• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hawaii can't afford Congressional election

I've ever heard of someone being so poor, they denied him breathing rights.

Of course, it may be allowable for a whole state.
 
Tsunami said:
Assuming you meant representation..

This isn't the government denying a state representation, this is a state failing to provide it's citizens representation. Huge difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did mean representation, dang typo!

I agree, that there is a big difference in a state issue and the federal government. But, my question is can someone be denied representation, because they can't afford it.
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
Hawaii can't afford Congressional election - U.S. news- msnbc.com

Oh wow I wonder can some state be denied respiration, because they can't afford it?
Click to expand...
Oh wow nothing.

Hawaii can afford to finance this election and every
other election on its own.

I hate to say so, but there is this thing called taxes:
t-a-x-e-s: TAXES which are a necessary evil, even in
the opinion of responsible conservatives like me.

I sure as hell don't think anyone except Hawaiians should
pay for Hawaiian elections, so let us hope our semi-Hawaiian
President does not go off half-cocked and try to get any
of the rest of us to foot the bill for this election they are
supposed to have in Hawaii, which will cost the residents
about a lousy 75 cents apeice.
 

If there is a reasonable chance that doing so will give him Hawaii's 4 electoral votes in 2012, he will. If his presidency thus far has proven anything, that is it.
 
gopman said:
If there is a reasonable chance that doing so will give him Hawaii's 4 electoral votes in 2012, he will.

If his presidency thus far has proven anything, that is it.
Click to expand...
Uh, er, like all the 2008-9 Wall Street bailout money is gonna
get your bossman name o' Charley Moneychurner to vote Blue
in 2012? Mebbe so- you would know that score better than I would.

Ain't gonna git you to vote for him though, is it?

You are much too principled, objective and non-partisan to show
gratitude for all the money thrown in your direction. It was only
about a $trillion anyway, and the genius that is Wall Street has
now succeeded royally in making sure that even $one tril isn't real
money anymore. Of course Wall Street had plenty of help from
both political parties, but we don't need to go into that right now.

As for Hawaii, it is a Blue-State gimme all the way. Obama might
not be able to lose it even if he closed Pearl Harbor.

I admit it does worry me that he might send Hawaii some election
money out of a misguided sense of principle, such as that alluded
to by the threadstarter.
 

New board same game I guess. I could point out again that I work for the pension fund of a non-financial company, and that I have never worked for a company that was a beneficiary of government aid, but you already knew that. Maybe more importantly, the majority of banks that received "aid" were forced to take it at such onerous terms that they couldn't give it back fast enough. But eventually most of them did, and the government earned a profit on it. And maybe most importantly, it has nothing to do with this discussion, and everything to do with what a pathetic loser you are. Thank god I'm not a moderator any more.

Anyway as I recall Hawaii was so close in 2004 that it warranted last day trips from Dick Cheney and John Kerry- not exactly a gimme. And in light of the union bailouts of last year (which were pure bailouts that were never intended to be paid back, unlike aid to banks), your vote doesn't exactly have to be up in the air for Obama to throw money your way. I'm not as worried as you that he'll act on any principle other than whatever is good for his core constituents is good for him.
 
gopman said:
New board same game I guess.
Click to expand...
Yup.




gopman said:
I could point out again that I work for the pension fund of a non-financial company, and that I have never worked for a company that was a beneficiary of government aid, but you already knew that.
Click to expand...
I am not one of those admirerers of yours who has memorized
every biographical detail you have ever posted.

However, I am not a bit hazy about the fact that you were
pushing multi-$100s billion government bailouts for all they
were worth. One reason for that might be that your pension
fund was getting battered just like everyone else's pension
fund was getting battered and you saw a bailout as essential
to averting even worse collapse.




gopman said:
Maybe more importantly, the majority of banks that received "aid" were forced to take it at such onerous terms that they couldn't give it back fast enough. But eventually most of them did, and the government earned a profit on it.
Click to expand...
They took it fast enough!- with two of the biggest takers,
Citigroup and Bank of America requiring two separate government
transfusions to stay afloat.

I am glad to see the government made a tidy profit on it,
although the bankers themselves would no doubt have preferred
a interest-free scheme.

But there is still a problem, as you well know: trillions of dollars
in those "toxic assets", yesterday's Wall Street darling offspring,
which will have to reckoned with some day, somehow.

Best-case scenario is that the economy will boom, income and
housing value will skyrocket, and even the poorest sub-prime
mortgage holders will be able to stay afloat for the rest of the
life of their debts.

I don't think the chances of that are real good, but hey, the
genius that is Wall Street got us into the mess, and maybe
they can get us out with a bit less pain next go-round.




gopman said:
And maybe most importantly, it has nothing to do with this discussion, and everything to do with what a pathetic loser you are.
Click to expand...
Most importantly??? Gosh, I'm sorry to have been getting your
nerves so badly as to be a most important factor to you in any context.

But surely you exaggerate my importance to you. Certainly you
aren't as worked up over this little thread as you seem to be.




gopman said:
Thank god I'm not a moderator any more.
Click to expand...
No comment.




gopman said:
Anyway as I recall Hawaii was so close in 2004 that it warranted last day trips from Dick Cheney and John Kerry- not exactly a gimme.
Click to expand...
Um, the last general election took place in 2008, hoss.

Google it and you will see that quasi-favorite son Obama
won over 70% of Hawaii's popular vote.




gopman said:
And in light of the union bailouts of last year (which were pure bailouts that were never intended to be paid back, unlike aid to banks), your vote doesn't exactly have to be up in the air for Obama to throw money your way.
Click to expand...
Which union did those AIG and other bonus babies belong to, hoss?




gopman said:
I'm not as worried as you that he'll act on any principle other than whatever is good for his core constituents is good for him.
Click to expand...
The principle you have just recited is constant of all political life.

Statesmanship is political activity above and beyond the call
of pure expedience. The book is still out on Obama as far as
I am concerned.
 

After hijacking yet another thread to discuss this, your obsession with me is not just the most important factor in this particular part of the discussion, but clearly the only one. The thing is, when I click out of this window I just go on with my life. You, who have carried this over from another board, are the one who moans and gnashes your teeth about how the world is an unfair conspiracy and I'm some sort of part of it. I'm not "worked up," I just thought I would take this chance to let you know what a stupid little b*tch you are. Now if you could never bring the topic up again, that would be fine with me. But not only am I sure you'll respond to this, I'm sure you'll continue to bring it up in every thread in which we interact.

Now to respond to the substance of the discussion:

Um, the last general election took place in 2008, hoss.

Google it and you will see that quasi-favorite son Obama
won over 70% of Hawaii's popular vote.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling me that bro! You're right. I guess every other state that Obama won in 2008 is a "slam dunk" for Democrats now too. Why even have a vote?

Which union did those AIG and other bonus babies belong to, hoss?
Click to expand...

You mean the ones who lost thier jobs and who's stock-based bonuses are now worthless? The ones who's company is in government receivership and is being sold off in pieces? No one's.


The principle you have just recited is constant of all political life.

Statesmanship is political activity above and beyond the call
of pure expedience. The book is still out on Obama as far as
I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Well then you have pretty poor judgment. But I already knew that. You would have to have poor judgment to lose all your savings in the stock market at your age. The thing is, until you accept that it's your fault and not "my boss o' charley moneychurner" you never will. You'll just continue to be a sad, bitter old man that no one likes.
 
gopman said:
After hijacking yet another thread to discuss this,
Click to expand...
No hijack intended, although I may not have done
a very good job getting to the point.

I will try again.

As a Senator Obama voted for one Wall Street bailout
and as President he conducted another. The most direct
beneficiaries of these bailouts, those Wall Street types
who you do not deny you indentifying with, are unlikely
to ever vote for him, despite the largesse.

That tends to call into question your thesis that all
he does he does simply for political expedience.




gopman said:
your obsession with me is not just the most important factor in this particular part of the discussion, but clearly the only one.
Click to expand...
See above.




gopman said:
The thing is, when I click out of this window I just go on with my life. You, who have carried this over from another board, are the one who moans and gnashes your teeth about how the world is an unfair conspiracy and I'm some sort of part of it.
Click to expand...
No, not a "conspiracy".

What I see the Wall Streeet world as is one of stupidity
and greed.

Now, Wall Street is not by any means alone. We also have
those two political parties I mentioned in an earlier post,
and we have that poison dwarf Alan Greenspan.

But Wall Street supplied most of the soldiers from general on down
of this huge army of stupidity and greed which even you must admit
came close to wrecking the international economic order.

As a near entry-level operator you do not share professional
responsibility for the debacle, I don't think. You are, however,
responsible for the PR boilerplate you post in your role as an
internet parrot and ape for the financial class.

I don't go looking for your tiresome PR boilerplate little posts,
but If you show up with it in a thread I have already contributed
to you had better count on me having something to say about it.




gopman said:
I'm not "worked up,"
Click to expand...
Yes you are.




See above.




gopman said:
Now to respond to the substance of the discussion:

Thanks for telling me that bro! You're right. (emphasis added- USV)
Click to expand...
You're welcome.




gopman said:
I guess every other state that Obama won in 2008 is a "slam dunk" for Democrats now too.
Click to expand...
No, but I would think any state where he took 70% of the vote
is almost surely safe, wouldn't you, really?

Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and a few others where he
won over 60% are probably safe too.

He does need to watch out for the states he barely won,
like North Carolina.




gopman said:
Why even have a vote?
Click to expand...
Because the Contitution requires it.




gopman said:
You mean the ones who lost thier jobs and who's stock-based bonuses are now worthless? The ones who's company is in government receivership and is being sold off in pieces? No one's.
Click to expand...
No, I am talking about the ones who got part of the 2009 AIG
bonus program of over $200 million cash, and AIG wasn't the only
belly flopper handing out cash bonuses, either.




gopman said:
Well then you have pretty poor judgment. But I already knew that. You would have to have poor judgment to lose all your savings in the stock market at your age.
Click to expand...
My financial advisors said in early 2007 to "keep the same mix",
which did include a fixed income segment.

I did not lose all. Only about 50%.

Part of that was my fault for going all cash last year when
AIG was tanking the Market.

But the responsibility for the initiating events, the proximate
cause, lies with the Charley Moneychurners of the world,
and not the unfortunate millions of investors who relied on them
for asset stewardship.

Amateurs like me must rely on professionals like Charley Moneychurner
to steer their investments in the right dirction, and to exercise
sound enough long-term sound judgement to keep the markets
from going waywire.

In philosophical principle it is the same as relying on professionals
to fix your car, and to prescribe medical services. We do not expect
our mothers to perform such tasks and services, nor should we.




gopman said:
The thing is, until you accept that it's your fault and not "my boss o' charley moneychurner" you never will.
Click to expand...
I will never accept that the supididty and greed which cost me
so much money were fundamentally my fault, no.




gopman said:
You'll just continue to be a sad, bitter old man that no one likes.
Click to expand...
You're getting worked up again.

However, I will overlook your gauchery, and reply in a
forthright manner:

Sad, bitter and old, I am afraid is true.

Fortunately I have loving family and friends, who I must admit
are notable for their tolerant dispositions.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Enough of this, let's get back on topic.
 
USViking said:
No, but I would think any state where he took 70% of the vote
is almost surely safe, wouldn't you, really?
Click to expand...

Given that it was so much closer in 2004, as I pointed out, I do not think it is safe. Without going sentence by sentence, I'll simply state that the Wall Street "bailouts" that I have supported were fundamentally very different from the bones he threw to unions and will likely throw to the State of Hawaii in this case. They have nothing to do with any principle other than buying votes.
 
gopman said:
Given that it was so much closer in 2004, as I pointed out, I do not think it is safe.
Click to expand...
Given that Hawaii has not gone Repoublican since 1988,
given that Obama is a native son, and given his 20-point
margin of 2008, I believe it is reasonable to call it safe.




gopman said:
Without going sentence by sentence, I'll simply state that the Wall Street "bailouts" that I have supported were fundamentally very different from the bones he threw to unions... They have nothing to do with any principle other than buying votes.
Click to expand...
As for GM 100s k people rely on it directly and indirectly
for their livlihood.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Obama, in principle,
wishes to alleviate the financial suffering of these people,
and to alleviate financial suffering in general.

Principle and expedience are of course not mutually exclusive,
and we will have to wait for an issue where they clash to
get a real handle on anyone's credentials as a statesman.



gopman said:
and will likely throw to the State of Hawaii in this case.
Click to expand...
I actually doubt Hawaii will wind up getting any Federal
money for this election which it is 100% its own responsibility
to finanance.

It will be a strike against Obama in my book otherwise.
 
USViking said:
Given that Hawaii has not gone Repoublican since 1988,
given that Obama is a native son, and given his 20-point
margin of 2008, I believe it is reasonable to call it safe.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it probably will go to Obama in 2012. But recent history suggests that it is not a guarantee. And moreover, as I said, a vote doesn't have to be "up in the air" to be bought. Union workers probably voted for Obama at an overwheliming rate, but he nonetheless stole Chrysler and GM from their rightful owners and gave control to the UAW.

If he actually believes that these actions benefited the economy and saved millions of jobs like he stated it would (yes, he said millions), which I doubt, then he is not a criminal, but he has such poor judgment he should be excused from office for malfeasance, just like the former executives of AIG.

I actually doubt Hawaii will wind up getting any Federal
money for this election which it is 100% its own responsibility
to finanance.

It will be a strike against Obama in my book otherwise.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually believe Obama would do a lot of the things he has done so far. He has been a shockingly bad president.
 
gopman said:
I don't disagree that it probably will go to Obama in 2012. But recent history suggests that it is not a guarantee.
Click to expand...
You are still confused about whether 2004 or 2008
is more recent aren't you?

I don't know how to explain it other than to say 2008
is more recent; it just is.

In 2008 the Obama won precisely 71.85% of the Hawaiian
popular vote.

Going back to day one, Hawaii has since its 1960 admission
as a state voted Democratic the last seven times and 11/13
in all- 84%: more than any other state. Only Washington DC
is a surer guarentee for the Democrats than Hawaii.




gopman said:
And moreover, as I said, a vote doesn't have to be "up in the air" to be bought. Union workers probably voted for Obama at an overwheliming rate, but he nonetheless stole Chrysler and GM from their rightful owners and gave control to the UAW.
Click to expand...
Rightful owners? The original stockholders were out of the
picture with valueless stock (I might well have been one of
them through the myriad of mutual funds I had invested in).
I have my doubts about favoring the UAW to the extent it
has been favored, but results are what matter, and if GM
and Chryler can return to sound profitability without big payroll
cuts then that will satisfy me.




People vote their wallets more than any other issue, including war.
We will see in 2012 whether sufficient millions are sufficiently happy
with the contents of their wallets to return Obama to office.




gopman said:
I didn't actually believe Obama would do a lot of the things he has done so far. He has been a shockingly bad president.
Click to expand...
Not on account of any evidence you have offered.

Now, I am not interested in an extended debate over the merits
and demerits of the year-old Obama Presidency.

Breifly, things are not demonstrably worse for any of his policies,
nothing has blown up in our faces, and he inherited an absolutely
godawful mess, so you do whatever the hell you want, and I will
continue to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I gave
G.W. Bush plenty on that note (and voted for him twice); to be
completely fair I can hardly do less for Obama.

You and this thread are beginning to bore me. Since your vanity
probably requires you to have the last word go right ahead.

I am likely to have to reply later and elswhere to some other of
your truly startling novelties of ignorance, distortion and archpartisanship
and I need to conserve my energy.
 
USViking said:
You are still confused about whether 2004 or 2008
is more recent aren't you?

I don't know how to explain it other than to say 2008
is more recent; it just is.
Click to expand...

You don't have to explain it. I don't understand it. Now, either you don't understand my point or you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way I'm not going to reiterate it.


The rightful owners under United States bankruptcy law were the creditors of the company, the stockholders would have been out of the picture. The point of chapter 11 bankruptcy is to reorganize a company into a profitable entity. Obama circumvented that process and left US automakers at a long-term competitive disadvantage as a result. But he accomplished his goal of paying back an important constituency, law and the public good be damned. But I guess that's too boring and partisan for you to understand. See ya later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…