PeterMP Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 When the dollar collapses and loses its world reserve status (and it will) What currency is going to replace it? The Euro is in just as bad shape, if not worse. There is no way the Swiss are going to allow enough Francs to get out there. The Chinese devalued the Yuan even more today (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/1012/China-to-US-on-currency-bill-I-wouldn-t-do-that-if-I-were-you). The dollar is going to remain the reserve currency for the foresable future simply because of inertia, if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Paper fiat currencies are easily replaceable. Shux, they just replaced the currencies of nearly all of Europe a mere decade ago. Turkey instituted the "New Lira" in 2005 when inflation got so out of control. The dollar has no strength, no credibility, and zero long-term viability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Paper fiat currencies are easily replaceable. Shux, they just replaced the currencies of nearly all of Europe a mere decade ago. Turkey instituted the "New Lira" in 2005 when inflation got so out of control. The dollar has no strength, no credibility, and zero long-term viability. How long have people been talking about a single European currency? Only since post-WWI (note the I not II). And I think everybody can see how Turkey replacing its currency is a little bit easier than replacing the world reserve currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If Obama is going to try use social issues to mask his economic failures, then yes they could be a part of this election. Sad for him that the Republicans are going to bring every single question around to the economy. This thread is fail incarnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 If Obama is going to try use social issues to mask his economic failures, then yes they could be a part of this election. Sad for him that the Republicans are going to bring every single question around to the economy.This thread is fail incarnate. Disagree with the "fail incarnate" statement, and you should look at polling numbers if you don't believe me. Obama is neck-and-neck at worst against any individual Republican candidate. He'll be able to rest his economic failures on the shoulders of the obstructionist Republicans, which of course wouldn't stand on its own. However, combine that with the ridiculous social stances of the GOP, and suddenly Obama looks like he's the only one really concerned about the future of the country. Don't get me wrong, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air, but Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Perry aren't going to make any independents feel comfortable. Romney is the only one with a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 What currency is going to replace it?The Euro is in just as bad shape, if not worse. There is no way the Swiss are going to allow enough Francs to get out there. The Chinese devalued the Yuan even more today (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/1012/China-to-US-on-currency-bill-I-wouldn-t-do-that-if-I-were-you). The dollar is going to remain the reserve currency for the foresable future simply because of inertia, if nothing else. Probably easier to say now than say in 2009. But you're right, that's a sign of strength that you weather the short-term issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Disagree with the "fail incarnate" statement, and you should look at polling numbers if you don't believe me. Obama is neck-and-neck at worst against any individual Republican candidate.He'll be able to rest his economic failures on the shoulders of the obstructionist Republicans, which of course wouldn't stand on its own. However, combine that with the ridiculous social stances of the GOP, and suddenly Obama looks like he's the only one really concerned about the future of the country.. Neck and Neck with a generic candidate for an incumbent is a bad thing. And polling numbers have nothing to do with the false premise that social issues will win this campaign. The right would LOVE for Obama to try to run on social issues while the economy is in the crapper, that would really make him look like he was concerned with the future of this country. If you seriously want to know what will win the election, it's jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 What Republican is running on Social Issues? Everything I have seen so far is hammering obama or other republican candidates on the economy, their plans or lack of results. 3 republicans and a generic republican ticket are already beating Obama in polls for the election. Obama is at a 41% approval even in the most liberal publications polls... social issues are going to have zero effect on this election. A year is several lifetimes in politics but BO is looking bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'd be shocked if Obama lost to anyone but Romney. Independents aren't going to turn this country over to a perceived zealot, regardless of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 People who side with the democrats on the social issues won't necessarily vote for Obama. For example: I'm an independent and side with the democrats on 2 of those 3 social issues you listed, but for very different reasons than you mentioned. Just b/c the democrats may be responsible for pushing them through doesn't mean they get my vote. If the economy is still **** these issues will be the least of my concern. I would also rate foreign policy above these issues as well. Imo, this current crop of leading Repubs is mainly garbage (no offense). It's too bad the Republican I want to vote for is so far out of the race even I can't remember his name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'd be shocked if Obama lost to anyone but Romney. Independents aren't going to turn this country over to a perceived zealot, regardless of the economy. There was a time when Ronald Reagan was painted as the man who wanted to start nuclear wars and hate gays and blacks. He won two elections in a landslide. Obama is going to have a tough time defeating anyone who doesn't shoot themself in the foot. It's too early to know really how popular anyone will be by next November, but the trend isn't good for the Big O. By the way, R's re-elected Bush with the support of Independents for one reason...they were afraid Kerry and the D's would lose the wars. That is what drove them to the polls. I don't see an issue that will make Obama fringe supporters go to the polls today. Is it to protect healthcare reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Neck and Neck with a generic candidate for an incumbent is a bad thing. Clearly, you'd like to be a head of a generic candidate, but realistically, you are likely in good shape if you are running neck to neck with a generic candidate. People tend to only prescribe the good things they want and they tend to visualize the generic candidate in some sort of personally idealized form. Real candidates, for individual voters, have different strengths and weaknesses and don't match the idealized form and therefore tend to poll lower than generic candidates. Though, he didn't say generic candidate. He said individual Republican candidates (i.e. the real people). Other than Romney, I'm not sure how much those polls really mean. http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2011/09/24/is-obama-unbeatable-whistling-in-the-graveyard-of-trial-heat-polling/ Obama isn't in bad shape based on the polls, but its to early to say much of anything. **EDIT** Gallup has Obama trailing the generic Republican candidate. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx Which is worrisome (for him), but consistent with what I said above. He's trailing the generic, but close to even w/ individual candidates. The generic does better than the real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 3 republicans and a generic republican ticket are already beating Obama in polls for the election. Ok, this isn't true. If you average recent polling, Obama crushes both Cain and Perry, while leading Romney by 1, which is basically a statistical tie. Obama is at a 41% approval even in the most liberal publications polls... social issues are going to have zero effect on this election. Other than the Gallup daily tracking poll (which is subject to volatile swings), the last poll that had Obama's approval rating at 41 was 7 polls ago (Quinnipiac). Look at the five most recent polls, including Gallup and his approval rating is around 45%. Not great, but better than what you suggest it is. Obama is not in a great position right now, but it could and probably should be worse considering the state of the economy. Lucky for him, he's actually the most popular figure in Washington. And he's still very well liked by the electorate, which does count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 This is softball city... 1. Roe v Wade - it's NEVER getting overturned. Get over it. Most people don't want it overturned. I agree with the first part of this. Disagree with the second part. We're still 70% Christian as a nation. And most faiths are at least on some level anti-abortion. I'd venture to say we're still VERY close to a 50-50 split. 2. Gay Marriage - look at the tides. gay marriage is going to be a part of the future. you cannot tell me it's somehow bad for the country or bad for your marriage to let two gay people who are in love get married. Do you support polygamy as well? They're consenting adults. 3. Don't Ask, Don't Tell - this is the United States. Freedom of Speech is held above almost everything else. most people would say it's unconstitutional for the us government to tell a soldier that he may not speak about his sexuality. flies right in the face of everything american. There are MANY things soldiers aren't allowed to say. They're not allowed to criticize the President. They're not allowed to question the orders of their superiors, even if they think they're ridiculous. Should we throw those things out too? I mean, they're freedom of speech issues, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 By the way, R's re-elected Bush with the support of Independents for one reason...they were afraid Kerry and the D's would lose the wars. That is what drove them to the polls. I don't see an issue that will make Obama fringe supporters go to the polls today. Is it to protect healthcare reform? I actually think it was the gay marriage ban in several states that brought conservatives out to vote. Kerry actually crushed among those who cared most about Iraq. Bush crushed Kerry among those who cared most about terrorism. In the end it was a small Bush advantage on foreign policy stuff. But 20% of the electorate said moral values were their No. 1 issue and they voted for Bush overwhelmingly. Less than 2% said the same in 2008. As for voter turnout, it's a presidential year, voters will turn out and vote even if they may not be thrilled to do so. And if Mitt Romney is the nominee, he will have his own enthusiasm gap to deal with. It's very hard to get elected president without an enthusiastic base behind you. Hate of the opponent can only go so far, as Democrats found out in 2004. Bottom line for me, Obama is beatable. It will be a close election if the Republicans nominate Romney. It's tough to predict anything more than that considering how far out we are from the election. I'm still not sure Romney is even going to be the nominee. His poll numbers have flatlined. He can get over that 25% hump. And the internals of these polls suggest his voter coalition appear to be those less likely to be paying much attention to the race right now. It's formed of voters who are less likely to turn out to vote. And this is all before Perry unleashes his $17 million of attack ads against Romney to tear him down. It will be interesting to see who is left standing after those ads since I'm not sure it will be Perry who benefits...could be Cain. Pawlenty got out of the race way too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I agree with the first part of this. Disagree with the second part. We're still 70% Christian as a nation. And most faiths are at least on some level anti-abortion. I'd venture to say we're still VERY close to a 50-50 split. People get confused when you talk about Roe v. Wade because people are confused about what it means (Let's face it. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court knows what it means.) But the vast majority of people support abortion being legal in some ways. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 People get confused when you talk about Roe v. Wade because people are confused about what it means (Let's face it. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court knows what it means.)But the vast majority of people support abortion being legal in some ways. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx OK, so pro-life vs. pro-abortion, it's 47-47, not 50-50. But in my defense, I said "VERY close to a 50-50 split." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 OK, so pro-life vs. pro-abortion, it's 47-47, not 50-50. But in my defense, I said "VERY close to a 50-50 split." Yeah, but a whole bunch of people that are pro-life support abortion in some circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Yeah, but a whole bunch of people that are pro-life support abortion in some circumstances. And a lot of people who consider themselves pro-choice, don't really support abortion being legal in every circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Yeah, but a whole bunch of people that are pro-life support abortion in some circumstances. Splitting hairs. The statement was that (paraphrasing) more people were in favor of Roe than not. As it turns out, the exact same percentage of people identify themselves as pro-life as pro-choice. I'm pro-life, but I don't want a 10-year old girl carrying her father's baby to term. Doesn't change the fact that I'm opposed to abortion. Not in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 And a lot of people who consider themselves pro-choice, don't really support abortion being legal in every circumstance. Not as many as the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Not as many as the other way. Did someone hack your account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Splitting hairs. The statement was that (paraphrasing) more people were in favor of Roe than not.As it turns out, the exact same percentage of people identify themselves as pro-life as pro-choice. I'm pro-life, but I don't want a 10-year old girl carrying her father's baby to term. Doesn't change the fact that I'm opposed to abortion. Not in the slightest. And couple of years ago pro-life was above pro-choice by almost 10 percent. (which is kind of interesting, noting the numbers over the span of the poll) That said...Roe vs. Wade isn't even all that pro-choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 This is softball city...Do you support polygamy as well? They're consenting adults. You seem to be relying on a false analogy, unless you can demonstrate why gays can't oppose polygamy for the same reasons that straights do. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 You seem to be relying on a false analogy, unless you can demonstrate why gays can't oppose polygamy for the same reasons that straights do. And why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.