At 9/4/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote::
Dude...it is indicative of turn-out. It is a predictor. It is a sign. Now does it mean a 1:1 translation, probably not. However, those three events do show motivation of different groups of political society. And the indication is not favorable to Obama. It is a portent...not a prediction.
Ok? The RNC was open to people who wanted to come in while the DNC is closed because it's too packed. The DNC is bigger than the RNC and the delegates at the DNC are more motivated for Obama than the RNC's are for Mitt Romney. I still fail to see how these make a difference.
Sorry...but you're trying to move the argument away from my rebuttal to your point. You're trying to insert your own strawman into the argument (social conservatives).
But the problem for your argument is that my point holds; this country remains a center-right country. Even many of these ethnic demographics are socially conservative (blacks and hispanics) so the Dems need to move center/right...not the Repubs moving center/left.
The Repub's move to the right because the delegates won't allow a shift left or a compromise on anything. Not because the country is.
Wait...you mean to tell me that someone had to tack right/left to get his party's nomination? Holy History Batman! This has never happened before...oh no...wait...it happens every election.
The problem is that Romney is embracing the policies that everyone is blaming for the recession. He's claiming that he and Ryan are a new team but at the end of the day they're still the same people the GOP has been running ever since 1980, and it's showing. There's a reason why they didn't work in the 2000's, and that's because while trickle down does create jobs it sends them overseas. It worked in the 80's because Businesses hadn't developed that practice yet.
And if you look at elections like 1980, there's always a lot of emphasis on new idea's. Reagan brought new idea's in and attacked the age of his opponets idea's, FDR brought in new idea's and attacked the age of his opponets idea's, Kennedy brought in new idea's and attacked the age of his opponent's idea's etc. etc. Romney hasn't brought any new idea's to the table other than ones that are extensions of old idea's that were unpopular. This is the core problem, they've been tested and have become really unpopular and the Democrats are relentless in exploiting this.
Damn those vile Republicans! Oh wait...FDR was the first president to take from SSA to pay for WWII followed by Truman for Korea and LBJ for Vietnam...then there's all the social spending both side have used SSA 'vouchers' to pay for.
The difference was that they were able to at least restore those payments. The GOP policy of both Bush's and Reagan has annihilated any balance the budget had. If the budget was even at Carter levels it wouldn't be so bad, but it's much worse; it's far worse than that.
"They're Socially Conservative, but economically Liberal. It's why Florida is a swing state and not a deep red state." -you
The liberal economic philosophy is a combination of Keynsian and Marxist economic theory. This involves government intervention in the economy to help the have-nots and keep things going smoothly in times of economic contraction. Which for politicians means: "Vote for me and I'll fund the programs/projects important to you...consequences be damned!"
Um or maybe it's perhaps Conservative economics have actually not done disadvantaged minorities very well and have actually made them poorer. Thus when somebody tries to argue trickle down with them it isn't very popular. Maybe that's why minorities tend follow Liberal economics rather than Conservative. This isn't even mentioning the negative stigma those economics have now since Bush Jr.
Although I don't get where the "Marxist" part comes from, considering they haven't proposed nationalizing industries, banning economic classes or overthrowing the Bourguise.
Too bad it's the GAO (Govt Accounting Office) as well as the trustees of the programs reporting this...but it's okay. Stick your head in the ground like a good little Ostrich...the Dems (and Republicans) know better than us mere plebes.
Like I said, 4 years in the future. Obama may reform it by then or Romney may have if they take office. Chances are they'll wait till the last minute to do it. There is alot that can happen in 4 years.
There was a sense that things were getting better. However, the depression was a double-dip depression and by 1939 his Commerce Secretary was testifying before Congress that all their efforts were for naught.
Um the economic depression had ended when he had taken office and the economy had been growing. It took a recession in 1937-38 because Roosevelt felt that all those work programs had completed their goals and so he began cutting them and thus they had to lay people off, thus a recession happened. Otherwise unemployment was going down, the GDP was growing and the economy was picking up throughout his term.
Now the terminology people use for "depression" becomes confusing because they're often used in the same subject but mean different things in different contexts. In terms of economic growth it's negative growth by at least 15% (anything below that is a recession). Now that negative growth had ended 1933 when FDR took office. But then people often include the recovery in there as well so it often becomes confusing when you're talking about which. This is also why we're not technically in a recession right now.