| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - After Election
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


After Election

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Nomadic View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nomadic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 15:23
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If this election has proven anything, its that an electoral coalition built on religious kooks, angry white men and rich people.
 
Do you mean the people who use their talents and ambition to create jobs as well as to purchase goods and services from other people in the economy? Sure- some of the rich have unpleasant personalities, but then so do some union workers.
 
Angry Whites?  The Republican front runner during the primaries was black and had he not self imploded, he would have been the Republican Challenger to Obama.   In fact, the GOP share of black voters rose from 5% to 7%.  Yes, this number is still small, but then the institutional loyalty of blacks to the Democratic party may fade after Obama.
 
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

The future belongs to the Democratic party.
Way too early too tell. The popular vote was 52% to 48%, not exactly a blow out.


Edited by Nomadic - 09 Nov 2012 at 16:21
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 16:36
Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

Yes, this number is still small, but then the institutional loyalty of blacks to the Democratic party may fade after Obama.
Unless... Democrats pop up a Hispanic candicate Shocked
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Nomadic View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nomadic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 16:43
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

Yes, this number is still small, but then the institutional loyalty of blacks to the Democratic party may fade after Obama.
Unless... Democrats pop up a Hispanic candicate Shocked
Hispanics are less prone to vote as a block than blacks and are less prone to self identify as a unified ethnicity than blacks.  A democratic hispanic candinate would be a challenge, but he or she would not command the same level of party loyalties or the same level of ethnic loyalties that Obama does. 
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 18:00
Then a female gay shamanist asian president who like skateboarding and shiskebab...

(It is strongly advised to all members to do not take this post seriously. It is not a critism of Obama nor a call for pluralism. Rather it might be just yappings of a person who surpassed his sleep cycle by half a dozen hours and high on caffeine.)
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6075
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 18:27
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If this election has proven anything, its that an electoral coalition built on religious kooks, angry white men and rich people will never again win any major party a national election. REPUBLICANS: look at the voting patterns of minority groups and tremble. The future belongs to the Democratic party.


Idd, they really need to re-invent themselves, they are like the UK Tories during most of the 00s.


Edited by Cywr - 09 Nov 2012 at 18:27
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 19:24
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

In support of al Jassas's position in the debate about the reasons for US economic success post WW2 ies almost entirely in the fact that it was the only one of the world's great powers that was safely tucked away  beyond the reach of enemy attack and able to maintain and grow its industrial muscle.The US got rich out of ww2 (ww1 also helped) and its aftermath. Pretty well everyone's gold and currency ended up on US hands by 1945. The US owned two thirds of all countries gold in 1950. It now owns about a quarter.
 
I think it was you who mentioned this first back during a discussion about industrialisation some time ago so credit is due to you.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Mamal View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mamal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 20:38
Now I am calm. Let us have a serious talk. What I meant by abuses of the system, are real. Both sides of social ladder should make some compromises and work together otherwise any elected government will be handicapped. There are rich folks who escape taxing with circling the law and regulation and there are working class folks who want to take advantage of the system in any possible way. 

I have worked with middle class, working class as well as rich folks. Rich folks who don't want to give up their share of tax, pile their money in European banks or invest in foreign companies. Unfortunately many lower class families are accustomed to misusing the system. how? I have seen this cycle of having many kids out of wedlock without having proper job, saving, or skills. Why? Some may say it is because of poor education. I have seen people who intentionally get pregnant to receive governmental help. Some don't even care about the kid, but they know government can help them and the cycle continues with their next generation. Some of these people are lazy, reckless, and irresponsible for their actions and pass their responsibilities to others (this should be stopped). I personally think if a person can not take the responsibility of raising a child then he/she should not have one (give others a favor and use a damn condom or contraceptive pill). 

Some people think the rich and wealthy people owe them favors and have to give them whatever they want. Morally speaking, I know it is good for wealthy folks to help the needier, but it should be their choice not obligation (I am not talking about taxation). The attitude among people should change. Helping your countrymen or poor out of misery should be promoted among wealthier but not forced. The lower class should change their attitude about relying as much as they can on others or government. A sense of "what can I do for my government and people" instead of How much can I take from government and others" should be promoted. Both sides need to accept their responsibilities and try to be productive as well as creative. If people work efficiently then the lower wages should rise, lazy ass people bring down the productivity level and affect other coworkers. Subsequently, the owner of business cuts back salaries or other benefits. This will cause many employees to get angry. I was one of those angry employees in one point. 

(the story) I worked hard, was punctuated, responsible, perfect gentleman, never called sick, and was always ready to help. What I got after some years of hard-work was an absolute disappointment. I was totally pissed off and blame it on my boss. I was recognized as an example of good employee and admired by many of my coworkers and managers. What came after opened my eyes. My salary and benefit were reduced! I tried to resolve the problem with higher ups but it didn't work, so I quit that job. My relative was a business consultant. One day, he told me about my boss story. I knew he was a well behaved gentle man, but in some point I thought it was a fake cover up. My relative told me the guy was struggling to keep his business, so he went to his office and asked for advise. My cousin observed his company closely and gave him a list. One of them was to fire more than half of the staff who were unofficially lurking around instead of working. My old boss did not accept the advise because he didn't want to make them unemployed. Most of these people were in their end 40s or 50s and finding a job was extremely hard for them. Many of them were low performance employees. I remember some of them slacking around and talking crap behind him, but I always minded my own business. The guy chose to cut back on benefits instead of firing those employees. So, you may see what I learned from that experience. This pattern has been repeated many times and caused me to think twice. 


Edited by Mamal - 09 Nov 2012 at 22:16
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:12
Originally posted by Cywr Cywr wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Lovely, With first post-racial president reelected, ‘F**k white people’ trends on twitter

Tolerance. I think not! Anyways, from a F**king white person, congratulations to Obama on his second term.


Its pretty LOL actually. If you follow your link, and look at some of the tweets, they were posted by people who are obviously white of some shade or another.
Its twitter ffs.


I'm just saying, whatever racism is alleged to exist on the right (I'm willing enough to contemplat ethe thought), then those to the left of the right are refusing point blank to look in the mirror.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:16
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If this election has proven anything, its that an electoral coalition built on religious kooks, angry white men and rich people will never again win any major party a national election. REPUBLICANS: look at the voting patterns of minority groups and tremble. The future belongs to the Democratic party.


Ah, there my favorite cranky Irish man. Smile The future doesn't belong to the democrats anymore than it did to the Republicans in the 80's. If there is anything in life that is certain then it's nothing is ever certain. Whatever the future holds, all US citizens are in the same boat together.
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6075
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:19
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Cywr Cywr wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Lovely, With first post-racial president reelected, ‘F**k white people’ trends on twitter

Tolerance. I think not! Anyways, from a F**king white person, congratulations to Obama on his second term.


Its pretty LOL actually. If you follow your link, and look at some of the tweets, they were posted by people who are obviously white of some shade or another.
Its twitter ffs.


I'm just saying, whatever racism is alleged to exist on the right (I'm willing enough to contemplat ethe thought), then those to the left of the right are refusing point blank to look in the mirror.


I won't dispute that it is somewhat unpleasant and patronising language, but this merely echoes the other side of racist tweets following the election results, and this is twitter. Bare in mind that there is a very large likelihood that the people who made these tweets will be voting for a white democrat come 2016.

There is childish racist language, then there is outright racism. But you're right, it doesn't cut neatly between 'right' and 'left'.



*note to forum mods, whenever I've used the quote post option over the last few days, i've had to manually add the last ] at the end. Odd.


Edited by Cywr - 09 Nov 2012 at 23:21
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2012 at 23:34
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'd point out to Mamal and Panther in their concern for being the only Republicans on the forum, that the considerable majority of people on the forum are not Americans and not blinded by US political labels and tribalism from objective analysis. I don't actually recall any current American contributor to the forum being an acknowledged Democrat.


True, there are a lot of non-Americans here, but it most certainly isn't true that they're not blinded by US political labels, tribalism or objective analysis. Otherwise, a quarter of the reason i am here, is that i'm  constantly "trying" (And so it seems failing) to dispel the false belief that many hold towards republicans in general. As for any debates, they don't really get that far because most people refuse to give up or accommodate a different belief then their own. Which has been really a pity because it has hurt us in the past year i am afraid to say. Democrats, i am rather surprised that you would say this, but we have and had them here Graham.




Edited by Panther - 09 Nov 2012 at 23:35
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 00:19
Mamal- You are describing the stereotypical "welfare bums", and lazy, unionized, or otherwise priviledged workers. These loom large in popular mythology, massively so within the right wing population. To be fair, there are these sort of individuals around, we've all seen them. But you are relating anecdotal information here, not statistical analysis. You've seen them, we've seen them, some get pretty mad at the sight, but we need more than casual observation to get a good picture of what is going on in society.
 
In fact today in the US (and Canada by the way), welfare payments to individuals are much, much less than they were years ago, and pretty much a drop in the bucket in the scheme of things. Furthermore, the vast majority of those recieving some sort of social assistance plan are not deadbeats, but those who are unlucky, unprepared, disorganized, not bright enough, or undergoing some sort of personal crisis for the most part. Overall, society is probably further ahead by picking up the tab for their beans and rice, than dealing with the further fallout of poverty and dispair. The preceeding charateristics should not be a sentence to starve, at least not in the world's richest countries. The famous welfare queen popularized by Ronald Reagan exists, but the drain on society of these handful of folks in microscopic in comparison to a days frivolity on stock exchange, the banking scams we have witnessed in recent days, or perhaps even Mitt Romney's dry cleaning bill.
 
Rather than lazy workers being a drain on society, today in fact we are seeing a huge transfer of wealth away from the average worker, and towards the speculator- those that make their money by playing the angles, and being nimble with the wealth that others have created. The financial sector is massive today in relation to what is was in the economy a few years back. What was a servant of productive labour is now a bloated portion of a precarious economy, one that is increasingly concerned with short term profit, and the extraction of wealth for the benefit of a small minority. Adjusted for inflation, the wages of working people have been flat for decades now. The poor are still where they were- on the bottom. The top have seen massive gains. Workers are exhorted to become ever more productive, and take more pay cuts, in order to compete in a globalized society. Those with wealth have managed to manipulate the political process enough to slash their tax bill, thereby downloading costs onto the working class, further polarizing society.
 
There are  moral issues here, but also hard-headed economic ones. A large middle class is an essential part of a succesful developed economy. Those that don't have money to spend cannot buy the products of industry, hence industry tends to cut back, and lay off workers, who now have less to spend, causing industry to cut back more......the downward spiral was well represented in the Great Depression of the '30s. For those that make tens of millions a year, their expenditures can often be detrimental. With nothing more to buy, funds often go to highly speculative targets, like the stock market or real estate. Again, we have recently seen the result of that process.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 00:23
Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

 
Do you mean the people who use their talents and ambition to create jobs as well as to purchase goods and services from other people in the economy? Sure- some of the rich have unpleasant personalities, but then so do some union workers.


You're over analysing what I said. Romneys coalition was built on the back of the institutionalised plutocracy, white people (Many of whom were angry males) and evangelicals. That is the modern Republican coalition and it doesn't win national elections any more. My opinion of the plutocracy is irrelevant, but I do feel that they have succesfully fought and won a class war over the past thirty years and no self respecting working person can or should be comfortable with that fact.

Quote
Angry Whites?  The Republican front runner during the primaries was black and had he not self imploded, he would have been the Republican Challenger to Obama.   In fact, the GOP share of black voters rose from 5% to 7%.  Yes, this number is still small, but then the institutional loyalty of blacks to the Democratic party may fade after Obama.


Angry - not necessarily racist, though a lot of Republicans do suffer from a twinge of that (Particularly in the south) Lots of rhetoric about 'restoring the Presidency to a 'real' American', whatever the hell that means in a nation that is scarcely 200 years old.

Oh and big whoop on gaining a whopping 7% of the African American vote. In the business I think thats called clutching on straws.
 
Quote
Way too early too tell. The popular vote was 52% to 48%, not exactly a blow out.


A 52% majority at a time of mass unemployment, a sclerotic economy, an emergent China, and huge unsolved social problems that no politician has dared address properly. In a normal election with a normal democrat (white male) I can see those numbers go up considerably. The minority vote is staggering. Asians are the fastest growing majority and they overwhelmingly backed the democrats. Millions of Latinos join the electorate every voting cycle and three quarters of them back the democrats. Without comprehensive immigration reform these trends will only intensify. At this rate, Texas and Arizona will be solid blue within the next twelve years. As the millions of voters under 30 come of age they will normalise the white vote disparity, bring huge swathes of the south back into Democratic hands - particularly juicy states like Georgia. If the Republicans move further to the right - and believe me I hope they do, for the sake of the Republic (Because ideological conservatism has opposed every single meaningful reform in the history of the USA.), they will cease to become anything more than a knee jerk party of opposition, as they were during the Presidency of FDR.

As Bill O'Reilly said, the traditional white elite is fast becoming irrelevant. America has always been a multicultural nation but it is quickly becoming a multi racial one. The Republicans can continue to defy the future and reality, can refuse to embrace the changing cultural and social mores of this generation, or they can stand alone and bitter.

The most disturbing trend in American politics over the last couple of years is the concept of truth and untruth, the idea that ones ideology can trump facts and reality. The Republicans are in a death spiral, and refuse to acknowledge it. They refuse to acknowledge that they have become a party of cranks and resentful bitter white men who can't understand that the 21st century has happened and that there is a now a new social order. It has become reactionary, devoid of innovative ideas, and sociopathically opposed to government action to alleviate poverty, social problems, or basic economic planning. Absurdly, they have no problem in regulating what people do with their genital organs. This inherent hypocrisy will consign them to the dustbin of history unless they reform. Now. But they won't. And that is why the future of America belongs to the Democratic party.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 00:27
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



I'm just saying, whatever racism is alleged to exist on the right (I'm willing enough to contemplat ethe thought), then those to the left of the right are refusing point blank to look in the mirror.


There are people on both sides of the political fence that hold racist opinions, nobody denies that. The difference is that a fair chunk of the Republican party believe Obama is secretly a Muslim and don't believe he was born in the United States. The motivating factor at work here is fear of the other, and racism. Good old fashioned racism. African Americans have no trouble in identifying this racism within the Republican party, hence why so few of them vote for them.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 00:49
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mamal Mamal wrote:

@ Al Jassas: You and I have different perspectives regarding food stamp, and I am not in the mood to explain or dig up info for that matter.
 
OK, I will do your homework for you.
 
By law, you can't get more than three months of food stamps in a 36 month period if you are unemployed. Waivers can be given but these are very rare. Also even for familities, work is a requirement at least for 20 hours a week:
 


That is the law, but as some people say, laws are made to be abused and broken. I've read too many stories where people have abused this system repeatedly (In some for m or another) and gotten away with it until someone pushed the feds into investigating or constantly giving info to the news groups countless times which had finally exposed them. All the concern that went unheeded is now at the point that the Feds can't ignore, but most news groups can To the US citizen's detriment. Read  Further:

Feds Target Food Stamp Abuse


Michigan cracking down on Food Stamps Abuse


Food Stamp fraud in Pennsylvania

Or Welfare fraud in general

Getting Rich off of the Poor


Quote
And in any case the crappy amount per person ($200/month as a maximum) is hardly encouraging for people to stay on food stamps.
 


You'd be surprised what something for nothing can do to the unscrupulous. With that said, there are of course legitimate needy families out there who depend on that couple of hundred a month too keep from starving. But because of the former, it makes it so much harder for the latter to get the benefit they sorely need to survive.

Quote
Sorry to say this but this too is utter none sense. FDR was reelected twice before even the US went to WWII. Unemployment already dropped by more than 10 points by 1941 and WWII just helped it go down largely because those unemployed went to the armed forces instead of factories (it dropped from 9.9% in 1941 to 1.2% in 44, at the time some 10% of all US population were in the armed forces).
 


Sorry, but he is mostly right about the pre-1941 FDR depressive era, in my opinion. Unemployment may have dropped by 1941, but it wasn;t because of any program FDR was creating too make this so. It dropped only finally significantly dropped because the US beginning to gear up for the inevitable by 1940, re: Selective Service Act of 1940



Quote
10 years of tax cuts didn't stop thousands of factories from closing and 10 more years of more tax cuts won't help either. This myth of "job creators" exists in the minds of people who invented it.
 


If we look at what states they had fled from, then it wouldn't be a surprise on why they left the US, here is a news link and a map:

New maps show the loss of US manufacturing jobs state by state (News report)


Manufacturing State by State, 1971 -2011

Mapping Manufacturing

Quote
Companies don't create jobs, they make profits and they do so by maximising revenue and reducing costs. Believe it or not labour costs isn't that decisive in decision making (unless you talk about ultra cheap raw material based products like textiles). Labour hardly takes more than 50% of all corporate income in a typical industrial company and a good percentage of that is executive pay (the average CEO takes 200 times more than the average worker, food for thought). The real costs are of raw material which if you don't have enough of at cheap and /or subsidised prices you won't have an industry to begin with. Not to mention other factors such as the industry itself, quality of product and access to markets.
 
Al-Jassas


I disagree. They do create jobs but, yes of course, they also do so to make a profit by maximizing revenue while reducing costs. That only makes sense. Otherwise, why in the hell bother with a manufacturing business in the first place. But labor costs are  one of the decisive factor in where a company decides to set up a plant. i.e. any state that is heavily dominated by a union. The stronger the union is backed by the state, then the higher the cost of employment makes the argument over the price of raw materials irrelevant. That is why a lot of blue state and some red had seen the manufacturing companies flee en mass to a more balanced, business friendly regions around the globe (An exorbitantly cheaper labor work force) and helped to spur the growth of the much decried multinationals corporations.

Of course, this isn't saying that unions are evil Well private sector at least. Some are as aware as anyone else as to what is going on and are doing what they can to work with corporations to keep them from fleeing by being more flexible in demands for the workers, even going so far in making the people thy represent too take a pay decrease too show the company(ies) how serious they are in keeping them there.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 01:08
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:



I'm just saying, whatever racism is alleged to exist on the right (I'm willing enough to contemplat ethe thought), then those to the left of the right are refusing point blank to look in the mirror.


There are people on both sides of the political fence that hold racist opinions, nobody denies that. The difference is that a fair chunk of the Republican party believe Obama is secretly a Muslim and don't believe he was born in the United States. The motivating factor at work here is fear of the other, and racism. Good old fashioned racism. African Americans have no trouble in identifying this racism within the Republican party, hence why so few of them vote for them.


In good faith, i will point out that i had read an article the other day from Virginia that reported a group of republican college students were unhappy with the election results and reacted in a childishly horrible manner. Here is the article: Small Virginia college reports post election unrest

But i certainly don't think it is a fair chunk of the Republicans party, more like a minority with the group that may believe this. For example, the lot that i read fail in mentioning the alleged Muslim/non resident connection as a non-issue like i do. Instead, most of them are concerned about the economy and the health of the workforce being the predominant concern. However that isn't what was portrayed in foreign news reports. Rather any story with a racist twist that could be applied to it or any article that can easily be constructed to point out an alleged spin being made by Republicans and the Romney campaign were high lighted and ran with (Think of all the Trumpisms *sigh*). Not too mention the foreign policy issues of the two candidates being nearly identical was absolutely lost of the foreign public completely.

No, what seemed too matter was the narrative rather than the substance of the debated arguments. In this way, republicans were trounced in the elections.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 01:15
Panther, in re Puerto Rico and this:

"On the second question, 65 percent favored statehood, followed by 31 percent for sovereign free association and 4 percent for independence.

"Puerto Rico has to be a state. There is no other option," said 25-year-old Jerome Lefebre, who picked up his grandfather before driving to the polls. "We're doing OK, but we could do better. We would receive more benefits, a lot more financial help."

But 42-year-old Ramon Lopez de Azua said he favored the current system, which grants U.S. citizenship but prevents Puerto Ricans from voting for president unless they live in the United States, and gives those on the island only limited representation in Congress.

"Puerto Rico's problem is not its political status," he said. "I think that the United States is the best country in the world, but I am Puerto Rican first."


There you have it in a nutshell. Thirty-five percent of the island either do not want to be Americans (a minority) or they insist that they are Puertorricans first (27%)

Why should the United States put up with an political entity that has the support of only 65 percent, and that can change daily depending upon the issues between the two nations. Congress has the power to simply grant Puerto Rico independence. They should set a date for doing so, unless 95% of the electorate demands recognition as a State of the Union. We would save billions a year by simply divesting ourselves of this Welfare leech. 


Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 01:35
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Panther, in re Puerto Rico and this:

"On the second question, 65 percent favored statehood, followed by 31 percent for sovereign free association and 4 percent for independence.

"Puerto Rico has to be a state. There is no other option," said 25-year-old Jerome Lefebre, who picked up his grandfather before driving to the polls. "We're doing OK, but we could do better. We would receive more benefits, a lot more financial help."

But 42-year-old Ramon Lopez de Azua said he favored the current system, which grants U.S. citizenship but prevents Puerto Ricans from voting for president unless they live in the United States, and gives those on the island only limited representation in Congress.

"Puerto Rico's problem is not its political status," he said. "I think that the United States is the best country in the world, but I am Puerto Rican first."

There you have it in a nutshell. Thirty-five percent of the island either do not want to be Americans (a minority) or they insist that they are Puertorricans first (27%)

Why should the United States put up with an political entity that has the support of only 65 percent, and that can change daily depending upon the issues between the two nations. Congress has the power to simply grant Puerto Rico independence. They should set a date for doing so, unless 95% of the electorate demands recognition as a State of the Union. We would save billions a year by simply divesting ourselves of this Welfare leech. 



I thought it was interesting enough to report on it because i thought this election on deciding the islands status wasn't going to be held until next year rather then on election day. With that said, since the first report, i have recently been hearing of about 400,000 blank ballots being cast, which would i think, invalidate this referendum.

Regarding letting the islands go, i don't know if that would be any easier for congress to do then it is for the Puerto Ricans. As i understand this so far, complete independence for the islands hovers around 10% of their electorate and the other 90% are split between statehood and having some association via a connection with the US in one way or another.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 09:12
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


I disagree. They do create jobs but, yes of course, they also do so to make a profit by maximizing revenue while reducing costs. That only makes sense. Otherwise, why in the hell bother with a manufacturing business in the first place. But labor costs are  one of the decisive factor in where a company decides to set up a plant. i.e. any state that is heavily dominated by a union. The stronger the union is backed by the state, then the higher the cost of employment makes the argument over the price of raw materials irrelevant. That is why a lot of blue state and some red had seen the manufacturing companies flee en mass to a more balanced, business friendly regions around the globe (An exorbitantly cheaper labor work force) and helped to spur the growth of the much decried multinationals corporations.

Of course, this isn't saying that unions are evil Well private sector at least. Some are as aware as anyone else as to what is going on and are doing what they can to work with corporations to keep them from fleeing by being more flexible in demands for the workers, even going so far in making the people thy represent too take a pay decrease too show the company(ies) how serious they are in keeping them there.

This is the much remarked on race to the bottom, in which corporations demand ever more concessions on pain of moving to areas with lower wages, lower taxes, softer safety standards, and easier environmental regulations. If Michigan is too expensive, Alabama may be better, next stop China, and after that Bangladesh. Somalia may be in the future sights of those whose sole drive is profit. This is a no-win game for the vast majority in developed countries who make their money working for a living. It's not a bad deal for the ultra affluent with resources to invest, and no particular national sentiments, except those expressed for PR purposes.

Being businesslike and running a tight ship is great, but we have to look at the bigger picture if we are going to retain a functional society. Real unemployment is probably running around 15-18% in the US and the EU. Taxes on individuals and corporations are very low by historical standards. After so much economic activity has been exported to greener fields in the third world, there may not be much left for the older, mature economies. Offering companies yet more concessions to bribe them into staying doesn't seem to me an effective strategy for managing an economy.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 09:21
Why people shouldn't set up global labour unions? Though independent unions are already banned in China Shocked
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 10:14
I have to confess that immediately prior to the election  predicted Obama getting through by a pipsqueak and a popular vote victory within the margin of error. Two things became obvious pretty quickly:

Hurricane Sandy racked up a big number of popular votes along the eastern seaboard for Obama, whom even Republicans admit handled the disaster masterfully.

The minority vote was wildly underrepresented in standard polling.

If the democrats maintain their stranglehold on the minority vote, I can really see a big shift in American politics towards the center left.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 10:36
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Why people shouldn't set up global labour unions? Though independent unions are already banned in China Shocked

Good idea in theory. Hard to see how it would work in practice. Just within the US, unions have been pretty much marginalized.
Back to Top
Nomadic View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Nomadic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 13:05
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Romneys coalition was built on the back of the institutionalised plutocracy, whatever the hell that means in a nation that is scarcely 200 years old.
Despite Democratic slogans to the contrary, members of the "instutionalized plutocracy" are almost as likely to be Democrat than they are Republican.   Nothing demonstrates that more than Kerry and the Kennedys.  Obama had just as many expensive fund raisers as Romney.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Oh and big whoop on gaining a whopping 7% of the African American vote. In the business I think thats called clutching on straws.
Some businesses start small.  Apple was founded in a garage.  Since Obama cant run in 2016, perhaps the Republican growth rate will double to say 11%.   This number could rise further with a concentrated effort. 
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 Millions of Latinos join the electorate every voting cycle and three quarters of them back the democrats. .
And presuming that such a high perentage will continue to back the democrats indefinetly based on the results of one election is a little of a stretch
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

It has become reactionary, devoid of innovative ideas, and sociopathically opposed to government action to alleviate poverty, social problems, or basic economic planning. 
 
And that is why the future of America belongs to the Democratic party.
Except that many (but not all) anti poverty programs as implemented for the last 20 years do not alleviate poverty.   Obama's "innovative" ideas are to make financial promise after financial promise in the pursuit of current votes.  Future solvency means nothing.  Out of cash, he just demands another credit card.
 
As a populist, he will make the rich make the payments on the credit debt.  Sadly, the debt is so high that not even the rich can cover the payments.  In an age where wealth and capital can transferred easily, a certain number of rich will leave in the economic sense for Brazil, India, Malaysia and China.  Obama will then move on to the "rich"....     


Edited by Nomadic - 10 Nov 2012 at 13:46
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 14:25
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mamal Mamal wrote:

@ Al Jassas: You and I have different perspectives regarding food stamp, and I am not in the mood to explain or dig up info for that matter.
 
OK, I will do your homework for you.
 
By law, you can't get more than three months of food stamps in a 36 month period if you are unemployed. Waivers can be given but these are very rare. Also even for familities, work is a requirement at least for 20 hours a week:
 


That is the law, but as some people say, laws are made to be abused and broken. I've read too many stories where people have abused this system repeatedly 

Didn't you stop to think that there's no news in people NOT abusing the system? I had fifteen years experience in Fleet Street, bit I didn't need t to know no-onr writes stories about people NOT being murdered. 

That's not an imputation of political bias, merely of knowing where your pay packet is coming from.
Quote

Quote
And in any case the crappy amount per person ($200/month as a maximum) is hardly encouraging for people to stay on food stamps.
 


You'd be surprised what something for nothing can do to the unscrupulous. With that said, there are of course legitimate needy families out there who depend on that couple of hundred a month too keep from starving. But because of the former, it makes it so much harder for the latter to get the benefit they sorely need to survive. 

Better to punish the innocent rather than let the guilty go free?
Quote
Quote
Sorry to say this but this too is utter none sense. FDR was reelected twice before even the US went to WWII. Unemployment already dropped by more than 10 points by 1941 and WWII just helped it go down largely because those unemployed went to the armed forces instead of factories (it dropped from 9.9% in 1941 to 1.2% in 44, at the time some 10% of all US population were in the armed forces).
 


Sorry, but he is mostly right about the pre-1941 FDR depressive era, in my opinion. Unemployment may have dropped by 1941, but it wasn;t because of any program FDR was creating too make this so. It dropped only finally significantly dropped because the US beginning to gear up for the inevitable by 1940, re: Selective Service Act of 1940
The unemployment of the thirties was the direct result of the unshackled capitalism of the twenties. Nothing except FDR policies stopped the situation from worsening, and began a turn around that was yes indeed only completed by the war (including the years 1939-41 of US profit from it). Sadly only the war brought home to enough Americans the need for government action - but then it's easy to get people to shell out money for a war.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 14:37
Hello everyone ...
We have an old saying here in Denmark - allow my free translation "When then the manger is empty the horses bite each other.
On that note, it's rather sad to see how people are kicking downwards - in fact suggesting that a nations major problem is the help given the less fortunate, or that the nation can be saved by denying the most needy fellow citizens the crumbs they get.
Indeed sad...
 
My question is, where are the demands towards the greedy people who caused the socalled "crises", those who multiplied their already enormous fortunes on the crises, - where are the demands that they should pay back what their greed caused and what they unrightfully gained.
 
Rich people and huge companies became a lot richer because of the crises - and the poor ones, the workers and the middle class - all got poorer and many lost their job.
There is no justice - no fairness - no sympathy for fellow citizens - just ugly greed and selfishness, so why not do as suggested in this thread - lets take the last few crumbs from the poor.
 
That is so much easier than demanding from the rich what they gained - but will it save your nation?
 
 
 
~ North


Edited by Northman - 10 Nov 2012 at 14:42
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 15:20
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


That is the law, but as some people say, laws are made to be abused and broken. I've read too many stories where people have abused this system repeatedly (In some for m or another) and gotten away with it until someone pushed the feds into investigating or constantly giving info to the news groups countless times which had finally exposed them. All the concern that went unheeded is now at the point that the Feds can't ignore, but most news groups can To the US citizen's detriment. Read  Further:

Feds Target Food Stamp Abuse


Michigan cracking down on Food Stamps Abuse


Food Stamp fraud in Pennsylvania

Or Welfare fraud in general

Getting Rich off of the Poor
 
When your program serves 10s of millions abuse can occure. It is all about the volume of abuse and how much it costs. 
 
For food stamps, the overwhelming majority of fraud is committed not by the poor receipients but by the businesses themselves and in any case it is estimated to be around 1% of the entire program which makes it one of the most efficient programs anyware:
 
Personally I would be more worried about corporate welfare fraud (corporate welfare for profitable companies is much larger than all federal welfare for the poor and disabled) which is much more prevalent.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

You'd be surprised what something for nothing can do to the unscrupulous. With that said, there are of course legitimate needy families out there who depend on that couple of hundred a month too keep from starving. But because of the former, it makes it so much harder for the latter to get the benefit they sorely need to survive.
 
Again, if the fraud level was high then there is reason to be concerned. But facts simply don't support this claim nor the program itself that big as a part of the budget (76 billion out of 3 trillion) to warrant action.
 
If there is a problem fix it don't eliminate the entire program because of it.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Sorry, but he is mostly right about the pre-1941 FDR depressive era, in my opinion. Unemployment may have dropped by 1941, but it wasn;t because of any program FDR was creating too make this so. It dropped only finally significantly dropped because the US beginning to gear up for the inevitable by 1940, re: Selective Service Act of 1940
 
No he is not. At its maximum, the unemployment rate when FDR took over was around 25%. It went down to 10% in 1941 and even in that year government spending was still no where near the 4 years after it. This while not forgetting that there was a mid term recession lasting two years and raising unemployment by 4% making his actual achievement even more impressive.
 
Even if we give people opposing FDR's program the benifit of the doubt and take the 1939 number (16% and this is after a recession in the previous two years) it is still about 8 points lower than when he took office before keeping in mind that no one actually know the real unemployment numbers before 1938 which might actually be even higher than originally estimate because more people were working in 1939 at an official unemployment rate of 16% than in 1929 with an estimated unemployment number of 5%.

 


Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


If we look at what states they had fled from, then it wouldn't be a surprise on why they left the US, here is a news link and a map:

New maps show the loss of US manufacturing jobs state by state (News report)


Manufacturing State by State, 1971 -2011

Mapping Manufacturing
 
I would like to know what the authors mean by "manufacturing". As I understand it and clearly see it from the map oil and mining is considered an industry which is definitely not. So is GM agriculture which explains why Kansas and Nebraska are there in the map.
 
But there are other reasons for the growth too. Cheap labour is chief among them since the largest populations of hispanics in the US are in the green states.
 
As for the decline, I think there are enough studies to prove that the reasons for decline have little to do with tax rates and alot to do with the nature of manufactured goods (heavy industry vs light industry vs technology intensive industry), the amount of investment in manufacturing (a very important reason often negelected by analysts) and foreign competition.
 
 

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 
I disagree. They do create jobs but, yes of course, they also do so to make a profit by maximizing revenue while reducing costs. That only makes sense. Otherwise, why in the hell bother with a manufacturing business in the first place. But labor costs are  one of the decisive factor in where a company decides to set up a plant. i.e. any state that is heavily dominated by a union. The stronger the union is backed by the state, then the higher the cost of employment makes the argument over the price of raw materials irrelevant. That is why a lot of blue state and some red had seen the manufacturing companies flee en mass to a more balanced, business friendly regions around the globe (An exorbitantly cheaper labor work force) and helped to spur the growth of the much decried multinationals corporations.

Of course, this isn't saying that unions are evil Well private sector at least. Some are as aware as anyone else as to what is going on and are doing what they can to work with corporations to keep them from fleeing by being more flexible in demands for the workers, even going so far in making the people thy represent too take a pay decrease too show the company(ies) how serious they are in keeping them there.
 
Europe is much more unionised than the US and unions there by law have a share in the company and a seat in the administration and yet labour costs there are lower than the US. Nor companies there are fleeing.
 
The problem in the US is that there is seldom a purely manufacturing company in existance. The conglomerate model in which the company has a foot in each base is the now prevalent model in which the manufacturing sector of the company is forced to compete for corporate resources with other much more profitable and much less capital intensive sectors like healthcare and banking (GM's banking sector is what nearly collapsed it not its manufacturing one). Because of the pressures to make more profits the manufacturing sector is forced to relocate and such decisions are often taken by people who have little relationship with the industrial sector of a company.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 15:50
Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

 
Some businesses start small.  Apple was founded in a garage.  Since Obama cant run in 2016, perhaps the Republican growth rate will double to say 11%.   This number could rise further with a concentrated effort. 
 
Bad analogy. Blacks have been voting this way since numbers were been tracked (1988 where 88% of blacks voted for the democrat).
 
Unless certain social and economic policies change the republicans won't make inroads into the black vote.
 
Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

And presuming that such a high perentage will continue to back the democrats indefinetly based on the results of one election is a little of a stretch
 
It is not just one elections. Since 2004 Hispanics overwhelmingly voted democrat. Of course turning them is easier than black vote (conservatism is the dominant force in Latin America) but it still need a radical policy shift especially on immigration and language rights.
 
 
Originally posted by Nomadic Nomadic wrote:

Except that many (but not all) anti poverty programs as implemented for the last 20 years do not alleviate poverty.   Obama's "innovative" ideas are to make financial promise after financial promise in the pursuit of current votes.  Future solvency means nothing.  Out of cash, he just demands another credit card.
 
As a populist, he will make the rich make the payments on the credit debt.  Sadly, the debt is so high that not even the rich can cover the payments.  In an age where wealth and capital can transferred easily, a certain number of rich will leave in the economic sense for Brazil, India, Malaysia and China.  Obama will then move on to the "rich"....     
 
The goal of poverty programs is to alleviate the transitional poverty people in the fringe of the middle class find themselves in due to hard economic times through no fault of their own. These are momentary programs and since the poverty rate has been constant all these years and sensative to economic growth rather than population growth means that the programs are working quite well.
 
Structural poverty is a completely different matter and the US is woefully behind in this catagory.
 
As for the debt, as I said several times before is nothing but a rouse. Japan has had debt of over 100% of GDP for 12 years now and the economy didn't collapse nor society imploded.
 
Making the rich pay for the debt alone is wrong but since the middle class and poor have been paying dearly through extreme austerity on the federal and state levels (none defense budget is at its smalled share of the GDP since the 30s) since 2007 it is apropriate to tax them more.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.