Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Serious question.
For those of you who think Obama has done a pisspoor job, do you think McCain could've done better?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Serious question.
::crickets::
Figure's there would be no reply to this. The main reason's I have gotten so far is that Obama is haughty, uppity, plays' basketball and fist pumps. Don't even get me started on what Michelle has done.
Oh and black.
In NICU for one week born 7-6-11
MDC- 10-2-96 CEC- 4-12-98 EEC- 3-10-01
Serious answer: No.
The lapse in responses is probably due to it being the first day back to the office after a long weekend...
I don't doubt McCain's skills or track record. I think that our nation's economy is just too crappy to fix and that the only way it can correct itself is to have a reset after a collapse.
Honestly, I think anybody who was elected in 2008, and probably even multiple presidents before then, has been continually handed and then passes on a steaming pile of bung that is called our economy. I also think that our economy will be hurting no matter who wins this current election. Whomever is elected will get blammed for that collapse too.
I've been doing some reading this summer about the economy, and it has only been within the past few months, I've come to this conclusion.
Our economy as we know it is not sustainable. Anyway, the books I read, which are include:
The Dollar Meltdown by Charles Goyette
Aftershock (2nd Edition) by Wiedemer, Wiedemer, and Spitzer
Crash 2.0 by I cannot recall his name (sorry)
And, I've been following Mike Maloney on YouTube. Actually, he does a really good presentation that is 1 1/2 hours long abuot this very topic in a nutshell. I recommended it a few posts ago. If you aren't going to read a book, then at least watch this...
But here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj2s6vzErqY
There is a PowerPoint type introduction, but that fades away to the actual presentation with Mike on stage. Also, there is a jab at Obama early on in the presentation, don't let this deter you, there are jabs he makes at the Reps too later on in the talk. This is not a political discussion pointing fingers. Also, a fair bit does discuss gold and silver as investments, which is pretty interesting too.
It was a learning expereience for DH and me.
Then why continue to biitch about how horrible Obama has been if your choice couldn't have done any better?
This country was screwed long before Obama became president. It will be screwed regardless of who takes office in January 2013.
Is anyone familiar with the idea that the president has very little impact on the economy one way or the other? I'm not well versed in the topic, is it a legitimate argument?
I agree with the bold.
There seem to be a lot of examples of when presidents got credit (or blame) for the economy but when you look at the surrounding events they can be attributed to other things beside the president in office.
Yeah, I was listening to it on Planet Money. It's like saying that the pitcher is responsible for the outcome of the game. There is no way that the president can fix the economy all on his own because there are so many other factors. On a rudimentary level, I get it.
I love that no one has an answer for how exactly Mittens is going to fix the economy, yet they all keep saying they are voting for him for purely economic reasons.
Oh, the laughs.
I am away all day; I am not at the kind of job where you can just hang around the Internet for hours. My apologies...
I was turned off by the "serious question" title considering the poster. I thought it would be a "how can you be human/a teacher/a woman/a caring Christian?" type post, a kind of "we're the default position, justify yourself." Usually, those are the types of questions posed to conservatives by libs----that or "how can you be so stupid, backward, rednecky, racist?"
To focus on just one area, McCain would not have passed the PPACA, which has caused a lot of uncertainty. As it gets implemented (if it is not repealed shortly), many employers are going to decide to eliminate its health care coverage for employees. It's more feasible to pay the tax than for the coverage. Obama is outright lying when he states that if you like your plan, you can keep it. That is not true. Also, he bought off the big interests with promises of new benefits and customers.
There would also be a lot less uncertainty with tax rates, instead of this "we're heading off a cliff every year."
The only problem with comparing a McCain presidency with Obama's is that without Obama, the House might have stayed Democratic, so I'm not sure how much McCain would have been able to pass.
Far from a stellar answer, but an attempt...
You don't want a serious answer. You only came here as a group to poke fun at those poor, stupid, backward republicans.
Why would anyone want to debate with you and your group. You planned this whole thing on the parenting board.
That really concerns me because it means you are parents. If this is an example of the parents today and their level of maturity, we as a country are in trouble.
Is this the kind of thing you encourage your children to do? You say, "Look, there are some kids that believe differently than you. Go make fun of them to entertain yourselves."
And what if it is your child being called stupid?
It is one thing to debate issues. It is another to call out people as stupid because they don't agree with you.
It's a small minded fish who only wants to debate in a pond where all the fish agree with him.
No, I think we'd like a serious answer about this, because we don't understand what people think the GOP will actually do to fix the economy. So far no one has been able to give us anything, so that's not a real great point in the GOP's favor.
By 'planned this thing' do you mean that we decided to come discuss politics on the politics board? Yes, we did. You're quite sharp.
Yes, we are parents. And no, I don't encourage my daughter to discuss politics on the internet. She's a toddler, so mostly I encourage her to eat her veggies and play gently with our dog. However, when she's a little older, I will absolutely encourage her to ask questions when things aren't clear, and to question further when people are unable to provide her with an answer. Then I will encourage her to think critically about what the questions and answers mean, and to make decisions based on the knowledge she has gained.
If someone calls her stupid for asking questions, then that someone is clearly an idiot. But if someone calls her stupid for not knowing what she's talking about, I'll give her a hug and encourage her to learn more. She's not stupid, and people won't think she is if she uses her brain.
I don't know if people are going around calling people stupid here, but I have absolutely laid down racist and ignorant, because those are the correct terms for some of the posters on this board. Some pretty ugly, uneducated things have shown up in threads today.
I support people voting Republican if that's something that's really beneficial for them, but so far not one single person has explained why the GOP will serve them better than the Democrats. I simply don't understand, and I'm going to keep asking why. Maybe more GOP voters should be asking themselves that very question before November.
It was "planned" because several of us enjoy these discussions and they are of great importance. I for one, didn't know this board existed. It was suggested that we come here so that we can discuss with people who do not hold the same beliefs. How am I suppose to understand and broaden my horizons if I don't every encounter someone who thinks differently than I?
Did you actually read what I wrote in my ribbon on Parenting? Did you?
I'm enjoying your "I feel sorry for your children" sentiments because that's usually the last bastion of people during a debate. Kind of like bringing up Hitler. You don't have anything real to discuss so you bring up their families and children, which for the record, I never did. I never once brought up your kids or questioned your ability to parent, so well done in being the jackass here. Well done.
So, based on the R response to my question, you have no clue and you don't know how your candidate is going to do it this time but Obama still sucks.
Have I got that right?
Lastly, this is my post on Parenting for the lurkers and to make damn sure that I'm sourcing my references, instead of just talking smack.
http://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/68457138.aspx
As you can see from the OP, I was sincere in my desire to talk to people who differed from me since I saw that was the lay of the land.
It wasn't until I actually started engaging many of you that I realized that you do not, in fact, want anyone over here who doesn't not agree with you. You do not want people here with a different POV because you're not interested in hearing from anyone else.
We're trying to understand your side and we're trying to get a dialogue going since this may very well be once of the most important elections of our lives.
My kid enjoys a good leftie protest march at the capital. He's very politically active:
Marching for Trayvon
He rolls for choice.... quite a few times, actually.
I'd take him to an Obama rally, but he doesn't do those in ATX without a $1500 cover charge, now.
I usually lurk over here during election time and I was quite surprised to see that the board was leaning more Republican. I usually come here to get an idea of where Democrats are coming from in their opinions. I have been pondering this question and now have some time to type it out....(You guys are kind of impatient BTW)
"pisspoor" is your word. I would say that considering the economic crisis Obama was elected into, it would be difficult to say that McCain's leadership would have us in a different position than we are right now. We all need to be honest with ourselves that the predicament we are in is due to poor decision making on both sides of the aisle for the last 20 years. Pointing fingers and calling names is really counterproductive. It solves nothing and shuts down opportunities to find a middle ground.
HOWEVER, I am pretty sure McCain would not have spent his time on the ACA. That took a lot of the focus, both on Obama's side and Congress' side AWAY from the one thing they should have been trying to work out, the economy.
This, in my mind, is a leadership fail. It is the job of the leader to rally the troops to fix the problem at hand, not to work on their own agenda. I read the stimulus package. It created a bunch of government jobs and programs. The problem is, we don't have enough private sector jobs to support them. It was a very disappointing read.
Many businesses, because of the ACA, have been afraid to hire because they are not sure how it would affect their bottom line. Businesses are in this world to make a profit. It's that simple. Based on my own industry (construction), the economy seems to be picking up in very, very small increments, but there are still so many people out of work.
I cannot say that we would be better off right now if McCain had been elected. I feel that the Democrats desire to change the focus to social issues for this election is a clever game of bait and switch. If I were a Democrat, I would be very suspicious of this tactic.
I used the word "pisspoor" because that seemed to adequately sum up the general feeling about Obama on this board.
Your last paragraph is interesting because I feel the same way about the Republicans. They're focusing so much on the economy while quietly attempting to strip away civil rights.
It's very "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
I actually find social issues to be extremely important now. Maybe a gay couple being able to marry isn't up there with a mother and father unable to find jobs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to completely bypass them. I love Obama for his progressive views, and the fact that he respects women's rights. I feel like we'd be taking two steps back to elect someone like Romney who doesn't put any focus on social issues.
When did he say he was going to strip us of our rights?
I am not keen on every aspect of the Republican platform and I am sure you are not keen on everything Obama has been up to either.
I am for a smaller central government.
So small it fits right into your bedroom! ;-)
The GOP platform includes intention of banning ALL abortions and ALL gay marriages.
What happened to Roe v Wade?
What happened to state sovereignty that the GOP touts so fervently in the matter of health care, but wants to completely forget about when it comes to gay rights?
Just because I'm not gay (or planning on having an abortion) doesn't mean that I'm not concerned with those protected rights* for others.
*in certain states, when it comes to gay marriage