Home » CHIT-CHAT » Politics Pit » Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.
Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #310961] Sat, 06 October 2012 09:37 Go to next message
abradley

 
Messages:229
Registered:December 2001
Quote:
October 4, 2012
What Happened Last Night
Walter Russell Mead

{Snip}

What Governor Romney did last night was less to win a debate with President Obama than to vault over him to position himself as the Jacksonian candidate in the 2012 race.
President Obama allowed himself to be cast as the professorial intellectual who cites
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #310982] Sat, 06 October 2012 23:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
It was plain and simple posturing. What he will actually do is anybody's guess since he chooses to be opaque about actual plans. We need someone different, that goes without saying. But we honestly don't even know what this guy is saying he will do let alone what he will actually do.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311258] Wed, 17 October 2012 11:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DaethWalker

 
Messages:101
Registered:September 2003
Location: Rocky Point, NC
Of the two candidates I "slightly" prefer Obama. But< in my opinion, I don't think it really matters.

Let's face it. Washington is broke. The partisan bikering and stalemate is probably the worst in american politcal history. Nothing is getting done.

It's at the point that I really and truely miss "earmarks". At least then, each party could "buy" enough votes to get something done.

Now, without that option, we're seeing only politicans with tons of money getting elected and the only ones throwing money at them seem to be elite partisan fanatics on both sides.

It will probably take a crisis of "Biblical" proportions to get them to do anything resembling bi-partisan. And the way things are going right now, the two partys will probably end up creating that crisis themselves.

Even if, by some miracle, either party obtained a majority, both sides are so filled with fanatical extremists, that either side will still screw things up royally. Which will then lead to the other side capturing the majority during the next set of elections and pretty much doing the same thing.

It's sad times we have in store for the next decade or two. Sad
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311266] Wed, 17 October 2012 16:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Wow, that is kind of surprising to hear from you. Bravo man! I can't say that I agree (and most will think I am just stuck with not liking Democrats) but I do not at all like Romney and though I'm not a fan Obama hasn't been a complete disaster. I don't think I'll be able to vote this year but I wasn't looking forward to it anyway.

The only way things are going to be fixed is massive political reform and since big business is at the wheel and has no problem with the current status quo, I don't see that happening.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311269] Wed, 17 October 2012 22:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headhunter

 
Messages:266
Registered:November 2009
Location: Sweden
What I don't understand is why Americans (generally) don't vote for third-party candidates. I mean, whenever I hear Americans complain about Washington their solution is either not voting at all or voting for the party (Dem or Rep) that doesn't hold the presidency and that seems futile if the intention is to "fix the system".
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311270] Wed, 17 October 2012 23:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3809
Registered:July 2009
Basically, the whole system is just inherently flawed in a way a third party has the proverbial snowflakes' chance in hell.


Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311280] Thu, 18 October 2012 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DaethWalker

 
Messages:101
Registered:September 2003
Location: Rocky Point, NC
Extremists seem to run things now.

Personally my political views are probably more conservative and republican than liberal and democartic.

That said, the republican party has gone so far to the fanatical right, that I basically vote democratic.

For instance: I consider myself pro-life. But, what exactly does that mean now? For me, it means finding an option other than abortion if possible. Carrying the child to term and putting it up for adoption. Or if the mother wants to keep the child, but needs help, providing that help, whether it's finacial or counciling, etc...

But, that does not mean creating laws that force women to carry to term a pregnacy they don't want or for whatever reason, can't handle. And it certainly doesn't mean creating laws that criminalize doctors and health care providers that offer abortion as an option.

Women should have the right to choose. But at the same time, we have the knowledge and the technology to provide birth control that pretty much guarantees (99%) there should be no unwanted pregnacies. So, the only unwanted pregancies that should exist would be through rape.

Instead we still have millions of women who forgo birth control either due to lack of education or draconian religious beliefs that they will burn in hell.

Today's republican party supports abstinence, which if anyone actually remembers being a kid is fucking ridiculous. They hate sex-ed, because they've obviously never turned on a computer or read a book, so they think that will turn their children in to sex-crazed zombies .... which naturally happens when they hit puberty anyways. And they think birth control is a "gateway drug" to "fornication" ... no, that's puberty and until we figure out a way to shut down puberty and legally neuter our children, they are going to have sex.

It's better to educate them and provide them with birth control at an early age, than to force them to go through unwanted pregnacies and marriages so that they conform to some idealogical fantasy of a perfect world that doesn't exist.

[Updated on: Thu, 18 October 2012 08:54] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311281] Thu, 18 October 2012 09:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Headhunter
What I don't understand is why Americans (generally) don't vote for third-party candidates. I mean, whenever I hear Americans complain about Washington their solution is either not voting at all or voting for the party (Dem or Rep) that doesn't hold the presidency and that seems futile if the intention is to "fix the system".
I've lived here all my life and I don't completely understand. I mean, I get that the entire election system requires massive amounts of advertizing dollars so the only chance someone has to win is by raising this cash. Once elected they then have an obligation to their financers (or so they think) so they start pandering. But what I don't get is why so many Americans who know how bought and sold this system is refuse to even try to take a third party candidate seriously.

This is why we need campaign finance reform. But guess who doesn't want that? You guessed it, all the people that have any possible chance of making it happen.

[Updated on: Thu, 18 October 2012 09:39] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311305] Fri, 19 October 2012 19:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
easy

1. only natural persona are allowed to donate
2. noone is allowed to get a taxcut for more than 5%
3. noone is allowed to donate more than 10 grant (if he does he, the guy who rigs it and the guy who took it get heavily fined, if they do it again they go to jail for rigging an election)
4. fundraisers as they are need to be illegal
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311306] Fri, 19 October 2012 19:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Logisteric
easy

1. only natural persona are allowed to donate
Yes.
Logisteric
2. noone is allowed to get a taxcut for more than 5%
What does this have to do with anything?
Logisteric
3. noone is allowed to donate more than 10 grant (if he does he, the guy who rigs it and the guy who took it get heavily fined, if they do it again they go to jail for rigging an election)
And more importantly none of the money goes where it was intended.
Logisteric
4. fundraisers as they are need to be illegal
Yes, definitely. That would go a long way toward fixing our system.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311307] Fri, 19 October 2012 20:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gorro der GrĂ¼ne

 
Messages:1542
Registered:March 2009
Location: Broadwurschd-City

Logisteric
2. noone is allowed to get a taxcut for more than 5%

What does this have to do with anything?





no taxcut no need to pribe
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311308] Fri, 19 October 2012 20:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
2. if you get taxcuts for political donations (only thing i'm speakin of here) that even rewards bigger donations - i'm not talking about cuts for other donations. if you don't get taxcuts for polital party donations in the us just forget it, we do here (up to 5%).

3. of coursde it has to get somewhere else and when i say fines i mean AUTOMATICALLY and thrice the amount of money

of course there might occur the need to financy campaigns with public money, but in my book that's a cheap price to pay.

eith:

after having read gorro's post: by tax cuts i mean tax deductions

[Updated on: Fri, 19 October 2012 20:43] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311309] Fri, 19 October 2012 20:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
That is what I thought you meant but wanted you to clarify. Campaign finance reform would fix the majority of the corruption in the system. Too bad that those who are in any position to make this happen will likely never allow it.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311310] Fri, 19 October 2012 21:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
that means, whoever becomes potus was, is and will be a millionaire (if you use todays values) even before he gets into office.

maybe ike was not, though
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311315] Sat, 20 October 2012 03:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
No. If the campaign finance is restricted to the campaign (ie drawn from a central fund and only distributed for the NEEDS of the campaign) this problem is solved. The salary of an elected official will be enough for an honest man and not enough for a greedy elitist. This is how nit should be. An elected official should do his job because he believes in the system/country or wants to improve it not for financial gain.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311318] Sat, 20 October 2012 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
as you said: won't gonna happen -> millionaires (only those can afford to kickstart a campaign) and what are those 'needs' anyway? tv-spam, phone-spam, email-spam, snailmail-spam or maybe a letter-campaign that contents their programs (thisone would probably be not allowed as noone needs it)?

don't think so, talent goes where the money is - tell me one reason why potus shouldn't have 5 millions/year taxfree

... + a few special laws about cheating to the public, which may get him/her into jail more easily (obviously not for something like that lewinsky-stuff)
... + no presidential pardons for ex-presidents (tricky dicky-wise). this is sth only congress in joined session should be able to do.

this could be easily done, too for senators (2 mill) and representatives (1 mill) but don't forget their plusses

secretaries could be at 3 mill and zhe veep at 4 but it should always be accompanied by a 'get into jail for free'-card of sorts.

edith:

what exactly is an honest man? when i pass through the tenannts of no 1600 pensylvaniy avenue for honest men i stops at tennant #26, of course the first few (but not all of them) and maybe #16 - when it comes to reagan i get a problem with what he said about taxes during his campaigns and what he did while in office, let alone reaganomics (having no clue's got nothing to do with being honest, though). however, i don't doubt that raising taxes was the right thing to do in those cases he did. ghwb would have been the one to cut back the arms-race that killed the soviet union but he didn't and thus allowed it to kill your economics, too.

[Updated on: Sat, 20 October 2012 11:25] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311326] Sat, 20 October 2012 15:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
One of the reasons I wanted McCain for president:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Quote:
As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.
True, this law doesn't go far enough but under the current president the 60 year trend of trying to reel in campaign spending has done a 180. Yes, I know he says he fought against this and he probably did to some degree but issues like this are far more important than a gutted health care bill no one is satisfied with.

[Updated on: Sat, 20 October 2012 15:07] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311327] Sat, 20 October 2012 15:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
mccain-feingold is nothing that needs discussion i'd say. the problem is of course it's not going far enough, but what really sucks is that decission of you subprime court as to who is allowed to contribute to campaign funding.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311329] Sat, 20 October 2012 17:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Logisteric
mccain-feingold is nothing that needs discussion i'd say.
Why? This is the only bill in recent memory that did anything like we are talking about. Yes it doesn't go far enough but at least you can tell where McCain's intentions are. Note that it is a bipartisan bill.
Logisteric
the problem is of course it's not going far enough, but what really sucks is that decission of you subprime court as to who is allowed to contribute to campaign funding.
Yes, the decision pulled the rug out of any advance that has been made in this area for a long time. It needs to be successfully appealed. Those justices who voted for it should be retired.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311332] Sat, 20 October 2012 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
1. that's why we don't need to discuss it - neither of us thinks it to be a bad thing
2. you cannot retire them - they are 'for live'
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311339] Sat, 20 October 2012 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Logisteric
1. that's why we don't need to discuss it - neither of us thinks it to be a bad thing
And yet you probably thought there was no good reason to vote for an evul Republican of any sort...right?
Logisteric
2. you cannot retire them - they are 'for live'
Well, there is the way that it is, then the way it should be. I think in exceptional cases exceptions should be made.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311343] Sun, 21 October 2012 02:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
1. i'm not to vote for anyone in your elections, my problem with mccain was more along the line of cardiac arrest and his veep taking over - lincoln was a republican, wasn't he? btw for an european even your so called leftwing people are right wing (obama is right of anyone who held office in europe after the war, not counting dame margaret thatcher that is). so if he's a socialist we're all commies here :devilaugh:
2. your problem not mine - in my book 'for live' kinda predates alzheimer's desease :pitchfork:
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311345] Sun, 21 October 2012 05:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Logisteric
1. i'm not to vote for anyone in your elections, my problem with mccain was more along the line of cardiac arrest and his veep taking over - lincoln was a republican, wasn't he? btw for an european even your so called leftwing people are right wing (obama is right of anyone who held office in europe after the war, not counting dame margaret thatcher that is). so if he's a socialist we're all commies here :devilaugh:
And how's that working for you? By the way, here we are 4 years later and (as we all knew) no sign of McCain's health deteriorating. The guy survived years in a brutal POW camp. No, the one heartbeat away from idiot Palin being president was an excuse people who already didn't want ANY republican used.
Besides, if Obongo dies who do we get? Another incompetent fool in the form of Biden.
Logisteric
2. your problem not mine - in my book 'for live' kinda predates alzheimer's desease :pitchfork:
What's that supposed to mean? Do you even know?
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311350] Sun, 21 October 2012 12:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
1. the statistacial chance that a president dies in office comes with age (especially when you compare mccain to obama) so palin was a much bigger threat than biden.

surviving the hanoi hilton does not mean you automatically get 80 or more years, does it. to the contrary 'died of old war injuries' is something not anheard of.

in my book your 26th president - a republican, btw - was - at least - your greatest president in the 20th century. => i'm not always against republicans. btw. if his cousin jailed prescott b. the world would have been spared of prescott's grandson, which means i'm also not always for a democrat (probably the cousin was one of your most dishonest but nevertheless a good president.

the most underrated was #37 (that was mostly one thing, but he should have gone to jail for it) - he got you out of that vietnamese quackmire, he went to china etc. but there is of course watergate. when it come to honesty he ws in a league with the kennedys => do we really need honest politicians or could it be that effective ones are better for our countries? the word realpolitik goes back to f

[Updated on: Sun, 21 October 2012 12:36] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311353] Sun, 21 October 2012 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Very cool. You aren't with the typical European mindset. That is refreshing.
Logisteric
1. the statistacial chance that a president dies in office comes with age (especially when you compare mccain to obama) so palin was a much bigger threat than biden.
Yes, Palin would have been a much worse situation than Biden on greens. I agree with that but there was (is) no sign that McCain's health wasn't going to hold out. The whole heartbeat away from the presidency thing was used here by people already not wanting any Republican in office. I understand the concern and in my opinion McCain's choice of a running mate was the only thing that gave me pause about voting for him. He was and is a true hero and has sacrificed in no small way for people in his charge. We need folks like that in elected office.

Logisteric
surviving the hanoi hilton does not mean you automatically get 80 or more years, does it. to the contrary 'died of old war injuries' is something not anheard of.
Of course, but there was absolutely no sign that McCain wasn't going to last 4 years and (4 years later) there still isn't. Now, that said I actually do like a few of the decisions Obama made that were contrary to what McCain was wanting. I think our hands off approach during the Arab Spring was a wise thing etc. But of the two I'd still vote for McCain in a heartbeat.

Logisteric
in my book your 26th president - a republican, btw - was - at least - your greatest president in the 20th century.
Ummm, Harrison left office in 1893. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?
Logisteric
i'm not always against republicans. btw. if his cousin jailed prescott b. the world would have been spared of prescott's grandson, which means i'm also not always for a democrat (probably the cousin was one of your most dishonest but nevertheless a good president.
Again, I really don't know who you are talking about here. I don't know really anything about Harrison but I will tell you the Republicans of his day were the more liberal party. There was a sea change around the time of the depression or perhaps a little after. A Republican of the 19th century would likely vote Democrat or Independant if he had to in the 20th.

Logisteric
the most underrated was #37 (that was mostly one thing, but he should have gone to jail for it) - he got you out of that vietnamese quackmire, he went to china etc. but there is of course watergate. when it come to honesty he ws in a league with the kennedys => do we really need honest politicians or could it be that effective ones are better for our countries? the word realpolitik goes back to f

[Updated on: Sun, 21 October 2012 13:01] by Moderator

Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311355] Sun, 21 October 2012 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3395
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
the 26th president of the us in later years founded the bullmoose party, which means the cousin is fdr - benjamin harrison was #23.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311356] Sun, 21 October 2012 13:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
Logisteric
the 26th president of the us in later years founded the bullmoose party, which means the cousin is fdr - benjamin harrison was #23.
You are right. I was looking at terms not actual order. Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a great president. Founded our national parks system among other things. FDR wasn't a bad president at all. In fact, one of the best ones we had in the 20th century despite founding the welfare state.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311789] Sun, 04 November 2012 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
abradley

 
Messages:229
Registered:December 2001
Khor1255
It was plain and simple posturing. What he will actually do is anybody's guess since he chooses to be opaque about actual plans. We need someone different, that goes without saying. But we honestly don't even know what this guy is saying he will do let alone what he will actually do.
Our Presidential system makes being a 'True Conservative' or being a 'True Liberal' difficult if not impossible if your aiming to win.

IIRC In the British parliamentary system you can be a hardcore Tory or Laborite your whole career because if/when your party makes you leader/PM your becoming PM doesn't depend on your vote nation wide, rather whether your party gets the most reps and the reps can be hardcore Tory/Labor through barely Tory/Labor depending on the way their district's people lean. Once the party get the majority it can appoint the PM who ran in a 'safe' district. So a PM can be hardcore through their career. (@ any Brits, correct my impression as needed, am working from what I casually heard and read, not from detailed study.)

In the US politicians are forced to compromise if they hope to be elected to state wide/country wide offices so no matter who is running there's going to be varying clips from the past where the candidate was trying to please voters who have varied beliefs over a wide political spectrum.

Even Obama did that in '08, while in the primary he didn't wear a flag lapel button said it didn't matter, once he won the primary he always wore one ... even now.

So the above shift.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311792] Sun, 04 November 2012 22:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
This may be so but I don't really see what it has to do with being nebulous about things like what your plans are for the economy etc. If you are implying he is planning on taking an ultra conservative approach so is deliberately being obtuse so as to trick certain people in to voting for him I have to say that
a)that seems unlikely based on his centrist or even left leaning past policies
b)this is hardly a reason to have any confidence in the guy.
If his plans are so shaky or controversial he is afraid to even mention them during an election than he is not likely to get anything done once elected (which he has about a snowball's chance in hell of doing thanks to being so nebulous about real issues).


This is the first election of my adult life I am sitting out. I really want Obongo gone but have zero faith in the only other possible alternative. I cannot in good conscious vote for either of these duds since they are two sides of the same rotten coin.
Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311793] Sun, 04 November 2012 23:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
abradley

 
Messages:229
Registered:December 2001
Khor1255
This may be so but I don't really see what it has to do with being nebulous about things like what your plans are for the economy etc. If you are implying he is planning on taking an ultra conservative approach so is deliberately being obtuse so as to trick certain people in to voting for him I have to say that
a)that seems unlikely based on his centrist or even left leaning past policies
b)this is hardly a reason to have any confidence in the guy.
If his plans are so shaky or controversial he is afraid to even mention them during an election than he is not likely to get anything done once elected (which he has about a snowball's chance in hell of doing thanks to being so nebulous about real issues).


This is the first election of my adult life I am sitting out. I really want Obongo gone but have zero faith in the only other possible alternative. I cannot in good conscious vote for either of these duds since they are two sides of the same rotten coin.
Am not going into each of your points one by one, just generally.

So my view is 'Check their history', if the guy sez 'I am going to fix the economy' look at his history, what has he done in the past.


Re: Romney's Jacksonian Pivot.[message #311795] Mon, 05 November 2012 02:43 Go to previous message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
That's a good point. However, I tend to be suspicious of someone who fails to outline his plan especially when the stakes are this high. All he keeps essentially saying is that he is going to change everything Oboingo did. If I thought everything this bozo did was wrong I might feel hopeful about Romney but the fact is alongside the massive derp this fool has managed to do some good. Not the least of which was his foreign policy which I feel was pretty freakin awesome.

I never expected for one second I'd be saying that but either he listened to some sound advice or is just a natural at such things. Not enough for me to vote for someone who allowed Chrysler to fail and is basically just another corporate schill but pretty cool all the same.
Previous Topic: could be tasteless is why its here
Next Topic: How to get out of Afghanistan.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Dec 18 19:19:20 EET 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01887 seconds