This is a discussion on 2012 US Presidential Election discussion. within the Members' Club Room forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; ...
I am not pro Obama but what a brilliant move he's done there!
Much more interesting than the debate.
Last edited by PhageHunter; 10-21-2012 at 10:36 PM.
Fact is, Obama says he believes that women should receive equal pay for equal work, and he would sign the Democratic bill. But in his own White House he has woman on record that the White House staff is a discriminatory place to women where they are not receiving equal pay for equal positions and work. One of them said it was a classic example of discrimination in the work place against women. So what would you call that? An Obamanation?
A new book by a Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter quotes former White House communications director Anita Dunn saying that the Obama White House “fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” And Christina Romer, who served as Obama’s chair of the Council of Economic Advisors until last year, apparently told the author that she “felt like a piece of meat” after another economic advisor kept her out of an important meeting.
At his own company, at the Olympics and as Governor of Mass, Romney has never had women speak in such a fashion about his staff. Hmm...like I said, such witty sound bites really mean nothing.Originally Posted by investors.com
Last edited by Jeff Head; 10-22-2012 at 01:47 PM.
My take on the election and its greater context is this:
Obama is like a little boy whose vision of the world is based on fantasies and symbolic representations. His biggest weakness is that he believes his own hype (omniscience). Thus, he can't see his biggest weakness. He believed he could untie the Gordian knot of the influences that the global economic meltdown exert upon the U.S. economy without investing any serious efforts toward understanding their complexities. Even Hercules deferred on that task. My opinion is that any person of superior intellect and understanding, particularly a person of Machiavellian intellect, upon even attempting a basic understanding of what happened on Sep 15 2008 and the factors that contributed to it, would have stepped out of the race for president expecting that the coming years would be disastrous.
Now, enter Mitt Romney! A big, grown, business-MAN, whose vision of the world is anchored firmly in the realities of black and white of bottom line and billionaire social/business networks. His biggest weakness is that he believes the hype of his billionaire capitalist class (omnipotence). Thus, he can't see any weakness, at all. Romney shares Obama's fantastic belief that he can untie the Gordian knot of the influences that the global economic meltdown exert upon the U.S. economy without investing any serious efforts toward understanding their complexities. He can't, and he won't, and I'm voting for him in order that he have the opportunity to fail, just as miserably as Obama has. And, if elected, he will!
Sometimes, one has to start from the perspective of ignorance to achieve understanding. Contemporary American politicians always have the answers, but never any questions, except about each others' integrity. The present global economic context is a complex that comprises a precarious aggregation of historical and contemporary factors. The short and long-term outcomes of their interactions will determine social and economic stability for the foreseeable future. I'm not at all confident that smug self-assurance, from either the American Left or Right, is the best approach to considering the context. And, actually, I'm not certain that even the most thoroughly considered actions, taken by the most supremely humble, best intentioned, and best qualified among us would guarantee positive outcomes. But, I'm thinking that's what it would take to even have that chance. Unfortunately, at this point in the historical arc of American politics, smug self-assurance, from both the American Left and Right, are the only options we're presented.
As it seems that Laissez Faire Capitalism is the direction that Americans are willingly, albeit ignorantly, being led back to, I choose to participate in leading them from the rear. I'm voting for Romney/Ryan, wholly expecting their policies to fail. Not that they'll fail to further enrich the capitalist elite, but that they'll fail to mitigate the disastrous influences of the global economic meltdown upon the U.S. economy. If the only way we'll learn, or not, is the hard way, then so be it!
Last edited by Subedei; 10-22-2012 at 03:37 AM.
But, hint or no, it is not unlike the Chicago machine to manufacture something and bring it out five days before the elction. Most of us expect something like this, either directed at Romney...or, perhaps more likely, some major foreign policy breakthrough on the eve of the election to try and make Obama look better. I do not believe, whatever it is, that the citizens are going to buy it.
As to the US failing under Romney. Who knows? Our economy under explosive deficit spending is in trouble and could fail. I lived through a similar experience under Carter when Reagan was elected to "fix" it, where these same supply side policies turned America around within three years,. My first house purchase was at 16% interest under Carter. I purchased the second four years later at 7 1/2 %. Gas prices sky rocketed under Carter, and the US had lost the trust of many allies and the respect of adversaries.
Again, that all changed before Regans first term was over which led to the absolute blow out victory in 1984 against Mondale.
Barring some unforseen tragedy...I expect much the same results under a Romney administration. Should he win...and I believe he will...then three years from now we can reconvene this discussion to see where we are at that date and why.
Last edited by Jeff Head; 10-22-2012 at 01:49 PM.
okay! i'd simply suggest, that, if you want other, critical thinkers to accept that belief, you might seek to substantiate it with evidence, and not with the lack of evidence.
all i suggested is that, on that particular matter, a full investigation of what evidence may exist has not been conducted. thus, it seems, to me, that because you've chosen romney, or perhaps because he was chosen for you, that you're inclined to defensiveness regarding him, and that you're simply accepting, or constructing, arguments supporting him without sufficient evidence.
i'm somewhat surprised, but then again, not, that your response contained such pat references to the obama phenomenon. i'm no fan of obama, either personally or politically. i never have been and i never stated a preference for him. yet, you chose to argue against obama to persuade me, or yourself, of romney's legitimacy. my perception of obama is that he's so inauthentic he can't even recognize it, and also quite narcissistic. personally, i'd have more respect for a conscious con-man. at least, he knows he's full of crap. but, my aversion to him derives from my own, independent, interpretations of the man, and is not the result of media "manufacturing". i don't need to use code-words (symbolic representations) that i've been prompted to form an emotional response to. i'm quite capable of constructing my own formulations. but, i'm well aware, by now, that most folks aren't inclined to formulate their own convictions, preferring to have those pre-packaged for them. the mass media, as it were, are a tool of mass psychology, and they do function as controlling and predictive instruments. whatever works for you!
as i've stated, i'm also expecting the romney/ryan ticket to win the election, and hoping they will do so. but my hopes are not based in some nostalgic construction of the reagan years. i'm quite aware of the long-term consequences of policies of general de-regulation, insidious in that their consequences aren't immediately obvious, obscuring relations of cause and effect. but, if this is the course that the american voters choose, then more power to them. i'm with them all the way. but, i'm not that uninformed, that historically ignorant, that politically naive, enough to believe that this will end well. oh, the ride will be profitable, for some, for a while. but, it won't end well for most. but, hey, who cares how it ends, right? the mass-media haven't pre-packaged that concern for us.
notice below, a trend that began around the time of the reagan administration:
Last edited by Subedei; 10-22-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George W. Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Look If you want too be Jaded Fine, I have no issue but at the same time be jaded Equally We live in a world where the political campaigns need money too get heard about and not just in the US, Do you think there are not Chosen and Privileged in the Chinese Government?
Bo Xilai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or How about the Recent Georgian Election.
Bidzina Ivanishvili - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's some critical thinking for you.
The best evidence is that the Chicago Machine for Obama has spent pover $600 million dollars to try and make Romney look negative, including towards women with the whole war on women false narrative. (Which is backfiring badly on them because most women are more interested in a decent job than in a $10-15 dollar a month birth control stipend...and Obama's numbers as regards woman's unemployment are worse than for men). Anyhow, that is their mantra...the chief agenda and central point of their plan for re-election.
Nothing regarding specifics regarding this issue have been found regarding Romney. Nothing. The only thing we have is last week's play on words by Obama regarding that if Romney says he is for equal pay for equal work, and will not sign the Democratic bill regarding the same, then he must have "Romnesia."
That's all they have come up with on that issue...and you saw how I responded to it.
We have specific allegations by members of Obama's own White House staff, and we have actual reports showing the disparity of 18% in the White House staff itself. He has his own probklems in this areana and trying to find something on Romney is only going to draw attention to it.
So, I have nothing to prove. The burden is on the Democrats to do so. That's the critical part of the thinking that has to go on in an election. And their efforts to date have not only been woefully short, as I said, they have their own problems with the issue he claims as a strong point.
Now, I do not discount something coming up just before the election, when it will be impossible for Romney to counter it...but I do not believe people will buy that. Just too coincidental should it occur.
But to date, the Chicago machine has spent a lot of money to show us that Romney carried a Dog on the top of his car 30 years ago (when his own words in his book indicate that he ate dogs), that he had a tussle with a young man in high school almost 650 years ago, and then the false claims that he was responsible for a woman's death where he stopped working for the companby seven years before it occurred and where the company itself had divested itself of the company that failed 3-5 years before...and where the woman had her own insurance anywway. in addition you have the supposed tax cheat claim, which Romney has proved wrong after he allowed the DNC enough rope to hang itself on that issue before releasing his own info. Prettuy smart move on his part in my mind.
But that's all they have got. That's why with the two debates and the speech at the Catholic charity dinner, when Romney showed up before a national audience in the tens of millions each time, and came across as thoughtful, normal, compassionate, caring leader with a plan, their whole campaign tanked and this huge turnaround in the polls has occurred and been maintained.
A couple of more weeks and we'll know. But I can hardly see how telling me to prove that Romney has never discriminated against women will help the DNC cause. So there is not critical thinking involved in that...just more straw men. Their own efforts to find something and spending hundreds of millions on the effort, and not having found it, makes the claim for me.
Face it, both Democrats and Republican party have a duopoly on politics, and both of their largest bakers are the US financial elites, in a time where it requires more than a billion dollar to became president, 10+ million dollar to became an Senator, 2+ million dollar to became congressman, no one will never ever stand a chance unless they have the corporate donations. candidates they may different on abortion, immigration, gun control, regions etc... but in the end, their position on deregulation and corporate interest are striking identical, and do you really think they will sponsor anyone that can be a danger to the system? Which by no accident benefits them tremendously.
I'm just waiting to see how long it will take for the people to became jaded, to realize what the system truly is. When that happens 2 thing will happen.
1, There will be a revolution by people to break the duopoly's holding on politics.
2, politics will became very similar to Philippines, Indonesia, India. Where politician still campaign for office, people still vote for them, but they know no matter who get elected, NOTHING will change and everyone accepted it.
I am trending to #2, because you have no idea just how uninformed the American people is, how media have have a hold on their mind, an uneducated public is no danger to the system.
wow, all that to not answer a question?
i asked you a direct question about the evidentiary bases of your belief. you claim that there is no evidence and that is your evidence. no, you don't have to prove that your beliefs are based in true knowledge. consequently, you shouldn't expect anyone else to agree to the legitimacy of your belief.
you, most certainly, are the one who is not serious, simply convinced!
once again, i am NOT trying to make any dnc case. i think anyone, but you, can see that. my primary economic argument regards the historically demonstrated the dangers of general de-regulation. if you consider that to be a dnc position, that's your interpretation. but, i'd think that work-place safety, among other issues, is a "bi-partisan" issue. and, actually, professional and academic economists tend to separate their understandings of economic theory and policy from political theory and policy. the two interact, but are not the same.
and, once again, you argue against obama, the dnc, the boogey man, (talk about straw men), which i have never argued for.
we get it, this is an issue of faith with you. and as we all know that faith can't be argued, i'll leave this subject alone with you.
Last edited by Subedei; 10-22-2012 at 06:00 PM.