2012 US election thread - keep it civil

[DiebytheSword]

What about Dr. West's philosophies do you disagree with so hard?

Racially divisive politics to start, white supremacy keeping races in their role. Those who see through the prism of race are racists, whether or not they violently attack others for race or not. I would not stand for a racist in the white house.

When a man looks at another man and sees the color of his skin rather than the content of his character, there are problems.

But lets look past that, lets look at his heavy Marxist influence, despite claiming to be non-marxist and socialist? Or how he advocates for racial justice (known also as redistribution of wealth). He's also a borderline anarchist, mistrusting all sources of authority, yet attempting to become authority himself to enact social justice on people unwilling to pay for others mistakes far in the past. I'm first generation American, my family came from socialist hell holes to the United States, I'm multi-ethnic, my children even more so . . . I have no desire to see policies enacted on his philosophy. They are giant steps backwards to when color mattered and where freedom didn't.

 

[Deathshot]

Seriously, Morbid, if you can't accept someone's opinion, then this forum might not be the best place for you.


On the topic of Baracka Obama (MK Reference), All I can see is the samething the general public has seen. Yes, He did bring in Obamacare which I don't mind in some points, but The man really hasn't shown much to me other than the fact of being scared of leaving my current job for I may never see a job after this one I have for a matter of months. In areas I have seen, the economy is so bad in areas that the old "Mom and Pop" shops have had to close down because Mom and Pop can't afford to pay rent or anything due to the lack of customers and prices sky rocketing. I mean I know not all of it is his fault but I wish to see him do more.

I also don't fare, well with Romney. He doesn't seem like he knows what it means to work at a dead end job ever. He was born into money, which to me, tells me he doesn't understand what real money is. What the value of a dollar is. It's just from my own speculation. That "200k-250k" comment kinda made me think he really was an idiot. It's my own opinion. He just changes up his opinions to much for me as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20

 

[harSens]

So when your bills are out of control under your roof you spend more money to get that deficit down? How does that work out for you? Numbers don't lie, spending ass tons of cash does not fix a cash shortage, and that's just my first problem on Obama's presidency.

That's what Keynesian economics would imply, yes. That worked for the US to get out of the great depression (and a whole lot faster than us Europeans who stuck to cutting down spending). If you increase government spending during economical lows and decrease it during economical highs that would theoretically dampen both a bit. Unfortunately decreasing government spending/increasing tax during economical highs is political suicide.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Seriously, Morbid, if you can't accept someone's opinion, then this forum might not be the best place for you.


On the topic of Baracka Obama (MK Reference), All I can see is the samething the general public has seen. Yes, He did bring in Obamacare which I don't mind in some points, but The man really hasn't shown much to me other than the fact of being scared of leaving my current job for I may never see a job after this one I have for a matter of months. In areas I have seen, the economy is so bad in areas that the old "Mom and Pop" shops have had to close down because Mom and Pop can't afford to pay rent or anything due to the lack of customers and prices sky rocketing. I mean I know not all of it is his fault but I wish to see him do more.

I also don't fare, well with Romney. He doesn't seem like he knows what it means to work at a dead end job ever. He was born into money, which to me, tells me he doesn't understand what real money is. What the value of a dollar is. It's just from my own speculation. That "200k-250k" comment kinda made me think he really was an idiot. It's my own opinion. He just changes up his opinions to much for me as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20

While I don't doubt the political class in general understands what it means to be on meager incomes, don't delude yourself into thinking that Obama knows the value of a dollar either, he has enacted policy that crushes people like his own Grandfather, who owned a furniture store. Those are the "wealthy top end" business makers that will get hurt, mom and pops, people who used to make the bulk of jobs in this nation.

 

[DiebytheSword]

That's what Keynesian economics would imply, yes. That worked for the US to get out of the great depression (and a whole lot faster than us Europeans who stuck to cutting down spending). If you increase government spending during economical lows and decrease it during economical highs that would theoretically dampen both a bit. Unfortunately decreasing government spending/increasing tax during economical highs is political suicide.

You need a giant global war and someone to borrow from again in order to make that work at all . . . and are you seriously suggesting that the way out of this mess is war profiteering?

 

[harSens]

Well, you're not as ****ed as during the great depression. Maybe a couple of small wars will do. I'd say recovery started with Roosefeld's new deals, not with war profiteering, so maybe you could also spend money on something else As long as the money is borrowed within the US it's not really a problem. Otherwise, China is probably happy to continue buying its way into Taiwan.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Well, you're not as ****ed as during the great depression. Maybe a couple of small wars will do. I'd say recovery started with Roosefeld's new deals, not with war profiteering, so maybe you could also spend money on something else As long as the money is borrowed within the US it's not really a problem. Otherwise, China is probably happy to continue buying its way into Taiwan.

LOL on China. Roosevelt's New Deal simultaneously set us up with lots of jobs and massive debt, still that brand of "recovery" is better than what we got: 900 billion dollars worth of crap. If that 900 billion had been spent on internet infrastructure, or new infrastructure of any kind, I would have been okay with it. Instead we spent millions on stuff like reproduction patterns of frogs and condoms, or repaving old roads, things that return nothing to our ability to function as a nation. Military spending gave us jobs, construction gave us jobs, 900 billion was wasted on jobs that already existed, and added nothing.

 

[Baaja]

I like where harSens is coming from with Keynesian economics. That's mostly what got Sweden out of trouble in mid 20th century, Sweden had one of the highest growth rates globally. And believe me, a small country run by exports has a hard time when protectionism is a concept used by larger countries such as the US. But if Keynesian economics worked for us maybe it can work again, but there are several differences between now and then, we probably borrowed money to increase our government spending and the US can't really borrow money also you aren't technically an exporting country anymore. The US is pretty screwed; importing a lot from other countries, subsidizing ineffective industries (agriculture, I hear you throw away a lot of food which the government buys from farmers?) and having to finance wars. I think more diplomacy is due now and countries are somewhat successfully reforming themselves (Arab Spring).

 

[Deathshot]

While I don't doubt the political class in general understands what it means to be on meager incomes, don't delude yourself into thinking that Obama knows the value of a dollar either, he has enacted policy that crushes people like his own Grandfather, who owned a furniture store. Those are the "wealthy top end" business makers that will get hurt, mom and pops, people who used to make the bulk of jobs in this nation.

Oh I know he doesn't know it. He just seems to understand it 1% more than Romney. I just don't like either choice this year.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I like where harSens is coming from with Keynesian economics. That's mostly what got Sweden out of trouble in mid 20th century, Sweden had one of the highest growth rates globally. And believe me, a small country run by exports has a hard time when protectionism is a concept used by larger countries such as the US. But if Keynesian economics worked for us maybe it can work again, but there are several differences between now and then, we probably borrowed money to increase our government spending and the US can't really borrow money also you aren't technically an exporting country anymore. The US is pretty screwed; importing a lot from other countries, subsidizing ineffective industries (agriculture, I hear you throw away a lot of food which the government buys from farmers?) and having to finance wars. I think more diplomacy is due now and countries are somewhat successfully reforming themselves (Arab Spring).

That highlights the problems I have, we have no money to borrow anymore, we are at a fiscal cliff without jobs, and people playing tax money. Obama wants to merrily spend us right off that cliff by taxing people who make jobs, which makes them not offer them. He's toxic in this environment, and his jobs record is abysmal. Keynes may work in certain situations, but there is also a lot of evidence that it slowed recovery during the depression, and it certainly can't work without massive infrastructure projects (which environmental groups would kill) and a giant war behind it.

Oh I know he doesn't know it. He just seems to understand it 1% more than Romney. I just don't like either choice this year.

How does one quantify that? Obama and Romney are both talking out of different sides of the same ass. Nothing good will come from either, we just come to terms with what bad they'll do while they are there . . . I'd prefer jobs and actual financial stability over a list of socialist countries liking us better.

 

[AreiKu]

Racially divisive politics to start, white supremacy keeping races in their role. Those who see through the prism of race are racists, whether or not they violently attack others for race or not. I would not stand for a racist in the white house.

When a man looks at another man and sees the color of his skin rather than the content of his character, there are problems.

But lets look past that, lets look at his heavy Marxist influence, despite claiming to be non-marxist and socialist? Or how he advocates for racial justice (known also as redistribution of wealth). He's also a borderline anarchist, mistrusting all sources of authority, yet attempting to become authority himself to enact social justice on people unwilling to pay for others mistakes far in the past. I'm first generation American, my family came from socialist hell holes to the United States, I'm multi-ethnic, my children even more so . . . I have no desire to see policies enacted on his philosophy. They are giant steps backwards to when color mattered and where freedom didn't.

Thanks for entertaining my question. I see where you're coming from and respect your point of view. I of course agree that those who judge others based on race are racist, but those who ignore race (the ripple that the past has had) are also racist. Many wealthy white Americans still benefit from having built their fortunes on the backs of their ancestor's slaves. Those were mistakes far in the past, and this generation is not to be blamed for the social injustices of their great grandparents, but I question whether they are entitled to their inheritance.

I can see where you get your distaste for socialism. Democracy is the way to go in my opinion, it's just too bad democracy doesn't exist. Philosophically democracy is a beautiful idea, but practically it hasn't been possible, same with communism!

I would much rather see someone like Cornel West run the country for four years than another wrinkly old rich white man.

 

[Deathshot]

Hahaha I couldn't help but laugh at this and show you guys.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Thanks for entertaining my question. I see where you're coming from and respect your point of view. I of course agree that those who judge others based on race are racist, but those who ignore race (the ripple that the past has had) are also racist. Many wealthy white Americans still benefit from having built their fortunes on the backs of their ancestor's slaves. Those were mistakes far in the past, and this generation is not to be blamed for the social injustices of their great grandparents, but I question whether they are entitled to their inheritance.

I can see where you get your distaste for socialism. Democracy is the way to go in my opinion, it's just too bad democracy doesn't exist. Philosophically democracy is a beautiful idea, but practically it hasn't been possible, same with communism!

I would much rather see someone like Cornel West run the country for four years than another wrinkly old rich white man.

So then by your reckoning, Martin Luther King, who called upon people to see each other based on content of their character, ignoring their race, would be racist? I believe that those who cling to that ripple from the past only serve to deepen the scar that exists, it serves no healing purpose to redistribute wealth . . . revenge is great, till you have it. Then what?

That aside, I'm not so sure that so much of this wealth was off the backs of the blacks, a lot of current money comes from the Robber Barons during the industrial revolution, the slave owners largely went broke in the civil war . . .

 

[DiebytheSword]

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/7033/howifeelaboutourupcomin.jpg



Hahaha I couldn't help but laugh at this and show you guys.

I actually want both of those for my car.

 

[Deathshot]

I actually want both of those for my car.

I as well would love to buy them.

https://www.surftowork.com/shop/bumper-sticker/turd-sandwich-bumper-sticker/

https://www.surftowork.com/shop/bumper-sticker/giant-douche/

 

[AreiKu]

So then by your reckoning, Martin Luther King, who called upon people to see each other based on content of their character, ignoring their race, would be racist? I believe that those who cling to that ripple from the past only serve to deepen the scar that exists, it serves no healing purpose to redistribute wealth . . . revenge is great, till you have it. Then what?

That aside, I'm not so sure that so much of this wealth was off the backs of the blacks, a lot of current money comes from the Robber Barons during the industrial revolution, the slave owners largely went broke in the civil war . . .

I don't want to steer too far off topic, so I'll fade back into it at the end of this post. When a white person, for example, ignore race, to them this often means treating everyone else like they are white. Is that not racist? There's a fine line between ignoring and recognising race, but it's a 4 lane highway from the white perspective. It's easy to overlook these things when you're not on the shitty end of the stick, but if there are thousands of people complaining about something, who are we to tell them to get over it and that it's not a problem?

It's not clinging to a ripple from the past, it's recognising that the ripple is still rocking peoples' boats today. Reparation is not about revenge, it's about fixing all the imbalances in society. It's not about giving back to the slaves, it's about taking money (power) away from those who didn't earn it and putting it where the country needs it most; the slums, the schools, small businesses etc... If we lower the upper class, raise to lower class we can build a middle class nation. Romney's actions aim to perpetuate the imbalance of rich/poor, widen that gap and make it even harder for lower class citizens to break out of their shackles. Poo on that, I say!

P.S. Those bumper stickers are hilarious. I immediately facebooked that pic.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I don't want to steer too far off topic, so I'll fade back into it at the end of this post. When a white person, for example, ignore race, to them this often means treating everyone else like they are white. Is that not racist? There's a fine line between ignoring and recognising race, but it's a 4 lane highway from the white perspective. It's easy to overlook these things when you're not on the shitty end of the stick, but if there are thousands of people complaining about something, who are we to tell them to get over it and that it's not a problem?

It's not clinging to a ripple from the past, it's recognising that the ripple is still rocking peoples' boats today. Reparation is not about revenge, it's about fixing all the imbalances in society. It's not about giving back to the slaves, it's about taking money (power) away from those who didn't earn it and putting it where the country needs it most; the slums, the schools, small businesses etc... If we lower the upper class, raise to lower class we can build a middle class nation. Romney's actions aim to perpetuate the imbalance of rich/poor, widen that gap and make it even harder for lower class citizens to break out of their shackles. Poo on that, I say!

P.S. Those bumper stickers are hilarious. I immediately facebooked that pic.

The middle class exists because the upper class makes it happen, reducing the top would cull the bottom of the top, the small business owners you claim need it, and cause the middle class to evaporate. I can agree on building up the lower class, they deserve all the same tools and opportunities as other people, but what anyone needs ultimately comes from their own elbow grease, a desire to exceed, and the opportunities to do so. I do believe that they have the opportunity, if they did not my father wouldn't have become what he did. What they lack then comes from the lack of desire to exceed or elbow grease needed. There is also the possibility that they are lacking the same tools, but you don't need to take from others to make for yourself, that is straight up malarkey (see, I do listen to Biden!).

This isn't too far off topic, this is what you want from a president. Thanks for keeping it civil at any rate.

 

[AreiKu]

The middle class exists because the upper class makes it happen, reducing the top would cull the bottom of the top, the small business owners you claim need it, and cause the middle class to evaporate. I can agree on building up the lower class, they deserve all the same tools and opportunities as other people, but what anyone needs ultimately comes from their own elbow grease, a desire to exceed, and the opportunities to do so. I do believe that they have the opportunity, if they did not my father wouldn't have become what he did. What they lack then comes from the lack of desire to exceed or elbow grease needed. There is also the possibility that they are lacking the same tools, but you don't need to take from others to make for yourself, that is straight up malarkey (see, I do listen to Biden!).

This isn't too far off topic, this is what you want from a president. Thanks for keeping it civil at any rate.

Good point, we're practically almost on topic! Incivility points to insecurity around one's beliefs, especially when it comes to religion & politics! I have to take in alternate perspectives so I can see more of the big picture. I think that helps me understand my opinion better, by considering opposing opinions, and understanding their motives.

I would argue that the lower class doesn't have that same opportunity. The desire to exceed may be there, but the path is much harder... like training under 10x gravity! What kind of job can they get, fast food? Retail? How many promotions do they have to grind through before someone lets them do something they can enjoy? How can they afford tuition and cost of living without their families taking a hit? Do they really have the opportunity to pursue their career of choice? I couldn't agree more that a powerful drive to exceed is necessary, but to exceed from the bottom someone needs a lot more elbow grease than a person who starts in the middle!

'To take from others to make for yourself' is like the cops telling you, "We caught the thief that robbed you. He has the money but it's been like a week so we're gonna let him go and just forget about it." and you ask them, "Do I get my money back?" and they're like, "Nope sorry, too late, he already deposited it in his bank account."... If you ask me, something just isn't right about that!

Poverty is a huge issue because wealthy sociopaths hoard billions of dollars that could feasibly be used to eliminate the lower class and bolster the middle. With all that money in the hands of the middle class I'd say the economy would be good to go! All we have to do is just enslave all those billionaires, pillage their fortunes and share it!

 

[DiebytheSword]

Good point, we're practically almost on topic! Incivility points to insecurity around one's beliefs, especially when it comes to religion & politics! I have to take in alternate perspectives so I can see more of the big picture. I think that helps me understand my opinion better, by considering opposing opinions, and understanding their motives.

I would argue that the lower class doesn't have that same opportunity. The desire to exceed may be there, but the path is much harder... like training under 10x gravity! What kind of job can they get, fast food? Retail? How many promotions do they have to grind through before someone lets them do something they can enjoy? How can they afford tuition and cost of living without their families taking a hit? Do they really have the opportunity to pursue their career of choice? I couldn't agree more that a powerful drive to exceed is necessary, but to exceed from the bottom someone needs a lot more elbow grease than a person who starts in the middle!

'To take from others to make for yourself' is like the cops telling you, "We caught the thief that robbed you. He has the money but it's been like a week so we're gonna let him go and just forget about it." and you ask them, "Do I get my money back?" and they're like, "Nope sorry, too late, he already deposited it in his bank account."... If you ask me, something just isn't right about that!

Poverty is a huge issue because wealthy sociopaths hoard billions of dollars that could feasibly be used to eliminate the lower class and bolster the middle. With all that money in the hands of the middle class I'd say the economy would be good to go! All we have to do is just enslave all those billionaires, pillage their fortunes and share it!

Again, most of the wealth you speak of has evaporated, it is no longer in existence, the wealth you seek comes from the Robber Barons of the early 20th century, the people who built and owned the railroad, electric companies . . . money built far from the echoes of slave labor.

Its like someone else stealing someone else's money, and you demanding it as a stepping stone. Something needs to be done until we have equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes is not, and never should be guaranteed.

 

[AreiKu]

Well said, I know of the Robber Barons, and there is a big difference between that kind of businessman and an honest capitalist. Many people are not aware of the difference (which is why "honest capitalist" sounds kind of funny!). Many Robber Barons profited by influencing government to make regulations, or subsidize their industry. Real Entrepreneurs succeeded by observing the market and providing a newer, higher quality, lower price or better service than it's competitors, without the help of any government subsidy. People pay income tax when they can barely pay rent, but it used to be less than 10%(I think) of the population who had to pay. It's not easy to save money or grow a business these days and it's largely due to the mess of obstacles like regulatory bodies, licensing & standards, and interest rates. Robber Barons succeeded by influencing those obstacles, and their ongoing influence will keep everyone elses face in the pillow while they get off, until a real leader steps up and finds a solution.