US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
I cannot believe Romney is this stupid. I think he is the Obama campaign sleeper agent.
It's becoming clearer to the American people that Rmoney has no foreign policy nous whatsoever. He would be a puppet of the same old neo-con masters.....he's in a desperate position if the debate remains centered on FP.
If Romney wins, it will surely set a pattern for the future of election campaigns. As opposed to carefully introduced half-truths, the norm will be continual, utterly flagrant lying on easily checkable matters of fact.
Romney isn't going to win, thank feck. Like GW he isn't such a bad guy.....he is just a bumbling baffoon who is out if his depth. Both are wooden and socially awkward as well...zero charisma.
I feel pretty strongly that both Romney and GW Bush are bad guys. Not Saddam Hussein bad, but bad.
And a green light to obstructionism.
I still can't get my head around filibustering. I know most of their obstructionism didn't actually need a filibuster, but I just... who the feck thought that was a good concept to implement?
Well even if the gap doesn't close at all between now and November, he still has about the same odds as Real Madrid have to win the Champions League.
That's rubbish about Bush too. Socially awkward with zero charisma? No way. The main reason he won against Kerry was probably that Kerry looked like a wooden man in a suit and Dubya looked like a man you could have a beer with, even if I'd personally rather drink piss with Alan Shearer.
And not just obstructionism - actively trying to wreck, or at least damage, the economy. That was clear with the debt ceiling in particular, but also stimulus and the jobs bill. Party leaders have come perilously close to admitting it.
That's the other weird thing. Politicians have always done machiavellian shit. But this GOP is unique in constantly admitting it, almost boasting about it. Think of Romney with "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake" and his advisor's 'etch-a-sketch' comment. There have been a couple from Ryan too, I just can't remember them.
I can't work out if this is naivety/incompetence, or an explicit embracing of a sort of Rovian ubermensch persona, or if they're just inhabiting such a right-wing echo chamber that they just assume that everyone thinks Obama is a socialist and stopping him = patriotism.
The worst was turtle man stating that the number one goal of the GOP was to prevent Obama from getting a 2nd term. Looks like they failed with that...tossers!
So is Romney getting some blowback from this, or is it being reported as the usual 'Democrats, Republicans disagree on shape of planet' crap?
If I was American I could get on board with the Republicans if only they made it clear that they were the party of Adam Smith and the free market, that they would only intervene in areas where the private sector can't efficiently provide a service. They lose the middle ground by talking about abortion and gay marriage, it's suicide every election. Obama is going to win by default.
evra said:
Well they have made that pretty clear... except insofar as they don't really admit there's any area where the private sector can't efficiently provide a service.
Public goods or an slight extension of that notion would suit me down to the ground. Unfortunately they bundle up these appealing ideas (appealing to me at least) with policies on gay marriage and abortion like they are a natural fit. The Republicans should just become the libertarian party; emphasise that the Democrats are the party of big government and waste.
He's been getting a lot of stick, and from all over the spectrum too (well, nearly), but god knows how that translates to media that people actually pay attention to.
But repubs tend to cherrypick quotes from free market economists. I've read Hayek and even he agrees that government regulation and services are needed in certain situations.
Of course; there are collective action and free-rider problems that only the state can tackle. Some services, by their very nature, will be under-supplied in a free market.
How does the private sector ever provide a better service when it requires 20% ROI (except by driving down wages or compromising service and safety - see British Rail).
The Republicans love a big state as much as anyone.
They do love an excessively well funded military, that's for sure.
What you have done is listed an instance where the private sector, through lack of a competitive environment, has failed to provide better value for money. Personally I would argue that a functioning transport network is a reasonable extension of the public good notion. In a competitive environment where non-excludability and non-rivalry aren't issues the free market outperforms the public sector every time.
Examples? It all just sounds like empty ideological arguments to me.
A public good.
Examples? What are you saying? That a centralised government can provide services more efficiently than the private sector? I hate to break it to you but they tried that in Russia and it didn't work out so well. Computers, there's an example, I only use that because it's the thing in front of me, it could just have easily been lamp-shades, digital radios or blazers.
Not all services should be efficient. In the US, Amtrak and the post office aren't efficient but they are essential.
So your argument is "it didn't work in Soviet Russia"? How original. I guess that answers how well thought out it is.
No one (well, maybe peterstorey) is suggesting Communism here.
No one (well, maybe peterstorey) is suggesting Communism here.
You can argue a defence budget will add to the public good, yes. But a huge monolith that doubles in size (it was fairly hefty in the first place) and starts two long and deadly wars? Then you've got the "Patriot" Act ("name it something no-one can argue against!") and all the general snooping they do.
But of course, all of that can be forgiven as long as that big state doesn't mess with business, cuts taxes and deregulates. That's what's really important.
Defense spending could be considered a 'public good', but unfortunately much of the US's military expenditure isn't spend on 'defense' at all. The GOP chickenhawks calling for apeshit measures like bombing Iran and Syria would cost them dearly too if they had their way.
Then there's the excessive, unconstitutional and severe anti-liberty measures like the Patriot Act which have been hysterically implemented. Small government my arse.
No computers without large-scale government investment, sorry.
Or at least, we wouldn't have got them until decades later.
What about blazers?
If you think the state provides products and services more efficiently than the private sector you really need to look at Soviet Russia, it may not be an original argument (I doubt there have been any original arguments on Redcafe) but it's a perfectly reasonable one.
It's government all the way down...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama will be out of sight soon...
Obama will be out of sight soon...
Ryan must be feeling like Sarah Palin picked him to be VP....
I'm not suggesting that the state takes over everything. It's not either that, or complete libertarianism. I'm somewhere in between a socialist and a social democrat. I think the state should definitely handle services like education, health care, and possibly services like transportation and other infrastructure (though they may be private as long as there is heavy regulation).
In Norway, the state has a large share in many of the large industries, among them internationally large companies like Telenor or Statoil.
Computers and related research were largely dependent on government funding for many years before they became commercially viable. Advances in aircraft were a result of government and military investment and research. Had it been up to the private sector, we would likely still be flying primarily in propeller planes. Because of government funding, science, technology, and medicine are where they are today.
There is little motivation for industry to innovate when they have a monopoly or large market share. Oil companies aren't going to push for more renewable energy because it requires heavy investment, lower return, and they have a sure thing that will give them tons of profits with minimal change.
Having an absolutely government-free "free market" would be detrimental to the advancement of society. The research and technology that spun off of the space race paid off in innumerable ways for billions of people. Where is the private sector in terms of space? Lower earth orbit at the max and have never put a man into space.
A mixture between government involvement, regulation and a free market is ideal. Going to either extreme is detrimental to society, imo.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
lets hope this keeps up..we will get a democratic congress.
lets hope this keeps up..we will get a democratic congress.
This is basically the 'you didn't build that' argument explained.
For those of you, who like me, took the survey and found that your views matched that off Jill Stein, and had never heard her name before....She was doing an IamA with reddit today..
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zs2n3/i_am_jill_stein_green_party_presidential/
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zs2n3/i_am_jill_stein_green_party_presidential/
- Status