The American Politics thread

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The idea that anyone should pay the slightest attention to anything some Wall Street or Euro money market wanker has to say about what's best for the American people is ridiculous. I can't believe how quickly Americans seem to have forgotten the crap policy settings and mindsets which brought this on in the first place.

I have a soft spot for bankers.





The bottom of a swamp.

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The idea that anyone should pay the slightest attention to anything some Wall Street or Euro money market wanker has to say about what's best for the American people is ridiculous. I can't believe how quickly Americans seem to have forgotten the crap policy settings and mindsets which brought this on in the first place.

uh i'd think you find government regulation brought this on

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Haha, no it isn't. But I welcome that fight. I'll make you a bet Ikki: If Paul wins the nomination, I'll personally send you $200. Another $500 if he beats Obama. And I'm not even asking anything in return.

There it is, in CW. That's a promise and you can hold me to it.

Haha, cheers!

For the record, I don't think Paul is gonna walk it by any means. I am a supporter of his but I doubt he will get the nomination (he may get close) for the simple fact that he is too much of a threat to several big entities which practically rule the govt (big pharma, wall st, military industrial complex, etc). But I can guarantee if he doesn't get it then no other R stands a chance. The Paul fans (who are now a sizeable chunk of the party) won't vote for anyone but Paul - regardless if he runs as an Independent.

Originally Posted by Fusion

Ikki, I don't think you realize the depth of opposition in some segments of the Republican party to Paul. I hear the talk shows nearly every day, whether it be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or the local honchos in my city. The level of hostility and venom that is directed towards Paul by the Republican voters is only equal to what they dish out for Obama. The same line of attack is used against him as they would for Obama. "He blames America for 9/11!", "He's soft on terrorism and wants to give Muslims free reign to recruit and cause havoc!", "He's anti-Israel (the horror!) and pro Iran appeasement". There is no other Republican candidate that is as polarizing as him. You are kidding yourself if you think there wouldn't be a lack of enthusiasm in the Republican vote bank if by some miracle Paul is the Republican nominee.

The neo-cons hate Paul; but they hate Obama more. If you are listening you should know that quite well.

Also, you are underestimating how popular programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are in the US. Especially with the elderly, who form the bulk of the voting public here and are politically active. Once Obama and the Democrats start highlighting Paul's positions on those programs, he's toast!

You didn't seem to read my post: Paul is cutting spending elsewhere, like in military expenditure, to fund medicare/ss during his tenure. He is not getting rid of them. He will let people under a certain age opt out if they wish.

I will match the contribution if Paul beats Obama. Here's my prediction: if it's Obama vs. Paul, it will be the biggest electoral blowout in the history of the United States. The Reagan blowout of Carter will seem like kids stuff after that.

I think if Paul gets the nomination, he'd have come so far and his message would have gotten out far enough that it won't be seen as the kind of upset you think it is. The problem is getting the nomination and all that happening. Right now, you're right in a sense that the Rs aren't behind him; but in that scenario they would be.

Paul is practically the antithesis of Obama. When they debate, I don't think he'll attack Paul on things like civil liberties or the war because that's just an open invitation for Paul to show Obama as a fraud. He'll attack Paul on his social conservatism (the things that still apply) and Paul's responses will galvanise even the neo-con fanboys.

[silentstriker]

Haha yes. Those wacky government regulations forcing banks to create crazy derivatives. I hated when that law was passed requiring banks to make bets on toxic mortgages.

[silentstriker]

To ikki, if Paul runs as as independent, Obama wins. If he doesn't, I don't buy for a second that all those people will stay home and not vote. It just won't happen.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

To ikki, if Paul runs as as independent, Obama wins. If he doesn't, I don't buy for a second that all those people will stay home and not vote. It just won't happen.

Then you simply do not know the Paul supporters. They are far more likely to write him in than vote for another candidate, from either side.

As I said before, Paul is the antithesis of the others. His movement is one that propels forward because of how sick everyone is with the status quo. Those who back him and know his policies are intimate with the issues and his philosophies - free markets, the welfare/warfare state, etc. That is why there is a fervency there. Maybe some of the newer Paul converts will go back to the party, but there'll be a good 10-15% strong who won't budge.

Then there is the math. Paul gets a significant amount of support from Independents and Ds. That's why he stands a chance. Those supporters, without Paul, will not vote for another R. The only reason they are voting Paul in the first place is because it is Paul. They have no party allegiance to the Rs.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Haha yes. Those wacky government regulations forcing banks to create crazy derivatives. I hated when that law was passed requiring banks to make bets on toxic mortgages.

A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble - Forbes.com

The regulations aside; the Federal reserve keeping artificially low interest rates made things even worse. But that's what happens when you listen to Keynesian fanboys like Krugman.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Haha yes. Those wacky government regulations forcing banks to create crazy derivatives. I hated when that law was passed requiring banks to make bets on toxic mortgages.

Like the Basel accords and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Isn't there regulations forcing banks to lend to the poor also?

In the UK banks are still being told to lend to the poor. That's just the kind of things rich bankers use as an escuse to say 'I don't give a ****' if it fails as it's not my fault I was told to lend sub-prime.

[Redbacks]

"What are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and what do they do?"

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs). This means that they are privately owned, but receive support from the Federal Government, and assume some public responsibilities.

The GSEs provide a secondary market in home mortgages, purchasing mortgages from the lenders who originate them. They hold some of these mortgages, and some are "securitized" -- sold in the form of securities which the GSEs guarantee.

The two GSEs today are among the largest corporations in the world.

What Mortgages Do the GSEs Purchase?

"Conforming mortgages" as they are called consists of all home mortgages that meet the underwriting requirements of the agencies, and are no larger than the largest loan the GSEs are allowed by law to purchase. In 2003 the maximum was $322,700. It is raised every year in line with increases in home prices. The mortgages the GSEs can purchase account for roughly 80% of the conventional (non-FHA/VA) home loan market.

[Spark]

for some reason i just got this image of ron paul's head photoshopped onto a picture of jesus when reading ikki's last post.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Spark

for some reason i just got this image of ron paul's head photoshopped onto a picture of jesus when reading ikki's last post.

I don't believe in religion. Dawkins instead of Jesus

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Then you simply do not know the Paul supporters. They are far more likely to write him in than vote for another candidate, from either side.

Err you just pulled that out of nowhere. Ron Paul has run for president before more than once and his die hard fans who've been with him for years did not stay home.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Err you just pulled that out of nowhere. Ron Paul has run for president before more than once and his die hard fans who've been with him for years did not stay home.

Excuse me? Paul ran twice before with many years between his first and his second run. The first as a libertarian so it's irrelevant for this discussion. It is then a distinction between his second and third run.

I am not sure you are following much of the political discourse. Many articles are citing Paul's run in 08 as the reason why he is doing so well now. In 08 though, he didn't have this many supporters so his non-nomination was not going to affect the party like it will this year. His backing has doubled, if not tripled, amongst the Rs since then. As I said, he doesn't lose supporters; but has added to his efforts from 08. After his run in 08 he started the "Campaign for Liberty" which has been going strong since then. He has effectively been campaigning since the last election. Talk to Paul voters, you will see what I am saying is true.

Moreover, he practically started the Tea Party which has also grown since then (although, also grown away from his positions in some areas).

[Lostman]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Err you just pulled that out of nowhere. Ron Paul has run for president before more than once and his die hard fans who've been with him for years did not stay home.

tbh there is some differences now. Back in the day (i.e 4-6 years ago) Paul was viewed as the crazy/ whack job republican. Now along side the current crop of mental midgets he looks the sane one. I believe this would have an impact on his supporters in terms of voting for other candidates.

[silentstriker]

Ok but obviusly he wasn't thought like that by his die hard supporters. Who didn't all stay at home.

[Ikki]

Well yes. The above (Lostman) is true too. The political climate has changed. People didn't talk against bailouts, the fed, ending the wars (bar Obama), civil liberties and many other things then as they do now. That is because of all the things that have happened which have looked to make Paul far better as he predicted a lot of what came to fruition. He'd done it for his whole political career but the last few years the **** has hit the fan and his points are far more noteworthy. They aren't merely general philosophical differences in how government should act (war, social programs, etc) but are seen by his supporters as necessary actions to overturn what has come to fruition. None of the other candidates come close. And even more because of Obama's deception, people are less inclined to trust the other R nominees who mimic Paul on certain issues.

SS, you really need to talk to Paul supporters or visit some of his forums/sites. They will not vote for other candidates.