Jump to content

US Politics Episode 6 - Return of the Prez


Stubby

Recommended Posts

But one photo-op on the Jersey Shore with Obama looking tough in a bomber jacket destroyed all that, which is yet another reason sane societies don’t let women get involved in government.

Holy shit, this stuff is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere's.

Did the USA just morph into one of Enid Blyton's boarding schools? :lmao:

But then, the Republican party does remind me of Gwendolin: making the same mistakes every term and refusing to learn from the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures. Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule' the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

...

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama,

That, folks, is a real man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, what the hell is going in Mississippi and Alabama, and bits of Louisiana and what looks like the non-Atlanta bits of Georgia over there? I mean, Mississippi and Alabama. Demographic shifts? A stark lack of appeal from a millionaire candidate in poorer areas? The mormonism? Thats like the most interesting election map i've seen yet.

I'm not sure why they increased in Obama support from 2008, but the regions in question are very solidly Democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That, folks, is a real man.

Probably the highlight for me is when he's advocating violent military secession, but pulls it back at crapping on your neighbour's lawn.

Cause that's illegal guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stubby,

In SC write in votes can lead to a win. The closest thing I've seen to a "write in" candidate victory us this:

http://www.thestate.com/2012/11/07/2510406/shealy-wins-in-lexington-to-become.html

Now when it says these candidates "failed to file their proper paperwork it's not the whole story. The law required Challangers (not incumbants) to file the same information online and on paper at the SC Supreme Court by a particular date. Most did one and not the other and as such were booted off the ballots giving many incumbants free rides this election cycle. The law suit was filed by a "supporter" of State Senator Jake Knotts.

I'm happy as a clam the asshole is out of political office in SC for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the comments on the libertarian thing...

That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

No, the problem is America.

It's not that Romney is the closest an actual human can come to going into the uncanny valley, it's that Americans have a problem with that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, please school me on the ways of government. Fuck that. We horse traded $500 billion in lost revenue for provisions that cost about half that much. Find me a time when one party had the presidency and the senate and got that screwed. And I don't want to hear all this garbage about it being the fault of House Republicans. It is the fault of House Republicans when a meaningful compromise bill is not passed because they wouldn't play ball, but it is not the fault of House Republicans when our solution to their intransigence is to give them everything they want.

It is possible that a payroll tax cut saved jobs and that extended unemployment insurance kept people viable in the labor market. But when you more than double the estate tax exemption, you are perpetuating class growing class separation across generations - with the spousal carry-over provisions, that's $10 million that's exempt from taxes. It doesn't help when you also tax people more for money they earn actually working than money earned on investments, be it capital gains or dividends.

I'm not pissed that Obama cut a deal with Republicans - that's how shit works. Ideally it works like welfare reform under Clinton, where he cut a successful deal with Gingrich and subsequently successfully took all credit for it. It is not working when we just give up on the core tenants of everything we stand for - and that's pretty much what happened there. When Obama extends all Bush tax cuts and expands a few more, how can he be anything other than responsible for more lost tax revenue than Bush?

In summary, the art of negotiation involves bargaining between two parties to reach a mutually agreed upon solution. Often (but not always) it involves compromise. However, that doesn't mean all parties who compromise negotiated successfully - far from it. So no, sucktastic negotiation where you gain half of what you gave is not how politics works, and damn it if our failure to expect a little more isn't at least half the problem.

Fortunately, it would appear that the President sees it differently and has been setting the stage for more successful positioning this time around.

You just don't get it, do you? The estate tax is significantly closer to what the Democrats wanted than what the Republicans wanted. Democrats didn't want the estate to go all the way back to the Clinton levels; some did, but most didn't. Its hard to have leverage on something when your party would block you on this stuff. Obama might have wanted it lower, a lot of Senate Dems didn't (the caucus is more liberal than it was though, and the party hasn't just suffered the worst election defeat since 1928, so they should be better now). And I don't know if you realize it, but the estate tax is going to go back to $1 million in 2013, that provision was also for only 2 years.

As for the rest of the Bush tax cuts, 2010 really wasn't the ideal time to get into a fight over that. The middle class ones really couldn't be allowed to expire, and an extra two years of the rich ones isn't that big of a deal.

And the what's bullshit is trying to dismiss the payroll tax cut and unemployment extension in a single sentence. These made a big difference to the economy. Also included in the bill was a child education credit that Obama wanted, an earned income tax credit Obama wanted, a research and development tax credit Obama wanted, and a business benefits tax credit Obama wanted.

You can't compare the cost of the different provisions that the parties wanted as a way to determine which side "won" a compromise, especially in this case. Most of the Bush tax cuts Obama and Senate Dems wanted to keep anyway.

And your numbers are way off, yes the deal cost $500 billion in lost revenue over 2 years (however the Bush tax cuts extension part was only responsible for $314.9 billion); the cost of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 to 2010 was roughly $2.2 trillion.

The deal wasn't great, but it also wasn't that bad either; particularly in light of the fact that Republicans had just had a massive victory in the election. And it helped set up the negotiations that will take place now, in which the Democrats have enormous leverage. I can understand a liberal not being enormously happy with the deal, but to say stuff like "you won't consider yourself a Democrat anymore if it happens again" suggests that you weren't much of one in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...