• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eric Cantor loses primary

Not all infrastructure (such as education) is equal and those who do succeed gain more from the additional usage they take advantage of from infrastructure (like roads for moving goods).

At least, that's how the argument goes.

Or how about courts? Apple spends nearly all of its time fighting civil suits. Corporations enjoy protection of their IP, real property, and everything else that normal people don't involve themselves in. Most people have never been involved with a civil suit. A company like Apple has probably never gone a week without using the courts for something or other.
 
The Onion nails it, as usual: "Cantor Resignation Leaves Void In Leadership Vacuum".
 
Polaris related "racism and fascism" to "guns, abortion, and God". I dispute the connection.

Chief Justice Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case relates to equal treatment before the law (i.e., to racism). Mussolini relates to "fascism" (duh!).

They aren't necessarily connected, it just happens that many of the "guns, abortion and God" proponents are racist.
And in some cases fascists.

Loyalty oath of the SS, 9 November 1935
"What is your oath ?" - "I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !"
"So you believe in a God ?" - "Yes, I believe in a Lord God."
"What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?" - "I think he is arrogant, megalomaniacal and stupid; he is not one of us."
Daredelvis
 
Not really. Having relatively low and falling unemployment, record levels of employment, falling deficits, and the fasted growth in the industrialised world is pretty solid evidence that it's working well, with a bit still to do. Your post, and that of JJ, is also pretty solid evidence that people will choose to see what they want to see.

1) That didn't happen during the relevant year.

2)If you believe Troy claims on benefits fraud those unemployment numbers are false (being nominally in work gets you round a lot of limits on benefits).

I don't disagree with the the idea of austerity at this point in time (I disagree on how its being done in particular the government has backed off in a few places for PR issues) but it seems unlikely that delaying it to the third quarter of 2012 wouldn't have produced better result.
 
The Wikipedia article on the 7th district says Is there an update in some other article?

http://www.roanokefreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Congressional_District_State_HOD.jpg

The Dems have been "conceded" the 3rd, 8th, and 11th. Notice that the green shifts (the new districts) mostly impact those three districts. The reason the 7th needed to wrap around Richmond (and not include it) was that the 7th had to give up some red country to the 10th as the suburban and exurban Washington DC crowd vote Democrat. So in order to keep the 7th red, they wrapped around Richmond rather than simply moving it into the 7th. On the surface, they have 11 districts of roughly 750,000 population. But in order to maintain that the new 3rd looks like a crazy quilt, with the 7th getting a chunk on the north and the 4th getting a chunk on the south.

Virginia voted for Obama, has a Dem governor and 2 Dem senators. The Congressional vote in the state was no where near 75/25, yet they (the GOP) has 8 of 11 seats!
 
The criticism of Obama's "You didn't build that" still holds. He says to business owners that they owe their success to government infrastructure. To a degree, that's true. To a considerable degree it's false. All residents have access to the tax-funded infrastructure. Differences in success between a business owner and a bum cannot be caused by common factors like infrastructure.
The criticism of "You didn't build that" mostly attempted to assert that President Obama was referring to businesses, and this criticism does not hold because he was not, he was referring to public goods funded by the state.

However the actual argument in which Obama invoked this was that this made a case for "the 2%" to pay higher income tax, IE to make the tax system more progressive. And the benefited more from infrastructure rationale does not logically justify progressive tax at all, it justifies flat tax or user fees.

There are many justifications for progressive tax. Not that one.

Previous thread (Most of it is stuck on the silly attempt to switch infrastructure for business)
 
Last edited:
It's very clear a good owner will likely be more successful then a bad one. But without the infrastructure, it's moot.
The point of the July 2012 speech was not "Look, we need infrastructure, K?" it was being used as a justification for more progressive tax, which it does not actually justify.
 
Interesting article on a left-right convergence to defeat Cantor:

After Cantor’s 2010 victory, a group of anti-Cantor activists from both left and right met in person to discuss campaigning against the man who would soon be majority leader. We met several times over two weeks at coffee shops and pubs in strip malls throughout the Richmond suburbs. At first, we were suspicious that one side was trying manipulate the other, but soon we developed a sense of trust over our shared frustrations with Cantor. (For example, we saw his refusal to acknowledge or debate his opponents as condescending to his constituents.) And we agreed that the 2010 results had proved Cantor’s eventual vulnerability. We weren’t some diabolical, well-organized conspiracy to bring him down, so much as a few scattered—if motivated—people talking about their failure to have done so.

The anti-immigrant wing of the GOP hurt him bad. I understand that the reason for this sentiment is largely based on principles--how do you embrace people whose actual entry into the country is illegal?--but at the same time, it is killing the party among folks who actually are our logical allies.
 
--but at the same time, it is killing the party among folks who actually are our logical allies.

Why? What is the basis for that claim?
The religion thing is important. Many Hispanics are devout Catholics, and about as anti-abortion as you can get. Apart from "hatred for Castro" among some Hispanics, I'm not sure what else would make them "logical allies". Most of them are poor and working class folks who would benefit very much from something like the Affordable Health Care Act.
 
The religion thing is important. Many Hispanics are devout Catholics, and about as anti-abortion as you can get. Apart from "hatred for Castro" among some Hispanics, I'm not sure what else would make them "logical allies". Most of them are poor and working class folks who would benefit very much from something like the Affordable Health Care Act.

Like you hear mentioned a lot during the election cycles, the GOP message really should resonate more with a wider range of voters than it does, and I don't even agree with most of it. At some point, it seems, the GOP forgot that they are supposed to be an inclusive big tent party and started creating strict guidelines that everyone is supposed to follow even if parts of it alienate people who might otherwise be attracted to their larger message.

Is it strange that even if I don't like the party that much I still want them to realize they're just hurting themselves by being exclusive? Maybe I think they'll be a far more effective, for their own goals and through bipartisan compromise, if they can learn to compromise on their party platforms first.
 
Like you hear mentioned a lot during the election cycles, the GOP message really should resonate more with a wider range of voters than it does, and I don't even agree with most of it. At some point, it seems, the GOP forgot that they are supposed to be an inclusive big tent party and started creating strict guidelines that everyone is supposed to follow even if parts of it alienate people who might otherwise be attracted to their larger message.

Is it strange that even if I don't like the party that much I still want them to realize they're just hurting themselves by being exclusive? Maybe I think they'll be a far more effective, for their own goals and through bipartisan compromise, if they can learn to compromise on their party platforms first.

But the party itself, doesn't want everyone in. They don't consider most to be the right kind of people. They would rather be ideologically pure and win by bare pluralities through creating sufficient safe districts, as well as repression and disqualification at the polls rather than any broadening or blurring of their social or political stances.
 
It astounds me that this meme still lives, when listening to the actual speech makes it clear he is referring to infrastructure.

What is astounding and astonishing is that some people actually did genuinely misunderstand Obama's obvious, though fuzzy, reference, while most just took a subtle ambiguity and ran with it in a most disingenuous way.

In case anyone still wonders why Cantor lost his primary, just watch this short video.

He comes across as a total weasel when he claims he is not wondering why he lost, when the polls were so skewed in the opposite direction, and just wants to look forward to....etc (standard weasel worded boiler plate nonsense). I can't see how this man ever merited being a representative of anyone in Virginia.

I wish the interviewer had asked, "You are not interested in learning what went wrong in the polls so that you can help republican candidates in the future?"

ETA: One thing I don't understand. I have not heard any mention of voter fraud as the possible cause of Cantor's loss. :rolleyes: It's possible that I missed it, but I wonder why that is. This has been such a prime republican concern where minority voters are concerned that extensive measures are taken to insure against it.
 
Last edited:
...ETA: One thing I don't understand. I have not heard any mention of voter fraud as the possible cause of Cantor's loss. :rolleyes: It's possible that I missed it, but I wonder why that is. This has been such a prime republican concern where minority voters are concerned that extensive measures are taken to insure against it.

LOL because the people most upset about potential voter fraud won the election?
 
PPACA is prime example as is 'You didn't build that' (paraphrased)

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The ACA isn't even close to Maxism, it's all about privately owned Insurance and privately owned Hospitals.

Maxism would be where Obama nationalised all US hospitals and Health Clinics, set a standardised wage for all Doctors and Nurses nationwide and then instituted a single payer system with the Federal Government as that payer.

You don't have a clue.

As to the 'You didn't build that' quote. Already dealt with. Obama was right, Business Owners didn't build the infrastructure they rely on, and all of them got help somewhere, be it a mentor, an investor, or a teacher in the publically funded education system.

Try again.
 
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The ACA isn't even close to Maxism, it's all about privately owned Insurance and privately owned Hospitals.

Maxism would be where Obama nationalised all US hospitals and Health Clinics, set a standardised wage for all Doctors and Nurses nationwide and then instituted a single payer system with the Federal Government as that payer.

Actually, while that may be a form of socialism, depending upon how the economic system is structured, but it is not, to my understanding Marxism.
Marxism is about having strict classes and how these classes interact with each other. Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis which interprets these interactions in terms of the interactions of strongly held/imposed class-systems.

As to the 'You didn't build that' quote. Already dealt with. Obama was right, Business Owners didn't build the infrastructure they rely on, and all of them got help somewhere, be it a mentor, an investor, or a teacher in the publically funded education system.

Or even inherited money which in the vast majority of cases represents an accumulated individual taxation of societal effort as much, if not more than, the singular efforts of the individual who accumulated that societal benefit.
 

Back
Top Bottom