So 4 years have almost rolled around and the drawn out process of voting for a US president is beginning in earnest today in Iowa with the 1st of the primaries for the Republican nomination. We have Obama hoping to raise $1bn dollars this time around and we have yet to see his campaign even really kick into gear. The halo he walked around with the last time around has lost its shine and for much of his reign it has been down around his ankles.
He hasn't managed to achieve much in terms of what he promised back in 2008, especially with a Republican house that had at times held the country to ransom over what action to take over the economy, spending cuts vs stimulus packages. The old argument of do you cut or spend in a recession has yet to be really definitively answered in the US.
What he did achieve was much in continuing where George Bush left off with the economy and foreign policy. His signing of the NDAA act which former Bush and Neo-con acolytes Cheney and McCain had largely penned being a recent example. He has been a good friend to Wall St throughout the economic crisis while has been almost mute in regards Occupy Wall St protests.
All the while his opponents in the Republican party have already torn strips of each other with many would be candidates campaigns taking off like rockets before falling to earth with a bump like Bachmann, Perry and Cain. The leaders for the Republican nomination as of today seem to be Mitt Romney, Dr. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum's profile has inexplicably risen recently after months in the doldrums but may go the way of the other aforementioned rockets. He doesn't seem to be peddling a line much different to Romney, in regards making spending cuts and bombing Iran into the dust.
Ron Paul is offering change on a massive scale that would have huge ramifications* around the world, cutting out four government agencies, removing all US military bases outside the United States and returning the dollar to a gold based currency. While on one hand he might cut existing deficits, the US economy would shrink in size and the harm it would cause is hard to grasp.
Likewise, the removal of a US military presence around the world which may seem preferable to most people but other powers may look to fill the vacuums surrounding them. Would it really lead to a more peaceful world as many suggest or just leave the USA in peace? That said the pernicious influence of the arms, banking and oil industry on democracy in the USA may be curtailed.
*if they pass through Congress, which is extremely unlikely unless a load of Libertarians come out of the woodwork.
It's going to be interesting, but at this stage i'd imagine Obama will hold on, on the basis that the competition isn't up to much.
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
He's still there but not among the top 3 Reps any more. But he may return if Santorum or one of the others slip.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied '
a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
LOL
The medias treatment of ron paul is hilarious - its been widely parodied in the states, most famously here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDKeTzSLf4&feature=related
but I find it laughable seeing it happening over here! 5/6 page article in the latest Sunday Business Post gave the story on the bleak prospects ahead for the US in 2012 and included back story on the republican nominees.
First Sarah Palin and Trump were mentioned as early write offs, then more in depth focus on the leading candidates. Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Newt Gringrich. Not even a mention of Ron Paul
Reason I say this is because I have noticed the same thing on RTE reports and I find it curious... I suppose its a symptom of RTE journalism being pretty shallow and just regurgitating the mainstream yanks.
In any case Ron Paul would be the only candidate I would take an interest in as he refuses corporate sponsorship (indeed scares the dung outta corporate america), has seemingly been on the money vis a ve the economy throughout the crisis, can actually string articulate sentences together :o and pushes for radical measures that strike at the heart of the rot in the US financial system. He also enjoys vastly superior support on social and grassroots media and as far as I can judge has been ideologically consistent for decades.
Everyone else is (quite literally) a moron - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9LBUG4KsE - or a corporate whore (as obama is).
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 03, 2012, 03:12:41 PM
The medias treatment of ron paul is hilarious - its been widely parodied in the states, most famously here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDKeTzSLf4&feature=related
That's good alright.
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
Muppet is (http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/27304-hung_horse.jpg)....or so he'd like his work colleagues to think ;)
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
A Freudian slip?
I'm wondering what you wrote that was changed to Pony?
As much as O'Bama's rule hasn't been great my main understanding of his achievements are:
he has overseen the capture and assasination of Bin Laden,
the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq,
overthrowing of Mubarrack and Gadaffi and introduce
the Universal Health Care plan.
I'm sure there are more than that and probably many more failures but he inherited a pile of shit and has kept it afloat and managed to do a few good things which is why I would be happy enough for him to stay on. Also the fact I would see myself as more of a Democrat.
I haven't listened to a lot of Ron Paul but any of the Republican Candidates have shown themselves up to be completely useless/unqualified/stupid take your pick!
I think it will be a case of better the Devil you know for the voters but I would still fancy the Republicans to hold on to the House.
dont have the time to post more SE, but all il say is that Barack 'Goldman Sachs' Obama has shown himself up to be a patsy for Wall Street as Bush was a puppet of the oil tycoons before him.
Quoteoverthrowing of Mubarrack
Obama did that ???
Quote from: thejuice on January 03, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
Quoteoverthrowing of Mubarrack
Obama did that ???
Well I would say that GB and the US were heavily involved in the recent uprisings around Africa and have realised that the way to conduct these things now is to support the right side rather than jumping in themselves and pissing everybody else off. Granted I probably shouldn't put Mubarrack's ousting down to O'Bama but it is definitely something that he can take a bit of credit for.
As for the Goldman Sach's thing well I agree that it completely stinks. I watched the Storyville Documentary a few weeks ago and they seem to be the main cause of America's pain. They packaged up the bad debt, sold it to people and then bet against its performance by insuring it through AIG. I think I remember them saying that Goldmann Sachs were owed the most money from the AIG bailout and got 100 cents to the Dollar which is scandallous.
I'm not saying O'Bama is some kind of Saint but I think I would rather have him than those right wing muppets!
Quote from: Denn Forever on January 03, 2012, 03:26:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
A Freudian slip?
I'm wondering what you wrote that was changed to Pony?
After extensive testing to see if I could reproduce the offending text, I have proven the case. Those of you with an iPhone 4 (might work on the others too), with that spelling corrector on, go to send a text and type the letters P O N T instead of P I N T. Tell me what comes up, so if you didn't notice, you would actually send it.
Pont autocorrects to Pint in mine. You are just a dog.
On an old samsung I used to have where they had a bunch of options for each word - every time I asked a buddy to go for pints it circled through pious, riots and a few other funny ones as well that I can't remember now.
Quote from: Puckoon on January 03, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
Pont autocorrects to Pint in mine. You are just a dog.
On an old samsung I used to have where they had a bunch of options for each word - every time I asked a buddy to go for pints it circled through pious, riots and a few other funny ones as well that I can't remember now.
You probably had to be there... :-*
Ron Paul has benefitted from the press dismissing his chances. Its only in the last two weeks that his racist newletters have been brought up. Before that he was just an interesting, consistent and principled, but irrelevant, curiosity.
I'd fancy an Obama victory, like others, moreso due to the poor quality of Rep candidates.
Read a great article last week that was saying we are witnessing a real-live Economic experiment - with the US & UK's diametrically opposing approaches to the same problem (cuts & spending). USA's more upbeat outlook should benefit Obama.
Quote from: J70 on January 03, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Ron Paul has benefitted from the press dismissing his chances. Its only in the last two weeks that his racist newletters have been brought up. Before that he was just an interesting, consistent and principled, but irrelevant, curiosity.
Given the shape of what hes running against why do you think he is irrelevant? I mean, in the context of whats there, you could give him kudos for actually possessing a brain.
He has been very relevant to this race from months back. To my mind all other issues are totally dwarfed by the titanic economic crash that the US is on the road to (in the long term). He seems to be the only republican candidate who would even begin to attempt to avert it.
I suspect he could top the running in Iowa but probably won't take the nomination, but it could be close - he has the most loyal following of whats there.
In any case I reckon the US is up shit creek and will suffer a civil insurrection and wide scale poverty within 10 years.
The national debt was 10tn when Obama took office. It is now 16tn. They desperately need somebody who is capable of taking drastic fiscal action that hurts the status quo.
the funny thing about Paul is that he has a lot of Democrats especially the Occupy Wall St groups but not much among traditional Republicans and if he got the nomination he could beat Obama but his biggest challenge is getting the GOP nomination.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 03, 2012, 08:52:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 03, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Ron Paul has benefitted from the press dismissing his chances. Its only in the last two weeks that his racist newletters have been brought up. Before that he was just an interesting, consistent and principled, but irrelevant, curiosity.
Given the shape of what hes running against why do you think he is irrelevant? I mean, in the context of whats there, you could give him kudos for actually possessing a brain.
Because of what he has to convince to gain the GOP nomination. Of course he gets Kudos for actually possessing a brain but a large proportion of the GOP electorate favour brawn over brains - and I am not sure if you heard the response he got late in December when he challenged Bachman "that for once instead of going in all guns blazing - we should use a little democracy" when she was war mongering about Iran during the final Iowa debate.
The response from the crowd went something like this...................................................................
Romney beats Santorum by 8 votes. I demand a recount.
Full results here on this link:
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Amazing return from Santorum who was a nobody a few weeks ago. That said his opinion on Palestine is worse than the Newts.
Quote from: thejuice on January 04, 2012, 02:19:21 PM
Full results here on this link:
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Amazing return from Santorum who was a nobody a few weeks ago. That said his opinion on Palestine is worse than the Newts.
That's about the least of his problems.
I must admit I know little about him or how he differs from Romney due to him being under the radar for so long.
Democrats will be praying for Santo to come.
He thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex.
Quote from: dec on January 04, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
He thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex.
Oh please let him win.
Quote from: dec on January 04, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
He thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex.
Each of them is a bigger right wing thicko nutter than the next.
Unfortunately for the Planet these kind of dickheads get elected regularly in Yankland :-\
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
There are plenty of psycho catholics in the US as well.
Which is not to say that all of Santorum views and causes are repugnant, but you could say that about any politician.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
Well he is a Latin mass, Opus Dei type of Catholic, although I thought even the most traditionalist Catholic wouldn't believe the creationist nonsense.
Bachmann has dropped out.
Quote from: J70 on January 04, 2012, 08:29:01 PM
There are plenty of psycho catholics in the US as well.
Understatement of the year so far...
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
Did anyone else google santorum yesterday? His wikipedia page was pretty heavily edited and apparently the word Santorum now means "a fr..." I probably shouldn't say because it's not pretty. Needless to say he seems to have upset a few people in the past
QuoteThese Republican primaries are a sideshow – and so is the presidential election
By Tom Mendelsohn
The Foreign Desk
Thursday, 5 January 2012 at 11:39 am
While we're all going doolally over which malignant Republican replicant is the least tragically flawed – a process which will be stretched over the course of six glorious months – the culture wars are still being fought just under the radar.
The fact is, this beauty pageant of machine politics is a total red herring, and a dangerous one at that. None of this historic field of jokers, morons and shills could ever get close to unseating Obama. They're either too mad to win over the country, or they're having to pretend to be so mad that they won't be able to win over the country. See, to win the primaries, they're having to appeal to the Republican base – a base that has veered painfully hard to the right in the last few decades – using a rightwing narrative of such repugnance that they've toxified themselves in the eyes of America's sane majority.
It once suited the GOP to indulge the fears, prejudices and ignorances of its base. It made delightful political sense; they could chip away at the Democrats and Clinton and Obama with any kind of poison they picked when they were a minority in government. There was practically no lie or obfuscation that the base would not lap up, scoring cheap political point after cheap political point. But eventually the lies got so big and so persuasive that the narrative ran away from the establishment string-pullers, and the lunatics (in the shape of the Tea Party) took over the asylum. Now GOP bigwigs are in thrall to their own monster, forced to pay visible lip-service to the insanity they themselves fermented in the name of political expedience.
The upshot is that we'll either get a mad'un like Santorum or a pretending-to-be-mad'un like Romney. And when we do get Romney, he'll be cut to little gristly shreds in the main election, as the Obama campaign quietly keeps playing clips of him saying all the crazy things he needed to say to win the nomination. Couple that with the huge lack of enthusiasm his own party has in him and all his insincerities, and he won't come within a parsec of the popular vote.
But here's the thing: that doesn't matter. The presidential election is a sideshow. The office of the president is not this all-powerful bully pulpit it's cracked up to be. The US government is designed to stymie itself, packed as it is with checks and balances. Obama can't get much of substance done on his own; he has no control over the budget or passage of bills, and precious little over the states. He couldn't reshape the US into a leftist paradise if he even wanted to.
Which, I hasten to add, he does not. He is not the agent of hope, change and social democracy we all thought. Politically, he's a hipper David Cameron: he loves financial services and slight regulation, and doesn't really care about the significant trappings of the welfare state that we decadent pinko Euros thought he did. In any case, he's as good as powerless, unwilling to act where he could, and unable to act where he wanted. He's a figurehead, and that's it.
The real battlegrounds in US politics are lower than the presidency – in Congress and in the states. And while the country may not like the GOP narrative at the top level, in the state houses and in Washington, the rightist agenda still goes great guns.
The states turned alarmingly red during the 2010 elections, and they continue to throb an ominous shade of crimson. There are 29 Republican governors and 20 Democrats, and the former are all pursuing radical right-wing agendas, nigh-on unchecked. Even a governor as unpopular as Scott Walker, who is currently in the throes of a historically unprecedented recall election for his union busting attempts, still clings fairly handily to power.
The fact that these red governors, and their red state assemblies, are still in power shows that the right is not losing the argument on the ground, no matter how wacky their marquee guys may be. They still get voted in and they are still empowered to enact all manner of destructively ideological far-right policies.
The House of Representatives has a huge Republican majority, which they use to thwart all progressive policies. It would take a massive turnaround and significantly higher poll numbers for Obama to even dent this majority. Meanwhile they'll vote in near lockstep on anything that will hurt their foes and keep the economy faltering on the president's watch.
The Senate may enjoy a slim Democrat majority, but rightwing obstructionism has choked it into uselessness. Without a 'supermajority' of 60 senators, the minority party can and does filibuster with impunity, making it another major thorn in the side of the liberal cause. More blue seats are in play in 2012 than red ones, and many of them are potentially vulnerable – because the GOP still retains credibility in the states that it lacks on a federal level.
On top of all that, the third branch of government, the Judiciary, is also hamstrung by an obstreperous Senate. Obama is struggling to appoint judges at any level in the face of an activist conservative bloc willing to put a filibuster-shaped kibosh on any of his nominations.
He's not helped by the 5:4 conservative-liberal split in the Supreme Court, which puts a cherry on the eye of this perfect storm. The majority of the court is now openly hostile to liberal democratic aims and lawmaking, making another huge obstacle in the left's already treacherous path.
So, like I say, all this presidential sound and fury is a red herring. Obama will beat any of the malingerers thrown in front of him, the GOP will take a bit of a hit from being so silly, and America's inexorable rightward march will continue.
Jaysus, that's depressing reading.
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
From reading threads such as the Rory McIlroy one there seems to be.
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
From reading threads such as the Rory McIlroy one there seems to be.
OK then; we have this loony who "thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex" - which one is he?
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
From reading threads such as the Rory McIlroy one there seems to be.
OK then; we have this loony who "thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex" - which one is he?
depends wheterr he supports SF or not.
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 02:43:22 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
From reading threads such as the Rory McIlroy one there seems to be.
OK then; we have this loony who "thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex" - which one is he?
depends wheterr he supports SF or not.
I'm with you now!
Can someone tell me why the republican candidate selection process is a top news story on RTE news? I mean, are we going to get updates and interviews from every state for the next 6 months? I doubt Irish people are that interested what loonie the US republicans select to run in the next US elections. Give me an update when its all done RTE, until maybe use the taxpayer money to report some Irish news.
That's bad enough but RTE think that the ENGLISH Premier Soccer League is somehow Ireland's National sport.
5 minutes of the 6 minute or so morning bulletin at 8.30 took up with MANCHESTER United - a soccer team from England.
There may be a lot of people in Ireland interested in that organisation and the League they play in but IRISH public radio should be giving us all the Irish sport first and then move on to foreign issues.
"the republican candidate selection process" gave us candidate George W. Bush and candidate George W. Bush became President George W. Bush and President George W. Bush gave us the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and presided over the beginning of the financial crisis which we are still enduring.
It is entirely reasonable for RTE to include this among the many stories that they are covering.
Those interested in following the presidential race might find the following link interesting. It shows the top 20 campaign contributers for the republican candidates and obama as well as their total campaign donations in a pie chart at the bottom.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
For example, its interesting to see the favourite for the rep nomination, Mitt Romneys contributers. Obviously he will be particularly firmly wedged up the arse of the wall street banks (top 10 below)
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
Quote from: dec on January 05, 2012, 04:42:44 PM
"the republican candidate selection process" gave us candidate George W. Bush and candidate George W. Bush became President George W. Bush and President George W. Bush gave us the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and presided over the beginning of the financial crisis which we are still enduring.
It is entirely reasonable for RTE to include this among the many stories that they are covering.
When America sneezes the world catches a cold.
As disappointing as Obama has been I would still prefer a Democrat to be elected. A crap Democrat in office can land America in trouble, a crap Republican president gets the whole world involved.
I don't know much about most of these Republican candidates but will the different factions in the Republican party row in behind the winning candidate? Is it a case of Anybody But Obama?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 05, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
Can someone tell me why the republican candidate selection process is a top news story on RTE news? I mean, are we going to get updates and interviews from every state for the next 6 months? I doubt Irish people are that interested what loonie the US republicans select to run in the next US elections. Give me an update when its all done RTE, until maybe use the taxpayer money to report some Irish news.
maybe its easy to lift it. pure laziness. or maybe it diverts attention from the fact that the country is circling the plughole..?
i think obama is doing very well for his sponsors ie the pharmaceutical industry and the arms manufacturer's. I'd say a bank sponsored candidate will win next time.. because it must be their turn
Romney wins NH, Ron Paul 2nd, Huntsman 3rd. Great showing by Paul. Thankfully neither Santorum or Gingrich did much, but they'll be strong in SC next time out. Hopefully Huntsman can stick it out for a while.
Vinnies take on it:
Inequality not on the agenda in US or Republic
January 11th, 1930
VINCENT BROWNE
IF ANY Irish Times readers stayed up last night to watch the post-New Hampshire primary candidate prayer meetings, they probably will have been struck by the banality of the rhetoric and the disconnect between the Republican candidates and the state of America.
That is, if there was a repetition of the post-Iowa caucus shenanigans. No reference to the perilous mountain of state debt, hardly a mention of the 20 million unemployed, no acknowledgment of the drift towards yet another war, this time with Iran, and the prospect of a later conflict with China, as Nobel peace-prize winner Barack Obama seems to envisage.
But perhaps most startling of all, no acknowledgment of how American society has changed over the last 30 years and how deeply divided, socially, America now is – an issue that features not at all in any of the political campaigns there. It is the huge disparity of wealth and income that has grown in the US.
This is a little surprising as most of the Republican candidates are members of Congress and Congress published last October, via the Congressional Budget Office, a report revealing in stark terms the scale of the transformation: Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.
It reports that the 1979 to 2007 average household income in the US grew by 62 per cent but for the 1 per cent of the population with the highest income. Their after-tax household income grew by 275 per cent in the same period. The bottom one-fifth of earners had just an 18 per cent increase over the 28 years.
The report states: "The distribution of after-tax household income in the US was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979. The share of income accruing to higher income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined."
A report by the US Census Bureau in 2010 showed there were 46.2 million people living in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009. For black people, the poverty rate increased to 27.4 per cent in 2010, up from 25.8 per cent in 2009. From 2009 to 2010 the incidence of poverty among children under 18 rose to 22 per cent from 20.7 per cent, while children under the age of 18 in poverty increased to 16.4 million from 15.5 million.
On reflection, however, why should we be surprised there is no talk in America about such huge disparities of income and wealth, since there is no talk here about the enormous disparities in wealth and income here. Or at least no talk by representatives of the main establishment parties, Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil, nor by the media about this. This is not so much that people don't care, but that it's not on the official agenda and, for the most part, the media sticks to the official agenda and spin, to which it considers itself immune.
Just a few facts that hardly get mentioned at all now:
- The average income in the highest one-fifth of income earners was 5½ times that of the lowest one-fifth and that this gap widened from 4.3 the previous year – Survey on Income and Living Conditions for 2010;
- The same survey found that the scale of inequality of incomes in 2010 was higher (33.9) than at any time from 2004;
- The review found that the "at risk of poverty" rate (60 per cent of median income) was at 15.8 per cent compared with 14.1 per cent the previous year even though the threshold fell by more than 10 per cent from €12,064 in 2009 to €10,831 in 2010;
- According to the OECD, this State was the 23rd most unequal country of 31 OECD countries in the mid-2000s;
- The Rich List compiled by the Sunday Times in its 2011 edition, noted that the top 20 richest Irish people/families had aggregate wealth of €17.3 billion;
- A survey published in 2001 by the Institute of Public Health in Ireland showed: "In both the North and the South the all-causes mortality rate in the lowest occupational class is a 100-200 per cent higher than the rate in the highest occupational class." This was evident of almost all the main causes of death: for circulatory diseases it was 120 per cent higher; for cancers it was more than 100 per cent higher; for respiratory diseases it was more than 200 per cent higher; for injuries and poisonings it was over 150 per cent higher;
The CSO published in December 2010 corroborating and contemporary data. It showed: "Life expectancy at birth for males in the most deprived areas of the State was 73.7 years in 2006/07, compared with 78 years of those living in the most affluent areas. The corresponding figures for females were 80 and 82.7."
So it is not just the US that is dysfunctional. We too are in denial about dysfunctions in our own society. And while we send billions to fiscal elites across Europe and, correspondingly, pare elementary services for ordinary people here to the bone, we claim this is "responsible" and for the "public good".
But, for now at least, we are spared the prayer meetings, for which, thank God.
The GOP have just gifted the 2012 Election to Vladimir Obama! The Voters in the Primaries are too easily swayed by the Corporate Media!
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
Was the pony outside? ;)
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 05, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 05, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 04, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
Was reading the other day that Santorum is actually a Catholic despite coming across as some sort of evangelical Christian psycho.
But is he a Castle catholic or a proper one?
Is there a difference?
From reading threads such as the Rory McIlroy one there seems to be.
OK then; we have this loony who "thinks children should be taught "Intelligent design" in schools and thinks that homosexuality is equivalent to "man on dog" sex" - which one is he?
Very definitely an altar licking catholic of the castle variety.
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on January 11, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
The GOP have just gifted the 2012 Election to Vladimir Obama! The Voters in the Primaries are too easily swayed by the Corporate Media!
What is the "corporate media"? And who should the GOP be nominating to beat the commie, muslim kenyan?
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 03, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on January 03, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
What about Newt 'Palestinians are an invited people' Gingrich?
Invented even.
Correct.
Fc*king text corrections.
I sent a text message to a married female friend just before Christmas asking her if she fancied 'a pony after work'. I meant a 'pint' obviously, but I mistyped and it corrected it for me. Took a bit of explaining.
Not half as much as it might have done had it 'corrected' it to '
a poke after work'! ;)
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2012, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on January 11, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
The GOP have just gifted the 2012 Election to Vladimir Obama! The Voters in the Primaries are too easily swayed by the Corporate Media!
What is the "corporate media"? And who should the GOP be nominating to beat the commie, muslim kenyan?
1. The 'Corporate Media' is the mainstream Media Outlets which blatantly ignore the candidate that is planning to upset the Status Quo (in this case Ron Paul).
2. Obama also has Jewish Blood in him. The First Lady has a Cousin who is a Rabbi at Downtown Chicago!
3. Obama (through his White Mother) shares the same 'Bloodline of Power' as George W Bush, Sarah Palin and the UK Queen.
(http://www.irishtimes.com/cartoons/turner/2012/0111/11.jpg)
Why is Garret Fitzgerald lighting that bonfire?
Quote from: Denn Forever on January 11, 2012, 05:10:28 PM
Why is Garret Fitzgerald lighting that bonfire?
Because Newt has a gun stuck in his back.
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on January 11, 2012, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2012, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: ExcellentDriver on January 11, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
The GOP have just gifted the 2012 Election to Vladimir Obama! The Voters in the Primaries are too easily swayed by the Corporate Media!
What is the "corporate media"? And who should the GOP be nominating to beat the commie, muslim kenyan?
1. The 'Corporate Media' is the mainstream Media Outlets which blatantly ignore the candidate that is planning to upset the Status Quo (in this case Ron Paul).
2. Obama also has Jewish Blood in him. The First Lady has a Cousin who is a Rabbi at Downtown Chicago!
3. Obama (through his White Mother) shares the same 'Bloodline of Power' as George W Bush, Sarah Palin and the UK Queen.
Righto. :D
Have to say Ron Pauls statements on the economy are impressive and a breath of fresh air. He can't win the presidency and is an old man but I hope his economic message is listened and taken on board ahead of the economic collapse and remembered when the US rebuilds
It is hard not to be very cynical about US politics but I admire the honesty and consistency of his principles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IwwXgPiySto
I agree with Dr. Paul's diagnosis but the medicine he prescribes is a bit too severe and I'm not 100% sure his supporters realise the side-effects.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 17, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Have to say Ron Pauls statements on the economy are impressive and a breath of fresh air. He can't win the presidency and is an old man but I hope his economic message is listened and taken on board ahead of the economic collapse and remembered when the US rebuilds
It is hard not to be very cynical about US politics but I admire the honesty and consistency of his principles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IwwXgPiySto
Bringing back the gold standard would be the ruination of us all. Paul Krugman wrote an article back in 1996 (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1996/11/the_gold_bug_variations.single.html) detailing the folly of such a policy, but this is the money (pun unintended) quote:
QuoteThe United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.
A bit of Max Kaiser on Ron Paul and that there is actually a generation war as well as a class war.
http://youtu.be/PpEuzBmfH3g
Max seems to look on Ron Paul as a painful but nessesary step. And he may well be right. After all, what the f**k are Obama or Romney going to do that will solve anything?
Quote from: deiseach on January 17, 2012, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on January 17, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Have to say Ron Pauls statements on the economy are impressive and a breath of fresh air. He can't win the presidency and is an old man but I hope his economic message is listened and taken on board ahead of the economic collapse and remembered when the US rebuilds
It is hard not to be very cynical about US politics but I admire the honesty and consistency of his principles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IwwXgPiySto
Bringing back the gold standard would be the ruination of us all. Paul Krugman wrote an article back in 1996 (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1996/11/the_gold_bug_variations.single.html) detailing the folly of such a policy, but this is the money (pun unintended) quote:
QuoteThe United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.
I mentioned Ron Pauls principles on the economy in the light of rebuilding the US economy.
I have very little faith in the US being able to avert themselves from long term economic disaster. By the time there is enough political pressure in Washington to take a Ron Paul level of decision it will be far, far too late.
There are 2 important aspects of currency destruction. 1. No fiat currency backed by nothing has ever survived in the past. 2. The pace of currency destruction is exponential - its acceleration takes it from a speed of decades to years to months to days. There is a very good video presentation by Chris Martenson on youtube that stresses this point.
The financial powers that run the US (the fed and the major banks) have shown no willingness to tackle political problems until they are a quarter of so away, the debt ceiling farce last year would be a case in point. The very rich men at the top will milk the dying system for all it is worth, set up a scapegoat and slip into the background perhaps a year before the shit hits the fan (ie too late to stop disaster except by causing another disaster).
The way I see it we either have a mass debt default (and the major banks pulling an MF Global on thier customer deposits) or hyperinflation. Either way we have the LA riots nationwide.
After the destruction of the dollar (in its current form) the basic principle will be to tie the new dollar to something tangible - this doesnt have to be gold. After the hyperinflation in Germany post WW1 they replaced the DMark with the Rentenmark. they didnt have sufficient gold so they used mortgaged land and industrial assets to back it. It was effectively a success.
Im not seeing this is the answer but some form of hard currency is needed and Ron Paul is the candidate within an arses roar of facing up to facts.
Anyway I don't see the destruction of fiat currency as a question of choice here, more of a matter of time.
I am a very optimistic guy ;D
This is unbelievable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmm3i81v7SY&feature=related
Quote from: thejuice on January 29, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
This is unbelievable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmm3i81v7SY&feature=related
In other words, Israel paid me to say this.
Can someone explain the delegates and how they have a bearing on the Republican nominee. It seems its not just about winning states its winning delegates that matters.
And who is winning on that count?
Ronmey's winning the delegate count. Some states distribute them in proportion to vote share. Others have winner take all (I think that's also the case for the GOP). I'm assuming the total number available is based on population. Democrats also have superdelegates, but I don't think the Republicans do. At this stage, only Ronmey can realistically win the nomination via the delegate count.
Public Policy Polling . March 17-18. Illinois likely Republican primary voters. ±4.4%.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IL_318.pdf
Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?
Christian: 24
Muslim: 39
Not sure: 37
Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Was born in U.S.: 36
Not born in U.S.: 36
Not sure: 28
Do you believe in evolution, or not?
Believe in evolution: 41
Do not: 43
Not sure: 16
There should have been further question -
Do you believe the Earth is :
Flat
Round
Doesn't exist outside the US
QuoteDo you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?
Christian: 24
Muslim: 39
Not sure: 37
Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Was born in U.S.: 36
Not born in U.S.: 36
Not sure: 28
Do you believe in evolution, or not?
Believe in evolution: 41
Do not: 43
Not sure: 16
Ignorance is bliss
I'm quite impressed with Obama's support for gay marriages. Whether he does anything about is a different matter. It's basically handing the lunatic wing Republicans a rope so they can hang their own party.
What'll be next, he'll openly endorse the teaching of evolution as fact in all schools or maybe banning creationism?
Quote from: thejuice on May 10, 2012, 10:58:48 AM
I'm quite impressed with Obama's support for gay marriages. Whether he does anything about is a different matter. It's basically handing the lunatic wing Republicans a rope so they can hang their own party.
There's loads of lunatics with votes he's just after losing.
Granted he'll be getting the pink vote to offset this. California is in the (hand)bag!
They were never going to vote for him anyway. All this is doing is keeping the Republicans ugly side on show. This, the democrats hope will prevent much debate on the economy.
Quote from: thejuice on May 10, 2012, 10:58:48 AM
I'm quite impressed with Obama's support for gay marriages. Whether he does anything about is a different matter. It's basically handing the lunatic wing Republicans a rope so they can hang their own party.
What'll be next, he'll openly endorse the teaching of evolution as fact in all schools or maybe banning creationism?
He has changed his tune on gay marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4y6rF_ncAc&sns=em
About time he showed some balls and confirmed his support for gay marriage. If it costs him the votes of some bigots, so what?
Quote from: thejuice on May 10, 2012, 10:58:48 AM
I'm quite impressed with Obama's support for gay marriages. Whether he does anything about is a different matter. It's basically handing the lunatic wing Republicans a rope so they can hang their own party.
What'll be next, he'll openly endorse the teaching of evolution as fact in all schools or maybe banning creationism?
The problem is that the federal govt has decided it is a state issue and has no say over it. In this day and age you would think people would be more tolerant.
Of course,
I am just looking at it as a strategy to win an election. But I don't expect anything from it. That's all it is. Its a bone thrown at the Republicans now watch them rolling on the floor and gnashing their teeth.
Obama's a good campaigner but as a president not so much.
Quote from: thejuice on May 11, 2012, 09:26:21 AM
Obama's a good campaigner but as a president not so much.
still better than the crappy alternative candidate...
I'm not sure his announcement on gay marriage will have any significant impact electorally. It might turn off a few more 'conservative' Democrats, but not many. It's not as if gay people were voting in numbers for the Republicans, so it won't steal votes from there. The most it's likely to do is encourage some gay voters who might otherwise have stayed at home.
Get them to come out, so to speak?
It may not affect too many individual votes but it could affect enthusiasm and turn out. If the Republicans can get the evangelical voters fired up about "Obama is going to force everyone to accept gay marriage" then they may turn out in greater numbers.
The evangelical/conservative type would have a pretty robust voter turn out as it stands.