock
Romney needs a good stock market crash to push him in. That is probably the only thing that will do it at this point.