2012 Elections in the USA

How many grasshoppers are there ? (ie. people who could work, but choose to be lazy, and expect a handout)

What are their political affiliations ?

Aesop fables and broad dismissals of 47% of the population, this is how Republicans perpetuate the myth that the country is full of irresponsible freeloaders who are all aligned with one political party. It would be nice if they could support their argument with some facts, but that would be asking too much. Perhaps because they are lazy, or more likely, the facts just don't back them up.

I suspect they would prefer to read their fables, drink some hot chocolate, and then go beddy bye.

[QUOTE=Esten;426595]I suspect they would prefer to read their fables, drink some hot chocolate, and then go beddy bye.[snip][/QUOTE]Only if Big Brother says it's OK!

I find it very interesting how the die-hard right wingers on this thread (Jackson, Toymann, Doppel, etc) have now given up ranting about how Romney WILL win this election (clearly he is the underdog at this point) and have resorted to drivel about why Romney SHOULD win this election.

Tiny12, I most often appreciate your posts but I think you have taken these quotes out context.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426587]"Given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."

-John Maynard Keynes[/QUOTE]Keynes was reacting to Hoover who raised taxes to meet the deficit. Keynes would not advocate spending cuts during a time of economic weakness. Romney actually is saying his tax policy is revenue neutral and he is in favor of spending cuts. Republican economics is different than what Keynes proposed. Read reactions to Paul Krugman articles at RealClearMarkets if you think Keynesian economics is favored. It might open your eyes. If Romney became a Keynesian he might actually win California and win in landslide. The Austrian school is favored by Republicans now.

[QUOTE]"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now"

-John F. Kennedy[/QUOTE]Marginal tax rates were very high under Kennedy so there was much room to cut. If Kennedy's statement is the truth than we should eliminate taxes all together. I fail to see how a zero tax rate will raise government revenue. Maybe I am slow.

Unfortunately, Government is overextended in my opinion. There is no fiscal or monetary policy that will help the economy. Basically I see years of slow growth until the baby boomers die off. Obama is trying speed up the process by creating death panels (rationing medical care) but senior mongers like Sydney are objecting. I heard one person say this week that young people are being taxed to buy Viagra for senior citizens. I thought that was funny.

Big Boss Man, There was no context, except maybe that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are out of step with their heroes. They're potentially going to be a big part of driving us over the fiscal cliff in the short term and bankrupting the country in the longer term. I agree with the majority of what you wrote.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426599]I find it very interesting how the die-hard right wingers on this thread (Jackson, Toymann, Doppel, etc) have now given up ranting about how Romney WILL win this election (clearly he is the underdog at this point) and have resorted to drivel about why Romney SHOULD win this election.[/QUOTE]I refer you to my last post SnakeBoy!

[QUOTE=Toymann]In spite of your fantasy that the election is a prom queen contest, you again, as always miss the point. The 6% that will decide this election want someone who has a track record of getting the job done! Period! End of story! All polls of independents have been favouring Romney from the get go. Factor in the battleground states are mostly in the midwest (Florida is already in the bag dude) , and a Romney landslide is all but a forgone conclusion. It's not a popularity contest dumbo, america needs a closer and Obomanation has shown he is anything BUT! Keep howling at the moon. I am sure after the election you will crawl under your rock and never be heard from again on this board. It was just 20 months ago that the country voted for the greatest liberal slaughter in history. What makes you think anything has changed! It never fails to amaze me how you dudes like you and esten fail understand even the basics of small town america. Luckily most americans don't live in huge cities (at least not yet) , and the country remains a center right mosiac. Keep whistling past the cemetary SnakeBoy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]As they say in court,"asked and answered"! LMAO. Do you plan to come to next weeks dinner party dude? I arrive in BA that morning and will be happy to buy the first beer. I am curious to see if you even really exist. Monger on SnakeBoy. Toymann.

Ps. No worries dude, my actual persona is very different from my Toymann persona. Just ask anyone who has met met me in the flesh. Assuming you really live in BA I can't imagine why you wouldn't join us for some good food, drink and fun conversation. I promise we won't talk politics. Honest!

I was doing some financial planning yesterday and joked about reaching a significant number. The lawyer just said it was something he didn't need to worry about. Either the lawyer doesn't believe in compounding returns or he thinks the world is coming to an end.

Then this morning a whole lot of gloom on Realclearmarkets. Com.

[url]http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/21/paul-krugmans-obsolescence[/url]

[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-or-romney-stock-market-loses-20-by-2016-2012-09-21?link=MW_story_popular[/url]

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/09/21/the-coming-obama-recession-of-2013/[/url]

[url]http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/the-economy/articles/greece-euro-eurozone-banks-recession-european/9/21/2012/id/44233?page=full[/url]

It is just going to be a slog and grind guys. To use a football metaphor, you probably are not going to throw a 60 yard touchdown pass. You are probably going to have to put together a 12-play drive and overcome a holding penalty or two.

The polling data now:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html[/url]

Electoral college state today:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html[/url]

Who tells more lies while campaigning-they are both equally full of shit-from the great bastion of leftist communist thought which is quoted by dick Cheney and down the block from the Wharton school.

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/[/url]

The truth is that the USA is fairly evenly divided and compromise is out of the question so whatever happens, the distortions that fuel the lack of a shared vision for the future will continue.

Note: I do not read the political threads here, but occasionally make a similar posting. Occasionally some facts don't hurt the discourse or lack of discourse.

Chicago well know for corruption.

From Politicians to Gangsters.

Watch this, it could be based on Daly, but not you know who.

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/[/url]

It is called Boss, the mayor of the city.

P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?

P.S. But the Sex is Great, it makes Clinton look like an Amateur.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426664]P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?[/QUOTE]"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426670]"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.[/QUOTE]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426671]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.[/QUOTE]The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter ID laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter ID, if you have no driver's license.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426671]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.[/QUOTE]Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo ID.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an ID card [b]like everybody else[/b]!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free ID card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.

In many cases, in places like Texas and Wyoming many folks live something like 100 miles from the nearest DMV. And of course, they don't drive, and don't own cars, which is why they lack ID in the first place. It takes more than smarts to travel to the DMV if it's 100 miles away and you don't drive, and you live in an area with little or no public transportation. It takes RESOURCES, and many of these folks lack these resources. Just because the ID card is free, the transportation to the DMV might still cost hundreds of dollars Which is why the Courts have consistently come down against these intentionally racist voter ID laws.

The tool you are referring to is money. And the simple fact is, not everyone has it. But the law still gives people without money, the right to vote.

The Law even gives stupid people the right to vote, as evidenced by the fact that George W. Bush was elected President twice.

BTW, if a state thinks that EVERY resident should have an ID, the state certainly has the resources to mail everyone that is on their voting rolls one at no cost and requiring little or no effort from them. There are plenty of ways to ID people that don't require them to get a photograph done at a physical location that might be a hundred miles away from them.



[QUOTE=Jackson; 426675]Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo I'd.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an I'd card [b]like everybody else[/b]!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free I'd card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426674]The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter I'd laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter I'd, if you have no driver's license.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's true that at the time up until the early 1960s, those folks were Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats. But it was Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson that effectively reversed that situation, when LBJ forced through the voting rights act, and Nixon responded by developing what became known as "The Southern Strategy" to pander to southern racists who felt abandoned by LBJ's push for civil rights, to get them to vote Republican. Ever since the end of the 1960s, the racists in the South mostly switched parties, along with Politicians like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jesse Helms, and Lester Maddox.

BTW, can you document those cases of Democratic (the word has an "ic" at the end of it, BTW) operatives who loaded up buses and took the same people to vote in multiple locations in national elections in the past few decades? It's a myth. The Jim Crow South, BTW, and the disenfranchisement of blacks was NOT a myth, and irrespective of the party affiliations of those who did it, the main mechanism that they used was Voter ID schemes - and that's why those schemes are largely unconstitutional in this country - as a result of Supreme Court decisions. BTW, those Supreme Court decisions were hardly "ridiculous" - they came about through real, systematic disenfrancisement that the Court remedied.

And the issue is NOT the cost of the ID - it's the cost of getting to where the ID is issued. If the state wants to implement this, it would be very simple to implement it by mail, in a manner that even poor people without transportation could deal with. But that's obviously contrary to the intention of these laws as they are written - which is to disenfranchise people without much transit mobility - i.e the poor.