+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked (/thread-9969.html)
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-25
toshiromiballza Wrote:Just because what I'm saying is not politically correct doesn't make it any less true, and just because I'm speaking the truth doesn't mean I should be labelled a racist (Tzadeck).You're a racist because you're saying racist things and you have racist beliefs, not because of any "facts". You started out saying the facts spoke for themselves but now you're trying to make sure we interpret them in a white supremacist way.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - vix86 - 2012-09-25
toshiromiballza Wrote:Just because what I'm saying is not politically correct doesn't make it any less true, and just because I'm speaking the truth doesn't mean I should be labelled a racist (Tzadeck).I had considered making a post to rebuke your points, but I doubt it would even penetrate your warped reality. You're a racist is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with "being PC" and "ignoring the truth."
Wonder if there's a "fact" about racism being genetic as well.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - toshiromiballza - 2012-09-25
I've said this earlier:
Quote:Not labelling everyone (Ron Paul included) that says something politically incorrect as a racist, simply for stating the truth, would be a nice start.But I see that is impossible. Even though I state facts, you people accuse me of being a racist, and even funnier, a "white supremacist," even though I'm studying Japanese and Korean, not to mention taking a Hindi class next year.
Yudantaiteki, I'm not telling anyone to interpret anything in a special way, all I did was listed the facts, and there's not much else to it than that. It's not my problem these facts are hard for people to accept. I'm a rational person, so I have no problems accepting them, however inconvenient they might be.
vix86 Wrote:I had considered making a post to rebuke your retarded points, but I doubt it would even penetrate your warped reality.Please do. All you've done now is used ad hominems instead of arguments. There's not much to argue about facts anyway, so it'd be interesting to see what you have to say.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Zgarbas - 2012-09-25
Ok, time for calming down now.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - JimmySeal - 2012-09-25
yudantaiteki Wrote:He's a great spokesman for Ron Paul -- majority vote can institute slavery, Blacks are all criminals, marriage isn't a human right, etc.Ron Paul is the same guy who essentially said last year that people dying from lack of health insurance is a testament to their freedom (to thunderous applause from the audience), so I don't think toshiro's representation of him is all that far from the reality.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - vix86 - 2012-09-25
There are two points to the argument, but they stem from a single idea which is that "its all genetics."
First testosterone. The core argument is that blacks have more testosterone than most other races. A bit of googling actually shows this to be true. However the connection attempting to be made is that "testosterone = big angry man that beats people up."So I google a bit more to see if there's any evidence to support that testosterone leads to aggression/crimes. It is known that testosterone makes people more aggressive or angry but really how much does it play into crime.
Googling and looking on Wiki have showed this connection to tenuous.
One of the things that Wiki points out is that there is only one reliable way to test for testosterone and that's a lumbar puncture. Apparently many studies are voided simply by not using valid sampling method; something to keep in mind.
Quote:Most studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression_and_criminality)
Nearly all studies of juvenile delinquency and testosterone are not significant.
Most studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism.
Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship.
http://www.gender.org.uk/about/06encrn/63faggrs.htm
This link also repeats much of the rest, thought a bit better.
But both links and the studies involved say the same thing. Our racist is probably already typing up his post of "See? Blacks are genetically criminals." But not so fast. All of these studies have something in common. The studies result in *drumroll* CORRELATIONS and anyone that has had a few college science classes or statistics class can repeat this mantra.
Quote:Correlation DOES NOT equal CausationJust because the studies found that people in jail had more testosterone does not mean that testosterone is the cause of them being in jail. There may well be other factors.
The second bit to the argument should be easy and quick. IQ. Blacks have a low IQ, again supposedly because its "genetics."
IQ tests typically try to measure intelligence, however it should be noted that intelligence is a word with many different definitions. There are more than one type of IQ test out there. Also when talking about score,
Quote:When modern IQ tests are devised, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100 and the standard deviation (SD) almost always to 15, although this was not always so historically.[1] Thus, the intention is that approximately 95% of the population scores within two SDs of the mean, i.e. has an IQ between 70 and 130.Wiki
Suck that down a moment. So if black people are scoring mid-80 on IQ tests it still means they are just normal by the design of test makers.
There are also a number of critiques of IQ testing, among them stereotype bias. Again, Wiki has a list of them.
But white and black differences are all that matter here really right? Since we are trying to be racist and all. Turns out there's an entire wiki page on this Race and Intelligence.
In the "US scores" section it even specifically addresses "Black vs White."
Quote:Rushton & Jensen (2005) write that in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the white mean).So in 2005 this showed the gap that most talk about, the "blacks have an average IQ of 85."
But does this really mean anything? No not really, because like I stated earlier there is a lot that goes into affecting an IQ score. Good education being one of those. In fact there was a study that showed that the IQ score had in fact been narrowing between blacks and whites between the 1970's to 2002. Showing that indeed teh IQ can be improved, ie: IQ is not all that genetic. And again, 70 to 130 is considered normal and can be changed with education.
Which brings me to another one of your attempts to show that "blacks are stupid."
Racist Wrote:They are offered education, as is every other child, they could go make something out of themselves (and while some do, most don't).My question to you is this then. Is all education equal? Does a rich upper class kid going to a private school get the same care and attention as a lower class black kid going to a public school in the projects? Does the rich kid have to worry about getting shot/stabbed at school as much as the black kid at the poor kid? Does the black kid get the same kind of teachers that provide the same kind of attention and teaching as the rich kid? You keep trying to pretend environment doesn't factor into the "poor inferior black people," except it does. This is one of the reasons I've heard for Affirmative Action really.
Last thing I'll address is.
Racist Wrote:There are also more poor white people living in America than there are poor black people, yet the prison statistics still speak for themselves, even though one would expect the group that is the majority both in the overall population and in poverty to come out on top.Part of the reason for the lob sided prision stats may have nothing to do with "genetics." Actually it probably has more to do with.......racism.
Quote:Many sociologists and criminal justice academics argue that this disparity in prison population is reflective of discriminatory sentencing. In a study conducted by the Rand Corporation, it has been estimated that Blacks and Latinos received longer sentences and spent more time in prison than their white counterparts who were convicted of similar crimes and with similar criminal records. One particular example revealed the state of California statistically imposed sentences that averaged 6.5 months longer for Hispanics, and 1.5 months longer for Blacks when compared to white inmates.wiki
Also there is stuff like racial profiling too. If you live in a place with a lot of racist cops and you are black, then you are a lot more likely to pulled over or stopped simply because you are black. In the parts I grew up (lots of black people and a lot of racist cops), my black friends often mentioned they got pulled over for DWB, Driving While Black. So even if say more white people carried pot around on them all the time; if black people are getting pulled over more often than white people and searched. Then its no wonder that more black people are getting put in jail.
I eagerly await to hear how its all genetics still.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - qwertyytrewq - 2012-09-25
toshiromiballza Wrote:Look at the Chinese or Indian immigrants who came here poor.I'm looking at them, and they mostly appear to be the specially hand-selected (by the American government) sons and daughters of rich Indians and rich Chinese Communist Party officials.
What is the relevance of Asian children of rich Asian parents and what does that have to do with the descendants of black slaves?
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of low-IQ (or whatever method of intelligence you prefer) Chinese and Indian people. The difference is that those people are blocked from entering the USA, only the rich and smart can immigrate. So it's no surprise that on average, that particular sample size performs better on IQ tests.
yudantaiteki Wrote:He's a great spokesman for Ron Paul -- majority vote can institute slavery, Blacks are all criminals, marriage isn't a human right, etc.That's why I said to him:
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Finally, the last thing I want to say is that if you want mainstream support for Ron Paul, you might want to drop this whole avenue of argument. It does nobody any good, whether it's black people or Ron Paul-supporters.Unless of course, he is against Ron Paul and making him look bad by pretending to be a Ron Paul supporter with poisonous views.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Shakunatz - 2012-09-25
toshiromiballza Wrote:The IQ thing is both genetic and environmental, but mostly genetic.Link plz, lol.
toshiromiballza Wrote:There's a clear link between IQ and race, with East Asians having the highest IQ, and Aboriginal Australians the absolute lowest. Such is the result of our evolution and there is no point in arguing about it. It is what it is. African people or the Australian Aboriginals evolved without the need for much critical thinking over the many millennia because of their environment, and thus have lesser intelligence on average.If it's mostly genetic unschooled East Asian adults should outscore Australian Aboriginal MIT PHDs? Because "Hey it's genetics!".
I don't think that's gonna happen. lol
Come one, admit it: environment and education play an important role.
toshiromiballza Wrote:Yes, it's important, I agree, but it's genetic and cultural as well. They are offered education, as is every other child, they could go make something out of themselves (and while some do, most don't).Is all education equal!?!?! That seems like a mighty big assumption. And if it's mostly genetic why people bother going to expensive college? In the end education doesn't count, right?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Zgarbas - 2012-09-25
Errr.. Actually IQ does not measure actual intelligence per se, but rather the ability to use it. Sure, an MIT Phd will definitely be more knowledgeable and intelligent than a 3 year old child, but he can have a lower IQ. If you go by the standard IQ test which is based solely on abstract thought then yeah, an unschooled person can get way higher than a schooled one. It's one of the reasons why I find IQs (and general estimations on intelligence) to be highly irrelevant.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - toshiromiballza - 2012-09-25
vix86 Wrote:There are two points to the argument, but they stem from a single idea which is that "its all genetics."Please refer to any of my posts where I have explicitly stated that "it is all genetic." I never said that, so please stop spreading misinformation.
vix86 Wrote:First testosterone. The core argument is that blacks have more testosterone than most other races. A bit of googling actually shows this to be true. However the connection attempting to be made is that "testosterone = big angry man that beats people up."So I google a bit more to see if there's any evidence to support that testosterone leads to aggression/crimes. It is known that testosterone makes people more aggressive or angry but really how much does it play into crime.So you first acknowledge that they have more testosterone, and that testosterone increases aggressiveness, but then you question whether testosterone levels have anything to do with violent crimes and criminality? This is pretty pathetic on your part, trying to find an excuse when the reality is too uncomfortable for you. Gee, I wonder what other reasons are for them beating that person up, or shooting that person, or raping that girl. Yes, it must have been an economic reason for them to rape that girl, or maybe she said something racist. Definitely.
...
Just because the studies found that people in jail had more testosterone does not mean that testosterone is the cause of them being in jail. There may well be other factors.
vix86 Wrote:The second bit to the argument should be easy and quick. IQ. Blacks have a low IQ, again supposedly because its "genetics."Normal for them, but sub-normal for whites or Asians. My point exactly. That is their average, and it is normal for them. Whites and Asians on the other hand score far better.
...
Suck that down a moment. So if black people are scoring mid-80 on IQ tests it still means they are just normal by the design of test makers.
vix86 Wrote:There are also a number of critiques of IQ testing, among them stereotype bias.If it is biased toward the majority, white people, then how come the Asian minority outscores the white people on the very tests that are biased in their favour? It's just another excuse.
vix86 Wrote:In fact there was a study that showed that the IQ score had in fact been narrowing between blacks and whites between the 1970's to 2002. Showing that indeed teh IQ can be improved, ie: IQ is not all that genetic. And again, 70 to 130 is considered normal and can be changed with education.And then there's the studies by Rushton & Jensen (2006, 2010) who have refuted that study, and the studies by Murray that have showed the narrowing has stalled with people born after 1970 (2006), and that their average IQ is actually 78, not 85 (2008). You can invent as many excuses as you want, but the studies speak for themselves. Also, "normal" is subjective. A person with an IQ of 85 or below would be considered "slow" in most (if not all) European countries, for example.
vix86 Wrote:My question to you is this then. Is all education equal? Does a rich upper class kid going to a private school get the same care and attention as a lower class black kid going to a public school in the projects? Does the rich kid have to worry about getting shot/stabbed at school as much as the black kid at the poor kid? Does the black kid get the same kind of teachers that provide the same kind of attention and teaching as the rich kid? You keep trying to pretend environment doesn't factor into the "poor inferior black people," except it does. This is one of the reasons I've heard for Affirmative Action really.No, not all education is equal, but there are more poor white people in America, and therefore more poor white students attending the very same public schools the black kids attend, yet they still outperform the black kids, even though their educational institution is the same, and the classes they go to are the same. You're trying to make this into "rich whites" versus "poor blacks" as an excuse, instead of being honest about it and compare poor whites with poor blacks. I don't blame you, I know why.
vix86 Wrote:Part of the reason for the lob sided prision stats may have nothing to do with "genetics." Actually it probably has more to do with.......racism.Yes, it is white on black racism's fault that blacks commit more robberies, rapes and murders. It just so happens the "racist cops" have a tendency of arresting black rapists, murderers and robbers, and letting the white rapists, murderers and robbers go free. Definitely. Or, you know, there's simply more black criminals because of the aforementioned reasons.
Quote:Many sociologists and criminal justice academics argue that this disparity in prison population is reflective of discriminatory sentencing. ...This is not about how long their sentences are, this is about how many of them are arrested and sentenced for being criminals, regardless of conviction time. The facts are that most are black, not because "racist cops and judges" sentence the black criminals and let the white criminals free, but because there is simply more of them.
vix86 Wrote:Also there is stuff like racial profiling too. If you live in a place with a lot of racist cops and you are black, then you are a lot more likely to pulled over or stopped simply because you are black. In the parts I grew up (lots of black people and a lot of racist cops), my black friends often mentioned they got pulled over for DWB, Driving While Black. So even if say more white people carried pot around on them all the time; if black people are getting pulled over more often than white people and searched. Then its no wonder that more black people are getting put in jail.Racial profiling is there for a reason, and the reason is they simply have a bigger tendency of being criminals. I see nothing wrong with that at all. If whites were the bigger criminals, I'd have no problem with racial profiling either. By the way, the prison statistics are for "violent crimes," not for getting arrested because of smoking pot. So no, "DWB" means absolutely nothing when you compare the statistics for violent crimes (assault, rape, murder). What excuse are you going to use for that?
vix86 Wrote:I eagerly await to hear how its all genetics still.Never claimed that.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:I'm looking at them, and they mostly appear to be the specially hand-selected (by the American government) sons and daughters of rich Indians and rich Chinese Communist Party officials.Yes, those Chinese immigrants all over Canada (or America) are all hand-selected because they are the sons and daughters of rich politicians, but when they come to Canada (or America), they decide to open a Chinese restaurant where their entire family works 7 days a week, because they got bored of being rich. I also wasn't aware most Chinese people were rich and that is why their national IQ is so high. Thanks for informing me about it.
Shakunatz Wrote:Link plz, lol.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
It is 75% to 85% genetic for adults, and while the environment can and does play a role, it is only 25% to 15%.
Shakunatz Wrote:If it's mostly genetic unschooled East Asian adults should outscore Australian Aboriginal MIT PHDs? Because "Hey it's genetics!".I never said they don't, but I did say it is mostly genetic, and as you can see, that's a well-established fact. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised to see an Australian Aboriginal with a PhD, especially in the field involving a lot of maths. Care to point one to me? Not saying it's not possible, but it's extremely unlikely. However, exceptions do happen, and genetic mutations during pregnancy and infancy do weird things in the human brain sometimes, producing people that you might call "living calculators", "walking computers" or something. Basically like the savants.
I don't think that's gonna happen. lol
Come one, admit it: environment and education play an important role.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Zgarbas - 2012-09-25
Oh wow.
No seriously guys, this really isn't going to go anywhere no matter how hard you try, and you'll only make yourselves angrier. Please change topics?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - toshiromiballza - 2012-09-25
Zgarbas Wrote:Oh wow.You're right, I have better things to do (as do we all), so this is my final post in this thread.
No seriously guys, this really isn't going to go anywhere no matter how hard you try, and you'll only make yourselves angrier. Please change topics?
Too bad I'm known as the "forum racist" from now on. Ah well, should have expected as much. I'd paste a few George Orwell quotes, but I've got a feeling everybody already knows which ones I have in mind.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-25
I'm not angry, I'm laughing. But I wasn't planning on responding anymore.
EDIT: Ah yes, Orwell. Because people disagreeing with you on a message board = Big Brother.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Zgarbas - 2012-09-25
Thank you.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Surreal - 2012-09-25
Thanks for the post about minarchism, it cleared a lot of things up and I'm thankful that you understand how the term "minarchism" is so ill-defined that it confused me and Icecream..
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - qwertyytrewq - 2012-09-25
Back to the topic: If by any chance, Mitt Romney becomes president of America, would America be a better position, worse position, or about the same position?
Better for who?
Worse for who?
And how? (economically, socially, financially etc)
And why?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - nadiatims - 2012-09-25
Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment.
It seems ridiculous to assert that IQ should have absolutely no basis in genetics when pretty much all other human traits do to varying degrees (height, eye color, tolerance to alcohol, you name it). Is there not some tendency for smart people to have smart children?
So it seems inevitable that if compared for varying populations with varying genetic make up there should be some variation in IQ (which while not the be all end all of intelligence is representative of some type of logical thinking ability). Such minor variation might also lead to certain peoples being over or under represented in certain contexts. And this is absolutely OK imo.
Don't get me wrong, I do think tosiro is incorrect in his interpretations. I think there will be a wide variation in IQ within any given 'race' and this individual variation is going to be quite a bit more significant than the slight variation between races. Say you compare some IQ bell curves for populations A and B. Even if curve A is shifted -5 points, there's still going to be a whole lot of people in population A with higher IQ than population B.
I think one thing that may be hurting blacks in the US, might in fact be the very state programs that purport to benefit them. Now I'm not american so I'm not sure about all the details, but I'm talking about things like attempting to lift them out of poverty by using redistributed wealth, and things like affirmative action and so on. If you apply a different set of rules on one segment of the population, is it any wonder that it achieves different outcomes?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - nadiatims - 2012-09-25
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Back to the topic: If by any chance, Mitt Romney becomes president of America, would America be a better position, worse position, or about the same position?If obama is reelected, I think the US economy will continue to lose competitiveness, and will slide into economic ruin, perhaps going through a japan style lost decade or two but with potentially more civil unrest.
Better for who?
Worse for who?
And how? (economically, socially, financially etc)
And why?
who wins? In the short term, bureaucrats, anyone willing to game the welfare system, heads of military. In the long term, bureaucrats, cronies, and top military officials who are able to gain control and benefit from the eventual cheap labor force that will emerge as a result of the slow erosion of wealth of the general population.
This will of course lead to civil unrest and squabbling between left and right factions. Many who can will get out of the country.
with Romney, it's hard to say. I think the economy would initially rally to some extent, but with the continuation of wars among other things the eventual outcome would still be a big hit to the economy (it's pretty much inevitable) and an erosion of the american way of life and some civil unrest. Replace a lot of the bureaucrats in the winners list with cronies.
Either way the american economy is probably screwed. It might fare a little better under Romney as he may be a little more likely to make necessary reforms. But on the other hand, maybe America needs to literally hit rockbottom under obama before people wake up and really change things.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - vix86 - 2012-09-25
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Back to the topic: If by any chance, Mitt Romney becomes president of America, would America be a better position, worse position, or about the same position?Regardless of who is elected, I think the economy is going to take a downturn and go into a recession. Its been covered by a number of economic outlets and blogs and what not. And since the president doesn't have some magical wand to change the economy how he sees fit, I don't think you can expect much from either person as president. I think the biggest issue would be who has more control in the congress. If its a Dem president but a Rep congress, you can expect every turn and decision to be a mire. I like to imagine this will change and that we'll return to at least a bit of compromise but its hard to say at this point, but many big name republicans (John McCain for instance) have started hinting that they need to step away from Tea party madness and return to compromising.
Better for who?
Worse for who?
And how? (economically, socially, financially etc)
And why?
I think with Obama we can see a bit more centrist rhetoric and action for the middle class, but it'll depend highly upon how much ground he gives the Republicans. Arguably, by trying to come off as a person that reaches across the aisle and wants to work with the other party, he has turned out to be more conservative in some of his policies than even some former republican presidents. Whether this is entirely intentional or not is speculative. I think we'll see the economy dip under him and if the Dems are lucky, they'll see it start to recover at the end of the 4 years. If not, then you can expect a Republican president in 2016, if it turns around, who knows, maybe we'll see Clinton 2016.
With Romney, its my personal feeling that his policies will ultimately wound the middle class even more, this is based mostly on his character and status though. He honestly hasn't talked all that much about what he wants to do, but what he has shown us about his economic policy does seem to point to an effective tax raise on the lower/middle class and an effective tax cut on upper class. He won't tax the absurdly rich or businesses, and I believe we can expect to see massive tax cuts to businesses as well. Adding in the desire for "balanced budget" you'll see effective cuts to welfare programs across the board, in particular Medicare. Biggest reason being that the Republicans won't put up with defense cuts; its blasphemy, so it has to come out of the budget elsewhere. Rhetoric-wise I think he'll be a walking gaffe machine though. I suspect he'd take a similar approach as Bush Jr. though and avoid the camera as much as possible, because whenever he opens his mouth he says something stupid. This is unfortunate too because the president is suppose to be something of a figurehead/spokesman for the country.
I personally don't believe Romney or Obama will start any new wars. There is a good chance they might involve us in some conflicts (think Syria), but the determining factor will be whether other NATO countries put up their own troops and its sanctioned by the UN Security Council as well as the Arab Confederation (recall that we had OK from them to help in Libya as I recall). The past 2 wars are too salient in the mind of the populace and have left too sour of a taste to receive support for something even bigger and even more costly.
So I think we're probably a bit worse off with Romney, and no better off with Obama.
One ticking time bomb that I didn't bring up though w/ the economy was the EU, specifically the Euro. There are conspiracy theories that the EU is holding off doing anything to drastic (ie: Kicking Greece out) till after the election, since the saying is that they want Obama for another 4 years. I'm not sure how much I buy this though, I think most of the EU (think politicians, not populace) only cares mildly as to whether its Obama or Romney. I think the case with Greece stands to be very messy though; with a lot of unknowns involved and it stands to really shake the global economy up.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - six8ten - 2012-09-25
vix86 Wrote:With Romney, its my personal feeling that his policies will ultimately wound the middle class even more, this is based mostly on his character and status though. He honestly hasn't talked all that much about what he wants to do, but what he has shown us about his economic policy does seem to point to an effective tax raise on the lower/middle class and an effective tax cut on upper class. He won't tax the absurdly rich or businesses, and I believe we can expect to see massive tax cuts to businesses as well. Adding in the desire for "balanced budget" you'll see effective cuts to welfare programs across the board, in particular Medicare. Biggest reason being that the Republicans won't put up with defense cuts; its blasphemy, so it has to come out of the budget elsewhere. Rhetoric-wise I think he'll be a walking gaffe machine though. I suspect he'd take a similar approach as Bush Jr. though and avoid the camera as much as possible, because whenever he opens his mouth he says something stupid. This is unfortunate too because the president is suppose to be something of a figurehead/spokesman for the country.I think that sums up Romney pretty well, though I'm not sure he'd avoid the cameras as much.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Tzadeck - 2012-09-25
nadiatims Wrote:with Romney, it's hard to say. I think the economy would initially rally to some extentWhy would it rally a bit?
Also, why is Romney more likely to make reforms that you say will help?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - kitakitsune - 2012-09-25
Romney out-polls Obama within the middle class by over 15 points. Either they are all very stupid or they are on to something about the economy.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-25
It's hard to zero in on a single factor like that; economic issues may be what turn the swing voters, but a lot of the Romney base is very committed to the social issues. (Also economics is a science, and popular opinion doesn't really determine what's good economic policy).
Honestly I don't think there's much either candidate can do to radically fix the economy.
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - nadiatims - 2012-09-25
Tzadeck Wrote:Because the business community probably has more faith in Romney to cut spending and restore some faith in the dollar.nadiatims Wrote:with Romney, it's hard to say. I think the economy would initially rally to some extentWhy would it rally a bit?
Also, why is Romney more likely to make reforms that you say will help?
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-25
Romney hasn't really shown much willingness to do that, though -- the so-called "budget cutting" plans they propose involve huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and virtually every non-partisan organization says that his budget cut claims are impossible.
The current debt-to-GDP ratio is a little over 100% (102% or so?) History and economics indicate it needs to be below 90% -- it's much more likely this will occur by economic recovery than by budget cuts. Neither side really seems to be willing to do what would be necessary to cut the budget that much, and looking at Europe's austerity fiasco, that may not be a bad thing.