The Republican Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Several of Mike Huckabee's former top campaign assistants have now signed on with other candidates. This could be a sign that the former governor will forego the 2012 race.

a Bachmann run is going to be awesome. Palin 2.0: New, improved, and with more crazy!

Edited April 4, 2011 by Athomeboy_2000

[Jenksismyhero]

LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people.

 

Well, that's just false. You provide equal opportunity with what you can provide. You can't provide 2 loving parents to every kid out there, but what you can provide is a safe environment for him/her to grow up in and the means to attain an education. These are things that the government provides to everyone, regardless of your background. Sounds like you want equal results.

[Jenksismyhero]

LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people.

 

It also implicitly states, again, that anyone who isn't successful (eg median wage or better) doesn't work hard, made huge mistakes, isn't law-abiding or doesn't strive for a better life.

 

 

Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too.

[StrangeSox]

Well, that's just false. You provide equal opportunity with what you can provide. You can't provide 2 loving parents to every kid out there, but what you can provide is a safe environment for him/her to grow up in and the means to attain an education. These are things that the government provides to everyone, regardless of your background. Sounds like you want equal results.

 

Hmm, this assertion of yours doesn't fit with equally-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as whites.

 

This isn't about "what government provides" but if our economic system really rewards merit, is equal in any measurable way and if ss2k5's assertions about a social safety net being "enslavement" and budget gap problems being caused by taxing the rich too much.

 

edit: actually mostly this is in response to your terrible perception of why people are poor:

Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more.

 

Edited April 4, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too.

 

"Well, sorry, millions of hard-working poor, law-abiding Americans! You just had the horrible luck of being a minority and/or born into a lower economic class! But we swear, somehow our system rewards merit!"

[Jenksismyhero]

"Well, sorry, millions of hard-working poor, law-abiding Americans! You just had the horrible luck of being a minority and/or born into a lower economic class! But we swear, somehow our system rewards merit!"

 

Yeah, this argument does nothing for me. Both of my grandparents were poor farmers who made it on their own. They provided their kids with a better life, and the same for my parents to me. They didn't ask the government for a handout to "make it right" because their life was "unfair."

Edited April 4, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, this argument does nothing for me. Both of my grandparents were poor farmers who made it on their own. They provided their kids with a better life, and the same for my parents to me. They didn't ask the government for a handout to "make it right" because their life was "unfair."

 

You don't seem to be following the argument at all. This isn't necessarily about "government handouts" but about your ridiculous ideas that poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid criminals who don't want a better life and want to live off of welfare.

 

Also, personal anecdotes don't trump data.

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't seem to be following the argument at all. This isn't necessarily about "government handouts" but about your ridiculous ideas that poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid criminals who don't want a better life and want to live off of welfare.

 

Also, personal anecdotes don't trump data.

 

That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male that inherits land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work. I said that you overplay the "capitalism lottery" point since we're talking about a minority of people and that for the most part if you try in this world and stay out of trouble you'll be just fine. I never claimed you'd be guaranteed to be rich, I never claimed that the system we have is perfect, i'm just saying that if you do those things chances are pretty good that you'll be fine. That's true. So this idea that it all doesn't matter is bulls***.

 

And why is it so ridiculous to claim that poor people are poor for those reasons? That's true is it not? If you have a criminal record it's going to be more difficult to find a job, and therefore you're more likely to be poor. Same with being lazy.

 

Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male with land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work.

 

I did not make that claim and made explicit statements to the contrary.

 

I said that you overplay the "capitalism lottery" point since we're talking about a minority of people and that for the most part if you try in this world and stay out of trouble you'll be just fine.

 

The corollary of your argument is that (for the most part) if you aren't 'just fine', you must not have tried hard and stayed out of trouble. This again implies that the poor are mostly lazy, stupid criminals who just want to suck on the government tit. I've provided at least some support for my claims while you're just relying on your own opinion.

 

I never claimed you'd be guaranteed to be rich, I never claimed that the system we have is perfect, i'm just saying that if you do those things chances are pretty good that you'll be fine. That's true. So this idea that it all doesn't matter is bulls***.

 

Stating "that's true" doesn't make it so. And, again, I never said effort amount to nothing.

 

And why is it so ridiculous to claim that poor people are poor for those reasons? That's true is it not? If you have a criminal record it's going to be more difficult to find a job, and therefore you're more likely to be poor. Same with being lazy.

 

You are stereotyping tens of millions of Americans with your ignorant and insulting perception of why they're poor. Can being lazy lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). Can being a criminal lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). These are very, very far from being the only or leading causes of poverty.

Edited April 4, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people.

 

No, but you've stated that a majority of them are. You're hand-waving away millions of Americans who do bust their ass, do graduate high school or even college, do strive for a better life and are law-abiding yet still fail to climb out of poverty. And you're ignoring thousands of Americans born into a comfortable life who have to put in comparatively little effort to maintain or improve that quality of life.

[Jenksismyhero]

I did not make that claim and made explicit statements to the contrary.

 

 

 

The corollary of your argument is that (for the most part) if you aren't 'just fine', you must not have tried hard and stayed out of trouble. This again implies that the poor are mostly lazy, stupid criminals who just want to suck on the government tit. I've provided at least some support for my claims while you're just relying on your own opinion.

 

 

 

Stating "that's true" doesn't make it so. And, again, I never said effort amount to nothing.

 

You are stereotyping tens of millions of Americans with your ignorant and insulting perception of why they're poor. Can being lazy lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). Can being a criminal lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). These are very, very far from being the only or leading causes of poverty.

 

Ugh. I'm done. You're making s*** up at this point. If you're going to ignore what I've said then there's no point.

 

[StrangeSox]

But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more. And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit.

 

Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city.

 

And it's a BS point that people can't better their lives. People do that every single day. But it's the American problem - you actually have to work for it to get there. Who wants to do that when I can just point at someone else and scream "not fair!"

 

IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than the part about the "capitalism lottery." I don't think it's as harsh as you say it is. We're still talking about a minor chunk of societal pie here. My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life, regardless of how s***ty your home/family life is. Are there a ton of people who grow up in really s***ty situations? Absolutely. But governments role in that person's life is to (a) prevent that s***ty situation from happening as much as possible (safer streets, better schools, etc), and (B) assisting those that try but still fail.

 

It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want.

 

Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too.

 

That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male that inherits land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work. I said that you overplay the "capitalism lottery" point since we're talking about a minority of people and that for the most part if you try in this world and stay out of trouble you'll be just fine. I never claimed you'd be guaranteed to be rich, I never claimed that the system we have is perfect, i'm just saying that if you do those things chances are pretty good that you'll be fine. That's true. So this idea that it all doesn't matter is bulls***.

 

And why is it so ridiculous to claim that poor people are poor for those reasons? That's true is it not? If you have a criminal record it's going to be more difficult to find a job, and therefore you're more likely to be poor. Same with being lazy.

 

Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people.

 

Here, I've highlighted the places where you've stated or implied, over and over and over again, that a majority of poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid and/or criminals, that they've no drive to better themselves and are happier to collect government money than to work hard.

 

I haven't made anything up. These are your abhorrent ideas, in your own words and in context. Own up to them.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Cool it guys...still the filibuster, but that's more than crossing the personal attack line.

 

Edit: thread pruned of the stuff you guys should know better than. Threat gets a bit of a "cooldown" break at least.

[Balta1701]

Topic re-opened.

 

Be Excellent to each other. That's an order.

[StrangeSox]

What kind of %@##$% locks a thread!?!!

 

No seriously though Y2HH and I had a very civil discussion via PM and I think we both agreed that it was probably best before we both made one too many flippant/sarcastic insults at each other for SoxTalk's tastes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here, I've highlighted the places where you've stated or implied, over and over and over again, that a majority of poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid and/or criminals, that they've no drive to better themselves and are happier to collect government money than to work hard.

 

I haven't made anything up. These are your abhorrent ideas, in your own words and in context. Own up to them.

 

Yeah, I still stand behind what I'm saying. You're the one trying to peg me into an absolute position. You've ignored my multiple statements that there are still those people that do nothing wrong and that bad luck in life screws them. I've explained what I think government's role in that situation is. If you can't grasp that I've recognized the exception to the rule, then that's on you. Frankly I don't think that my statements are all that "ignorant" or "abhorrent." If you really don't think issues like crime or lack of education are a major factor in economic status, well, again, that's on you. But continue to pretend like your work ethic in life gets you no where. We should tell our kids not to try in school or have goals, cuz at the end of the day it just comes down to inheritance and luck right? So, whatever. I've said my peace.

[Y2HH]

What kind of %@##$% locks a thread!?!!

 

No seriously though Y2HH and I had a very civil discussion via PM and I think we both agreed that it was probably best before we both made one too many flippant/sarcastic insults at each other for SoxTalk's tastes.

 

Ahhhhh, thread reopened!

 

StrangeSox sucks.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Y2HH

[bigruss]

StrangeSox, does the data show the % of minorities unemployed filtered by specific degree areas? As someone who is a business student, I have had jobs a plenty for my taking even in this economy, because I was constantly improving myself and my resume. Some business students believe that just a degree will get you a job, that one will be handed to you and it's simply not true, but there are so many opportunities for people to take advantage of in college but they don't and they are behind many others by the time they graduate.

 

Also, I brought up the specific degrees because while business degrees may be getting hired right now, journalism degrees most likely aren't. Most of my friends who aren't business/engineering are having a much harder time to find jobs, so it is quite possible that minorities aren't as often going into fields that are in good demand right now.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure if I dug around enough I could find enrollment rates by area of study. The data I've seen only specifies level of education. Even at non-HS or HS graduate levels, minority unemployment is significantly higher. I would be surprised if minorities were so severely overrepresented in 'less demand' fields of higher education that it resulted in 100% increase in unemployment, though.

 

BTW, Y2HH is the WORST poster on the internets.

[southsider2k5]

I'm sure if I dug around enough I could find enrollment rates by area of study. The data I've seen only specifies level of education. Even at non-HS or HS graduate levels, minority unemployment is significantly higher. I would be surprised if minorities were so severely overrepresented in 'less demand' fields of higher education that it resulted in 100% increase in unemployment, though.

 

BTW, Y2HH is the WORST poster on the internets.

 

I would bet money that the difference falls right around the difference in convictions rates.

[StrangeSox]

Sure, institutionalized racism doesn't just apply to jobs.

[mr_genius]

StrangeSox, does the data show the % of minorities unemployed filtered by specific degree areas? As someone who is a business student, I have had jobs a plenty for my taking even in this economy, because I was constantly improving myself and my resume. Some business students believe that just a degree will get you a job, that one will be handed to you and it's simply not true, but there are so many opportunities for people to take advantage of in college but they don't and they are behind many others by the time they graduate.

 

Also, I brought up the specific degrees because while business degrees may be getting hired right now, journalism degrees most likely aren't. Most of my friends who aren't business/engineering are having a much harder time to find jobs, so it is quite possible that minorities aren't as often going into fields that are in good demand right now.

 

school reputation, degree type, program reputation, and internships play a huge role in someones ability to land a good job after graduation.

[southsider2k5]

Two pieces of good news in there...

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...n-florida-poll/

 

TRENDING: Obama, Palin get bad news in Florida poll

By: CNN Political Producer Alexander Mooney

 

 

Washington (CNN) - Dogged by a 34 percent approval rating among independents in Florida, a new poll out Monday indicates President Barack Obama would have a tough time beating either Republicans Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in that crucial campaign state.

 

According to the new survey from Sachs/Mason Dixon, Obama trails both past and potential presidential 2012 candidates in head-to-head matchups in the Sunshine State, losing to Romney, the former Massacusetts governor, by a 48-43 percent margin and lagging behind Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, by a 49-44 percent spread.

 

Among all voters, Obama's approval rating in the Sunshine State stands at 43 percent, with 56 percent saying they are unhappy with his performance as commander-in-chief. That's consistent with a Quinnipiac University survey released last week that placed Obama's approval rating at 44 percent in the Sunshine state. The Quinnipiac survey also indicates that just over half of Florida voters don't think the president deserves re-election.

 

The new Florida poll may save its worst findings for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who loses to the president by a sizable 51-39 margin. That's a worse showing than business mogul Donald Trump, who lags 8 points behind Obama with a 48-40 percent spread.

 

In even worse news for Palin, the onetime GOP vice presidential nominee places sixth with only 5 percent of support among registered Republicans when it comes to the horserace for the GOP primary in Florida, behind Huckabee at 23 percent, Romney at 18 percent, Trump at 13 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 11 percent, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 8 percent.

 

The poll surveyed 800 registered Florida voters from April 4-7 and carries a sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. For the Republican primary breakdown, the poll surveyed 400 Republicans and carries a sampling error of 5 percentage points.

 

The survey comes as the Florida Republican Party is currently in a heated debate with other state parties over when it will hold its presidential primary. The state, per an official calendar adopted by the national party, had been slated to hold its nominating contest in March, behind the traditional first four – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

 

But Florida Republicans bucked that request earlier this year when it leapfrogged those states, saying they will conduct their primary on January 31, 2012, in direct violation of the calendar ratified last year by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, which carved out February for the official start of the nomination fight.

 

But amid heavy criticism from national Republicans and those of other primary states, Republican Party of Florida chairman Dave Bitner indicated last month he is open to moving the state's primary date back behind the traditional four.

 

Florida has famously see-sawed between the Democrats and Republicans in recent presidential elections: Obama carried the state by 3 percentage points in 2008 while former President George W. Bush won there by 5 points in 2004. And of course, Bush barely won the state in 2000 after a drawn-out recount.

[Jenksismyhero]

Two pieces of good news in there...

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...n-florida-poll/

 

My "republican" party is so f***ed when Huckabee and Trump score better than Newt and Pawlenty.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

My "republican" party is so f***ed when Huckabee and Trump score better than Newt and Pawlenty.

Don't read a thing into this type of poll this far out. Seriously. The Obama approval rating might be meaningful, but there's still 8+ months before Florida votes and 95% of the candidates haven't announced yet. The low numbers for Palin might also be meaningful since she's been such a national figure. The others?

 

Trump is up at the top because he has name recognition amongst low-information voters. Huckabee campaigned there last time and there's a hangover.

 

At this point in 2007, Rudy 91u1iani was out to a total and insurmountable lead. He wound up spending $50 million per delegate that he won.