US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Xellos-_^]

I am convinced to this day that the recruiter who chased me and some coworkers would have let me have my way with her just so I'd join.

was she hot?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

was she hot?

Yes, but in a crazy eyes young Michelle Bachmann kind of way...

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

I absolutely love this particular link.
Why I hate Your Freedom

Especially this little bit ...

What a read. Honestly, at the end of the day, I think that when there's someone with a PhD (or a hundred of them) in subjects beyond my understanding designing regulations, I should let them decide on regulations.

The average consumer is NOT all-informed. Otherwise, advertising wouldn't work

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

He (like so many, including Libertarians) doesn't understand what Laissez-Faire means.

I think he perfectly understands what it is.


Here is what it means.

Laissez faire means: Let the common man choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator.

There must always be some form of leadership.

Using the word dictator is done to create the feeling of something bad... but frankly your parents were dictators at one point in your life and so were your school teachers.

As an adult we still need the presence of authority in our economic structures to ensure that were are protected from our own naive proclivities.

For example: How does the common man know that smoking is bad for his health and the economy overall ?

While I posit that we often need to be protected from ourselves... the problem is how much protection do we need ?

I can wire a house with no protection doing so may causes problems with the house... but how does the consumer know that I did not do my job properly... and when they find out how do they get recompense ? what consequences are there ?

For a unrefined example: What function does medical malpractice serve in a truly laissez fair economy with no government regulation ?

the abolition of all laws preventing more industrious and more efficient people from outdoing less industrious and less efficient competitors and restricting the mobility of commodities and of men.

So is this aim localized or designed in the context of a global economy ?

How far do we apply the laissez fair ?

While I again maintain the position that Laissez-Faire is over simplified ... or to borrow a phrase "generally correct but overly simple" I wonder if the creators of this concept realize (like the physicist that know for a fact that paper and a rock both have the same acceleration due to gravity) that economics doesn't work that way ?

For example:

The Japanese rice farmers (because of localized costs) cannot produce rice as cheaply as Chinese rice farmers.

Based on the snippet above (describing Laissez-Faire): What do you think would happen to Japanese rice farmers if Chinese rice is allowed whole sale and unchecked into Japan ?

This is of course... a VERY VERY complex issue that Japan will never deal with directly because of the economic bloc the rice industry has formed...

So should the diet remove all rice importation laws and other hindrances to Chinese rice ?

How do you create economic balance so that peoples lives are not rapidly destroyed ?

How do you remove the wind from affecting that falling piece of paper whilst the rock continues downward ?

My own country suffered from the application of the Laissez-Fair concept.

We eventually realized we simply cannot compete with global prices for certain locally produced products... like milk... and this is a natural function in economics.

There are some things that one nation or group of people have as an advantage such as land space for millions of cows (milkers) where we (like Japan) do not have such a large land mass for millions of cows to produce milk cheaply and on the same level as the larger land mass countries.

Do we allow the free and unchecked wholesale importation of milk and shut down our local milk industry ?

[Solace]

The Economics Thread, made for exactly this type of discussion.

[ganbaru]

Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1

This was to be expected. Romney should have known that appointing an openly gay campaign official would have caused the evangelicals to have a shit fit.

I don't buy the line that his gayness was a "non-issue" either. Nothing done during a campaign isn't calculated to gain some sort of votes. He probably appointed the guy in a "hey, look, I'm not a bigot, vote for me" while also trying to placate the stark-raving anti-gay religious right.

Though to be honest just the fact that he's a Mormon ensures that the most hardcore conservative Christians consider him the Antichrist.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1

Yup, can't have the *best qualified people* for a position, they have to pass an ideologue purity test first. For these people, only a small subset of the population are "true 'mericans".

Just watching the GOP rue the day they decided to partner with the "social conservatives".

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

This was to be expected. Romney should have known that appointing an openly gay campaign official would have caused the evangelicals to have a shit fit.

I don't buy the line that his gayness was a "non-issue" either. Nothing done during a campaign isn't calculated to gain some sort of votes. He probably appointed the guy in a "hey, look, I'm not a bigot, vote for me" while also trying to placate the stark-raving anti-gay religious right.

Though to be honest just the fact that he's a Mormon ensures that the most hardcore conservative Christians consider him the Antichrist.

The major point is this; Romney may or may not be a moderate, but if elected he would definitely NEED to stay on the good side of the extreme right. So regardless of who he really is, Romney is going to be a "Severe Conservative" if he is President.

If he can't hire people he wants to hire for his campaign, then what's the hope of him passing laws he want to pass as POTUS? And I am not talking about Dem obstructions; his own party would make every decision for him. Frankly at this point, I no longer care what his true views are; it is now clearly irrelevant, as it is not him making the decisions.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Though to be honest just the fact that he's a Mormon ensures that the most hardcore conservative Christians consider him the Antichrist.

I guess that leaves us atheists in the clear.

Not that an atheist could ever be president, of course. "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office...under the United States" indeed

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So regardless of who he really is, Romney is going to be a "Severe Conservative" if he is President.

If he can't hire people he wants to hire for his campaign, then what's the hope of him passing laws he want to pass as POTUS?

It's true. You'll hear people saying "oh, he has to say all that stuff to win the base, even if he doesn't believe it," or "he would never be that extreme if he gets in office."

But, if he's spending the election season with the "social conservatives" watching his every move through their crosshairs, why would his presidency be any different? Why would he suddenly do a complete about-face and govern as a moderate? Those people who he knows he may have to pander to now - they're not going to go away after the election. They'll still be watching his every move, waiting for one mistake on his part to prove he's not ideologically pure, which will be their signal to attack.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

I think he perfectly understands what it is.


Here is what it means.

There must always be some form of leadership.

Using the word dictator is done to create the feeling of something bad... but frankly your parents were dictators at one point in your life and so were your school teachers.

As an adult we still need the presence of authority in our economic structures to ensure that were are protected from our own naive proclivities.

I replied to you in the economics thread.
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...01#post4133201

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

But, if he's spending the election season with the "social conservatives" watching his every move through their crosshairs, why would his presidency be any different? Why would he suddenly do a complete about-face and govern as a moderate? Those people who he knows he may have to pander to now - they're not going to go away after the election. They'll still be watching his every move, waiting for one mistake on his part to prove he's not ideologically pure, which will be their signal to attack.

Exactly. Maybe if a President only had one term he'd be fine, but they don't. He'd have to pander to them for four years to get reelected, and only then might his own views show up.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Wellllll, no. The LaRouche movement is almost purely secular/political - I imagine many of them would self-classify as atheist/agnostic. They don't invoke "God". The whole game is a several millenium power/control conspiracy to them. They would view the Christian Identity types as puppets of the conspiracy. They're more an example of how you don't actually need religion to be a wackjob zealot, so yes avoid.

And yeah... they orbited around Ron Paul (ref: Ron's home district is around NASA-JSC near Houston, TX) in the 80s as well thanks to some parallel views. The LaRouche-ites were very active there.

Thank you Vexx, I will avoid them like the Black Death.

[ganbaru]

Gingrich ends campaign, no endorsement for Romney
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...05-02-16-26-50

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Gingrich ends campaign, no endorsement for Romney...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...05-02-16-26-50

...until Mitt's campaign takes over newt's 4mil+ campaign debt.

[Haak]

And Obama responds before it even happens:

[Vexx]

Yup, the GOP primary will come back from the dead to haunt them ... again and again and again


Just a poster child example of why going negative in a primary isn't a Good Idea for the party...

[ganbaru]

If the electors have enough memory for that, which could be doubt.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

If the electors have enough memory for that, which could be doubt.

that is what youtube and tv ads are for. which makes me glad i don't watch tv anymore.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

If the electors have enough memory for that, which could be doubt.

Hopefully the Democrats will remind them.