Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

 

[Sam48]

Quite true. In fact, I recently asked a friend of mine if they were voting for Ron Paul in the NY state primary. They said, "I'm not really a republican, so I think I'll wait for November and vote for Obama". I then asked, "Haven't you heard about Ron Paul though?". They responded, "I'm subscribed to the NY Times, and I read that Obama has actually done a lot of good, but I don't know much about Ron Paul so I'm not going to bother".

 

[Swift]

Quite true. In fact, I recently asked a friend of mine if they were voting for Ron Paul in the NY state primary. They said, "I'm not really a republican, so I think I'll wait for November and vote for Obama". I then asked, "Haven't you heard about Ron Paul though?". They responded, "I'm subscribed to the NY Times, and I read that Obama has actually done a lot of good, but I don't know much about Ron Paul so I'm not going to bother".

That is the scariest thing I've heard this election cycle.

 

[Omnis]

The best solution to the gay marriage thing is something similar to what FK is talking about. Divorce the state from marriage, but create a separate legal construct that can be applied to a pair or a pool of people. One of my dad's old school-friends is very into the LGBT community, and this was one of his/her/It's platform pieces when It ran for congress. This was very popular in their community, and It figured It could use the tranny-congressIt spectacle to bring it to national attention.

 

[Sam48]

That is the scariest thing I've heard this election cycle.

And sadly, this really is the mentality of a good chunk of Obama voters. I later asked what "lot of good" Obama did, and they couldn't answer that. I understand we all have the right to vote, but sometimes I encounter people who just don't deserve that right.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ron Paul suspends active campaigning...

Like Santorum and Gingrich, he has not formally ended his campaign, so effectively it makes no difference as Paul can still chip away at Romney's delegate total... that said, it is still a significant development.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That is the scariest thing I've heard this election cycle.

That is one of the many scary things I've seen and heard this election season, not new though. The very sad part is that those people think the NY Times is a reliable source of info. That's like me using the AZ Republic paper in my state (biggest paper we have) as a credible source in everything. Yes they have some credibility but they endorse Romney, just like the NYT is known to support liberals. You'd be naive to just follow one news source instead of multiple, because nearly every news source goes one way or the other.

He should tell his friends that they're voting with their blinders on, yet if they really think the NYT tells all the facts of Obama that obviously shows they don't care about the election all that much.

 

[Sam48]

He should tell his friends that they're voting with their blinders on, yet if they really think the NYT tells all the facts of Obama that obviously shows they don't care about the election all that much.

I highly doubt that will make a bit of difference. You have to know the subject, or a far lefty in general, to know that no matter what you throw at them, they simply plug their ears and close their mind up. For some reason, they cannot comprehend that they are wrong. (Dapper would be a good example of this sort of behavior)

That's probably why they read the NY Times, as it suits their set of beliefs most accurately. Therefore, that's all they read. And it's the same for far right wingers as well as they only watch Fox News and what not.

 

[Swift]

I highly doubt that will make a bit of difference. You have to know the subject, or a far lefty in general, to know that no matter what you throw at them, they simply plug their ears and close their mind up. For some reason, they cannot comprehend that they are wrong. (Dapper would be a good example of this sort of behavior)

That's probably why they read the NY Times, as it suits their set of beliefs most accurately. Therefore, that's all they read. And it's the same for far right wingers as well as they only watch Fox News and what not.

Can't argue with your basic statement. However, what conservatives say is generally based on concepts and the constitution while liberals base their statements on emotion.

But both sides have there nuts.

 

[Keef]

Ron Paul suspends active campaigning...

Like Santorum and Gingrich, he has not formally ended his campaign, so effectively it makes no difference as Paul can still chip away at Romney's delegate total... that said, it is still a significant development.

Ron Paul may have won Arizona.

Michigan delgates are unbound after all - Romney may lose Michigan.




Ben Swann chimes in.

Ron Paul is concerned about preserving his positive, respectful image, and wishes his supporters would not be so rude.



Paul's senior advisor Doug Wead asks, "They've been saying for two years that he was never in and now suddenly saying that he's out - how can he be out if he was never in?"

Sad thing is that most people will never see these articles I've just posted. That said, it is not a significant development, it's more like an official statement of the strategy they've been following for months already.

 

[Northstar]

Or the third, Likes Ron Paul, but doesn't love him. We can still be friends though.



[/highschoolgirl]

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I highly doubt that will make a bit of difference. You have to know the subject, or a far lefty in general, to know that no matter what you throw at them, they simply plug their ears and close their mind up. For some reason, they cannot comprehend that they are wrong. (Dapper would be a good example of this sort of behavior)

That's probably why they read the NY Times, as it suits their set of beliefs most accurately. Therefore, that's all they read. And it's the same for far right wingers as well as they only watch Fox News and what not.

I'd say both sides easily do that just in different ways. And I know how far lefty types work, I met one of the top 10 Obama supporters in my opinion last election cycle. So yeah and like you said, Dapper will always be a reminder of what a far left type is like. A far left type that denies being a far left type.

The way I see it is left types put their fingers in their ears and yell lalalalalala. While the right just yells louder and louder till they drown out the sound of reason and common sense.

 

[FoolKiller]

It appears that President Obama's staff think him as accomplished as all the presidents from Coolidge to today, combined.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/15/obama-drops-his-name-into-presidential-biographies/

Many of President Obama’s fervent devotees are young enough not to have much memory of the political world before the arrival of The One. Coincidentally, Obama himself feels the same way—and the White House’s official website reflects that.

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford). Here are a few examples:


On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.

In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.


I imagine Bill Clinton will be especially receptive to Obama’s habit of shoehorning himself into the limelight previously occupied by others. As you can see, the bullet points make clear that while each president has done something historic or notable, Obama is carrying forward every one of those accomplishments since Coolidge. No wonder he always seems so proud of himself.

In case anyone wants to check this yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/

Is it cool to insert yourself into the legacy of your predecessors?

 

[BobK]

What's also disturbing about this whole thing is that each biography has this at the bottom:

The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The Presidents of the United States of America,” by Michael Beschloss and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association.

Why am I guessing that these additions about Obama (and Michelle Obama, and Jill Biden) will not be found in the original work?

 

[FoolKiller]

Someone is having fun with it on Tumblr.

http://obamainhistory.tumblr.com/

 

[Pako]

It appears that President Obama's staff think him as accomplished as all the presidents from Coolidge to today, combined.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/15/obama-drops-his-name-into-presidential-biographies/


In case anyone wants to check this yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/

Is it cool to insert yourself into the legacy of your predecessors?

That is UNREAL!

 

[GTsail]

Check out the biography for John Adams:

John Adams

White House

"John Adams was the first President to eat breakfast in the White House (November 1800)."

President Obama continues this admirable practice, even today!




In jest!
(taking a little liberty with the wikipedia/Whitehouse quotes)!
GTsail

 

[Dotini]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/its-romneys-to-lose-heres_b_1519827.html?ref=email_share

Is this how Paul wins? Is it payback time?

 

[Keef]

RNC, Romney campaign will erect new organization to bypass [Nevada] state GOP.

 

[shmogt]

 

[Keef]

So the guy is saying that jobs are consequence of a circular loop - everything depends on everything else all at the same time. No one thing can happen without the others.

And then he says that the root of job growth is a vibrant middle class, thus contradicting what he just said.

Here's my question for him: If a vibrant middle class is what is needed to convince businesses to grow, then how does the middle class get vibrant in the first place if the jobs for them to work, make money, and become vibrant have not yet been created?

 

[FoolKiller]

YouTube

He misses so much it has to be on purpose. To hit on the biggest one, he states that hiring is the course of last resort after consumers buy enough to create profit. He's right. Because first new innovations and technologies are often implemented at times when unemployment is down to avoid laying people off when those technologies are required to remain competitive.

While fluctuations in the market do have more to do with job creation than taxes on the rich, you cannot raise taxes without having some of the rich put in a position where it is them or a potential employee. Further, to point out that job creation is an effect of the market means accepting the government cannot create new permanent jobs by taxing the rich and spending the money elsewhere. As Obama has discovered through his green jobs failures, like Solyndra, if the market isn't going your way you are just flushing money down a hole.

He claims it is not as simple as some want you to think, but then stays too simple to paint the full picture. His premise also assumes that products just exist and that no one starts a business or invents a product.

In the end though, I know one simple fact: I never got a job from a poor man.

 

[shmogt]

He's just saying that everyone is pushing for new jobs, but how can you higher more people to work when no one is buying anything. So to create jobs you need the middle class to buy things. They can buy things when they have more money to spend accomplished by taxed less. Also upper class should be taxed more since they have a lot more money which they will never be spending. As his example he makes 1000x more than most people and yet still buys the same amount of stuff since one man can only have so much.

 

[Danoff]

He's just saying that everyone is pushing for new jobs, but how can you higher more people to work when no one is buying anything. So to create jobs you need the middle class to buy things. They can buy things when they have more money to spend accomplished by taxed less.

Our middle class is almost not taxed. Half the people in this country pay ~0 federal income tax. A friend of mine makes over $100,000 per year and spends approximately $3000 in federal income tax.

Also upper class should be taxed more since they have a lot more money which they will never be spending. As his example he makes 1000x more than most people and yet still buys the same amount of stuff since one man can only have so much.

Rich people spend gobs of money. Gobs. I've spent a fair amount of time around rich people (specifically, lawyers in los angeles), and I can tell you for certain that they blow money on everything. Rich people don't just buy iphones either, they hire people. Rich people have gardeners, maids, nannies, butlers, cooks, personal trainers, life coaches, psychiatrists, pool guys, and dog walkers.

Rich women like to toss out their entire wardrobe every season in favor of this season's fashions. Rich people have have televisions in every room and outside, expensive home theaters, and speakers on their patio. Rich people are the reason valets are able to keep their jobs.

Having spent some time with these people, I can tell you that the sheer quantity of money that they blow on everything from spa treatments to ski vacations is exhausting just to see.

Also, everyone imagines that money that doesn't get spent is lost to the market. This is not true at all. Almost all money that isn't spent is turned around and invested right back into the market in the form of stocks or loans. Very little of it sits idle.

 

[Keef]

I have two uncles who are wealthy enough. They both part-own successful manufacturing businesses here in Dayton (no small feat), one employing about 30 skilled and non-skilled workers, the other employing about 60. Neither of them mow their own grass, one of them lives on Indian lake and has his boat and wave runners maintained by local shops, and both of them are away supporting the tourism industry half the time. Their wives have taken up unpaid positions working with local organizations that help underprivileged school children.

Not only do rich people spend money but they often contribute to charities and help their community, not because they're full of themselves but because they can.

As for money getting "lost" to the market as Danoff mentioned, some people do prefer, strangely, stupidly, to save their money outside of banks or the stock market. But no matter how you save it doesn't simply disappear, it eventually gets spent on something. Saving money is an important part of the money market - some people seem to think that savings slows "growth" in the market. But without saving, people would never be able to make large purchases or investments like a house or college tuition. Saving may slow the "boom" but that's a good thing because it promotes long-term stability and is a conservative safety net for people and businesses alike.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd like to point out that as an example of rich people not spending money or creating jobs he showed an image of Donald Trump. Ignoring that he owns a company that has many employees and spends extravagant amounts on ridiculous stuff, like gold playing everything he owns, Trump makes more money and has more popularity than ever by having a reality show (which requires a full production staff) about hiring someone for a job. And when it doesn't focus on that it focuses on getting "celebrities" to compete at getting other celebrities and wealthy people to donate money to charity, totaling in millions by the end of the 3 month run (actually it is all done in about a month, but they talk on the show in TV time). As much as I dislike Trump, he is not the example you want to use as a wealthy person not spending money or hiring people.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JyQ60vXHVr4#

MSNBC reports Ron Paul has won 8 states worth of delegates. Romney must be running scared, as he must win on the first ballot, or the nomination may slip from his fingers.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[3spddrft]

Ok, this is slightly OT but I was really sold on creating new green jobs and getting america to be an industry leader with technology and energy.

Can I have that under Ron Paul?

 

[Sam48]

Ok, this is slightly OT but I was really sold on creating new green jobs and getting america to be an industry leader with technology and energy.

Can I have that under Ron Paul?

You're trying to establish a connection between two unrelated outcomes. It's up to the market to decide which technologies make it, and which don't. It's not the government's responsibility to dictate what technologies are to be implemented (Solyndra's a good example of this). If Ron Paul becomes president, we would hopefully have less government intervention in the market place, and therefore, a more prosperous market. When we have a more prosperous market, people become ambitious. And when people become ambitious, new technology becomes more readily available.

So to answer your question, yes, you can I have that under Ron Paul.

 

[Dotini]

Ok, this is slightly OT but I was really sold on creating new green jobs and getting america to be an industry leader with technology and energy.

Can I have that under Ron Paul?

You're trying to establish a connection between two unrelated outcomes. It's up to the market to decide which technologies make it, and which don't. It's not the government's responsibility to dictate what technologies are to be implemented (Solyndra's a good example of this). If Ron Paul becomes president, we would hopefully have less government intervention in the market place, and therefore, a more prosperous market. When we have a more prosperous market, people become ambitious. And when people become ambitious, new technology becomes more readily available.

So to answer your question, yes, you can I have that under Ron Paul.

Legalize hemp in food, clothing, fuel, structural materials, pharmaceuticals, etc., and you will have achieved synchronicity. 💡👍

Respectfully submitted,
Steve