Who Do you guys like Better and for what reasons?

[9to5cynic]

They're making those changes in election year? How convenient for the richest candidate.

The whole delegate thing only seems valid at all to me if it's fully representative of the vote percentage results for each candidate (+ or - the "half" delegate that might pan out in uneven results).

And whats worse, is that after the election, the split was even. Then the next day, somehow Romney pulled some strings and got one extra delegate from Santorum's side ... Not sure how that happens, but I'd love to have that kind of pull around the country.

 

[TxGoat]

And whats worse, is that after the election, the split was even. Then the next day, somehow Romney pulled some strings and got one extra delegate from Santorum's side ... Not sure how that happens, but I'd love to have that kind of pull around the country.

Sadly, our political system is heavily influenced by money. Hell, even the decisions made by these policy makers are influenced by external money. I just hope eventually the right people start asking why our politicians are so easily accessible to the money of special interest groups. I don't think we're going to really get a handle on it in the immediate future, so I'd rather just make EVERY politician's finances available to public and media scrutiny. I know it sounds drastic, having full disclosure of every politician's, but if you think about it, there are some federal jobs where an employee's finances are tightly monitored to ensure that the employee isn't engaging in illegal activities that go against U.S. interests. My question is why aren't politicians subject to the same scrutiny?

 

[breadnatty08]

Anyone have any predictions for today? Here's a fun little flow chart from the Post that tells you who to vote for:

 

[Unforgiven]

Anyone have any predictions for today?

Work is going to suck. There is a polling place upstairs from my office and no one can seem to find it. It's only been there for 150+ years but I will still have to tell at least 50 people where it is because they failed to notice all the florescent yellow signs.

 

[breadnatty08]

Work is going to suck. There is a polling place upstairs from my office and no one can seem to find it. It's only been there for 150+ years but I will still have to tell at least 50 people where it is because they failed to notice all the florescent yellow signs.

Yikes, sucks for that. I'm sure Romney will kill MA. Is there any other states that matter besides Ohio?

 

[TxGoat]

Anyone have any predictions for today? Here's a fun little flow chart from the Post that tells you who to vote for:

WORST MARCH MADNESS BRACKET EVAAAAAARRRR!!!

 

[breadnatty08]

Txgoat, as much as I (and probably most others) hate your avatar, I like your humor.
If Newt wins GA, do you think he'll still continue? After watching the news lately (mostly the Daily Show), it seems like no one likes any of the candidates. Do any of them stand a chance?
Voters to GOP candidates: We don’t like any of you - The Washington Post

 

[ylexot]

Actually, you need a license issued by a state to be legally married.

Yes, you do require a license currently. My argument (if you had been reading) is that government should step aside and not license marriages.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[TxGoat]

Txgoat, as much as I (and probably most others) hate your avatar, I like your humor.
If Newt wins GA, do you think he'll still continue? After watching the news lately (mostly the Daily Show), it seems like no one likes any of the candidates. Do any of them stand a chance?
Voters to GOP candidates: We don’t like any of you - The Washington Post

Dis on my avatar aside, I think the GOP is going to be hard pressed to displace Obama. If you look at the candidates, each seems to personify what's wrong with today's GOP.

You have Romney, a good representation of the greed within the party. If he becomes their nomination, his time at Bain Capital is going to be put scrutinized, and considering how many people have been displaced in the past few years, they're not going to find his track record to their liking.

Then there's Santorum, who does a good job representing the religious zealots of the party. These people insist that gay marriage, gays in the military, and women's reproductive rights need to be rolled back to pre-1900 conditions. I'm sure he turned off a lot of voters when he stated that JFK's speech about religion having any role in government made him sick to his stomach. I guess someone forgot to inform Santorum that the model for countries that practice a theocracy are Islamic states.

Newt, where does one begin, there are his failed marriages, his constant attempts at blaming everything on the "elite media", his dealings with Fanny Mae, his corruption charges when he was in Washington, and lets not forget the billionaire behind his Superpac. I think Newt played his trump card when he went after the debate moderator a few months ago and played up to the Tea Party fanatics in the crowd. His campaign needs a "Do not resuscitate" label on it.

Ron Paul, as much as I'm intrigued by a candidate that doesn't have big money behind him, I see the special interests threatened by him more than by the other candidates, thus I don't see him standing when the dust settles. Some of his policies seem genuinely flawed as well, and I think if he were the GOP candidate, some of his more absurd ideas might be enough to dissuade voters in the end. It is nice to see that he has a lot of young voters energized, and lets face it the GOP is the unmarked-white-van when it comes to attracting a younger audience.

As ineffective as some people think Obama has been, I don't see any viable candidate from the GOP winning enough votes to displace him. The only strategy the GOP can consider at this point is to have Mitt Romney as their nominee and have someone like a Sarah Palin or some other fringe lunatic try to run as an independent to try steal some votes from Obama the way Ross Perot did back when he ran. I think the GOP is in for a long year.

 

[9to5cynic]

Ron Paul, as much as I'm intrigued by a candidate that doesn't have big money behind him, I see the special interests threatened by him more than by the other candidates, thus I don't see him standing when the dust settles. Some of his policies seem genuinely flawed as well, and I think if he were the GOP candidate, some of his more absurd ideas might be enough to dissuade voters in the end. It is nice to see that he has a lot of young voters energized, and lets face it the GOP is the unmarked-white-van when it comes to attracting a younger audience.

I agree. What, I think I read he's the only GOP canidate with 0 millionaires backing him I feel (what I can only assume is) the same way about him. There are a lot of points that he makes that I like, but hell, somethings are pretty much ... ehh.. no....

And the young vote is interesting, I remember that Obama got a large portion of the young vote and I think they even said that social media helped his campaign.... I wonder who the young vote would side with if it was RP v. Obama...

 

[TxGoat]

I agree. What, I think I read he's the only GOP canidate with 0 millionaires backing him I feel (what I can only assume is) the same way about him. There are a lot of points that he makes that I like, but hell, somethings are pretty much ... ehh.. no....

And the young vote is interesting, I remember that Obama got a large portion of the young vote and I think they even said that social media helped his campaign.... I wonder who the young vote would side with if it was RP v. Obama...

That's one of the reasons I see the GOP asking Ron Paul to run as an independent. He would siphon some of the young votes from Obama.

 

[breadnatty08]

So it looks like ST was a big victory for Romney (Ohio), but Santorum is still holding his own. Romney only won Ohio by 1%. Ron Paul got 40% of the vote in VA (okay, it was only RP and Romney on the ticket with no option of a write-in).
Gingrich won not only GA, but also the endorsement of Palin, wonder which was more important to his campaign?

 

[doniago]

Watching the whole thing as a liberal Democrat, I can't decide whether I'd like the craziest Republican nominee to win on the grounds that they would then almost certainly lose to Obama, or whether I'd like the least crazy Republican nominee to win on the grounds that if they then win the presidency it's at least not completely horrifying (though it will probably be horrifying enough).

The only nominee I saw who managed to elicit my interest in any significantly non-negative manner was Huntsman. Shame he dropped out.

 

[AntimonyER]

I think Romney all but clinched it last night (The one exception would be if Gingrich dropped out, but the man is so egotistical, I don't see it happening). I think we will see the Dems and Obama see it this way too, and the attack ads will begin soon.

 

[TxGoat]

Watching the whole thing as a liberal Democrat, I can't decide whether I'd like the craziest Republican nominee to win on the grounds that they would then almost certainly lose to Obama, or whether I'd like the least crazy Republican nominee to win on the grounds that if they then win the presidency it's at least not completely horrifying (though it will probably be horrifying enough).

The only nominee I saw who managed to elicit my interest in any significantly non-negative manner was Huntsman. Shame he dropped out.

I can't see myself playing the GOP's game on this one "if we lose, we'll ensure that America is driven to the dirt". I want the best candidate to win, regardless of which party he's from. I really don't see any GOP candidate that's a better option than Obama at this point. I actually think it's funny how some people get so wrapped up in politics that they put it ahead of the country.

The GOP policies have failed because it puts too much trust on the wealthy to do what's right. The wealthy have demonstrated that they'll put their bottom line ahead of what's right for their employees and their country time and time again. Instead of the GOP trying to address and adjust their antiquated policies, they keep trying to insist that it's the only way to go. " We need to lower taxes on the job creators", "We need to refocus on family values", those policies are not going to ensure American success, it's going to ensure that the wealthy get wealthier, the disenfranchised get more alienated, and the middle class get left holding the bag.

I for one am more than happy to vote for the best candidate, but until the GOP decides to change its ideology, I'll be voting for "the other guy" whether Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent.

 

[AntimonyER]

How can you say that running trillion dollars deficits is better than ANYTHING? Yes Republican policies help businesses. But businesses are by definition "The Economy". Profits are what companies use to expand (ie hire more people). It's also what those companies pay taxes on, which fund the government benefits liberals like so much. So what is it again that bothers you so much about business profits again? Would you rather they not make profits, and at the least stop hiring, at the worst lay off everyone that is employed there and close their doors, and not contribute any money to government coffers? Yes there are corrupt businesses, and sometimes they lose people's money. But that is the exception, not the rule. Being anti-business is the worst possible thing for America, because it's the foundation of what made this country what it is.

 

[TxGoat]

How can you say that running trillion dollars deficits is better than ANYTHING? Yes Republican policies help businesses. But businesses are by definition "The Economy". Profits are what companies use to expand (ie hire more people). It's also what those companies pay taxes on, which fund the government benefits liberals like so much. So what is it again that bothers you so much about business profits again? Would you rather they not make profits, and at the least stop hiring, at the worst lay off everyone that is employed there and close their doors, and not contribute any money to government coffers? Yes there are corrupt businesses, and sometimes they lose people's money. But that is the exception, not the rule. Being anti-business is the worst possible thing for America, because it's the foundation of what made this country what it is.

I think your memory is failing you. Obama wasn't in office when all these trillions were being run up. No he didn't fall over himself to end the spending (war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), and no he didn't let the Bush Era tax cuts expire as they were supposed to, but lets see, he bailed out GM/Chrysler which if he hadn't would've meant how many middle class workers unemployed? He signed off on the Stimulus package which slowed how many job losses per month? While he has contributed to our record deficits, there is no way you can claim the wars and the tax cuts were a direct result of his policies.

You can claim it's being "anti-business" all you want, I call it anti-trickle-down economics. If the policies are supposed to be successful, then why didn't we see job growth after Bush signed off on the tax cuts during his term? If a company is showing a profit because of tax cuts do you actually think they're going to hire someone just because they have extra money? Look at Apple, they have BILLIONS just sitting idle, do you think they're going to just hire people just to hire people?

No, it doesn't work that way. The rich are known to save their money, not spend it. I think you're confusing the rich with the middle class. If the middle class hadn't contracted as much as it has in the past 10 years then you'd have more spending dollars available. More disposable income equals more demand for goods and services. More demand for goods and services equals more growth.

The whole idea of "give the "job creators" more tax breaks, give them more wealth", resonates in my ear like "let them eat cake". It's a myth. If you believe giving the "job creators" more money is the answer to job growth, then couldn't you take that same logic and apply it to them when they become "job destroyers"? And lets not kid ourselves, if we're going to acknowledge them as "Job Creators" then we have to also realize that they're also "Job Destroyers". So, if we're going to pay them to create jobs, then it stands to reason that when they destroy jobs that we need to deduct money from them correct?

Think about that for just a little more than a minute, if the "Job Creators" were "Job Destroyers" back after the .com bubble burst, why didn't we recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts? If you reward the "job creators" with tax breaks after a lot of jobs have been lost, and don't see much in the form of recovery after you've rewarded them, what does that tell you about your reward?

 

[AntimonyER]

Well what you are talking about is corruption and crony capitalism, which Obama is just as guilty as the rest. (solyndra, ge, and any other "green" business). And as far as deficits, how do you explain that even with the 500 billion in mostly military cuts, being out of Iraq, and drawing down in Afghanistan, he is still projecting 1.3 trillion deficits. The stimulus jacked the last year under bush from 500 billion to 1.6 trillion, but instead of dropping back to 500 billion, it stayed above 1 trillion every year, because he jacked up spending in his first two years while he had a compliant congress. The Senate unanimously rejected his budget because the spending was out of control. His own party joined with Republicans. Sorry these deficits are on him, not Bush.

 

[ylexot]

And you do know that Obama voted for all that spending when he was in Congress. When it came to fiscal responsibility, Bush was much closer to Democrat ideology than Republican.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[cjr72]

If a company is showing a profit because of tax cuts do you actually think they're going to hire someone just because they have extra money? Look at Apple, they have BILLIONS just sitting idle, do you think they're going to just hire people just to hire people?

They will hire people if they think it will help them add to the billions that are sitting idle. If they see an opportunity to make more profit, and hiring people is what they need to do to help them do so, they will. Why do you think companies hire anybody in the first place?

No, it doesn't work that way. The rich are known to save their money, not spend it.
.
.
.
More disposable income equals more demand for goods and services. More demand for goods and services equals more growth.

Those two statements don't make any sense when taken together. The rich pretty much by definition have the most disposable income. If, as you say, they don't spend it how does it equal demand for more goods and services?

Think about that for just a little more than a minute, if the "Job Creators" were "Job Destroyers" back after the .com bubble burst, why didn't we recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts? If you reward the "job creators" with tax breaks after a lot of jobs have been lost, and don't see much in the form of recovery after you've rewarded them, what does that tell you about your reward?

Once the Bush Tax cuts were made effective immediately in 2003 instead of being dribbled out slowly as first intended when passed in 2001, the unemployment rate fell significantly.

 

[OutofDate1980]

...The rich are known to save their money, not spend it. ....

Perhaps the rich are known for other things.

""Across all seven studies, the general pattern we find is that as a person's social class increases, his or her tendency to behave unethically also increases," said Piff."

Upper class people more likely to behave unethically

 

[TxGoat]

They will hire people if they think it will help them add to the billions that are sitting idle. If they see an opportunity to make more profit, and hiring people is what they need to do to help them do so, they will. Why do you think companies hire anybody in the first place?

They will hire IF it means more money for them, not because they HAVE the money. The demand has to be there and if no one is hiring then how are the millions laid off going to buy?

Those two statements don't make any sense when taken together. The rich pretty much by definition have the most disposable income. If, as you say, they don't spend it how does it equal demand for more goods and services?

The rich are more frugal with their money, the middle class is what drives production and the economy. Giving the rich more tax breaks isn't going to create more demand. They already have money to spend, they're just going to save that money.

Once the Bush Tax cuts were made effective immediately in 2003 instead of being dribbled out slowly as first intended when passed in 2001, the unemployment rate fell significantly.

The department of Labor's statistics don't show this "significance" you speak of.

Perhaps the rich are known for other things.

""Across all seven studies, the general pattern we find is that as a person's social class increases, his or her tendency to behave unethically also increases," said Piff."

Upper class people more likely to behave unethically

As your social class goes up, you tend to look down your nose at people and you find it easier to justify your malice and contempt towards them. A perfect example is Barbara Bush when she claimed that the victims of Katrina had it better off while stranded in the Superdome as opposed to pre-Katrina conditions.

 

[cjr72]

They will hire IF it means more money for them, not because they HAVE the money. The demand has to be there and if no one is hiring then how are the millions laid off going to buy?

The point of tax cuts is to increase demand. Even liberal's favorite economist Keynes believed in cutting taxes during a downturn.

The rich are more frugal with their money, the middle class is what drives production and the economy. Giving the rich more tax breaks isn't going to create more demand. They already have money to spend, they're just going to save that money.

You know this how? And unless they are stuffing their unspent money in mattresses that money will still add to the economy when its parked in investments.

The department of Labor's statistics don't show this "significance" you speak of.

As the chart shows the unemployment rate fell after the tax cuts in 2003 from about 6% to a low of about 4.6% in 2007. I would consider getting the unemployment rate below 5% as pretty significant. I'm sure Obama would take it.

 

[TxGoat]

The point of tax cuts is to increase demand. Even liberal's favorite economist Keynes believed in cutting taxes during a downturn.

Like I said, the rich didn't get rich by spending, how is giving them MORE money going to convince them to spend more?

You know this how? And unless they are stuffing their unspent money in mattresses that money will still add to the economy when its parked in investments.

How do I know that the rich are more frugal? Well one doesn't get rich by buying a lot of consumer products. The best economies in the world are the best because they have a thriving middle class, not a thriving upper class.

As the chart shows the unemployment rate fell after the tax cuts in 2003 from about 6% to a low of about 4.6% in 2007. I would consider getting the unemployment rate below 5% as pretty significant. I'm sure Obama would take it.

I'd wager that the wars waged had more to do with lower unemployment rates than the tax cuts.

What I find curious about the GOP's base is that many talk about going back to the "way things were" back in the 50s and 60s (I won't get into whether or not I believe they also want minorities to be more subservient, via no civil rights, but it does make one wonder). The tax rates were MUCH higher, the wealth gap wasn't nearly what it is now, and unions were more prevalent. I always figured the GOP played a sinister brand of Jedi mind tricks, but damn.....

 

[ylexot]

I will respond thusly...

(FYI, I think the second video is better, but they are both good)