81–90 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not. If you ever visit, it's pretty clear where each economic group lives. Practically anyone with money who works in DC lives in VA or MD. DC has the highest ghetto per capita in the world.
> DC has the highest ghetto per capita in the world. Do you have a source for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform. That's because it's correct, depending on what you mean by 'middle road Democrat'. Nixon created the EPA, created OSHA, signed Title IX into existence, ended the Vietnam war, and endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, which nevertheless failed to pass. He couldn't have done a lot of thos…
The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes…
Obama's actually for all of those except for DoMa, and it took him until this year to finally come out in support of gay marriage. Obama has signed free trade agreements, cut the growth of discretionary spending, and hasn't attempted to touch Clinton's welfare reform (aside from granting states waivers that republican governors had been asking for).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party No, only by the illogic of false equivalence. Obama is for "free" trade, directly said multiple times that he was against gay marriage until recently, is running on a platform to cut Social Security, and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. In other words, Bill Clinton…
is running on a platform to cut Social Security, Citation needed. and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. As of Jan 2009, there were 2,790,000 federal employees. There are now 2,814,000. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt Maybe you mean he didn't increase the number of government jobs as fast as was projected?
Anwyays, you're smart enough to know that flatlining is effectively a cut, relative to population and inflation. Certainly relative to every other recent president, Reagan and Bush very much included. And relative to Romney's plan to increase military spending (guess how many of those 2.8M are military or homeland security employees).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes…
* because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending* Obama's actually for all of those except for DoMa, and it took him until this year to finally come out in support of gay marriage. Obama has signed free trade agreements, cut the growth of discretionary spending, and hasn't attempted to touch Clinton's welfare reform (aside from granting sta…
It's silly to claim that a modern Reagan wouldn't fit well enough within the Republican and American mainstreams to be nominated, and those links don't provide real evidence otherwise. Shocking: Reagan wasn't a hard and fast ideologue. But a hard and fast ideologue isn't going to be nominated by the Republican party today, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending* Obama's actually for all of those except for DoMa, and it took him until this year to finally come out in support of gay marriage. Obama has signed free trade agreements, cut the growth of discretionary spending, and hasn't attempted to touch Clinton's welfare reform (aside from granting sta…
That's my point. The two big political parties nominate candidates within the broad consensus of American politics, for the most part. Or at least the candidates that get elected have to govern largely along that consensus in order to get anything done. Remember, then-Senator Obama campaigned on "renegotiating NAFTA" and generally called it a bad deal for the American worker. He was also "not a big fan" of welfare re…
Reagan's positions and what he did in office are completely incompatible with Republicans today. A budget deal with democrats that raises taxes? Tough love on Israel occasionally?
I'm not saying Reagan wouldn't have been able to be elected, but he'd have to be a different Reagan to get the nomination. A hard and fast ideologue or, in the worst case, someone who makes the appropriate noises and can beat Newt Gingrich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 70% in San Jose County Santa Clara County? :-) > LA County Sorry, I guess we're a bit overly fussy out here. That one would be Los Angeles County. (Not that you couldn't call it LA County, just doesn't sound quite right. It's not uncommon to abbreviate the city to LA, but not so much the county.)
Not only irrelevant, but also wrong. We say "LA County" all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't that they're "the same". It's that they're the same _where it matters_. That they are both bought and paid for by the same corporate money. Where do the hundreds of millions to fund the campaigns come from? You don't think that those interests might, you know, want something in return? All mainstream political "discussion" is simply a distraction from the true issues. To think anything else is just na…
>It's that they're the same _where it matters_. Quite frankly, that's bullshit. Romney/Ryan advocate a rollback of my rights and continued (or furthered) discrimination against me. That's only one small social issue that they differ on and they differ on policies that involve much more substantive issues. Maybe you're privileged or fortunate enough to not be affected by tax rates, women's rights legislation, gay righ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's that they're the same _where it matters_. Quite frankly, that's bullshit. Romney/Ryan advocate a rollback of my rights and continued (or furthered) discrimination against me. That's only one small social issue that they differ on and they differ on policies that involve much more substantive issues. Maybe you're privileged or fortunate enough to not be affected by tax rates, women's rights legislation, gay righ…
What rights did you gain under the Obama administration that you would lose under a Romney administration? How would Romney discriminate against you in a way that Obama would not?
How clueless are people about social issues exactly?
I would love to be able to switch to a visualization where each state is tracked by color according to how it votes now . (Or even better, starting at a random date.) That would make the great long-term swap between Republicans and Democrats much more obvious. Yes, we can mouse-over. But you can't easily mouse-over, scroll, and keep the mouse-over going.
I wish we could click on a state and it would stay highlighted. That would be much easier, in my opinion.