[speakeasy]

For me it's mostly a financial decision. Democrats are better for the average person. If you're wealthy or you like the idea of concentrating wealth to even more ridiculous levels than it already is, then vote Republican.

[It_is_my_time]

That is a horrible piece of propaganda ^^^^

The socialist Democrats have NO CLUE how an economy works. Which is why all the crap Obama supports and the Democrats passed from 2009 to 2011 made the rich even richer and helped kill off a good chunk of the middle class. Obamacare and Frank-Dodd were great for the wealthy and a disaster for the middle class and small business owners.

[Feisbook Control]

(11-03-2014 11:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

We've reached a kind of consensus, I pretty much agree with you but don't think ISIS will be down at the Straits of Hormuz any time in our lives. Most likely, they'll get attrited by bombing and our (US, UK, Aus, Fr) very capable special operations forces over the next year or two, until the Iraqi army / Peshmerga can cake-walk in.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not predicting that they will reach the Straits of Hormuz, I'm just saying it's a possible black swan event. The entire way in which the West seems to be dealing with this issue, and many others (e.g. Ebola), is like driving a car without wearing a seat belt. The chance of having an accident is perhaps pretty small (I think it's larger than that with some of these issues, though), but the outcome is really severe if it does happen. People always think that it won't happen to them. Yet does anyone actually wake up in the morning and tell himself that maybe he'd like to become a quadraplegic today? So how do people end up as quadriplegics then? Will ISIS fizzle out, or will it become a bigger problem? It's unlikely that it will become a bigger, direct problem for the West, but if it does, it will be a really big problem. The trouble with these situations is that they're always okay and under control until they're not, and then a whole lot of people explain them away as some sort of five sigma/once in a century event that we couldn't possibly have foreseen, etc. Yet the funny thing is that incidence of occurrence seems to put them at something very different to five sigma events. I posit that if five sigma events occur at four, three or two sigma frequency, then there's either a problem with the model being used, how it's implicated, or both. In other words, there's either some gross incompetency there, or if you like, some sort of conspiracy.

Quote:

I also agree with you on the basic neocolonialism of people by their own elites. When I was looking up stuff for this discussion, I was struck by the fact that British colonial rule in the Gulf was a money-losing proposition - they left because they could not afford it. Yet British business interests, then and now, are a dominant feature of those countries economies. And because of their tax laws, not much of that was coming back in tax revenue to pay for the colonial institutions and military. In other words, as in so many of these enterprises, we pay, they profit.

Definitely. That's why it also sticks in my craw when people talk about privilege. I don't own shares in Halliburton, so how am I benefiting from this lunacy?!

Quote:

Over the long term, the ideas of these extremists will only be fed by undue interference in these countries, including support for people who should not be supported. In particular I mean the Saudis, who are really paying for all of this Al Qaeda stuff and spreading extremism around the world, but are protected and even supported because our elites make money off of them.

Saudi Arabia is a really fragile set up, as far as I am concerned. The US is really dancing with the devil there. Firstly, Saudi Arabia funds much of the world's terrorist activities and extremist ideology. Secondly, however, that could all blow up in the faces of both the House of Saud and the US if the House of Saud ever loses control of the narrative within the nation and enough people see it as collaborating with the Great Satan, which is but one possible situation I was alluding to above regarding oil going to $200/barrel. Again, will this happen? I won't say it's likely, but how unlikely is it? Well, prior to the Arab Spring, who predicted that all Hell would break loose in any of those countries? No doubt, some people probably did, but evidently not enough.

Quote:

In that regard I recommend this article I just read:

Europe and the Islamic State within

Europe is going to have a massive problem in coming decades. The trouble is that it is hamstrung by its own liberalism. The trouble, too, is that Europeans, when they do finally respond, will quite possibly throw the baby out with the bathwater and embrace a lot of extreme populism and authoritarianism. I see a rapidly narrowing window in which to deal with that, but it seems like the authorities and other people of influence in academia, journalism, etc. just want to double down. The last thing they want to do is actually address these issues and the people causing the real problems. Yet look at the hysteria over so-called "far right" groups like UKIP. If people think that is a far right party, then they have a very rude awakening coming in the not too distant future. Or, whenever there's an issue, such as a British soldier being killed on British soil how people leap to blame the issue on anyone but the perpetrators or their ideology. At this point, I'm fairly resigned to the prospect of the blood being knee deep in several major European cities in coming decades.

[2Wycked]

(11-03-2014 07:20 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  



For me it's mostly a financial decision. Democrats are better for the average person. If you're wealthy or you like the idea of concentrating wealth to even more ridiculous levels than it already is, then vote Republican.

Come on now. Did that graph control for the '90's when Bill Clinton was in office?

Reminds me of the old gotcha question on a President:

1. He ended the war in Afghanistan
2. And raised taxes on the rich

Yeah, that was Reagan. Presidents are mostly placeholders. Do you think Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq? That was a call by the DoD.

I'll be voting mostly for Republicans tomorrow (I'll vote for a few local Democrats, simply because sheer competency outweighs party or ideological concerns - like those on your local water board) but I won't cast a vote for a federal Democrat.

Since I used to be a registered Democrat, I have been getting hammered with three variations on liberal themes: special interests control the Republican party, the infamous "War On Women," and attacks on the Koch Brothers. A few homages to Republicans attacking Social Security. I literally got a piece of mail about abortion. The economy sucks, and Democrats want to talk about access to abortion? Which is still completely guaranteed the right to in the first trimester?

Circling back to your original point about finances and Democrats, really only the poor benefit from Democrats. The rich don't lose much, as Democratic policies on business crowd out small business and start-ups. I wish I had saved the article, but I read a post about debunking the whole "Democrats are better for personal finances (at least for the middle class)." It was a mainstream, non-right-wing site. I'm pretty sure the idea was that Presidents can screw up an economy more than they can help it - like Clinton taking a hands off approach to the economy. Also, see Nixon's wage and price controls that lead to stagflation in the '70's.

[It_is_my_time]

(11-04-2014 01:23 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Circling back to your original point about finances and Democrats, really only the poor benefit from Democrats. The rich don't lose much, as Democratic policies on business crowd out small business and start-ups. I wish I had saved the article, but I read a post about debunking the whole "Democrats are better for personal finances (at least for the middle class)." It was a mainstream, non-right-wing site. I'm pretty sure the idea was that Presidents can screw up an economy more than they can help it - like Clinton taking a hands off approach to the economy. Also, see Nixon's wage and price controls that lead to stagflation in the '70's.

I guess I am weird. I just find economics/finances/wealth creation as the most interesting thing in the world. I have done well for myself in the USA, but a good part of that was being lucky to be old enough to have a strong foot hold before Obama and the Democrats came along in Jan 2009.

But I follow this all very closely, every single day, keeping up with what is going on in the economy and how to react.

What the Democrats offer today and how they affect the different economic groups I would break out like this:

1) Low class - In the short term the Democrats help the low class. They poor trillions of tax dollars into the violent ghettos. And this does offer them some nice trinkets and such, but in the long term it does them little to no good. After 50 years, these areas are still so bad you don't drive through them even during the daytime. And in the end we see that the govt. cannot replace the father in the household. The Democrats trying to get more people dependent on govt. to secure their vote in exchange for this life is just an awful situation.

2) Middle class - Democrats have destroyed the middle class. It has literally shrunk over the last 6 years. Full time jobs replaced by part time jobs due to Obamacare. Lowest work force participation rate since it has been normal for women to work outside the house. Higher income taxes. Higher COL. Stagnant salaries. But if the middle class is destroyed and the former middle class becomes dependent upon govt., it bodes well for the Democratic party, which is a scary thought.

3) Upper Middle class or the lower class rich - This is the class many in the lower class do not understand. They think these people are "rich" because they have a German sedan and a nice house in a gated community. These people still have to work/run a business to afford such a life style. They are not truly rich, they just do better than most. Doctors, top rate lawyers, small business owners, etc. The Democrats have for the most part hurt this group. Higher taxes hurt them. Obamacare has caused some doctors to retire early. But it is the regulations the Democrats push for that kill off the small businesses. This class has been hurt by Democrats and in turn they have cut out of the economy and hurt the middle and lower classes as well.

BTW, small business is the engine of our economy. New innovation and creation that lead the world in creating new revenue streams. This is how our economy grows. Things like Obamacare and other federal regulations crush these opportunities.

4) The Elites. The Elites are people who are worth millions upon millions of dollars. They don't have to work, and most likely their kid's kid's will not have to work in their life. These people OWN our govt. They pay for the re-election campaigns. They own both parties. They push for legislation like Obamacare to crush their small business competition. It has been GREAT for them. The elites control our govt. like their own personal pawns and use the govt. to increase their personal wealth. The more govt., the better this class does.

Leftist economics has never worked any where, in the history of the world. And they never will. What grows and economy and what allows a society to rise, is the creativity of its people. And leftist economics, at its core, destroys creativity and individuality. Because "it isn't fair" if someone else is willing to work harder to have a better life.

[lskdfjldsf]

(11-04-2014 04:23 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

4) The Elites. The Elites are people who are worth millions upon millions of dollars. They don't have to work, and most likely their kid's kid's will not have to work in their life. These people OWN our govt. They pay for the re-election campaigns. They own both parties. They push for legislation like Obamacare to crush their small business competition. It has been GREAT for them. The elites control our govt. like their own personal pawns and use the govt. to increase their personal wealth. The more govt., the better this class does.

I've seen people on both sides of the aisle make this claim. Not denying the influence the rich have on our system, but I think many mistake influence for total control. They're in influential positions with heaps of cash to throw around, but what proof is there they run the system? Creating a PAC and paying for ads sways public opinion, but it doesn't buy it. A vote will always be a vote at the end of the day, and that part of our political system is intact.

A rational response without the words "corporate greed" or "profits" or "Dick Cheney" being mentioned is hard to come by and I've yet to see tangible proof to back up these claims.

[It_is_my_time]

(11-04-2014 05:51 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 04:23 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

4) The Elites. The Elites are people who are worth millions upon millions of dollars. They don't have to work, and most likely their kid's kid's will not have to work in their life. These people OWN our govt. They pay for the re-election campaigns. They own both parties. They push for legislation like Obamacare to crush their small business competition. It has been GREAT for them. The elites control our govt. like their own personal pawns and use the govt. to increase their personal wealth. The more govt., the better this class does.

I've seen people on both sides of the aisle make this claim. Not denying the influence the rich have on our system, but I think many mistake influence for total control. They're in influential positions with heaps of cash to throw around, but what proof is there they run the system? Creating a PAC and paying for ads sways public opinion, but it doesn't buy it. A vote will always be a vote at the end of the day, and that part of our political system is intact.

A rational response without the words "corporate greed" or "profits" or "Dick Cheney" being mentioned is hard to come by and I've yet to see tangible proof to back up these claims.

The wealthy elite who own/run large corporations spend billions influencing politicians. Whether it is election campaigns or it is lobbyists in DC.

The larger the central federal govt., the more control they have over our lives, the further the country moves to the left, the better these elites do.

Obamacare is a great example...

#1) Large companies are not affected nearly as much by costs increases as mom and pop stores are. So in the end, the mom and pop stores are hurt more, and the consumer goes to the large corporation for lower prices. The big boys win.

#2) Our govt. actually passed a law stating you must buy this product or you are breaking the law. Isn't this nice for health insurance companies? Buy their service or break the law.

#3) The wealthy elites who own/run the insurance companies must have been laughing their asses off after Obamacare was passed. Because the bailout clause. If the insurance companies lose money due to Obamacare, they get a free bailout from the Federal govt. Or in reality, the middle class suckers pay the bailout in the form of higher taxes and more debt/inflation/unstable economy.

#4) The wealthy elite companies can now hire more part time workers to replace their full time workers, due to higher unemployment. Then not pay these employees benefits. And for those who they do have to pay benefits, they dump them into Medicaid so the sucker middle class pays for it all.

[Kingsley Davis]

"On TV One, a network operating under the motto “Where Black Life Unfolds,” the first lady told “News One Daily” host Roland Martin, “And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot– its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this– that shouldn’t even come into the equation.”

In the full audio of the interview, Michelle Obama gives everyone who votes permission to eat fried chicken.

Martin asked (at 7:15), “So can we, if we go out to the polls, can we, say, we have a souls to polls on Sunday, can we do soul food after we vote?”

Obama responded, “Absolutely. I give everyone full permission to eat some fried chicken after they vote. Only after, if you haven’t voted… You make a good point. Because I am, I do talk about health. But I think that a good victory for Democrats on Tuesday, you know, should be rewarded with some fried chicken.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/michel...democrats/

[iamdegaussed]

I grew up a bleeding heart liberal and the thing about it is, it's always like "Help out this group with your vote, don't you want to help out that group? Help out the wimminz, help out the gays!"

But then I grew up and realized that no matter how much you vote to help out these 'marginalized' groups, they still hate you. They don't care that you're voting to help them out and they still want you to have even less rights.

When have you heard women/feminists arguing for child custody rights/reduction to alimony? Never. And they won't. They want all the liberal male help they can get without giving anything up in return. It's a joke.

It's just a shame more liberal raised men don't wake up to this.

[Samseau]

Obama encourages women to become spinsters:

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-...17807.html

Whoever votes democrat is killing American women even more

[Samseau]

(11-03-2014 07:20 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  



For me it's mostly a financial decision. Democrats are better for the average person. If you're wealthy or you like the idea of concentrating wealth to even more ridiculous levels than it already is, then vote Republican.

You contradict yourself so badly you ought to feel ashamed. You claim democrats are for the average person then you talk about which party generated the most stock returns.

Second, the jobs democrats create are baristas and government workers, republicans actually create real work that lasts for decades and supports family growth. The fact of the matter is the 90's were setup for prosperity by Reagan in the 80's when he cleaned out the bad laws from democrats in the 60's and 70's. He also put in Paul Volcker who put the economy into shock treatment and created a real foundation for the dollar and the world economy that lasted all the way to the dot com bubble.

[Cattle Rustler]

Today I went biking in the rain, went to the polling station.

Then I voted for the Green Party and the Democrats.

I gotta say, it was a good day.

[Ingocnito]

All people do is vote for what lies they digest, that they think will benefit themselves the most. And many voters are so selfish they vote literally ONLY for themselves, not the future of their own kids... for instance.

This is what politicians play on, your human nature, your selfishness.

People never vote for what is best for the country. I couldn't stand the fact that Bush admin ran up the debt to $4+ Trillion.

But Obama admin has us buried so deep, it makes Bush look like a saint.

No one votes for what's best for the country. The greatest national security threat is a weak, volatile, shaky economy.

Print enough $, and sure the stock market might spike, and some job markets temporarily recover.. but again, at what cost long term?

The greatest threat to everything is poor economics, your beloved 9-5 inefficient workplace can't be taxed enough to pay for that much debt even in our grandkid's lifetime.

[MidWest]

Just got back from the voting booth.

Voted Democrat!

[Cattle Rustler]

(11-04-2014 05:10 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Just got back from the voting booth.

Voted Democrat!

All I gotta say is

   

[la_mode]

With only 3% of precincts reporting in XYZ state, CNN projects winner of XYZ state senate race.

Of course, the American public will fall for anything. I cannot take anyone seriously who actually believes in the voting process.

[Virtus]

I’m a die-hard liberal. It ruined my parenting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...parenting/

[Brian Shima]

Cattle Rustler someone earlier in the thread mention that you do oil work. Why would you vote for a Democrat and put your job on the line and not stay neutral? I mean Green Party seriously!? They would love to shut down oil rigs and leave thousands without work

[WalterBlack]

I can't remember who said this - but it was something like "Democrats rape the middle classes and give the money to the poor, Republicans rape the middle classes and give the money to the rich!"

You're fucked either way no matter what happens!

EDIT: I can't vote by the way - I've been in the US for 8 years, working and paying taxes for 6 years, and I have no say in anything - how is that fair?!

[MidWest]

(11-04-2014 05:24 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 05:10 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Just got back from the voting booth.

Voted Democrat!

All I gotta say is

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-04-2014 07:23 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

Cattle Rustler someone earlier in the thread mention that you do oil work. Why would you vote for a Democrat and put your job on the line and not stay neutral? I mean Green Party seriously!? They would love to shut down oil rigs and leave thousands without work

I don't think CR works which is probably why he voted Democrat. hah

[berserk]

(11-04-2014 07:09 PM)calihunter Wrote:  

I’m a die-hard liberal. It ruined my parenting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...parenting/

Quote:

Take a recent incident, involving some candy. I’d given each girl the same number of gumballs. But one of my daughters lost some. She then implored me for extra. “Now I have less and that’s not fair,” she moaned.

“But they’re my candy! It’s not my fault we lost some of hers!” the other one replied.

My solution — to put all the gumballs together in one bowl and split them equally — was unacceptable to both. All afternoon, they threw tantrums, slammed doors, or tried to slyly outwit me, crumbling when I didn’t fall for it.

“How about we keep our own gumballs and I get an extra other kind of candy that she doesn’t get?” said one.

“Why am I being punished for her missing candy?” asked the other.

Three hours later, the result was the same as it would’ve been had I taken a sterner approach from the get-go: We did what I said. But what should have taken five minutes took three hours, and everyone was in a bad mood.

Yes, proof that women only begin to understand the world when they have children. Women can never reach their full mental or moral potential until they have children. Of course the deeper understanding, that she is a petulant child in the eyes of the world, is lost, but at least it is a beginning. Now she only needs a boy and she'll probably drop the feminist bs.

Quote:

But for now, I’ve taught the wrong message — that life should be fair and there is no other acceptable option. I did it before the girls had the capacity to understand the meaning of fair. Fair became “what I want right now because I want it.”

I should have stuck to the well-worn, well-tested “life isn’t fair, and I call the shots” route when my girls were babies and toddlers.

Because what isn’t fair is asking children to think and behave like adults before they have the mental ability to do so.

I'll let someone more cynical replace children with women in the above.

[DChambers]

Voted Republican on my way to work. Did a full 9 hours working in a granite workshop.

If Florida reelects Rick Scott he owes me big time.

[la_mode]

I'm not political - but I would be amused if every state besides those in the Pacific Time zone were swept by the Republicans. That would be entertaining.

[CRR]

(11-04-2014 05:01 PM)Ingocnito Wrote:  

All people do is vote for what lies they digest, that they think will benefit themselves the most. And many voters are so selfish they vote literally ONLY for themselves, not the future of their own kids... for instance.

This is what politicians play on, your human nature, your selfishness.

People never vote for what is best for the country. I couldn't stand the fact that Bush admin ran up the debt to $4+ Trillion.

But Obama admin has us buried so deep, it makes Bush look like a saint.

No one votes for what's best for the country. The greatest national security threat is a weak, volatile, shaky economy.

Print enough $, and sure the stock market might spike, and some job markets temporarily recover.. but again, at what cost long term?

The greatest threat to everything is poor economics, your beloved 9-5 inefficient workplace can't be taxed enough to pay for that much debt even in our grandkid's lifetime.

Good post. I'd say part of the problem is we have too much influence from corporations, wall street and unions. And part of it, as you said, is the voters themselves.

The Democrats promise more than they can pay for, the Republicans promise somewhat less (except for defense spending) but also less ways to pay for it. I don't think debt is necessarily always a bad thing, so long is it is manageable in the long term. Either way, generally speaking a politician who doesn't promise the world and makes tough choices has trouble winning. Leveling with the voters and conceding that one must compromise is considered weakness. So the candidates make it easy for us to be disgusted by them, but us voters certainly share in the blame.

I'm not anti-business nor union. I just feel that each entity pushes their own agenda without regard to subsequent ramifications. I'm certainly no saint, I'm an apathetic voter. I work in finance, I'd say of the people that I know a plurality are Republicans, some Democrats, some don't give a shit. The Republicans aren't social conservatives at all, they just vote that way for tax reasons. The ones that vote Democratic do so usually do for one single issue (i.e. abortion, student loans). So your point is very accurate.

I'm a registered Democrat. I generally vote that way even if the current voice of our party is one I cannot relate to, nor can I relate to the tea party. I believe in the party of JFK, which I think was more focused on middle class issues, although a lot of it was the parties were more mixed back then (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans). I'm very much pro-science and pro-universal health care. But IMO no matter where one stands, I think it's important to remember that the average liberal or conservative is your friend. The media likes to hype our differences, but really, it's just frustrating to see like with feminists, often the loudest and most self-serving get the most air time.

Either way, I'm a firm believer in the following

   

Except feminists. Fuck those fat bitches.