Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

“Unfettered capitalism” would include a banking sector not subsidized by FDIC and implicit bailout guarantees.

Then what good is it?

[WillFarnaby]

@GIGObuster

The Republicans figured out a long time ago, regardless of how profitable they get, fossil fuel companies still get their subsidies.

I don’t defend oil subsidies either. Is this an argument in favor of subsidized banking?

@GIGObuster

BTW claiming that the senator said nothing of substance points to your position as one that denies that there is any problem with human induced global warming, is that right?

I don’t deny humans have contributed to global warming. I deny that governments will save us from global warming. “Energy independence” is nothing more than a campaign slogan. That’s one clue that Graham is unserious.

@GIGObuster

Of course that shows more ignorance, the borrowing was one of the reasons why they got in the problem in the first place, as many point out the increase in taxes and the reduction in local investing was a problem, but once again, from the beginning one of the main problems was to not invest in development when the recession hit.

You be bemoaned the lack of a bank bailout and alluded to the rise of Naziism. Again, would you have printed money or raised taxes to pay for this bailout?

@Gyrate

A “well-regulated market” would have something different from the piecemeal and ineffectual regulatory structure the US currently has too. And what’s your plan to keep the banks from losing everyone’s money when they go bust without the FDIC in place?

Then lets stop pretending we had an unfettered market in bankin shall we? I would argue a “well-regulated market” is very difficult to pull off for any period of time. At the risk of losing my right-wing zealot label, I would propose to create “government banks” where granny can make deposits, guaranteed by government, and earn a small rate of interest. Of course this interest would be lower than in a private bank because she is getting a government guarantee. Then I would let the market play itself out. There was never any need to bailout anyone in 2008, Despite what Hank Paulson has to say on the matter.

[etv78]

@WillFarnaby

Is it really necessary to “catch up” with China? Can we not simply buy wind turbines from China? We benefit from them developing an expertise in green energy, just as they benefit from us developing technology here.

The idea that the Bush administration of all things should have been centrally planning energy policy is laughable. The idea that any administration should be centrally planning energy policy is archaic.

Um. yeah it is, unless you want to pay to transplant all the workers to China to do the jobs, or pay for their retraining once their jobs have been exported for a nickel on the dollar.

[GIGObuster]

@WillFarnaby

I don’t defend oil subsidies either. Is this an argument in favor of subsidized banking?

That was actually related to the issue in the following quote:

@WillFarnaby

I don’t deny humans have contributed to global warming. I deny that governments will save us from global warming. “Energy independence” is nothing more than a campaign slogan. That’s one clue that Graham is unserious.

Well, as I mentioned before, you are then denying what government can, and did, regarding clean water and dealing with sewage.

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"

Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - “leave it to future generations.” In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system.

As what is going on is a tragedy of the commons, it also belongs to governments to act more with regulations and taxes to assign the real cost of all using our atmosphere as a sewer.

@WillFarnaby

You be bemoaned the lack of a bank bailout and alluded to the rise of Naziism. Again, would you have printed money or raised taxes to pay for this bailout?

As I remember reading the history, Hindenburg and others decided to go the way of borrowing, and not to protect the banks, the lesson was that then the default of many banks led to huge unemployment, it the deposits had been insured there would had been less hardship, and less of a chance for German ears to listen to demagogues.

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

I don’t deny humans have contributed to global warming. I deny that governments will save us from global warming.

Markets won’t. What does that leave?

[Bridget_Burke]

I think the environmental detour began with Our Republican Expert on Everything trying to explain how Hispanics will chose jobs over the environment. If the Republicans want the Hispanic/Latino/Tejano vote, they need to discourage their party’s Racist/Xenophobe wing. Ain’t gonna happen…

Here’s a story that links the environment & Republican foolishness:

Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General and likely 2014 GOP nominee for governor, has been fighting the EPA over power plant permits since 2010. That was the year the EPA decided to begin intervening in thirteen states’ power plant permit approval processes because those states did not consider greenhouse gas emissions in its evaluations.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the EPA in the joint lawsuit on Friday, with the majority holding that the states had failed “to show how they have been injured” by EPA involvement in their permitting process. Texans aware of the detrimental effects greenhouse gas proliferation on our planet’s climate can breathe a little easier, and those unaware of the effects can enjoy cleaner air either way. In the past, Abbott described the EPA’s actions as part of an “unprecedented and overreaching greenhouse gas environmental regulatory scheme” by the Obama administration. This from a climate denier who believes our environment is not in danger.

This is one of 28 cases Abbott has filed against the Obama administration, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. In fact, Abbott brags frequently: “I go into the office in the morning. I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home.” Abbott goes toe-to-toe with Rick Perry when it comes to extreme, partisan stances. A climate denier and a reckless waster of taxpayer money has no place in the governor’s mansion.

As Governor Rick & Crazy Ted Cruz continue to grandstand for the Presidential nomination, Rick’s announcement he’s leaving the governorship has lesser Texas Republicans in a feeding frenzy. We’ll probably get another Republican governor this time–but they know their time is running out. Demographics is not on their side…

[GIGObuster]

Like I told adaher before, many times those stupid money wasted lawsuits are just job programs for lawyers. In other words, the golf buddies of the governors and AGs.

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

Like I told adaher before, many times those stupid money wasted lawsuits are just job programs for lawyers. In other words, the golf buddies of the governors and AGs.

So, there is no actual down side.

[elucidator]

This sort of slander cannot stand! Not all lawyers play golf!

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

This sort of slander cannot stand! Not all lawyers play golf!

No . . . some of us just like wearing shoes with spikes on them.

[YogSothoth]

@BrainGlutton

Markets won’t. What does that leave?

Magic?

[BrainGlutton]

@YogSosoth

Magic?

I’m starting to think that’s what it will take.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

The answer to the question posed in the thread title is a definitive “no”. I think adaher’s posts pretty much made that clear, but now we have a denial of reality by former candidate Romney himself that is unequaled in it’s audacity. Asked about his comment that almost half of the nation is a bunch of freeloaders who don’t and won’t take personal responsibility for their lives, Romney said in an interview Sunday:

[

@Mitt Romney

Actually, I didn’t say that …That’s how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality.

@Mitt Romney

*t was saying, ‘Look, the Democrats have 47 percent, we’ve got 45 percent, my job is to get the people in the middle, and I’ve got to get the people in the middle,’" he said. "They’ve got a bloc of voters, we’ve got a bloc of voters, I’ve got to get the ones in the middle. And I thought that that would be how it would be perceived – as a candidate talking about the process of focusing on the people in the middle who can either vote Republican or Democrat.

](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/07/27/from-doubts-to-confidence-to-defeat/)

Here’s what he said back in 2012 that caused so many undecided voters to decide that Romney was a jackass (bolding mine):
[

@Mitt Romney

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

](Mitt Romney on MoJo's "47 percent" tape: "Actually, I didn't say that" about personal responsibility.)
:rolleyes:

He’s even now tricked himself into thinking that he didn’t say anything that President Obama didn’t say as well:
[

@Mitt Romney

And I think the president said he’s writing off 47 percent of Americans and so forth.

](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/07/27/from-doubts-to-confidence-to-defeat/)

Delusion, denial, lies, hatred and pandering, will not give your party control of the White House, just like it didn’t give you control of the White House, Mr. Romney.

Will the Republicans ever figure out why they lost? No, because at the moment they are unable and/or unwilling to deal with reality. They are lost in a miasma of deceit, delusion and denial. And from the looks of it, they keep stirring it up rather than letting it settle.

[YogSothoth]

What a god damn motherfucker. Just go away Romney, dive into your money bin and never come out

[BrainGlutton]

@YogSosoth

What a god damn motherfucker. Just go away Romney, dive into your money bin and never come out

The Thing from Planet Kolob will return . . .

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

OMFG!#@%$

Not PLANET KOLOB! :eek:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Snowboarder_Bo

He’s even now tricked himself into thinking that he didn’t say anything that President Obama didn’t say as well:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/07/27/from-doubts-to-confidence-to-defeat/]

I wouldn’t go with that one. The Post left out a couple of quotation marks. It should be:

“And I think the president said ‘he’s writing off 47 percent of Americans’ and so forth.”

Which is true. What isn’t true is his claim that he was misinterpreted.

[Captain_Amazing]

The thing about all the controversy about what Romney said is that, at base, I think what he said was true. I mean, in every election, barring some unusual situation, you’ve got like 45-47% of the population who’s going to vote for you anyway, and 45%-47% of the population who’s going to vote against you anyway, and you can’t worry about those people. The people you worry about are the swing who might vote either way.

Obviously, tying that 47% who’ll never vote for him to the 47% who don’t pay income taxes is wrong. But I don’t know that he was wrong in saying that 47% of the population are god damn Democrats who will never see the light and vote Republican the way they oughta.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Captain_Amazing

The thing about all the controversy about what Romney said is that, at base, I think what he said was true. I mean, in every election, barring some unusual situation, you’ve got like 45-47% of the population who’s going to vote for you anyway, and 45%-47% of the population who’s going to vote against you anyway, and you can’t worry about those people. The people you worry about are the swing who might vote either way.

And if he’d stopped there, he might be president today.
Well, probably not, but in any case he went on to say a lot of negative things about the 47% that I’m sure played well at that particular table of fatcats, but surprisingly was not endearing elsewhere.

[DigitalC]

@Captain_Amazing

The thing about all the controversy about what Romney said is that, at base, I think what he said was true. I mean, in every election, barring some unusual situation, you’ve got like 45-47% of the population who’s going to vote for you anyway, and 45%-47% of the population who’s going to vote against you anyway, and you can’t worry about those people. The people you worry about are the swing who might vote either way.

Obviously, tying that 47% who’ll never vote for him to the 47% who don’t pay income taxes is wrong. But I don’t know that he was wrong in saying that 47% of the population are god damn Democrats who will never see the light and vote Republican the way they oughta.

That is not what he said at all. He said 47% of the population are leeches so every single one of them will vote Democrat, while the hard working real americans are the ones that vote republican.