Turnout in 2012

[pbrower2a]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want. 

As if the Hard Right has any modesty about its contention that it offers wish-fulfillment for the masses. Let's see - people have a snobbish attachment to powerful elites; they fall for Biblical literalism; they are xenophobic, racist, religious bigots; they are motivated only by their basest interests...just promise people prosperity and they don't care about the human cost.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes the Right is more capable of riling people up while hiding the ugliness of the agenda. But failure can be a speculative boom that goes bust, a war for control of economic resources that proves costlier than the resources to be made cheap, and callous treatment of the common man. I would be careful about packaging an appeal that offers prosperity but doesn't say for whom and doesn't account for human costs.

By the way -- what you considered "the Left" got a chance when Dubya failed.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mario Rubio won because

(1) he won against a divided center-left
(2) the Hard Right did excellent messaging in 2010, hiding a secret agenda of its anointed 'saviors'
(3) the President did not campaign
(4) the Hard Right was unified and well-funded
(5) the economy was a mess

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He has tried to offer compromises. Those have worked badly against politicians who believe as their wire-pullers dictate (All For the Few) who want a Christian and Corporate State. These people prefer a failure of this President to any economic recovery or social justice because they want their  'new America' to resemble a fascist or feudal order.

People don't trust shareholders and executives any more now than they did in 2006.  The GOP is wildly unpopular because of the antics of people who want tax cuts for elites irrespective of harm to the non-rich. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullhist. He isn't Fidel Castro. In any event Marx describes capitalism (even if the wealth is fairly-evenly distributed) in any form as a pathological social order doomed to catastrophic failure that leads to an inevitable revolution in the name of the working classes. In any event, certain social realities favor a Marxist revolution:

1. No democracy
2. Extreme concentration of wealth and income
3. Excessive centralization of political power and economic activity
4. Mass poverty
5. Corrupt, unresponsive government
6. Breakdown of the social order

The Hard Right would impose all but the last... and it is only a matter of time before it causes some  economic calamity or provokes a war for profit that ends up a military debacle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea who will win the American League championship this year. Nobody has any idea of how fully the Hard Right can flood the marketplace of ideas with Orwellian propaganda. and whther Americans will respond. What worked in 2010 might fail in 2012 because the electorate just might hold the politicians successful in 2010 to account in 2012. Promise more of the same of what got no good results... and fail. 

[King]

Pbrower sort of alludes to it, but if Obama's policies were Marxist, then he wouldn't be Marxist. Marx portrayed communism as a natural progression of society that occurs. First, you have feudal economy, then you grow in capitalism, then socialism at the hands of either revolution or appeasement of popular support, and then it falls into communist system, which really has no government.

There is nothing remotely Marxist about Obamacare or an infrastructure bank. Marx would probably label that as more proletariat distraction by the capitalist powers.

Obama's proposals are what normal Presidents do: deficit spend in recession, then tax and cut spending in economic times of strengh. It's what the Republicans will also do in power, hence why I'm not really worried other than Perry and Bachmann are nails-on-chalkboard annoying, regardless of what you blindly believe they will do.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Nhmagic, have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? If you are going to claim Obama follows the teachings of Karl Marx, you should at least know what those teachings are.  Otherwise, you are just making an assumption.

In fact, you can't really say you are against writings you haven't even read, either.

Actually yes I have and I can say I am against those writings.  In addition, I've even read many analyses about the Marxian view of public administration - being a grad student in the subject myself.  However, I'm not going play 20 questions with liberals on this board in order to prove my competence.  It's a tactic used to marginalize and smear people.  I don't participate in it.  "Follows the teachings" is hyperbole.  I freely admit it, but this is the internet, a place where it's fun to engage in hyperbole.  President Obama does agree with much of the subject matter within the Communist Manifesto.  In fact, to pun, it's "manifest" within his own rhetoric and the policy choices he makes.  So when I use the phrase "follows the teachings", I use it to a)make it sound dark and malevolent (kind of like Anakin following the teachings of Palpatine, as that is how I feel about it) and b)to illustrate that he indeed does hold a worldview that is relatively in line with Marx.

Source or gtfo.

[pbrower2a]

Pbrower sort of alludes to it, but if Obama's policies were Marxist, then he wouldn't be Marxist. Marx portrayed communism as a natural progression of society that occurs. First, you have feudal economy, then you grow in capitalism, then socialism at the hands of either revolution or appeasement of popular support, and then it falls into communist system, which really has no government.

Marx' interpretation of history is of course bunk, and anyone not a Marxist so recognizes if he has any sophistication at all. He may have gotten a few things right, but all in all, proletarian revolutions are most likely to occur where capitalism is a moral failure -- something that creates economic growth, but only for the few at the expense of the many. To be sure, there have been cases of such, but Marx underestimate the willingness of capitalists to survive by making compromises with the proletariat. Marx failed to recognize that capitalists would make an economic market out of the proletariat -- a market for cars, furniture, appliances, and non-slum housing -- and create the impression of upward mobility through merit on the job or by becoming capitalists while putting an end to the resentment that workers might have toward ownership and management. He is useful now only for discussing the final stage of human economic development -- that in which most human needs are easily met, whether a polity has 'successfully' achieved 'socialism' or has evaded it altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Capitalism has one ultimate strength: that it believes in noting other than its own survival. It can adapt. It can survive strong unions, collective bargaining, technological change, cultural change, and ethnic or religious shifts. American capitalism could survive mass conversions of Americans to some vastly-different religious heritage. What it can't protect is bad business practices that themselves create failure.


'Obamacare' is offered as a reform of what may be the worst system of finanace of medical care in the industrialized world, a cost-loading system that makes American industrial production more costly than industrial production anywhere else on behalf of the medical-industrial complex. The medical system ensures that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription medicine, pays the highest rates for medical treatment, and imposes a bad system of elder-care.  We have to pay our physicians and nurses far more than the world average because they have the highest-cost educations that imply huge indebtendness to
lenders (supply and demand strikes again in a cost-loading system that decides that certain groups 'need' special breaks as privileged industries). No country has the built-in costs of our medical-care system that supposedly needs the high revenue to spur advances. We pay for a Mercedes-Benz and get a Chevrolet Impala. That's not to say that a Chevrolet Impala is a bad car -- it is just that you don't want to pay for it what you would pay for a Mercedes-Benz or even a Cadillac.

Speaking of the home country for Mercedes-Benz... German physicians earn much less than American physicians. But the German physician as a rule has gone through the educational system on heavily-subsidized schooling past the equivalent of the American high school and doesn't have the lenders to pay off. We see many foreign physicians and nurses in America -- but they aren't Germans. Maybe the Germans like their system, and maybe they don't like ours in which one has to negotiate with an insurance company before getting a procedure done. Physicians as a rule are lousy businessmen, and they shouldn't be expected to be effective negotiators or clerks.

The largest vendor to General Motors is... Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Medical costs are lower in Canada than in the US, which explains why much industrial work in the US has gone to Canada. That is no Third World country.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't say what Marx would say and neither can you. I'm more likely to consider that the survival instinct. If profits are to be derived from liberal efforts to reform capitalism, then some capitalists will jump in. Recovery efforts can be very profitable; they must be for those capitalists who are to be the contractors or suppliers. Nobody says that any contemporary equivalent of a New Deal can succeed if it fails to create profits as well as jobs.

But this is worth noting -- what President has been in the White House during the greatest privatization of industry? Barack Obama. Selling off government investments in the auto industry and others has been the mark of someone loyal to capitalism. Sure, that undoes the effect of the financial coup of 2008. Results and image can diverge greatly; Dubya was the epitome of the 'pro-business' politician.  
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is normal and necessary. But I look at the record of Rick Perry in Texas, and Texas-style Big Government is best described as crony capitalism. Sure, I despise crony capitalism; it implies massive corruption because those best connected to the Leadership get the choice of what to leave as table scraps for the rest of humanity after grabbing everything in sight and making all but themselves dependent and helpless.

...All in all, people can turn out in huge numbers to cast off unpopular politicians (Congress) as they can turn out in diluted numbers because the President hasn't achieved everything that he promised. 2012 stands to act as much a referendum on Tea Party politicians who won big in 2010 as on the President. People now know as they didn't recognize in 2010 that Congress is no less important than the President, especially when Congress is as polarized in ideology as it now is. I can imagine the vote going down in districts best described as R+10 or D+10 or more severe in partisan identity -- places where one Party has a lock on electing officials. But where the Republican is in a D+3 or even R+3 district but acts like the sort of Republican who would well fit an R+20 district... you might see local spikes in the vote. Any prediction of the vote in 2012 is now an excessively-precise effort in view of much that lies outside of realities that one usually can predict. We are in uncharted territory; the comforting realities of what we may have recently experienced may no longer be available.

[Disarray]

Non-whites joining the middle class instead of "knowing their (subordinate and deprived) places".

 

Are you kidding? That's not a right-wing fear, that's a left-wing fear. Keeping non-whites in the ghetto is requisite for them to continue voting 90% Democratic. Look what happened with so-called white ethnics (that are now hilariously often called Anglos, just like they are WASPs) once they joined the middle class.

Those dam poor ghetto Asian's!

[nhmagic]

Pbrower sort of alludes to it, but if Obama's policies were Marxist, then he wouldn't be Marxist. Marx portrayed communism as a natural progression of society that occurs. First, you have feudal economy, then you grow in capitalism, then socialism at the hands of either revolution or appeasement of popular support, and then it falls into communist system, which really has no government.

There is nothing remotely Marxist about Obamacare or an infrastructure bank. Marx would probably label that as more proletariat distraction by the capitalist powers.

Obama's proposals are what normal Presidents do: deficit spend in recession, then tax and cut spending in economic times of strengh. It's what the Republicans will also do in power, hence why I'm not really worried other than Perry and Bachmann are nails-on-chalkboard annoying, regardless of what you blindly believe they will do.

Oh no, so you dont think he has centralized student loan credit within the state. There are so many things that meet Marx's short term demands: government ownership of various industries (GM is a great example), centralization of communication (net neutrality, an attempt to take over the internet), centralization of transportation (development of high speed rail).

The process doesn't have to occur naturally just because Marx said so.  Obama is in the position to move the process along.  Perhaps he disagrees with a natural progression.  He is not able to gobble up everything, but he is certainly able to work the gears.  His rhetoric is full of class warfare (corporate businessmen with high speed jets, etc.).  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)"...

The communist party of America endorsed Obama.  His mother was a communist sympathizer.  His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the US communist party.

And of course...his own book: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated"

And before someone brings up factcheck.org on the context of this quote, no I dont see this as a product of Obama being racially insecure.

I don't believe in Perry or Bachmann to truly change things in this country.  I'm cynical and becoming even more so by the day.  Im done with the Bushes, the Obamas or anyone in power who cannot clearly see that we need a drastic cut of government spending and repayment of the complete debt in order to save this country from its own destruction.

[King]

High speed rail is not socialism. Socialism is wealth distribution. The government being involved in transportation infrastructure is basic service that existed far before Marx was even born.

Federalizing student loans actually made the government smaller. Before, the feds paid money for "private" companies to stay afloat just to loan out federal funds. Now, it's streamlined so interest rates can be lower.

What's next? Complaining about the socialization of public waters?

All your simpleton posts do is confirm my point that your political positions are non-strategic and counter things that have existed since the beginning of time. Republicans are not going be against of those things when they are in power and not holding contrarian positions for the sake of politics.

[King]

Oh, and if you think  this country is heading toward destruction because of ANYTHING you mentioned, then you're an idiot.  I've never seen a country fail out of anything but political unrest. YOU are a source of unrest. YOU are destroying the country more than any freakin' train project.

[nhmagic]

High speed rail is not socialism. Socialism is wealth distribution. The government being involved in transportation infrastructure is basic service that existed far before Marx was even born.

Federalizing student loans actually made the government smaller. Before, the feds paid money for "private" companies to stay afloat just to loan out federal funds. Now, it's streamlined so interest rates can be lower.

What's next? Complaining about the socialization of public waters?

All your simpleton posts do is confirm my point that your political positions are non-strategic and counter things that have existed since the beginning of time. Republicans are not going be against of those things when they are in power and not holding contrarian positions for the sake of politics.

High speed rail isn't socialism - you are correct sir.  However, it is part of a planned transition along the lines of Marx's demands.  Socialism is wealth redistribution - you are correct again.  However, Barack Obama supports wealth redistribution and redistribution of quality health care.  It is necessary for government involvement in infrastructure - this I agree with.  Again, you are not seeing the whole picture of what he is doing.  He's planning for the eventual dominion over every aspect of people's lives.

I don't believe for a second that the Obamacare provision on student loans was ever meant to "make the government smaller".  That happened to be a practical benefit that occured independently of the actual motive for the provision.

I'm not a simpleton King and I don't care for your assertion that my speech is destroying the country.  I don't have anything personal against liberals (even liberals like you King because I have friends just like you) like you obviously do against conservatives.  I have liberal friends I love.  It seems that you are only interested in hatred.  I welcome criticism of politicians however.

The country is heading toward destruction because we have spent too much money through policies of redistribution and confiscation of wealth.  In addition, we have spread ourselves too thin in conflicts abroad.  We have also allowed people to trash Christianity, patriotism and our morality by allowing our youth/material obsessed culture to merge with a hostile world culture via their tiny trinkets and electronic gadgets.

[Politico]

Nationwide, government-run, high speed rail would be an abject failure just like most other government-run projects. It would make the Boston Big Dig project look like a resounding success.

[Politico]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

[King]

High speed rail isn't socialism - you are correct sir.  However, it is part of a planned transition along the lines of Marx's demands.  Socialism is wealth redistribution - you are correct again.  However, Barack Obama supports wealth redistribution and redistribution of quality health care.  It is necessary for government involvement in infrastructure - this I agree with.  Again, you are not seeing the whole picture of what he is doing.  He's planning for the eventual dominion over every aspect of people's lives.

I don't believe for a second that the Obamacare provision on student loans was ever meant to "make the government smaller".  That happened to be a practical benefit that occured independently of the actual motive for the provision.

I'm not a simpleton King and I don't care for your assertion that my speech is destroying the country.  I don't have anything personal against liberals (even liberals like you King because I have friends just like you) like you obviously do against conservatives.  I have liberal friends I love.  It seems that you are only interested in hatred.  I welcome criticism of politicians however.

The country is heading toward destruction because we have spent too much money through policies of redistribution and confiscation of wealth.  In addition, we have spread ourselves too thin in conflicts abroad.  We have also allowed people to trash Christianity, patriotism and our morality by allowing our youth/material obsessed culture to merge with a hostile world culture via their tiny trinkets and electronic gadgets.

I'm not a liberal, but alright. 

I'm a man who is against radicalism.  Teabaggers are openly admitting to radical ideas.  Obama hasn't done anything radical.  You even admit all your fears are based on a superstition of what you think Obama wants to do rather than what Obama proposes and actually does (transportation, student loans, etc--which I believe you just said are sensible things to do).

I see the big picture completely.  You are imagining one that is simply not there. 

Tea Party politicians, who want to slash trillions in federal funds blindly and end government programs that have existed for decades if not centuries because they are too chickensh**t to pay taxes, don't even need a big picture for someone to see what is proposed by them to be horrifying.  They have no plan.  They have no strategy for this country.  They just want to do things--things that serious governments do not do.   

At the same time, these same politicians also hold incredibly big government social positions.  Government cannot control every aspect of people's lives with a train or health insurance plan.  I don't go to the doctor more than once or twice a year.  Right-wing social laws are far more anti-American and destructive.

[Dizzun]

The Hard Right will go out to vote, driven by a fear of an America going into a direction that it dreads. Gay marriage. Non-whites joining the middle class instead of "knowing their (subordinate and deprived) places". Abortion. Evolution. No school prayer. Black helicopters.  The Feds taking away all firearms. And, unspoken, a black man as President of the United States, the ultimate slap on white supremacy. Much of it is subconscious, but it works on gullible, scared people who fall for reactionary and even fascist causes.

But will the rest of us? In 2010 the Obama coalition got complacent and ignored that Congress matters as much as does the President in passing legislation. Americans have gotten a hard civics lesson that they won't forget. What has the Hard Right done for anyone not a big financial backer? Its political fronts are unpopular -- especially the Tea Party which seems to have taken over the Republican Party.

Liberals and progressives know that to save their political skins they must organize in 2012 and must get a coherent message out. They are taking nothing for granted this time. They know what a Hard Right America will be -- either a fascist nightmare or a federation of Tara-like plantations with high technology. In 2010 I noticed that the liberals and progressives were badly unorganized. Such will not likely be so in 2012.

In 2008 Barack Obama had a superb GOTV campaign that Democratic politicians latched onto and won with. In 2010 there was no such campaign. In 2012 it will be back. The President will need it.

 

I don't think I've ever read such a huge dump of ignorant rambling ever before in my entire life.

[5280]

The Hard Right will go out to vote, driven by a fear of an America going into a direction that it dreads. Gay marriage. Non-whites joining the middle class instead of "knowing their (subordinate and deprived) places". Abortion. Evolution. No school prayer. Black helicopters.  The Feds taking away all firearms. And, unspoken, a black man as President of the United States, the ultimate slap on white supremacy. Much of it is subconscious, but it works on gullible, scared people who fall for reactionary and even fascist causes.

But will the rest of us? In 2010 the Obama coalition got complacent and ignored that Congress matters as much as does the President in passing legislation. Americans have gotten a hard civics lesson that they won't forget. What has the Hard Right done for anyone not a big financial backer? Its political fronts are unpopular -- especially the Tea Party which seems to have taken over the Republican Party.

Liberals and progressives know that to save their political skins they must organize in 2012 and must get a coherent message out. They are taking nothing for granted this time. They know what a Hard Right America will be -- either a fascist nightmare or a federation of Tara-like plantations with high technology. In 2010 I noticed that the liberals and progressives were badly unorganized. Such will not likely be so in 2012.

In 2008 Barack Obama had a superb GOTV campaign that Democratic politicians latched onto and won with. In 2010 there was no such campaign. In 2012 it will be back. The President will need it.

 

I don't think I've ever read such a huge dump of ignorant rambling ever before in my entire life.

That's pbrower for you.  He does make some good points however, but feel free to disagree.

[Averroës Nix]

User nhmagic accused me of playing "twenty questions" before, and I'm really not interested in anything that he or she has said at this point. But I want to repeat the one question I asked him or her that is most germane to this topic.

Honestly speaking, would you (or, generally speaking, people similar to you) not be voting under other circumstances?

This topic has, unfortunately, turned into a discussion of President Obama's Marxist credentials. Look, however you feel about that, it is undoubtedly the case that plenty of people (including nhmagic) do believe a number of extraordinary and highly negative claims about President Obama. Polling on Tea Party membership, though, has shown that this is a relatively politically engaged, upper-income, educated and white group. These people have always voted - in large numbers, and for Republicans.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

[nhmagic]

User nhmagic accused me of playing "twenty questions" before, and I'm really not interested in anything that he or she has said at this point. But I want to repeat the one question I asked him or her that is most germane to this topic.

Honestly speaking, would you (or, generally speaking, people similar to you) not be voting under other circumstances?

This topic has, unfortunately, turned into a discussion of President Obama's Marxist credentials. Look, however you feel about that, it is undoubtedly the case that plenty of people (including nhmagic) do believe a number of extraordinary and highly negative claims about President Obama. Polling on Tea Party membership, though, has shown that this is a relatively politically engaged, upper-income, educated and white group. These people have always voted - in large numbers, and for Republicans.

Quite possibly yes. If Obamacare and Financial Reform had not passed and republicans still won control of the house, I would probably not oppose him in the manner I do.  If he were like Clinton, then I could have even voted for him for his second term.  I am a low income, highly educated, white guy who is somewhat active.

[nhmagic]

High speed rail isn't socialism - you are correct sir.  However, it is part of a planned transition along the lines of Marx's demands.  Socialism is wealth redistribution - you are correct again.  However, Barack Obama supports wealth redistribution and redistribution of quality health care.  It is necessary for government involvement in infrastructure - this I agree with.  Again, you are not seeing the whole picture of what he is doing.  He's planning for the eventual dominion over every aspect of people's lives.

I don't believe for a second that the Obamacare provision on student loans was ever meant to "make the government smaller".  That happened to be a practical benefit that occured independently of the actual motive for the provision.

I'm not a simpleton King and I don't care for your assertion that my speech is destroying the country.  I don't have anything personal against liberals (even liberals like you King because I have friends just like you) like you obviously do against conservatives.  I have liberal friends I love.  It seems that you are only interested in hatred.  I welcome criticism of politicians however.

The country is heading toward destruction because we have spent too much money through policies of redistribution and confiscation of wealth.  In addition, we have spread ourselves too thin in conflicts abroad.  We have also allowed people to trash Christianity, patriotism and our morality by allowing our youth/material obsessed culture to merge with a hostile world culture via their tiny trinkets and electronic gadgets.

I'm not a liberal, but alright. 

I'm a man who is against radicalism.  Teabaggers are openly admitting to radical ideas.  Obama hasn't done anything radical.  You even admit all your fears are based on a superstition of what you think Obama wants to do rather than what Obama proposes and actually does (transportation, student loans, etc--which I believe you just said are sensible things to do).

I see the big picture completely.  You are imagining one that is simply not there. 

Tea Party politicians, who want to slash trillions in federal funds blindly and end government programs that have existed for decades if not centuries because they are too chickensh**t to pay taxes, don't even need a big picture for someone to see what is proposed by them to be horrifying.  They have no plan.  They have no strategy for this country.  They just want to do things--things that serious governments do not do.   

At the same time, these same politicians also hold incredibly big government social positions.  Government cannot control every aspect of people's lives with a train or health insurance plan.  I don't go to the doctor more than once or twice a year.  Right-wing social laws are far more anti-American and destructive.

Yes he has done radical things.  Obamacare and Financial Reform, and you may not feel those are radical for whatever reason, but they are.  The reason why I accused you of being a liberal because of the way you attacked me personally in an earlier post.  It's what they do. 

I'm not a teabagger (an offensive term btw).  I'm someone who has watched family and friends suffer the last four years.  I have watched people lose their jobs.  I have also seen scum taking advantage of government programs.  Irregardless, tea party ideas are not radical.  Some (not all) republicans do have a plan, with simple principles and big policy changes.  You may not like it, but no one would ever be able to convince you to support real change for the better. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If anyone thinks Reagan stands a chance in this decade they are truly out of touch.  Sorry if you think he has a chance, but he would be a 1% candidate.

[Politico]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

[krazen1211]

Turnout of course even in tomorrow's elections will be fine. The problem is that even 30% of Democrats are not willing to vote for an Obama or an Obama flunkie anymore.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

His philosophy isn't being embraced by the GOP, his name is (corporate tax increase, amnesty, a near tripling of the debt, etc).  John McCain received the nomination likely due to the historical precedent of the GOP base selecting the next-in-line.

Even so I still agree with your initial point that the country is not as conservative as the 80s or the 90s.  So even if the current GOP candidates were equivalent to Reagan they would still face major obstacles.

Maybe you're right about the nomination, the cult-of-personality with Reagan is so prevalent that he could call for an across the board tax increase to fight the debt and the GOP base would be satisfied with it.

[Politico]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

His philosophy isn't being embraced by the GOP, his name is (corporate tax increase, amnesty, a near tripling of the debt, etc).  John McCain received the nomination likely due to the historical precedent of the GOP base selecting the next-in-line.

Even so I still agree with your initial point that the country is not as conservative as the 80s or the 90s.  So even if the current GOP candidates were equivalent to Reagan they would still face major obstacles.

Maybe you're right about the nomination, the cult-of-personality with Reagan is so prevalent that he could call for an across the board tax increase to fight the debt and the GOP base would be satisfied with it.

I think you, and the rest of the people who are trying to label Reagan as some sort of massive tax hiker, really have no concept of what America was like in the late 1970s compared to after Reagan. Just take a look at a table of historical income tax rates some time.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

His philosophy isn't being embraced by the GOP, his name is (corporate tax increase, amnesty, a near tripling of the debt, etc).  John McCain received the nomination likely due to the historical precedent of the GOP base selecting the next-in-line.

Even so I still agree with your initial point that the country is not as conservative as the 80s or the 90s.  So even if the current GOP candidates were equivalent to Reagan they would still face major obstacles.

Maybe you're right about the nomination, the cult-of-personality with Reagan is so prevalent that he could call for an across the board tax increase to fight the debt and the GOP base would be satisfied with it.

I think you, and the rest of the people who are trying to label Reagan as some sort of massive tax hiker, really have no concept of what America was like in the late 1970s compared to after Reagan. Just take a look at a table of historical income tax rates some time.

Where did I say he was a massive tax hiker?  I said he raised taxes, which you admitted.  That is a historical fact.  It is also a fact that the current GOP candidates are against any tax increase.  

Do you think a GOP candidate could survive this primary if he said "time to raise taxes somewhat"?  No way, they would be a bottom-tier candidate.  The Reagan-myth is what the GOP candidates are idolizing as opposed Reagan-reality.  

You may very well be right that Reagan himself as a figure could win, likely due to his personality, but if you were to take 100% of his stances and policies and give them to Romney he would stand no chance, none.

This entire debate started when I agreed with you when you said the country was not as conservative as the 80s and I agree with that.  So why would you even want to use the Reagan policy positions with that being the hypothesis?  Moving to the left would be best for the GOP chances in the general, not the right