This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gallup Predicts A Ruling Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating
Gallup presents some troubling statistics for the democrats as we approach mid-term elections (a mere three months away). In a nutshell, the party of a president who has a sub-50% rating into midterms, has lost, on average, 36 seats since 1946. Alternatively, presidents with a popularity rating over 50%, lose just 14. As Gallup says: "The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama's approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control."
Of course, the administration (and its dwindling members) is well-aware of this fact, which is why the next three months will likely see a record amount of pandering, populism and outright manipulation of everything that can be manipulated: that includes mortgages rates, and of course, stocks. Which leads us to observe the calendar of FOMC meetings until November: there are two - tomorrow and September 21. However, for a Fed loosening decision to have a material impact, the September meeting is likely cutting it too close to the election date, as the market will likely not have enough time to digest a favorable outcome, or in turn will be into its reactionary phase by the time November rolls around. Furthermore, the traditionally busy post-Labor day docket will likely mean events on the economic front already have to be in motion by then. Lastly, the fact that the Fed will have just a bare minimum quorum of just four directors through September 10 (at a minimum), means that any decision in the 11 days between then and the 21st will likely be far more problematic than one which has to be taken tomorrow. Which is why from a purely political calendar point of view, tomorrow's Fed meeting is likely seen by the administration as a make or break. The tenuous 40 seat lead which will likely disappear should the current economic trajectory not change, is certainly on the radar for both Obama, and the very independent Federal Reserve.
More observations from Gallup:
On a historical basis, the Democrats under Jimmy Carter suffered the slimmest seat loss of a party whose president was below 50% approval, losing 11 seats in the 1978 midterms. More recently, Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2006 saw their parties lose enough seats in the House to turn party control over to the opposition party when they had less than majority approval.
The president's party nearly always loses seats in midterm elections, regardless of how well the president is rated by the public. Since World War II, only Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 saw their parties gain seats in a midterm. Both men had approval ratings above 60% at the time of those elections. However, the parties of the other three presidents with ratings above 60% (Eisenhower in 1954, Kennedy in 1962, and Reagan in 1986) lost seats.
In general, though, the more popular a president is, the fewer seats his party loses, as presidents with approval ratings above 60% have averaged just a three-seat loss.
Bottom Line
With the Democratic Party in control of the White House and Congress, and key predictors of midterm seat change -- including presidential approval, congressional approval, and national satisfaction -- below average historically, the Democrats are clearly fighting an uphill battle this midterm election year.
And below is the empirical evidence:
»
- 12273 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm voting for whoever will stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid from spending taxpayer money at 3x the rate W did (and it's funny how most Obamacrats hate W so much but Obama is basically copying the W game plan by 3x). Throw the bums out.
Then we'll get to sweat out the possibility of a lame-duck Congress ramming through Cap & Trade. I wonder what the commodity charts will look like then?
They try Cap and Trade , I'm going into the pitchfork making business .
Pitchfork business? You'd be better off going into the applecart or handbasket making business.
.....this 'cap & trade' thing .......... Is China or India going to participate in 'cap & trade' ? Are they going to be paying taxes based upon their carbon footprint ? OR, is it just the UNITED STATES of AMERICA & EUROPE ? I WILL PARTICIPATE IN CAP & TRADE WHEN CHINA & INDIA ALSO PARTICIPATE !!! after all, I'm sure they are a hell of a lot more destructive to the environment that a deindustrialized UNITED STATES of AMERICA !! ............ who's idea is this anyway, another ROBERT RUBIN / CLINTON / SUMMERS SCAM !! BUNCH OF SCAMMING LOW - LIFE / GREEDY ..... well, if I wasn't a lady I'd swear right here.
lynnybee,
First and foremost, cap and trade would create a maasive amount of dead weight on the economy, and is probably the stupidest thing economics has ever been confronted with. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking, 'Europe did cap and trade in my dream!' and then I realize that they got hosed for real.
As for your question, the NWO Copenhagen conference tried to twist the third world's arm but they smartly refused. Now the Blue-blood Fem Dems are trying to go for broke with it, but it looks to fail. I would not worry too much about cap and trade, for the time being at least.
Can JPM and GS make billions trading carbon credits and derivatives on said credits?
Then Jamie and Lloyd say:
"Dance bribed puppet bitchez in Congress..."
"Pass crap n' trade before we turn the Wall Street money whore spigot off..."
Bingo.
Goldman Sachs literally wrote the Cap & Trade legislation. Every single syllable is intended to grow the bankster's wallets.
Cap & Trade has absolutely NOTHING to do with lowering emissions or "saving the environment".
Almost nothing...I think we can agree that it will produce some mighty "green pastures" for the chosen few.
Do you know who would profit big-time if Cap & Tax were to pass? Al Gore. He set up a firm with a couple of x-Goldman guys to trade the credits. But I'm sure he just has our welfare in mind.
Hell, they're more destructive than we were when we were industrialized even...
Politcally they have. By passing an economy killer they can then wheel around and blame the Red party in the next election. So not only does it fill their pockets it gives the Blues a chance to get back into power. How could they not try it?
So, you're not voting?
Do you consider the loss of revenue from tax cuts "spending?"
I love when economics is practiced as a static science, where people do not react to incentives.
It's like the shopkeeper's friend telling him he's stupid for cutting the price of Cokes from $1.50 to $1. If you're selling 100 a day, it's costing you $50! Just raise the price to $2 and you'll make $200 more!
This question would be relevant if the US government realized they have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. The day I feel guilty over a tax cut is when a bureaucrat can spend a dollar better than a taxpayer can.
I'm not saying tax cuts will cure all ills (read: the government does need money to function) but to see the Obamacrats and W spend like drunken sailors (at taxpayers' expense) at a rate that exceeds incoming revenue is unacceptable.
the government does need money to function
That's a god reason to end all taxation. That and that fact that any involuntary takings constitute theft.
All services supposedly provided by government can be performed better by players in the free market. No, I do not support the Republican "privatization" agenda in which we continue to fork over half of everything we earn to the government and have them spend it for us in a slightly different way than they spend it now. Let each person pick and chose the services he wishes from the providers he finds to be most satisfactory.
That's what they call "liberty," folks!
God thinks so too.
- Ned
JOEL: Ned?
ELAINE: What is wrong with Ned?
JOEL: Ned's a guy who buys irregular underwear. Next!
http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheMasseuse.html
So you think a contracted out judicial system is OK (and who would pay for it?). A mercenary army (be very sure your adversary doesn't offer more money!). We should end any pretence of financial regulation (who would pay the regulators - OK I know we have this already, and look how good it works!). The police forces should all be contracted (I'm sure there wouldn't be ANY conflict of interest in enforcing the law would there?).
See: Society Without a State by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
Right between the horns!! Milestones
(Typo, popular Presidents' party loses 14 seats, not 14%)
Comment: The first rxn is: who cares, still Establishment/PTB rule.
Second rxn: On the margin, perhaps there could be some beneficial gridlock or at least restraint on the Executive if the Outs get In.
Celente today, discusses why he likes Ralph Nader, Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fairinfowar#p/c/7FB2F79044B16926/12/x0LZ5ntiv2I
Left, right, up, down there is no difference. They all work for the same people "IE" GS,JPM, etc. WE the people have to get off our butt's , vett these sucker's w/o the help of the MSM. And educate the sheep who refuse to open their eye's. There are actually some honest patriot's running, but it seems to always be left or right. What about right or wrong?
"What about right vs. wrong?"
I know right, which is which? Well, as society progressed (and this is tribal or in a city/state) we cultivated mores to accept certain situations as "well adjusted". When people did not meet these standards, they were in trouble. If that was a tribe ousting someone, or a city taking your eye, there were certain things that were unalienable. No stealing, killing, etc....
Unfortunately society became complacent with the advancement of easy life/easy monie. The web spinners at the top got everyone in their game, and the name was "Wild West". So now politicians steal just as the clerk behind the counter. I really do think society reflects the oilgarchs' characteristics accurately, which is interesting when you know that the oilgarchs hate the, sheeple, as you put it. I wish I could tell the Rockefellers that they are as inept as the people who buy their products. We are all cut from the same clothe, the only difference is what you make of it. Luckily for us we were born to be shining stars. So now as the economy's facade fades into oblivion, we see our glow. This right before we sweat it all out.
Truth will prevail, in the end. It always does. It is nature's way.
So now politicians steal just as the clerk behind the counter.
Politician were not only stealing long before there were clerks behind counters, the very nature of the political being is criminal. Are we not men?
Touche.
We Are Devo!
Has anyone heard of these people.
(RAP & Republic of the United States )
http://www.panamalaw.org/RAP_and_republic_of_the_united_states_update_08-02-10.html
Just wondering, been reading about them for a few days now.
While you're at it, please also educate the sheep not to use superfluous apostrophes.
Now if only the GOP could state a single policy goal.
(You won't hear boo about "repealing healthcare" after the election. Remember the 2004 "stop gay marraige" election, where the topic completely vanished off the face of the earth the day after the polls closed?)
I'm kinda' with you on that, but, y'know, when the other side is committing suicide, well, it a'int bean bag, so sorta' step back and enjoy the show.
I'm hoping for a great show for all the incumbents.
Show-me State did a great thing with 71% anti-Obama-care.
I'm probably not with you on that, and certainly not on your side of the trade. I'd say that the outrage is going to stop funding, block the bloated bureaucrats, slow things down.
After all, we know that it takes years to control the people (Paul W.-WJR).
- Ned
Um, 71%? But...Juan Williams said only old, fat white people voted against.
You're saying that MO has 70% old white people?
The thought of one party jackass rule for another 2 years is too horrible to imagine. So I'll kill my imagination. Time for a Scotch, no chaser.
We've had 1 party rule for a long time. Right now the skirmish team on offense is wearing the blue jersey. Changing the offense to the red jersey won't fix much.
exactly. you can have your choice of coke, or pepsi - sure they taste different, but they'll both rot your teeth...
Rotting teeth is the least of worries.
Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR200901...
mmmmmmMercury, filling your teeth, filling your belly, filling your mind.
add the fluoride in the water, the aluminium & barium salt particulates being intentionally sprayed in the air. . . ahh, we've never had it so good!
Rainman,
Drink the good stuff. Life's too short for cheap scotch!
Watch how lightning fast lobby money transfers to the new assholes
Right on. The gangsters like it the way it is......moving their kickback money between 2 parties. That's why they want nothing to do with a Third Party candidate. Third parties are not part of the cartel and have what the Bigs believe are destructive habits like thinking independently and favoring populist will.
Two parties, both in the game and pointing fingers at each other is the perfect setup. The trick is making sure the sheeple never figure out that it's a setup....that it is normal......like the devil convincing the world he doesn't exist.
George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
Problem is I think republicans would be even worse, especially considering what they did to FinReg.
Great. Looking forward to the party of Mitch McConnell (with McCain and Grassley) starting the hearings to "look into" the 14th Amendment.
That will be a proud day for the US.
Yes, the 14th amendment needs to be clarified. Jus Soli is silly, only the U.S. and Canada practice it in the present form.
We can stop the anchor baby fiasco without touching the 14th Amendment. These idiots haven't read the amendment, short as it is. Surprise.
assume you're referring to section 3
WTF. Guess 10 junkers didn't get the sarcasm.
I ain't no Obama fan but that there summary sounds pretty goddam dumb, the total deficit went from 5 to 11.5 trillion in dumb ass Bush's term of 8 years so a goddamm annual rate of about 11%. Obama does the second chunk of the stimulus when he gets in 1/20/09 and deficit goes from 11.5 to 13.5 so a rate of just over 11%. So, both are dumb asses in my book, boya, but where the heck you gettin' yer 3x numbers ? Shit Jethro, its that kind of numerin' that's killin' us in the first place...
BTW, who is dumber, Pelosi or Palin ? Register your answer... mine is that I hope that I never see the names of either one of them in my fuckin life.
It's all good Madhouse. What you are FED up with is the Hegelian dialectic that the status quo is using to dice up the population into thinking that all is as simple as right vs wrong/black vs. white. There is no spoon, you know!
Aaron Russo's - MAD AS HELL - 1 of 9:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4ry3GzdFBM&feature=related
At least when the republicans get back in the media can start to do its job and attack (some) pols
And Soros can begin to manipulate oil again
Back to the good ole days
Why, I remember when a rifle shot in Nigeria could raise the price of oil 50 bucks
Now an 80 day gusher doesn't raise the price
And the oil has disappeared --- it wouldn't have disaperared if the republicans were in power
5 million barrels of oil gushed into the gulf
That's 500 million dollars at a 100$/bbl
one half a billion dollars
The Fannie May gusher cost us 1.8 billion in wasted dollars in about the same time frame
Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen has the truth --- we will all be slaves
p
I clean forgot about that rifleshot in Nigera into the pipe line and the ensuing scare. How short my memory was.
Two months ago when we lost that rig and the oil spewed, I said well, that's it for 3.00 gas get ready for 9.00 gas.
Gas prices dropped and seafood doubled and then crashed when no one would eat any.
Nothing.
I think this USA has been beaten by the cart master for so long that the horse is near death and the increasing blows matters not.
No spoon you say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBocpO2XUu0
Maybe....there....is...!
Palin is dumber. At least Pelosi can speak in complete sentences without notes scrawled on her hand... As many more eloquent than me have pointed out: they both represent corporate control of the US government.
It is heartening to see some criticsm of the American two party system up here on this thread today -- I've been seeing way too much "Obamacare" "Obama brown shirt" partisan bullshit talk lately on ZH. (btw comparing the Obama administration to the Hitler regime is historically disingenuous and extremely irritating to those like me who study the Nazi era for a living - particularly its corporate roots) It's boring, it's stupid, and it's counterproductive. I like when the conversation strays back into what can be done to end the two party system and its corporate handlers.
Sadly, I think we are going to see both Palin and Pelosi's names more -- particularly Palin's since she is such a media fiend.
You are refering to the Nazi ties with Walled St banks, yes? And who were Barry's largest donors?
There were many organizations that were involved with doing business with the Third Reich besides Wall St. banks. The ones that I have done the most analysis on, JP Morgan & Chase, donated to both the Obama and McCain campaigns. This organization (since JPM and Chase are now one) was the 7th largest donor for Obama '08.
Right, JPM donated a lot of blood monie. As did the other banks. And I am quite sure that Barry received the same amount of monie from Walled St as Hill and John combined, most of it from GS. Also on the list were....well, all major corporations from every industry. So the difference between the Nazi fascists and the US fascists is zilch.
If what you are suggesting is that Nazi geopolitical goals and the US goals were intertwined via the collaboration of numerous non-state actors during the 12 year Reich..then yes - that is what my research suggests.
I agree with that but what I am implying is that the current functionality of the US governemnt is to do the bidding of its corporate masters, just as was the case for the 3rd Reich.
Yes - I tend to agree with the historian Hans Mommsen, who noted that the government of Nazi Germany was bureaucratic chaos..which I contend made it easier for corporations to pursue their own agendas and shape policy toward that end. Sounds familiar.
Andrei? Is that you?
Complete sentences if they are lies is not nice
Sadly, I think we are going to see both Palin and Pelosi's names more -- particularly Palin's since she is such a media fiend.
I am really looking forward to seeing Ron Paul wipe up the floor with Palin come primary time.
Good luck with that...
Thank you, Jesus!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKtimZK_nA
Just a quick heads-up:
On election day 2012, Obama's name will appear on the ballot twice. Once as "Barack Obama" and the second time as "Ron Paul."
Remember the Ross Perot brigade? How about all the Buchanan (but we can just call him "Pat") supporters? Every election has the nutter class that clings to some fringe pied piper who has the cure for all that ails you...and he knows that he'll never have to deliver cuz he'll never get elected.
Democrats and Republican believe that all votes belong to them. In their opinion, a third party candidate can only "steal their votes."
But my vote is mine and if I chose to cast it I will vote for the candidate of my choice. I will not vote for a "mainstream" candidate who wants to hurt me in a slightly different way than the other "mainstream" candidate does.
You are correct: your vote does, indeed, belong to you...but so does the responsibility for the consequences of your choice in how you choose to use or not use it. With rights come responsibilities. Third party voters are awfully loud on election day, but you don't hear a peep out of them on inauguration day.
If you like being sold-out and having principles thrown under the bus, you'll absolutely ADORE a coalition (read: 3+ party) government. Nothing like having a leader who is elected with 17% of the popular vote.
Third party voters are awfully loud on election day, but you don't hear a peep out of them on inauguration day.
So what. You and the most of the rest of the folks are obviously playing a different game than I am. Enjoy your fun, I'll enjoy mine. 'Cuz it's America and all that.
So here's the rub.. If the FED sits tight tomorrow we know there is no conspiracy???
No, silly goose. That's just what they would want us to think.
What Obama and the dems don't get is that most people in this country like justice. Some people have moral fabric and would rather see justice and preservation of property rights and a balanced budget than simply be handout whores.
You are right, of course. The Republicans will fix all that, and the deficit will evaporate.
Simple as one election, then this economic hell will be over with. Had John McCain been elected we would have been well on our way to recovery and the unemployment thingie would also be fixed. Why cannot people see the devil in the Democrats.
Could not agree more. We would be at full employment under McCain since we would be involved in at least 24 more wars and would already have nuked NK. Boy, those neocons are sweet. Maybe we can wear those cool black uniforms with the lightning bolts on the collars and burn people in ovens.
Why cannot people see the devil in the Democrats.
The question is: would you like to be bashed in the head with a hammer or with a crow bar? Vote for the brain crushing injury of your choice -- but vote!
Ah, a swift group here! I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.
No, really man, pick one.
Both parties suck. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I donated to and voted for Ron Paul.
Well, it's good to hear, but my comment was really just another attempt at sarcasm which I know you enjoy.
WOW, so those same people's moral fabric didn't extend to Bush's war on terror and the use of torture.
To be clear I think that the sophisticated distinctions we draw today in the war on terror—between the rule of law and “exceptional” circumstances, between citizens (who have rights and legal protections) and non-citizens to whom anything can be done, between normal people and “terrorists,” between “us” and “them”— are carrying over into the immigration debate. All specialties of the Republican party. Does that offend people's sense of justice?
Because neither party has a monoploy on offending people's sense of justice.
"WOW, so those same people's moral fabric didn't extend to Bush's war on terror and the use of torture."
That's a hell of a pseudo disqualifier you put at the end of this sentence...LOL.
To be clear myself, respectfully;
Congress voted for war appropriations. As a matter of fact the democrats wanted to be on record as giving Bush whatever power he wished so they had a specific chest thumping vote to authorize his use of force in whatever manner he deemed appropriate. It wasn't just republicans.
Now, waterboarding, again, hopefully for the last time.
Waterboarding is considered rough foreplay by some in San Francisco.
So moral relativism and equivalency dies a routine death right there. In the arms of the impassioned embrace of a terrorist and his victim. That is, it was not mutual, was it? So the terrorist get's a tap out and the victim does not?
Terrorists have chosen to not wear a uniform, to not abide by any nations laws, to hide among civilians, to attack civilians, to terrorize civilians for a political outcome. Not to end a tyranny, but to create one in their own image. To say they deserve a civilian trial after throwing away all pretense to one is to repudiate all civilian law. They gave up all claims to that when they became a terrorist or a guerrilla fighter and started slaughtering civilians with glee.
There is my offense to justice lizzy.
This is America. Haven't you realized by now that you -- as a thoughtful, vocal person -- are the terrorist?
Yes I have...it's a malady I've suffered all my life. Maybe they'll bring me to Frisco and waterboard me...LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
SeeYa
This one has a more satisfying ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XGWXmxmaoE
For full disclosure i am not a republican or a democrat. I reject a false dichotomy that allows one to choose a side, based on it's label.
And exactly what justice was the US seeking when they started the War on Terror in Iraq? Because Afghanstan i can understand but maybe you can explain Iraq to me.
You are right it wasn't just Republicans . But it was the lies of a Republican Adminstration, (unchecked by democrats and the MSM) that allowed the war in Iraq to occur. Or maybe i missed the part where they found WMD.
As for waterboarding a former supporter of torture, subjected himself to the horror, watch and learn and let me know if you still think this is foreplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY
As far as terrorism, as soon as you start operating like the terrorists, they have won. The have changed you (for the worse).
I will stop now but merely allow an excerpt from a wonderful scholar (Tony Judt) who died this past weekend of ASL:
But before setting out on a hundred-year war to eradicate terrorists from the face of the earth, let us consider the following. Terrorists are nothing new. Even if we exclude assassinations or attempted assassinations of presidents and monarchs and confine ourselves to men and women who kill random unarmed civilians in pursuit of a political objective, terrorists have been with us for well over a century.
There have been anarchist terrorists, Russian terrorists, Indian terrorists, Arab terrorists, Basque terrorists, Malay terrorists, Tamil terrorists, and dozens of others besides. There have been and still are Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists, and Muslim terrorists. There were Yugoslav (“partisan”) terrorists settling scores in World War II; Zionist terrorists blowing up Arab marketplaces in Palestine before 1948; American-financed Irish terrorists in Margaret Thatcher’s London; US-armed mujahideen terrorists in 1980s Afghanistan; and so on.
No one who has lived in Spain, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Japan, the UK, or France, not to speak of more habitually violent lands, could have failed to notice the omnipresence of terrorists—using guns, bombs, chemicals, cars, trains, planes, and much else—over the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The only thing that has changed in recent years is the unleashing in September 2001 of homicidal terrorism within the United States. Even that was not wholly unprecedented: the means were new and the carnage unexampled, but terrorism on US soil was far from unknown over the course of the twentieth century.
But what of the argument that terrorism today is different, a “clash of cultures” infused with a noxious brew of religion and authoritarian politics: “Islamofascism”? This, too, is an interpretation resting in large part on a misreading of twentieth-century history. There is a triple confusion here. The first consists of lumping together the widely varying national fascisms of interwar Europe with the very different resentments, demands, and strategies of the (equally heterogeneous) Muslim movements and insurgencies of our own time—and attaching the moral credibility of the antifascist struggles of the past to our own more dubiously motivated military adventures.
A second confusion comes from conflating a handful of religiously motivated stateless assassins with the threat posed in the twentieth century by wealthy, modern states in the hands of totalitarian political parties committed to foreign aggression and mass extermination. Nazism was a threat to our very existence and the Soviet Union occupied half of Europe. But al-Qaeda? The comparison insults the intelligence—not to speak of the memory of those who fought the dictators. Even those who assert these similarities don’t appear to believe them. After all, if Osama bin Laden were truly comparable to Hitler or Stalin, would we really have responded to September 11 by invading…Baghdad?
But the most serious mistake consists of taking the form for the content: defining all the various terrorists and terrorisms of our time, with their contrasting and sometimes conflicting objectives, by their actions alone. It would be rather as though one were to lump together the Italian Red Brigades, the German Baader-Meinhof gang, the Provisional IRA, the Basque ETA, Switzerland’s Jura Separatists, and the National Front for the Liberation of Corsica; dismiss their differences as insignificant; label the resulting amalgam of ideological kneecappers, bomb throwers, and political murderers “European Extremism” (or “Christo-fascism,” perhaps?)…and then declare uncompromising, open-ended armed warfare against it.
This abstracting of foes and threats from their context—this ease with which we have talked ourselves into believing that we are at war with “Islamofascists,” “extremists” from a strange culture, who dwell in some distant “Islamistan,” who hate us for who we are and seek to destroy “our way of life”—is a sure sign that we have forgotten the lesson of the twentieth century: the ease with which war and fear and dogma can bring us to demonize others, deny them a common humanity or the protection of our laws, and do unspeakable things to them.
You should know our soldiers were waterboarded also. But it was by mutual consent ;-)
You touch on morality and a sense of justice and then recoil from it...why?
Until the morning...goodnight.
No kidding. The baying for blood from those that declare themselves as tolerant of other views over at HuffPo is astounding. Two-minute hate.
Good to see you pointing out your views, Lizzy. I know many of the old guard are either now simply lurking or otherwise.
full disclosure: not repubs, nor democs, nor libers.
I appreciate your post lizzy, there is thinking behind it.
my question is, when has this nation state ever not operated as a "terrorist"? do we not think the original inhabitants of this occupied state, the native peoples, the spanish settlers, the mexicans who fought for independence from spain, etc. etc. perceived those europeans who murdered them en masse as "terrorists"? california alone has a rich, diverse history of peoples - all of whom are considered "marginal" in recent history(s). . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#History
I'm fairly certain those who were on the receiving end of the military land grabs and enforced "nationalising" with subsequent genocide felt "terrorised" - who exactly were the terrorists then? and who are they now?
terrorist. it's a perspective. it depends on which "side" you are viewing from. and with the new legislation, now even amrkn citizens can be disappeared, tortured and detained as "terrorist"s.
when people begin to realise that nation states are NOT on "their" side, and loyalty to nation states is not reciprocal - they exist because an elite invent the idea, and the "boundary" which shifts over time and for convenience of the elite - when people really understand that concept as FALSE. . .
nah, never gonna happen. . .
Difference being: They do it voluntarily and they like it.
That was one of my points.
The terrorists voluntarily torture and kill without the consent of their victims. To say they have any right to a civilian trial is laughable.
Most real crimes -- those perpetrate upon a victim -- are committed without the consent of the victim. What distinction, in regard to right to trial, do you make between a rapist and a terrorist?
"What distinction, in regard to right to trial, do you make between a rapist and a terrorist?"
The distinction is, when a rapist is caught he or she expects a trial, is normally a citizen subject to our laws and is afforded one to find guilt or innocence as a citizen of this country.
A terrorist when caught expects death...immediately. Those are the rules for good reason as I've outlined above in this thread.
Again, the terrorist has given up all pretense of any nations civility, law, morality or ethics. He does not give it to us, so it should not be offered to them. There is the reason they call them terrorists Mr.Crockett ;-)
As an aside, I love how the leftist's preach about human rights. Where do the human rights of Obama's drone attacks figure into all this? Should not they be given some semblence of a fair trial before the missile strikes?...ROTFL. They're argument is as weak as their knees.
Military trials are the reasonable answer. Soldiers are not peace officers and cannot be used as such. They give no Miranda warnings to those caught on the other end of a cell phone tied to an IED. They are not even in our country, by what right do we impose our Costitution on another in a foriegn land?
They (military trials) have worked for as long as we have had a military code. Some have even been released by these trials, they, we, are fair...like the cat's who ended up on a beach in Bermuda working on their tan...and some who ended up with another RPG in their hand and died anways.
Methinks someone is confusing justice and vengence.
The Dem 'n' Rep parties have a terminal cancer, the funny thing is that it's the same cancer. Me? I'm sick of both and can't understand the straight party line vote anymore. They're all liars and both parties have become too detached from main street. While I still have the right to vote I'll use it. They work for us damnit!
The last time "they" worked for "us" was pre-1840. The US died in 1913 and is still waiting for burial once the coroner signs the death warrant.
Ron Paul would sign said warrant. And resurrect us from the grave.
If the R's take the majority in the house - will Paul become the head of any important committees?
Ron Paul would sign said warrant. And resurrect us from the grave.
Love your avatar and your post. Freedom is popular!
That's why he will never be "allowed" to win. If he chooses to run, he better have HIS OWN bodygaurd, and the better be good!
Man I hate being this cynical!
I'm not really looking that far ahead. Ron didn't come anywhere near winning in 08 but he sure made a difference in many people's lives. I learned a lot from him, not just about politics, but about living a more productive and contended life as well. Love that guy.
RON PAUL looks like a case of PHONY CONTROLLED OPPOSITION to me.....i m not sure ...but i saw some things like the MASONIC(SATANIC) hand signs.....google it or find out i youtube.....there are some stuffs which will make u think
Ron is the real deal. In your heart you know he's right.
yeah, I mean just look at how shitty the country has been post-1840!
You never spoke a truer word in your life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hob_HGUhs6A
No one has the balls to bring out the pie chart of government spending and just start cutting all the way around. That is what really drives me nuts. I'd love to get Congress in a room, lock them in until they have a 20 year coordinated plan. If we got whining pussies who need bitch slapping while they are in there, then this American is fucking ready to keep them to task....
We need constitutional amendment through state conventions, which bypass congress.
I suggest: Only property owners/tax payers vote
Required balanced budget, no exception.
Washington is un-fixable. Only solution is to cut off the oxygen supply.
Nullification under the 10th amendment is simpler and your own state can do it without having to rely on the other states to pull their collective heads out.
Agreed. I would like to see heartland states start more directly confronting the federal userping of power, via the tenth amendment, and challenging the ridiculous stretches of the commerce clause. State sponsorship would give individuals cover, in opposing federal government.
Particularly troublesome is the recent talk about "targeted" tax breaks, where states and areas in financial trouble get a lower tax rate, which punishes states that have been more responsible and restrained.
FromWIKI
State Sovereignty Resolutions and Nullification Acts
The Tenth Amendment Center, an organization seeking to promote the concept of state sovereignty, has gathered information on various actions taken by state legislatures in protest to federal actions. The organization is bipartisan. The movement has quietly gained support in a number of states.[3]
..and who is going to decide what constitutes "property"? You?
Do people with more property get more votes?
Do people who have lost their property through no fault of their own get a vote?
Balanced budgets are great and all - but your plan is ill-conceived and completely unrealistic. But then again, with a name like "Rebel" and a Confederate flag for an avatar, I wouldn't think you'd be a source of many successful long term economic plans. Perhaps we should all sell cotton to Great Britain to fund a rival government to the US, no?
Hows the present system working for you?
It must be nice bieng inside your head. Quick and easy black & white decisions. If I thought the present system was working, I wouldn't be here.
Just sitting here clinging to my guns and Bible.
And here I figured you were cleaning your guns!
Evening Mr. Hendrix,
Actually did a little shooting this weekend with the daughter, and do have a little cleaning needing to be done.
My Favorite Inheritance:
Grandpa's deer rifle... ye ole Winchester 270... popular before WW2... a little underpowered but accurate...
Hunted with a Savage Model 99 .270 for years. Work fine for deer and elk - best if you take the elk in the head, though.
Just sitting here clinging to my guns and Bible.
I'm from a small town in Pennsylvania, the place where Obama targeted that remark. However, as an atheist, I just have to cling to my guns twice as hard.
CrokettAlmanac,
And we can still be friends, and that is a great thing. Nice to meet you, and hope to hear more from you.
Hey, Rebel. I know lots of Christians and most of them are right on board with letting other folks see by their own lights. Gotta love 'em.
It is amazing to us that a president can totally destroy any feelings of loyalty or trust when speaking against religion and guns as this one did. We took great pains to increase our accuracy, markmanship, manual of arms and also studied the word as well.
There is a time for everything and everything has a season. All I can say is keep right on doing what you can and make ready.
.and who is going to decide what constitutes "property"? You?
...property only counts if it is in Virginia, Maryland, or New York
Do people with more property get more votes?
...Only if you work for Goldman Sachs
Do people who have lost their property through no fault of their own get a vote?
...Yes, if you work for Goldman Sachs or the ruling elite.
Balanced budgets are great and all - but your plan is ill-conceived and completely unrealistic. But then again, with a name like "Rebel" and a Confederate flag for an avatar, I wouldn't think you'd be a source of many successful long term economic plans. Perhaps we should all sell cotton to Great Britain to fund a rival government to the US, no?
...You are right massa, where do we send our money?
I propose that only people who pay NET taxes (benefits-taxes) be allowed to vote -- otherwise they have a clear conflict of interest! Anyone could volunteer to ensure that they netted at least $1 and hence have the right to vote if they so choose.
"We need constitutional amendment through state conventions, which bypass congress.
I suggest: Only property owners/tax payers vote."
Hear hear.
"In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it." Alexis de Tocqueville
Evening Nmewn,
Too bad we can not have civil discourse on a topic like this. When you bring it up (as seen above) rather than arguing the merits or problems of the concept, the personal attacks fly.
By saying only property owners should vote, I am not saying I want less people voting, but more people owning property. Those without property are simply pawns, and live a life not unlike slavery. With property comes freedom.
Maybe it's because your idea of civility is a joke.
Your ownership/vote system contains inherently less equality than the present system. You are essentially saying you want to deprive certain populations of their rights. Oh - but its up to them to "bootstrap" and grab some property and join the club, right?
I have also yet to see any sort of caveat that deals with...oh gee..I dunno - systemic racism, mysogyny, concentration of wealth, the legacy of empire, etc etc.
Personal attacks? I'm just considering the source of the idea: Someone who feels nostalgic about the Confederacy proposing taking away the right to vote from impoverished groups couched in language of slavery and freedom. How ironic.
Just curious. Have you ever had a real job? Just asking.
Yep - since I was a wee one. Started as a graphic designer. Still a musician.
Spent the last 10 years in the financial sector. Worked for several multinational and national banks. Spent the longest amount of time in work related to the MBS trade. And yes, I was disgusted. And yes, I quit and decided to do research for money instead. It's been working out pretty well ever since.
Your question has nothing to do with our conversation on your poorly conceived plan to wrest the corporate stranglehold on the US government. I personally believe in empowering people - not depriving them of their rights. I've seen a lot of things that would make anyone cynical - I predicted the end of Lehman and Bear Stearns in '03 when most of my friends didn't even know what an MBS was.. Many people are foolish and selfish. But if you always act cynically, you end up missing important opportunities. Learned that lesson too many times already.
OK, I will agree that you have had a real job. When you said you studied Nazi's for a living, I assumed you were a professor, which of course is not a real job.
I agree that the government is under a stranglehold of corporations. It is also under the stranglehold of unions, and gets/keeps power by manipulating the poor masses. Keep giving away hand outs, and they will keep voting you in. It is not just the poor masses, it is the Federal employees who have fat salaries, research grants to university professors. There is a staggering number of people on the government dole, in one form or another.
The voice that is not heard is the working person and small business owner.
Being in academia isn't easy, either. Have you ever applied for a research grant? It takes a hell of a lot of time and effort with little chance of success (although I agree if you are well connected, perhaps not).
There is less and less tenure to go around. I have many friends and family who bust their asses teaching and get paid very little for it and have even less job security. Then they have to turn around and deal with ungrateful, anti-intellectuals who tell them that all their efforts are worthless. I believe that teaching people to think is worth something and applaud their mostly thankless work.
here's a link to illustrate my point - of course in the discussion section not everyone agrees with everything the author has said:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ivory-Sweatshop-Academe/123641/?sid&utm...
Yes, I have applied for many research grants, and have taught. I have also roughnecked. I will say that anyone who says being a professor is "hard" has never roughnecked.
I've done both, too. I'd say they were both challenging - but on different levels. When I "roughnecked", I worked for a company that dismantled businesses in ailing minimalls - basically gutting the whole structures. It was tough work - and I did it for a long time to make ends meet. It was physically challenging, but fairly easy on an intellectual and emotional level. I really didn't take the work home with me. Eight to ten hours done..clocked out.
When I worked in academia, I spent all my waking hours absorbed in my work - difficult emotionally and intellectually..and it eventually began to take its toll physically. Personally, I found being awake for days finalizing months/years of research much more taxing.
I personally found the intellectual work far more rewarding, as well. Telling people you sweated your ass off all day might get you a clap on your back at the bar - but at the end of the day, most of those workers went home to their families and didn't really care much about the fate of eachother. On the other hand, doing original research that captured the attention of people you've never met in disparate places - starting dialogs that lasted years - I found that much more compelling.
Of course, I'd take a well attended rock show any day of the week..
Your comments around here are somewhat bipolar. The above is what we like to see. Just sayin'.
Perhaps it appears that way because I don't engage in groupthink and am not afraid to back up an opinion that is unpopular. As you can see by this thread, I was derided by people on the left and the right for daring to posit that extreme, unfocused actions/strategy might be construed by some of us as *gasp* unreasonable and counterproductive.
The backlash occurs because people aren't used to having their ravings critiqued on ZH as long as they fit a certain ideological profile. I think their dogma is well worth deconstructing.
I personally witnessed market manipulation firsthand working in the financial industry over the last 10 years. That horrifying experience is what drew me to ZH in the first place (a long time before I decided to create a profile) - I'd rather talk to people who have had similar experiences, but I don't feel the need to ignore ideologically inflamatory comments that come up on this forum simply because they raise the ire of people who aren't used to being challenged. If there is substance to be teased out of such discussions - all the better.
"I personally believe in empowering people - not depriving them of their rights."
Personally I do as well.
How does a person who ends up getting all of their labor money back rank equal to one who does not get all of their labor money back? Isn't this taxation without equal representation?
Don't you think every worker should bear a proportional monetary obligation to the country in it's finances?
We all have only one vote do we not?
Your ownership/vote system contains inherently less equality than the present system. You are essentially saying you want to deprive certain populations of their rights. Oh - but its up to them to "bootstrap" and grab some property and join the club, right?
Government has but one object and one method: the redistribution of wealth. If those with little or no wealth to redistribute get to chose how the wealth of others is to be redistributed then you will eventually end up with a situation where no one is willing to make any effort to better their own lives as that effort will be syphoned off to improve the lives of some connected stranger.
Why anyone would willing be lorded over by any system of government eludes me. Moochers and looters be damned.
Because people like hospitals, roads, firefighters, etc. Anarchists communities are inherently small scale. You cannot apply them to larger scale societal bodies such as cities, states, and nations. It's utterly impractical. You can yearn for an anarchist revolution just like Mikhail Bakunin did almost two centuries ago, but you aren't going to have much success beyond tiny communities (who are still subject to whatever the overriding government structure is of the region it's in).
Shit - years ago a group of students and I could barely hold together an infoshop due to consensus politics. That was a group of maybe two dozen people at its peak.
Your comment about "anarcho-capitalism" made me laugh, though. I sincerely hope you were being ironic.
Because people like hospitals, roads, firefighters, etc. Anarchists communities are inherently small scale.
Nothing wrong with that. Only the individual is sovereign and individuals are, by definition, small scale. Individuals who engage in voluntary associations and transactions with other individuals have the ability to gain everything your collectivist system can deliver and more.
Shit - years ago a group of students and I could barely hold together an infoshop due to consensus politics.
Of course you couldn't. A university classroom is nothing but a socialist pigpen.
Your comment about "anarcho-capitalism" made me laugh, though. I sincerely hope you were being ironic.
Of course you did. Elitists always laugh at folks who believe that they can run their own lives without being prodded with sticks and tempted with niggardly carrots.
Individuals who engage in voluntary associations and transactions with other individuals have the ability to gain everything your collectivist system can deliver and more.
"My" collectivist system? I haven't proposed a system. Why haven't I? Because I'm not as presumptious as you to think I can solve major social/economic/political with some randomly strung together bullshit platitudes.
A university classroom is nothing but a socialist pigpen.
I'm sure you've led a lot of anarchist collectives with your inclusive, winning personality.
Elitists always laugh at folks who.. blah blah blah
Do you always call anyone who critiques your implausible vision an elitist? Heh. I love anarchists...always yelling "mutual aid!" until they actually engage anyone outside their little circle. Then the mantra becomes "everyone is an elitist! they can't be trusted!"
It's a pretty cloistered place to be, no?
The blue collar workers won't trust you - because they've been trained to fear the word "anarchist".
The rich folks won't trust you, because they have too much to lose.
The intelligentsia won't trust you because you deride them every chance you get.
Pretty lonely place to be. Soon you'll only be "mutually-aiding" yourself. With no inflows of new people - the rest turn on each other - tiny groups all sniping at each other. Sound familiar?
Don't put me in a category, Crockett. I don't trust any particular group.
Because I'm not as presumptious as you to think I can solve major social/economic/political with some randomly strung together bullshit platitudes.
But I never claimed to be able to do such a thing. There are six billion people in the world. The only major social/economic/political problems that exist arise from the fact that these people are not free to run their own lives. Free men solve their own problems. They don't need me or you or Barack O'Bush to solve their problems for them. Top down "solutions" are the problem.
I'm sure you've led a lot of anarchist collectives with your inclusive, winning personality.
Are you joking or are you so stuck in a statist mentality that you believe that anarchists need to be led? Doesn't that kind of miss the point?
Do you always call anyone who critiques your implausible vision an elitist?
No, I call those who insist that only stupid people want to run their own lives "elitists." Your overzealous personal attacks also make you appear to be a person who considers himself to be better than others. I do not consider myself to be better than you, I merely wish to be seperate from you.
Pretty lonely place to be.
All I want is to be left alone by the likes of you. But you have set yourself up as the protector of the rights of the downtrodden and in order to protect them you want to pinch my wallet. I don't understand why people who insist on creating a "social safety net" can't simply organize such a system with willing participants rather than at the point of a gun.
Don't put me in a category, Crockett. I don't trust any particular group.
You have chosen the categories of moocher and looter for yourself.
Heh. I'm saving this post as the perfect example of a Man-archist.
What is a Man-archist? He's the one that tells you..wait I think you said it best:
Free men solve their own problems
Your version of freedom is just as nebulous as Sarah Palin's - you use it to suit whatever substanceless argument you are trying to make.
What exactly are these men free from? The ability to organize and build infrastructure?
Yes - there is no doubt that power corrupts and that one radical response to the general nature of governments to become corrupted is reject as much governmental structure as possible- hence, anarchism.
However, one becomes a fabled "Man-archist" when they forget that world history did not start with them. There are pesky things that interrupt their absolutist world view: Empires that impoverished people for centuries, destroying their culture, environment, and means to improve themselves; the systematic subjugation of women, continued geopolitical exploitation, etc etc. Try studying postcolonial African history to see just how well "freedom to run their own lives" has been working.
What happens when an entire country's infrastructure has been developed over many decades to serve an empire that has been exploiting it and then the empire just leaves? Sorry, but its not all flowers and candy. It can take years of optimal circumstances just to improve things a little bit..it is not completely black & white as your world view dictates.
I don't understand why people who insist on creating a "social safety net" can't simply organize such a system with willing participants rather than at the point of a gun.
Of course you don't understand this right now. It is because you are blinded by your own absolutist thinking. In order to organize people, it requires structure. And every step of the way people just like you will come out of the woodwork to sabotage such efforts - complaining of too much "top down" authority. We all want the flexibility to manage our own lives. I never said it was stupid - you, like many other folks here on ZH, thought merely because I critiqued what you said that I automatically was diametrically opposed to your world view. You'll need a thicker skin than that if you want to be involved in being a constructive force in the world. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Save this post, too:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.
When they run out of anything useful to say, they pull out the trusty "RACISM" charge. Anybody besides me getting a bit sick and FUCKING TIRED of being called a racist every 5 minutes?
And how the hell do you know that he feels "nostalgic about the Confederacy?" Guess I'm a big Obama fan, huh?
You may or may not be one, but based on your posts, you appear to be a complete jack-off whiner.
Evening sir,
It is a product of the public education system we have. Don't give them any thought. They will discover that government education is more about servitude than a real education. Most are young and dumb like we were. It's the old commies I go after...LOL.
Meanwhile, don't bother with the ignorance of the waifs they will grow up...feast your eyes on this;
"The Medicare program's chief actuary was far more skeptical, contending that the report's predictions "do not represent a reasonable expectation" of its finances. In a two-page letter accompanying the trustees' report, Richard S. Foster, a non-partisan official who has been the Health and Human Services Department's top financial expert on Medicare for 15 years, said he doubted that health-care providers will become as efficient as the new law envisions. As a result, he said, the program is unlikely to slow payments for treating patients as much as the law anticipates and, as a result, will be unable to save as much money."
"For now, the Social Security trust fund has enough money to cover the gap, starting this year and in 2011, when the cost of retirees' benefits will exceed the money coming into the program. The program then will return to small surpluses for two years, the report says. After that, deficits will "grow rapidly," the report says, as the number of Americans in the large baby-boom generation who retire will grow faster than the number of workers paying into Social Security."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR201008...
If they don't mind paying through taxation what they will never recieve in return (demographics) there is not much you can do about their stupidity.
I hear you on public education. Just found out a local teacher was not teaching the topic of the class, but was using the school year to teach kids how to apply for government assistance . . . how to game the system, and layer assistance on assistance on assistance. Actually, she has a pretty marvelous and well thought out method of gaming the system, and is teaching it to the kids. My feedback to the school was perhaps it would be more useful to teach the kids an actual skill, so they would not need to be on government assistance.
Rebel, your example proves that evolution is a reality. However, in this case the humans are slithering back into the sea. Adaptability can sometimes be a curse.
Yep, and I helped evolve her out of a teaching job.
Somehow I am going to guess this is a lie. Maybe I am wrong, but it sure seems like some made up bullshit to me.