• 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!

The Pit Politics Thread

oh for real. i agree with that. the same type of person that calls obama stupid for that 57 states quote. yes, obama went to columbia and harvard law and doesn't know the number of states.
 
DeacWatcher said:
Why do both sides this time around seem to think its the end of the world if their side loses? The Pubs I know seem to think its a matter of life and death and hate Obama more than any other President in my lifetime. I fail to understand this logic. I cannot even attempt to be around them because even if we're watching football, inevitably a political issue comes up. That never used to happen before now.

The Dems on the other hand seem to think if the Pubs get the power back, that they will destroy every social issue that is important to them. Its never happened before, why should it be any different this time around?

Both sides can try to push policy or influence but to actually get something done you need those (60) votes in the Senate and that has become impossible.
Click to expand...

Its epic partisanship, because those kinds of viewpoints get clicks and viewers, and sell magazines and newspapers. There's no money in honest, civil political discourse, so the only people who get to speak are the lunatics on the fringe of the political spectrum. Your average politician will give lip-service to the idea of working "across the aisle", but all they're really concerned with is getting re-elected. And they know for a fact that the people most likely to vote, especially in local elections, are the lunatics.
 
The thing that's funny about it all is that the Democratic part of today is not progressive at all and pretty far right. The differences between the parties on the broad political spectrum are real small. At least in terms of economic policy.
 
RJKarl said:
"The Dems on the other hand seem to think if the Pubs get the power back, that they will destroy every social issue that is important to them. Its never happened before, why should it be any different this time around?"

Ryan's plan lays out that food stamps, Medicaid and Pell Grants will be devastatingly cut if the plan passes. There's no question about it.
Click to expand...

Where might he get the 8-10 senate Democratic votes to do such a thing? I'm pretty sure you can't use the executive authority deal on this.
 
deacphan said:
i was a lot more comfortable with a mccain presidency than mitt.
Click to expand...

I still think McCain could have done something to limit the power of the right wingers in the GOP, his choice of running mate notwithstanding. He understood that nothing productive would happen on the major issues unless the Tea Partiers learned to act like statesmen or got out (and of course, neither has happened). But Romney appears to be ruled by them. He has shown no willingness to stand up to the right wing, even though it's obvious from his experience that he knows how to be a moderate and work with Democrats. In short, I think McCain had great people skills and a good record in the senate of reaching across the aisle. Romney has little such skill and little spine. Hence my first vote for Obama this go round. He's not the unifying force he said he'd be (and it was obvious, I think, that he wouldn't be), but at least he's trying.
 
deacphan said:
if you seriously think ron paul is a viable option for president you are an idiot of the highest order. apart from his idiotic stances outside the economy, his economic stance is the most dangerous:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...economic-plan/2011/10/17/gIQAPqTYsL_blog.html
Click to expand...

To make such a bold statement and quote such a terrible oped piece is ballsy, but I like how you just belly flopped right into it while throwing on some no fear gear right prior.

I fucking loved Clinton's speech, actually listened to all 50 minutes of it over the weekend. But we (democrats) are blind when we say "bailing out all these banks and trillions of stimulus saved us and we're better off now." The issue was they were too big to fail and we just made them bigger. Bailing them out to absorb the short-term pain is a decent enough plan if we had orderly liquidated them. Instead we consolidated their impact and power. And we told them they could be as risky as they wanted and there are no consequences now, as we've established.

We traded avoiding a paper cut now for cancer tomorrow. The crux of the "slam" on Ron's economic position is "unemployment would be 3% higher if we followed Ron's plan." Soon enough we'll be thinking of 11% unemployment as the good ole days. Look at Europe, we're inevitably going to be there unless someone like Ron doesn't mind taking a paper cut now. What's Spain and Greece at, 25% these days? 11% headline unemployment isn't the end of the world, and in fact was necessary in order to cleanse and grow. We weren't willing to take the medicine, so we're going to eventually get really really sick.

Most all of these economists your oped piece quotes know this, but at the same time if all of our economists publicly said as such we are fucked as it'd be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but make no mistake, we're pretty fucked.

Going out on my own limb, my morbid and unfortunate feeling is that we are going to consider this time to be the peak of humanity before I receive a social security check, and the peak will coincide with our economic peak. We can't have such widespread poverty mixed with the technological ability to destroy ourselves simutaneously. Smoke em if you got em.
 
Last edited:
palmab03 said:
To make such a bold statement and quote such a terrible oped piece is ballsy, but I like how you just belly flopped right into it while throwing on some no fear gear right prior.

I fucking loved Clinton's speech, actually listened to all 50 minutes of it over the weekend. But we (democrats) are blind when we say "bailing out all these banks and trillions of stimulus saved us and we're better off now." The issue was they were too big to fail and we just made them bigger. Bailing them out to absorb the short-term pain is a decent enough plan if we had orderly liquidated them. Instead we consolidated their impact and power. And we told them they could be as risky as they wanted and there are no consequences now, as we've established.

We traded avoiding a paper cut now for cancer tomorrow. The crux of the "slam" on Ron's economic position is "unemployment would be 3% higher if we followed Ron's plan." Soon enough we'll be thinking of 11% unemployment as the good ole days. Look at Europe, we're inevitably going to be there unless someone like Ron doesn't mind taking a paper cut now. What's Spain and Greece at, 25% these days? 11% headline unemployment isn't the end of the world, and in fact was necessary in order to cleanse and grow. We weren't willing to take the medicine, so we're going to eventually get really really sick.

Most all of these economists your oped piece quotes know this, but at the same time if all of our economists publicly said as such we are fucked as it'd be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but make no mistake, we're pretty fucked.

Going out on my own limb, my morbid and unfortunate feeling is that we are going to consider this time to be the peak of humanity before I receive a social security check, and the peak will coincide with our economic peak. We can't have such widespread poverty mixed with the technological ability to destroy ourselves simutaneously. Smoke em if you got em.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this but unfortunately I can see neither side "taking the medicine" to help the country before it is too late and the medicine has to be forced on the patient (the USA).
 
Request - I think most posters on the Pit realize that barring something extremely unlikely happening, Obama is going to win. I'd love to hear from posters who know a lot about the key senate races and the views of those in or aspiring to be in office at levels other than President/VP.

Are we getting rid of some crazies? Guaranteed to be keeping them? Is there any push for moderates from either side or is it just as wildly partisan as Obama/Romney?
 
I just saw my first Romney sticker today driving into work. It was on a Bentley. I LOL'd.
 
Anybody read Michael Lewis's piece in Vanity Fair about Obama? Outstanding. Politics totally, 100% aside, that is exactly the type of dude I want as a leader in terms of decision-making and thoughtfulness.
 
palmab03 said:
I just saw my first Romney sticker today driving into work. It was on a Bentley. I LOL'd.
Click to expand...

Typically by this time of year I see bumper stickers everywhere. I haven't seen many at all this election year. Most of the Obama ones are from 08 and the Romney ones are few and far between.
 
we were sandwiched by romney stickers in the red lot... on giant suvs. shocking.

i think driving down to winston was the first i'd seen them.
 
Go said:
Typically by this time of year I see bumper stickers everywhere. I haven't seen many at all this election year. Most of the Obama ones are from 08 and the Romney ones are few and far between.
Click to expand...

Nearly every Romney sticker I've seen so far (in Northern VA) has been on a pickup truck or SUV.

Lots of Priuses (Prii?) with Obama stickers though :thumbsup:
 
Go said:
Typically by this time of year I see bumper stickers everywhere. I haven't seen many at all this election year. Most of the Obama ones are from 08 and the Romney ones are few and far between.
Click to expand...


I'm just starting to see the signs in yards come out (most up to this point have been for local/state elections). Saw a few Forward stickers over the weekend, but really haven't noticed that many on either side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top