• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Who are you voting for in 2012?

The point here is if there is a profound ideological difference (eg, role of governement etc.), even if it is only 30% of the population, that 30% should separate.

Otherwise, it is stupid (couldn't find another word, sorry) and unproductive to keep that situation going.

That 30% is not always geographically separated from the other 70%.
 
I think Johnson would make a great leader, but the problem is that the mainstream voter doesn't even know about him. Meanwhile, Romney, a decent leader at best, is taking the spotlight, and will most likely get the nomination.

The way I see it, Ron Paul is right in the middle popularity-wise, and therefore actually stands a chance with proper campaigning.

Romney just isn't interested enough in reducing our government's debt, which is the biggest issue for me.

(At that, I think Herman Cain would get us out of debt too, but again, the average voter says, "Who's Herman Cain?")

Herman Cain is a pro Federal Reserve guy (he actually used to work for the dallas FED if I'm not mistaken). So, clearly, he doesn't understand the danger of a central bank.

The reason the governement is able to go into debt, is because of the FED. They're buying up the US gov. debt. For example, at the last 10 years treasuries auction, 70% of the treasuries were baught by who? By The Federal Reserve!!! lol

You can tell that Herman Cain does not understand the issues. What ever question he is asked, he repeat the same old thing '' surrend yourself with right people, yada yada yada''. He throws out generalities while not answering the questions.
 
... so you're advocating dictatorship?

lol of course not.

Before you say it's unrealistic, look at what's going on in New Hampshire. There is this thing called the ''Free State Project'' where libertarians and freedom loving people are moving from everywhere to New Hampshire.

And it is working, they are changing the laws in favor of more freedom, less governement etc.

So, that could be an option in this actual political environnement.

www.FreeStateProject.org
 
Herman Cain is a pro Federal Reserve guy (he actually used to work for the dallas FED if I'm not mistaken). So, clearly, he doesn't understand the danger of a central bank.

The reason the governement is able to go into debt, is because of the FED. They're buying up the US gov. debt. For example, at the last 10 years treasuries auction, 70% of the treasuries were baught by who? By The Federal Reserve!!! lol

You can tell that Herman Cain does not understand the issues. What ever question he is asked, he repeat the same old thing '' surrend yourself with right people, yada yada yada''. He throws out generalities while not answering the questions.

This definitely holds some truth to it, but he would at least run the country like a business (and cut things that aren't profitable from our spending)
 
This definitely holds some truth to it, but he would at least run the country like a business (and cut things that aren't profitable from our spending)

And remember, Herman Cain is for this US Empire = for the same foreign policy = costs $1 trillion/year = debt goes up.

So if you're worried about the Debt, you cain't vote for a person who supports:

1) The FED that facilitates the gov. spending/debt
2) A foreign policy that is bringing down the US financially

To me, it is unreal that the US governement is taxing peoples hard earned money to send it to foreigners while 1/7 american is on food stamps.
 
Ron Paul is far too moderate for the republican base. He'll never ever win the nomination because the republican party is dominated by right-wing moralizing and socially-backwards loonies.

It's as Keith Olbermann said: "A reasonable republican might run in the other direction. Good luck finding one."

Trust me, if all republicans were like Ron Paul, we'd actually have choice in this country.
 
Ron Paul is far too moderate for the republican base. He'll never ever win the nomination because the republican party is dominated by right-wing moralizing and socially-backwards loonies.

It's as Keith Olbermann said: "A reasonable republican might run in the other direction. Good luck finding one."

Trust me, if all republicans were like Ron Paul, we'd actually have choice in this country.

Moralizing and loonies? Most republicans are fiscal conservatives. Some are very religious. On a whole, they tend to be more conservative in nature. One should be wary of casting such a wide net, as if democrats are somehow angels and beyond reproach.
 
He quoted keith olbermann and you're trying to reason with him? You are a better man than I :)
 
I don't believe half the country is interested in "smaller government." The "Tea Party" says they're interested in smaller government, but are *generally* religious and therefore likely pro-life and against gay marriage (therefore in favor of the government meddling in people's lives). And I imagine you will fall back on the idea that the states should decide, which I will give you, but I believe as a little bit of a straw man.

I'd like to quote a writer for the National Journal
"Ron Paul...did little to shake his image as a fringe candidate by talking too fast and dropping obscure subjects like 'Keynesian bubble' and 'monetary policy' into the conversation."

Such is the state of intelligence in the U.S., even of college educated, "respectable" journalists.
 
Moralizing and loonies? Most republicans are fiscal conservatives. Some are very religious. On a whole, they tend to be more conservative in nature. One should be wary of casting such a wide net, as if democrats are somehow angels and beyond reproach.

Some of us would group loonies and the very religious together.
 
I don't believe half the country is interested in "smaller government." The "Tea Party" says they're interested in smaller government, but are *generally* religious and therefore likely pro-life and against gay marriage (therefore in favor of the government meddling in people's lives). And I imagine you will fall back on the idea that the states should decide, which I will give you, but I believe as a little bit of a straw man.

I'd like to quote a writer for the National Journal
"Ron Paul...did little to shake his image as a fringe candidate by talking too fast and dropping obscure subjects like 'Keynesian bubble' and 'monetary policy' into the conversation."

Such is the state of intelligence in the U.S., even of college educated, "respectable" journalists.

Where are these generally stats coming from. The Tea Party is all about smaller government. You just infer that they are religious.

I always love people mocking so called intolerance while showing intolerance themselves.
 
I don't want to make this thread all about religion, but I believe I should back up my statements. Where did I claim that I, or my collective man, have all the answers? I am of the opinion that I don't know if a higher-power exists, but I really don't have any reason to believe so.

Additionally, 78% of the U.S. is a self-labeled "Christian." You can infer the percentage of of other religions (or look up other studies on those believing in a higher-power). What I did was deduce that "generally" i.e. more than 50% of the Tea Party was religious. I can say, however, that beyond a reasonable doubt most, and I would say very likely more than 75%, are religious.

And as far as the "very religious" comment, I'm referring to fundamentalists, take for example Christian fundamentalists (somewhat related to born-agains). If you take the bible literally and believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago in 7 days, either God really didn't want us to figure this out or, more likely, you're simply "loony." And in reference to your "intolerant" comment, yes I'm intolerant of intolerant religions, for example, extremist Islam or Christianity.

I believe that covers everything you said. Besides "overconfidence is a classic weakness in humans." To that I say, lolwut?

Here's some additional reading on some studies on the politics of tea party supporters, take with a grain of salt:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...012005031_new_poll_looks_at_tea_party_vi.html
44% are "born-again" Christian fundamentalists
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLBZwxqgYgwI&pos=8

edit: plz cry liberal media
 
I'm no fan, but I actually think she should run for the nomination. This will put her ideas to the test.

What ideas? She can't think. Ron Paul is at least capable of a coherent outlook (even if I don't agree with his libertarian outlook, which I consider is nostalgia for a past that never really existed and can in any case not be re-created).

The Tea Party started with a nostalgic appeal to smaller government (such as existed a couple of centuries ago, or even a century ago). But they were hijacked by the usual murky figures. So there is general fuzzy talk of smaller government that is aimed at programs like Medicare and Social Security -- but doesn't look at the military-industrial complex or at the various symbiotic relationships between a powerful centralised state like the US and corporate capital. On these matters I can at least talk to Ron Paul and get an attentive listening. Whereas Palin is a retard. But such is American politics -- gestures, empty symbols, empty rhetorical flourishes, visual appeal, mass media dumbing-down through propaganda and disinformation.

The Tea Party today is about a base -- composed mostly of lower-middle-class and working-class white people -- that is confused and angry. But not intelligent and educated as a general rule. Nor one which has any clear idea of how political struggle has to be conducted (since real politics has been absent for decades). They look back nostalgically to the US of the 1950s -- prosperous country, ethnic homogeneity, secure jobs, better quality of life, and improving standard of living. Their prejudices and naive formulations can be manipulated by the likes of the Koch Brothers and other murky figures.
 
In terms of religion: while I cannot speak for others, as an engineer, statistician, quant (what little of one I currently am, and how much of one I aspire to be), thinker, or whatever else you or I choose to label me with depending on the time of day, for one second to think that some old folk tales written by uninformed and superstitious human beings several millenniums ago with less knowledge of science than a modern third grader hold the answers to anything in life is nonsense of the highest order.

Are there tales of morality and suggestions of how to live a more fulfilling life in some books of religion (allegedly, anyway...judging by what occurred throughout history and what goes on today in the Middle East, I'd beg to differ even on this)? Possibly. Are there direct diktats on how to literally live and govern in this day and age? No.

And the problem is that bible-thumping conservatives, for all of their talk of government leaving people alone, favor a far more intrusive government than that favored by progressives. Progressives advocate to make life a little bit tougher for the tail-end minority in the upper reaches of wealth that most people can only dream of while running a socially laissez-faire government. If you want to marry a person of the same gender, go ahead. If you want to have an abortion, that's between you, your family, your doctor, but not the government. If you wish to carry any sort of religion (or none at all), then that is your right, and you have the right not to be shunned for it.

The conservatives are the exact polar opposite of that. They believe that the government should be economically laissez-faire and return us to the gilded ages (which sired the biggest financial catastrophe in the recent history of man in The Great Depression), and the attempt to do this again through Bushonomics (or perhaps Reaganomics) has come close to repeating that same exact history. Recall that in order to escape the Great Depression, it took a world war to spur on millions of manufacturing jobs by having people manually piece together war machinery.

Times have changed since then--the military complex is no longer a creator of wealth as it was in WW2, but a destroyer of it. Despite how beautiful a piece of machinery the F-22 is, the enemy aircraft for it to shoot down exist only in video games.

In short, everything the conservatives stand for is anachronistic. So many people wish for the standards of living of the 50s...but do recall, that standards of living in the U.S. were relatively good compared to everywhere else...why?

Because "everywhere else" was a smoldering heap of rubble, rebuilding, or a communist dystopia. And even then, standards of living in the U.S. were only good for you if you were white, American, and Christian.

I for one believe in government that prioritizes the little guy--those without the wealthy parents who went to elite universities that they can send their kids to as legacy babies, who connect them to well-heeled individuals already entrenched in high positions in industry that their children otherwise did nothing to even earn the time of day from, and who are already born on third base. They need no help from Uncle Sam--as they've already benefited tremendously. Uncle Sam should be there to help those who show potential, but just don't have the necessary wherewithal to achieve it alone.
 
Back
Top