U.S. 2012 Election

[Brad Sallows]

Another insightful measurement is PPP of GDP (year-by-year - absolute or per capita - GDP in amounts adjusted to match an arbitrary year).  What those figures reveal is that 20% of GDP is worth increasingly more over time in relative as well as absolute terms.  The calls for tax take to remain pegged to some fixed percentage of GDP (even those who choose a lower rather than higher figure) are basically calls to ratchet up tax revenues irrespective of need.

 

[Haletown]

Questions that the Presidential Debate Moderators will, never, never ask Obama . . . but if it was me, I would just to watch him squirm :nod:



(1) Mr. President, you speak frequently of "fairness," of doing one's "fair share," and so on.  Of course, "fairness" is an abstract concept.  Furthermore, it is not a political system.  Rather, it expresses the intended result of one political system or other, depending on how one defines "fairness."  For example, one might say that the free market promotes fairness, if by fairness we mean that everyone has what he is able to earn by his own effort, with his own talent, and through uncoerced interaction with others.  On the other hand, a socialist would define fairness as everyone getting an equal share of the available material wealth, by means of continuously regulated and maintained government redistribution.

So I would like you to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by fairness, and which politico-economic system -- the free market, socialism, or some other system -- is most conducive to your understanding of fairness.  In short, is freedom or socialism fairer, in your view, and why?

(2) The American founders, following John Locke and others, were strong defenders of property rights.  Specifically, they believed, as Locke explained, that all human beings inviolably own themselves as individual material beings, and hence that the product of their effort and voluntary exchange with others belongs to them, by extension from their initial and natural ownership of their own bodies and minds.

Various federal government programs and regulations you support, such as ObamaCare and many EPA initiatives, fly in the face of this notion of a natural right to property.  Do you believe in private property as a right?  And if so, on what grounds do you believe that this right can be violated?

(3) We know that your father, whose dreams you famously claim to have inherited, was a prominent Kenyan socialist, and that your mentor in your youth, Frank Marshall Davis, was an avowed communist.  We also know that your longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has deeply anti-American convictions; that Bill Ayers, who enthusiastically supported your election in 2008, and with whom you have had some kind of personal relationship for many years, has been openly dedicated to the demise of the American political system for his entire adult life; that you have appointed several avowed socialists, communists, admirers of Mao, and celebrators of May Day to significant positions within your administration; and that prior to running for president you frequently described yourself and your interests as "progressive," which is a well-known alternative name for "socialist."

Furthermore, you have spoken frequently of government as an agent of "sharing the prosperity" (see here) and of "fundamentally transforming" America; your wife said your nomination was the first time she was ever proud of America; and you famously boasted in your 2008 victory speech that "change has come to America."

We know, in short, that you were involved in socialist or progressive thinking and causes prior to running for president, and that you have had extensive and seemingly formative associations with socialists and communists who were fundamentally critical of America, from your childhood through to your adult life prior to 2008.  The question, Mr. President, is: have you disavowed this thinking and these causes, and if so, when and why did you do so?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/debate_questions_obama_wont_be_asked.html#ixzz24TtlOZ3N

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to.  He'd easily fit in with the Conservative Party up here in Canada.

That just tells me that many American's don't know what socialism is or have a very black/white view of wealth redistribution.

 

[Redeye]

I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to.  He'd easily fit in with the Conservative Party up here in Canada.

That just tells me that many American's don't know what socialism is or have a very black/white view of wealth redistribution.

That's been my observation as well.

 

[Haletown]

I will happily contribute so you guys can replace your rose colored glasses with some clear lenses . . .  but you get to believe anything you want to.  ;D

I don't recall PM Harper, or any CPC leadership types being a leading student marxist at university, joining a political party (NEW) that is marxist light he is very strongly strongly pro union.

We would have strung Harper  up in effigy if he had ever run four years of deficits that would have been in the $150 Billion dollar range - equivalent to what Obama has and is doing to the US economy.  Gawd our media and opposition skinned him raw and roasted him hot for  hitting a $50 billion deficit in one year.

Obama is a pro big Unions,  pro big government big intrusive government.  Conservatives in Canada, especially Harper Conservatives are not.

Now Obama would be happy as a clam sitting in the NDP caucus and could spend a lot of agreeable time with Lizzy May & the Greenies, but he'd be a very out of water clam at the CPC caucus meting.

 

[a_majoor]

I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to. 

Well, there is this:

(3) We know that your father, whose dreams you famously claim to have inherited, was a prominent Kenyan socialist, and that your mentor in your youth, Frank Marshall Davis, was an avowed communist.  We also know that your longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has deeply anti-American convictions; that Bill Ayers, who enthusiastically supported your election in 2008, and with whom you have had some kind of personal relationship for many years, has been openly dedicated to the demise of the American political system for his entire adult life; that you have appointed several avowed socialists, communists, admirers of Mao, and celebrators of May Day to significant positions within your administration; and that prior to running for president you frequently described yourself and your interests as "progressive," which is a well-known alternative name for "socialist."

Furthermore, you have spoken frequently of government as an agent of "sharing the prosperity" (see here) and of "fundamentally transforming" America; your wife said your nomination was the first time she was ever proud of America; and you famously boasted in your 2008 victory speech that "change has come to America."

We know, in short, that you were involved in socialist or progressive thinking and causes prior to running for president, and that you have had extensive and seemingly formative associations with socialists and communists who were fundamentally critical of America, from your childhood through to your adult life prior to 2008.  The question, Mr. President, is: have you disavowed this thinking and these causes, and if so, when and why did you do so?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/debate_questions_obama_wont_be_asked.html#ixzz24TtlOZ3N

As well as the highly documented comments about "Spreading the wealth around" and "You didn't build that", which are not indicative of a free market or "Classical Liberal" philosophy or approach to governance.

 

[Redeye]

As well as the highly documented comments about "Spreading the wealth around" and "You didn't build that", which are not indicative of a free market or "Classical Liberal" philosophy or approach to governance.

You have just provided ample evidence in support of Infanteer's statement. Thanks.

 

[Infanteer]

I will happily contribute so you guys can replace your rose colored glasses with some clear lenses . . .  but you get to believe anything you want to.  ;D

:boring:

Ain't no rose-coloured glasses here buds, but take a look in the mirror.  I ain't the one with sore hands from beating the dead horse for 69 pages in this thread.

America's right/left centre line is far more to the right than Canada's, which is why I laugh when I hear "socialist" chucked around.  "Pro-union, pro big-government and pro-intrusive government" implies different things south of the border.  "Intrusive government" in Canada is forcing gun-owners to register their long-guns.  "Intrusive government" in the United States is asking for ID before allowing someone to order 10,000 rounds of linked machinegun ammo.  If we shipped the NDP to the U.S., McCarthy would rise from the grave and Democrats would likely be calling for their heads. 

You cite Obama's economic policies, but I can flip open a Macleans to find the same critiques of our government and its approach to spending during the recession and over the last couple budgets (ie: not conservative enough).  Obamacare is socialist?  The Conservative Party isn't getting rid of our national health care system.  Gays in the military?  The CPC legislated gay marriage.  Has Obama touched anything related to the 2nd Amendment?  The CPC got rid of the long-gun registry, but I don't see carry/concealed permits or a relaxation on restricted/prohibited weapons.

He'd have no troubles in the Conservative Party but would probably be a better fit in the Liberals since he appears to flounder and not get much done at all. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:

and

:ditto:

 

[a_majoor]

You have just provided ample evidence in support of Infanteer's statement. Thanks.

Rather than tap dance around the issue or avoid it altogether (as in the unemployment example); kindly explain how the President's statements made during the campaign(s) are in any way consistent with "Classical Liberalism" or the free market?

I expect the usual barrage of non answers and possibly argumentum ad hominem, but anyone who is looking at these questions and examples will probably come to a similar conclusion to people like Brad, Haletown and myself.

WRT where the Left/Right divide is, when discussing American politics you need to make your arguments from where the line is there; not where it is here or anywhere else.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So Obama and the Democrats are not socialists.  They are also, sticking to the classical definition, not liberals.  They are obviously not marxists, communists, fascists, etc.  But every time someone tries to paste a label on the moderate left-of-centre, it seems that the label is misapplied.  That prompts the question: what are they?

What everyone overlooks in the rush to absolve the Democratic Party of socialism is that - correctly or incorrectly - the label "socialist" is applied as sloppily as the label "liberal" to those who favour tax-and-spend policies in the US.  "Socialist" and "liberal" mean different things in Canada and Europe.  Democrats disfavour the "socialist" label because it has negative connotations from events of the 1930s and 1940s, while they favour the label "liberal" because it has positive connotations from the century or so leading up to the establishment of the US.

"Socialist" or "liberal", there doesn't really seem to be any misunderstanding in the US that it means "tax-and-spend".

 

[Infanteer]

That prompts the question: what are they?

Fools?

 

[vonGarvin]

Fools?

Now, all joking aside, I'm not certain if Mr. Obama is fit to run the country.  It appears to me that he's more interested in appearing to run the country.  I suppose that once he got the job, he suddenly realised that it was a lot more work than he anticipated.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Walt".  He wants to march in the parade and bask in the attention, but not necessarily to do the hard work of getting there.

 

[a_majoor]

While there are plenty of people who believe social media is the next big thing in politics (see here), the danger is the same as with almost any other interaction on the Internet: who exactly is on the other end of the connection? Presumably many people "follow" because they seek to join a crowd. Manipulating the behaviour of crowds can generate effects (although often with many unintended consequences).

Manipulating metrics to influence people is old hat, here is the 21rst century version as applied to Twitter:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDg7uRyHdg9

Obama has millions of fake Twitter followers
Comments
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Updated 11h 1m ago

CAPTIONAP photos
President Obama's Twitter account has 18.8 million followers -- but more than half of them really don't exist, according to reports.

A new Web tool has determined that 70% of Obama's crowd includes "fake followers," The New York Times reports in a story about how Twitter followers can be purchased.

"The practice has become so widespread that StatusPeople, a social media management company in London, released a Web tool last month called the Fake Follower Check that it says can ascertain how many fake followers you and your friends have," the Times reports.

"Fake accounts tend to follow a lot of people but have few followers," said Rob Waller, a founder of StatusPeople. "We then combine that with a few other metrics to confirm the account is fake."

Notes the Times:

If accurate, the number of fake followers out there is surprising. According to the StatusPeople tool, 71 percent of Lady Gaga's nearly 29 million followers are "fake" or "inactive." So are 70 percent of President Obama's nearly 19 million followers.

Republican opponent Mitt Romney has far fewer Twitter followers -- not quite 900,000 -- but it's a good bet that some of them are fake as well. (interpolation; a different sort of manipulation going on here. Why wasn't the same StatusPeople tool applied to Governor Romney's Twitter account to generate a real number, rather than a sort of drive by smear?)

Both campaigns have denied buying Twitter followers.

 

[Redeye]

Large numbers of inactive twitter followers is a meaningless statistic. The vast majority of twitter accounts, I'd wager, are inactive. People join, follow some famous people, and don't really get it, so the accounts become inactive. Interesting that article headlines with "Obama has millions of fake followers" when i suspect a check would suggest a relatively similar proportion of inactive following accounts for both. But hey, it's the "legacy media" or whatever you're calling it these days, so who really cares?

 

[Edward Campbell]

A not really surprising fissure has open up inside the GOP as reported in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/former-gop-governors-obama-endorsement-throws-the-right-a-curveball/article4500765/

Former GOP governor’s Obama endorsement throws the right a curveball

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
Tampa, Florida — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 27 2012

Tampa may have escaped the worst of tropical storm Isaac, but Republicans arrived for their convention to find another kind of tempest brewing over the direction of their party.

Florida’s former Republican governor, Charlie Crist, stole almost as much of the convention’s thunder as Isaac by formally endorsing President Barack Obama over GOP nominee Mitt Romney on Sunday. He lashed out at the GOP for moving so far to the right that moderates like him have been left with no other choice but to quit the party.

“An element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they’ve proven incapable of governing for the people,” Mr. Crist wrote in a Sunday op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times. “The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.”

Mr. Crist’s critique comes as Republicans prepare to formally adopt a platform that, more than any other in recent history, bears the imprint of social conservatives and Tea Partiers. For the first time, the GOP program promises to subject the Federal Reserve to a full congressional audit, a move critics say would threaten its independence.

Mr. Crist is among a chorus of disaffected Republican leaders who have either left the GOP since the rise of the Tea Party movement or distanced themselves from the party.

Former senator Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP presidential nominee, said in a weekend interview that he worried the party was not doing enough to appeal to “mainstream” voters and attract support among Hispanics and young people.

“We have got to be open,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “We cannot be a single-issue party or single-philosophy party…There’s a big split in our party. There’s this undercurrent of rigid conservatism where you don’t dare not toe the line.”

Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, who lost his state’s May GOP primary to a Tea Party candidate, also took issue on Monday with the party’s unwillingness to compromise.

“Independent voters who decide many elections are looking for competence, seriousness of purpose and trustworthiness. They are looking for leaders who will not be dissuaded from compromises that might be necessary to govern effectively,” Mr. Lugar wrote in an op-ed published in USA Today.

The comments of Mr. Dole and Mr. Lugar echo those of Mr. Crist’s successor as Florida governor, Jeb Bush, who criticized the harsh Republican rhetoric on illegal immigration. Most Hispanic voters, who form the fastest growing block of the electorate, have a relative, friend or neighbour who is in the country illegally.

“You can’t ask people to join your cause and then send a signal that you’re really not wanted. It just doesn’t work,” Mr. Bush said on Meet the Press on Sunday.

Unlike Mr. Crist, Mr. Bush is in for the long haul. Most observers expect him to seek the GOP nomination in 2016 if Mr. Romney loses in November.

In Mr. Crist’s case, however, it is as much a question of whether he quit the GOP or was shown the door. Trailing Marco Rubio in the 2010 GOP Senate primary, he opted to run as an independent candidate. Despite winning the support of many moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats, he still lost the November election to Mr. Rubio.

Even so, Mr. Crist’s endorsement may give Mr. Obama a boost in a critical swing state. The Real Clear Politics average of presidential polls in Florida shows Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney in a dead tie, each with the support of 46.3 per cent of voters.

“For Charlie Crist to pull this Obama stunt while Florida faces a hurricane only proves Charlie Crist cares about only one thing: Charlie Crist,” retorted Lenny Curry, the GOP state chairman, said in a Monday interview with the Tampa Bay Times.

While other top Republicans accused him of abandoning his principles, Mr. Crist insisted to the contrary: “I haven’t changed. The Republican Party has changed.”

The moderate Republicans, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) they are called by the right wing, really have little choice but to leave - before they are kicked out. But this is the Eisenhower wing of the party, which Ronald Reagan managed to keep onside, with which George HW Bush (41) identified and which even George W Bush (43) placated (by e.g. making Colin Powell his first Secretary of State), and it should not be tossed aside too lightly. If the moderate Republicans cannot accept Romney/Ryan then how will the Independents go?

 

[Haletown]

So an ex Republican who is against abortion, pro gun,  pro business-anti union, anti ObamaCare has gone off the reservation and will speak at the DNC ?

They must be desperate.  Has anyone told Obama?

But don't tell Konrad . . . he has been on a comedy roll recently.

 

[vonGarvin]

That article may be slanted.  From reading it, one would think that Jeb Bush is behind the Democrats.  He may have said that which is stated above, but he also said this:

(CNN) – Jeb Bush, the Republican former governor of Florida, said Sunday it's time for President Barack Obama to stop blaming the ailing economy on President George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor and Jeb Bush’s brother.

While conceding that Obama did inherit a tough economy when he took office in 2008, Bush said that Obama’s policies have hindered the country's economic growth.

This doesn't say that he's behind the GOP, but it does contrast well against the above.

Source

 

[Edward Campbell]

That article may be slanted.  From reading it, one would think that Jeb Bush is behind the Democrats.  He may have said that which is stated above, but he also said this:

This doesn't say that he's behind the GOP, but it does contrast well against the above.

Source

Bush is positioning himself for 2016; his working assumption is that Obama sneaks through in 2012 and faces a divided Congress, again, and again in 2014. By 2016, he's guessing that fiscally conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans will capture the White House (him), Senate and House.