MR

Politically

I really think the country went the wrong way.

People have spoken though.

However I just know this is the wrong road.

Very much hope I am wrong and you all tell me so in a year or two.

Just being honest.

Doesn't mean I liked Romney either. that isn't what I was getting at.

Moderation has always been the key to the success of the 2-party system... without the need for, and the benefit of, that moderation.. we enter dangerous territory. Right or wrong, once we look at the last 40 years, societal morality, like a pendulum, swings... and we are in a leftward swing, and it is not accidental. What we see playing out is the consequence.

Simple as that.


The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw under the bus at the RNC.

3rd Parties
IMHO, 3rd parties lost all possibility for inclusion in the elections in 2000 when the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates), created and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988, established the following rule:

"for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls."

The co-opting of the Presidential Debates, and the participation rule change guarantees no 3rd party will ever get to influence party ideology (just look at how much a failure the Tea Party was)... much less be able to discuss alternative viewpoints in the debates... hence... The elections are as Dem/Rep rigged as rigged can get.. and with no possibility of a 3rd party being part of the debates, they've removed any possibility for a 3rd party to win the White House..

This rule change not only nullifies any 3rd party (which tends to appear to be less moderate) ideology, it gives the Dems an advantage in presenting a more progressive platform, which by default appears more populist, and will always make the Republicans appear more disingenuous than the Democrats... I guess a good analogy would be "moving the playing field to the left while the audience is watching the players, who still appear to the audience as adversaries. Eventually the audience winds up rooting for the "same" without realizing it"....

No 3rd party will EVER displace the Dem/Rep monopoly.



Moral Hazard
We see the symptoms of this leftward swing via an in the increase in moral hazard (a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk)

And see it manifest in the following ways:

• bailouts,
• too big to fail,
• loan principle write downs,
• the suspension of the mark-to-market rule for banks,
• the outright purchase of debt by government entities (Fanny, Freddy),
• and the outright purchase of debt by the Federal Reserve (currently the largest purchaser of bonds (debt).
• the increase in social programs

The removal of "consequence" for risk, the socialization of the cost of those consequences, and growth in government and it's intrusion into our lives is a leftward swing from the equilibrium point the Founders and Framers envisioned of limited government and personal responsibility. We're in uncharted waters IMHO, the balance of right-left has been lost, or at least moved too far in one direction.. most likely the swing back will be just as extreme, as will the consequences.

The Republicans party nominee was just flat out weak. He had no clear cut agenda, flip-flopping around like the dying fish out of water that he was. The

demise of the Republicans is that they cannot change or bend a little for no one or nothing. Until they find a candidate that has a clear cut plan, one whom

isn't afraid of change, one who the american people feel that aren't going to be fucked over with, they will continue to fail.

AR wrote:Politically

I really think the country went the wrong way.

People have spoken though.

However I just know this is the wrong road.

Very much hope I am wrong and you all tell me so in a year or two.

Just being honest.

I agree , but the troubling aspect of this election to me is not so much who people voted for, but why.
Obama received 90 % of the black vote, why? mostly because hes black.
he received the vast majority of the hispanic vote, why? because he's soft on enforcing Illegal immigration.
Now you could say a vast amount voted for Romney simply because hes white, and thats true as well.
It seems that whoever can appease the majority of the "minority groups" with whatever issue they care about
wins the election. The republicans are going to need to run a Gay hispanic with a handicap who has a lesbian
black muslim running mate to have any chance in the next election.

RPM wrote:
I agree , but the troubling aspect of this election to me is not so much who people voted for, but why.
Obama received 90 % of the black vote, why? mostly because hes black.he received the vast majority of the Hispanic vote, why? because he's soft on enforcing Illegal immigration.Now you could say a vast amount voted for Romney simply because hes white, and thats true as well.
It seems that whoever can appease the majority of the "minority groups" with whatever issue they care about
wins the election. The republicans are going to need to run a Gay Hispanic with a handicap who has a lesbian
black muslim running mate to have any chance in the next election.

I think this is the kind of short-sighted dinosaur-type thinking that will keep the Republicans/conservatives right in the position they find themselves in today. Did the majority of black voters vote for Obama because he's Black? We'd be naive to say "No", BUT the larger problem for the Republicans is the overwhelming majority of Black voters are registered Democrats, and likely would have voted for the Democrat candidate in any case.

Did Hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama because of his position on immigration? Maybe, but I doubt it. Obama did very well among Puerto Rican voters who are largely unaffected by immigration issues.

Asians?
So, I guess that just brings us to the "they all just want 'stuff'"argument. Let's be honest, Republicans are no slouches when it comes to pandering & handing out"stuff" when it comes to corporate America, and that's fine. I'm all about Capitalism & greasing the wheels every now & then, but c'mon, let's call a spade a spade. I think conservatives are missing the boat by failure (refusal?) to recognize that Blacks & Hispanics tend to be more religious & have more conservative views on a number of issues that SHOULD be right in the Republicans wheelhouse. Conservatives are slitting their own throats with this haughty (and frankly racist & stereotypical)notion that the only way to start chipping away at the stronghold Democrats have on minority voters is to offer them more welfare (aka "stuff"). Ridiculous. But okay...Obama's not running next time, now what's the excuse going to be?

slucero wrote:Moderation has always been the key to the success of the 2-party system... without the need for, and the benefit of, that moderation.. we enter dangerous territory. Right or wrong, once we look at the last 40 years, societal morality, like a pendulum, swings... and we are in a leftward swing, and it is not accidental. What we see playing out is the consequence.

Simple as that.


The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw under the bus at the RNC.

3rd Parties
IMHO, 3rd parties lost all possibility for inclusion in the elections in 2000 when the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates), created and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988, established the following rule:

"for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls."

The co-opting of the Presidential Debates, and the participation rule change guarantees no 3rd party will ever get to influence party ideology (just look at how much a failure the Tea Party was)... much less be able to discuss alternative viewpoints in the debates... hence... The elections are as Dem/Rep rigged as rigged can get.. and with no possibility of a 3rd party being part of the debates, they've removed any possibility for a 3rd party to win the White House..

This rule change not only nullifies any 3rd party (which tends to appear to be less moderate) ideology, it gives the Dems an advantage in presenting a more progressive platform, which by default appears more populist, and will always make the Republicans appear more disingenuous than the Democrats... I guess a good analogy would be "moving the playing field to the left while the audience is watching the players, who still appear to the audience as adversaries. Eventually the audience winds up rooting for the "same" without realizing it"....

No 3rd party will EVER displace the Dem/Rep monopoly.



Moral Hazard
We see the symptoms of this leftward swing via an in the increase in moral hazard (a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk)

And see it manifest in the following ways:

• bailouts,
• too big to fail,
• loan principle write downs,
• the suspension of the mark-to-market rule for banks,
• the outright purchase of debt by government entities (Fanny, Freddy),
• and the outright purchase of debt by the Federal Reserve (currently the largest purchaser of bonds (debt).
• the increase in social programs

The removal of "consequence" for risk, the socialization of the cost of those consequences, and growth in government and it's intrusion into our lives is a leftward swing from the equilibrium point the Founders and Framers envisioned of limited government and personal responsibility. We're in uncharted waters IMHO, the balance of right-left has been lost, or at least moved too far in one direction.. most likely the swing back will be just as extreme, as will the consequences.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showth ... p?t=270643

The same exact post word for word on another board....is this you, or did you cut and paste someone else's words????

If you...Bravo...if not.....Boo....

JV

Jubilee wrote:

RPM wrote:
I agree , but the troubling aspect of this election to me is not so much who people voted for, but why.
Obama received 90 % of the black vote, why? mostly because hes black.he received the vast majority of the Hispanic vote, why? because he's soft on enforcing Illegal immigration.Now you could say a vast amount voted for Romney simply because hes white, and thats true as well.
It seems that whoever can appease the majority of the "minority groups" with whatever issue they care about
wins the election. The republicans are going to need to run a Gay Hispanic with a handicap who has a lesbian
black muslim running mate to have any chance in the next election.

I think this is the kind of short-sighted dinosaur-type thinking that will keep the Republicans/conservatives right in the position they find themselves in today. Did the majority of black voters vote for Obama because he's Black? We'd be naive to say "No", BUT the larger problem for the Republicans is the overwhelming majority of Black voters are registered Democrats, and likely would have voted for the Democrat candidate in any case.

Did Hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama because of his position on immigration? Maybe, but I doubt it. Obama did very well among Puerto Rican voters who are largely unaffected by immigration issues.

Asians?
So, I guess that just brings us to the "they all just want 'stuff'"argument. Let's be honest, Republicans are no slouches when it comes to pandering & handing out"stuff" when it comes to corporate America, and that's fine. I'm all about Capitalism & greasing the wheels every now & then, but c'mon, let's call a spade a spade. I think conservatives are missing the boat by failure (refusal?) to recognize that Blacks & Hispanics tend to be more religious & have more conservative views on a number of issues that SHOULD be right in the Republicans wheelhouse. Conservatives are slitting their own throats with this haughty (and frankly racist & stereotypical)notion that the only way to start chipping away at the stronghold Democrats have on minority voters is to offer them more welfare (aka "stuff"). Ridiculous. But okay...Obama's not running next time, now what's the excuse going to be?

You make some very good points, but its a fact the elephant in the room is the growing Hispanic vote
And both sides are going to try to cater to them,Republicans are already saying how they have to
Modify there position or face being irrelevant in the next election. Is this really how we should be forming policy?

RPM wrote:

Jubilee wrote:

RPM wrote:
I agree , but the troubling aspect of this election to me is not so much who people voted for, but why.
Obama received 90 % of the black vote, why? mostly because hes black.he received the vast majority of the Hispanic vote, why? because he's soft on enforcing Illegal immigration.Now you could say a vast amount voted for Romney simply because hes white, and thats true as well.
It seems that whoever can appease the majority of the "minority groups" with whatever issue they care about
wins the election. The republicans are going to need to run a Gay Hispanic with a handicap who has a lesbian
black muslim running mate to have any chance in the next election.

I think this is the kind of short-sighted dinosaur-type thinking that will keep the Republicans/conservatives right in the position they find themselves in today. Did the majority of black voters vote for Obama because he's Black? We'd be naive to say "No", BUT the larger problem for the Republicans is the overwhelming majority of Black voters are registered Democrats, and likely would have voted for the Democrat candidate in any case.

Did Hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama because of his position on immigration? Maybe, but I doubt it. Obama did very well among Puerto Rican voters who are largely unaffected by immigration issues.

Asians?
So, I guess that just brings us to the "they all just want 'stuff'"argument. Let's be honest, Republicans are no slouches when it comes to pandering & handing out"stuff" when it comes to corporate America, and that's fine. I'm all about Capitalism & greasing the wheels every now & then, but c'mon, let's call a spade a spade. I think conservatives are missing the boat by failure (refusal?) to recognize that Blacks & Hispanics tend to be more religious & have more conservative views on a number of issues that SHOULD be right in the Republicans wheelhouse. Conservatives are slitting their own throats with this haughty (and frankly racist & stereotypical)notion that the only way to start chipping away at the stronghold Democrats have on minority voters is to offer them more welfare (aka "stuff"). Ridiculous. But okay...Obama's not running next time, now what's the excuse going to be?

You make some very good points, but its a fact the elephant in the room is the growing Hispanic vote
And both sides are going to try to cater to them,Republicans are already saying how they have to
Modify there position or face being irrelevant in the next election. Is this really how we should be forming policy?

I see your point, but, that's kinda the way sausage is made, politically speaking. IMO, for conservatives, the best way forward is to immediately stop trying to divide the nation between minority voters (who just want stuff), and the rest of "Us" (who have to work extra hard so they can have it good), and start making their appeal to working class voters of all stripes. That means they're going to have to start making in roads into territory in which stodgy old white men may not be comfortable. But still, it has to be done. Republicans don't need to show up with a bad full of goodies for each group, but they do need to show up. They have to at least be willing to ASK the people for their vote. Heck, that Politics 101 - ASK for the vote!

Joe Vana wrote:
The same exact post word for word on another board....is this you, or did you cut and paste someone else's words????

If you...Bravo...if not.....Boo....

JV

That's me.

AR wrote:Politically

I really think the country went the wrong way.

People have spoken though.

However I just know this is the wrong road.

Very much hope I am wrong and you all tell me so in a year or two.

Just being honest.

As you put it "the people have spoken". So in a sense your viewpoint and the ones similar to yours is falling on deaf ears. It is what it is. The ones that are not for Obama's vision or plans for this country do not have anyone in Congress or the Senate that will be effective in defeating things that people have been against. We didn't elect the people that would. In reality our government is screwed up on both sides of the street. It seems getting elected or re-elected is more important that doing whats best for our country and it's people. So the people that are not in step with the Obama administration's plans are going to have to let things play out. If things do not improve or get even worse maybe someone that is electable and has the right ideas\plans can get elected the next time we are around. Then again we could see the same situation play out again. I could be wrong but I feel that there are not enough people that really pay attention enough to really find out what the people they are voting for actually stand for. I remember watching interviews the first time Obama ran for President. Some of the people interviewing Obama voters took statements, positions and plans that were actually what McCain said he was going to do and said they were Obama's. What they found was that either the person being interviewed had no clue what they were being asked or they agreed that is what Obama should do.