32
   

The 2012 Presidential Election Discussion Thread

 
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:00 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido wrote:



Look at what has happened to us in the United States... Each wants business to reside with them... How does that help the nation since when businesses depart they take the tax base, and leave the old, the poor, and a tired infrastructure that must be supported to have any hope to luring businesses back???


Yep, the feds have made a complete mess of things here in the US.
I think it is more the structure of competing governments we have in the states that is most responible for our poverty, destruction and demoralization... People have a right to expect something from businesses int heir community and vice versa... If a business were a man who could in good conscience just up and leave his wife and children and never look back; what would you think of him??? People give their lives to their employers, and in addition often bear a greater share of txation so their employers can enjoy less... Infrastructure is built up around factories for which the people benefit little and pay much which can be an investment in nothing if the employer suddenly decides to build in some other location and thereby shed any responsibility for his employees or whatever agreements he may have made with them... It is a waste that the people in a locality must bear, but it is one the whole nation must suffer... We want to be a nation... If we were a nation the injury to one would be an offense to all... But our system of states only means they state must join in the whipsawing of workers and cities to offer better deals amounting to slavery to every business that goes shopping for a home... And no matter what the states do, businesses still relocate and capitalize other countries where people live like slaves or beggers, hand to mouth because they know we will not restrict either the export of capital or the import of products, and in that fashion we are reduced to poverty... Economics is like health, and it is not an individual's problem, or a localities' problem, or a state problem; but a national problem... The federal government, and the whole of society has to make certain that businesses are not victimizing this whole people... The states have no defense, and the federal government does not protect the whole people from the flight of capital or the waste of people and infrastructure common to it... It is easier to move a whole factory than to move a single houshold, but when factories move, people must move and leave a wasteland behind... It is mindless to have roads leading to no where, houses empty and people homeless and hopeless without the means to pay for them even at reduced price... The capitalist do not only waste the efforts of whole communities which build to support them, but in leaving leave those commuities without the means to support their infrastructure... Business can calculate that it cost less for them to have a community build new for them, and hire a fresh workforce than it is for them to support old infrastructure and old workers... So they walk on both, and leave poverty and destruction in their wake... The states are powerless, so why do we have the states???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:15 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido, are you forgetting who had control of the house & Senate during the last two years of GW's final term?

Liberal, Progressive & Democrat should ring a bell or two with you.

Blaming Bush is ignorance personified.
No body has control, and as long as districts are divided as they are quite purposely to keep the people powerless and divided, the government must fear any slight shift of opinion might portent a tidal wave of change... The whole idea of our government was to keep it powerless to actually do much good or evil from the perspective of the rich... When anyone can win anything in our government it is by default, or by the defection of people who out of fear do not follow the party line...

I would have you look at the example of Cuba before Castro... In their government, communists, and even labor unions had a seat at the table... But every one piece of the pie was so evenly cut that no one could change anything against any kind of resistence... Change, when it came, had to come from without because change from within was impossible to achieve... That is where we are, with districts gerrymandered to achieve balance while occasional districts are given away wholsale to the losers... It is designed to give the parties power over the people, to hold the people in frustration and powerlessness... But it also works to make our government ineffective and powerless against the real dangers of plutocracy... The government cannot resist the power of money because it must, except in the Supreme Court, be elected by the people... And the people do not vote for people, but more and more vote against the people that money is used to paint black...The parties have not brought about the situation they sought where they were victorious over the people, but they have brought about a situation where both they and the people are victimized by money...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 10:58 am
Charlie Cook sees big warning signs for Republicans on the horizon.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/charlie-cook-warning-signs-among-the-gop-20110404

Quote:
Charlie Cook: Warning Signs Among the GOP
It’s not inconceivable that Republicans might start seeing things go against them in the court of public opinion, starting with the current spending debate.
Monday, April 4, 2011 | 9:30 p.m.

Until recently, Republicans were taking solace in a number of things as they looked forward to 2012. For one, Republicans knew that the party not holding the White House rarely suffered large House and Senate losses in presidential reelection years.

In fact, the only time that has happened in recent history was to Republicans in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won the White House a year after the assassination of President John Kennedy.

Republicans also took comfort in knowing that they would control redistricting efforts in states with 202 congressional districts, compared to Democrats who have control over the lines in states with just 47 districts.

The huge Republican redistricting gains many had predicted before the new year appear less likely today. Republicans will be able to protect a number of their freshmen in redistricting, but Democrats could reap a bonanza of new seats in Illinois and possibly in Florida and California, if new processes in those two jackpots play out as Democrats believe they will.

In the end, the GOP’s remapping gains might not be large enough to offset losses among some of the more exotic and problematic freshmen who won narrowly in swing districts.

Finally, Republicans have had even more reason to feel secure since redistricting was occurring the year after a huge wave benefited them, and Democrats have to win 25 seats for control in the House to flip.

For Republicans, it seemed that they could only lose their majority if the party nominated someone for president who was toxic with independent voters like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, neither of whom is likely to win.

However, talking with Republican pollsters, strategists and veteran campaign professionals recently, I now hear sounds of concern that haven’t been heard in almost two years.


Among the worries the party now has is that a government shutdown could get blamed on the GOP. Additionally, these party insiders believe that taking on entitlements, specifically Medicare, could jeopardize the party’s hold on the House, its strong chances of taking the Senate and the stronghold that the party has been established with older white voters—not coincidentally, Medicare recipients.

It’s clear that the Republican congressional leadership believes that a shutdown is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. These are intelligent and reasonable people who have studied the mistakes Republicans made after they took control of Congress in 1994. They are determined not to replicate those mistakes.

While the GOP has worked hard to bring their freshmen and more ideological members around to the realities of politics, these freshmen and other rank-and-file members are getting pressure from back home not to compromise with Democrats.

These constituents don’t want any more short-term deals, and their pressure is offsetting the efforts by the party’s leadership to do things step by step so as to not jeopardize the party’s chances for gains in the Senate.

Part of what is happening is that there is a giant gap between the attitudes of Republican base voters and those who are swing voters.

The GOP base is reflecting the views and values of tea party voters who stormed the town meetings of Democratic members in 2009 and 2010.

These individuals believe the budget can be balanced with cuts in discretionary domestic spending and some believe that cuts in entitlements should be done immediately while the irons of the 2010 midterm elections are still hot.

But for independent voters, the 2010 elections were not about slashing government spending; rather, they were a reaction to what they saw as an over-reach by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

These between-the-40-yard-line-voters didn’t like the economic stimulus package, climate change legislation or health care reform. They voted against Democrats and what Democrats were trying to do, but they did not embrace the budgetary slash-and-burn politics that is the embodiment of the tea party movement.

The disparity between the views of the GOP base and independent voters couldn’t be stronger.

Look no further than late February’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted by Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff.

On the question, “Do you think government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people or do you think government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals?” 75 percent of Republicans thought government was trying to do too much while 27 percent thought government should do more.

But among independents, 51 percent thought government should do more, with 47 percent saying government was trying to do too much.

While those numbers among independents are effectively tied, they are a far cry from the 60-38 percent of independents who thought government was trying to do too much in the mid-October, preelection poll and a lot more like the numbers that existed in spring 2009, before Democratic prospects began to nosedive. That poll was conducted February 24-28 among 1,000 adults and has a 3-point error margin, larger among sub-groups.

It is much too early to suggest that the Republican majority in the House is in danger, but the sequence of events that Democrats would need to have a legitimate chance are so far looking increasingly plausible.

Keep in mind the volatility we have seen in the three previous elections. Independent voters swung heavily in favor of Democrats in 2006 and 2008. In 2010, those same independent voters went in the opposite direction to push Republicans forward. If something happens in three consecutive elections, who wants to say that a fourth time is inconceivable?

This article appeared in the Tuesday, April 5, 2011 edition of National Journal Daily.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 04:08 am
That could be a spam link. Need some more information before I click on something from you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 04:30 am
This thread is about next year's election and not about 2016. EB has a good point. Your link is for something called Fisher Investments. Surely you wouldn't misrepresent yourself? Perish the thought . . .
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 05:35 pm
This just in. The Justice department is apparently going to take the constitutionality of the Health Care legislation directly to the Supreme Court in the new term that begins next week. If that happens, arguments would be heard around January and the SC would likely rule in June, 2012, which would be just prior to the November election.
The biggest debate involves the mandate that people would have to buy health insurance or pay a fee or a fine.
A panel of 3 judges from the 11-judge 6th District said that this was okay while a panel from the 11th circuit said it was not okay. Another circuit said that the plaintiffs arguing against the mandate had no standing since no one has yet been harmed since the mandate doesn't go into effect until 2013 or so.
Justice let a deadline expire today to appeal the 11th District's decision by the panel to the full 11th District court, which likely would have delayed the Supreme Court from ruling until after the election.
I am no lawyer so I may have some details wrong. If we are missing anything here, please join in.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 06:15 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
Another circuit said that the plaintiffs arguing against the mandate had no standing since no one has yet been harmed since the mandate doesn't go into effect until 2013 or so.


I thought that the SC didn't do referrals/test questions. I thought that there had to be a factual issue , ie. as whatever circuit said, the mandate has no standing since no one has been harmed, no one has been affected as yet.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 06:21 pm
@JTT,
I think I know, JTT. The WSJ has a shorter article than the one I saw earlier. Perhaps someone could link it and we can go from there.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 06:44 pm
I believe the Solicitor General can approach the Court to request an opinion on the ruling of an inferior court. That would be a request for a writ of certiorari, and is often requested of the Court when two inferior courts have ruled differently. The legal beagles here will know for certain. The Solicitor General basically represented the United States in cases appearing before the Court.

(Beagles? Did i really say that? I mean legal eagles, of course.)
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Sep, 2011 07:12 pm
@Setanta,
NPR is out with a longer article this evening. It seems to support your explanation, Set, regarding how Justice can go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the full 11th District Circuit Court in Atlanta where a panel of 3 judges ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. Justice, although it did or didn't do something today, has until November to make a final decision.
The big news here is political. If the SC hears the case in January, 2012, a decision might come in June, 2012. That would be right before the November election. The entire health care bill would likely become a volatile campaign issue rather then being a back burner thing.
A Sept 19 Rasmussen poll of Likely Voters (arguably those who follow elections most closely) shows 56% favor repeal of the Health Care Bill while 36% oppose repeal. That is largely unchanged since polling began.

0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:30 pm
I haven't read the earlier posts in this thread so apologies if this has already come up. Why would a state (FL, for instance) want to hold their primary before March 6th if it meant that they would lose half of their delegates at the national convention?

Quote:
Under rules agreed to by both political parties, only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are permitted to hold nominating contests before March 6. If other states go before that date, they could lose half their delegates to the Republican national convention in Tampa, Fla.

Nevertheless, several states are considering contests in February or even January, adding another level of uncertainty to the early days of the campaign. Those states include Florida, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona. Source
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:44 pm
@JPB,
Influence!

They get a lot of visits from the candidates and a lot of money from the whole circus. (Journalists and assorted hangers-on need to stay someplace, and eat someplace.)

The first four get a lot of attention, and then as the race wears on, the rest of them don't get as much attention (unless it's very close of course, but even so the first several get the lion's share because all of the candidates want to start strong).
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:53 pm
@sozobe,
And, beyond influence, the penalty for jumping ahead is the "threat" of losing delegates. In 2008, as I recall, the FL Dems did this. The candidates somewhat agreed to not campaign but that was of little real consequence and by the time of the convention all was forgiven.
Don't forget, JPB, that the Repub convention this year is in FL. Is the RNC really going to punish the host state? I doubt it.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:55 pm
@sozobe,
Even at the risk of losing half their delegates? Seems strange. But, then, didn't the same thing happen in 2008 with Hillary and the DNC with one of the states?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:57 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yeah, that's what I was recalling. What was the final upshot of that at the convention? Did Hillary get the FL delegates she won in the early primary? Political parties give me a headache under the best of circumstances. This seems like bullshit games.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 01:09 pm
@JPB,
Hillary took 50% of the vote in the primary with 33% going for Obama. John Edwards got 14%. Yes, FL's delegate votes got halved from 210 to 105. But the race was largely over by the time of the convention, so it really was no big deal.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2011 11:27 am
I know I've said it before but do Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum realize they are giant embarrassments to America and will NEVER be President? End the freak show now. Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul say a lot of sensible things... so they'll never win the Republican nomination. That leaves Mitt Romney, a bland looking guy with an 80's businessman haircut... but he's not a right-wing social extremist and he's a Mormon so he loses the GOP base. Obama 2012! :-)
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2011 12:21 pm
@jcboy,
Pretty good summary from my vantage point.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2011 02:21 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

I know I've said it before but do Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum realize they are giant embarrassments to America and will NEVER be President? End the freak show now. Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul say a lot of sensible things... so they'll never win the Republican nomination. That leaves Mitt Romney, a bland looking guy with an 80's businessman haircut... but he's not a right-wing social extremist and he's a Mormon so he loses the GOP base. Obama 2012! :-)

Well, ya... You need something to beat nothing and all they got is a handfull of snot... I don't know why Mr. Obama wanted to lead from the center because there is no center... The center is a no man's land where people anc careers die... If you could breed all the republicans on the stage right now and come up with the best qualities of each from the perspective of republican voters there would not be enough to beat Mr. Obama based upon Democratic votes... The problem is that Mr. Obama in trying to lead from the center has kicked the wind out of the democrats... He has not helped America, but he made a point of helping the rich, and the rich have put it in their pockets and said: thank you very little!!! The republicans don't play that ****... They serve the people that put them there... They dance with the boy what brought them while the democrats want to be the onlyest whore on the street... I can't wait until America is as sick of the parties as I am, and it seems they are getting there...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2019 at 11:40:38