American Politics

[MysticTiger]

Mitt Romney: Obama Won With 'Gifts' To Blacks, Hispanics, Young Voters

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/m...26pLid%3D234772

 

How do you feel about this article?

Haha, if Obama sent me a present, I sure didn't get it. And I have to question the logic of this since Romney's rich supporters gave HIM "presents" to continue with his campaign in the form of contributions. Plus, Obama painted him as an Anti-Immigrant? I didn't get that. I got more of the "Anti-Poor" vibe from Romney and he did that all himself. Romney is such a poor loser. Suck it up and be a professional adult, Mitt! Stop whining that Obama "beat you up" because he won the women/young/hispanic/black vote. Humans aren't robots. They can't be programmed to vote for one person, everyone votes for who they want.

 

And I absolutely love the Protest of the Protest that says that all states must pay their debts in full before leaving the US. Pretty much sums up the entire problem of leaving, doesn't it?

 

I agree that our Debt needs to be paid down. And I agree partially that the money needs to stop leaving the US. When another country is in crisis (like the Tsunami in Japan), then we should be able to lend aid. Otherwise, we should stop sending money to countries that don't need it or don't know how to efficiently use it.

 

But, to lose the debt, there needs to be a big overhaul of a lot things. A lot of things the president could do would be stopped by the house or senate, though. Unfortunately, our government officials ARE bribed by big corporations. So, anything to jeopardize those company's "profits" would be out of the question. :|

Edited November 15, 2012 by MysticTiger

[skauble]

Obama needs to stop sending money to other parts of the world trying to help them then, to help pay down our debt.

See, this is the kind of idea that I think that conservatives can actually sell well if they can shift away from everything they hate and refocus on the positive aspects of their policies and beliefs.

 

Because there is a legitimate argument to be put forth that Americans want to help others, we want to help the suffering and downtrodden throughout the world, but we can't do that effectively while we're limping along, wounded by our huge debt problem. When we're strong, so is the hand we can hold out to others.

 

This is really the one area I think will be the make or break of the Republicans - being able to let go of the anger they have so that they can genuinely connect with new people who could ultimately share their goals, just not in a ragey, hate-based way.

[MysticTiger]

Let's face it, what the republicans need is a decent candidate. Mitt Romney was very unlikable in the fact he was anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-women. He was an unlikable person. He flip flopped constantly on his policies. And he was WAY too much a religious person. Religion should have no place in your politics. Besides, the fact that Romney was a rich snob that tried too hard to push the "I understand the poor people" aspect didn't help much. What they needed is a candidate who was likeable and able to understand the common person. We've had great Republicans before. They need someone the majority of voters will like. They need a candidate who's like everyone else. Because, in this economy, do we really want some out-of-touch rich guy in office? No.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Let's face it, what the republicans need is a decent candidate. Mitt Romney was very unlikable in the fact he was anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-women. He was an unlikable person. He flip flopped constantly on his policies. And he was WAY too much a religious person. Religion should have no place in your politics. Besides, the fact that Romney was a rich snob that tried too hard to push the "I understand the poor people" aspect didn't help much. What they needed is a candidate who was likeable and able to understand the common person. We've had great Republicans before. They need someone the majority of voters will like. They need a candidate who's like everyone else. Because, in this economy, do we really want some out-of-touch rich guy in office? No.

Sad thing is Mystic almost all of them have no clue what it's like being poor and having to deal with the kind of crap my parents do.

 

I say before they decide to announce their candidacy they should live for up to 6 months or more as a common person having to work each day in the same conditions that everyone else does.

 

If they don't they can't run for any position at all.

 

Actually now that I think of it they all should no matter what position they are in. Maybe then they will get a clue on what's going on.

[brairtrainer]

Sad thing is Mystic almost all of them have no clue what it's like being poor and having to deal with the kind of crap my parents do.

 

I say before they decide to announce their candidacy they should live for up to 6 months or more as a common person having to work each day in the same conditions that everyone else does.

 

If they don't they can't run for any position at all.

 

Actually now that I think of it they all should no matter what position they are in. Maybe then they will get a clue on what's going on.

That would be most excellent. In fact someone out there needs to set up a program that allows them to do just that. And give them an allowence so they don't cheat and pay for everything while there and then ask why its so bad.

 

Also make them live with people who don't have health insurence because of a lost job, pre-existing condition, or someone who's insurence doesn't cover their illness.

 

Also watch Last Holiday. Great movie and though it has a happy ending it does point out one of the problems with the greedy higher ups and the people who get slighted because they work lower in a company

[demonicvampiregirl]

That would be most excellent. In fact someone out there needs to set up a program that allows them to do just that. And give them an allowence so they don't cheat and pay for everything while there and then ask why its so bad.

 

Also make them live with people who don't have health insurence because of a lost job, pre-existing condition, or someone who's insurence doesn't cover their illness.

 

Also watch Last Holiday. Great movie and though it has a happy ending it does point out one of the problems with the greedy higher ups and the people who get slighted because they work lower in a company

Yeah like they have all money and everything just taken from them for 6 months or so.

 

I do agree about them having to live with someone who is disabled and needs help. That would be a real eye opener to them. My dad would be a perfect one for that. Broke his leg 20 years ago in a accident at some mill (I really can't recall and he's in bed), has a hole in it that never seals and has a constant infection in it. Back pain that gets worse cold fronts come through and has to now walk on two canes (when just about a year ago he could walk on just one still can sometimes but I see him using two more now than ever).

 

I don't think they get to see people going through that. They spend maybe a few hours with them at most at events but they never live with them day by day seeing how whatever disability they have varies by day.

[skauble]

Let's face it, what the republicans need is a decent candidate. Mitt Romney was very unlikable in the fact he was anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-women. He was an unlikable person. He flip flopped constantly on his policies. And he was WAY too much a religious person. Religion should have no place in your politics. Besides, the fact that Romney was a rich snob that tried too hard to push the "I understand the poor people" aspect didn't help much. What they needed is a candidate who was likeable and able to understand the common person. We've had great Republicans before. They need someone the majority of voters will like. They need a candidate who's like everyone else. Because, in this economy, do we really want some out-of-touch rich guy in office? No.

A better candidate would certainly help, but the problem is that religion is baked into their platform, at this point. And so you can have a perfectly lovely person, but the media will ask the kinds of questions that will make those really conservative social positions impossible to hide.

 

And, more to the point, those religious aspects are so deeply ingrained right now that a candidate can't even get through the primary without hitting the extreme hard right.

 

The Republicans need to be able to convey their message to new people. Personally, I think that's fairly doable with the fiscal aspect and a lot less negativity. IMO, their biggest hurdle, eventually, will be that abortion and marriage equality will be complete roadblocks for them if they don't find a totally new approach.

[brairtrainer]

Yeah like they have all money and everything just taken from them for 6 months or so.

 

I do agree about them having to live with someone who is disabled and needs help. That would be a real eye opener to them. My dad would be a perfect one for that. Broke his leg 20 years ago in a accident at some mill (I really can't recall and he's in bed), has a hole in it that never seals and has a constant infection in it. Back pain that gets worse cold fronts come through and has to now walk on two canes (when just about a year ago he could walk on just one still can sometimes but I see him using two more now than ever).

 

I don't think they get to see people going through that. They spend maybe a few hours with them at most at events but they never live with them day by day seeing how whatever disability they have varies by day.

Yes or, if we can't make them live with them, have a couple people volunteer to make movies that every politican running for federal office or state office have to watch. Where it goes through the lives of these people day by day as a documentery. If people don't want their names shared but volunteer for it we have technology to bleep out names and to hide identities. Kinda do something like the ghost of christmas present did with scrouge.

[ShinyTomato]

Obama needs to stop sending money to other parts of the world trying to help them then, to help pay down our debt.

 

The problem is, a lot of the funds that we send elsewhere, not all, but quite a few, are fulfillment on our end of promises made by President Bush to those countries. Obama can't just break those promises without causing international incidents. It would, however, help, if he didn't make his own promises on top of that.

[Vhale]

I'm pretty disappointed in the gifts remark. His speech on election night was good and mentioned bipartisanship. There was a lot of talk in the media and even from Obama about getting together and hashing out ideas. Hillary vrs Obama was a NASTY fight. But then she moved into Secretary of State and is very well respected. Romney, he pulls that and basically throws it all away. Meh. By the sound of it, several Republicans are trashing the remark, but unless the party goes along with it I'm not sure how that will help. After all, the platform still is things like let women die rather than get an abortion. Most of what they seem to be focusing on is simply having the same message but saying it nicer. So, cosmetic surgery.

 

But, I do think the 47% remark is what he thinks. Remember, everyone at Romney's campaign on election night had been there awhile. These were the insiders, the loyal folks. All his staffers had campaign issued credit cards for use. They cut the cards off after his speech without telling any of the staff they were doing it. So his aides got stuck trying to get home while discovering they'd been cut off.

 

Article

 

If that is how he's going to treat his surrogates, I'm glad he's not over the country. But that is why they say, it's nothing personal, just business.

[Fuzzbucket]

Yes or, if we can't make them live with them, have a couple people volunteer to make movies that every politican running for federal office or state office have to watch. Where it goes through the lives of these people day by day as a documentery. If people don't want their names shared but volunteer for it we have technology to bleep out names and to hide identities. Kinda do something like the ghost of christmas present did with scrouge.

You know - there was a programme like that on UK TV - where a few MPs -one from each party - had to go live with a family on a really low income. And they kept saying "but do this. .." and the family would patiently explain that they hadn't the money. Two things happened (well three, the Labour MP was a PIG and made himself look like an idiot...)

 

One: they did get to understand what it was like, and were horrified - but two - some of the families did learn a few useful tricks - like ways to cook things cheaply that they simply didn't know (the kind of thing that you learn from the kind of cook books they can't afford, actually !) - and also at least one family was made aware of a benefit they hadn't claimed that they were entitled to - and which helped them a lot (which says volumes about the grotesquely complex benefit system here )

 

Indeed - more politicians should HAVE to do this.

[TikindiDragon]

Kat - you may have missed my last post, as it was on the bottom of a page, so I'll ask again a question that I'm really very interested in you answer to: do you consider the UK and/or Canada to be socialist/communist countries?

[brairtrainer]

Kat - you may have missed my last post, as it was on the bottom of a page, so I'll ask again a question that I'm really very interested in you answer to: do you consider the UK and/or Canada to be socialist/communist countries?

I highly doubt she's gonna answer your question, but I'll state I don't see those countries as socialist, I see them as countries who are trying to provide benefits for all their citizens and not just those with money.

[philpot123]

Kat - you may have missed my last post, as it was on the bottom of a page, so I'll ask again a question that I'm really very interested in you answer to: do you consider the UK and/or Canada to be socialist/communist countries?

I'll answer, even though it isn't aimed at me. They're countries with a thorough implementation of certain socialistic policies. They aren't very close to absolute socialism.

[Fuzzbucket]

I'll answer, even though it isn't aimed at me. They're countries with a thorough implementation of certain socialistic policies. They aren't very close to absolute socialism.

Not even close.

 

They have certain socially democratic programmes in place, such as universal health care, minimum wage legislation and so on - but they are - for instance - privatising things rather than taking state control, for one thing... and the UK is giving FAR more tax breaks and the like to businesses and the rich, rather than helping the poor - which is FAR from socialism and even further from true communism (something NO country has EVER achieved by the way - I posted about that somewhere...)

Edited November 15, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[PointOfOrigin]

@~kat~, you remind me of this woman: Study it out

 

That said, if you are going by a general republican idea of socialism, the whole Europe would be one big red zone. And even if that was a true socialism, I don't see anything bad about it. Nobody in Europe suffered because of free health care, minimum wages etc.

[TikindiDragon]

I'll answer, even though it isn't aimed at me. They're countries with a thorough implementation of certain socialistic policies. They aren't very close to absolute socialism.

Thanks Phil. The response is appreciated. Although the question is, broadly, directed at those who reffer to Obama and/or his policies as socialist/communist.

 

I wish first to establish exactly what said people think socialism/communism *is*. Hence the question about the UK and Canada.

[Fuzzbucket]

I posted in another thread which I found in the end and what I think they are is this:

 

ACTUALLY no country has ever succeeded in running communism AS ORIGINALLY DEFINED BY MARX - only some corrupted "version" that happened to suit whoever got the power. So called communist countries never really were or are communist (I know someone said part of India was but it isn't. Its government calls itself communist - but is full of fat cats.)

 

Under true Marxism there would be no money at all, and common ownership of most things (NOT state ownership - non UK readers might like to google the UK company John Lewis - owned by its workers - and one that is doing OK in the current catastrophic climate.) Sadly for Marx, he assumed that we all had a benevolent gene and would do so willingly. THAT was where it all went pearshaped. Because we are too greedy to share with others if it means WE have less.

 

Anyone who wants to read about a truly communist society needs to read William Morris' News from Nowhere. But as you will see - we are all (I include myself) too self-interested to live like that.

 

Here is quite a good and relatively unbiased page about communism.

 

SOCIALISM is rather different: technically it is far more managed.

Socialism is characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, including cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership - it could include - for instance - companies owned by their workers (again - John Lewis in the UK for an example.)

 

Whatever is produced in that economy would be produced for use/need within that society instead of for private profit; greedy bosses and hedge funds have no place.

 

And IMHO - but this IS just opinion - it would also include an all embracing welfare system is that no-one ends up starving or sick with no means to get out of that.

 

An example of a novel demonstrating THAT one would be Bellamy's "Looking Backward". You can choose not to work - but then you only get to live at a basic level, for instance.

 

*years ago started thesis on Utopian societies. Not ONE capitalist model fit. Just saying*

 

Capitalism won't allow this kind of thing as it take PROFITS away from fat cats. However capitalism seems to be falling over; there may be hope, though it will be a painful time getting there.

 

ETA so NO, neither the UK or Canada fits AT ALL.

Edited November 15, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[brairtrainer]

The only way I could see communism working is if we went to a society like the one in the book The Giver, but as anyone who's read the book knows, the person who knows the history of the world and knows that the euthinesia of a baby because he'd look identical to someone else is wrong, or if you broke a rule three times or just once (make a navigational error with a plane).

 

No country would willingly go to that because of the inherent problems it would cause.

[Fuzzbucket]

The only way I could see communism working is if we went to a society like the one in the book The Giver, but as anyone who's read the book knows, the person who knows the history of the world and knows that the euthinesia of a baby because he'd look identical to someone else is wrong, or if you broke a rule three times or just once (make a navigational error with a plane).

 

No country would willingly go to that because of the inherent problems it would cause.

That's NOT communism though.

[brairtrainer]

That's NOT communism though.

Technically everything was owned by everyone and people worked for the betterment of the community, which is what I understood the root of communism to be.

 

Can you explain to me why its not Fuzz? I'm afraid I must have missed something in my honors history and ap government courses.

[Fuzzbucket]

Technically everything was owned by everyone and people worked for the betterment of the community, which is what I understood the root of communism to be.

 

Can you explain to me why its not Fuzz? I'm afraid I must have missed something in my honors history and ap government courses.

Well yes, but the

the person who knows the history of the world and knows that the euthanasia of a baby because he'd look identical to someone else is wrong, or if you broke a rule three times or just once (make a navigational error with a plane).

 

What has THAT to do with communism?

 

The economic model is, sure, of COURSE you're right - sorry. (you might like the Morris book I mentioned )

 

But we have this SELFISH personality, as a race, and we would never let everyone have the same as we have. We want to be BETTER than the other guy. To keep all the money we get from working for OURSELVES because we EARNED it and all that.

 

Sad but ghastlily true

Edited November 15, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[brairtrainer]

Well yes, but the

 

 

What has THAT to do with communism?

 

The economic model is, sure, of COURSE you're right - sorry. (you might like the Morris book I mentioned )

 

But we have this SELFISH personality, as a race, and we would never let everyone have the same as we have. We want to be BETTER than the other guy. To keep all the money we get from working for OURSELVES because we EARNED it and all that.

 

Sad but ghastlily true

I was noting that the only way they get it to work is that there still had to be one person who knew history, and in the book knew of love and greed, because everyone else had been trained for prescion of language and didn't in fact have any desires for anything else, or they were severily repremanded in front of people or removed from the community. Removing of individulism. The reason to have one person who knew the history was to prevent the rest of the populace from having the 'memories' and to keep them in line while keeping the wisdom.

 

Example is the fact that the community tried to prevent sexual attaction (called stirrings) in the book through a pill, and this combined with the fact that raising a family was seen as a duty not something you did because you wanted meant that people didn't understand love.

 

Basiclly for us to be comunists we have to give up what makes us human.

[philpot123]

Not even close.

 

They have certain socially democratic programmes in place, such as universal health care, minimum wage legislation and so on - but they are - for instance - privatising things rather than taking state control, for one thing... and the UK is giving FAR more tax breaks and the like to businesses and the rich, rather than helping the poor - which is FAR from socialism and even further from true communism (something NO country has EVER achieved by the way - I posted about that somewhere...)

I think we're pretty much in agreement, perhaps I wasn't very clear. They have certain policies that can be considered "socialistic," but they themselves are not true socialist nations.

[Fuzzbucket]

I was noting that the only way they get it to work is that there still had to be one person who knew history, and in the book knew of love and greed, because everyone else had been trained for prescion of language and didn't in fact have any desires for anything else, or they were severily repremanded in front of people or removed from the community. Removing of individulism. The reason to have one person who knew the history was to prevent the rest of the populace from having the 'memories' and to keep them in line while keeping the wisdom.

 

Example is the fact that the community tried to prevent sexual attaction (called stirrings) in the book through a pill, and this combined with the fact that raising a family was seen as a duty not something you did because you wanted meant that people didn't understand love.

 

Basiclly for us to be comunists we have to give up what makes us human.

I think the economic model there, then, is indeed communist - but that sounds very unpleasant, and the REAL idea of communism also includes being equal, I think - so... that poor guy wasn't. And I don't think communism - REAL communism - includes a government deciding what you should be like and so on.

 

Removing of individualism is NOTHING to do with communism, which is essentially and strictly an economic thing based on "to each according to his need" and I think we all have a need to be who we are, no ? Even if not - it has nothing to do with moulding people.

 

Does that mesh with your college study ? (I ask seriously, because what I know comes from reading on my own !)

 

Philpot - I agree with you ! (enjoy it while it lasts - it doesn't happen often in a political thread )