Whats the deal with obummer?

[linwood]

The two points brought up earlier, the one about approval ratings among blacks and the one about mccains policies, PROVES that people were for him solely based upon his race.

You mean the two unfounded, unreferenced, unevidenced points that were brought up?

I see no reason to even consider them anything more than here say until some reference has been provided.

People would have voted in anyone who wasn`t republican in that election.
Black,white, red or yellow.

 

[Copernicus]

Ok, so socialism helped everyone who has tried it a lot...

I never said anything like that. National health care plans and Keynesian deficit spending are a far cry from socialism.

Why do people like that even exist? Who would vote for them (besides republicans; they'll vote for anything bad, but fortunately, they've been in a minority for a while, haven't they?)

I don't agree with the generalization that Republicans will vote for anything bad. The Republican party has shrunk as it has been taken over by its most extreme elements. At some point, there will be a swing back in the opposite direction. I think that a lot of Republicans--moderate fiscal conservatives--would go for a third party now, but that would only divide them further. In a way, they have schismed already in New York, which has always had Liberal and Conservative party alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats. Extremists in the Republican party stabbed the Republican in the back by promoting the Conservative candidate. So they managed to turn almost certain victory into a loss because of their stupid infighting.

I still don't get why the RICH needed that money. They already had money. Lots of money. Why couldn't we have forced them to spend the vast amounts of wealth they already had on their companies rather than jets and mansions?

Some very wealthy people become prominent philanthropists (like Bill Gates). In general, people who have a lot of money also develop goals that require a lot of money to achieve. Philanthropists just have less selfish goals.

Er, by the way, was it the war that destroyed our economy, or was it the free-market idealogy?

I see no reason why it should be one or the other. Bush had a variety of bad policies, and most of them contributed in some way to bring his country to its knees. But the economic bubble was certain to burst. Bush just kept pricking away at it as it grew larger.

 

[T-Dawg]

I never said anything like that. National health care plans and Keynesian deficit spending are a far cry from socialism.

I know you didn't say that, I said it. Socialism has helped every country that has tried it, to my knowledge. So has Keynesianism.

I don't agree with the generalization that Republicans will vote for anything bad. The Republican party has shrunk as it has been taken over by its most extreme elements. At some point, there will be a swing back in the opposite direction. I think that a lot of Republicans--moderate fiscal conservatives--would go for a third party now, but that would only divide them further. In a way, they have schismed already in New York, which has always had Liberal and Conservative party alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats. Extremists in the Republican party stabbed the Republican in the back by promoting the Conservative candidate. So they managed to turn almost certain victory into a loss because of their stupid infighting.

So, er, is the republican party even still standing as a major political party, or have all the moderates left it? Will it have enough people in it to field a candidate with a decent shot of winning by 2012?

Yeah, I know it's a stupid question, but seriously, I keep hearing all this bad stuff about republicans and no one (besides fundamentalist whackos) standing up for them... it makes me wonder if the republican party will ever have a shot at winning an election again.

Some very wealthy people become prominent philanthropists (like Bill Gates). In general, people who have a lot of money also develop goals that require a lot of money to achieve. Philanthropists just have less selfish goals.

So what made us think that they would spend money on their companies rather than on these goals? O_O

 

[Minus Habens]

Extremists in the Republican party stabbed the Republican in the back by promoting the Conservative candidate. So they managed to turn almost certain victory into a loss because of their stupid infighting.

Um, I thought the republican candidate was appointed, not voted for in a primary. Based on the election results, I would think she would not have been chosen. And, remember, she was still on the ballot, but only got 6% of the vote, and it was not a large margin of victory for the democrate. Pretty good for a relitively unmnown. Not that I agree totally with what transpiredz but I think your analysis is off.

 

[Minus Habens]

I know you didn't say that, I said it. Socialism has helped every country that has tried it, to my knowledge.

Um, what countries? Venezuela? USSR? If it helped China so much, why are they abandoning it for Capitalism?

So what made us think that they would spend money on their companies rather than on these goals? O_O

Because, Bill Gates has already contributed vastly to charities, as do MOST billionairs... Do you require them to give most of their money to charity!? What percentage?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Things are way off! We where in a hurry to pass a stimulus bill but still have not spent the money. Then we wonder why the economy is not doing so great. We give money to banks and they in turn send the money out of the country, and we wonder why the economy is still tanked.

!0.2 % unemployment rate and people can't figure out what the problem is.

The problem is, the banks are not lending money. They are waiting for higher interest rates before they let loose of the money.

Small business is the engine that gets folks working. High interest loans will not entice a small business to hire more workers.

The government sucks at creating jobs. Anyone want to guess how much it costs per job when the government creates them?

The government raised the minimum wage. Does anyone think that actually helped the low income worker? One does the work of two now and the other worker is laid off.

Like it or not, the evil capitalists are the ones who do a better job of employing folks. The government is working against capitalists. That is why we have double digit unemployment.

 

[Magic Man]

Um, what countries? Venezuela? USSR? If it helped China so much, why are they abandoning it for Capitalism?

When did those countries try socialism? Last time I checked they tried communism. Or is it that you don't realize there's a difference?

 

[Magic Man]

Like it or not, the evil capitalists are the ones who do a better job of employing folks. The government is working against capitalists. That is why we have double digit unemployment.

So, why would Bush work against capitalists? I thought he was the good guy. I mean, he was the one under whom the unemployment rate got up to, like, 8.5%. So, Bush causes the unemployment rate to skyrocket, but he's still the good guy? Then, under Obama it climbs a bit higher, and he's the bad guy? Way to make sense there, Rick.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, why would Bush work against capitalists? I thought he was the good guy. I mean, he was the one under whom the unemployment rate got up to, like, 8.5%. So, Bush causes the unemployment rate to skyrocket, but he's still the good guy? Then, under Obama it climbs a bit higher, and he's the bad guy? Way to make sense there, Rick.

Nice strawman!

 

[T-Dawg]

Um, what countries? Venezuela? USSR? If it helped China so much, why are they abandoning it for Capitalism?

I don't know anything about Venezuela, but the USSR's economy did very well, although their human rights record didn't do so well (this had more to do with Stalin's brutality than socialism). In fact, I've even heard that the USSR was doing great until Gorbachev's reforms destroyed the economy (not sure about that one). The reason it collapsed is because of it's foreign policy of expansionism and because of America (especially under Reagan) trying to anhilate everyone who they thought might make friends with the USSR. Socialism transformed Russia from a backwards, agricultural country to an industrial superpower in about five years under Stalin, although there was great loss of life in the process (think of it as having the century or so of capitalist oppression during the industrial age in the western world compacted into a small period of time).

As for China, I don't know anything about their plans to become capitalist, but that might have to do with American influence. After all, it was America that bankrupted itself so China could become a superpower.

Because, Bill Gates has already contributed vastly to charities, as do MOST billionairs... Do you require them to give most of their money to charity!? What percentage?

I have no idea what that question has to do with what I said. I said that they should be spending money ON THEIR COMPANIES, I said nothing about charity. I said that we shouldn't bail them out if they have the money to do it themselves but spend it on other things (be it charity or mansions). Or at least that's what I was trying to get at O_O.

When did those countries try socialism? Last time I checked they tried communism. Or is it that you don't realize there's a difference?

In case he doesn't know, I'll try to summarize them for him:
Communism - abolition of "private property" (note: what you make yourself you can keep, if I understood Marx correctly), government control of wealth distribution so that each person gets what he needs (theoretically), lack of a private sector.
Socialism - government provided healthcare, welfare, etc, and a heavily restricted private sector. Also, according to Marx, socialism is one of the steps to transition into communism (fuedalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism).

Socialism is our best option right now. Ideally, we want communism, but humanity has some evolving to do before it will work out on a large scale. It WILL happen, though.

So, why would Bush work against capitalists? I thought he was the good guy. I mean, he was the one under whom the unemployment rate got up to, like, 8.5%. So, Bush causes the unemployment rate to skyrocket, but he's still the good guy? Then, under Obama it climbs a bit higher, and he's the bad guy? Way to make sense there, Rick.

They're both the bad guys. Or at least, I sure hope so, because if Obama's NOT a bad guy, and he's actually trying to save the economy, then he's failing, and if he's failing, that means that America's downward spiral is beyond the control of the government, and our days are numbered.

Nice strawman!

What strawman are you talking about? He's taking what you said and arguing against it. You said that capitalists are the best employers, and then he stated that under Bush, who advocated complete deregulation of the economy, the unemployment rate rose to 8.5%.

 

[Copernicus]

Um, I thought the republican candidate was appointed, not voted for in a primary. Based on the election results, I would think she would not have been chosen. And, remember, she was still on the ballot, but only got 6% of the vote, and it was not a large margin of victory for the democrate. Pretty good for a relitively unmnown. Not that I agree totally with what transpiredz but I think your analysis is off.

All I said was that the prominent Republicans who promoted the Conservative candidate stabbed the official Republican candidate--the candidate of their party--in the back. I said nothing about how she became the candidate, and that was not a local issue. This happened in one of the safest Republican congressional districts in the country. My analysis is not off. Many Republicans agree with it. They violated Reagan's "11th commandment", and they blew it big time.

 

[Minus Habens]

When did those countries try socialism? Last time I checked they tried communism. Or is it that you don't realize there's a difference?

Their economies were/are socialist, weren't they!?

Some seem to think so...

author:"Burawoy" intitle:"The Soviet transition from socialism to capitalism: ..." - Google Scholar

Venezuela socialist economies - Google Scholar

But, I am no expert, so I could be mistaken... Care to enlighten me as to which countries are thriving with socialist economies?

 

[YamiB.]

Um, I thought the republican candidate was appointed, not voted for in a primary. Based on the election results, I would think she would not have been chosen. And, remember, she was still on the ballot, but only got 6% of the vote, and it was not a large margin of victory for the democrate. Pretty good for a relitively unmnown. Not that I agree totally with what transpiredz but I think your analysis is off.

I would say is analysis is definitely correct. The Republicans lost a district that was considered to be safely Republican because of infighting in the party. The Republican candidate was seen by many on the right as too liberal and was attacked. The introduction of a candidate from the Conservative party caused the right wing votes to split. And the position of that candidate on the farther right made him less desirable to moderate right wing voters. He was further hurt by the fact that the attacks on the Republican candidate from him and national Republican figures caused her to endorse the Democrat in the race. It seems extremely unlikely that if there had only been one candidate from the right wing that this district would have flipped.

Also I'm not quite sure why you're bringing up her low numbers in the election. I'd say that 6% is pretty high for a person who had already dropped out of the race. Really I'd say the most information you can draw from that is that about 6% of voters in that district to not follow political news closely.

 

[Magic Man]

Nice strawman!

What strawman? You said the government is working against capitalists, and that's why we have double-digit unemployment. If that was the reason for the high unemployment rate, then that means Bush's government was working against capitalists, too, since it was under him that the unemployment rate got near double digits.

So, if you think that's the reason for the high unemployment rate, then I would assume you had a problem with the way Bush was going against capitalists, too, right? Otherwise, you'd be being a complete hypocrite...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What has he accomplished? He got the stimulus bill passed. That's working real well.......Not!

Stem cell research, mending global fences, closing of Gitmo (or at least the bill was signed), health care maybe, tax cuts for the people who need them (not all of the people who got tax cuts, but I know I'm paying less taxes and living alittle more comfortably), and unfortunately, more stimulus bills.
But lets not forget. Obama is BIRACIAL!! I personally can't stand this whole race card thing. I didn't vote for him because he was part black or part white. I voted for him (which I almost didn't because he supported the initial bail outs) because of two primary reasons. I didn't want a Bush clone in office, and I was hoping for a president that could get stuff done.
Had Hilary won, critics would have pointed out because she is a woman. That is why McCain butchered his own chances of winning by picking Palin as his running mate. To catch the women's pride wave that Hilary rode. A McCain victory would have been noted as his veteran status. Even if Kerry would have beat Bush in '04, it could have been said because he married into a rich family. You can find any such factor in any politician.
Allthough, I do have to agree that he hasn't acheived enough for the peace prize. But, at least Obama himself did admit he doesn't feel he deserved it.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I'm just going to respond by saying something that may or may not relate to your original post. It's hard to tell since you have no meaningful points but mostly a rant.

Is it so hard to believe that people vote for people they like? Maybe they like the policy of the politician. Maybe it's the politician's charm, smile, race, gender, religion, shoe color, name, or by a coin toss. Our political system does not have any prerequisites of logic or 'right' considerations when it comes to voting for their politicians.

 

[Copernicus]

Is it so hard to believe that people vote for people they like? Maybe they like the policy of the politician. Maybe it's the politician's charm, smile, race, gender, religion, shoe color, name, or by a coin toss. Our political system does not have any prerequisites of logic or 'right' considerations when it comes to voting for their politicians.

But not everyone votes on visceral issues such as a smile or an eloquent speech. Reason and debate do play a big role in confirming or disconfirming what a voter would like to believe about a candidate. I do not like some of the decisions that Obama has make since he took office, but I would still vote for him again. I cannot think of many politicians whom I would prefer over him for that high office, because I trust his abilities and (with reservations) his political judgment. I also think that he has a winning smile and a great family, but I would have voted for Grampy McCain if he had espoused more reasonable policies and shown himself to be mentally stable. Unfortunately, he did neither.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I brought up the voting methods because people assume that people need to be rational to vote. Certainly this has never been the case. The large turnout of blacks voting for Obama is no surprise. If there was a Chinese American running for office, what are the chances that he/she would get an overwhelming vote from the Chinese, even those who don't speak very good English or care about politics. Same an be said for Mexicans and any other races.

But this shouldn't take away from the fact that the office of the presidency is sacred. People, out of ignorance or stupidity, try to demean what it takes to be a president and to actually win by accrediting it to factors like race and money or cheating. The fact is they had to be qualified and smarter than most of us to make it that far - and like it or not, that includes one more hated ones like George W. Bush and certainly the more liked ones like Clinton and Obama.

 

[Copernicus]

I brought up the voting methods because people assume that people need to be rational to vote. Certainly this has never been the case. The large turnout of blacks voting for Obama is no surprise. If there was a Chinese American running for office, what are the chances that he/she would get an overwhelming vote from the Chinese, even those who don't speak very good English or care about politics. Same an be said for Mexicans and any other races.

You cannot make this generalizations. There were white voters who voted for McCain because of race, but the majority voted against him. I have voted for a Chinese-American to be my governor (Gary Locke), and I would almost certainly vote for him to be president against almost any Republican. I don't think that irrational thinking dominates voters, although it certainly influences votes.

But this shouldn't take away from the fact that the office of the presidency is scared. People, out of ignorance or stupidity, try to demean what it takes to be a president and to actually win by accrediting it to factors like race and money or cheating. The fact is they had to be qualified and smarter than most of us to make it that far - and like it or not, that includes one more hated ones like George W. Bush and certainly the more liked ones like Clinton and Obama.

I think that we have had some pretty stupid presidents in the past, and that includes George W Bush (albeit not necessarily his father). Bush had other things going for him, but I think that most voters judged him to be smarter than he actually turned out to be. Winning high political office depends on other things than the ability of candidate to rise to that position. I think that Sarah Palin proved that beyond a reasonable doubt in the last election. She also started out getting the benefit of the doubt, but that faded rapidly when she got out on the campaign trail.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I'm not the one making the generalization. I bring up race and other emotional connections as a factor in response to the generalization that voters need to be somehow rational. There's no constitutional basis or any legal requirement for such a thing. There are some things that are fundamental for many people - they may not be a majority, or a minority, but they do exist. And discounting or using that, as a means to discredit an administration is an invalid argument.

FYI: I'll bet all my savings that George W. Bush is smarter than you, and I. He's not a great public speaker, and I sure as hell didn't vote for him, but he is still a very charismatic person and you'd be wrong if you think that total idiots can obtain that office. If it were that easy, everyone would and could do it.