2012 US Presidential Election discussion.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
ABC78
Junior Member
US politians have bashed and scapegoated Chinese and China for all their economic ills for over 160yrs ever since the Chinese came to build the railroads in the US.
PhageHunter
New Member
Much more interesting than the debate.
[video=youtube;dX_1B0w7Hzc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc#![/video]
[video=youtube;dX_1B0w7Hzc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc#![/video]
Last edited:
Not brilliant at all. People are sick of the meaningless play on words.
Fact is, Obama says he believes that women should receive equal pay for equal work, and he would sign the Democratic bill. But in his own White House he has woman on record that the White House staff is a discriminatory place to women where they are not receiving equal pay for equal positions and work. One of them said it was a classic example of discrimination in the work place against women. So what would you call that? An Obamanation?
A new book by a Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter quotes former White House communications director Anita Dunn saying that the Obama White House “fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” And Christina Romer, who served as Obama’s chair of the Council of Economic Advisors until last year, apparently told the author that she “felt like a piece of meat” after another economic advisor kept her out of an important meeting.
investors.com said:
At his own company, at the Olympics and as Governor of Mass, Romney has never had women speak in such a fashion about his staff. Hmm...like I said, such witty sound bites really mean nothing.
Last edited:
Subedei
Banned Idiot
Perhaps they haven't been asked, Jeff! And, perhaps Romney's company has clauses in its contracts concerning divulging information about the company. But, that's not to diminish the significance of Obama's hypocrisy, only to suggest that the entire case may not have been presented.
My take on the election and its greater context is this:
Obama is like a little boy whose vision of the world is based on fantasies and symbolic representations. His biggest weakness is that he believes his own hype (omniscience). Thus, he can't see his biggest weakness. He believed he could untie the Gordian knot of the influences that the global economic meltdown exert upon the U.S. economy without investing any serious efforts toward understanding their complexities. Even Hercules deferred on that task. My opinion is that any person of superior intellect and understanding, particularly a person of Machiavellian intellect, upon even attempting a basic understanding of what happened on Sep 15 2008 and the factors that contributed to it, would have stepped out of the race for president expecting that the coming years would be disastrous.
Now, enter Mitt Romney! A big, grown, business-MAN, whose vision of the world is anchored firmly in the realities of black and white of bottom line and billionaire social/business networks. His biggest weakness is that he believes the hype of his billionaire capitalist class (omnipotence). Thus, he can't see any weakness, at all. Romney shares Obama's fantastic belief that he can untie the Gordian knot of the influences that the global economic meltdown exert upon the U.S. economy without investing any serious efforts toward understanding their complexities. He can't, and he won't, and I'm voting for him in order that he have the opportunity to fail, just as miserably as Obama has. And, if elected, he will!
Sometimes, one has to start from the perspective of ignorance to achieve understanding. Contemporary American politicians always have the answers, but never any questions, except about each others' integrity. The present global economic context is a complex that comprises a precarious aggregation of historical and contemporary factors. The short and long-term outcomes of their interactions will determine social and economic stability for the foreseeable future. I'm not at all confident that smug self-assurance, from either the American Left or Right, is the best approach to considering the context. And, actually, I'm not certain that even the most thoroughly considered actions, taken by the most supremely humble, best intentioned, and best qualified among us would guarantee positive outcomes. But, I'm thinking that's what it would take to even have that chance. Unfortunately, at this point in the historical arc of American politics, smug self-assurance, from both the American Left and Right, are the only options we're presented.
As it seems that Laissez Faire Capitalism is the direction that Americans are willingly, albeit ignorantly, being led back to, I choose to participate in leading them from the rear. I'm voting for Romney/Ryan, wholly expecting their policies to fail. Not that they'll fail to further enrich the capitalist elite, but that they'll fail to mitigate the disastrous influences of the global economic meltdown upon the U.S. economy. If the only way we'll learn, or not, is the hard way, then so be it!
Last edited:
Subedei
Banned Idiot
Subedei
Banned Idiot
that have been pre-screened and pre-selected by the capitalist elite
or, so we're told!
Oh please. They have been asking everyone associated with Romney about his entire life. If there was a hint of this it would be all over the news. The fact that the best they can come up with are him carrying a dog on the top of his car (when Obama is on record for eating dogs), or a fisticuff he had with a kid 50 years agon when he was in High School tells you they have nothing. So they manufacture stuff, like him being responsible for the death of a woman (which was completely debunked by the Washington Post and New York Times for pete's sake) or that he was a felonious tax cheat, which his release of his tax information has shown also to be a patent lie.
But, hint or no, it is not unlike the Chicago machine to manufacture something and bring it out five days before the elction. Most of us expect something like this, either directed at Romney...or, perhaps more likely, some major foreign policy breakthrough on the eve of the election to try and make Obama look better. I do not believe, whatever it is, that the citizens are going to buy it.
As to the US failing under Romney. Who knows? Our economy under explosive deficit spending is in trouble and could fail. I lived through a similar experience under Carter when Reagan was elected to "fix" it, where these same supply side policies turned America around within three years,. My first house purchase was at 16% interest under Carter. I purchased the second four years later at 7 1/2 %. Gas prices sky rocketed under Carter, and the US had lost the trust of many allies and the respect of adversaries.
Again, that all changed before Regans first term was over which led to the absolute blow out victory in 1984 against Mondale.
Barring some unforseen tragedy...I expect much the same results under a Romney administration. Should he win...and I believe he will...then three years from now we can reconvene this discussion to see where we are at that date and why.
Last edited:
Subedei
Banned Idiot
so, you're stating, unequivocally, that, you know, factually, that romney's business, his olympics administration, and his gubernatorial administration, were gender egalitarian environments, and that, in those environments, women were paid equal to men?
okay! i'd simply suggest, that, if you want other, critical thinkers to accept that belief, you might seek to substantiate it with evidence, and not with the lack of evidence.
all i suggested is that, on that particular matter, a full investigation of what evidence may exist has not been conducted. thus, it seems, to me, that because you've chosen romney, or perhaps because he was chosen for you, that you're inclined to defensiveness regarding him, and that you're simply accepting, or constructing, arguments supporting him without sufficient evidence.
i'm somewhat surprised, but then again, not, that your response contained such pat references to the obama phenomenon. i'm no fan of obama, either personally or politically. i never have been and i never stated a preference for him. yet, you chose to argue against obama to persuade me, or yourself, of romney's legitimacy. my perception of obama is that he's so inauthentic he can't even recognize it, and also quite narcissistic. personally, i'd have more respect for a conscious con-man. at least, he knows he's full of crap. but, my aversion to him derives from my own, independent, interpretations of the man, and is not the result of media "manufacturing". i don't need to use code-words (symbolic representations) that i've been prompted to form an emotional response to. i'm quite capable of constructing my own formulations. but, i'm well aware, by now, that most folks aren't inclined to formulate their own convictions, preferring to have those pre-packaged for them. the mass media, as it were, are a tool of mass psychology, and they do function as controlling and predictive instruments. whatever works for you!
as i've stated, i'm also expecting the romney/ryan ticket to win the election, and hoping they will do so. but my hopes are not based in some nostalgic construction of the reagan years. i'm quite aware of the long-term consequences of policies of general de-regulation, insidious in that their consequences aren't immediately obvious, obscuring relations of cause and effect. but, if this is the course that the american voters choose, then more power to them. i'm with them all the way. but, i'm not that uninformed, that historically ignorant, that politically naive, enough to believe that this will end well. oh, the ride will be profitable, for some, for a while. but, it won't end well for most. but, hey, who cares how it ends, right? the mass-media haven't pre-packaged that concern for us.
notice below, a trend that began around the time of the reagan administration:
View attachment 6994
Last edited: