You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stronger growth rates under Democratic administrations
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
Quote from jonbig04:
I've never seen what the big deal is on flip flopping. Unless of course they flip or flop to a position that you don't agree with. I think when politicians start to run for a major office they start getting hit with all sorts of new issues they never had to deal with before and to do with it new information on those issues.
"when the facts change, my mind changes"...kind of thing. IMHO
Oh, I agree. However, people tend to vote for politicians based on the idea that they are getting some sort of ideological package -- much like as if they were ordering a cable package for home entertainment.
Imagine ordering digital cable with a great sports package but then ending up with nothing but Oprah and Oxygen on every channel -- you'd be totally pissed. (Especially if you hated Oprah.)
Plus, I don't think regular people are as flexible as some upper-crust thinkers. I know people who've changed slowly over periods of 3-6 years who're smart, but I've seen dumb people stay exactly the same for 20+ years. The non-technical unskilled laborer isn't really confronted with problems that are so complex that his/her thinking process has to be radically reformed (at least, after initial training) to accomplish success.
Interestingly enough, the media's been painting John McCain as the "maverick" with the flexible ideology for years. If anything, the guy's been flip-flopping for the convenience of his friends for years. I don't understand how republicans got over his poor immigration legislation. He was polling worse than Ron Paul during some points of the primary cycle, only to have been completely revived by the pundits at FOX with their fake focus groups in the post-debate analysis segments.
I truly feel let down by the republicans. Their actions just don't match up with their words. They are truly a morally bankrupt party with allegiances to all of the wrong corporatists who see absolutely nothing wrong with sacking the constitution in favor of short-term power-grabs. What a long fall from the party who freed the slaves.
Quote from piezoe:
Certainly not in Iraq.
The mistake we made, were in thinking we could "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis, and the concept of rebuilding Iraq.
I think we should have sent in the stealth fighters/bombers during the time that national and regional political groups were in day sessions and obliterated the leadership (senate, whatever), carpet bombed all military installations, dropped millions of weapons (guns, antitank, landmines) in Kurd and Sunni areas, and let them fight over the remainder.
One week, and we are out. Lot cheaper too.
Quote from TraderZones:
The mistake we made, were in thinking we could "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis, and the concept of rebuilding Iraq.
I think we should have sent in the stealth fighters/bombers during the time that national and regional political groups were in day sessions and obliterated the leadership (senate, whatever), carpet bombed all military installations, dropped millions of weapons (guns, antitank, landmines) in Kurd and Sunni areas, and let them fight over the remainder.
One week, and we are out. Lot cheaper too.
You'd be right, if our intentions were to either remove WMD or promote democracy. Neither of those were the intentions. If they -were- the intention, we wouldn't be gearing up to maintain an embassy there the size of the Vatican.
The US never promotes foreign interventionism on account of democracy. A good example is Iran in 1953, when we overthrew a popularly elected leader to prop up a dictator -- The Shah. "We" did this solely because of the interests of the oil company that is today known as BP. True history, not what Fox News or Rush Limbaugh says, does not support the idea that Americans are out to promote democracy.
I say "we", because I think if real, red-blooded Americans knew what the elite were really doing, they wouldn't support any of our foreign policy. The American mind has been dumbed down and muddied to the point where it can no longer discern whether the elites are doing things in the name of the people's interests or selfish banking and mulitinational conglomerates' interests.
There are money to be made in conflict - both training, equipping, intervening, rebuilding and controlled commerce.
Most people probably do not stay informed about what happens - e.g School of the Americas and how the doctrine has been continuing for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5L1VdlktOw (5 mins on US School of the Americas)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals
Maybe Democrats being less willing to expend on conflict and military means that there are something that can be saved?
Most people probably do not stay informed about what happens - e.g School of the Americas and how the doctrine has been continuing for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5L1VdlktOw (5 mins on US School of the Americas)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals
Maybe Democrats being less willing to expend on conflict and military means that there are something that can be saved?
Quote from saliva:
I sincerely hope you're not one of those lukewarm independents who flip one year and flop the next. I find in your post a stark manifestation of so-called opportunistic realpolitik of the last century that translates into political impotence of this century.
What "opportunistic realpolitik" are you referring to?
I doubt we can call out politics impotent. You can argue whether we used our power for good or bad, but I would say we are anything but impotent.
I realize that blind adherence to one set of ideals, regardless of the situation is probably essential to the tug of war that keeps our country on an even keel, but that doesn't mean I have to participate. even if you do. 4 years from now if the national and international situation is different, damn right I will change my mind. Once again, when the situation changes, my mind changes...although I realize now 99% of people don't, and necessarily so, subscribe to that way of thinking.
Quote from lolatency:
it can no longer discern whether the elites are doing things in the name of the people's interests or selfish banking and mulitinational conglomerates' interests.
I don't buy into those conspiracies. I assume you are referring to some sort of business conglomerate. I just don't see it. I believe or gov has to make choices about our future that aren't very black and white. Ones that would be difficult to sell on the nation as a whole, as we tend to think freedom and peace is free and is a natural state.
This conversation and thread is rather pointless. First of all a significant study of historical comparison and patterns dating back only to 1947 is not long enough. Sounds like a long time but with only around 60 years a study like this simply cannot be argued. There are just two many factors and too few presidents during this time to make a serious study. For example the higher GNP during the Clinton years and the low GNP during the Bush year's really has nothing to do with either president. Did democrat's and Clinton invent the internet and it's massive popularity? Did republicans and Bush cause this financial subprime mess? The answer is of course no.
My answer is that the numbers are merely coinincidental. Arguing that the economy does better under democrats is like flipping a coin 10 times, having it land on heads 7 out of 10 times and then automatically and ignorantly assuming that the coin will land on heads 70% of the time.
My answer is that the numbers are merely coinincidental. Arguing that the economy does better under democrats is like flipping a coin 10 times, having it land on heads 7 out of 10 times and then automatically and ignorantly assuming that the coin will land on heads 70% of the time.
Quote from NeoRio1:
This conversation and thread is rather pointless. First of all a significant study of historical comparison and patterns dating back only to 1947 is not long enough. Sounds like a long time but with only around 60 years a study like this simply cannot be argued. There are just two many factors and too few presidents during this time to make a serious study. For example the higher GNP during the Clinton years and the low GNP during the Bush year's really has nothing to do with either president. Did democrat's and Clinton invent the internet and it's massive popularity? Did republicans and Bush cause this financial subprime mess? The answer is of course no.
My answer is that the numbers are merely coinincidental. Arguing that the economy does better under democrats is like flipping a coin 10 times, having it land on heads 7 out of 10 times and then automatically and ignorantly assuming that the coin will land on heads 70% of the time.
According to this kind of thinking one cannot make any judgment whatsoever unless you have, uh, what? An adequate sample size of 30 maybe? On that basis there is not much reason to believe that the conservative policies ushered in by Reagan have been any good or that liberal democracies perform any better than communist countries. Fortunately people are free to use common sense and logical cause-effect analysis.
What is presented is evidence that tilts towards supporting the notion that Democratic administrations have performed better. One might question the statistical significance but in the absence of evidence to support the opposite theory that Republicans have been better, one goes with the best information available.
Quote from jonbig04:
As of right now? It's not. At least not in ways that I can see. However I think you are looking at a very short term picture, when maybe it will do some good to look at things on a larger time scale.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2053356#post2053356
Consider the region we are occupying and why we may be there. I think there is some pretty compelling, logic-based reasons behind our presence in the middle east, all of which, ironically, state economics as our reason FOR the war. Check the link.
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from iraq ?
the real reason
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/