• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama will lose in a Landslide

RJKarl said:
So like many others I was wrong about that...you're afraid that your actions in the past will follow you.

Stop being a coward....or grobeskinner.
Click to expand...

I agree with gs more often than you rj but this is one time you are correct...no way o loses with his money advantage, the mainstream media adoration, and the demographics involved...the gop might have a chance with a decent candidate but the current freakshow just isn't going to produce an opponent that will result in his defeat...the only downside for dems is that four more years of o could be rough on the party in congress and at the state level (just like '10 was)...
 
Can't be GS, posts are too long.
 
Not sure I understand why a poster who seems so proud of his posts here would be so ashamed of what he posted over there.
 
That Pew independents poll is the most important thing in the whole article. Talk about burying the lead.

1. Doesn't the GOP have the same opportunity if they work with the Dems on deficit reduction? Maybe even more of an opportunity since they've been the agenda-setters and drivers of action on it.

3. Those demographics only help the Dems if those people show up in the same numbers they did last time. Of course, the Dem he quotes in the article says "oh we'll do better". Put your paycheck on that, buddy?

4. I'm pretty sure the guy the GOP nominates will have campaigned before.

Obama's "veer" to the right has been nothing less than forced by the GOP and Tea Party. Do you think he would be working on deficit reduction were it not for them?

Quoting only Democrat strategists and sources...not talking at all about GOP counters to these talking points...

If this is objective, my ass is a typewriter. It's an op-ed, though.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
That Pew independents poll is the most important thing in the whole article. Talk about burying the lead.

1. Doesn't the GOP have the same opportunity if they work with the Dems on deficit reduction? Maybe even more of an opportunity since they've been the agenda-setters and drivers of action on it.

3. Those demographics only help the Dems if those people show up in the same numbers they did last time. Of course, the Dem he quotes in the article says "oh we'll do better". Put your paycheck on that, buddy?

4. I'm pretty sure the guy the GOP nominates will have campaigned before.

Obama's "veer" to the right has been nothing less than forced by the GOP and Tea Party. Do you think he would be working on deficit reduction were it not for them?

Quoting only Democrat strategists and sources...not talking at all about GOP counters to these talking points...

If this is objective, my ass is a typewriter. It's an op-ed, though.
Click to expand...

That's a bold prediction.
 
ONW said:
That's a bold prediction.
Click to expand...

Not really.

If she wins, this is pretty much all moot anyway because the Dems will run a couple of wackjob quotes and that'll be it.
 
ONW said:
Would that be inaccurate?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Bachmann can't win a general election...she's said too much dumb stuff in the past that would come back to haunt her. Not to mention the first husband...

This is the difference between the Tea Party I support and the group that has co-opted the movement. The original movement was about fiscal responsibility and basically fiscal conservatives that were tired of having their voice in the party squelched by social conservatives that IMO limit the party's marketability.

Michelle Bachmann is not neutral on social issues. She's also not experienced, not distinguished and is basically a run of the mill House rep. Not what I or people like me -- I think I pretty well represent the portion of independents that would consider voting for a Republican -- would support running the country.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
Not at all. Bachmann can't win a general election...she's said too much dumb stuff in the past that would come back to haunt her. Not to mention the first husband...

This is the difference between the Tea Party I support and the group that has co-opted the movement. The original movement was about fiscal responsibility and basically fiscal conservatives that were tired of having their voice in the party squelched by social conservatives that IMO limit the party's marketability.

Michelle Bachmann is not neutral on social issues. She's also not experienced, not distinguished and is basically a run of the mill House rep. Not what I or people like me -- I think I pretty well represent the portion of independents that would consider voting for a Republican -- would support running the country.
Click to expand...

Thank fuck there are people out there who realize this.
 
I'm pretty sure Kanhoji was known as ScottConnover or something close before flaming out on the scout boards.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
Not at all. Bachmann can't win a general election...she's said too much dumb stuff in the past that would come back to haunt her. Not to mention the first husband...

This is the difference between the Tea Party I support and the group that has co-opted the movement. The original movement was about fiscal responsibility and basically fiscal conservatives that were tired of having their voice in the party squelched by social conservatives that IMO limit the party's marketability.
Michelle Bachmann is not neutral on social issues. She's also not experienced, not distinguished and is basically a run of the mill House rep. Not what I or people like me -- I think I pretty well represent the portion of independents that would consider voting for a Republican -- would support running the country.
Click to expand...


In other words, Republicans have to be more like Libertarians in order to win. I agree.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
Not really.

If she wins, this is pretty much all moot anyway because the Dems will run a couple of wackjob quotes and that'll be it.
Click to expand...

I think Huntsman is the only Pub candidate who doesn't have a couple of wackjob quotes.
 
Romney isn't a wackjob. He's the opposite of a wackjob, perhaps to a fault. He's 100% politician. Huntsman is basically Romney lite only he doesn't have the healthcare baggage. I've met Huntsman, incidentally, through family members that used to work for the family corporation. Nothing big, just a Christmas party, but always thought it was pretty cool that the family came in every year for it. Nice folks, by most accounts.

Ron Paul is tremendously consistent in his views...whether you consider those "wackjob" or not is a matter of opinion. But he's not nearly as far out there as Bachmann from a social standpoint and fiscal disagreement generally doesn't evoke nearly as visceral a response as vehement disagreement on social issues. Ordinary people don't care nearly as much about the debt ceiling debate as they do abortion, generally speaking.
 
Ron Paul is probably the guy who should be president at this moment. He has Harry Truman practicality. But he's got some conspiracy theory tendencies that make him seem a little crazy. But I can say this about him... I believe every word he says is absolutley truthful. Now whether you agree with it or not is another matter. He's a rare bread of politician.
 
Practical is the last word I would use to describe Ron Paul. If he was practical, he wouldn't be advocating abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard. Ron Paul is one of those people who asks, "I know it works in practice, but does it work in theory?". He truly believes that total deregulation of everything will lead to a perfectly efficient world. He's nuts.
 
I don't think he's crazy on that point at all. Here is what he said:

Before the US House of Representatives, February 4, 2009, introducing the The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, H.R. 833.

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.


In other words, he is saying that Congress should be responsible for monetary policy. And that makes him crazy?
 
That argument is seriously flawed. Paul says that Congress does not have the power to delegate authority to coin currency, but he runs into a little trouble farther down in Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

Congress deemed it necessary and proper for a central bank to assume the duties of coining currency and controlling monetary policy. By default, Congress still has the power to control these things, all they have to do is pass a law abolishing the Federal Reserve. And that's exactly what Paul tried to do. Essentially, he defeated his own argument.

Of course, this is just laying aside whether or not it would be practical to return to the old system. It's not his flawed argument that makes him nuts, it's his archaic view of international economics. History has shown again and again that nations with independent central banking systems have more stable business cycles, and are far less susceptible to panics. Before the Federal Reserve was created, there was nothing to stop a run on banks from escalating into a full blown financial calamity. The lack of a lender of last resort resulted in several significant panics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Federal Reserve isn't some crazy liberal theory, it was an institution that was created after decades of painful trial and error. To revert back to the old system, especially in an era of instantaneous banking and global interaction, is nothing less than pure lunacy.
 
TR1982 said:
That argument is seriously flawed. Paul says that Congress does not have the power to delegate authority to coin currency, but he runs into a little trouble farther down in Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

Congress deemed it necessary and proper for a central bank to assume the duties of coining currency and controlling monetary policy. By default, Congress still has the power to control these things, all they have to do is pass a law abolishing the Federal Reserve. And that's exactly what Paul tried to do. Essentially, he defeated his own argument.

Of course, this is just laying aside whether or not it would be practical to return to the old system. It's not his flawed argument that makes him nuts, it's his archaic view of international economics. History has shown again and again that nations with independent central banking systems have more stable business cycles, and are far less susceptible to panics. Before the Federal Reserve was created, there was nothing to stop a run on banks from escalating into a full blown financial calamity. The lack of a lender of last resort resulted in several significant panics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Federal Reserve isn't some crazy liberal theory, it was an institution that was created after decades of painful trial and error. To revert back to the old system, especially in an era of instantaneous banking and global interaction, is nothing less than pure lunacy.
Click to expand...

TR, I like your take on the subject, but this part is just not true.

ETA: Not the liberal part, the decades of trial and error part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top